|
adhuin posted:Is Curse of Strahd just brutally hard module? It's a Ravenloft module, and has a reputation for being a meatgrinder, yeah. Horror campaigns are intended to be played with a sense that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and get real punishing real fast if you come at them from the perspective that any fight the PC's get into should at worst have a chance of costing them resources rather than brutally murdering them.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
It was definitely hilarious when our first time having a difficult fight, being two young white dragons at once, the woman playing the Paladin 5/Druid 1 freaked out when the DM explained how the mechanics of their breath weapon worked. She didn't seem to understand getting it back on a six is what kept them dangerous in the slightest. This is also the same person that freaked out in an over-the-top fashion when the big boss we fought a few sessions ago had Legendary Actions where it could attack or do something on more than just its own initiative. I'm not sure how they'd have reacted if I hadn't stun-locked the thing when its single-use Legendary Action triggered at really low health and brought it back up to half. I'm more amused than anything, I just hope they understand this stuff is what keeps us from dunking everything. Kind of wondering if we should bring up the concept of Lair Actions before that one happens in an actual fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
Arthil posted:I'm not sure how they'd have reacted if I hadn't stun-locked the thing when its single-use Legendary Action triggered at really low health and brought it back up to half. I'd have rolled my eyes medium hard. Triggers that are just "this fight lasts longer now, no other change" are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
I mean it still went off despite being stunned, which didn't help it at all. I was really confused cause normal Treants have high CON to begin with and this thing was meant to be tougher. DM is great at theatrics though. Between triggering the room coming alive and playing "Be Our Guest", or the fight with the petrified(as in wood to stone) Treant starting off while we were long resting and a boulder barreling at my monk which he dodged. Part of me wanted it to hit simply because Deflect Missiles works on that. Arthil fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I found they just lacked anything that elevated them above just some other monster. These are your titular characters and they are just kinda like, huge health pools with a bunch of attacks and also maybe they are wizards if you use the variant. They should have titanic effects that reshape the whole game system, you should have big team efforts to punch a hole in the dragons scales to allow you hurt a dragon. You need like phases of mechanics, a real set piece location that lets it move without just letting it fly around. A chunk of the game mechanics should be about getting on top of the dragon to Shadow of the Colossus that poo poo given how important to a dragon's survival flying is but theres kinda nothing to think about it or do anything with it. Plus theres no real support or rules for taking it down piece by piece, hampering its wings, punching a hole in it's armour and then optional things like cuttting off its tail, taking out its eyes, piecing its gut to take out its breath attack, before taking it down. Fighting a dragon should be like besieging a castle not just clearing a room in a dungeon. The concept of having giant creatures with different "parts" that count as discrete enemies seems like a good way to make boss encounters less anticlimatic. It's more difficult for a party to lock down such an encounter. It could be useful for dragons, hydras with each head counting as a separate enemy, a kraken with multiple tentacles, and so forth. Climbing onto large enemies could also use some more codification. Perhaps it could be a way for grapplers to have a function against large enemies they can't pin down; instead they climb up the enemy and target their weak points (possibly gaining advantage on attacks), while the monster makes athletic checks to throw them off. It would be an interesting niche for grappler rogues who can climb enemies to "sneak attack" them, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I found they just lacked anything that elevated them above just some other monster. These are your titular characters and they are just kinda like, huge health pools with a bunch of attacks and also maybe they are wizards if you use the variant. They should have titanic effects that reshape the whole game system, you should have big team efforts to punch a hole in the dragons scales to allow you hurt a dragon. You need like phases of mechanics, a real set piece location that lets it move without just letting it fly around. A chunk of the game mechanics should be about getting on top of the dragon to Shadow of the Colossus that poo poo given how important to a dragon's survival flying is but theres kinda nothing to think about it or do anything with it. Plus theres no real support or rules for taking it down piece by piece, hampering its wings, punching a hole in it's armour and then optional things like cuttting off its tail, taking out its eyes, piecing its gut to take out its breath attack, before taking it down. Fighting a dragon should be like besieging a castle not just clearing a room in a dungeon. I mean on one hand, that'd be cool. On the other hand, it is pretty much the opposite of how D&D has ever used them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I'd have rolled my eyes medium hard. Triggers that