|
Iunno about hundreds, but how about we start at letting him hold back more than one enemy from the party's back line?
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I dunno, I think stopping an entire horde is totally within the Fighter's remit. One of the examples cited in the Fighter Design Goals was Roland fighting 400 Saracens, and I always thought this scene from Hero was pretty cool: i should rephrase, i think its something to grow into as you level. D&D hasn't ever really designed around 400 saracens in a single encounter, but proficiency +6 would let you stop basically anyone entering your melee range in a normal combat encounter. Especially as there's no sharing spaces, one fighter could easily hold a choke point with 6 OA/round like in that (great) clip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Anything's an improvised weapon. Weapon bond the golden idol that makes the temple collapse from Raiders of the Lost Ark, walk out of the dungeon, then teleport it to your hand. Alternatively you could sell your weapon repeatedly only to steal it back whenever you needed it. Ask your DM what happens if you fill a net with heavy rocks or beehives or something, hang it over a doorway, then teleport the net to your hand, maybe that drops some fun on some fools. In the old playtest docs there were some badass thrown weapons too, but not returning thrown weapons. EK's are the only ones who could easily retrieve them at all, let alone attack twice in one round with them. Speaking of fighting arbitrarily high numbers of enemies, the Champion fighter gets infinite healing and one of the best health pools in the game. If anyone's going to kill 400 mooks without casting one spell while the rest of the party rests it's one of them, or a Circle of the Moon druid who can infinitely wild shape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Beowulf posted:“[T]he war-king threw 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Yeah, this is one of the coolest things about Beowulf. When he uses Hrunting (special ancient artifact sword) quote:The iron blade with its ill-boding patterns against Grendel's mother and it bounces off, he basically shrugs and drops it, cause he expects his bare hands to be more effective. That's a thing he can reasonably do. Meanwhile, in 5e, you punch for 1 + Str damage. Or d4 + Str if you took Tavern Brawler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is unarmed fighting a d4, seriously
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:If you start from a position comparing it to the 3e core, the 5th edition fighter (and the game in general, really) can definitely be viewed as a modest, iterative improvement. A page back, but yes, this is the crux of what I'm getting at. I'm not even comparing 5E to 4E because let's face it, we all kinda knew in advance from all the warning signs that all that was learned about game design during 4E's lifespan was just gonna get thrown under the bus with this edition. I was mostly comparing it to 3E, where it is a definite improvement. Of course, as you say, MANY problems were already addressed and yes, re-inventing the wheel is stupid. It's an improvement I'm both happy and discouraged by: Happy because 5E finally introduces game design improvements that were promised with, but never delivered by 3.5 or Pathfinder, and discouraged because it came ten years too late for me to be truly enthusiastic about it. slydingdoor posted:Anything's an improvised weapon. Weapon bond the golden idol that makes the temple collapse from Raiders of the Lost Ark, walk out of the dungeon, then teleport it to your hand. This is absolutely hysterical and I am definitely doing at least one of these in a game at some point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Eh, I think the 5E fighter is actually pretty comparable to the 4E fighter, at least the Essentials versions. It gets second wind and action points and a variety of maneuvers and up to 4 attacks per action to get close to the damage of those sweet 3 and 4[W] attack powers. It can take a feat to get the Knight's defender aura. That's, at the least, a massive improvement over the 3E version. I think a lot of 4E fans will agree that things like the Slayer are balanced with the other 4E classes, just not very interesting. That choosing that approach as the default one for Fighters in Next is eliciting the same response is unsurprising. Essentials Fighters were a "nerf" in the conceptual sense, rolling back what 4E had been done with martial classes in favor of "pick a few minor bonuses and then attack attack attack away." So it's not just one or the other here, both issues can be a factor simultaneously. "Better than 3E" is the lowest bar to hurdle imaginable, that's not really a selling point so much as a basic expectation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
First off, anyone playing a Beowulf inspired character hangs around meadhalls a lot and definitely has Tavern Brawler. They can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head then grab them. Pulling their goddamn arm off is something everyone in this thread forgets about : improvising an action. Any DM that doesn't let that happen doesn't just suck, they also aren't following the rule to make things fun and awesome.quote:The outcome of a fun game session often creates stories that live well beyond the play at the table. Always follow this golden rule when you DM for a group:
