|
Splicer posted:A wizard using firebolt has just as much freedom to describe what exactly is happening as a fighter does, if not more so, but they also have the mechanical choice to choose acid splash instead, and have all the narrative space around that, too. And that's not even touching the narrative weight of backing your declarations with actual mechanical effects; a Fighter can say "I strike him about the head in a flurry of dizzying blows!", but the casters are the ones with access to actual dizzying (sleep, shocking grasp, Tasha's hideous laughter). I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't really want to engage with the metadiscussion except to say this reads to me like damning criticism of long lists of moves (ie, the wizard is the problem) rather than the other way round, but that's probably just reflecting my strong preference for rules light systems. Nevertheless, everything you said can be true, and making an attack is still a lot of narrative room. When I'm playing a simple class like that, taking an approach that puts more of my mental energy into narrative description makes it more fun.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
I gotta admit I get a little salty when my turn as a Monk is some combination of: Attack X times, Move a Bit and sometimes Attempt a Stun but the Sorceror-Warlock takes 5x longer as they just seem to have way more interactions available. I think 5e could use some more things like the Battle Master maneuvers as just standard class features for melee classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Do all melee classes all into this trap of having their only thing to do in combat be “attack a bunch” with zero variation? The paladin gets to play the minigame of "Is this worth using a smite on" with a side order of "Is this worth using my channel divinity on?". The battlemaster gets to play the minigame "Should I use a maneuver and if so which one?" The barbarian gets to not make a decision on each turn, but instead trigger rage once per fight, and have a passive damage/tanking bonus. The monk gets to use their array of ki points to trigger amazing abilities, like stunning strike every round until their ki runs out. The rogue gets to use their cunning action to desperately try and think of something relevant to the fight that isn't "I attack". The warlock gets to go "Actually, I don't attack. I use Eldritch blast. Here's my attack roll, does it hit?" By contrast, the spellcasting classes pick from their array of 10+ different prepared super abilities, class/subclass features(wildshape, metamagic, portent, bardic inspiration) or to conserve resources and use a cantrip. They often aren't doing as much damage as the melee classes, but if you like having to make a meaningful decision each turn they are 1000% more interesting to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
I dunno about Forgotten Realms and while I know it's sort of the default D&D setting right now as far as I know in the 5e PHB tieflings are just descended from people who made an infernal pact. The actual half demons are poo poo like cambions or whatever right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't really want to engage with the metadiscussion except to say this reads to me like damning criticism of long lists of moves (ie, the wizard is the problem) rather than the other way round, but that's probably just reflecting my strong preference for rules light systems. FWIW, I agree 100% with this. Wizards suck poo poo as a design thing in a class-based system. Hypothetically the point is that they can do anything (because magic can do anything) a very limited number of times, so they have to conserve resources. But being able to solve one encounter/obstacle a day automatically or obliterate one foe and be functionally useless the next 23 hours and 59 minutes isn't fun for most people, so now Wizards have infinite energy bolts, illusions, telekinesis, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Yeah. Maybe it is just that I feel like spell casters should have to be more specialized. “Oh you’re a fire wizard? You can cast fireball or wall of fire. That’s it.” Spellcasting is a problem because of the “and.” “I do damage AND it hits multiple people.” “I do damage AND now they’re afraid of me.” “I do damage AND I just moved a mountain.” Mordiceius fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
I'd think that the Wizard isn't really the problem because playing the wizard is fun and the solution to "Wizards are more fun to play than other classes" isn't to make Wizards/Spellcasters "not fun" but to find a similar level of mechanical fun to those others classes?Mordiceius posted:Yeah. Maybe it is just that I feel like spell casters should have to be more specialized. “Oh you’re a fire wizard? You can cast fireball or wall of fire. That’s it.” That's how Sorc's were supposed to be in 3.5e; basically like specialized wizards but get more spell spam. In 3.5e regular wizards could also specialize for additional spellslots at the cost of not being able to cast spells from some schools. My favourite was the 3.5e Specialized Conjuror who had Int Modifier free 10' teleports a day as a free action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
There used to be forbidden schools based on your specialization but then the designers axed those because wizards have to be cool and they couldn’t be assed to write a dozen good spells per school
