Search results

That would be more persuasive if half of the existing rules content weren't made up of spells that do exactly that .

Agreed. Haven't argued for limitations on magic equipment, just that 5e doesn't have good support for when or how a PC should get it or what they should get. Thus magic items aren't bad, but class resources are better.

It's less "magic items are bad" and more "class resources are better".

The parts of fantasy that make it fantasy are the 'cool' parts. If you want "coherent" grounded worldbuilding, you don't need elves or dragons or magic swords or rings of power or undead gods or white walkers, skinchangers, demigods, enchanted woods, sorcerer kings, talking trees or any of the...

Maybe you can help me understand what benefit you are getting out of employing fantasy as your chosen genre to roleplay in then? Because near as I can tell..if "Rule of cool" were a genre, fantasy would be that genre.

And here we circle back again to perspective. I don't think we need to coach players to recognize that certain abilities are beyond what can occur in the real world. Those players live in the real world their entire lives and should be pretty familiar with its limitations by the time they get...

I can get behind labeling for mechanical clarity generally. For 5e, specifically, I don't think there are enough mechanical elements that would interact with the jargon you are asking for to make it worthwhile. I think it is fully limited to anti-magic. And I think we could just fix the...

Is this..back-handed reconciliation? Ok. No middle ground between One Piece as a touchstone..and Game of Thrones as a touchstone. Ok. I guess we just...throw out..all the fantasy, myths, legends, comics, anime, etc. that live between these two very different bits of fantasy literature. Wild.

It seems like you are arguing that fantasy settings should diverge from reality. Which is also what we are saying. I'm not sure what the disagreement is?

Rallying, goading and menacing are things fighters have been doing to each other since fighting was a thing. You can see that stuff happen in most any NFL or NBA game. Bait and Switch is closer, but it isn't that different from a pick and roll play in basketball.

Whether it should be seems to be the question. For those of us who would like access to more "beyond earth human" capability on the fighter chassis, the argument we keep circling into is that, because the ability is "beyond earth human", we must first explain in detail how the characters are...

For my part.. "because of (insert feature here)" ..would go on both sides of the comparison (apples to apples and all that). My only interest in "humanity" here is that I do not think that it should be a relevant factor for limiting class abilities.

I think it's the difference in perspective. The real world perspective you insist on using does not hold any value for us. As demonstrated, coding things using that perspective would only tell us things we already know (and that we think basically everyone should already know). And...

But, we've gone through this quite a bit, and near as I can tell, all you need is for someone to tell you the ability is beyond earth human. And my thing is I think you should already know that stuff. If we compare: "You gain the ability to fly" To.. "You gain the supernatural ability to fly"...

These are at best a difference in degree..not a difference in type. You signed up to pretend to be a fantasy character who fights pretend fantasy monsters in a pretend fantasy world.. ..but you find using pretend fantasy abilities to be galling. It's completely arbitrary.

I mean..pretending is kinda the exact activity folks are signing up for in this hobby. Like is there a good reason to pretend that they are swinging pretend swords at pretend mythical beasts? So for me it's a matter of.. Do I expect players to recognize fantasy stuff without being told...

I think this is fair but hints at both the problem and the solution, which is just to give them superhuman abilities. Just like how the mechanics give them unexplained durability and deadliness..it could give them other things. The more of these that there are, the less persuasive the "yeah...

Yeah. I'm kinda noodling it. Not looking for a ton of fiddliness, but do think it makes sense for consequences to scale with spell level. Could maybe do tiers of spells with their own tables instead of levels.. Tier 1: 1-3, Tier 2: 4-6, Tier 3: 7-9 And then within those tiers, the spell...

He botched the spell because he couldn't maintain his concentration while someone was talking to him. You call it an interrupt, I call it a skill roll made at disadvantage (or maybe just a bad skill roll). Either way, he messed up the spell and it had consequences. And just generally, he's had...

What if it was a d2..or a d10.. a d100.. maybe a d1000? Because it seems like people want to skip past any specific implementation discussion to get to the conclusion that any risk of failure at all (with or without consequences) turns spellcasting into a "slot machine". Like, this could be a...