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:First off, anyone playing a Beowulf inspired character hangs around meadhalls a lot and definitely has Tavern Brawler. They can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head then grab them. Pulling their goddamn arm off is something everyone in this thread forgets about : improvising an action. Any DM that doesn't let that happen doesn't just suck, they also aren't following the rule to make things fun and awesome. What even is this post. You can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head for d4 damage... and grab them? Amazing! How do you handle pulling arms off. What's your ruling? Can I pull a dragon's wing off? Can I pick up an orc and use him as a weapon (presumably he'd be improvised, so again d4 damage)? Can I throw an ogre at another ogre? Why do I have to ask the DM for permission to do these things while casters get 100 pages of rules dedicated to ways in which to do things way more powerful than these examples without having to ask permission? I'm sorry, but "you can improvise anything, just use your imagination!" is one of the laziest and most annoying defences of bad, boring game design I've ever seen. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:How do you handle pulling arms off. What's your ruling? Can I pull a dragon's wing off? Can I pick up an orc and use him as a weapon (presumably he'd be improvised, so again d4 damage)? Can I throw an ogre at another ogre? Why do I have to ask the DM for permission to do these things whereas casters get 100 pages of rules dedicated to ways in which to do them without having to ask permission? Yeah, if D&D is the sort of game where fighters can completely obviate an encounter by asking permission to totally gently caress over a monster with a single roll - which I'd be fine with in a general sense - then there's no need for a big spell book. Just say that wizards can do "cool magic stuff" and work it out at the time based on what would be awesome and fun. Similarly, I'm fine with monsters being defeated using purely-narrative mechanics, but then we don't need a monster manual with HP listings and nonsense like that. I'd already heard of orcs before picking up the monster manual. I'm capable of implementing them myself if the way characters defeat them is by making a d20 roll against a DC I make up representing the difficulty of kicking someone's head off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Thanks on the Rangers tips, but I'm going to go with Cleric after all. I'M going to be playing a Cleric of THE MORNINGLORD! Setting is going to be Forgotten Realms, but the GM is ok with me playing a dude who wandered off from Ravenloft. Probably going to go with Light Domain and maximum hamminess. What are the really good Cleric spells?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Actually I'm gonna disagree on this, because a huge part of why e.g. the Knight functioned was the overarching rules framework within which it existed. The assumption of a grid, OAs 1/turn instead of 1/round and so on. Good point. I forgot that feat didn't give you a way around the limit on OAs. Kai Tave posted:I think a lot of 4E fans will agree that things like the Slayer are balanced with the other 4E classes, just not very interesting. That choosing that approach as the default one for Fighters in Next is eliciting the same response is unsurprising. Essentials Fighters were a "nerf" in the conceptual sense, rolling back what 4E had been done with martial classes in favor of "pick a few minor bonuses and then attack attack attack away." So it's not just one or the other here, both issues can be a factor simultaneously. "Better than 3E" is the lowest bar to hurdle imaginable, that's not really a selling point so much as a basic expectation. I think it's going a little far to call the E-class fighters nerfed. They certainly look boring, but like with many 4E classes, the way the class "looks" often has little to do with how it plays. Knights may lack a full suite of encounter and daily powers, but between stances, defender aura positioning, power strike use, and utility and item abilities, they end up having a lot to do on the grid. That said, they were clearly designed as a total sop to grogs and did mark a regression in thinking. Now the 5E maneuver fighter actually ends up with a lot more "powers" than an Essentials fighter. I believe they get a total of 9 maneuvers and a pool of 6 maneuver dice per rest. That's a pretty broad suite of encounter options that can be comboed with all those attacks. It should be fun on the grid. The problem is the wizard has the ability to obviate the need to go on the grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, if D&D is the sort of game where fighters can completely obviate an encounter by asking permission to totally gently caress over a monster with a single roll - which I'd be fine with in a general sense - then there's no need for a big spell book. Just say that wizards can do "cool magic stuff" and work it out at the time based on what would be awesome and fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:What even is this post. You can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head for d4 damage... and grab them? Amazing! Jeez, tell me what you really think. I'm not lazy and I'm sorry you're annoyed at my "defending" this game I play for fun. Maybe people like having some poo poo be all spelled out and other poo poo be improvised in the same game, because consistency and elaborate rules aren't all they're