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'd think that the Wizard isn't really the problem because playing the wizard is fun and the solution to "Wizards are more fun to play than other classes" isn't to make Wizards/Spellcasters "not fun" but to find a similar level of mechanical fun to those others classes? I thought people hated 4e. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I gotta admit I get a little salty when my turn as a Monk is some combination of: Attack X times, Move a Bit and sometimes Attempt a Stun but the Sorceror-Warlock takes 5x longer as they just seem to have way more interactions available.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'd think that the Wizard isn't really the problem because playing the wizard is fun and the solution to "Wizards are more fun to play than other classes" isn't to make Wizards/Spellcasters "not fun" but to find a similar level of mechanical fun to those others classes? I guess. But my point is that a character with the level of mechanical versatility and lack of limitations the 3E or 5E Wizard has is inherently bad for a class-based game. I think there should be an upper bound on how powerful and how much agency one character in a D&D game has, and Wizards violate that. 4E obviously solved this problem to some extent by making non-Wizards more fun to play, but it also *nerfed Wizards*, both by directly reducing their power from 3E (where they could, at the low end of optimization, instantly kill any opponent in the game with the right spell and a failed roll) and by giving everyone easy access to most of their out-of-combat utility via the ritual system, as well as reducing how many non-damaging, gamebreaking utility powers anyone got. Mordiceius posted:Yeah. Maybe it is just that I feel like spell casters should have to be more specialized. “Oh you’re a fire wizard? You can cast fireball or wall of fire. That’s it.” This is part of my point, yes. Everyone in a class-based system should have to specialize. Baku fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't really want to engage with the metadiscussion except to say this reads to me like damning criticism of long lists of moves (ie, the wizard is the problem) rather than the other way round, but that's probably just reflecting my strong preference for rules light systems. The wizard isn't a problem. The fighter isn't a problem. Putting the wizard alongside the fighter and declaring them to be even alternatives to each other is the problem. And when it comes to an attack having a lot of narrative room, the Battlemaster Fighter and the Way Of The Open Hand Monk are about a thousand times better than the champion fighter because, having the mechanical heft to back up at least some of their flashier attacks means that the narrative room amounts to more than a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The only thing with real consequences on the game that using that "narrative room" changes is how long your turn takes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I thought people hated 4e. They do and I still do, I much prefer 5e, nothing about 4e felt right to me but I think they had the right idea perhaps for martial/melee classes to spruce them up; but I didn't like what they changed about spellcasting so I never got into it when I had Pathfinder instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
So I guess I'm gonna engage in the metadiscussion because I've been thinking about it.neonchameleon posted:The wizard isn't a problem. The fighter isn't a problem. Putting the wizard alongside the fighter and declaring them to be even alternatives to each other is the problem. A long list of specified things you can do is a problem because it frequently sets the expectation in players and DM minds that if it isn't on the list, you can't do it. To be clear, this is an explicit criticism of D&D at almost every version, and I'm perfectly happy to generalize it to almost every rules-heavy system (Vampire, GURPS, Exalted, whatever). And as a criticism of D&D it bites for the wizard far more than for the fighter. Though, to take your point, there are people who like long lists of abilities and playing that sort of game. For that person, the wizard's great, and the fighter sucks next to it. That's not me - if you expand the fighter to have 4e style ability lists, I'm less into it than I am now and think that both it and the wizard are a problem. neonchameleon posted:And when it comes to an attack having a lot of narrative room, the Battlemaster Fighter and the Way Of The Open Hand Monk are about a thousand times better than the champion fighter because, having the mechanical heft to back up at least some of their flashier attacks means that the narrative room amounts to more than a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The real consequence on the game of using the narrative room is how much fun I have. I get that there's no mechanical consequence, but the reduction of every discussion to mechanical advantage is symptomatic of the way that D&D's lists of moves do a lot to cut down the space of play. If the space of play is assumed to be open, and if DMs are empowered and expected to run the game fiction-first, a long list of moves is stifling to creativity. If you know that (eg) pushing someone into the way of a cart is gonna do 2d8 of damage but you can do more by swinging your hammer, then you swing your hammer. But if you know that the cart's heavy, it's gonna flatten them, and more than that it's gonna be cool and you and your DM both love cool, then you're way more inclined to do it. Ultimately, I'm in the D&D thread, so saying "D&D sucks on a fundamental level" is kind of unhelpful so I'm not going to pursue this line of argument further. That said, I still think it's important when someone says something like "I'm bored just attacking over and over" to point out that there's a big part of the role-playing game that is, well, role-playing and not mechanical game, and that you can perhaps find entertainment and fun when you focus on that side. That said, I take your, Raenir Salazar's, and mind the walrus' points that this doesn't resolve the underlying fact that Wizards and Fighters next to each other can just feel bad. That I'd prefer more characters to be more fighter-like with shorter and more open move lists doesn't mean that the D&D5e Fighter is in a good place relative to the other options.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Ultimately, I'm in the D&D thread, so saying "D&D sucks on a fundamental level" is kind of unhelpful so I'm not going to pursue this line of argument further. imo you should talk about it if you want to; the thing you're describing is an old and interesting problem - we've had conversations before about whether the thief/rogue is a good idea for a class, because its explicit "skills" implicitly suggested that a fighter couldn't sneak around or pick a lock, a thing that wasn't a prior consideration - and while it's obviously removed from what D&D is today, so is 4E, which the thread discusses constantly we could probably have a separate D&D thread for this kind of dialogue to keep it apart from all the people who want to talk about 5E D&D, the RPG they kind of like and occasionally enjoy playing, but I extremely don't want to make it (an edition war thread isn't a good idea and I wouldn't post in it, but you can have a constructive thread about dungeons & dragons' history and design and poo poo, or "what should 6E D&D look like" or w/e)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Also I think if I run another game from scratch I might just like give all martials Martial adept for free