are just "this fight lasts longer now, no other change" are dumb. Counterpoint: That 12 second encounter with the crazy dragon we’ve been chasing for the last 3 months sure was epic! Example: my D&D group just did the final climactic fight of Tomb of Annihilation last Thursday. Our DM for the campaign was running it fairly straight from the book and we’ve been at it for a little over a year now. The fight was over on the 5th combat round. We had destroyed the macguffin, defeated the extra planar entity, and put the lich at “gotta retreat” HP, at risk of being destroyed in this form. All in 5 rounds. We had a great time playing, everyone was relieved that we had completed the quest and all. Then as we were packing up one of the ladies there said “wow, that entire fight was less than 36 seconds long.” And she was right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
Hey, so I might not have been clear. You can have giant monsters with different parts like everyone thought I meant, I'm not gonna stop you because that kind of thing is awesome. Climb on them! You can also have regular sized bad guys and abstract each of their abilities to "a monster", which is what I meant. Two other things: 1) This is not a new idea, I first saw it in the '90s and I'm fairly sure it was printed in Dragon at least once. 2) The fight does get less dangerous as it goes on, yes. Every other D&D encounter with more than one monster works the exact same way. If it bothers you for a boss fight: Pick: Each "monster" retains a small-ish basic attack ability even when defeated. Defeating it obviously still removes its special abilities (and maybe its move). It just attacks now. It can't be stunned or slowed or take ongoing or anything. or Have a "core" which can't be targeted and which is defeated when the last other part is defeated. It has a move and a basic melee attack, and soft-enrages every time you defeat an outlying "part", bumping up its damage. e: Obviously this is purely mechanical stuff here, attach whatever imaginings you want to it, I'm not suggesting "core" or "soft enrage" should be player-facing fiction. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
Rejoice it's beer o'clock! Updated martial maneuvers for chumps to v1.3 including perpetual leverage, legend and true mojo and a bunch of other maneuvers mostly pillaged from the playtest material. Thanks for the suggestions thread and stop fighting / keep fighting as you prefer!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Wyvernil posted:The concept of having giant creatures with different "parts" that count as discrete enemies seems like a good way to make boss encounters less anticlimatic. It's more difficult for a party to lock down such an encounter. It could be useful for dragons, hydras with each head counting as a separate enemy, a kraken with multiple tentacles, and so forth. This is what im talking about : AlphaDog posted:Hey, so I might not have been clear. kingcom fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
koreban posted:Maybe it's because I also play miniature wargames where you can hit and wound an opponent and the opponent gets a chance to make a save and negate the damage, but this wasn't something that was an issue for me. Additionally, you can reskin the legendary resistance to be a use of the Shield spell for hits against AC, or a version that reduces spell DC by some amount for save-or-suck spells to be functionally the same thing. I'm not sure you're understand what my problem is, I don't care about what its representing or whatever, I'm talkings about the result it is having. Its really unfun as a player to have something that was a success turn into a failure because of a pool of 'nah' points you need to punch through before you get to have fun things happen. koreban posted:Example: The wizard dude in the Redbrand hideout in LMoP: I had him using his Alchemy laboratory for his lair. He was in the process of concocting something when the players entered the room and the subsequent fight meant that he wasn't monitoring the experiment or concentrating on his stabilization spells. Immediately flasks and beakers started exploding or boiling over, causing caustic ooze to spill out, or noxious gas. I didn't overload the players with damage from these things, but it created some exciting maneuvering and repositioning opportunities, as well as reactions where the wizard could throw a beaker at someone or react by dodging behind a copper still that took the (single use of legendary resistance to avoid a paladin's critical hit) which caused the paladin to hit the still, break the pressure vessel and pour out steam that clouded the wizard's retreat to his bedchamber. Like this example, the Lair actions are cool and they are just ways of pretending you're not giving a single character multiple actions with fixed deliberate choices per actions that the player can interact with. resistances being a real bad idea, especially if you are adding extra bad things on top. Your lair example is pretty cool and probably was great to make a plain encounter a lot more memorable . I've used them to varying effects. I'm not forgetting the dragon lair, they just still aren't enough to really add to what should be a game changing encounter. Also the dragon ones feel really samey and im fairly certain they're all the same between the Adult->Ancient of the same colour with no kinda scaling or anything that really is important to help think about. That second example I would not be happy as that paladin. They got a good result and scored a critical hit and you flipped that into giving the villain an escape route. Honestly that kind of a lovely play is good