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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6375596" data-attributes="member: 2067">Ah, then our disagreement may be more fundamental, because any time I sit around the table for the first session of a new party and we have the talk about how someone "has to play the X", I have a little sad at the lack of imagination in the game and the limitations we're placing on the players. If someone has to play the healer in 5e by default, that sucks a little. And it's also not called out anywhere, so, um, I hope newbies don't screw it up? Fighters don't need cure disease, but why shouldn't they be able to use the Medicine skill to treat it? Certainly plenty of fighters know basic medicine and anatomy, they know what infection and illness look like. Rogues don't need to remove poison, but why can't....well, why can't they use the Medicine skill to treat it? Surely our assassins are familiar with the various toxins and antitoxins their trade traffics in. It needn't be magical, and it needn't be as effective as magic, but it should be doable. My only concern with this is that 5e needs to "make sure" a 9th level party can get their paws on whatever magic item gives greater restoration, ideally without the DM coming in and deux-ex-machina-ing the whole affair. Aside from buying and selling magic items (which I don't imagine they want to do), I don't rightly know how they might ensure that this is something a player can reasonably expect to be able to acquire without the DM being forced to do much of anything. Because I'm lazy and uninterested in fixing the hole myself. I want to be able to use any (non-legendary) monster against any party and not worry overly much about unintentionally crippling characters because they happen to lack some specific resource. I don't know why my party of 2 barbarians and a cavalier aren't allowed to use their CHARGE hammer on every nail that present itself and still be able to come back after the fight's over. Is default 5e such a game as to secretly require that you play it a particular way and not state that up front? Because what we've seen so far is not a 5e I can use like that (though I imagine some unseen part of it might address this). I shouldn't have to. I should be able to have all the monsters in a believable world without mid-level priests running around. I am not asking for the USS Enterprise and a free Mercedes. This seems like a reasonable request form my D&D game. It's certainly something I could do with 4e. Hell, I'd have trouble using that monster in an Eberron game, what with its assumptions of exceptional mid-level characters. I'm not proposing changing the golem, I'm assuming that they've already "fixed" this because of a subsystem we haven't seen all of yet. And if they HAVEN'T, I still wouldn't propose changing the golem, I'd just propose some more accessible way to also counter-act the otherwise irrevocable harm it can do than one specific spell or DM's optional shenanigans. The problem isn't the ability itself, it is the fact that it never, ever, gets fixed, unless you do this one specific thing. I don't like being forced through a gaming bottleneck like that.</blockquote>

Verification