Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7957446" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I never said that is was higher than a DC 10. Pay attention to what I am saying, not what you want me to say. 4 DC 10 checks is significant, I've seen that cause a caster to drop their spell. With no Warcaster and only a +2 con that is an 35% chance of failure. One in Three, and you made four attacks. And, even if the caster doesn't get interrupted and lose concentration, they still took 20 damage. Which is significant. No caster is going to feel safe taking that much damage in a single turn. The game does include opportunity attacks though. So, our melee guys running past their melee guys means they either took the long way (30 ft of movement remember) or got an attack against them to reach those archers. Oh, and left the big melee guys of the enemy force to charge Alice. And they will probably be doing even more damage than the archers.That reads like nonsense. I assume this has something to do with your continual hatred for long rest healing.You know what, I'll give you that one. 5e has fewer feats for casters than 3.5. But, you have to admit something as well. That you received far more feats in 3.5. By my reading the average wizard (of any race) gained 12 feats during their career (One at first, scribe scroll, six by gaining one every 3rd level, and four bonus feats) They also gained ability scores separate from those feats. A wizard in 5e has a maximum of 5 feats, with all of them potentially instead being ability score improvements.  So, yes, wizards have far fewer feats that improve their casting. They also get less than half the feats they used to get, and cannot improve their baseline scores without forgoing those feats.You said that in 3.5 the melee needs to juggle a few different tactics. One of them being to close with the archers so they couldn't target the back line. That is still a thing. And, if you are putting no meaningful hurdles in the battlefield, that isn't the fault of the rules. Quite a few different types of hurdles exist, even beyond the simple Attacks of Opportunity.I'm glad to see that you felt no need to talk about auras at all despite bringing them up. They still exist, by the way. Trog smell aura, since that is the one you bring up usually. Have some damage auras, difficult terrain auras. And, do you know, you are the only person who I ever see complaining that every backpack now lets you retrieve an item without getting an attack of opportunity? Sure, it was a rule change. If you don't like it, change it back. But, just because they changed the rules don't mean you still do not have to be careful about Attacks of Opportunity. They still exist, they still change players tactics. I've seen many many players who go to move out of an enemy square, because they don't want to be in melee with it, and when reminded the enemy will get an Attack of opportunity on them, they stop their movement and stay within the danger zone. You seem to be of the opinion that just because the rules could be harsher, the rules do not exist. They do exist, they do effect the game. They could be harsher, but that does not make them irrelevant.And you care more about the fact that what I did was "poor tactics" without knowing any other details of the fight. Let me ask you this question. What if what I did was tactically sound? What if I left out details of that fight which makes my decision to follow that group of enemies a good decision, if risky? Would you still say it was a shame that DnD 5e wasn't deadlier to force us into this position under different circumstances? You actually have very little information about the enemy, where we were, why we were fighting them, or anything else. You are just going forward with the assumption that I had to play stupidly to get a dramatic moment, where as in another edition I would not have had to be stupid, it would have been dramatic. And, the point of the example was how even one Attack of Opportunity could be significant. That wasn't even the only attack of opportunity that night. We procced quite a few of them, because we felt the attacks were worth it in the context. While, you seem to be content with declaring that only a single attack could never be significant enough to change a parties tactics. Read your PHB again. I didn't change a single rule for Conjure Elemental. It always takes a minute to cast. My point was, just like she wouldn't stand up to cast a 1 minute spell that leaves her vulnerable to attack, she isn't going to stand up and cast a 1 round spell that leaves her vulnerable to attack. That's why I was quoting your big list of spells that would take a full round to cast.I'm going to cut this here. Because guess what? All the rules I mentioned in my 5e example are rules that exist already in the game. You are focused on Attacks of Opportunity, but your own house rule example, by your own admission didn't use them. You said that the 3.5 DM might houserule that fireball goes from a single action to a round, because of the setting. Allowing everyone in the room to take their turn before the spell goes off. Fine, if the 3.5 DM can houserule, so can the 5e DM. Everyone rolls initiative, and she is counted as having the Fireball spell readied until her turn. Those rules exist, I have created nothing, all I have done is lengthen the casting time in the exact same manner as the 3.5 DM. With fairly equal results. So, casting a fireball during the meeting is essentially the same in both games. Especially since you yourself pointed out, you can't make AoO's unarmed unless you are a monk. So, AoO's had nothing to do with your original point.I've addressed this. It isn't bad faith, it isn't bad service. Most of the variant rules clearly state what they are accomplishing and accomplish those goals. You want something that goes beyond that. If you want things that are outside the rules, you have to either find someone who did it already, or make it yourself. Stop blaming the designers because you don't want to put in a tiny fraction of the work they did.</blockquote>

Verification