demonstration about legendary resistances just not being a good idea. I mean real talk, this is where D&D not having degrees of success/failure or a two-axis conflict resolution really hurts it. If your situation had happened in Edge of the Empire because of a bunch of threat/despair along with the crit then it would have turned what feels like some lovely GM intervention into a fun and exciting turn of events but what are you gonna do. koreban posted:Counterpoint: That 12 second encounter with the crazy dragon we’ve been chasing for the last 3 months sure was epic! Okay so heres the part you're not getting about that, making a fight take longer can be good but you need to make that longer part interesting and different. Just getting it's HP back is not really very interesting, its a bad way of handling it. It's why a BBEG who can heal are a bad idea unless the players have a way of getting rid of that healing (like its from a unholy artifact in the room or theres a cleric healing him etc). Just restoring the monster's health purely increases the time at the table while the the previous method gives the players new decisions to make and goals to consider making the fight both longer AND more engaging. kingcom fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I mean on one hand, that'd be cool. On the other hand, it is pretty much the opposite of how D&D has ever used them. So never try to do anything new or like what? I don't know what this comment is supposed to be getting at. Dragon fights have always been unfun and uninteresting in D&D so just never trying to make them exciting and engaging?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 11:05
|
|
|
My take on Legendary Resistance is that it straddles the line between "everything works, we'll deal with the balance some other way", and "no, you can't Maze the boss, period", and as a compromise, it's worse than the extreme alternatives. If you as the DM trigger it against a "game-winning" spell by the player, that's a Hard No to the player that can feel agency-robbing. If, on the other hand, you don't use it against such an effect, and it ends the encounter anyway, then you might as well not have had it, and you're right back to square one with a boss that's easily shut down. And then, if the players know that Legendary Resistance is a thing, then it's basically a game of chicken: do they have enough stuff that they can throw against the boss to use up all of its Legendary Resistance charges? If they throw "soft" debuffs against the boss hoping to bait you into using your LRs on it, so that they can bring out the big guns later, and you never bite, then it's about the same as a straight immunity to the big spells anyway. If, on the other hand, they do have more disables than you have LRs, then you still have a boss that's easily shut down, it just takes longer. ___ Mind you, I think Lair Actions and Legendary Actions are good ideas, since they're essentially extra turns/standard actions for the boss, but Legendary Resistance, specifically, feels like a bit of a cop-out to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:oh my god here we loving go again with this "you guys are so caught up in this consultant business that you won't even talk about how D&D 5e is a bad game all by itself" My point is not at all that you should be whining about 5E and you are clearly acting in bad faith if you think I said anything like that. Look, the fact of the matter is that mounting some sort of offensive against 5E is absolutely not possible beyond this point and I think you know that given what you've said. But the one silver lining to the industry falling to rampant anti-intellectualism and rapacious hucksters is that when bad products are considered the norm, things get so bad that even people with zero critical thinking skills understand that they've been sold a crock of poo poo. The average 5e newbie might not understand that something like Waterdeep Dragon Heist is riddled with issues but they sure as hell will understand that poo poo like Death Frost Doom or Blood in the Chocolate are horrendous products if they have even a single brain cell. To make my point clear: I only care about you-know-who in the slightest because he is an awful game designer with no sense of right and wrong who happens to wield tremendous influence. If it were not for that last "tremendous influence" part, I would not care at all. There's so much bad poo poo happening in the world right now that quite frankly, no one from outside this specific circle is going to care that a bad dude was listed in 5E's credits and that he drove some people off the internet. And they most definitely will not care about who is and who isn't friends with such a person. You are not going to be able to convince anyone that his involvement damns 5E as a product, because, honestly? It doesn't. But what you can convince them is that he's a shitheaded nobody who makes awful products and works most frequently under a publisher which produces things that are among the worst RPG products ever written, because it's obvious. And if you can do that, then they'll recognize this guy is a living fiasco without even being told about any of the consultant business. Like, that FATAL and Friends review of Death Frost Doom that was done a while back? That's something I can show my friends who might want to pick it up. What I can't tell them about you-know-who's stuff is that the guy who makes them is a massive jerk on the internet, because only people who are extraordinarily empathetic and easy to convince will care. gradenko_2000 posted:and that's besides the point that your inane "yelling about how bad he is, is only pushing more people towards him" is 100% yet another red flag for your disingenuous bullshit You can label it disingenuous all you want, but if you think it's incorrect then you're totally clueless about how people respond to incendiary situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
