Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5896355" data-attributes="member: 4937">That way lies madness.  The exact same argument could be made with ANY metamagic feat?  Still, silent, shape, empowered, etc.  Why don't casters get all metamagic feats?   There are multiple answers, but its enough to suggest that the more options a character gets the more powerful they tend to be in effect.  Also, if everyone gets everything, then no one can be characterized by what they do.  So, you come up with more things 'to do', and then you're faced with the problem that the same argument can be applied to those things to do.  "If I'm a wizard, then I'm supposed to be able to do these things.  These are ordinary abilities of a wizard implied by the concept, ergo I ought to be able to do that."  There is really no end to that argument, so you just arbitrarily have to cut it off somewhere.Nothing could be more brief: spell level is not added to the save DC when determining the DC to save versus a spell.  So far this has been a remarkably effective "let's reign casters in" house rule, and while its not sufficient on its own, it does solve the problem of save DC's outstriping save bonuses.I'm not sure that that is true.  Trading AB for damage can be a very effective strategy, perhaps the only effective strategy for a given rules set, but I'm not at all certain that the game 'expects' that nor am I at all comfortable with the now (as I see it) all to lightly used term 'feat tax'.  Which is effectively giving away power attack for free in a large percentage of situations.  How much experience do you have with other RPG systems?  In D&D, if you have decided to max out your DPR via strength then you've chosen the easy route to high damage and that is how it should be.  But you've also chosen to at least partially give up high initiative, high AC (especially touch dexterity), the most effective missile attacks, and a wide variaty of skills with useful combat abilities - tumble and escape artist for example.  You are also choosing to, if you want high AC, to equip yourself with bulky and heavy armor which further limits your options in mobility, stealth, and evasion.   All of this may be worth it, because hitting things with a stick is such a versital and effective strategy, but imagine for a second if you could easily match strength in DPR with dexterity while still taking advantage of all these other benefits?How can you say from my silence on something whether I'm concerned with it or not.  It's hard enough to stick to the topic without ranging around top topics like how much hit points a monster should have, or what the AC should be.  Let's just say that I'm very concerned with combats lasting an appropriate length - not so short that you have very few decisions to make within them and the initiative check can be considered midc-combat, but not so long that they become redundant.   Personally, I consider AB outpacing AC to be - at least in the general case - ideal.  The basis for me saying that is comparing how D&D plays out to games in which AC tends to outstrip hit points or attack bonuses.   Many dice pool or wound based games are like that.  The problem with that is that on most rounds, nothing really happens.  Most rounds you narrate to the player simply a 'whiff', and in even a greater percentage of rounds the monsters make no progress either.  (Star Wars d6 and its infamous case of stock Storm Troopers being literally unable to hit PC's is a case in point, however true it may be to the movies.)  There is no obvious marker to progress in such a system, and the combat generally hinges on an early lucky roll by one side or the other seemingly coming out of nowhere.</blockquote>

Verification