Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Starting without equipment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 5337949" data-attributes="member: 5890"><p>It is. So when you say "bah, it's not an issue", then that's a problem, and it's why I keep reiterating that it's an issue.</p><p></p><p>The rules say that it's a problem. I'm not advocating sticking with those rules. I advocate doing all of the following:</p><p></p><p>1. Adding "unarmed" to the groups of weapons that rogues can use their powers with (because at present, it's not possible to use powers like blind or garotte without holding a knife, which makes no sense to begin with).</p><p></p><p>2. Allowing improvised weapons to count as whatever weapon type seems appropriate (ie - if I pick up a length of chain and bash someone with it, it should count as a flail).</p><p></p><p>That's the cleanest solution and it makes the most sense in the long term.</p><p></p><p>I don't advocate saying "it won't be an issue" or "it doesn't matter if the rogue doesn't get to fight for 2 sessions", or even "I'll change hit chances so the rogue can have heaps of fun with his basic attacks!" and that's what it sounds like you're saying.</p><p></p><p>It was in reply to you <em>specifically saying</em></p><p>"I know. But all of the classes that typically attack AC also have a number of power choices that don't target AC. If they pick those and don't have a weapon, their chance of hitting is identical to an implement user."</p><p></p><p>This is flat out wrong without a change to the rules. Why am I discussing the rules? Because that's the assumed base we all start from. Of course we can change them. Of course we don't need to stick to RAW like it's some sort of holy text. But unless you or I propose some alternative rule that we're following, how can we discuss the situation?</p><p></p><p>If the entire escape can be accomplished through the use of skills, then the fact that people are unbalanced in combat is eliminated of course. Of course for the scenario to have much import, combat has to be at least possible - at which point you're back to scratching your head and wondering why the rogue's character walked to the corner of the battlefield and stealthed for the whole fight, while the player went to the kitchen to make himself something to eat.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and you also misattributed a bunch of quotes of mine to mad hamish, the poor guy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 5337949, member: 5890"] It is. So when you say "bah, it's not an issue", then that's a problem, and it's why I keep reiterating that it's an issue. The rules say that it's a problem. I'm not advocating sticking with those rules. I advocate doing all of the following: 1. Adding "unarmed" to the groups of weapons that rogues can use their powers with (because at present, it's not possible to use powers like blind or garotte without holding a knife, which makes no sense to begin with). 2. Allowing improvised weapons to count as whatever weapon type seems appropriate (ie - if I pick up a length of chain and bash someone with it, it should count as a flail). That's the cleanest solution and it makes the most sense in the long term. I don't advocate saying "it won't be an issue" or "it doesn't matter if the rogue doesn't get to fight for 2 sessions", or even "I'll change hit chances so the rogue can have heaps of fun with his basic attacks!" and that's what it sounds like you're saying. It was in reply to you [i]specifically saying[/i] "I know. But all of the classes that typically attack AC also have a number of power choices that don't target AC. If they pick those and don't have a weapon, their chance of hitting is identical to an implement user." This is flat out wrong without a change to the rules. Why am I discussing the rules? Because that's the assumed base we all start from. Of course we can change them. Of course we don't need to stick to RAW like it's some sort of holy text. But unless you or I propose some alternative rule that we're following, how can we discuss the situation? If the entire escape can be accomplished through the use of skills, then the fact that people are unbalanced in combat is eliminated of course. Of course for the scenario to have much import, combat has to be at least possible - at which point you're back to scratching your head and wondering why the rogue's character walked to the corner of the battlefield and stealthed for the whole fight, while the player went to the kitchen to make himself something to eat. Oh, and you also misattributed a bunch of quotes of mine to mad hamish, the poor guy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Starting without equipment
Top