Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8377643" data-attributes="member: 7032025">When you stop putting words in my mouth, maybe we'll be able to have a constructive conversation. But at this stage, I'm afraid that there is not much that can be said.It seems that for you, the actual chance of success, and therefore its likelihood to be chosen by the player,  does not have much influence, which I find very bizarre.It's not, it's just that, as the devs themselves say, some approaches encourage it while other discourage it.Only it's not what you are doing, since you don't encourage them to pay attention to the game world, as you disregard circumstantial modifiers.And immediately you fall into the technical side of things. QED.And no, a rogue with an elven cloak doesn't ignore the ruling, because maybe they won't get disadvantage, but they won't get advantage either, and the other will not have advantage, but will not have disadvantage either.That's just because you take them as accusations. And maybe you should have asked questions, then...This is a very bizarre sentence responding to " 3e was if anything much too open in terms of character design, leading to an explosion of stupid combos."I happen to believe these guys, whose game I have actually witnessed, rather than the word of a random guy on the internet ?More and more, with each of your replies. You never give one example of actual roleplay, the only thing that you are doing is spouting technicalities.And this despite the fact that some people are fighting hand to hand ? How amazing their awareness of their surroundings ! But I'm sure that you impose disadvantage on all their rolls just for taking the time to track that invisible guy in the corner.Well, my games don't have spaces as we don't play on a grid, but it's a very bizarre invisibility then.In any case, you are constantly ignoring the fact that the Devs themselves tell you that it's inherent for combattants in such dangerous worlds to track invisible creature without that bizarre flaw, so honestly it should be easier to keep track of the rogue that went to hide again behind the same pillar.Behind what ?And that's another difference. I never require the players to tell me the goal of their action, just what they are doing. Actually, I require them NOT to tell anyone, in the past (especially in 3e) it created tons of discussions with other players who them wanted to discuss whether it was an appropriate goal (from their perspective) and whether it was the optimal step to approach it.Again, not my opinion alone but that of the devs, and neither them nor I consider it a flaw.After that, since apparently you are still on the line that circumstantial modifiers do not matter, I wonder what the point is of all these descriptions if it has not impact on the resolution...And my point of view is that any skilled practioner of stealth would not go and hide in the same place again and again, or any obvious place, because that would make them too easy to find. Just as any practitioner of swordplay would not try the same sequence twice because the opponent would skewer him.And to me, every combat should be dangerous (we gloss over the trivial ones with a few descriptions, there are more interesting things to do than play them technically), so there should be challenge. When your life is on the line, would you really do the easy lazy thing ? Roleplaying, again, rather than relying on the mechanics of the system saying that the rogue is really good. Because the adversaries are really good too, you know...No, I have multiple instances of you saying that you used to, but now disregard circumstantial modifiers.Only the ranged rogue, obviously. And how does it enhance the game, exactly ?And tell me, do they feel creative when hiding in the same spot again ? What stories do they tell you to justify this "interesting" way to hide, I'm really curious.So, in the end, instead of taking another look at the rules and the stupid (in your own perception) way they dealt with it, you just dropped it and let the (stupid) rule have it say. So instead of making the world your own, you let RULES, not even your own, dictate how the game works. Exactly as I thought.And you think it's better to have everything dictated by external rules than by your sensitivity as a DM ? In the end, it's still dictated to the players, you know...You would not be that riled if they were that ridiculous.Alright, just take care about what you are saying then.You proved it again just a few paragraphs above. The RULES are the law of the world, even when they contradicted your personal feeling at start. isn't that the case ?And have you considered how you let just rules dictate absolutely everything in your game when the first thing that the writers of said rules explicitly say "these are just guidelines, they are not the best thing in the game, create your own world and make your own rules ?"</blockquote>

Verification