Or they're sitting back laughing at the silly martials and their ability checks, waves their hand, and realises they don't have the right spell prepared or even in their spellbook leading to them having to use their ability checks.Meanwhile the wizard is sitting back laughing at the silly martials and their ability checks, waves his hand and the problem is solved. lol
Or they're sitting back laughing at the silly martials and their ability checks, waves their hand, and realises they don't have the right spell prepared or even in their spellbook leading to them having to use their ability checks.
1. I don't care about RAW and don't care if other people do. That's their issue.1. That's not RAW.
2. The fact you household it indicates guidance may be overpowered.
We are agreeing more and more...1. I don't care about RAW and don't care if other people do. That's their issue.
2. Just because I perhaps think Guidance may or may not be overpowered means absolutely nothing. The game should not and will not cater to me and how I play it, nor will game cater to anyone else and how they play it. And for anyone to think otherwise is ridiculous, because their table is no more deserving of the rules matching their preferences as any other table.
See, we're not so different, you and I! You just don't like it when I get pissy at all the posters who insult the WotC designers.We are agreeing more and more...
I dont think these mechanics invalidate Mearls proposed structure.
It comes down to this:1. I don't care about RAW and don't care if other people do. That's their issue.
2. Just because I perhaps think Guidance may or may not be overpowered means absolutely nothing. The game should not and will not cater to me and how I play it, nor will game cater to anyone else and how they play it. And for anyone to think otherwise is ridiculous, because their table is no more deserving of the rules matching their preferences as any other table.
My opinion is that it doesn't matter. No matter how WotC chooses to assign or identify DCs, its going to be going against the usefulness of a huge swathe of the playerbase. So what each of us should really be doing is not spending our time trying to fight to get our preference put into the book (for which threads like this have probably no chance of actually doing anything)... but instead spend our time working to become more comfortable changing rules at our own tables so that we have things 100% how we'd prefer them to be.It comes down to this:
Should the base DCs assume that a party must rise to meet them, or should nothing but the most basic options be considered…and therefore any such “add-ons” make the difficulty trivial?
Probably the number 1 note here is advantage (especially the help action). It changes the math “a lot”, and costs the team nothing to use. Does it make sense to use the new dcs for situations where help probably would not be a thing, but use higher dcs in areas where help is likely?
He provides three different tiers for his DC sets, so I'm not sure what the problem is. You have a basic set, a difficult set, and a very difficult set.It comes down to this:
Should the base DCs assume that a party must rise to meet them, or should nothing but the most basic options be considered…and therefore any such “add-ons” make the difficulty trivial?
Probably the number 1 note here is advantage (especially the help action). It changes the math “a lot”, and costs the team nothing to use. Does it make sense to use the new dcs for situations where help probably would not be a thing, but use higher dcs in areas where help is likely?
Yeah, seems like a lot of people expect wizards to solve everything with their spells but, why waste a spell slot on knock when there's a rogue in the group. People will call out specific spells a wizard can use to completely negate some sort of encounter as if every wizard has them in their spellbook as well as has them prepared.And waste a spell slots.
Hardly ever use knock fir example when I'm the wizard.