Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6237287" data-attributes="member: 1165">No can do.A large chunk of rules revolve around combat, and the rules are supposed to be designed with the "rule of fun" in mind. This means each PC should be able to contribute equally in combat. Sitting on the sidelines and tossing daggers after you've used your one Sleep spell or one Backstab is not fun for most players, and selling such a game system won't be profitable.There are ways to contribute in combat that don't involve damage, and indeed 4e codified these roles (only strikers are out to do huge DPR). However these should be class-based. I don't want to see "be clever, use oil" or "be clever, buy war dogs" because any fighter could also do that ... while still enjoying their higher AC, hit points, damage, etc...WotC has historically been bad at non-combat. There's no narrative control features beyond spells. Attempts to deal with this often didn't make sense. (I could take my Int 8, Cha 11 fighter in 2e to high levels, build a keep, become a lord and attract followers, even though my fighter is not particularly intelligent, won't impress the king and isn't all the great at instilling loyalty. I don't recall high Charisma doing anything to boost my follower's morale either, although that's the kind of thing that might not have been in the core rules. Note that the rules said at whatever level the fighter gained followers, without me being able to do anything to enhance that. Dark Sun was the worst in this regard. If you're a high-level fighter, you gained followers, period... even if you didn't want them!)See "rule of fun" above. Since 3rd Edition, WotC has moved away from "total immunity" because it's less fun. The requirement to have a magic +x weapon became an advantage to having that weapon (or disadvantaged by not having it). Immunity to a damage type usually became a resistance. In 5e, monsters that used to be immune to nearly all spells are now just magic resistant. (While probably not intended, even a 3e wizard isn't much slowed down by magic immunity. Conjuration bypasses it.)Now of course there are other ways of "fixing" the issue. If an encounter with undead always included a priest or necromancer to control zombies, the rogue could try to sneak attack the necromancer. But WotC cannot read a DM's mind and has no idea why some DMs think it's okay to utterly nerf a PC's abilities.That's not terrible, but I think the reserve should be deeper than -10. Otherwise the line between "fighting at full ability" and "dead" is too thin.They're actually not the same thing. But in any event, they were intended to make clerics not required. I believe WotC has failed in this. You get very few Hit Dice (literally one at 1st-level), so you still want a cleric who casts healing spells and makes you lots of potions, and the good healing spells have touch range and take a standard action, so St. Bandaid is expected to take up his full turn healing allies. (4e did this very well. Healing Surges take away the healee's resources, not the healer's. Someone who uses poor tactics and keeps getting surrounded and ganked cannot ask the cleric for more healing surges. The cleric can do nothing for them! And since the cleric is only using a minor action to heal, they can still smash things with their mace.)I'm not a big fan on "non-abilities" so I don't mind if the zombie has Intelligence. I wouldn't mind if they could only understand magic commands. But I have to wonder, what is the point of the complaint? You can't talk to a zombie or golem anyway, and it's not intelligent enough to report what you said to it's master. (Unless they're looking at you through the animate's eyes, but that's more of a clever necromancer ability than a zombie ability.)I'd like to see rangers with actual abilities, but then the ranger isn't really a class, so there's no way WotC can determine what these abilities are. Plus they're stuck on some nonsensical restrictive model anyway. As for reining in the spells... WotC needs to sell splatbooks to make money. I'd say ban the stupid splats, but after seeing people require a character builder for Pathfinder, I suspect there will be a 5e character builder, official or not, complete with all those splats.I rather expect that WotC thinks elves should always be the best archer rangers. They were in Lord of the Rings!</blockquote>

Verification