Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5864510" data-attributes="member: 1544">Indeed, but we know we're heading for a Vancian system, so let's make the most of it. Like it or not, having to forget and re-prepare your spells IS part of the balance of spells. Being able to sleep almost whenever you want is not actually a problem caused by having Vancian casting. Being able to sleep whenever you want is a sign that:* The dungeon (or whatever) is not dangerous* The characters aren't under any time pressureIf you have infinite time, why wouldn't you be cautious?On the other hand, take away either of those statements, and suddenly your spells do start to run out. That's really a module and DM specific thing. It's not strictly a fault of the system.Unfortunately, that's pretty much 4E. Fighters get fighter effects. Rogues get rogue effects. Wizards get wizard effects. And everyone does damage all the time.While I accept it's a valid gamestyle, I don't think that's where 5E is, nor should be, headed.I do. I find using the same manoeuver every encounter more boring than using the same manoeuver 3 times in a single encounter (and then not using it again for a while because the situation doesn't warrant it).Example situation 1: You're chasing the bad guys and you need to slow them down so that the guards can shut the town gate before they get away. Slowing them down by knocking them prone is appropriate, so you do it as much as you can.Example situation 2: You're fighting a troll, your only purpose is to kill it and get the treasure from behind it. You want to do damage and take it down as quickly as possible. Why on earth would you take time to knock it prone instead?So why not write bonus-stacking limitations into the rules from the start? I agree with the concern, but I don't see it as a fait accompli. 3E and 4E both did badly at this. There's no reason 5E can't learn from that lesson.[Hint for WOTC]If it's a FEAT, and it gives a BONUS, it should always be a FEAT BONUS, which therefore does not stack with other feats![/Hint]Believe it or not, I think we all agree on that.The question is, 'HOW, other than powers, can you make this happen?'Nitpick, it's actually 0.01%Neither would I. Which is why I'm arguing for a system that doesn't have a 20% chance or a 5% chance as its baseline. I want the chance of success to be roughly the same as the chance of doing normal damage. An even tradeoff if you will. If you hit and do damage on an 8, I expect to be able to knock prone on a 7-9 (dependent upon that target's defense scores).Damage or knock prone, with the same chance at either, is a valid choice. Damage or barely a chance to knock prone (3E) is not a valid choice.Damage AND knock prone is not a choice at all.If the chances are the same, or at least very close, people will choose the appropriate one for the situation. If knocking the target prone doesn't serve a purpose at the time, they'll do a damage attack. If stopping the target moving is more important at the time, they'll do a trip and forgo the damage.If they want to gamble, they can take my 'Armed Trip' option, and have a chance at getting both results, with a risk of getting neither. If they find themselves wanting to do this often enough, they can take the Improved Armed Trip feat (to a limit of 2 times) to reduce the penalty. Doing this doesn't make them Uber-Trip-Masters. Not doing this doesn't make the attack useless.I prefer a flat penalty on doing two things at once, and no penalty on the one where you make a clear trade-off. Doing no damage that round is sufficient 'penalty' in my books.</blockquote>

Verification