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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6308258" data-attributes="member: 18">Page 42 isn't a "limitation", dude, those are guidelines to ENCOURAGE improvisation, not rules to LIMIT it. You can change them and override them. Do you understand that?I don't agree - bad DMs who don't allow actions to be as successful as they should be are bad DMs, but you are literally wrong when you claim Page 42 imposes hard limitations. Guidelines aren't rules.So the change is now "If the DM agrees to let you one-shot an enemy, improvisation makes sense, otherwise it doesn't", right? You claim a boulder does 100d6 in 5E, except, unless that's in the rules, it doesn't. It does [DMs Opinion] damage, which is anywhere between 0 and infinity. If you have a DM who rewards stunts with huge damage and one-shots, yeah, you'll get a lot of stunts, and that's okay, but equally, if you have a DM who doesn't like stunts, and decides that they shouldn't do much damage, they're going to be a terrible idea.EDIT - Further, just going on your logic here, if the players are able to basically bully or tricky or cajole or just honestly convince the DM that their stunts are all worthy of one-shotting enemies (which you've said is the only time stunts are worthwhile, because according to you, enemies always go down in 1-2 rounds), then they should basically use nothing BUT stunts, just spending their entire time trying to think convincing ways to get the DM to give them a one-shot.That would be a hilarious RPG, I have to admit.</blockquote>

Verification