Search results

Since you claim you haven't even seen the LFQW issue I have to ask if you played 3.0 or 3.5? (or even PF1) Because in those editions it's basically impossible not to see it, if you're playing with people who knows how to build. I'm not even talking power gamers here, really.

I disagree, as I really think that's an unimportant aspect of the design, but I gotta say it's definitely an interesting perspective. I've never thought about that part of the design in that way before. You actually gave me an idea. What if every monster had a play stat block and a build...

But this is a design problem imo. The design requires the GM to run adventures in a non-natural way in order to prevent one class type from dominating, simply because the attrition model is weak. In a better designed system the pacing of encounters should be something that impacts every player...

There's practically only one way to make sure that the players cannot long rest after each combat, and that is to make sure every combat is chained into every other combat, and you need to have time pressure. It's known that the best way to run D&D is to make it very dungeon focused and to have...

Of course but you're missing why this is a relevant point in the first place. In Lancer, which is much better designed than D&D, it wouldn't affect the inter party balance much if I changed up how many combats they have between each rest, because no classes are more rest reliant than others...

The problem isn't the number of long rests per day, rather the problem is that unless there is explicit time pressure the players can always stall until they can rest if they need to.

Some people have said that, but there are large swathes of adventure types that are very very difficult to run the way the system currently works, and its' the kind of adventures that people are most likely to want to play. Journeys, for example, are difficult, because unless you put a...

It's quite likely that, since there is no actual edition called 6e, that he's referring to some edition that has been called or referred to as being 6e without actually being name so officially. It's obviously D&D 2024.

The problem as I see it is that what you are arguing is a balancing element is in fact the source of the imbalance in the first place. The thing with D&D is that you can measure a class by how much burst they have, and how consistent they are. Martials tend to be able to fight longer. Wizards...

Something that in 5E is particularly impotent. If a fighter deals worse damage than a wizard, but tanks hits harder, that means all they are is a minor obstacle, since there are no mechanically supported ways to actively play control as a fighter.

That is also outside the scope of the hypothetical, because the hypothetical assumes that the fighter deals less damage than the wizard. That's the point of it being a hypothetical. It does not need to be true.

This is not an answer to what I was asking. I was asking about what the purpose is with a fighter in the context I gave above. That is: The hypothetical scenario that the fighter is worse at dealing damage than a wizard. In my opinion the hypothecal is a hypothetical because I think fighters...

First of all this thread has little to do with damage dealing. Secondly, if you are arguing the hypothetical that it is fine for casters to be better at damage dealing than fighters, then what is the purpose of fighters in the first place?

@KentHusker Don't smiley spam like a coward. If you want to laugh at me, do it in a post. No I'm sure it'll actually help. If you have a non-dungeon campaign you can have a sequence of events like this: Players arrive at Waterdeep They fight bandits in an alley Next day they track down a...

I think there are etiquette rules here against using the laughing smiley on posts that are not intended to be funny, yes? If you do that, stop. I think it should be obvious what I mean with low influence. I mean a class that has less influence over the game compared to other classes. I have...

Just want to point out that there are two different sides to my criticism of the abysmal martial design. 1: There are enormous areas of mechanics which they are completely unable to interact with, or where they are strongly deficient 2: They lack out of combat utility These two are not always...

I'm not saying that we need those martials to have exactly spells like blindness or whatever. I'm saying that the whole system is full of stuff that simply isn't available to martials at all. I'm not even saying that everyone needs access to everything. That's jut a strawman... But I'll throw...

I am talking about explicit mechanical influence. Martials are less influential because there is an incredible array of mechanical ways of interacting with the game that are completely or nearly completely off-limits to non-casters. These are more obvious: Inflicting blind Inflicting fear...

I think the problem here is that there is an untapped group of players who are not being reached by D&D. Right now you have a situation where a player who wants to play a martial has to play a low-influence class. For these people thus they have to make a choice. What is, to them, most...

Bumping this! My group has now played two sessions of this and we are quite happy with how it works in practice. The separation between narrative and combat mode is an excellent move, since it means that no combat moves can be "abused" outside of combat for narrative purposes. That is: It...