NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9011830" data-attributes="member: 93670">This kind of thing was literally addressed earlier.... Using fiat to let a PC use a reasonably ranged ability beyond it's range limit will be smooth sailing for the GM almost every time  the... The other way around with fiat to restrict the range of an ability with unreasonable range won't be smooth at all even if players don't speak up at the time someone feels they are being denied the RAW ability to be "awesome".These ranges failing to balance scale & playability aren't needed for those times a GM decides the situation justifies using fiat to let a player be "awesome."  They aren't needed simply because there is generally zero pushback & some grins in those scenarios.  The excessive ability ranges only make sense if the design goal is to make it more difficult for the GM to say it doesn't make sense this time  while trying to limit the battlefield to the 100-150 foot or so  number that keeps getting tossed around.I'm aware of those SKT maps & don't know anyone who didn't just convert them to the 5 foot square maps they have for combat after they ran into trouble with 5 foot this 15 foot that or 30/45/50 ft these other things the first time.   They did that because Changing the scale doesn't fix much of anything ofter than fitting a map on a printed page in the books.  That nonfix remains up until until you start creating problems.  5e is built expecting 5ft increments for an awful lot of things. You need to shift to something like battletch's 30ft squares where you have literally every PC moving one square (or less) per round & even abilities like AOEs that only impact a single square.  Even the people saying they don't see s problem because they never have fights starting more than 100-150ft awat (20-30 five foot squares)  show why switching from 120 five foot squares to 60 ten foot squares doesn't solve anything..[HR][/HR]Things get complicated & you won't get the easy answer wanted by some of the folks who refuse that a problem is even capable of existing due to this disconnect in range scale & playability. I want to not need to deal with an obvious headache the rules as written create for the GM for no reason other than to create friction when they have to deal with it.  There are a lot of ways to address the problems caused by these abilities with excessive ranges  raised throughout the thread but the optimal solution requires deciding on a particular problem.  Here are a few people have suggested.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Blame the GM's skills? -> players need to be told clearly in the PHB that the GM is expected to say they don't care when they limit or workaround those long range abilities because that's exactly what the design intent is for them to do. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Provide tools to the GM that limit effective ranges without friction?  ->  Sure there are lots of ways those could be made & some editions like 2e & 3.x even had various mechanics raised earlier that a rerelevant to doing so.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reduce ranges to cap out at the 100-150ft ranges that keep getting thrown around as the proper range to start a fight? ->  Sure, to hear it told it wouldn't even hurt anyone because apparently encounters never occur beyond those ranges.</li> </ul>There are a lot of holes in the still being built or just unknown to us in what will ultimately be the oned&d ruleset that could provide serious help or hinderance for any particular tool though.  Because of this it's more useful to talk about a problem than offer a specific solution to a problem that is assumed.Really  did you forget the new packet additions already?  Level 2 & up sorcerers or 7 & up wizards  wanting to cast a 600foot web 600 foot wall of [fire/ice/force/stone], 600foot hypnotic pattern or whatever aren't going to want to see any of that.  Those casters will never justifiably feel like their spell was wasted if the results were not as expected if they feel that the precision of a grid would have shown them exactly what they needed to cast the spell differently or cast a completely different spell?</blockquote>

Verification