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Also I think if I run another game from scratch I might just like give all martials Martial adept for free I think this is part of why a lot of DMs seem to houserule one free feat at creation. Just adds a lot of depth to character building without everyone having to pick v. human.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Ok, I guess I will engage more if people keep engaging with the point. But I'm conscious of the possibility of this discussion devolving and I don't want to contribute to a lovely firestorm so please call me on it if I'm pushing things that way, y'all. The thief question is fascinating! Obviously classes, and game rules in general, constrain the scope of what's possible. I think the overarching idea is that by cutting down the notions of what people can do to manageable spaces, people have more creative freedom in the sense that restrictions breed creativity. I'm very on board with classes driving what you're mechanically good at, and having that constrain the fiction. I think a key difference between wizards and thieves here is that we basically expect everyone can do what the thief can do, just worse, whereas not everyone can do what the wizard can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Yeah. Maybe it is just that I feel like spell casters should have to be more specialized. “Oh you’re a fire wizard? You can cast fireball or wall of fire. That’s it.” None of this is actually a problem except for moving a mountain. Look, I know everyone likes to wail and gnash their teeth about how 3.X casters were overpowered and bad (because they were if built right) but specializing the casters doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that the casters have clear, spelled out ways to perform superhuman feats and warriors can maybe do that if their player is making out with the DM on a regular basis. D&D has never had a clear idea of what people should be able to do at higher levels or what kind of problems high level characters should be solving, with the exception of 4e which decided that out of combat abilities were bad and you should be fighting orcs until the end of time with 4e fans getting viscerally offended at the idea of big dragons strafing the players with fire breath. I literally asked E Gary Gygax what high level fighters were supposed to do and he didn't know. Until someone comes up with a clear answer to what high level characters are supposed to do rather than just cargo culting things and pretending the ability to turn into any monster in the monster manual is equivalent to getting an extra sword attack, the classes are never going to be balanced in any meaningful way. This is hard! Grognards get viscerally offended if you tell them high level fighters should be like, say, Pecos Bill or some other character who can perform superhuman feats, and quite frankly the D&D community literally needed to be dragged into accepting that mages are better than fighters. The problem at its core is that D&D is an identity, not a game, so people get really mad when you point out that it's never been well designed and is easy to break and start spouting off about how they're real roleplayers and not filthy powergamers. Once that mentality is taken out back and shot we can make some real progress on the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:A long list of specified things you can do is a problem because it frequently sets the expectation in players and DM minds that if it isn't on the list, you can't do it
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:I literally asked E Gary Gygax what high level fighters were supposed to do and he didn't know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
I think, for me, what it comes down to is that if I was a barbarian attacking 3 times per turn or something like that, I would have a hard time coming up with roleplaying descriptions of that action every turn for a year straight. When classes like wizards just have fundamentally more tools in their toolbelt, it leads to something that's easier to roleplay because you fundamentally have more variety to work with. Maybe I'm just brokebrain with this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:That said, I take your, Raenir Salazar's, and mind the walrus' points that this doesn't resolve the underlying fact that Wizards and Fighters next to each other can just feel bad. That I'd prefer more characters to be more fighter-like with shorter and more open move lists doesn't mean that the D&D5e Fighter is in a good place relative to the other options. I just wanna be clear that I am very happy when playing as a Wizard; but basically when I play as a Fighter feels like I have nothing to do because the optimal move is always the same, take a step forward, take as many swings I can take, end my turn. While a wizard I am flipping through like four different tabs on my excel based character sheet between my staff page, my items page, and my spell book to pick what I should do weighing the pros and cons between doing something utility based, doing something clever, or just blasting it. But even when I'm just blasting it I have options, if I have the staff of the