|
Yakse posted:So without houserules small races can't realistically use the great weapon master feat for the power attack feature because they worded it as heavy, rather than "when wielding a two handed weapon". Yes there is a downside to being tiny who knew. It just means don't focus on using Heavy weapons with a tiny race.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That was not what I said. I just said it solved the problem of what the templates are supposed to look like. Also there is nothing wrong with leaving something as insignificant as this up to interpretation. You said that, but you were lying. We don't know what the templates are supposed to look like. These are spell area of effect templates:  The little cartoon in the 5e book is not one of those. So, just as I said some pages ago, no information is provided to us as to how spell templates should be used on a grid. That's example of one of the ways 5e fails to support grid-based play well. You agree with me entirely, which is why you said the answer is "Up to the DM," i.e. there is no definitive answer. It's absurd to claim that whether you're in a fireball's radius or not is insignificant, but even if it wasn't absurd, it's still clear that 5e isn't clear on this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Yakse posted:So without houserules small races can't realistically use the great weapon master feat for the power attack feature because they worded it as heavy, rather than "when wielding a two handed weapon". You would have thought that they would have had the Great Weapon Master feature attack with disadvantage (which is roughly -5) which I thought a) was the point of the adv/dis system to get rid of fiddly stacking bonus and b) would have prevented weird conflicts in their natural language system. That is assuming that they didn't want a small 2h weapon user to never use that class feature and intentionally worded it in such a way as to double penalise them in the most ambiguous way possible. edit: Ferrinus posted:You said that, but you were lying. We don't know what the templates are supposed to look like. These are spell area of effect templates: Wait where are those templates from? They are retarded. Origin points not actually in a square - different areas based on the orientation of the effect. More to the point, why do you need a sphere AND a cylinder. Why have awkward shapes like cones and circles Mr Beens fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
seebs posted:No, it's not meaningless. It has a very clear and probably relevant meaning. Now, that doesn't make it much of a persuasive argument or anything, but it's not "meaningless". Being able to articulate why you hold these opinions is incredibly important if you actually want to discuss a game. e: Mr Beens posted:Wait where are those templates from? They are retarded. Origin points not actually in a square - different areas based on the orientation of the effect. I don't know about those specific ones, but the ones in the 3.5e DMG work exactly the same way. The point is that that's what AoE templates look like and the blackboard picture in the new PHB isn't templates. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes there is a downside to being tiny who knew. It just means don't focus on using Heavy weapons with a tiny race. A "great weapon" is relative. Is a battleaxe wielded in two hands not a "great weapon" to a Halfling? They are already penalized in not being able to use the higher die weapons, and all but 1 reach weapon. The justification for power attack style bonus is that you attack wildly with all your strength behind the blow, so whether you are small medium or large you should be able to eek out some extra damage. They didn't include die stepping for size categories in 5E, but they did add +/- 1d4 damage for enlarge/reduce. If the halfing becomes the same size as a human, why can he wield a weapon that does more damage than the human can normally? Hell since there are no rules about different sizes of weapons, could a wizard not enlarge a weapon and the halfling wield it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
So like, how do we rectify the fun-havers and the rules-quantifiers? Like, I agree that fun is a bad metric for game design, and I agree that Next is full of obnoxious holes that even prior (non-4e!) editions have managed to solve. But at the same time I feel like we're sort of putting off a lot of goons by demanding that they justify why they like a game. I mean every positive conversation about 5 has gone like this: GoonA: I like 5e. GoonB: But why? GoonA: I dunno I had fun I guess. GoonB: That's not an argument! GoonA: Okay, I liked this and this about it. GoonB: Pfft, the first one isn't real and the second one is dismissable. The issue isn't that Goon A or Goon B is wrong; it's that they want to have entirely different conversations. Not everybody wants to debate the minutae of why (or more and more frequently exactly how much) the game's design is moronic. Likewise, it's not really okay to take an objective mathematical statement and try to say it's not real or that it doesn't matter, because for the person talking about the design, that's literally what they are talking about, so of course it matters to them. I'm not entreating for sanity, I'm legitimately curious how to proceed. Also, it is ironic that this is the edition that is supposed to bring us closer together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
I think the big problem a lot of people have with this current edition of D&D is that if this game didn't have D&D on the cover, and didn't have the funding to get all the fancy artwork and advertising and such that it had, and it was just the current rules and design, released...it would be considered to be a pretty average game and probably have almost no sales. It's all the advertising, the it being D&D, that's doing all the legwork here, there's very little in the actual rules or design that's actually selling the game, where as games with actual decent design and such still have a hard time even making hundreds of sales. Edit: For instance, if this game were called Tunnels and Trolls(I know that that's a game that does actually exist, but work with me here), had generic artwork, and was made by some Indie company, would anyone care about it? The answer is probably no. goldjas fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
