D&D 5E Dwarven Stag Party In The Caves of Chaos?

[Blackwarder]

Because the model is to simplistic and doesn't reflect decision making process during the game.

The only thing that is not dependent upon the situation or the actions of the players and DM on these models is the intoxicating condition which is a passive condition.

Warder

 

[slobo777]

Things a computer model cannot easily tell you about a particular option

• whether it is fun to play (irrespective of how it is balanced)
• whether it is easy and simple to use during the game (because computers can do a lot of maths very easily)
• whether it gives a nice "feel", related to the fluff

one concern about reducing power level of Parry might be that it could make using ED more complex. As it stands you either use an Expertise Die as-is, or just write off the whole die. It's simple, and keeps things moving.


Anyway, my OP is basically about Intoxicated, don't want to get too sidetracked . . .

 

[Blackwarder]

Anyway, my OP is basically about Intoxicated, don't want to get too sidetracked . . .

Which I totally agree can be tested on a computer model and even without it is easy to see that it's not working as intended (I think...)

Warder

 

[Mattachine]

In my playtests, dwarves can't get intoxicated, since they are immune to poison.

 

[slobo777]

In my playtests, dwarves can't get intoxicated, since they are immune to poison.

Poor dwarves! The numbers are almost identical for humans.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Because the model is to simplistic and doesn't reflect decision making process during the game.

And yet, if the model is telling us that constantly reserving your Expertise Dice for Parry / Protect is far-and-away stronger than reasonably intelligent use of, say, Deadly Strike, then the model is providing a useful service.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

And yet, if the model is telling us that constantly reserving your Expertise Dice for Parry / Protect is far-and-away stronger than reasonably intelligent use of, say, Deadly Strike, then the model is providing a useful service.

The model tells us that when you're in a group full of fighters, built with high HP, facing melee opponents, using Parry is a good strategy.

However, if you're facing off against a wizard guarded by a few orcs, the better strategy would probably be to pick off the wizard with Deadly Strike first.

If you're in a mixed party with a wizard and cleric, you may be better off as a slayer using Cleave and (a fixed) Glancing Blow to take down melee units threatening your squishy friends, rather than just fighting defensively while they get swarmed.

If you're fighting a bunch of archers hiding behind battlements, those archer powers will start to look pretty tempting. And so on.

I agree that Parry is powerful. In fact it's probably very often a good strategy to parry EXCEPT when you have an opportunity to take down a dangerous opponent more quickly.

And of course all these equations change more based on attributes, equipment, race, specialties and level.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The model tells us that when you're in a group full of fighters, built with high HP, facing melee opponents, using Parry is a good strategy.

Amended:

The model tells us that when you're a fighter, facing melee opponents, using Parry or Protect is the best strategy.*

And, given the rules on Parry / Protect, it'll probably work on ranged opponents, too.

So, I don't think the test is quite as limited as you're proposing.

Moreover, I'm responding to the notion that no changes should be made to the rules based on the outcome of these models, ever, as [MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] was proposing.

This is exactly the sort of modeling that I hope WotC is doing, and if they aren't, then they should absolutely look at [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION]'s results and say, "Hey - is this really working the way we want it to?"

* So far. Maybe additional work will suss out the usefulness of Deadly Strike or something else, but it's really hard to argue with always-available, stacking DR.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION]

You beat me to it. AS soon as I saw the OP I was thinking the same The rule about not only immune to damage but to effects made me think a LOT about dwarves and drinking contests. I truly am not a fan at all of straight immunity.

I am fine with dwarves being able to drink a lot, but to never suffer the effects sucks. How do 2 dwarves go about a drinking contest? Why drink if you don't suffer the effects? I thought about all this when writing up games for our Swallowtail festival in the Rise of the Runelords modules.

We have since changed to Advantage.

 

[Blackwarder]

Amended:

The model tells us that when you're a fighter, facing melee opponents, using Parry or Protect is the best strategy.*

And, given the rules on Parry / Protect, it'll probably work on ranged opponents, too.

So, I don't think the test is quite as limited as you're proposing.

Moreover, I'm responding to the notion that no changes should be made to the rules based on the outcome of these models, ever, as [MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] was proposing.

This is exactly the sort of modeling that I hope WotC is doing, and if they aren't, then they should absolutely look at [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION]'s results and say, "Hey - is this really working the way we want it to?"

* So far. Maybe additional work will suss out the usefulness of Deadly Strike or something else, but it's really hard to argue with always-available, stacking DR.

I'm not saying don't change anything, I clearly said before that this model clearly show that intoxicated is a huge bonus and probably not working as intended.

I sincerely hope that WotC does not make any decisions based solely on computer models (and if the do use computer models I hope they don't use simplistic one such as this), a computer model might be used to validate the conclusion from the surveys and play testing but they shouldn't be the sole arbitrator.

Warder