Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7957277" data-attributes="member: 6801228">It doesn't need to be bad faith or bad service. They offered rules for flanking, not for attacks of opportunity and 5-ft steps. Flanking never covered those aspects. They were separate rules. I think of it as similar to saying that spellcasting is broken because of how they handled magic item creation. Yes, the two are related, but they are separate rules. What truly annoys me about Tetrasodium's rants, and perhaps your own position, is the idea that these knock-on rule effects are somehow an impossible hurdle to overcome, and they could never just alter the rules to do what they want because of X, Y, Z, F, H, and of course LMNOP.But, the fact that changing a rule has ripple effects is not unique to 5e. And those ripple effects are generally pretty easy to see. Yes, giving everyone 1 AoO per turn makes Sentinel more powerful, it is a feat focused on AoO's after all. And yes, if you combine that with the Fear spell and then position so that the feared enemies run towards the person with Sentinel, it is a potent combination. Perhaps more powerful than you would like it to be. You decided a fix by making the save more frequent from Fear. My fix is to allow the enemy more leeway in escaping from the Sentinel, treating them like a hazardous piece of terrain. Both may work. Neither may work. But figuring that out is part of the task of altering the rules. A lot of people complain that flanking gives too much advantage, weakening the other abilities that grant advantage too much, because of similiar knock-on effects. So, we started looking into rules changes that will address that. I can understand and sympathize that the rules don't give you what you want. But if you refuse to take actions to change them, and instead want to blame the designers for not giving you what you wanted... I'm less sympathetic.Not that I want to fully open that can of worms, but I do want to point out that Railroading has it's place. Honestly, when I go to Gencon or Origins, I expect to be railroaded a bit. I paid money for a 4 hour game session, I'd much prefer to have a clear goal and clear set of rails to follow than some of the games I have experienced where we literally accomplished nothing, because it was an empty sandbox and there was nothing to accomplish. And, I have had groups of players who are uncomfortable with the wide options of a sandbox. They get overwhelmed with possibilities and want me to narrow down their choices to two or three options. That just makes them more comfortable and feel more informed so they can relax and have fun. So, there are pros and cons to either side. And each style has its own place.See, I don't think it all evens out in the end. Especially considering how much more powerful casters are supposed to be. I mean, in Shadowrun it is practically a rule "Gank the Mage". And, I've been the on the receiving side (and seen a lot of my friends do similar) where nothing I do for an entire combat or an entire session fails. And it sucks, and it makes me bitter and angry, because I have good ideas of what I want to accomplish, and I'm just flailing around uselessly while my teammates get stomped. Happens in 5e, happened in 4e with my Storm Sorcerer who pretty much always missed (I literally do not have a single memory of him making a big, successful attack on any opponent, despite being built as a massive damage dealer. And it was a 2 year game.)  So no. Players will try to do things all the time. And I'm fine with them failing, but I don't feel the need to throw more roadblocks in their way to make that harder.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification