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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6923165" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Look at the math used to show the power of the feat by anyone that's ever concluded "it's broken" - they assume an average AC other than that set by how the DM chooses monsters. Then look at any time someone brings up "...but what if the DM doesn't choose that many low-AC enemies?" and how the replies seem to treat that as inherently different from the DM choosing monsters that match the average AC used in the math.Here's the thing; I'm not taking you out of context - I'm telling you there is no such thing as the context you think you are in. The "specific case" you mention is the same as the general case. No, that's not what I'm doing.I've already told you my reasons for doing it. You can view that earlier post in this thread again to give yourself a second shot at understanding them, and I encourage you to ask questions about the reasons I provide if they remain not understood.And again I'll tell you that my intent is not to mischaracterize your statements, nor represent anything you haven't said as something that you have said. And because I have told you this, repeatedly, I'll ask that you stop accusing me of ill intent.For someone accusing others as intentionally misrepresenting their statements, it is very unexpected that you'd misrepresent someone else - which is what you have done by telling me my argument.And no, I didn't say anything about "a good game" - I said only that a DM, no matter how new, will recognize anything that they feel was not good.You've overstated that. You don't know what everyone's experience has been.I don't agree that first time DMs are all going to be expecting what you seem to think they will of the rules - in fact, I've experienced more often having to suggest to a first time DM not to alter things on a whim just because they saw some rule they think they'd rather be different, but to try it out as-is first and then alter if it doesn't work out for them, than I have experienced having to help a first time DM figure out which rule in particular was the one needing attention to suit their desires.Because, to use Great Weapon Master as the example, noticing you don't like something is as simple as having it happen: A player with Great Weapon Master hits the monster the first time DM has put in play, and wham! bunch-o'-damage lays the thing to waste faster than the DM thought it would be killed off - and if the expedient killing of a monster is an issue for the DM in question, they can very easily say "That sucked, your character does too much damage." and start thinking about a fix - the obvious ones being character does less damage, or monster takes more damage to put down.  My first game was awful... if I compare it to my later, and especially my recent, games.If I ask myself honestly if I thought it was good at the time, the answer is a resounding, confident, "absolutely." No, I didn't think it was perfect. No, I didn't think I had no issues at all. In fact, the truth of the matter is that my first session ever (not just as a DM, it was my first session of any kind of table-top RPG and I was DMing from just having read through the books once) ended with me thinking "Okay, so an ogre isn't a good thing for a 1st level fighter to try to take on alone - I'll find something that deals less damage for next time"And maybe I'm inaccurate in thinking that similar experience to that - a train-wreck in hindsight that was plenty of fun at the time - is common among gamers, and that I'm not some prodigy... but I really think that it is true, because if everybody was having terrible trainwrecks that they couldn't even begin to figure out how to improve upon, I don't think so many people would be playing the game decades later like the two of us.I said nothing that indicated that I think either of those things, nor that is reasonable for you to interpret as indicating those things.</blockquote>

Verification