I think both sides need to see things more from the other side's viewpoint. There's a problem there though. Side A likes playing the game, but may not like the rules (as evidenced by "well just ignore it", "housrule it to this", and similar). Side B dislikes the rules, but may not dislike playing the game (as evidenced by "skeleton army, gently caress yeah!" and similar things). They have fundamentally different expectations of a game system. Side A seems to want to be able to say "I had fun, this game is good". Side B wants to say "This rule is broken, this game is bad". As fast as I can see, Side A means "the game that I played with my friends is good". Side B means "these rules written here are bad". Side A usually doesn't want to admit that the fact that they had fun playing a game with friends is completely irrelevant to whether or not the rulebook is good. Side B doesn't want to admit that the fact that the rules are hosed just doesn't matter to some people as long as they're having fun. So there's conflict. This is made far far worse by the way that Side A doesn't like the same rules* as Side B. So when side B finds something they do like and goes "skeleton army, gently caress yeah!" side A goes "houserule it away!" and for a few pages it looks like everyone's switched sides while Side A argues that these rules are dumb and hosed and obviously not how it should have been done and Side B says that this part looks fun and it's nice to see something interesting for once. It's not different conversations, it's fundamentally different expectations of what a game system is. *Maybe "the same kind of rules" is a better way to express this? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Yakse posted:They didn't include die stepping for size categories in 5E, but they did add +/- 1d4 damage for enlarge/reduce. If the halfing becomes the same size as a human, why can he wield a weapon that does more damage than the human can normally? The extra damage is obviously due to the extra density provided by the Enlarge spell. Doesn't matter if you're small if your weapon is supernaturally dense and gravity does the work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
It's also rather easier to pick out the parts of a game that ruined things for your group ("Meg played a Fighter and felt useless next to the Cleric and Druid!") than it is to single out the elements of a game that you all liked ("We all rolled our stats and had fun, therefor rolling stats is fun!"). Particularly in a hobby as social as RPGs, having fun depends on so many more things than the rules (I've had fun playing RIFTS with the right group!) but it's still easy to spot when those same rules get in the way. Every 5-minute break in the action to look up the exact wording on some bullshit spell is going to stand out pretty clearly. The time your whole group was in stitches over one character's antics has a lot less to do with the rule book, but you'll remember it just the same, so it's pretty easy to conflate the two, even when the former was a product of the words written on the page and the latter happened because your buddy is just a funny guy. If your friends are funny enough, they'll outpace the rules every time, and you'll have fond memories of playing clearly-terrible games (again, I've had a blast with loving BESM! of all games). But that doesn't speak to the quality of the game, just the quality of your gaming group. Meanwhile, all the times where some dumb bullshit happened because nobody bothered to hire an editor or technical writer to handle the rulebook is entirely the fault of the game. Having to stop the action mid-fight and flip through a second book because your monster entry includes a list of spells but doesn't say what they do is the game's fault. Having a Moon Druid do what the Fighter does as well as the the Fighter and then get spells on top of that is the game's fault. Having the Tome Warlock get most of the benefits of the Chain Warlock and also all the other rituals is the game's fault. These issues have nothing to do with your group, they're just there, and maybe your group can have fun despite them, but maybe your group could play loving F.A.T.A.L. and have fun, it doesn't make it any good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Rolling for stats chat again: I personally do think that rolling for stats is fun in a certain type of game. If I'm playing B/X D&D where I already know that characters are disposable it's okay, but that's because I can make a B/X character in like 10-minutes, rolling included. Also, B/X has you roll your entire stat-line in order, so there' son shuffling around your stats to find a more optimal set-up. Random rolls for abilities gets more stupid the more steps you have to do after it in character creation. In 5e you roll, choose race and class, shuffle around your rolls, apply ability modifiers for race, pick a bunch of stuff from your race and class and then realize that you could've been better of with another class or race, redo everything, pick a background and so on. Basically, it combines randomness with a system where I'm supposed to make a heavy investment to the character all the way from character creation. I do like randomness in character creation, but if I'm supposed to be invested in the character from level 1 onwards and supposed to make a not inconsiderable investment in time to pick abilities, race and class I'd much rather have the array or point-buy be a valid option rather than an afterthought. Also, in 5e (and 3e for that matter) you're not rolling for your abilities, you're rolling for an array which you then get to divide amongst your abilities. The old-school nut in me thinks that's bullshit for babbies, because true gamers roll their stats in order, and the amateur game designer in me hates it because it leads to characters with wildly divergent abilities in a game where you're supposed to be heavily invested in a character all the way from character creation. For a game like 5e I'd think the best approach would be (IF you still wanted randomness) something like what I let one of my friends do in a 13th Age game of mine: roll on the table at the back of the book, showing a number of pre-calculated arrays using point-buy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
