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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7408111" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Hey i think you should stick with how the wizard should be stabbing the fighter to death with the dagger... that will convince many especially when mentioned with your BIG experience.But Ok lets do a little bit of more productive engagement.You start from a broken premise... an underlying assumption that there is a problem defined as "one on one a martial cannot stop a wizard from casting **and ** one on one a wizard can stop a martial from fighting." (we can replace wizard with mage to cover the broader range of caster, as i think for instance i have seen more hold persons thrown by clerics in my day than by wizards.But see, I could also say there is a "problem" that a wizard gets a d6 hit dice and a fighter gets a d10. Picking one isolated element of combat, narrowing it down to basically a one-on-one and using that to support adding in a new imrpov go-around-rules thingy that **will ** be used in group battles is a flawed foundation, at its core a bad approach to balance decisions.After all, isn't the next step how does the warrior solo off and stop the subtle sorcerer? ot the flying wizard who is out of range of the grab or the hundreds of different scenarios that show the new idea you are propping up as the sort of one-on-one thungy to let a martial drop a speller fails... given a circumstance of certain choices.The game system is not built around some solo duel, because most of the time, most of the game play is not solo duel.The game is not balanced for every fight being a loaded wiz vs a a seemingly unprepared warrior.The game does not need gizmo trickery improvs to invent new mechanics to "solve" the "problem" you imagine.because it is not a problem in actual play for many games.not saying it isn't for none, after all, maybe your games do have a lot of solo duels.But the balance of power between the wiz and the warrior in 5e is the warrior has ongoing constant output of damage and a lot of toughness between multiple engagements - short rest recovery for many of his key abilities - plus he gets a lot of ASi/feats that can be used for quite a few things including if he wants specific mage hunting tricks and even a lot of favored saves.They were built to provide different things to the party... for an ongoing series of engagements... but you want the fighter to also be able to grapple down a mage and choke them until the mage needs to dagger the fighter down... and you want to use the improv to do it.translate that maneuver into a larger fight, one with say a number of creatures on the adversary side - and now you have more adversaries than you have PCs and now some get thru and now the mage is being taken down by choke outs from strength based enemies who can bypass his mage armor and such with grapple checks that work against skills that are far from his best. This move will empower the "mob of brutes" in group battles against mages more than it will let your PC fighter one-on-one a loaded mage.How well does this wizard vs warrior thing go when its late in the day and the wiz has very few slots left but the warrior can still swing away?But at its core, you started from a very old tried and true misdirection technique and followed thru the playlist of all the slip it by tricks... take one element, isolate it, portray it as a major issue, the propose a fix using the "other options" to create not just the "maneuver" but the resolution mechanic under that guise.Each class, each archtype, each character concept in the game brings its own "package" to the table - picking one element out of that, into a specific type of challenge and using that to try and establish a broader problem to get in a much broader fix...So, you see, i am not diving into the set-piece trap of your framing... because the game is bigger than that and so is the "in game reality" of many many many fights waged in many many many games. But again, it may well be true that **in your games** this has become a problem and that **in your games the way they are ran** this would be a smashingly fine solution...but you have not done the basic groundwork to setup a strong position here for why this is a problem that you think others should be swayed by your BIG experience to adopt.or has your big experience not taught you that the game balance thingy is more than an isolation scenario problem?</blockquote>

Verification