Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="travathian" data-source="post: 6429852" data-attributes="member: 12105">So you have 30 years of gaming experience, most of it as a mage, and yet you are valuing the usefulness of Hold Person in 5E on one portion of one adventure? Is this a joke or are you trolling us? I seriously can't tell. Hold Person isn't fundamentally different in 5E compared to any other edition. Maybe your damage focused playstyle is why you don't find it useful. As a utility spell it is incredibly useful. In battle it can both mitigate damage taken and enhance damage dealt. Obviously you wouldn't use it on a "mook" any more than you would waste any other spell slot on them would you? Does that make every other spell less useful too? That is like saying fireball sucks cause my party only faced a couple of enemies with each encounter.There absolutely are. I will quote your exact phrase:I guess you will have to define exactly what "very tiny percentage" consists of, but I'd think it means a less than 5%.Cherry-pick much? And misconstrue data much? Combine the ridiculous 21 listings for various dragons, and you have 20 creatures left, making it 4/20, or 20%. Now lets take out all of the Appendix B listings, since you later dont want to seriously count them. Now down to 17. There's two dinosaurs listed, combine them, now down to 16. Two awakened plants? Now down to 15 unique races in A's. Thus 4/15.I don't consider 27% to be "very tiny", does anyone else?Completely false. There are 17 listings for humanoids within the main section of the MM. This does not include additional types within a listing (ie Orc War Chief). So that is just 4 less than Appendix B. Ditching appendix A&B, and combining all of the types into a single listing (ie all dragons count as 1, all orcs count as 1) I think you will find humanoids aren't "very tiny." Might want to check again. And you think 10-15% is "very tiny"? Don't tell me to prove your made up numbers wrong, the onus is on you to provide proof of facts if you are going to claim them as such.Lastly, you completely ignored my variety versus number argument. Dragons take up a full 10% of the MM pages, yet they won't even scratch out a single percent of the number of creatures a party will encounter over their careers. When was the last time a group of bandit oozes attacked a caravan? Who ever heard of a group of basilisk slavers? A thieves guild made up of hook horrors? A cult of dragon worshiping cockatrice? The great tribes of phase spiders trying to conquer vast areas. No one, cause it is humanoids that make those up, and those are all common adventure dealings. Maybe in your 30 years of gaming experience your DM has focused solely on your party fighting "monsters" but in my gaming career plenty of our enemies are humanoid. And Hold Person has been insanely useful, and the 5E mechanics make it more so.No, I'd say I completely obliterated what you wrote.It seems like half your responses in this thread amount to you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala, I didn't do enough damage, you are all wrong." If your mind is already made up, why bother making a thread?Lastly,That is pretty much my mental response to most of your posts in this thread. How does a character playing a defensive mage complain about damage output, compared to warriors and rogues, and think posting anecdotes actually backs up his point? How does it happen that the mage wants to be a massive damage dealer, yet doesn't pick evoker, and then doesn't pick damage spells . . . it boggles the mind.</blockquote>

Verification