Search results

I kind of forgive those books, and I have them all. Yes they are basically unplayable dreck but still...

Having a wife that has opinions on pre-3e D&D is a precious commodity. You would likely be better off viewing this to be much more of a good thing than a bad thing. Just sayin' 👍

Did you mean "what if"? It means the DM needs to throw out hus work and replace monsters either with ones that hit harder or ones that doesn't target AC. Either way, it's a bad idea to consider it a good solution to give the DM more work!

Thank you for this post. One comment though: believe it or not but many adventures and DMs still play the game as if magic is somewhat rare. That is, a group of monsters might have 20 bruisers for every shaman. Princes and merchants don't have ready access to magic. And so on. Just to say...

Sorry but dismissing every DM that's running adventures published by WotC and also every DM that doesn't find it "trivial" to "plan for" (whatever that means) the spell makes for a less convincing argument that you probably hoped.

That is exactly what's being discussed. Do you have actual example 2024 stat blocks?

You're basically saying "because our group made it work it's not a problem to anyone". Not very persuasive. Also, I suspect your DM is working hard in order to set up those difficult fights, and a DM working that hard is a luxury few groups can enjoy. Point is: do you want to argue you need...

That's actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please don't argue that having a disruptively high AC isn't a problem because the player could have been playing a wizard instead...

Yep. The entire "just work around it" advice is mostly just a slap in the face. Why insist on keeping a spell that even the best DM needs to "work around" when the game would simply be more fun without?

Thus gets to the heart of the issue right here. Many people want their games to natch how they believe sword fights went down in history (and, of course, fictional movies and literature etc). Everybody defending Shield basically says "just move past the AC monster to attack Squishies in the...

Okay. My comment was directed at people reading your post. That you might know more than what you let on when you write doesn't help others, am I right?

A poor argument for giving them it in the first place.

Yeah but now you changed your position. Players obsessed with winning, sure. WotC only catering to this obsession is what you talked about before and what sounds like a disastrous long-term strategy to me.

Features should not be balanced for the party that values cool. Features need to be valued for the party that values effectiveness. Put otherwise, a balanced rule will still be cool. That party of your would still enjoy the game even if combat healing was a rational activity. Put yet...

To be honest, that comparison is, if not outright apples to oranges, at least apples to pineapples. First, that game cares MUCH more about balance than 5E. Second, a +1 is more valuable in PF2 than 5E, partly because of how criticals work, partly because of the locked-down nature of that game...

Why are you sidestepping the basic fact that if a player can trivially/cheaply attain the "cannot be hit" ability the game works (much) less well. Why contort yourself around this issue when the simple (and correct) solution is to make it substantially more costly to attain this ability? GMs...

I find the theories highly suspicious... ...that because players outnumber GMs they more important (hint: with no GM there's no game) ...that players only care about "winning" or manifesting their awesomeness, and only the GM cares about balance and ability to run the game Sorry, that's...

I understand it won't be changed, but all those variants seem complicated to me. I'd probably just make it +4 instead of +5 and call it a day.

Is there an echo in here?

This appears to assume a game that never corrects brokenly powerful stuff is good for players. It's not. 2024 D&D is all about WotCs coffers. If it was all about the players WotC wouldn't have hesitated taking away as well as giving. But the true purpose of not nerfing things is to make it...