Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4220267" data-attributes="member: 57832">Well, that is why you would stop using them about level three or so.  Kind of like that fifteen seconds of invulnerability you get in side scrolling video games.No, I get it.  Why did you rush into combat?  Or, if you were surprise ambushed, why didn't the DM let you get away when things turned ugly?I am not arguing against DM fiat.  It needs to be exercised every once in a while.  For example, the goblin targeting your wizard.  Did the DM roll for a random target, and it was your wizard?I appreciate that your playstyle works for your group, except when you raise a concern where it doesn't.  It sounds a lot like that DM is abdicating several decisions to the dice that they should be making themself, to keep the game flowing.No, there are plenty of wild animals that will simply attack hard enough and long enough to protect their young or their territory.  Intelligent creatures will have further motivations, but largely, engaging an opponent until your entire raiding/hunting party is slaughtered is silly.I don't think my suggestion to use these ideas until approximately level three constitutes 'ever'.  For example, triple starting hit points, or even triple max starting hit points, but that is all they get until level three, then they can start rolling normally again.  If that seems to much, don't roll crits for weapons until they hit 3rd level then all bets are off.  The part where I qualify the suggestions with until third level is the important part, if the issue in question is 'starting level combat is too swingy'.So, why is adding more hit points in previous editions a bad idea, again?I was continuing the example.Who decided to shoot an arrow at the wizard?This is what I am talking about.  If your group has decided to roll out in the open for everything, then you will have to take your lumps.  That DM was more interested in applying the rules evenly than making sure the group was having fun.  Having fun seemed to be more of a priority for you, but the DM decided the goblins would attack everyone the same amount, and prevented themself from being able to adjust the outcome of the attacks.That DM was refereeing a game.  You were trying to tell a story.  The problem isn't with the rules, they are with the clash of expectations.I suppose I can guess at some of them, but that doesn't mean it is still the best playstyle for that group.  Things change.I thought that was the issue that 4e fixes.I agree, there are good suggestions.  None of them are particularly simple, however.  Tacking on some extra hit points seems to be the fix people are looking for because...  Well, that is what 4e is doing, isn't it?Wait, I thought the critical hits and such were what made it drastically imbalanced to begin with.  Adding a buffer to that, as you mentioned above, should bring it closer to balanced, not imbalanced in another direction.  It certainly could, I will grant, if you go totally gonzo with the extra hit points.  As I mentioned above, you aren't really giving them extra anyway, just borrowing the next two levels worth, and doing things normally after third level.I have seen the new monsters.  Their larger hit points isn't much of a balancing factor, when their damage output is greatly reduced.But, was she a barbarian?It sounds like she wasn't.  How do you reconcile letting a non-barbarian gain a barbarian rage bonus with 'didn't fudge a single roll'?Honestly?  'Wizard died from a critical arrow hit' doesn't exactly mesh with 'suits my group well'.  If the first part was more along the lines of 'We were swarmed by gobbos, and my Wizard went down in the first round from an arrow!  My next guy was a...'  But it isn't.  Clearly you were not pleased with the outcome.But, in order to avoid houserules, the game would have to be something like flawless.  If the game isn't flawless, and house rules to correct the problems generally result from years of experimenting, how can new DMs be expected to run a reasonably enjoyable game?</blockquote>

Verification