Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7957741" data-attributes="member: 6801228">It is an easier check, yes. But not a trivial check.And considering that it looks like similar checks in 3.5 could get to the point of an automatic success, then yes, I think it is important to point out.Level 18, if Alice in 5e has not increased her con or taken warcaster (very possible if she instead focused on getting more cantrips, increasing intelligence and dex, ect) She still has a +2 versus a DC 10 check from taking a single point of damage.Level 18 in 3.5, even if I assume you only increase to half you allowed skill ranks in concentration and kept the same +2 in con (which would be odd with the sheer number of Ability Score Improvements possible) that same 1 point of damage could be a check as low as 17 or 18 (1st or 2nd level spell) with a mod of +12. If I assume you actually kept most of your skill ranks in the "save the spell skill" then it could easily be a +22.If you are talking about mages who actually build to defend against it, 3.5 mages had is a lot easier on the Concentration check roll, unless they were being hit "like a truck"Right, so you ignore death saves and only care about death from massive damage? My group tends to get worried about a character before they even reach 0 hp, so yes, low hp is still a thing. No "absorption shields" (frankly, I don't even use the death from massive damage rules, too much work at the table. People generally just say "I'm down" and I move on, we don't check and see how far in the negatives they fell)Nope not mistaken, I just call HP, you know, HP not "maxhp-1 plus an absorption shield of maxhp-1 & that absorption shield is fully recovered with even a single point of healing"In fact, if you had just called it death from massive damage, I'd have known instantly what you were talking about.Then why did you bring up auras if you didn't want to talk about auras?I'm stumped. You said "You really don't need to be very careful about auras/aoos/etc " So I mentioned auras. If you don't want to talk about them, don't put them in your list.I do know what trogs do, and what the poisoned condition is.But, if you don't want to have conversation about auras because they are pointless and people can just walk right through them while avoiding the monster... okay. Have fun with that?I'm also not sure how difficult terrain is so taxing on the DM to use, seems pretty easy to me. Same with elevation. Seems like it is real easy to understand and implement. Can also do things like walls, barricades ect. All of this can deal with the fact that your melee line likes to charge straight for the back of your enemies and abandon everyone else to the whims of your monsters.Yes, you don't like AoO's. I get it. I'd also say with the lists you create of all the problems with it, you have 85% of the work done to fix it.As to this post, I have no idea what you mean by A, and it sounds like in B you are getting hit either way.And yes, I see as getting hit by an essentially free attack as being a reason to be careful about attacks of opportunity. Did every AoO from 3.5 come with the rider of Sentinel that they stopped your movement? They've always just been an attack right? So I don't get why you seem to think getting attacked is something not to care about.Why do you assume that? I've had other moments like this in 5e. I've invoked moments like this in 5e. I only mentioned this one because it involved opportunity attacks and was last night.On my play by post game we had a harrowing arena fighter where our barbarian and rogue took on a solo battlemaster with a magic sword. That was all RAW and even more engaging. I'm not sure I'd call statting up a battlemaster as "excessive effort" and considering they jumped into the pit, definitely not railroading.If I stopped and thought about it, I could probably come up with dozens more examples. Just because you think the game does not provide the tools doesn't mean you are right.Then you missed my entire point. So I'll state it again.You mentioned a massive list of spells that were full round actions. Anti-Life Shield was one.I was pointing out that she would not cast a spell like that if she was hoping to catch everyone off guard. You know, because it took a full round and would let everyone react to attack her and try and disrupt the spell.Just like she wouldn't cast Conjure Elemental in 5e, because it takes a minute to cast.See, when you want to catch everyone off guard, you cast a fast spell. Not a slow spell. Like one that takes a full round, or one that takes a minute.you have repeatedly listed dozens of things that would need to change if you added back in AoO's the way you want them.It seems to me like you know everything you would need to change. You just don't want to actually do it.And, I don't believe WoTC ignored anything. They made an entire game. You won't even attempt to alter a pre-made game. I think that can speak to the level of difficulty and number of interactions they had to deal with.I'm sorry that the term "low hp" as in "they have low hp" somehow was supposed to show that they also have to deal with the death by massive damage rule.They still have one of the lowest hp totals in the game. And I would hope if I asked a player with whose wizard has 36 hp "how much hp do you have" they wouldn't answer "72 if I get a single point of healing and 37 every time after that"Because the answer is 36 hp, that is how much they have. Everything else is an interaction with the rules for dying.</blockquote>

Verification