Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 2256835" data-attributes="member: 5171">I apologize. I felt your post was condescending, and I responded in kind.Also fair. That means lowering the descriptive threat-level of the average fireball, then, which might make some wizard folks unhappy, but honestly, I'd say that works just as well as what I wrote. And if your gaming group doesn't have people who will roleplay the effects of being hurt but not dying, then changing the flavor-text is easier than adding rules for hindrances from damage -- which, as you correctly noted, would quickly get big enough for it to be easier to just use another system.That's what I don't get. Leave the leg-wound aside. The fighter could easily have been wrong, here. It could hurt for a few minutes but not actually be as bad a wound as it felt like in the immediate moment. If the fighter dives to the side behind a corner or a tree, then steps back into place or stumbles back so that he ends up in the same square, with a net result of no movement... how does that not jive? If we feel comfortable saying that six seconds can be occupied by parrying and circling and then ending with one single attack for a first-level character with his weapon already drawn, and all of that parrying and circling is just flavor text, what's the problem with having movement that has a net-zero result, and that affords a reason whereby an explosion powerful enough to outright kill a commoner standing ten feet away doesn't kill our hero, who, while certainly more experienced, isn't inherently tougher than that commoner by that much?Rodrigo Istalindir: Thanks. Haven't played those, so I honestly didn't know. As for the difference between "combat-focused" and "minmaxed to the nth degree", I don't know. That's a question for Kengar to answer, not me. Can a (creature designed to be a moderate challenge, but not too dangerous for beginning characters) kill a top-level character designed with combat as his primary ability with a single blow of a dagger? That is what Kengar asked. I don't know if he means "the dagger must take him from full health to dead", although that seems reasonable, since, heck, in D&D, a dagger can kill a 20th level character if that character is down to 1 hit point from fighting dracoliches all afternoon.Or is it not a question of a creature being designed to be a moderate challenge, but not too dangerous for beginning characters? Do the G&G games simply not HAVE creatures in that niche? Is it like one of my early d20 Modern martial arts games, where the bad guys had mooks with assault rifles (each of which, at 2d8 damage, did enough to conceivably hit every PC's massive damage threshold without requiring a crit -- and one defensive master character combined a lucky attack roll against him with a lucky damage roll to him and an unlucky massive damage save for him, and was taken out and subsequently killed)? Does that make my d20 Modern martial arts game grim & gritty?</blockquote>

Verification