Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9618110" data-attributes="member: 29398">Long essay warning, lots to cover in this one... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Anything that forces all the PCs to level at the same time regardless of what they've actually done in the fiction or contributed to the party's success is for me a complete non-starter.  The main (and deal-making) benefit of xp is the ability to granularize each character's advancement rate based on what it actually does both in the short-term and the long.  The characters who participate, who get involved, and who are lucky (see '***' below) enough to survive get more xp than those who don't do these things.Yes this eventually results in uneven advancement and different levels within the party, but so do a lot of other factors; to the point where keeping everyone the same level isn't something I care about in the least.Magic items are theoretically optional, sure, but I've neither seen nor heard of a game that didn't have them.The 5e rule that disallows magic item commerce completely ignores what would logically happen in the fiction on a fairly common basis even between two PCs: I've got a magic item I don't need, you have a need for it and are willing to pay me for it in cash or barter. In the session I just played earlier tonight, my character Lanefan swapped magic items with another PC - Lan's sitting out the next mission (as player I'll be running a different character) but he owns a sword that the field group will probably find hella useful given the mission they're going on.  And so, I loaned my sword to one of the field team and in return asked for one of his magic swords as collateral in case he breaks or loses mine.By 5e RAW this transaction would not be allowed (though in play I can't imagine a DM banning it at the table).  Hence, stupid rule.Frm what I've heard of Bastions it sounds like a decent attempt, but I haven't looked at the fine print.That said, given that IME most adventurers don't have a full-time home but instead are wanderers in a strange land, the only things to spend money on are, as you put it, "things to put on your character sheet".  And I'm fine with that, given as the character sheet represents the whole of the character including its possessions.Some players get more creative than others, and some make sure their characters have (or buy, or build) a home for themselves and-or their party; and as both player and DM I love this stuff!  The problems can then arise if-when the DM starts messing with that; in the game I play in we'd been building up our company base for years until three sessions ago when a threat against our base that we couldn;t (yet) deal with forced us to scatter like ants out of an anthill.To me, magic items and important mundane gear are very much an easy come, easy go economy.  Besides, something's gotta keep the artificers in business! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But yes, fumbles happen.  Fact o' life.Potentially severely harmful, most commonly only mildly harmful if that.  And yes, I do see adventurers as being prone to failure now and then; and yes, some of their failures might be spectacular (just like some of their successes).*** (from above) Exactly.  It's random.  That's the point.  D&D is, at its deepest root, a game of more-or-less-managed luck and randomness, and sometimes that randomness really does leap up and bite you where you don't want to be bit.  In 4e and (even more so) 5e the designers have done what they can to squash that randomness out, IMO to the game's considerable detriment, by reducing swinginess and increasing predictability.If it wasn't a game of luck, it wouldn't use dice.Again, pure random chance.Whenever a party gets attacked during a rest (in this case, it came at about 2 a.m.), the characters on watch are always awake but anyone off watch gets a roll to see how deeply asleep they are, repeated each round if they don't wake up.  In this particular case, of the four off-watch characters one rolled nat 20 meaning she was in fact lying there awake and could act immediately.  Two others were asleep but woke up quickly, they joined in for the second round and the combat was finished halfway through round three.  The last guy, however, rolled awful; he finally woke up just after the combat ended having missed the whole thing - the others joked he'd been dreaming about combat (he's a Fighter-Cleric) and told him to go back to sleep.Conveniently, however, (and by sheer random luck, again) the sleeper's player wasn't at the session anyway, so no worries about anyone having to sit out.That's just it: I don't see it as inevitably pointless.  The winning chess player might make a huge mistake (I've been on both sides of this!); just as the winning side in a one-sided combat might mess it up or the losing side might get hella hot with their rolls and turn things around.  Never say never.Sorry for your loss; having lost my dad and stepmother over the last few years, I can relate.That said, unless something tragic happens like someone in the group getting a terminal diagnosis there's always going to be more sessions, and more after that.  For myself, I'd like to think I've got 20-30 years in me yet; time enough for a whole lot o' D&D sessions meaning I'm not yet to the point of wanting to hurry things up that much. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification