Search results

I have more than 70 hours into the early access and have not experienced that a single time, so, whatever dude. Realizing there are certain things about 5e rules that do not translate well to a computer game setting for some people suddenly equals "bemoaning needing to even pretend to implement...

OK, we get it man. You hate the game. Judging from your rants about it in this thread you probably came into it wanting to hate it.

Well when you dramatically demand your refund for EA, it doesn't appear to some like providing feedback is your purpose.

Return of the King, definitely.

I'd also suggest Larian should allow you to toggle what loaded dice affects. Like if you want it to affect ability checks but not attack rolls or saving throws, for example.

All they really need to do from here is make all jumping during exploration automatic based on your Athletics check, and they'll eliminate my last major gripe about movement.

OK, good for you? That doesn't match my experience with either game in question, so to say that BG1 movement is "factually" better than BG3 is pretentious.

I too played BG1 not much longer ago than you did, and no, the movement there is absolutely NOT better than BG3 "without question." For that matter even BG2 has some frustrating pathing problems.

It looks like it respects its source material, which is more than most video game movies do. That doesn't guarantee it will be good or even watchable, but it does increase the probability.

Unaligned was fine (and carried over into 5e), but the combined "good" and "evil" alignments, which were still distinct from lawful good and chaotic evil, respectively, were all-time stupid.

The last time they messed with the traditional 9 alignments (4e), it went over like a lead balloon. I really do not see this change happening.

Maybe go half proficiency bonus (rounded up) per long rest, then.

More like it actually gives you the stated benefit of Frenzy on your first turn. Right now you have to wait until Round 2 before you start getting your additional attacks.

The 2 changes I'd make to Frenzy are: 1) You immediately make one melee weapon attack against an enemy within your range the moment you activate frenzy. 2) You may frenzy without consequence a number of times equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded up) between long rests. You sustain one...

If you liked Veep, give Avenue 5 a shot. It's by the same creator (brilliant satirist Armando Iannucci). The first couple of episodes are a bit shaky but it really hits its stride in the latter half of the first season. And after 2020, it really seems to hit different than it did before.

Removing a nerf IS a buff.

Your suggestion to give ranged combat, already on the powerful side of things in 5e, a buff it never needed, using the most corner-case fantasy example ever as your justification, was never going to result in a productive discussion. Quite frankly, your 6eNow! handle makes it obvious any...

Using ammunition as a melee weapon falls under improvised weapon rules. Now you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. If I have to explain to you the obvious fact that it is much easier to defend yourself against and attack an enemy in melee combat with an actual melee weapon, then...

Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.

Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.