So what's good about rolling stats? Can people who want to do that let me know why they like it more than point-buy, a choice of arrays, or "these are your scores, arrange to taste"? I know why it works in B/x and BECMI. I know that it's part of what makes Hackmaster hilarious. I'm not interested in why it's good in those systems. I don't want to hear about how it's just not causing problems, or especially how it's not causing problems after you changed the rules. I know lots of ways to change the way you roll stats so that it won't cause many problems. I also know that if everyone is lucky and rolls well, it won't cause problems. If you want to roll stats the way the new D&D tells you to, I want to know why that makes the game better for you than using an array or point-buy. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Honestly, I think it's just rolling the dice and knowing they will have an impact on your character. It's the thrill of a gamble. As part of a long-term or numbers-heavy game, it's an awful mechanic, but it's got a Vegas veneer that is hard to resist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is made far far worse by the way that Side A doesn't like the same rules* as Side B. So when side B finds something they do like and goes "skeleton army, gently caress yeah!" side A goes "houserule it away!" and for a few pages it looks like everyone's switched sides while Side A argues that these rules are dumb and hosed and obviously not how it should have been done and Side B says that this part looks fun and it's nice to see something interesting for once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:Honestly, I think it's just rolling the dice and knowing they will have an impact on your character. It's the thrill of a gamble. This, from my experience, is a big part of it. There's suspense and fun in rolling for ability scores in the same way there is in pulling a lever on a slot machine: usually you don't come out ahead but when you do it feels amazing and it's almost a point of pride even though it was pure luck. I feel like I get why people like it,but at the same time every DM I've played with that wanted us to roll our stats used some method (4d6 drop the lowest, replace your worst stat with an 18, that kind of thing) to try and cut back on sub-par stats, which always seemed to kind miss the point of rolling in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Isn't it actually not true that true gamers roll stats in order, but instead that the Gygax default was actually to assign your rolls as you pleased or something? I remember learning this recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Isn't it actually not true that true gamers roll stats in order, but instead that the Gygax default was actually to assign your rolls as you pleased or something? I remember learning this recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Isn't it actually not true that true gamers roll stats in order, but instead that the Gygax default was actually to assign your rolls as you pleased or something? I remember learning this recently. I don't know about this "True gamer" stuff but I've never once rolled for stats in order, don't think I've ever seen any of my friends who roll do it either. We've always just rolled up six stats and then assigned them wherever we please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Well, AD&D Method I is 4d6 arrange to taste. 3d6 in order is method V or something. There are four stat methods in AD&D. 3d6 in order isn't one of them, and is explicitly called out as a bad idea before the methods are presented. AD&D DMG, page 11 posted:While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. It then recommends you use one of: 4d6 discard lowest, in whatever order you want. Roll 3d6 12 times, retain the highest 6 scores in whatever order you want. For each stat in order roll 3d6 6 times and retain the highest score. Roll 3d6 in order for 12 sets of ability scores. Select the best set. 2e brought back "3d6 in order" as the default for some reason. The other methods (including a point-buy one) were allowed if the DM said it was OK. edit: To be clear, that quote is from the groggiest grognard manual, the AD&D DMG - the same book that has a table of random harlot encounters and insanely detailed rules for contracting fatal diseases when you adventure in a sewer. In the first part of the book with actual rules in it, right where you couldn't possibly miss it, Gary loving Gygax himself tells you to let people play the characters they want and not to discourage new players by making them roll 3d6 in order and play whatever comes up. This somehow gets completely ignored when people talk about the traditions of D&D. