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: 6375797" data-attributes="member: 2067">Not enough. If part of the game assumes Particular Spell X, and not every class has access to that particular spell, then I am looking at a scenario where not everyone at my table can freely play whatever kind of fantasy hero they want to pretend to be, someone needs to play something that has Particular Spell X, or else I can't use that part of the game. If that is the case, that is remarkably disappointing to me, given the promises of 5e not requiring any particular "role" to be met in a party. That's some pretty poor apologetics. D&D is a game about pretending to be a fantasy hero, and sometimes you get a table where no one's particularly interested in a fantasy hero whose job it is to support the other fantasy heroes. If 5e's reaction to that is, "Sorry, some things in the game won't work as intended if you do that, someone should play a healer if you want the full experience" (and worse, it never actually comes out and says that), that's a problem. Because the job of classes isn't niche protection, it's archetype emulation. A table full of people who all want to be thieves isn't thinking about not being able to scry, heal, or wield heavy weapons, they're thinking about how cool it is to all be from the same thieves' guild. A class is a story, not a mechanic. So you agree that removing things like the golem's max HP reduction should be found in broader abilities than in one particular specific spell? I'm not sure where your point of contention lies, then."You can either make the game do what you want it to, or you can have an experience you might not want to have" is not a choice I'm interested in making. I'll just go play a game (or do something else) that already gives me an experience I want to have without me having to force it, thanks. This thing is supposed to be fun, and naked manipulation is always not fun and massive unexpected PC casualties are also not fun. Why would a game that is supposed to help you pretend to be the fantasy hero in your imagination then turn around and slap you down for having the temerity to imagine "wrong" (by some arbitrary and unstated standard of wrong)? In what way is that kind of naked, aggressive rejection of the kind of character I imagine playing helping me to have fun playing a fantasy hero? There is a tremendous space between a fire mage who can fireball fire elementals and a fire mage who is still a viable character in a fire-themed adventure because he has something else to contribute, like the ability to talk to, interact with, even command or rebuke the fire elementals instead of fireballing them. You just pointed out a context in which you could encounter a clay golem in a world that generally lacks mid-level clerics. So you know this is a thing that could happen. And your solution for such an encounter, by a party who lacks a cleric/druid/healybard is, "point and laugh at the idiots who don't have a dedicated healer!" And you don't see how this isn't satisfying to me?I'm hypothesizing that consumable magic items are going to be character-creatable, so a party without a dedicated healer class might make up the difference in potions. My problems aren't with the monster, they're with the apparent niche protection that's going on there. That's ugly, if that's the case.As I said upthread: asking GMs to have intensively studied every random monster they stick in the MM for potential areas where their party is uniquely crippled is asking a hell of a lot. Then it's not a game about being a fantasy hero from my imagination, it's about specifically playing some sort of un-stated but assumed group of specific archetypes and SCREW YOU if you can't figure that out for yourself or if no one wants to play one of those archetypes. Guess you can't D&D. That page doesn't imply anything about needing one party member at 9th level to have access to this one specific spell. So I don't think you understood what I was saying there.</blockquote>

Verification