|
Because it comes up every month or two, if you are going to run your first game and do the whole character creation thing etc: Get 3-4 players and you, the DM. Bigger groups are harder to run. Smaller groups have scaling problems with some published materials. Everyone should read that basic rules primer that Toshimo wrote up in the OP because it's good. You, the DM, should try to read at least the whole combat section of the Player's Handbook, the spellcasting rules section (not the spell lists), and all the class descriptions (but not the level 1-20 powers descriptions). You don't have to remember it all, but you should read it and at least try to remember where things are in those sections. If you're making characters, everyone should do that together in the same room (or the same group chat I guess). The choices you get to make at first level aren't that complicated really, but they're sure gonna feel that way, so have everyone discuss everything and look stuff up if you don't understand it. I'd really really recommend using the standard array of ability scores for your very first game. There are arguments for and against this that you don't need to care about yet. For now, you could safely assume that you'll avoid some bad outcomes by having everyone start with similar numbers. I'm going to assume you're running a pre-made published adventure. You should read the first bit of that, and skim the rest so you know what's coming up. When you play, do not be afraid to stop and look things up when you are all new. There's a bunch of advice out there about making a ruling up and keeping the game moving and not stopping to argue. It's good advice, but it's for people that at least somewhat know what they're doing and this is your first (or one of your first) games. If something doesn't seem like it's going right, you can and should pause and look it up. If you can't figure it out, gloss over it for now and come back to it after the game (ask here, there's lots of people who know all the ins and outs), but really don't be afraid to go "I dunno, let's check" and look it up. So basically, don't get hung up on something you don't understand, but try to understand it before you "make a ruling", and definitely try to figure out the "right" way later. If something really un-fun happens, hold up a sec. Pause. Was it a rule that caused it (and are you sure you got it right?), or was it a player (or was it you?) If it was a rule, and you got it wrong, you should feel 100% confident to re-wind and do it right, if that's what you want to do. If it was a rule and you got it right, you should also feel comfortable changing the result if it's dramatically un-fun. Then ask here how everyone else dealt with that rule. If a player has caused something un-fun to happen, then the group needs to talk about that after the game. Don't try to solve player problems with character punishments. It never works and everyone turns into an rear end in a top hat. I don't like to recommend house rules to new players BUT... the early game in 5th ed has lots of opportunities for a character to randomly die when nobody was expecting it. You might not find it happens to you, or you might not think it's a problem, but lots of people do complain about it. People will suggest adding 10, 20, or your constitution score in hit points to your total hit points at first level. Those are all fine and nothing will be ruined if you do any of them. You sure don't have to, but it's not a bad idea if you don't like the idea of "oops, poo poo, died" coming up very often. Because it's come up again recently for me IRL and then on these forums... Spells in D&D are effectively their own little self-contained rules. There are general rules about casting spells, but when a spell is cast, you should do what the spell text tells you to do, even if that's not what would normally happen in a non-spell version of a similar situation. For example, if a spell tells you to make an attack roll, you make an attack roll and then follow the rest of the spell text. If the text doesn't tell you to, then you don't need to make an attack roll when you cast the spell, even if it's going to do damage to an opponent when it hits. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Dec 22, 2018 |
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
BinaryDoubts posted:Let players use different attribute+skill combinations (using Stength instead of Charisma to intimidate someone being the classic example). This sort of thing is why I tell new players to make sure they pause and look something up if it sounds like it doesn't make sense or isn't fun, and I wish that experienced players would check the book properly after the game regardless of if they think they made a good ruling or not. Because (and I'm not saying this is what you're doing here) this exact example frequently appears as someone's "houserule" that they came up with to solve the problem of the big tough guy who "can't" intimidate because of his low charisma. But it's a real (variant) rule! It's right there in the book, as one of the examples at the start of page 175 under "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities". "Skills with Different Abilities" even appears in the index and points there! If people did even the most cursory check, they'd find this. e: There's also a bunch of stuff people often drag forward from previous editions which is different now. That's not unique to this game, but it's something worth watching out for. The most common ones I've seen are surprise rounds (don't exist in 5th ed), movement (covered in the OP, you don't have a "move" action any more), saves (each attribute is a save, no fort/reflex/will), spell recovery (read your class description), and goody-two-shoes paladins (Read. Your. loving. Class. Description  )
Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Does anyone know an easy way for me to find my old posts in the last thread? I wanted to see my posts back when I had friends who wanted to play 5e. Click Here You can find all your posts in a thread by clicking the ? under your avatar. What this does is append your userid to the url in the format "&userid******". You can do this manually in any thread without finding a post of yours, by pasting &userid=161439 (in your case, whatever their own number is for anyone else) onto the end of the address in your browser while viewing the thread you want to find your posts in. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
Most players find it deeply un-fun to be KO'ed before they get to take an action, and most players also find it deeply un-fun to sit out >1 round going "I'm still down/stunlocked/paralysed/whatever can someone please help me" while everyone else is playing D&D. With most fights being 5-7 rounds, it's not unlikely that the optimal play is to leave a single downed character, win the fight, and get them up again at the end. So 0hp can quite often mean "out until the end of the fight". So just maybe think about that before you use the intellect devourer or banshee or whatever other thing has a save or gently caress off you don't get to play D&D ability. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
I don't know your references, but what about some scattered looking old dude who has the power to be exactly where he needs to be with the right item or other NPC so that a third party's planned event or course of action works out. It always works, but he can't use it for himself because he can't ever remember what it is that he should really be doing. He was a roadie for the gods, but he went on a god tier binge, blacked out, and got left behind. He can show up as an assistant-deus ex machina if the PCs get in over their heads, and/or he can show up for their enemies. Maybe he's called Igor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Beast Pussy posted:How does the thread feel about metal dice? I'm considering getting a set for my new players for Christmas (I won't see them until after New year's) but I've read a lot of people don't like them because they don't roll well. If the general consensus is "don't bother with them" then could I get some cool dive recommendations? I have no idea whatsoever how people roll dice such that they have trouble with metal dice. Metal dice roll fine and they look nice and they feel nice. You should buy them if you want functional dice that look and feel nice. Just don't roll them on a wood table that looks and feels nice if it's still supposed to be nice afterwards. Whatever else you end up with, definitely also get an extra large through fuckoff huge brass d20.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:Is there anything that could be done with the fighter to improve their narrative strength without implementing Battlemaster maneuvers or something similar? I like the idea of a simple class without huge ability or spell lists to sort through that would be a bit easier on new players who didn't want to dive into that kind of thing. I was thinking of picking out and modifying some of the Battlemaster abilities and giving them out at set levels, and in particular adding a couple of Hercules style "You can do impossible things" moves at mid-higher levels. More dudes. You are more dudes. At level 1 you are one dude and at level 3 you are a 2 dudes and at level 20 you are a platoon of conans. You take up more space on the battlefield, and you can choose the shape of that space, and make your attacks from any part of that space. You get a bonus to do any in combat stuff that a bunch of dudes could do better than one dude, and also some rules about what makes sense in fiction that single characters can't do (eg, grapple 4 dudes at once and still get all your attacks). Out of combat, you solve a bunch of the "but but but my realism" type stuff because 5 brawny dudes working together can do way more than 5 times what one (irl) dude can do no matter how tough he is. I've worked up a couple of relatively complicated versions, but it could also be almost that simple.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Arthil posted:God this sounds absolutely horrible. Mike Mearls, in a session that was supposed to advertise the game, gated an adventure behind a check that nobody passed and then had them just keep on rolling until somone rolled high enough to be allowed to continue playing D&D. So yeah. The answer is that "...and a demonstrable fuckup was put in charge" has been fairly constant for long enough that it's tradition now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
More. Dudes. It's like casting a magic spell. The material component is a bunch of soldiers, the somatic component is pointing, and the verbal component is "Guards! Seize them!" or later on, "Captain Timms, if anyone tries to escape, burn the whole place to the ground". As a 9th level Martial Maneuver, you can just say the local equivalent of "Carthago delenda est" and yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Ceros_X posted:Eh, why are mine fields easy to spot? Because the first guy gets blown up or..? Minefields are usually area denial. They work best if the field (not each individual mine!) is obvious. And yeah by all means have a supernaturally or extranormally tough and cool Fighter. Absoutely do that. They can end up at demi-god level and be awesome. A bunch of people will object because (while dragons and wizards and elves get a free pass on being realistic) a guy with a sword can only ever do exactly what they imagine a guy with a sword could actually do in real life for real or they just can't enjoy themselves at all. Lots of dudes gets around that and it's not a new thing. MonsterEnvy posted:I think this is largely how it already works. Failing does not set the trap off, failing badly sets the trap off. It'd be great if that were the case. But there's nothing in the DMG or PHB that I can find that supports "Failing does not set the trap off, failing badly sets the trap off". There's no rule in the section about traps that states or implies this. Of the 8 sample traps in the DMG, 2 of them are magical and don't get a check to disarm them and 3 of the mechanical ones require no check to disarm, you can just kinda do it if you know the trap's there. Of the remaining 3 that can be disarmed by making a check, all of them say that a failed check triggers the trap and mention absolutely nothing about failing without setting the trap off. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, there is. You just give him per-day abilities as powerful as spells are. They don't have to be as weird or variegated as spells are - they just have to be as potent. Although I agree in theory I'm having trouble imagining what the sword guy is doing that's as powerful as (eg) Meteor Swarm without being weird. I can see abilities that let a martial themed character wreak that much havoc that quickly, for sure. I can't see them falling into "one guy with a sword does it and it doesn't count as weird" territory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Meteor Swarm (this would deal weapon rather than fire damage and involve you zooming into or shooting at an area like a Dynasty Warriors character), Yeah that would be cool and fun and I would like something like that to be in the game. But we have very different ideas about what's weird for one sword guy to accomplish in 6 seconds. To me that's superhero type stuff, which I think is totally fine when another option is "wizard", but not what I had in mind when you were saying "not weird". Guess I misread what you meant by that. E: we're on the same page I think? What you're describing could co-exist with the guy who brings a small army. I definitely agree on the "just as powerful and useful" thing. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:That has been one of my problems with the skill system and the background system. Yep. To casting spells. If you're a full caster, that's your meaningful background. Lean into the "but but but it's really very hard to learn and only for the smartest of smarty smarts" nerd power fantasy and make wizardry the kind of super specialised skill/knowledge that means you didn't get to do anything else with your life since age 12 or so. If it's not about casting spells, they were never interested enough to learn it at even a middle school level. Think of them as the kind of person who's proud that they haven't read a novel since the last time they had to because that's the Arts, but for everything not directly adjacent to casting spells. "Haha, that's adorable but when would I have had time to learn to sew? I could have learned it faster than you, but you can't cast Mending and I can, so... "
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Ok, but all you've listed here are combat options. We've also been talking for three pages on how what the Fighter needs is more out of combat options, not in-combat options. Yeah. "Hero" rather than religious sword guy. Most people including myself seem to see a Hero or a General for the fighter. What about Veteran as the third archetype? The guy who, at the start of the game, has been there, done that, looted the tshirt. Just knows a bunch of stuff. It's so rare for him to come across something where he'd be able to say "I've never seen anything like that" that it's (mechanically) reserved for Antagonist level threats. He's seen every kind of trap there is. He knows all kinds of nasty tricks and how to play or avoid them. He'a met a whole lot of people over the years, and usually knows a local shibboleth or two - and maybe has a local enemy. Mechanically: The Veteran is hard to surprise, doesn't get lost, turns out to have prepared for exactly this, hardly ever gets tired, nearly always knows a local, and knows a pertinent detail or two about nearly everything. "Ha, you call this a Forest of Doom? When I adventured in the east with the Five Farstriders, now THAT was a proper forest of doom. Not like this rubbish. You could see the giant spiders from a hundred yards away, they were that big. Here you have to practically step on them. ...you mean you didn't see 'em? You always get giants spiders in any forest east of mountains! These ones lurk in the ferns. Watch this..."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I read this thread and swear that y'all don't have DMs. Like, I get that RAW are bad sometimes, but that's literally the point of having a DM - you can alter the rules as you wish, whenever you want, and nobody is going to complain that you gave the hero of the battle a bonus to talking w/ the king or whatever. You mean that you'd alter the rules? Gasp! Surely nobody ever thought of doing that before! Certainly nobody has been talking about doing just that in the several pages of pointless whining that preceded your incredibly insightful post! Skyl3lazer posted:My advice is to do the things that are fun, and not do those things which are not. Wow thanks I can't believe nobody thought of that thank you for your service.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Xae posted:You have to play the character as someone who views nature not as something you take a pretty but somber stroll through, but as something that you have a Dionysian rite in and stay up all night drinking and dancing. Leave the "nature is so precious no one should touch it" routine to the Druids. Eat mushrooms, sabotage bulldozers, gently caress in the woods, bomb pipelines.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:creating a duplicate of you that can throw out your entire spell complement. But you can't be two regular swordfighting dudes because reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:To risk throwing in my two cents into the fray, I have an idea for the "fighter" problem. That doesn't involve changing over to a totally different system! Yep, that's a possible way to do it if you get more, better Heroic Feats as you level and you have a broader variety of things to do with them. As in, also expend them for extra damage, or to remove opponents, or to move real fast real far at no risk, or... But then you might as well just bite the bullet and call them
