Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6636032" data-attributes="member: 5834">Pretty much in agreement here.It seems better than 5E. At the very least, it is far easier to prepare for and run. You remember how hard Pathfinder was to prepare for followed by the 10 hour fight over a few sessions for a huge battle. I'll provide more play reports once we get another campaign up. I'm going to run Against the Giants for 5E as a high level campaign. I feel like giants can be nasty enemies due to the damage and hit points when in large groups. I'll post how that goes at some point.Sharpshooter is the worst. Eliminating cover, a major terrain feature used by DM. Eliminating the penalty for long range. And a damage bonus on top is a ridiculously powerful feat. It is much worse when Crossbow Expert takes away the penalty for firing in melee range. You have two feats that eliminate every negative of ranged attacking. Ridiculous and annoying as a DM.This kind of stuff pisses me off at the game designers. I refuse to change it myself. I'll just let a feat or combination of feats continue until the game designers go, "wait a minute. way too much." I feel like I pay the company for quality design including making official changes that improve the game like reining in problem feats. Why do I get pissed off? Because I DM more often than the everyone but one other guy. We get tired of having to argue with the players over these feat combinations then try to come up with a solution that pleases everyone for an imbalanced feat. I feel like the game designers didn't do their job and caused a problem at our table. It's so easy to see how amazingly overedpowered the feat combination is that how did they miss it? Eliminating the negatives of ranged attacking and adding damage at the same time should have been an obvious, "Way too much guys. Pull this back some."GWM isn't too bad. It's easy to use. But damn, melee guys need something. Their life is painful.Yep. WotC and most module designers are notorious for inappropriately sized encounter areas.I'm the first to admit I come off somewhat overbearing. It's because I believe so firmly in my position. I generally don't strong positions based on feeling. I know when something is an opinion like I prefer fried chicken to steak. You can't win a debate like that on the basis of personal taste. There's no point in pursuing other than for fun. But some positions you can prove with empirical data as well as mathematical analysis. I didn't take my position just reading the rules. I waited until I saw them in play. We thought concentration would have a negative effect. We started talking about it very early on while we were playing. But we wanted to stick to RAW and we still found ways to win using RAW. It wasn't fun playing a caster with the current concentration limitation. So we've adjusted it. I posted our new rule in the house rule section if you want to take a look. I imagine you have some good ideas of your own to improve your group's fun.</blockquote>

Verification