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Isn't it actually not true that true gamers roll stats in order, but instead that the Gygax default was actually to assign your rolls as you pleased or something? I remember learning this recently. Yeah, 3d6 in order was presented as the default method in OD&D and B/X, but by the time AD&D came out ability scores had become somewhat more important so 4d6 drop the lowest, assign however you wish became the default method. Even BECMI eventually allowed for slight variation on stat-rolling: after rolling for stats and choosing your class you could take points away from Str, Int and Wis to improve your prime requisite 2 for 1. But yeah, I like 3d6 in order in B/X, because the fact that you can create a new character in less than ten minutes should your first character die is part of the charm, but since D&D has developed into a more numbers-heavy game having random stats be a thing is kind of lovely, especially since everything is a stat roll now. In B/X you could be a Magic-User with nothing but tens over the board and still pull your weight, but in 5e a character like that is not going to be effective at anything. It gets even worse for characters that need more than one or two stats to pull their weight, like Fighters who need higher than average Str, Dex and Con to pull their weight. And that's another thing: the classes that are already among the strongest in the game are also the ones who can make do with fewer high stats. A Wizard can make do with just a high Int and middling stats elsewhere, but a Fighter needs at least a high Strength and Constitution, and Dexterity and Wisdom are nice to have too, the former because it governs AC and the latter because it's the stat related to the most useful skills and saves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
I don't actually care that you find rolled stats fun, whatever floats your boat. I just find it incredibly silly to compare making up a backstory/character to explain a 7 in Dex to an actual art form. Anyone have any trip reports for the Monk? Friend of mine is sorta looking at DMing 5e and I'm wondering if Monk is as neat as it looks on paper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Also, notably, AD&D pushed stat bonuses way up the bell curve, at 15 or even 16. With 3d6 in order, it's likely a character won't have any interesting stats at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Having run the math, I would be willing to roll stats on a 4d6 drop lowest, assign as you wish, reroll if total stat mod is 5 or less basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Well neat, DM wants to run the game with Tabletop Simulator, so I've spent the last hour or so playing at making dungeons. I need to see if there is a bigger board or more tokens online or something. Our group usually just uses Maptools but there is something to be said for rolling virtual dice... Anyone have any experience running games with this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I don't actually care that you find rolled stats fun, whatever floats your boat. I just find it incredibly silly to compare making up a backstory/character to explain a 7 in Dex to an actual art form. High dex monk with unarmed attacks is pretty fun. My AC is one less than the Fighter, I do 1d4+3 damage twice in one turn and can use Ki points to do more neat stuff. It's a definate glass cannon melee class. Low health but high damage output at low level. +10 movement bonus has been pretty solid in regards to my character's combat focus. Have not hit level 3 yet but Waterwhip is looking pretty cool. Or Fang of Flames.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Kortel posted:High dex monk with unarmed attacks is pretty fun. My AC is one less than the Fighter, I do 1d4+3 damage twice in one turn and can use Ki points to do more neat stuff. It's a definate glass cannon melee class. Low health but high damage output at low level. +10 movement bonus has been pretty solid in regards to my character's combat focus. e: I was going to say you actually do 1d6+3, but I'd forgotten that monks actually do start at d4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Sweet jesus. Even the people who are one of the biggest promoters of the game are making fun of the caster supremacy. Scott Kurtz literally says in the middle of the game," Wait class are you a bard? Why the hell didn't I play that instead of a Fighter?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:There are four stat methods in AD&D. 3d6 in order isn't one of them, and is explicitly called out as a bad idea before the methods are presented. Apart from the top one - sooooo much rolling. All that rolling has one purpose, which is to drop out the low numbers. Which begs the question - why not just choose a bunch of high numbers in the loving first place instead of having the psuedo random bullshit of "well I rolled em, so fair is fair, they could have been low". We used to roll stats back in the 2e days when I was a kid as we didn't know any better. The first system (can't remember what one it was) that had char gen with arrays blew our minds and we just houseruled in a standard array to all D&D games from that point onwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not sure the Monk qualifies as a Glass Cannon, especially at low levels. They aren't that much lower HP than any other class, except a Barbarian. But more importantly their damage is absolutely terrible. Any class with Fighting Style can select Two Weapon Fighting and do at least that much damage, if not more. Yes with ki points you can get another negligible attack, but after 1st level the others have resources they can spend to up their damage as well. And they aren't using a d4 weapon for like 6 levels. Still have no clue why they felt the need to lower the Monk's damage at all levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
For comparison to the Monk, my current Warlock has literally no combat powers at first level. He's meant to be an illusionist. Dex 16. Which means d8+3 damage at range with crossbow. d4+3 +d4 damage in melee dual wielding daggers. AC 14. d8 hit dice. I think that's exactly the numbers the Monk gets - and the Monk can't play merry hell with illusions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
