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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5874348" data-attributes="member: 52073">The issue here is whether the game should be able to make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should by default make mooks dangerous at high levels.  Those who have houseruled mooks to be dangerous in the past or who are advocating that they change it in 5e seem to want it to be the default.  I have no problem if you, personally, or anyone else wants to run a game where mooks are a threat at all levels.  I have no problem if you or anyone else want to make falls or lava or other hazards lethal.I only have a problem when the "mooks are dangerous" people characterize the "high level characters are superhuman" people as making decisions for their PCs based purely on metagaming, or that they're abusing the rules, or that you can't have a good narrative playing that way:I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun, or trying to deny them their playstyle in 5e, I just want to make it clear that D&D actually supports and has always supported the "high level characters are superhuman" view, often more than it has their houseruled version, so all the talk about realism being more desirable, or superhuman PCs being an abuse of the rules, or DMs having the right to just take away HP or saves or the like if they feel the PCs are doing unrealistic things, or the like isn't fair to those of us who have played superhuman PCs since the BECMI and 1e days.Also, whether or not you think it's a good thing that it has been the default to support superhuman high levels to whatever extent since the beginning, with houserules and variants providing the realism, it should be that way in 5e if they want to support both playstyles, as I've mentioned before.  If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there.  If the base rules are "people take XdY damage from fire per turn and have to make a DC Z save against smoke inhalation/suffocation after W time units, or ten times that much damage from lava," then not only do you have a better baseline for decision making, you can also change those rules to be either absolute death or much more mild because the game is framing those rules in terms of actual game effects (saves and damage) rather than making them off-limits deathtraps and providing no scale of comparison between lava and other threats, insta-death or otherwise.So essentially, my stance boils down to "Mooks should be nuisances at best, lava should deal fire damage, and falling should deal HP damage in the DMG, and insta-death should happen in UA, not vice-versa," that's all.First off, "No cover" is not the same thing as "not prepared."  There's plenty of room for dodging, luck, divine favor, etc. to work its magic, and the PCs definitely know it's coming so there's room for readied actions and such.Secondly, If 25 1st-level archers, who are a long way away, across an open field, in plain sight, that you're completely expecting, are allowed to make CdG attempts against you, then I assume that a single 1st-level rogue, who's right next to you, while you're distracted by combat, hidden, that you aren't expecting, is also allowed to make a CdG attempt, then?  I mean, the rogue has a much better chance to catch you "unprepared" than the archers.  No?  Well then.The rogue is allowed to make a sneak attack.  If it's a level 1 rogue against a level 10 PC, the rogue probably does nothing.  If it's a level 15 rogue against a level 10 PC, the PC probably dies.  Why is it that the rules should change just because you've entered "cutscene mode," for lack of a better term?  If the PCs have been ambushed by kobold archers, goblin slingers, traps, and other projectile-launching threats before and haven't died, then why should human archers of comparable skill suddenly be much more lethal?  For all this talk of realism, that certainly seems to break verisimilitude.The original scenario was about party of 15th level PCs.  They could easily have told the archers they were going to stand down and go away...and they later flown over the walls invisibly, disguised themselves and entered later, mind-controlled a guard to let them in, snuck up and killed some guards at night, or many other options.  First of all, why would a DM want to punish them for taking the blatant, tactically-unsound option that would let the entire city know what they're doing and providing the DM an excuse to send a bigger and better force against them instead of being smart about it?  Second of all, the problem is that the PCs reacted with violence, not that they could do it successfully!  The party was claimed to be nonevil, yet their first reaction was to talk back to the guards, kill everything, and take over the city instead of, oh I don't know, asking why they were being denied entrance and trying to talk it out?Just because your 15th-level PCs can take over a nation and they know it doesn't mean they actually should, and it seems like that's the root cause people object to--the inability of town guards to stop PCs from being homicidal maniacs--not necessarily the realism of the guards.</blockquote>

Verification