Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6168190" data-attributes="member: 1465">Yes, I think I already mentioned this too, that is something I had issues with, NPC needing to have magic equipment as well, PC looting them etc. In general, that NPC equipment itself can be kept in line with the wealth-by-level guidelines, so that when the PCs defeat NPCs they loot equipment but don't find chest treasure (or find less) and when they defeat monsters they find lair treasure. Or alternatively, you can just balance the amount of NPC fights and monsters fights. Mechanically, you still manage to follow the wealth-by-level. However, it restricts your freedom... because for example if you want to have a campaign where you only fight monsters, then you must put lair treasure or you must have the PC receive money from someone for killing monsters. It's not that there aren't options to look for, but still as a DM I am not complete free, because I just had to keep those wealth-by-level as much as possible (although I understand, that you were able to make it work even when deviating).Yes indeed... I was fine at first with this economy assumption, but as I say, it is a defining feature of a fantasy setting. After a while, I wanted to run adventures in a world that works differently from this, and that's when the issues started.This is why I wouldn't call these problems "mechanical", because it works as long as you stick with the assumed fantasy setting type. Maybe there's a better way to call them.It's an old issue. There are at least 2 very different ways to think about poison in the game: there is the combat-oriented poison (e.g. coating a weapon with poison, a poison spell with immediate effects...) and there is the story-oriented poison (e.g. poisoning food, potions, and anything which has a long-lasting effect and often also a significant initial delay).These 2 are completely different things, and yet both gamers and designers mix them up all the time!Story-oriented poison is for me an essential element in fantasy storytelling. Poisoning people in this way is pretty much in all RL cultures seen as an evil and dishonorable act, at least because:(a) it's a deceit: it's not a fair act of war or like drawing a weapon (which makes your intentions clear and leaves the target with an option of surrendering or running away)(b) it causes unnecessary suffering: many poisons are slow, almost all poisons are non-instantaneous (at least not as swift as a weapon strike)(c) it is a cowardly act, because the poisoner usually does not reveal itself (poison is also most often used by someone who wouldn't stand a chance in a fair fight)But if you take a look at how poison is represented in D&D, it normally has NONE of these features. Most of the times it's just added damage, or an immediate penalty that actually shortens the battle. You could even argue that it is more mercyful because it ends the fight more swiftly.That's the problem: poison in D&D is mechanically designed as combat-oriented poison, but it is still traditionally labelled "evil" as story-oriented poison.I think story-oriented poison can be represented very well with a mechanic similar to 3ed diseases, even better if generalizing the time frame so that the DM can use hours instead of days when appropriate. Then I would be in favor of labelling that kind of poison with "evil" or at least "non-good".I also prefer to give treasure and random encounters a reason based on the setting.However, I recognize that rolling random stuff can be a lot of fun too, and it has a certain "old-school" vibe, feels very D&D-traditional... I myself like sometimes playing a campaign with plenty of random stuff <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=":)" />Overall the important thing is that these tables are not perceived as mandatory. They are great for a certain gamestyle but not suitable for another.I admit I like this idea a lot! But shouldn't it be 18? <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=":)" />If using 18 instead of 16, the max difference between 2 characters (using core races) in a specific stat is 4 which equates to +2. In bounded accuracy, +2 maybe it's quite a lot, but maybe it is still feasible.The most important thing IMHO is that the lower cap does not completely invalidate the choice of class. For physical stats, I really think that a Fighter with max Str18 or a Rogue with max Dex18 is still a very good PC (and it if it wasn't, it would mean that it is a MUST for every Ftr to reach the cap in Str, and I would hate to play a game like that!).However in 3ed unfortunately that was a huge limit for spellcasters. If your spellcasting stat was max 18, you were sure that never you could have cast 9th level spells. That's a big deal to me! I don't remember the current playtest packet, but before in 5e there is no such limitation. If e.g. capping a Mage Int at 18 does not limit the spells, but only applies to spells DC and other parameters, then it's OK. Otherwise, they have to make sure no race has a low-cap mental stat.</blockquote>

Verification