cracked up to be when it comes to playing pretend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:First off, anyone playing a Beowulf inspired character hangs around meadhalls a lot and definitely has Tavern Brawler. They can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head then grab them. Pulling their goddamn arm off is something everyone in this thread forgets about : improvising an action. Any DM that doesn't let that happen doesn't just suck, they also aren't following the rule to make things fun and awesome. I want to start off saying that I completely agree with you here 100%. A good DM and a good table can fix just about anything, and having fun is much more important than what is written in the book. But when so much of what is written in the book flies in the face of what you're trying to do, it gives fuel to the pedantic assholes who want to de-emphasize doing cool poo poo that isn't "magical". The guys who need to know the exact lbs. limit a fighter can lift so they can argue about it, and who will then moan that there's no way that your Beowulf guy could win the wrestling match because Grendel has a 30 strength, so how are you beating him with your (hard capped) 20, let alone tearing off his arm, which takes more force than someone who can deadlift (whatever) lbs. for reasons? Those kinda guys already have enough ammunition with the spells in the book, which lay out in vague language the various effects that they can have on the world. The fighter has to rely on convincing the DM using the numbers provided via her stats and skills. Good DM can totally roll with it. But it'd be nice if the fighter had as much explicit evidence for why they get to be awesome as the wizard does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I think a lot of 4E fans will agree that things like the Slayer are balanced with the other 4E classes, just not very interesting. That choosing that approach as the default one for Fighters in Next is eliciting the same response is unsurprising. Essentials Fighters were a "nerf" in the conceptual sense, rolling back what 4E had been done with martial classes in favor of "pick a few minor bonuses and then attack attack attack away." So it's not just one or the other here, both issues can be a factor simultaneously. "Better than 3E" is the lowest bar to hurdle imaginable, that's not really a selling point so much as a basic expectation. Yeah, Slayer and Knight are good-to-great in terms of optimisation and in-game interest, but only when they use the various options that get them access to pre-E materials - PPs, powers and feats. With only Essentials materials they're dull as gently caress and not very good. I've enjoyed playing both on the basis that I actually don't mind having a relatively low set of options and a more-or-less algorithmic power choice, it leaves me more room to focus on what I find interesting, which is the tactical positioning aspects of the combat. But yeah, the lack of any real support for grid-based play and the massive nerf to the amount of tactical interest you can generate with Reactions being only 1/round, is one of the (many) things that just drastically drops my interest. 4e was interesting at least in part because it meant everyone at the table needed to focus on what was going on at any given time, rather than 5e which seems to invite 'tell me how much damage I take whilst I gently caress about on my phone' type behaviour. I get that some of the time with 4e when someone's having a 10-attack turn and insists on rolling EVERY loving DIE ONE AT A TIME, I can't imagine how much worse it would be when every spell needs looking up and every range needs a discussion about what is and is not within it, what has cover, etc etc. And the 5e fighter isn't even close to as good as even the Essentials-only Knight (in particular) and Slayer (a little less so), AFAICT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
I think it's been said before and it went a bit like this: 'If I wanted freeform play I'd be already playing Dungeon World. This definitely isn't Dungeon World, and I expect at minimum a modicum of rules (for things other than casters) instead of being told to houserule.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:And at that point you're basically playing Dungeon World, which hey, sure, great! But that game already exists and this one isn't it, unfortunately. Well, Dungeon World still includes a spell list and, bizarrely, hitpoints. Which means that it continues the dumb practice of spellcasters getting powers that are specific and mechanically-driven while also allowing creative application, while martial classes have to either boringly grind down numbers or go completely free-form without any guidance. (Because it's not a very good game) I don't really think D&D should move in that direction because it would be a waste of the sort of support the major publisher can put forward - Dungeon World, for all its faults, isn't suffering because it was created by only a couple of people - since, yeah, Dungeon World and others like it exist. That's my main argument for wanting a 4.5: WotC is close to being the only one with the resources to do the playtesting required to make it work. slydingdoor posted:Jeez, tell me what you really think. I'm not lazy and I'm sorry you're annoyed at my "defending" this game I play for fun. Maybe people like having some poo poo be all spelled out and other poo poo be improvised in the same game, because consistency and elaborate rules aren't all they're cracked up to be when it comes to playing pretend. There's absolutely room for some things to be spelled out and others be improvised. 