Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8039354" data-attributes="member: 6914290">So it's a resource shared by multiple classes, that some classes get more of, where when it's usefulness is reduced, it impacts those classes more. Hmmm... Sounds pretty applicable..If it's the level difference that makes you think otherwise, could amend the comparison to multiclass casters rather than half casters.Soo.. Between around 10% and like 40% more on average (assuming both have maxed Con scores; quite a bit more if Con scores are not maxed). These aren't exactly trivial differences. So would you say martial weapons proficiency is not a feature? All it really let's you do is use weapons with larger damage dice. If a wizard rolls well enough on their dagger damage dice, and the barbarian rolls poorly enough, the wizard could outdo the barbarian in melee damage (with stats held constant). It is the DMs judgement of the player's intent, which is a problem. If it's worthy your character lives. If not, they die. That's dumb.Rising from the cracked ground, bloody but unbowed is also cool, and thematic for a barbarian.You are proposing a world where can someone can survive slipping on a banana peel over the cliff's edge, but when they gaze over the edge, summon their courage and take the leap they die 100% of the time. And I'm proposing half measures?HP soaking (or dying) as a result of falling, whether you leap, are thrown, or trip is a full measure where the world behaves consistently, as if it is governed by physical laws rather than the whims of a capricious DM.Separately, your version of cool isn't the only version of cool.So we give them something extra, to solve a problem we created? Yes, we could do that. But it seems simpler just to not create the problem in the first place.And to be clear, I don't want martials to jump off cliffs. I want them to be able to benefit from the features that allow them to survive every other peril without having to play "guess the satisfactory genre convention".This is a lot of justification for something pretty nonsensical. Also, the jumper could tuck and roll rather than doing a literal swan dive into the earth. It's probably easier too when it's a controlled fall. See, we don't have to flagrantly ignore (imaginary) physics to come up with a more plausible scenario for survival.The kind that gives the barbarian access to a higher hp ceiling and expected higher average than it does the wizard. See simple vs. martial weapons example above.It sounds like I'm suggesting that hp reflect a creature's ability to survive perils.. Because I am suggesting that. This is consistent with how they are described in the PHB. Sure. That said, literally every character is able to fall without narrative justification. It was false equivalence in the first place.On Earth..no they do not. They also do not cast fireballs or battle dragons. Incidentally, most D&D games are not set on Earth, so it's not really that big an issue.Sure, but it kinda doesn't matter. Unless you as the DM plan to step in every time the character does something you judge would require that more detailed knowledge and force the character to act otherwise (removing player agency)... Which in most every instance would be overstepping in colossal fashion.Gamist abstraction...of the physics of the world. Falling and hitting something is a physical act. The falling rules are the rules for that act. The bard told him he could do it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> But seriously, these worlds have culture, history, legends, myths, folklore, science, and people, books, scrolls, pottery, tapestries, etc., etc. in the world to communicate these things, not to mention in many D&D settings characters will have rivals, peers, antagonists, teachers, and leaders many of whom can also perform extraordinary feats  There are plenty of ways for a character to come to the conclusion since they've lived their lives in that world.Besides, there's nothing that says characters must die from falling a certain height in these fictional worlds. That's baggage we bring in from our world and our experiences. It's player knowledge not character knowledge.I'd argue that trolling is harmful regardless of whether the player is metagaming. I disagree that metagaming equals trolling in every instance, though I'd agree that it certainly could in some instances.In your example, the behavior is disruptive no matter what the player knows and is so primarily as a result of it's repetition especially outside the context of adventuring rather than the act itself. And you would have asked because you expected they would be and you expected a particular benefit because of it. It's a po-tay-to/po-tah-to difference.</blockquote>

Verification