So I've been playing since the red box, and so far my group is rather enjoying 5th, even though we are only playing the starter box at the moment. Can I just ask these three questions: 1. Why flip out about balance in a co-operative game? With my group, if the Wizard manages to save the day with a well timed spell, everyone is happy, even the Fighter. Are your groups that adversarial that DPS actually matters to anyone? 2. How is DM fiat any different in 5e than in any other TTRPG ever? Narrative sections, roleplay interactions, world building and the like all happen with at least some DM fiat. A designer saying 'let the DM decide' is really not an issue that I can see since it actually takes away some of the rulebook lawyering that can make a game run slowly and turns the system into player versus GM. 3. Why is 'fun' useless as a measurement of a system? I thought that was the point? If a system isn't perfect but it's fun to play how bad can it be. I guess I've been reading along here since the first page (and the previous thread) and I don't get why MonsterEnvy is getting piled on. It's like several posters here are adamant that their numerical results prove that he is HAVING FUN WRONG. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the group. We roll stats with caveats for truly lovely rolls, we roll hit points but reroll anything less than half of maximum, and we accept that sometimes a little railroading means the story opens up an exciting plot development or great set piece. These games, to us, are collaborative storytelling but we *like* the comfortable confines of a system and world that are familiar and immediately accessible to us. That's why my current group went AD&D2e -> 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder and bailed on 4th. 4th was just so foreign it didn't feel like D&D and 5e does. So, I think that I'm in the vocal minority here, but I wonder if the gaming majority in general sides with this perspective or not. I'd be curious to see 4e vs 5e sales figures for the launch window.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Having run the math, I would be willing to roll stats on a 4d6 drop lowest, assign as you wish, reroll if total stat mod is 5 or less basis. Exactly what my group does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
The Wizard solving everything doesn't sound very co-operative to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I personally do not get any joy out of rolling stats whatsoever. I like to choose what I'm going to play. And yeah, in co-op I like to acutally have everyone get to contribute. As for DM Fiat, there's a difference between player/GM created creative parts of the game and the DM being required to make "rulings" to resolve written game mechanics. A game's rules should function without the DM having to decide how they work!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Andrast posted:The Wizard solving everything doesn't sound very co-operative to me. Really? Standard Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party all has a role even in a fight that is ended by fireballs. In our group, the Wizard is generally squishy enough that the fighter hangs close to the Wizard to protect him/her, or charges out to take on the fastest/biggest threat. The rogue normally works the archers/squishier ranged damage dealers, while the Cleric fills in wherever needed in combat and/or heals. A wizard standing on his own is monster chow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Fighter doesn't actually get mechanics that allow him to protect the wizard in 5e--monsters can ignore him. Furthermore, I personally would like to play a warrior who gets to take the fight to the foe and contribute directly, rather than playign bodyguard for another player! Thing is... the Wizard can do all of those things you mentioned with spells. Why need a fighter to block monsters when you can use skeletons for defense and split the loot fewer ways, for example?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Ao is rewriting the Tablets of Fate and FR looks like it will turn into a "best of" version of itself. Details are still sparse at this point, as the Sundering novels only really covered the beginning of the event, it's still happening, and they are not (yet) working on a 5E campaign guide. What we know is most of the dead gods are/will be back, including Bhaal, and some bits of 4E FR will survive because of novel concerns.  Good thinking, Ao
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:I personally do not get any joy out of rolling stats whatsoever. I like to choose what I'm going to play. Rolling stats is often a rite of passage into a new campaign for us. Laughing at the one guy who managed to roll a couple of sixes on 4d6 is just good fun, but we use that aforementioned 4d6 toss out the lowest, arrange to taste method. 'Rulings' on game mechanics happen anyhow. No ruleset can cover every possible scenario. 5e does seem to have more than others we've played but that encourages amusing memorable moments like 'does an unconscious kobold tied to rope and swung like a flail have reach' as an actual in game question. Having a lovely DM would certainly not help in this scenario, but what rule system has this covered? Last point, in our group the DM has the final say, but the DM doesn't always decide how it works. More often than not it becomes an open question to the group and we decide what makes sense together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Really? Standard Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party all has a role even in a fight that is ended by fireballs. What can the fighter do to protect the Wizard that a Cleric couldn't do as well or better?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What can the fighter do to protect the Wizard that a Cleric couldn't do as well or better? Can a Fighter actually protect the Wizard at all per the rules without a chokepoint or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:19
|
|