4e, for instance, had highly-freeform out-of-combat skill usage and highly-detailed combat rules. The issue with what you're arguing for in 5e is that it's dumb to cover the same activity with both elaborate rules and freeform skill usage. Spoilers Below posted:so how are you beating him with your (hard capped) 20, let alone tearing off his arm, which takes more force than someone who can deadlift (whatever) lbs. for reasons? It's more, why include a bunch of rules that spell out how to defeat Grendel by slowly wearing down his HP total when you're never going to want do that if you can just rip his arm off with a skill check and call it a day? Like, my preferred game is completely freeform, with none of that HP/feat/specific-weapons poo poo, but if that stuff is in there I'd like it to mean something, for it to have been included because it makes for a better game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Alternatively you could sell your weapon repeatedly only to steal it back whenever you needed it. I might get poo poo for this, but that's pretty much what happens in the anime/light novel, Gokudo or Jester the Adventurer as it's alternatively known. The main character is pretty much the typical amoral, greedy and altogether self-centered D&D adventurer. Jack the Lad posted:Why do I have to ask the DM for permission to do these things while casters get 100 pages of rules dedicated to ways in which to do things way more powerful than these examples without having to ask permission? This. This more than anything. What is the point of many of the classes when they have maybe 2-3 pages dedicated to them, and others have 100+ that encompass them? They might as well be relegated as rules for NPCs honestly; like the warrior or expert in the 3e DMG. I don't think there needs to be rules for every possible eventuality, but at the very least have something more than five or so options an fighter has in combat (Which everyone can do in most cases) all of which have negligible effect on the outcome of the fight in any case. The same being said outside of combat as well, where the fighter has even LESS options. If you want it to be rules light then make it so there is a easy way to resolve cool actions everyone can do in their own respective class-wise fashion. Otherwise don't pretend for it to be "rules-light" just because one class spends five second deciding he wants/has to swing his sword at a goblin, while others spends five minutes considering their possible options (Including more time beforehand in selecting their spells) from a multitude of powers off all kinds, each of which they resolve themselves in altogether different and rarely a mechanically sound fashion. Really someone said it right earlier that it would be better if the game just didn't include certain "archetypical" spell-less classes like the fighter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
So, the monk does not look terrible. Stunning Strike is really drat good. Diamond Soul is great. Patient Defense is drat good, too. And unlike the Battlemaster, past the first few levels, you get plenty of points per short rest. I mean, the optimal play is "spam stunning blow" but still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's more, why include a bunch of rules that spell out how to defeat Grendel by slowly wearing down his HP total when you're never going to want do that if you can just rip his arm off with a skill check and call it a day? Like, my preferred game is completely freeform, with none of that HP/feat/specific-weapons poo poo, but if that stuff is in there I'd like it to mean something, for it to have been included because it makes for a better game. To be fair here, Beowulf and Grendel battle all evening, their wrestling match shaking the meadhall to its very timbers and terrifying all the populace, before he does the arm ripping and Grendel scampers home to mother. It's not as quick as the battle with the Dragon or with Grendel's mother. But I still don't see any mechanic for an unarmed, unarmored fighter to tank solo for that long, wearing the enemy down, without dying first. Monsters just have so many more hit points, and fighters possess no internal hp recovery capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
So, and i just love this, the PHB mentions that you can damage items, but then says that it's DM's perogative to makeup whatever the HP of the item is. I don't know if there'll be more explicit rules in the DMG, but barring that (and based solely off a random magic item i created out of nowhere) I came up with a quick self-guide to item durability. Item HP Common (non-magical) - 10 Uncommon - 30 Rare - 40 Very Rare - 50 Legendary - 60, DR - 5 Special Material (Adamantine, Iron Wood, etc) - DR +5 I don't know if Legendary actually exists, but i figure it fills the space between Very Rare and plot armored 'One Ring' type items for special things which aren't necessary for your game. It bugs me that they're explicitly citing a situation but then giving no framework for it. treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