magi/war I can choose to expend additional charges and do a LOT more damage and in the case of my particular staff, an extra charge to change the damage type, even when just dealing damage! And I get to choose which one of the various and many ways of dealing damage! I could try to clever with the fighter (or in this case my monk), I could try to describe moves like I try to walljump to try to attack the enemy while using momentum or something, but almost gauranteed the GM won't give me advantage for doing so, I might have to roll and athletics check, and I do no additional damage, my attempt at being creative has resulted in no meaningful change to the battlefield. Foot sweep to trip them? It's not on my sheet, so can't do it (afaik). So the point about the creativity when playing as a fighter and having the narrative space to come up with stuff that you feel would be restrictive if you had a list of abilities, that seems extremely dependent on having a DM that's willing to play ball to make that fun. But with a group of four plays and DM, well the other players don't really want to wait around on the fighter LARP'ing as a better class, and just want them to end their turn so they can do their moves. This is why the list of abilities should exist to provide a base line that even the DM can't really ignore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:with the exception of 4e which decided that out of combat abilities were bad and you should be fighting orcs until the end of time with 4e fans getting viscerally offended at the idea of big dragons strafing the players with fire breath. Okay I definitely don't want to edition war poo poo because it's pointless but like, the game has an entire category of powers which are explicitly used for out of combat things, and a whole system for rituals that is the category for "utility spells that can only be used out of combat" and the backgrounds and skill system in 5e are both basically adapted or ripped wholesale from the game. I have no idea where people got the idea that you for some reason can't roleplay in 4e, but there's literally nothing in 3.x or 5e that somehow enables non combat forms of play that 4e doesn't. Also I literally have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about with the dragon thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:. Foot sweep to trip them? It's not on my sheet, so can't do it (afaik). thats actually something you can do, you can replace a single attack with a shove or trip or grapple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So the point about the creativity when playing as a fighter and having the narrative space to come up with stuff that you feel would be restrictive if you had a list of abilities, that seems extremely dependent on having a DM that's willing to play ball to make that fun. But with a group of four plays and DM, well the other players don't really want to wait around on the fighter LARP'ing as a better class, and just want them to end their turn so they can do their moves. This is why the list of abilities should exist to provide a base line that even the DM can't really ignore. I feel like this kinda hits on something. A melee class can, situation depending, roleplay something greater than they are. Meanwhile, a wizard gets all of that baseline and requires no additional effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Okay I definitely don't want to edition war poo poo because it's pointless but like, the game has an entire category of powers which are explicitly used for out of combat things, and a whole system for rituals that is the category for "utility spells that can only be used out of combat" and the backgrounds and skill system in 5e are both basically adapted or ripped wholesale from the game. I have no idea where people got the idea that you for some reason can't roleplay in 4e, but there's literally nothing in 3.x or 5e that somehow enables non combat forms of play that 4e doesn't. Also I literally have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about with the dragon thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
pog boyfriend posted:thats actually something you can do, you can replace a single attack with a shove or trip or grapple. Hrm, my strength on my Monk is only +2, maybe if I'm allowed to use Acrobatics under the assumption Martial Arts Shove/Trip and Grapple is different from the normal special attack, at my current level this I think is a +9. However the wording seems to suggest they get a save either using Strength (Athletics) or Dex (Acrobatics) to avoid it. I guess the question here is going to be is it better to try to deal damage against a fixed amount of AC (which in the worst case scenario requires consistently rolling high) or to target their saves (could I argue since its Martial Arts I target their weakest save?)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Not that CR meant anything and was about as useful as saying "I dunno this feels like a 10". So basically guessing on a number and then subtracting 3 and saying it's to make dragons more menacing is about peak D&D monster design right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Of course if you were a 3E wizard with any amount of system mastery you could shut down the dragon with a particular set of spells that were always good but particularly so against dragons, and were probably the only one really able to deal with the strafing dragon in the first place. In fact, it turned out that RAW dragons were among the easier monsters to deal with because of their terrible touch AC, unless they too were a skilled wizard, naturally.The fighter felt like a part of the action only if your wizard's plan incidentally involved buffing them. Meanwhile the monsters most challenging to deal with tended to be monsters kitted most like... Wizards, but "challenging" here amounts to "whoever fails a save first loses." And yes CR was a completely tummyfeels thing not connected to any math whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
That's one thing I'm happy they fixed in 5e, the dragon we fought nearly wiped out even without spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
