Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7932040" data-attributes="member: 6801228">My argument for Goblins being the most threatening in 5e is because of their special ability. The ability to Hide or Disengage as a bonus action. It is surprisingly powerful with their +6 to stealth. Fight a squad of goblins in a warehouse or a forest, and the majority of them will be attacking with advantage, because they are hidden from the PCs, then attack, then hide again. The PCs can ready actions to hit them, but lose out on Extra attacks, many useful abilities, and are likely standing in the open waiting for most of their turns. Charge and get next to a pile of goblins? They can all stab you and then disengage and scatter, meaning the heavy who charged is only going to be able to chase down a few of them while the rest circle and begin hiding and shooting again. Alter their classic characterization to match that of their folktale origins, don't play them as stupid, sniveling cowards and instead as sneaky hunters of the shadows, and you can bring terror to a group of players.Sure, but as we've discussed there is a lot more going on here in the design philosophy. For example, if you are playing a fighter, and you get strength drained until you can't wear your armor and wield your sword, and the party can't afford to pay a cleric the exorbitant fees needed to cast a 7th level spell to restore you, what do you do? Surprisingly, a new fighter with very similar abilities rolls into town looking for a group to join. Not all the time, but it happened for sure. And I think there were players and DMs who got frustrated with that set-up. The monsters wouldn't kill a character, they'd just get them to the point where they wished their character was dead instead. Which, for a lot of groups, I imagine was just not fun. And, as we have also discussed, there isn't exactly a lot of "challenge" in dealing with permanent, debilitating effects. You say Ghoul touch is weakened, but I'd argue it really isn't. Looking at 3.5 Ghoul touch was a save vs paralysis that lasted for 2-5 rounds. In 5e, it is a save vs paralysis that lasts between 1 and 10 rounds. The bigger difference is that in 3.5, if you were paralyzed... that was it. Go grab pizza or something, you are unable to do anything for X rounds, we know exactly how long it will be. Any decisions are rendered moot. Unless someone heals you with magic of course. In 5e, every round you roll to break the effect. And, if you are a person who built to be good at Con Saves, that decision pays off, you will break out sooner. While someone who built differently might not. And sure, it is a low save, so you will likely pass, but the uncertainty actually adds more complex thinking. Since you don't know how long the effect will last, do you risk letting them break out on their own, or heal them. You can give them bonuses they can use on the save, so maybe the Cleric blesses the paralyzed individual, making it more likely they break free. In 3.5 buffing someone who will be paralyzed for 4 rounds would be a complete waste of time. They'd never get a chance to use the buff, so why waste it? And, I think this ends up being a point glossed over by people when they look at all of these "save at end of turn" effects. Yes, it makes it more likely to end early, but it also makes it uncertain. And uncertainty makes it harder to plan tactics. Let's look at Dominate Person. I'm not fully versed in 3.5, but here is how it reads from the SRD to me. A 5th level wizard casts the spell. If they succeed the target is dominated for 5 days. The target gets a new save if they are given an order "against their nature" or if the wizard does not concentrate on it for six seconds a day. So, if you are adventuring and this is cast on a party member, forcing them to fight against the party, they get 2 saves. One to establish, and one to resist the order. Once they fail they will attempt to kill the party for the next 5 days. At minimum, it could be as long as 20 days. You can either heal the effect, or drop the party member and tie them up for the next few weeks. In 5e, the spell only lasts a minute at base, and takes a much higher level wizard to cast it. If they cast at even higher levels they could max out at 8 hours. So yes, it is far shorter, but that combined with concentration and the save every time they are damaged gives choices. Do we fight our companion and hope we can snap them out of it? Do we focus on the wizard and try and break the spell? And once the fight is over, they don't have to have a party member tied up and murderous for days.I don't know if giving players more tactical options, more routes to success or failure, really makes it "less challenging". It keeps them more engaged, lets them be more clever, and encourages more thinking beyond "this one roll decides if I'm playing tonight or not".</blockquote>

Verification