So the GM could, say, have monsters target your armor to destroy it before moving on to you? That seems like a totally great idea that won't cause huge amounts of table drama at all, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:To be fair here, Beowulf and Grendel battle all evening, their wrestling match shaking the meadhall to its very timbers and terrifying all the populace, before he does the arm ripping and Grendel scampers home to mother. It's not as quick as the battle with the Dragon or with Grendel's mother. Sure. I haven't read Beowulf in decades so am not going to do a great job modeling it. And you could absolutely create a system wherein you first wear down someone's fatigue and then you perform a more freeform finisher, with clear rules for all this. But it wouldn't look anything like the sort of proposed system in which, if you suggest something awesome, it just happens. It's basically this: treeboy posted:It bugs me that they're explicitly citing a situation but then giving no framework for it. but for every enemy in the game, not just the rare case of trying to destroy a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:So the GM could, say, have monsters target your armor to destroy it before moving on to you? That seems like a totally great idea that won't cause huge amounts of table drama at all, no sir. Not an issue, spells and abilities can't target items held/worn by other creatures iirc. At least there are a couple spells (shatter specifically) that state that they don't. I would extend that ruling to all items.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Okay, well it's good that they closed that loophole off at least. Still kind of amazing that the guidelines for breaking items are literally just "iunno make something up."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
How do you make a game that pleases two types of player: one who wants rules, and one who wants to make their own? What about the third player who wants both at once, room to exploit fun mechanical loopholes and wants to improvise some stuff depending on their whim? If you say "I'd rather be playing Dungeon World if I wanted to freeform" that's just as "lazy" an argument, because even DW players sometimes want more crunchy mechanics and stuff. Just check out how much homebrew stuff is in that thread that basically changes the very broad, improv heavy classes into "you can basically fiat these things and have sole access to this new mechanic." For the most part they could already accomplish what they wanted to do with the base rules but it didn't feel as good for them to not have pretty much a D&D spellbook. e; I guess what I'm saying is for most actions that people make up on the spot the resolution needn't be anything more complicated than "sanity check it with the table and roll an ability or skill check." That's not "bad, lazy evil retarded game design" because you can't possibly cover everything, it makes more sense to give players what I think they want: spellcaster players want specific crunchy things, martials want to improvise. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:it makes more sense to give players what I think they want: spellcaster players want specific crunchy things, martials want to improvise. I think it's very telling that: 1. You think it makes sense to give all players of 5e what you think they want. 2. You think players can be split into those two groups and, apparently, that there are no people who want to play martial characters with cool abilities despite the fact that many of them are posting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I dunno, "Just make something up" seems to be this edition's design philosophy. I'd ask Mearls is this was the intent but I'm sure he'd just say "I dunno, guess that's for you to decide!"slydingdoor posted:How do you make a game that pleases two types of player: one who wants rules, and one who wants to make their own? What about the third player who wants both at once, room to exploit fun mechanical loopholes and wants to improvise some stuff depending on their whim? But in all seriousness, this is why I enjoy 4E as much as I do. It broke away from the lazy, arbitrary game design of previous editions and dared to give the system structure. I liken 4E to playing with a big bucket of Lego bricks. Each brick is a rule or formula and you can just reach in and grab a bunch to cobble something unique together and not have to worry about it breaking the game. Each brick of rules and formulas is designed to be as transparent as possible. You, the GM and you, the player, understand the inner clockwork of the system because it's all laid out in front of you. Nothing in 4E is arbitrary. The entire system is built on a foundation that is mathematically sound and formulaic. I can't remember the last time I didn't just make something for the 4E games I GM out of wholecloth looking through effects and level appropriate formulas. Even when I use the pre-built monsters I can adjust them to the party's level and know that it will work. I've made custom races, custom powers and class abilities, all without having to make a single house rule, mess with game math or change the way the system itself functions. All this was chucked out the window for 5E and why it is a huge step backwards in game design. If you want to make something unique, you're hard pressed to find a structure behind the system because there isn't any. You HAVE to "just make it up".