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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5990266" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't think I have a different playtest, but I may have a very different need from my games. 5 levels of difficulty is PLENTY to make me feel like I'm not being thrown to the sharks.How many would you prefer? 10? 20? 100? How much granularity do you actually want? How much do you need in play?Advantage = a re-roll. So it can help you hit things that you missed, but that you could've hit.The exact mathematics (which work out more to be ~ +3) don't actually need to be calculated to know that advantage lets you ignore a low roll. This gets into some territory where I have some rather controversial ideas, but let me put something out there I think everyone can agree on: in a playtest, you are supposed to test the rules in front of you, not the rules in your head that might potentially lie somewhere down the line that you haven't seen yet. Given that the actual rules we have don't include a town or a rope trick spell, I think any speculation on what these things would be like is a little premature. The rules DO include resting mechanics, and explicitly a way to foil them in this case. As of right now, in a playtest, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of setting the DM bar improbably high in some hypothetical future disastercase. So far as we have to test, these are the resting mechanics. The final game, pretty obviously, will have some differences....especially as resting is one of the big quibble-points of this round of playtesting.Backhanded jiu-jitsu ninja insults aren't going to earn your arguments any credibility.I think the drop from "Knock anyone out who fails a save" to an HP threshold, and the drop from "If they fail the save, they're your loyal friend" to advantage on Charisma checks is pretty dramatic. How has your actual play experience managed to break them?Bringing a legitimate concern looks something like this:"Guys! Sleep still looks REALLY powerful to me! Do you agree?"Doom and gloom looks more like this:"5e is gonna suck because the designers are indoctrinated into the cult of Vancian Magic! Let me see how snarky I can be when pointing that out!"Ah! Boredom isn't one of the problems you mentioned. We can drill down further to find out why, specifically, your players were bored, if you're interested in a useful conversation. We'd probably even find some big areas where we agree! I think the playtest lacks variety, too. Of course, the nature of a playtest is that it is often narrowly focused, to get the best feedback.I'm trying to help you talk about your perspective in a way that is constructive and that people will be receptive to hearing.Making a thread about how borked 5e DMing will inevitably be is about as useful as screaming "4e is a videogame!!!" or "1e Wizards are like gods!!!" It's not very specific, or very constructive, so it sounds a lot more like you're getting up on a soapbox saying "The End Is Near!" than offering a useful critique. Moar Play Examples, Plz.</blockquote>

Verification