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Is there any consensus out there among D&D fans about new vs old art? Are people happy with what were getting now, or is there a groundswell hoping the D&D crew ups their art game? More stuff like this: and this:  Less/no stuff like this:  Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Well, the difference being that a spell is a specific sort of effect or thing, whereas you could apply a heroic feat whenever you'd use a bennie in some other RPG system. Basically "I'll use a bennie to leap onto the moving freight train!" versus having to perform a skill check against your dexterity. e: Came across as confrontational, sorry. If the thingoes are supposed to grant narrative agency (ie, they're "I can just do this thing" tokens) then they're functionally equivalent to spells, which are thingoes that grant narrative agency. If the fighter ones are less powerful than the wizard ones, then it's not really a solution. But if they're more powerful than the wizard ones, you've got different problems. I'd guess you weren't going for the latter though, so that means that the scope and/or power probably wants expanding. e2: To be clear, I think it's a good idea! I also think that being able to declare you pass a skill check or save x times per day isn't that great, and expanding the scope is getting into "spells, but more flexible" territory (which I guess is fine if that's what you want). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:Re Art: Yeah, hell yeah, plenty of lovely art back then that should never resurface. But I really like the b/w and line drawing vibe. Also I feel like it wouldn't hurt to at least nod at the dorky '80s aesthetic that's sadly lost with the new thing where nearly everything is epic at all times.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So, sorta the opposite of this is something I've tossed around in my own head when thinking about how I'd remake the martial class(es). Namely, let their schtick be manipulating their own attributes, which is something Fighters and rogues could do in the high level abilities of AD&D2e. Let Fighters literally declare (on whatever timer you want) that their strength is actually ten points higher, for example. Wizards can still jerk off to their Knock spell that just auto-unlocks things, and their Invisibility spell that just auto-succeeds stealth...but that requires two spells, whereas a rogue just uses one ability to knock their whole dexterity score up several notches to be simply The Best at those skills. It also creates a cool narrative moment where things are too hard and strenuous for the fighter, at which point he reaches deep down inside and focuses hard and does, in fact, gain the strength of ten mortal men to accomplish the seemingly impossible. By not making it an auto-success you also sidestep the "isn't this just a spell?" problem, not that it'll matter to grogs, who will whine about literally anything that makes non-spellcasters interesting. Is that for one check? Like functionally equivalent to getting a +X or having the DC lowered by Y? Or does it persist for a time?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I love the old rulebooks. As much as I love the mouse one, this is the stuff I meant:   
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I would play the hell out of that class. Right? I might try to do a proper write up int he next few weeks, the more I think about it the more I want to present it to one of my DMs. Maybe I'll have another look at my Commander archetype, come up with a Hero, and do a whole "warrior" class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:It'd be dank if we got more classes like this made by people proficient in the trade. Like a survivalist making ranger subclasses, or a neopagan doing the same for druids and warlocks. A fighter made by someone who has a clue about hand-to-hand fighting? Libertad! posted:I know kind of want to see operas now to see where the bolded trope originated from. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Dec 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:So they give someone an extra soul? Nope, just in motive. A dude says he'll give his soul to the devil if he falls in love with the lady, and she leverages that to steal his soul (coincidentally causing him to fall in love with her) juat like she stole his rival's soul. The devil can't get his soul now, but that had nothing to do with her motivation. E: probably wrong on detail. I'm not an opera nerd but my friend used to get me free tickets so I've seen a bunch (and misunderstood most of them probably) but you definitely can't beat opera for cheesy overblown drama so it's probably not a bad source of D&D material. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Dec 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Heya guys I had a quick question about some thing I am thinking of doing in a game and I wanted to check how daft they sound. Sounds cool, if unoriginal. Put in factions with rival greek philosophies too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:What I'm looking for: For the first two, the 2nd ed Planes of Law box, the core 2e Planescape books, and the Great Modron March adventure will all have some stuff in them. From memory, a bunch of the Mechanus LN people and factions don't care very much about Good and Evil and could easily be something you're a part of unless you're letting "evil" get too far ahead of "lawful". MonsterEnvy posted:That's a bit weird as it was called Mechanus in 2e. Nirvana was it's 1e name and it's current full name is The Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus it didn't change until Planescape. It's still Nirvana in the 2e DMG (and nine hells, seven heavens, twin paradises, etc). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Dec 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
E, nope
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Aaaaand double posted on the phone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
There's too much variance in what "a level X PC" actually means in this game for any kind of "this encounter is this hard" system to work without completely lifting the veil on which player-facing choices suck, which would cause a shitstorm even (especially) if they somehow got it right, which they wouldn't. E: the variation in character effectiveness also affects things in ways that might not be immediately obvious. For example: the same stun from the same monster has a vastly different effect on the combat depending on whether it takes out the cha-primary fighter or the aggressively optimised sorlock. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Lol at "75% chance to not be allowed to participate" not being that bad. Chance you're still out at the end of turn 1: 75% 2: 56% 3: 42% 4: 31% 5: 23% 6: 17% (roughly 1/6)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yeah I don't find it that bad. Me and my group are fairly quick and well engaged so control effects have never bothered us. This is literally the big thing while it's not a popular opinion here, I don't at all mind control effects and neither does my group. Are you seriously telling me that if you told any member of your group, before they got a turn, "yeah it hits you, roll a d4 and on a 1 you sit this fight out", that they'd go "rolled a 1, this is cool and good and I'm having a great time". How long are your rounds? How many players? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
GloriousDemon posted:What flavor of helmet would be the best to block psionic attacks? Magneto, Juggernaut, or tin foil. A pickehaub, and after it absorbs 1d4 psionic attacks the spike briefly glows green before rocketing off and hitting the most recent attacker for 4d6 psychic damage (cha save for half) and 1d4+2 piercing damage (no save). The spike can't be re-attached until you take a long rest. It counts as a dagger +2 for 8 hours or until re-attached.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:5 players on average sometimes 4. Rounds are variable depending on monster number, wager about 10 to 15 minutes average. We use quite a bit of atomization. Sitting for an hour watching everyone else play is so great that literally nobody in your group would have a single problem with it? They wouldn't get on their phone, go to smoke, order pizzas, etc, they'd sit there engrossed in the game just the same as if they were playing it? For real? Like, fair enough. I've never ever encountered a single player who would do something like that, but fair enough, if that's your experience. Maybe try to be aware that your incredibly focused, highly invested group is an outlier. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:...most of you guys seem to be very cautious and risk averse in games. The idea of characters being disabled or killed seems to be a negative mark for a lot of you. Nah, here's what you're still not getting. I'm not cautious or risk-averse as a player, I just hate not getting to play the game I showed up for. It's not hard to understand. I can't sit for an hour, watching everyone else plays D&D, and still be able to think of that hour as being just as much fun as playing D&D. Most people can't. If someone told you this thing about anything other than a TTRPG you'd laugh at them. "Oh yeah I play rugby and I was sidelined for half the last game which was just as much fun as being on the field". "I went rock climbing last weekend, booked two hours but it was crowded enough that I only got to watch for the last 45 minutes, which was loving ace". "Went skydiving, sat in the plane for a bit, looked at the parachutes, didn't do any skydiving but instead sat and watched three other people skydive, this was exactly what I wanted". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
Play improves when in-game consequences are only for characters. See: all of D&D and AD&D's pixelbitching bullshit and how it immediately evaporates as soon as you're allowed to grab the next pregen off the pile and be playing again in a couple of minutes. Even if you're competing to see who gets the least deaths. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
The difference between missing your attack and being stunned is this: When you miss your attack, you were still playing. You planned what to do, selected a target, moved to that target, attacked, and missed. When you're stunned you weren't playing, you were just waiting to be un-stunned. Reducing this to "they're the same they had the same effect" is arguing that missing a shot on goal and sitting on the bench is the same experience for the player. It's not. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:A fighter swinging and missing their attack mechanically does nothing, RAW. It's as if it didn't happen. It's effectively identical to not being in the game at all, and it's absolutely awful. In a whiteroom with only you and one opponent, and only making melee attacks while not moving, then yeah, sure. Otherwise not just no but gently caress no. When you miss, you can still move, interact with the environment, choose to chug a potion, disengage, flat out run away, switch weapons, etc. That you decide that doing so is not optimal is beside the point. The decision to engage the RNG based attack and do nothing else was yours to make. You were playing the game. Even if you choose (that's the important bit!) to stand still and just attack and miss, you still threatened one or more opponents with the attack/s. You can still make an OA. You're still blocking movement through your space. You can still take a (not-minor) action. It's not the same as being out of the game, at all. It's still awful, but feeling like you have no useful, meaningful decisions to make is a different issue from not getting to play at all. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Toshimo posted:Not to take away from the rest of your argument, but you probably can't chug a potion, and unless you're a rogue, probably not disengage. With you on the disengage thing (plus some monks and rangers too though?), but really no potions as a not-a-minor-action-action? I guess we houserule that one. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 23:57
|
|