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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5877697" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That may be so. I'm not trying to change your mind, just tell you what I want and how I see things.If they have just as many attacks from different angles as 12 crossbowmen, then it should probably be just as hard to defend against.I wouldn't want it to work that way. If the monster is making just as many attacks as 12 crossbowmen, then, again, make it just as hard to defend against.I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think 12 crossbowmen should be dangerous to an evil wizard, as well as things that don't have the necessary natural defenses. That could apply to giants, manticores, etc. If you want giants to be immune to crossbow bolts, put them in heavy armor and give them a very thick hide. Give manticores a very thick, plated skin. If they don't have that type of skin, then yes, make them vulnerable to crossbow bolts.Once again, I'm not trying to say "the game doesn't function this way past a certain level." I'm saying "while I know the game functions this way past a certain level, I'd like an option to avoid that, if possible." That's all. You don't need to prove to me that more powerful warriors exist. I know that. My point is that fantasy is filled with examples where badass people can be defeated by mundane threats, and that I'd like that type of game to be able to be modeled at all levels. And with the stated goals of 5e, I think that's a fair request. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Here's the thing, though: just because 12 crossbowmen are a threat to the wizard, it doesn't mean the wizard needs to be impotent against them. Sure, maybe he can kill all of them with one spell. But, if they get the drop on him, ready an action to shoot if he's hostile, and order him to surrender, I want to be able to play the game in such a way where that threat carries some weight mechanically.This is, effectively, the stated goal of 5e. "Want to play your game this way? We've got support for this style of play. Want to play your game that way? We've got support for that style of play." The hour-long Q&A video touches on it, where they talk about modules for indie-style play where players have a lot of narrative power, etc. They're talking about modules for changing the nature of the game, and, with that in mind, I'm saying what I'd like to see.I don't think that's 5e's goal. Like I said, if they plan on being able to institute a "indie-style" game module, I think they're planning on supporting massive shifts in the "nature of game" via modules. I think, as of this point, it's fair to bring up one of my preferences.I don't even want to play this all the time, mind you, but I like this sort of game quite a bit (just as I also like low-magic settings quite a bit). But, from time to time, I do like being able to be the guy that laughs and beats the 10 evil guards who try to imprison him. And, as far as D&D goes, I expect that to be the norm. But, since they're trying to be so diverse via modules, I feel absolutely in line by stating what I'd like to see. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification