• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

Plan to adopt the new core rules?

  • Yep

    Votes: 261 53.4%
  • Nope

    Votes: 228 46.6%

Oofta

Legend
Sure, but you can see how "this power just works" without any lines of interaction or engagement can have issues. And it's not like we're done with such abilities- a Wolf Totem Barbarian in 5e grants advantage to his allies when they attack something adjacent to him. How? Why? Weird Angry Totem Magic, I guess.

Barbarians are pretty supernatural. After depending on totem they can sprout wings at a higher level. But even without that I can see how having a raving maniac in my face could be a bit distracting. That or that the barbarian could have specific techniques to keep enemies off balance.

If Come and Get It or Rain of Steel were written as spells in another edition, a lot of people would go "huh, cool" and accept that they work. Magic doesn't always need to offer saves, checks, or attack rolls to do it's thing. But historically, non-magic does, and the issue with the Martial Power Source is that people assumed it was "non-magic, just badassery manifest". So these powers are jarring if the Martial Power source is magic, and if it is, then that means the Fighter is now a magician, which, pick any thread, lol, you'll find a lot of people who don't want a "magic Fighter".

I'm not saying they should have designed these powers differently. A big problem for 4e was that many people expected it to be the same old D&D and were confused by the fact it was now more like Earthdawn or Exalted.

I'm not sure I'd say confused, more just that I wasn't playing a game with the same thematic components and feel as previous editions. Just to repeat, just because it wasn't the game for me doesn't mean that it wasn't a decent game for others. After the ton of errata from the first printing, anyway.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


soviet

Hero
I understand that, that still is just you blocking their path, they were not drawn to you. It is you who moved towards them, not the other way around.

I am not saying it does not have the same effect, but it does not match the description / design
OK, I get what you're saying. The thing is we know that D&D turns are an abstraction. Clearly in reality everyone doesn't stand stock still while my character walks over and does his thing, just as my character doesn't stand stock still while the enemy walks away in response. We are all moving at largely the same time. So in this case Come and Get It just abstracts away a bit of that artificial division between my turn and the constructs' turn. They aren't pulled so much as I interrupt their movement.
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I'm not sure I'd say confused, more just that I wasn't playing a game with the same thematic components and feel as previous editions. Just to repeat, just because it wasn't the game for me doesn't mean that it wasn't a decent game for others. After the ton of errata from the first printing, anyway.
No, I wasn't saying you were confused, but I probably could have worded that better. I certainly know a lot of people were upset by this!

Strangely, I had the opposite problem with the Martial Power source- as the game went on, more and more, it seemed like every power source could do anything, except Martial- there was no real advantage to being a Martial, and once Essentials hit, even Rangers suddenly got some Primal powers that let them teleport and earth bend!
 

Oofta

Legend
No, I wasn't saying you were confused, but I probably could have worded that better. I certainly know a lot of people were upset by this!

Strangely, I had the opposite problem with the Martial Power source- as the game went on, more and more, it seemed like every power source could do anything, except Martial- there was no real advantage to being a Martial, and once Essentials hit, even Rangers suddenly got some Primal powers that let them teleport and earth bend!

Yeah, I get it. I also think the game may have done better if A) it hadn't been labeled D&D and B) had been give a bit more development time. Makes you wonder what could have been with a second edition, but we'll never know.

A fair number of things sound great on paper, it's only through testing at all levels that some of the cracks may have been found. As it was, I enjoyed levels 1-10, even if I prefer 5E's approach to the game.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
maybe you should just learn the first thing about the seting, you keep asking the same basic questions and make the same wrong assumptions repeatedly, despite them having been answered repeatedly in this thread....
I don't think anyone has answered those questions. Are you saying the Vistani never travel to the Material Plane? That's not what I read.

everything in this sentence is absolutely wrong, they do not go there and they are not in your network, or at a minimum you have no idea whether they are and they do not know you, so won't just tell you or trust you
So they never visit the Material Plane? Is it important to the adventure that no one in the party has ever heard of them? If not, it seems kind of arbitrary for you to just decide what the PC knows or doesn't know without telling them that's what they're signing up for.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Here's the thing though, every game and every player's experience is different. I've faced lots of swarms (they suck in 3e) and my DM's often feel that the best solution to not having to explain a dungeon ecology is to fill it with constructs and undead. Adventures will use whatever critters make sense, and classic pre-written adventures tend to have a mix of monsters. So while you think swarms, constructs, and elementals are rare, they could be commonly used in a game.

Having those monsters exist as a flat-out bane to one class and not others is bad design, because even if there's an equal amount of critters that other classes are weak to, so as to give everyone and equal amount of spotlight time (and an equal amount of "trying to figure out how to be relevant time") you as designer have no idea what classes are in play. You can say "well, obviously the DM will balance this" but that's a pretty big ask, and it doesn't always happen in the wild. There's a reason they eventually made alternate class features to let you deal half sneak attack damage to these things- Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape (though it requires flanking, which has it's own problems), Death's Ruin from Complete Champion (Undead only), spells like Golem Strike, Grave Strike, and Vine Strike (which our poor Rogue would have to have scrolls or wands for if he can't count on Mr. Wizard to save his butt, and assuming he could afford skilling up Use Magic Device), plus Greater Truedeath Crystals, Greater Demolition Crystals, and Deathstrike Bracers from the Magic Item Compendium (which presume that said book is in use, or that our poor Rogue can access/afford such).

So maybe in your experience there was value in the limitations on Sneak Attack, but I just didn't see it. It didn't help that Rogue also had no niche protection in 3.5, so you could easily replace one with a class that brought other kinds of utility to play, from Factotums to Skulks to Beguilers.
Back in 1839 I Answered why this is not a subjective experience thing as you are suggesting. I'll give just the relevant bit & break it up for you
Even if it was a mostly undead campaign for whatever reason there were feats & magic items that could allow sneak/precision against a sneak/precision ignoring creature type If a rogue is encountering sneak/precision immune creatures with any regularity it's probably a sign that

A: they are doing something that the GM is negatively reacting to for whatever reason (ie: Bob's incredible CharOp PC at a table of not so optimized PCs bob is still far ahead of),

B: In something like an undead heavy campaign sharing a boat with the pyromancer who showed up to a plane of fire campaign,

or C: faced with a newer/not so skilled GM who doesn't realize the problem & still has more to learn
out of A B & C, none of them are a reasonable justification to support your inflated claims or bizarre logic. Even the 30% is almost certainly far beyond anything not falling under one of those three. A rogue is no different from the pyromancer & fire dragon sorcerer noted in the post you quoted
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I draw Skulltaker [my magic sword that has various anti-undead properties]. It glows with a fierce hatred of the undead and the zombies are drawn towards it in hatred.
That's the sword doing the pulling, not you; and the cagi ability implies you can pull them without having such a fine weapon on hand.
I step into the space between the constructs and the wizard and block it. If they want to get to him they've got to go through me first!
That sounds like you proactively moving to intercept the construct, rather than the construct moving to you. If you were already close to (or in) the construct's path I'd have no problem with this; but otherwise you'd likely be out of luck unless other factors were in your favour e.g. the wizard running to hide behind you.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Back in 1839 I Answered why this is not a subjective experience thing as you are suggesting. I'll give just the relevant bit & break it up for you







out of A B & C, none of them are a reasonable justification to support your inflated claims or bizarre logic. Even the 30% is almost certainly far beyond anything not falling under one of those three. A rogue is no different from the pyromancer & fire dragon sorcerer noted in the post you quoted
You're operating under the assumption that it's ok for pyromancers and fire dragon sorcerers to suffer for their theme.
 

Remove ads

Top