kingcom posted:So never try to do anything new or like what? I don't know what this comment is supposed to be getting at. Dragon fights have always been unfun and uninteresting in D&D so just never trying to make them exciting and engaging? Nah, writing them to be more interesting is cool, I just tend to agree with the discussion going on around Legendary Actions that the issue isn't really the stat card for dragons, it's the ways players have for interacting with it that make it unexciting and unengaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
Legendary Resistance has to exist because of how hard the CC available to the party can be - it's a consequence of the fundamental issues with the magic system. It's also pretty lovely not just because of the cop-out feel, but because it generally forces the crowd control er crowd to engage in the HP damage game - maybe that's not so bad in itself, but it'll certainly throw unskilled players out of the loop. That said, the magic system is also so broken that you can throw in no-save spells that can be just as strong; for instance, get a Wizard to 9 and you can totally cheese big bad Strahd von Zarovich by locking him inside a Wall of Force cube and just cooking him from the outside with the Sunsword. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:My take on Legendary Resistance is that it straddles the line between "everything works, we'll deal with the balance some other way", and "no, you can't Maze the boss, period", and as a compromise, it's worse than the extreme alternatives. Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Legendary Resistance has to exist because of how hard the CC available to the party can be - it's a consequence of the fundamental issues with the magic system. It's also pretty lovely not just because of the cop-out feel, but because it generally forces the crowd control er crowd to engage in the HP damage game - maybe that's not so bad in itself, but it'll certainly throw unskilled players out of the loop. This has always been a problem, too. It's why Ravenloft as a setting explicitly cheats against the PCs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Legendary Resistance has to exist because of how hard the CC available to the party can be - it's a consequence of the fundamental issues with the magic system. It's also pretty lovely not just because of the cop-out feel, but because it generally forces the crowd control er crowd to engage in the HP damage game - maybe that's not so bad in itself, but it'll certainly throw unskilled players out of the loop. I do understand why Legendary Resistance has to exist, I'm just saying that I feel like it would be "better" to have either more restricted uses of spells, or to not have it, and deal with CC by having lots of monsters, or monsters with lots of actions (of which CCs will only partially remove). To wit, either Hold Monster doesn't work against the boss, or there's more than one dangerous target that Hold Monster needs to handle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
beeoi posted:My point is not at all that you should be whining about 5E and you are clearly acting in bad faith if you think I said anything like that. could you please gently caress all the way off with this decorum poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
koreban posted:I’m *really* digging Pathfinder 2E playtest’s wounded system when players go down to unconscious states and are brought back using heals. Having longer term reprocussions to being taken to 0hp is a good idea and might be a worthy houserule to consider. Can you elaborate on this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Oh speaking of Pathfinder. I should just shout out, because it seems to have had zero marketing/promotion and there may well be those in this thread interested. Pathfinder: Kingmaker came out last week, it's essentially a modern Baldurs Gate game using a pretty faithful version of the Pathfinder ruleset and based on the Adventure Path of the same name. Seems to be getting a pretty decent buzz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Oh speaking of Pathfinder. I should just shout out, because it seems to have had zero marketing/promotion and there may well be those in this thread interested. Pathfinder: Kingmaker came out last week, it's essentially a modern Baldurs Gate game using a pretty faithful version of the Pathfinder ruleset and based on the Adventure Path of the same name. Seems to be getting a pretty decent buzz. Game seems fun but lol jfc the balance rules are a mess of bad choices. Flat bonuses are a pretty bad idea to do in pathfinder and no 5 foot step is messy lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
I'm starting a tomb of annihilation campaign. Without too much spoilers, are there any particular classes or races I should avoid for it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
A while ago I told you that a friend of mine was going to DM and he didn't know which adventure yet. That choice has been made: Strahd. Party is almost certainly going to be a Wizard, a Paladin, and a Rogue. Without getting into any spoilers, any general advice you can give? Like, are Clerics mandatory in this adventure? Is it heavy on the dungeon crawling or more of a sandbox or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Edit: misread post thought you was running it instead of playing.
