Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7957294" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I have to tell you you are completely wrong here. They are a threat, and a rather serious one. Sure, maybe they can't prevent you from casting, but getting hit by four different archers for 1d6+2 means about 20 damage on average. That's still 1/5 of the average health of a 10th level fighter. A mid-level mage might just drop from that.Mages still have low hp and AC, making protection items valuable.Plink damage still gives you a concentration save, I've seen plenty of people fail the DC 10 check if they are getting attacked enoughMelee still wants to engage archers and deal with the other melee types to prevent them from targeting the back line.And you still need to be careful about auras, AoO's ect.Actually. Last night is a good example. My 4th level ranger was in a fight with some new monsters. I followed a group of fleeing monsters past an invisible wall and they turned to attack me. Luckily they missed half their attacks, only reducing me to a single hp.I could have disengaged and ran, taking no attacks, but then they would have just followed me back out of the wall and finished me. So, I attacked at disadvantage with my bow, hoping to kill the single monster next to me so I could retreat, and hope enough of my allies had come back into the room to deal with the last monster. I had to burn a resource to succeed the roll, because I almost failed.Now, I'm sure you can tell me all the things I did tactically wrong, all the ways that 3.5 would have been worse and my character would have died. But, it was an intense moment for my character. If I had failed that attack, I would have had to have risked the attack of opportunity. And if it had hit, with most of my allies not having seen the illusory wall, I would have likely died.In fact, we took quite a few really nasty Attacks of Opportunity last session, because there was always a single monster we couldn't find a better way around. So, there are plenty of threats from AoO still around.My eyes were swimming for most of that, but let me see if I can tease out some actual points.Looks like most of it doesn't matter because of the correction post, so I'll just move on to that.Things she would obviously never do, so not going to discuss them.She wouldn't cast "Conjure Elemental" (1 minute cast time in 5e) in the meeting either. Not if she wants a surprise attackHmm, that bolded bit is interesting. Seems like you are saying you could houserule it to do what you feel is appropriate anyways.5e DMs can do that too. Sure, we don't have different styles of casting speeds, but we do have initiative. And I have actually quite often seen a player pull a weapon or cast a spell at a tense negotiation, and then the guards and people we are negotiating with attacking. We then roll Inititiative to see who reacts faster. So, Alice could roll off against the frenemy. If she is faster, then she gets her spell. If the guards are faster, they charge her and start wailing on her with their swords, or shooting her with arrows. (I'm assuming this negotation is with someone important, and there is a reason that no one important goes to a meeting without at least two guards.)And, we can even rule that her casting in this situation is a held action, so she has to make concentration checks or lose the spell, with the added bonus of knowing that if she wants to target the guards, she needs to target herself too.And sure, maybe the wine glass won't be enough to break her concentration. Frenemy could just tackle her. But the point is, if you are okay changing the rules of 3.5 to make things less certain, then we can do the same to 5e.As I told Garthanos, this is nothing new. Changing rules has always affected other rules. It did in 3.5, it did in 2e, it did in Chainmail, it does in chess, it does in monopoly.Yes, if you change the rules there will be ripple effects.So deal with them. Other people have. In fact, I bet if you approached discussions like this with an attitude of "Okay, if I add in everyone getting an AoO every turn, I think it makes sentinel too powerful. Anybody have any thoughts on fixing that part?" or "I want spells to trigger opportunity attacks again, but there should be some exceptions. Do you think that full action melee spells should be exempt, or only bonus action spells?" you would get a much more positive response.Instead you say "THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX, LOOK AT ALL THESE PROBLEMS AND THEY GUTTED 3.5 AND THERE IS NO WAY TO PUT IT BACK TOGETHER" and of course, no one tries to help you, because you are just ranting and declaring it unsalvageable. It is not effective.</blockquote>

Verification