Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 7002508" data-attributes="member: 6701872"><p>No, that is not at all what I recommend. I was merely stating that I was not assuming a self-centered motivation for the change like you were.</p><p></p><p>You've clearly misunderstood me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know where you are getting that, but it isn't from me. I only agree that SS can be a problem with a proviso; it can be a problem if you make it a problem by playing to it's strengths even when you don't actually want to.</p><p></p><p>I have no idea who you are talking about, but it definitely is not me. </p><p></p><p>Allow me to rephrase to try and help you understand me:</p><p></p><p>At the point where a player has Great Weapon Master and the DM feels that the game is being negatively affected as a result (which I want to add is not a point that everyone is going to experience), the DM has a choice to make about how to fix the problem. If that DM considers the facts, they can see that using more enemies with higher AC is a potential fix. So the DM has to decide whether to use that fix, or refuse it... but if they say "I can't change my campaign to fix this problem because that would be metagaming, so I have to change it some other way," they are also saying that they have intentionally chosen "As a result of a player taking Great Weapon Master, I'm going to make sure that the majority of monsters I use do not have higher AC," and have done exactly the thing they insist they are trying not to do.</p><p></p><p>The proof that the second option - not changing monster AC - is just as much metagaming as the first supposedly is, is that there would be no issue at all for the DM to raise the overall average of AC that the party faces at some point during a campaign that didn't involve Great Weapon Master. Thus it is because of Great Weapon Master that the decision was made, and that's the exact thing that supposedly shall not be done.</p><p></p><p>It is the imaginary capability of knowing a piece of information and that knowledge having no effect upon what decisions you make that I am refuting. </p><p></p><p>You'll have to excuse me, when people start involving language other than casual English in a discussion, I have a tendency to stop paying close attention because in the majority of such cases that I have experienced it is being done for underhanded reasons. You'll also have to excuse me for not going back to read in detail what you said in the posts that might explain what you meant by whatever language it is you've chosen to inject into a conversation that can be had just fine in the casual English it began in.</p><p></p><p>I agree, which is why I was trying to point out to the people asking for a change that no change to the way the game works is actually necessary - they just need to change their attitude towards the standard tasks the game gives to the DM.</p><p></p><p>Because "I'm going to have some ogres in plate mail" is not changing the way the game works - but "This feat does something different than it says in the book" is.</p><p></p><p>If you had been using a higher-trending AC set of monsters since the beginning, which is entirely within the way the game works (and is what I've done, since I happen to like hobgoblins, fire giants, dragons, and other monsters that happen to have higher AC), there would be no "up-armor everything to make it less useful." So there is no basis for vilifying such an act. Or at least no more basis for vilification than exists for the act of changing how the feat is written.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 7002508, member: 6701872"] No, that is not at all what I recommend. I was merely stating that I was not assuming a self-centered motivation for the change like you were. You've clearly misunderstood me. I don't know where you are getting that, but it isn't from me. I only agree that SS can be a problem with a proviso; it can be a problem if you make it a problem by playing to it's strengths even when you don't actually want to. I have no idea who you are talking about, but it definitely is not me. Allow me to rephrase to try and help you understand me: At the point where a player has Great Weapon Master and the DM feels that the game is being negatively affected as a result (which I want to add is not a point that everyone is going to experience), the DM has a choice to make about how to fix the problem. If that DM considers the facts, they can see that using more enemies with higher AC is a potential fix. So the DM has to decide whether to use that fix, or refuse it... but if they say "I can't change my campaign to fix this problem because that would be metagaming, so I have to change it some other way," they are also saying that they have intentionally chosen "As a result of a player taking Great Weapon Master, I'm going to make sure that the majority of monsters I use do not have higher AC," and have done exactly the thing they insist they are trying not to do. The proof that the second option - not changing monster AC - is just as much metagaming as the first supposedly is, is that there would be no issue at all for the DM to raise the overall average of AC that the party faces at some point during a campaign that didn't involve Great Weapon Master. Thus it is because of Great Weapon Master that the decision was made, and that's the exact thing that supposedly shall not be done. It is the imaginary capability of knowing a piece of information and that knowledge having no effect upon what decisions you make that I am refuting. You'll have to excuse me, when people start involving language other than casual English in a discussion, I have a tendency to stop paying close attention because in the majority of such cases that I have experienced it is being done for underhanded reasons. You'll also have to excuse me for not going back to read in detail what you said in the posts that might explain what you meant by whatever language it is you've chosen to inject into a conversation that can be had just fine in the casual English it began in. I agree, which is why I was trying to point out to the people asking for a change that no change to the way the game works is actually necessary - they just need to change their attitude towards the standard tasks the game gives to the DM. Because "I'm going to have some ogres in plate mail" is not changing the way the game works - but "This feat does something different than it says in the book" is. If you had been using a higher-trending AC set of monsters since the beginning, which is entirely within the way the game works (and is what I've done, since I happen to like hobgoblins, fire giants, dragons, and other monsters that happen to have higher AC), there would be no "up-armor everything to make it less useful." So there is no basis for vilifying such an act. Or at least no more basis for vilification than exists for the act of changing how the feat is written. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
Top