Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="W'rkncacnter" data-source="post: 9314638" data-attributes="member: 7033455">i don't really mind that berserkers can get evasion - i mind more that A. adepts can't and B. the alternative to evasion for berserkers is just a straight up trap option.i'm thinking of replacing the evasion/trap choice for berserkers with adding your rage HP bonus to your saves while raging as a house rule. remove the trap option entirely.i mean, maybe WOTC intended it that way, but it's a port of shield master from o5e.also, i don't think i'd say shield focus is more powerful then evasion. for one, it takes up your reaction, and for another it does nothing for you if you fail the save. sure, you can add your shield's AC bonus to the save, but only if the effect targets only you - i'm pretty sure most dex saves are AOEs, so most of the time it wouldn't even apply.i actually find the opposite is more true for me - i can accept using your shield to protect yourself from something, because that's literally the entire point of them. i find it incredibly difficult to square completely avoiding something that 100% envelops you with the only justification being "doj gud" when you don't even leave your space. i do see how it could've been another opportunity to make use of the maintenance system, though.what you'll get out of this is what you got out of 3e/pf1e, where creatures get into melee and then just don't move because there's no point. i'd find that boring, personally, but if that's what you want then there you go.i mean, fair on the complex point, it is a condition chain, but i'm completely stupefied by the idea that changing a single maneuver has broader implications then fundamentally changing how actions and movement interact with each other. changing stunning assault to be a condition chain only actually effects stunning assault itself (well, and how the party interacts with it), and only really suggests the possibility of implementing the idea elsewhere. changing movement so that it just ends whenever you take an action changes how you have to approach thinking about positioning whenever you want to take any action at all.yeah, i think the last time we discussed that you said the same thing. i like it too, and it's the simplest fix i'd want to try.i like it. it's a trade off like you say, and it gives an actual cost to things that would otherwise just be a free action.how i've usually seen it done in the groups i'm in is the DM will give the player a goal (usually "kill the party") and then let them handle it. softball, hardball, whatever.well, either that or the DM just won't use it at all, which i find is a bit more common among my groups. i did run the crypta hereticarum once and one of the players just told me to take control of his PC when he got dominated instead of giving him a goal. of course, that was also in the very first fight and i ran those monsters completely wrong, but uh...that was also the party's favourite fight of the dungeon, so task failed successfully, i guess?</blockquote>

Verification