Because it is.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
- Status
Because it is.
Risk of death? Sure. Depends on what your group enjoys.
Killing off a character because you don't like the character build? No.
End of the day it's up to you how you run your game of course, but I've played in games with adversarial DMs. No thanks.
Not totally true. Some people enjoy playing D&D as competition between the DM and the players, with the DM actively acting against the PC's - but usually it's within certain limits or it's not "fair". Not my cup of tea, but I can understand the attraction.
My only objection with what Parmandur is doing is that it sounds like he isn't "playing fair" - he will target specific PC's for personal reasons rather than as part of the game. Basically saying "you are only allowed to play so well, if you do better than I want you to, the refs are going to look the other way while I punk your character. Because I'm also the referee as well as the opposing team."
That's just lame.
smbakeresq
Explorer
If you are a fighter and your are not using the great weapon line and great weapon fighting style you will take something else. That something else could be Dueling. If you take Dueling, you probably will use a shield, if you use a shield you will be able to take shield mastery.
You don't take feats and styles in isolation, you take them to fit together. When you see these analysis if DPR for various builds, they always include a fully kitted out build for what they are making an argument for, in this case Great Weapon Master feat and great weapon style and whatever else is necessary compared to another build that does not include everything any reasonable user of that build would take. It is generally true that if you
Fight with Great weapons ---> you will take great weapon feat ---> maybe polearm feat
Fight with one weapon ----> take dueling---> use a shield--->take Shield Mastery ----> maybe take Sentinel feat
Fight with 2 weapons ----> take 2 weapon style---> take the Dual Weapon feat ----> Maybe take mobile
Things are never in isolation.
Look at this here, it was posted a while ago but is still very relevant and good, adding in the effects of various feats. https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtVzM7E-c0rph61NMMkxGZD9ojIyTw
smbakeresq
Explorer
1. Well, you cant use it that much as you cant use it on huge or larger creatures. It does compete with your bonus action usage, on my current Paladin its about %75 of the time as a guesstimate.
2. I would say that's about right. With the feat you will max your STR score sooner rather than earlier and it is an opposed check.
3. Correct, you and your rogue or monk or paladin or barbarian.
Of course this would take a little work, and would not include staying power of +2 to AC and the rest of the shield master benefits to saving throws. A lot of the work has been done here already. https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtVzM7E-c0rph61NMMkxGZD9ojIyTw
BTW, the ability to prone or push ANY size is what makes open hand monks by far the best IMO. Its not as flashy but proning to set up the team or at least halving their movement is useful. There are a bunch of huge and tough creatures in the game with poor DEX saves.
We just have slightly different definitions of "Adversarial DM" but I see your point. To me an adversarial DM is one that changes the rules specifically to kill PCs or increases the difficulty to one that could not possibly be defeated with no alternative but to fight and die.
The DM is all-powerful in the campaign so if they want a mountain to fall on the PCs or have a herd of tarrasques hiding behind a bush it happens. That doesn't make it right.
smbakeresq
Explorer
Risk of Death is high to very high in my games, I play the bad guys according to their intelligence and for players and monsters I use the old critical hit rule of max damage on dice plus what you just rolled, so a d8 (roll a 3) + 5 due to ability that's a critical hit becomes 8+3 (your roll) +5 (your ability) = 16 damage. I don't want players to get a critical hit and then roll a crappy role. However this also means a CR2 creature like an Ogre crits for 20+2d8 and a Frost Giant hits for 42+3d12; those are pretty big bites out of the PCs. The monsters get bigger critical hits, the players get smaller ones but try to get the huge ones in also if they play tactically smart to maximize crit chances. It also balances because in general the players see far more rolls against their AC then they make against the bad guys but the players don't just die at zero HP like the monsters do.
Needless to say revivify is a must have, as is healing kits and potions and such.
I think "Adversarial" is being used here interchangeably with "
." They are not, DMs can be adversarial or both. I never got the DM who just hungered to kill players for no other reason except to kill players, but they exist.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
There's a balance to be found, and "adversarial DMing" doesn't necessarily mean personally adversarial: the only person I ever play with who would even have the capacity to do this is my brother-in-law, whom I love. Doesn't mean we won't draw lines in the sand in our make believe elf game.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Who needs to change the rules? I won't insist somebody can't make a certain PC (assuming I allow Feats for some reason), but I will make it clear that life won't be easy for Captain DPR and his delicious, nutritious brains in the Underdark.We just have slightly different definitions of "Adversarial DM" but I see your point. To me an adversarial DM is one that changes the rules specifically to kill PCs or increases the difficulty to one that could not possibly be defeated with no alternative but to fight and die.
The DM is all-powerful in the campaign so if they want a mountain to fall on the PCs or have a herd of tarrasques hiding behind a bush it happens. That doesn't make it right.
Risk of Death is high to very high in my games, I play the bad guys according to their intelligence and for players and monsters I use the old critical hit rule of max damage on dice plus what you just rolled, so a d8 (roll a 3) + 5 due to ability that's a critical hit becomes 8+3 (your roll) +5 (your ability) = 16 damage. I don't want players to get a critical hit and then roll a crappy role. However this also means a CR2 creature like an Ogre crits for 20+2d8 and a Frost Giant hits for 42+3d12; those are pretty big bites out of the PCs. The monsters get bigger critical hits, the players get smaller ones but try to get the huge ones in also if they play tactically smart to maximize crit chances. It also balances because in general the players see far more rolls against their AC then they make against the bad guys but the players don't just die at zero HP like the monsters do.
Needless to say revivify is a must have, as is healing kits and potions and such.
I think "Adversarial" is being used here interchangeably with "
Saying that you would kill a character specifically because they have a build you don't like is IMHO being an adversarial *******. And yes, I've had DMs that just liked killing PCS based on completely arbitrary, illogical reasons. Roll a dice and a giant hand comes out of the wall and smashes the PC, or the DM that effectively gave every monster vorpal weapons. They weren't my DM for long.
Saying most adventurers in your world are all suicidal is different. If no character ever lives to see 11th level, well that wouldn't be fun for me either.
Don't get me wrong, I've killed off my share of PCs in the past and if I run a PC with elven blood they're dead before they get past 3rd level (I swear it's a curse
). Risk is part of the fun for a lot of people. What level of risk is acceptable is going to vary by group.But ... that risk should be in the constraints of the rules and the campaign you're playing, not "I don't like your PC so they're dead".
- Status
Similar Threads