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Isn't the DM guide presumably going to give you more of that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:How do you make a game that pleases two types of player: one who wants rules, and one who wants to make their own? What about the third player who wants both at once, room to exploit fun mechanical loopholes and wants to improvise some stuff depending on their whim? This is fine. But there should be a division between the stuff which has fun mechanics that you can aggressively game and the stuff which is improvised so that you don't squash someone's mechanically-driven decisions with improvisation. Which is why you don't give monsters hitpoints and then also let them be defeated by a freeform "I rip their arm off." slydingdoor posted:e; I guess what I'm saying is for most actions that people make up on the spot the resolution needn't be anything more complicated than "sanity check it with the table and roll an ability or skill check." That's not "bad, lazy evil retarded game design" because you can't possibly cover everything, it makes more sense to give players what I think they want: spellcaster players want specific crunchy things, martials want to improvise. This would be fine if martials weren't also given specific crunchy things which performed the same exact tasks as the things they're apparently allowed to improvise. No one is complaining about improvising the fighter bending apart the bars of a cell door. The issue is when the improvising makes all that stuff on the character sheet about using a specifically-selected weapon, with specifically-selected feats and class abilities, pointless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I think it's very telling that: That's what DMing is? You make a call about what the players want and give it to them: a hook, a challenge, an easy victory, a puzzle, a chance to roleplay. I think people want and enjoy different, inconsistent things based on my playing and DMing experience. It seems that some people don't think anyone exists who doesn't want hard rules, who think it's really lovely to have to roll a DC whatever balance check to walk on a cloud or whatever dumb poo poo was in the 3.5 epic handbook. I've seen, played with, and become one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I dunno, make something up! Unless it's a spell, then we have detailed rules ALL about how it works, so you can objectively tell your DM "this happens." slydingdoor posted:That's what DMing is? You make a call about what the players want and give it to them: a hook, a challenge, an easy victory, a puzzle, a chance to roleplay. I think people want and enjoy different, inconsistent things based on my playing and DMing experience. It seems that some people don't think anyone exists who doesn't want hard rules, who think it's really lovely to have to roll a DC whatever balance check to walk on a cloud or whatever dumb poo poo was in the 3.5 epic handbook. I've seen, played with, and become one of them. Why are you continuing to ignore number 2. Like, you literally just quoted it. It's right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So, the monk does not look terrible. Someone posted a thread about the Monk on the Wizards forums - basically indicating that an Elemental Monk could fly after a Dragon and use Water Whip to prone it, meaning it's able to knock a flying dragon out of the air all by itself. About half the posters thought it was awesome. One posted an incorrect correction to the rules indicating it still needed a caster buddy to let it fly. The other half hated the entire suggestion and indicated that they would instantly rule this impossible because it's unrealistic or some poo poo. D&D genuinely damages the imagination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Someone posted a thread about the Monk on the Wizards forums - basically indicating that an Elemental Monk could fly after a Dragon and use Water Whip to prone it, meaning it's able to knock a flying dragon out of the air all by itself. Anyone who ever thinks "this is a cool hobby for imaginative people!" need only spend five minutes in basically any forums that discuss D&D. I've seen people complain that Alert, a feat that basically just says "you can't be surprised while awake," is horribly overpowered. EDIT: ENWorld has a thread where one of a DM's players wants to be Captain America. The thread's response: No, you can't do that, not until at least level 15. What a warm welcome to the hobby. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Idea for a Fighter fix. Give him all 3 archetypes at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Someone posted a thread about the Monk on the Wizards forums - basically indicating that an Elemental Monk could fly after a Dragon and use Water Whip to prone it, meaning it's able to knock a flying dragon out of the air all by itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Oh, hey, someone on WotC twigged to the bone zone issue independently: http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4129336 Let's see how this goes 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Oh, hey, someone on WotC twigged to the bone zone issue independently: http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4129336 Bone zone is not an issue, it is a solution. It is the universal answer to all fantasy roleplaying game questions. What character should I play? Necrolord What bad guy should I throw at the party? Skeleton army Who is the mayor of this town? Skeleton in an enchanted costume that acts as a magic intercom to the wizard who secretly controls the village It's the unified field theory of RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:29
|
|