Proud Rat Mom fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
RC Cola posted:I'm starting a tomb of annihilation campaign. Without too much spoilers, are there any particular classes or races I should avoid for it? Not really, and actually the opposite is true. The first half is a bit easier if someone plays say, a ranger (and the DM doesn't stray too far from orthodox rule adjudications and RAW). Especially the revised one from UA. Your time in the second half of the game will be much harder if you don't have a rogue handy. I recommend the archaeologist background from the campaign book no matter who you play though so you can be Indiana Jones. Especially if you play a rogue. Edit: Like Proud Rat Mom says above, any capability a PC has to fly before level 5 really diminishes the fun of the early game. I went with AG rules where races that can fly were barred. SettingSun fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:A while ago I told you that a friend of mine was going to DM and he didn't know which adventure yet. That choice has been made: Strahd. If your dm is new I recommend instead that they do the starter adventure, which is not only great, but is designed to ease new dms into the role. You can get away with a paladin instead of a cleric. It’s not a dungeon crawl, more like a narrative heavy adventure with sandbox elements. It’s great, but requires a lot of investment from both the dm running the NPC’s and players roleplaying to get the most out of it. Proud Rat Mom fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Can you elaborate on this? When a character is reduced to zero HP: * they become Unconscious * their initiative count is moved to immediately before the creature that knocked them out * they gain the Dying 1 condition. * if the attack that knocked them out was a crit, they gain the Dying 2 condition instead * if the attack that knocked them out was non-lethal damage, they do NOT gain the dying condition, but they are still at 0 HP and still Unconscious If a character's Dying value reaches 4, they die If a character is Dying, then they make a Fortitude save at the start of each of their turns. On a success, their Dying condition is reduced by 1. On a crit success, it is reduced by 2 On a failure, their Dying condition is increased by 1. On a crit failure, it is increased by 2 (there is a complicated method of determining the DC of the Fort save that I won't get into here) If a character is already Dying, and takes more damage, their Dying value is increased by 1, or 2 if the attack is a crit. If a character is restored to 1 HP or more, they lose the Dying condition If a character loses the Dying condition, and has one or more HP, they also: * regain consciousness/lose the Unconscious condition * gain the Wounded 1 condition if they do not already have it, or increase their Wounded condition by 1 When a character is reduced to zero HP, and they already have the Wounded condition, their Dying condition is set to 1, plus the number of their Wounded condition If a character is healed to full HP and rests for 10 minutes, they lose all of their Wounded condition If a character receives the Treat Wounds action, which is a use of the Heal skill, they lose all of their Wounded condition ___ Short version: whenever you get knocked out, you get a Dying counter. If it hits 4, you die. If you get healed and come back up from Dying, you gain a Wounded counter. The Wounded counter adds to your Dying counter the next time you get knocked out. ___ Really though, all of this is is a complicated way of not wanting to delve into negative hit points and Massive Damage rules, but still wanting to capture the peril of having negative hit points. People are "concerned" about the issue of "popcorn healing", where someone at 1 HP gets hit for 15 damage, gets knocked down to zero, which "soaks" the other 14 damage, and then gets hit by a Healing Word for 1d4 healing or whatever and gets back up to fighting form. This is supposed to be a problem because the refusal to go negative allows the zero-point to become a Damage Reduction shield, and it devalues larger heals, since all you need is at least 1 point. But this is a solved problem: dying at -10 HP in 3e was arguably too shallow a pool, but dying at negative-Constitution-score, and the massive damage rule of "if you take more than 50 damage at once, make a DC 15 Fort save or die" already handled the issue of "popcorn healing" handily. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
I thought they'd ripped the Critical Wounds from the ffg games or something. That's a bit of a let down. Probably functional but not very imaginative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
a fun easy way to think about 'oh but how much association is too much you're just being hysterical' is to consider the question 'did the person plausibly decide to materially benefit themselves from the hosed conduct of the other person?' which here is like probably yes? also if it's a like in the past thing that doesn't automatically absolve them if they're not going to acknowledge it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When a character is reduced to zero HP: My currently sick brain broke trying to parse this but the short version sounds great. The ability to pop back up from deaths door at 1 HP no worse for wear really irks me in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:My currently sick brain broke trying to parse this but the short version sounds great. The ability to pop back up from deaths door at 1 HP no worse for wear really irks me in 5e. path 2e looks cool to me. I'm glad they are listening to feedback that isn't just grogs whining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:My currently sick brain broke trying to parse this but the short version sounds great. The ability to pop back up from deaths door at 1 HP no worse for wear really irks me in 5e. You missed my edit, but basically you can also avoid the issue of popping back up with minimal healing by reimplementing negative HP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
seems like a take on strikes from, well, strike just without the narrative effect bit. it might be interesting if the wounded condition inflicted some kind of penalty on you, forcing you to rest to remove it. like a -1/-2 to attack/skill rolls or reduced spellcasting capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
"Wound dice", roll a bunch of d6s with your rolls, on a 5 or a 6 subtract 2 from your roll. The answer to making wounds fun is to have them mean you roll more dice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You missed my edit, but basically you can also avoid the issue of popping back up with minimal healing by reimplementing negative HP. If your game is gonna have negative hp, you might as well erase most in-combat healing spells though. That can still be a fine game, but it's going to be a very different one, where you avoid most fights and hope the DM has provided more than a square room for the unavoidable ones -- an area with some tactical possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
I don't want to play with people who are "concerned" by "popcorn healing"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Pf1 already countered it pretty effectively because relying on popcorn healing means your healer is tied up -every round- healing That One Dude or burning a very finite quantity of mass heals. At which point any opponent with an int score geeks the healer instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Healing being a limited but meaningful resource that doesn't take up the healer's main action is a pipedream
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:43
|
|
