D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Chaosmancer]

Its a rule, which is what Hussar said didn't exist.

And as for guidance, none of the questions posed thus far are complicated.



So your problem is cruddy DMs. I believe we established that the last time we went over this line of argument, two or three pages ago.

After a point we're not actually saying anything new here, yet inevitably we keep going in circles and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if I allowed this to continue that eventually Id be accused, again, of believing there isn't a problem just because Im pointing out Improvise Action exists.

We've literally already been through all this already. Lets talk something else.

It is a rule the same way "roll 1d20 add your modifier" is a rule for how to ascend to godhood.

And the question IS complicated, by the factors you keep dismissing as only being done by crappy DMs. For example, you seemed perfectly happy to allow a 3rd level fighter to use a single action, some rope and stick to restrain five enemies forty ft away from the fighter... but not everyone is going to be okay with that. And in fact, I even have some reservations on the power of allowing that.

But you refuse to even acknowledge it, claiming it is solely bad DMs.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. I figured you were talking to someone who had me blocked.

Oh no no no. I get that, too: if something looks weird, I open the post in an Incognito tab to figure out what the ghost conversation is.

 

[HammerMan]

Oh no no no. I get that, too: if something looks weird, I open the post in an Incognito tab to figure out what the ghost conversation is.

I need to start doing that cause some conversation make no sense

 

[Remathilis]

Oh no no no. I get that, too: if something looks weird, I open the post in an Incognito tab to figure out what the ghost conversation is.

I need to start doing that cause some conversation make no sense

The Tapatalk app will let you see blocked posts under a spoiler-like button you can manually open. It partially defeats the purpose of blocking, but useful for moments like this.

 

[Emberashh]

It is a rule the same way "roll 1d20 add your modifier" is a rule for how to ascend to godhood.

Yes yes the moving of the goal posts was nothing but predictable.

Ive already stated the rule can and should be better. In fact, I stated this before you even started talking to me in this topic.

Stop dragging the topic in circles.

For example, you seemed perfectly happy to allow a 3rd level fighter to use a single action, some rope and stick to restrain five enemies forty ft away from the fighter...

No, actually, I didn't. You glossed over some critical information in those posts and rather than ask me to clarify, you have assumed what I said.

And in fact, I even have some reservations on the power of allowing that.

 

[HammerMan]

For example, you seemed perfectly happy to allow a 3rd level fighter to use a single action, some rope and stick to restrain five enemies forty ft away from the fighter... but not everyone is going to be okay with that. And in fact, I even have some reservations on the power of allowing that.

That would be an awesome maneuver. Not sure if it would work or not but I would play test it.


I am looking more for scorpion and Indiana Jones with a bit of Belmont thrown in.


A chain weapon or whip or flail and manuvers where I can use it to climb and others to entangle multi enemies and others that pull and/or knock prone

 

[Hussar]

lots of things are just questions of degrees are important.

I think most people would feel a 7th level slot to maybe blind 3 characters for 1 round with a save every round would be mediocre at best.

If a wizard has given up a 7th slot to do this what would you have a fighter give up to achieve the same effect?

It’s a 4th level slot, thus 7th level caster. And that’s taken straight from the phb.

And it’s something our fighter flat out can’t do.

And frankly? Give up? What is the wizard giving up here? A single spell slot, of which he has twelve at 7th level. Not exactly a huge sacrifice.

 

[Hussar]

.



Did I ever say this or are you just assuming what I think in lieu of, idk, asking me?
)

Yes. You flat out stated that you must follow the attack rules. Thus I cannot improvise an action that goes against those rules. I cannot ever blind three targets until I have three attacks.

But a caster can.

Like I said, improvised actions will always be interpreted as weaker than anything a caster of equivalent level can do.

 

[Hussar]

It is a rule the same way "roll 1d20 add your modifier" is a rule for how to ascend to godhood.

And the question IS complicated, by the factors you keep dismissing as only being done by crappy DMs. For example, you seemed perfectly happy to allow a 3rd level fighter to use a single action, some rope and stick to restrain five enemies forty ft away from the fighter... but not everyone is going to be okay with that. And in fact, I even have some reservations on the power of allowing that.

But you refuse to even acknowledge it, claiming it is solely bad DMs.

And I would argue that no, he is not okay with it at all. After all, he has flat out stated that fighters have explicit rules for how many attacks they can make. So, how could a 3rd level fighter restrain five enemies?

It's funny how "Oh we can use improvised actions to cover all eventualities" slams into the wall of, "Well, that's the rules and you cannot break those rules".

But... oh right... only crappy DM's do that.

 

[Emberashh]

You flat out stated that you must follow the attack rules.

Then quote me saying this.

Thus I cannot improvise an action that goes against those rules.

Sure you can, just not with pocket sand.

If you have something else you want to try, different rules may well apply. Pocket sand might be a 1v1 thing, but if I say, aim for the jugular of an Orc, Id argue such a large beast would blind anybody in the vincinity with the resulting blood spray. You roll 3+ over the Orc's AC, then I'll offset a 30*, 10ft cone roughly 45* off the direction you attacked from; all enemies in that cone will be blinded for 1d6 turns. No saving throws.

Thats the neat part about improvise action. If you're not getting much leverage out of it, its just as much on crappy DMs as it is on your own creativity, and the fact that you took one instance of its application and extended to every single possibility illustrates you either don't get the point of the mechanic or you're being obtuse to avoid ceding any ground in the argument. Either way; the point of the mechanic is to run bespoke rulings for every situation, not to take a single ruling on a single, specific situation and extrapolate it out into a generic rule for all situations.

Thats obvious nonsense, and Im positive you know it.

If you want to keep going, pitch things you want to do. You aren't going to stump me, cause, you know, this is one of the fun parts of games like this.

Ive said this in other topics, but it really isn't 5e's problem that you don't like what it is and don't find it fun.