often i've stared at tiny dungeon rooms in confusion, wondering how it's contents got there. like a massive golden idol that can't fit through the rough hewn corridors of an ancient tomb.
I'm pretty sure a 15-foot aura isn't gonna be game breaking.
With a good enough investigation check, you discover the IKEA assembly instructions buried under some ancient tomes.often i've stared at tiny dungeon rooms in confusion, wondering how it's contents got there. like a massive golden idol that can't fit through the rough hewn corridors of an ancient tomb.
Yes, this. Decouple reach and increased weapon damage from being large, and suddenly there's little reason to prohibit large sized races.Large weapon rules should be gone.
Large creatures should just be able to use two handed weapons in one hand. There are no small weapons either...
Maybe the might be oversized two handed weapons, but those should just do 2d8 damage. Probably scaling weapons upwards by stepping up the die should be the way to go.
As to narrow pathways. Yes, there should be narrow pathways.
1) It's fun.Yeah but we have Medium races that get the carry capacity benefit. So sure, we can have Large races but...what's the upside? If you have an aura? In exchange, you have difficulties with some adventuring, finding mounts you can ride, you weigh a ton....
I don't think bounded accuracy is designed to do what you think it does.Thats the downside of bounded accuracy (and its obsession with it). It leaves no room for creativity.
Bounded accuracy keeps the abilities of PCs within a verry narrow window. And being large, and many other things, is not inside it.I don't think bounded accuracy is designed to do what you think it does.
I wouldn't mind having large races but it seems that in this case, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I don't really care for the mostly-downside of being small either, but that ship sailed beyond the sunset awhile ago.1) It's fun.
2) Why does it need an upside? We have small races, and being small really only has disadvantages since they can't effectively use heavy weapons.
3) It opens up opportunities for PC races that include ogres, half-giants, true minotaur, ect.
Bounded accuracy applies to attack and save DC modifiers. That's it.Bounded accuracy keeps the abilities of PCs within a verry narrow window. And being large, and many other things, is not inside it.
Not quite, it also includes ability checks.Bounded accuracy applies to attack and save DC modifiers. That's it.
Fair. Are attack rolls just a special ability check...anyways. the range works work ok for 5e based on the normalized range of play. It work best from lv 5-15 where most tables see play so overall it's a good concept. It could be better on the top end in many regards like having saves DCs that are impossible for some PCs. As a concept it works just need a little tinkering.Not quite, it also includes ability checks.
And, FWIW, it went too far. The 40 cap from prior d20 systems was perfect, 30 is too constricted IMO.
Slight thread derail:Fair. Are attack rolls just a special ability check...anyways. the range works work ok for 5e based on the normalized range of play. It work best from lv 5-15 where most tables see play so overall it's a good concept. It could be better on the top end in many regards like having saves DCs that are impossible for some PCs. As a concept it works just need a little tinkering.
I don't think it's a derail as long as we loop back.Slight thread derail:
Prior editions (d20 anyway) had the escalating bonuses and AC/DC issue, with numbers getting out of control so bonuses would far outweigh the d20 roll itself. Some AC/DC were so high creatures (including PCs) had no hope of success even if they rolled a d20.
So, they bounded the numbers, to keep things more plausible. But, when it comes to combat/damage, they had to increase HP and of course damage. Now you have a system where you succeed a lot (hitting in combat, for instance) but the impact is not as much (because of hit point bloat).
In the end, you have escalating damage and hit points, instead of attack modifiers and armor classes.
Ultimately, it accomplished nothing IMO.
Reach and control problems. Plus the centaur pc is already upset on how much movement it takes to take stairs.Pondering this that centaurs and minotaurs are both size M when used as player races, yet when encountered as NPCs are L. Does anyone know of any specific rationale into shoehorning all races into size M rather than just leting them be size L and rolling with it so to speak?
I fine with not allowing any monster race as an official race. Y'all can homebrew it.If you are going to allow every 'monster' to have PC options then don't nerf them.
Lots RPGs where they can cope with such issues.
boss boss I have extra parts left over.........They're brought in in pieces and assembled in the room.
But these are the concepts where players differ. IMO an ancient dragon (e.g. Smaug) should never be downed by enough guards shooting arrows. Given such monsters immunity to normal weapons would handle the issue, though.Even ancient dragons can be downed by enough guards shooting arrows and max lv PC have a reason to fear getting overwhelmed by hordes of low CR does.
Agreed. Just as the bounded accuracy too much IMO, they had to bloat damage/hp too much to compensate. A better balance would have been nice.The mistake was on the way they tried to scale up HP/damage as the primary threshold for staying power for PC/NPCs.
Grid spacing is also an issue. Not enough differentiation is made between vertical space and horizontal, or even length vs width. The default size of 3 ft works better IMO than 5 ft in 5E. But often I have just found ToM to work better anyway.In context of large PC races it's similar. If there wasn't an expectation of exponential growth with size it not an issue. With my bulk rules a PC can be large without taking up more grid space than a medium creature which open up more opportunities for stuff the players actually care about.