Has anyone seen a good Time Domain homebrew? I'm working on one myself but a few things just aren't sticking and the examples I've seen from others are pretty dire so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Has anyone seen a good Time Domain homebrew? I'm working on one myself but a few things just aren't sticking and the examples I've seen from others are pretty dire so far. The Wildemount book has one. That I skimmed over and it seemed interesting
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
High level fighters should lead armies because gently caress charisma, nobody’s going to follow some dweeb into battle over a grizzled decorated veteran
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Dexo posted:The Wildemount book has one. That I skimmed over and it seemed interesting That's a wizard isn't it? I'm trying to build a cleric domain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:So I guess I'm gonna engage in the metadiscussion because I've been thinking about it. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/support/players-guide/wfrp-basic-action-reference.pdf It's the middle one. It's more a psychological than mechanical thing but it worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:None of this is actually a problem except for moving a mountain. Look, I know everyone likes to wail and gnash their teeth about how 3.X casters were overpowered and bad (because they were if built right) but specializing the casters doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that the casters have clear, spelled out ways to perform superhuman feats and warriors can maybe do that if their player is making out with the DM on a regular basis. quote:Dark Road (24th level): You can walk to any destination you desire in a single, uninterrupted 24-hour period of walking. No matter how distant the location, or how many planes separate you from it, you reach the destination 24 hours after you begin, finding shortcuts, portals, or other modes of transport previously unknown to you. You do not require any rest, food, or water during this travel, except to recharge powers and regain healing surges. During your journey, you are safe from hazards, attacks, and other dangers. When choosing a destination, you must be specific. If your destination is within a structure, such as a particular room within a castle, the long walk leads you to the structure’s main entrance, not inside the structure. You can choose to be accompanied by a number of characters equal to 5 + your Wisdom modifier, all of whom share the benefit of this class feature
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:If you know that (eg) pushing someone into the way of a cart is gonna do 2d8 of damage but you can do more by swinging your hammer, then you swing your hammer. But if you know that the cart's heavy, it's gonna flatten them, and more than that it's gonna be cool and you and your DM both love cool, then you're way more inclined to do it. They scaled damage based on what they considered average damage, which made even the high limited damage slightly below actual play average encounter damage. There's no real guidelines for things like stun effects. Uncapped ability scores and feat bullshit made DCs get real weird real fast The character sheet should have had the equivalent of the WFRP3E thing front and centre on the character sheet. Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Hrm, my strength on my Monk is only +2, maybe if I'm allowed to use Acrobatics under the assumption Martial Arts Shove/Trip and Grapple is different from the normal special attack, at my current level this I think is a +9. However the wording seems to suggest they get a save either using Strength (Athletics) or Dex (Acrobatics) to avoid it. I guess the question here is going to be is it better to try to deal damage against a fixed amount of AC (which in the worst case scenario requires consistently rolling high) or to target their saves (could I argue since its Martial Arts I target their weakest save?)? One of the most obvious missing rules that really should exist in 5e is "let monks use Dexterity/acrobatics for push/shove/grapple." But it's not written down anywhere and my DM (while willing to go along with just about anything published) is leery of going off-book. >_< (I can't really blame him, my whole playgroup is lawyers). please knock Mom! posted:High level fighters should lead armies because gently caress charisma, nobody’s going to follow some dweeb into battle over a grizzled decorated veteran This is, of course, exactly how we did it in the old days of 2nd edition. It ended up just turning the whole campaign to a slog because everything became mass combat all the time. I got really proficient at carving miniatures out of erasers though. Honestly, I wish there were more explicit things like the push/shove rules, where any class could just Try A Thing. The big issue is the "improvised weapon" rules use such small dice that it's always better to just Weapon, because anything other than Weapon is an Improvised Weapon. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I could try to clever with the fighter (or in this case my monk), I could try to describe moves like I try to walljump to try to attack the enemy while using momentum or something, but almost gauranteed the GM won't give me advantage for doing so, I might have to roll and athletics check, and I do no additional damage, my attempt at being creative has resulted in no meaningful change to the battlefield. I feel that published adventures could have a lot of examples like this that actually do give advantage to help give DM’s and players a better understanding that not everything needs to be on the character sheet. If every published encounter had *something* other than direct combat on a flat plane it would make every fight feel more interesting regardless of class. And it would strongly hint to DMs that maybe they should do that in their homemade campaigns as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:08
|
|