Ranged Options for All Classes
Oofta
Legend
Now you make it sound like 5ekyu is your mom.
You aren't the boss of me! None of the other kids have to grapple! So, you keep adding new aspects and claims and try to skew the responses to those new as some sort of issue?
You do realize that claims thst you support with local game parameters (grapple in decade, encumbrance not factor, specifically strength obstacles made for regular workarounds, expected BoH, etc etc) make this into a local issue house rule to fix perspective but when then at 11th hour as things slow down you seem to start making claims about "most games" - that's gonna be a new item noticed, right?
As for what will be good enough? Good enough for what? For everyone to stop talking? For everyone to agree with you even if their experiences differ? I mean, I have been on board and agreeing with you with your case for needing to house rule your games for pages and pages. Offered more than a few alternate ideas for ways to address it with house rules. To me there is no doubt that in campaigns with that many campaign specific dials locked on the "devalue strength" setting it's likely that can be a problem that needs a rules change to address.
As for the hundreds or whatever folks you have played with pre-5e since forever, that's cool and all but it really doesnt say much about 5e experience and results.
It might tho help explain how so many of your campaign dials are set the way they are. I have seen more than a few cases of older edition GMs getting real worked up when 5e doesnt work "like things used to work", try to run it with different dials and expectations and run into problems.
Played under a 5e GM (well, a GM running 5e) who literally griped at the table during play about how 5e did this or 5e did that, too easy this, doesnt make sense that and who really did not try to figure out how 5e worked - just how many ways he felt it didn't work. I was glad to play, was there when he abruptly said "it's over" after a couple months and two sessions after homebrewing a set of foes that brutally rolled over the party (all the while during the rout in actual play telling us over and over how really balanced that was... only to shut down the game about two sessions later.) He had that played since Ad&D 80s thing going too, but, just did not have the tools to see the game system and what his dials and expectations would turn it into.
When you take a system, apply your own settings and parameters, especially if they are significantly different, a GM needs to see thst impact and adjust - with house rules bring a strong option.
That's why I gave been agreeing on that for pages and pages and pages now. Plenty of options for that particular case of aches and pains your campaign is getting.
I am **not** the mom of Oofta. Almost certainly not the daddy either but insufficient info to be absolutely certain. Given the history of stray siblings from unknown dalliances rife thru my family tree tho, other relationships are less certain. Just had another uncle pop new son on a dna scan.
Oofta
Legend
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I'm just saying most people stopped paying attention to this over 200 posts ago, and we're never going to agree on certain aspects of the game, although I'm certain we agree on others.
One parting thought that I don't think I ever raised. I don't want to encourage strength based builds by punishing builds that are not strength based (i.e. having a treasure horde in copper so I can tell my low strength party they're SOL, or have the campaign grind to a halt because they must do a strength check). I want to encourage builds with different focuses by rewarding them for their investment.
Well, that and you aren't the boss of me.
One parting thought that I don't think I ever raised. I don't want to encourage strength based builds by punishing builds that are not strength based (i.e. having a treasure horde in copper so I can tell my low strength party they're SOL, or have the campaign grind to a halt because they must do a strength check). I want to encourage builds with different focuses by rewarding them for their investment.
Well, that and you aren't the boss of me.
Hah'[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I'm just saying most people stopped paying attention to this over 200 posts ago, and we're never going to agree on certain aspects of the game, although I'm certain we agree on others.
One parting thought that I don't think I ever raised. I don't want to encourage strength based builds by punishing builds that are not strength based (i.e. having a treasure horde in copper so I can tell my low strength party they're SOL, or have the campaign grind to a halt because they must do a strength check). I want to encourage builds with different focuses by rewarding them for their investment.
Well, that and you aren't the boss of me.
On your latest "new thing to prompt a response" (the punishing bit) I am glad yo see you deny the copper and the game stopping strength obstacles- even tho nobody afaik accused you of them.)
My preference in gaming is to see choices matter and choices be "tough" even when that means some negatives from them. If my campaign settings and dials took out the "tough" in some choices, making it go one way so much it's easy, one is the right choice, that's a problem, honestly I would first look at my dials, settings preferences and ask "have I chosen the right match-up of system and goals?" Maybe it's better to use a different system. Maybe it's good to houserule. Maybe it's better to tweak some dials and settings to better suit what I now see are the system features. Maybe it's just a case of me getting better as I understand the system more instead of forcing square pegs into round holes.
Many games, many systems, many settings, many groups - get them all in sync and it goes wonderful, but when one doesnt see how one hits the other - not so much. Like my recent unhappy 5e GM showed. Would likely have been great to play under him in a 1e game.
Similar Threads
