Search results

Excuse me if this takes a couple of posts, it's hard to do this the clean way on a mobile device. You're taking too narrow a view of the word survivability. I would include not getting pummeled so you spend time making death saves on the ground and not overly being a burden on the party's...

I'm still confused as to its purpose in 5E, given: 1. By RAW, the meatgrinder levels go by quickly and very little game time is spent there. 2. Unlike AD&D where save or die, level drain, and other gotcha effects were a thing even at higher levels, those meatgrinder levels have a definite...

In 2E after you got past those levels Fighters were survivable without having to pay for it. Why would I expect this out of the gate? Because in almost every modern rpg not called D&D, computer/console or tabletop, it generally is true out of the gate. Apprentice level also doesn't necessarily...

The two are connected. Mechanics support the roleplaying and vice versa. I find disconnecting the two to be kind of obtuse.

Minimal investment means merely wearing the best armor available and having decent stats at level 1. No shield, no +1 AC fighting style, no Barbarian multiclass, no feats, no spells, no further ability bumps(unless attacking with Dex). Healing is a party resource, not a personal one, especially...

Are you saying that a melee 5E character is generally and consistently survivable under attack from multiple enemies with no investment in defense? My experience with 5E is limited, but I haven't found that to be true. I don't want to be a tank. Being a tank in 5E sucks IMO, and this is being...

A lot of people in this thread seem to take a narrow view on how 5E should be played/enjoyed. That's kind of the whole point of the thread though, looking at playing 5E at the table through they eyes of somebody who is outside that view. Being an effective front liner in 2E and 4E from a...

In 4E, the striker role involved moving around the edges and avoiding being attacked by multiple enemies. The same is true of 5E, especially played on a battlemap. Even a mobility challenged class like the Paladin can manage that if played with good tactics, tactics I've perfected through years...

Powergamer-optimizer style is whatever works for the system. In 4E, being aggressive was optimal. In 5E, it is not. It has nothing to do with fighting the system, but instead going with the flow. That being said, playing aggressively is far more my style. It's just that 5E punishes you for it.

I'm not at all fond of how the front line role works in 5E, compared to 2E and 4E.

I agree somewhat with the assessment, though not the sentiment. It's like 2E, but I'm not necessarily enthusiastic about it being so. Also, the 2E I most enjoyed was heavily modified and played more like 3E/4E. I think it's more the other players. The atmosphere is there, but they seem to be...

Completed a second session last night. I'm surprised how automatically I've switched into my old 2E playstyle. I would describe that style as "letting other people go first". Here's an example: I let the Rogue, Bard, and Barbarian go first. They open doors, chests, go into rooms first, take the...

Human Paladin One boring combat Too early to make a decision about satisfying

Last night was the first session. Mostly uneventful.

Martial powers in 4E were less versatile and of limited effect compared to non-martial powers, but this was balanced by an increase in brute force. Little in 4E could really compare to martial classes in 4E when it came to brute force. It bears pointing out that the consensus most powerful...

Good point about the vehemence. It's the vehemence in particular I really don't understand in the context of what people say about the issue.

1. Curiousity--I'm curious why people feel differently. I'm also not entirely convinced "I just like it" is the whole story. If you prefer it that way, why? Sure people have given reasons before, but rarely anything like the specific statements I made about "balance between PCs at the table"...

I've found tweaking the point buy to be a funny thing. You can only increase the points so far before the results start getting silly, and there is still the dump stat issue. If you have for example three dump stats, for a lot of people getting a bunch more points to customize stats they'll all...

Another justification is people simply wanting higher stats. Rolling(especially combined with discarding/rerolling low arrays) tends to generate higher stats than commonly used point buys or arrays. I would call that a function of the array or point buy failing to meet player expectations, which...

If you don't have anything beyond a vague "I like it" as a reason for preferring rolling, maybe you could give concrete reasons for not preferring alternatives to rolling?