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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9013486" data-attributes="member: 93670">Depends on how they were reduced.  Right now the ranges are designed in a way that binds the gm's hands  to allow a player to say they don't care about all but the most blatant of "you can't" levels of of shutdown from the gm.If they were reduced to something like "100foot*" with the star being a footnote that sometimes the gm might deem longer ranges appropriate things change towards mutual fun for the table.  That sort of footnote was suggested by someone earlier & it changes long range engagement from binding the gm to empowering the gm in ways that let them create fun.  Using your scenario of the tower the gm can choose to allow the archer to make a meaningful impact that still includes the rest of the group in a plan that fits the toolset available to the other PCs instead of just making the gm handwave the whole scenario.  With that kind of footnoted empowerment GMs  even go back to creating old school problems some other player(s) would need to solve by being awesome too as part of the new scenario by declarative fiat without pushback over RAW because the whole thing is the gm using rule zero to empower everyone to be awesome.To answer your question from post 180 yes there are tools like flowscape that could generate that kind of thing & it's absolutely trivial to use a randomized brush tool[spoiler="like so"][MEDIA=twitter]1654228470594146304[/MEDIA][/spoiler] Filling it manually is trivial as shown & not too tough but runs into one of two very serious problems that IME defeat the purpose in practice.  It runs into those problems because the mechanics of 5e fight to ensure the collision by overextending the effective range of PCs while stripping GMs of tools once present in the past to manage those ranges. Ultimately those problems go back into straining the social contract when it's already taking some pressure from the GM nerfing the "<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-is-wotc-still-aiming-for-pcs-with-10-real-word-feet-of-range-w-o-vision-range-penalty-limit-rules-for-the-gm.697472/post-9009573" target="_blank">several thousand yards</a>" of vision and players assume themselves to have in support of  comically over-ranged abilities that the GM will often also need to stomp  just to keep the encounter something the group can all participate in.  Either the terrain is so densely packed with things that provide total cover that you've just created the equivalent of a forest sized = hedge wall/maze to block LoS from anywhere to anywhere that very much does not belong in most places -or- it looks OK & is believable but it can almost certainly be ignored just by a PC moving to the side a  bit to where there is clear LoS to the target after asking the gm to zoom out.  You can't make an entire world that looks like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap#:~:text=The%20Dari%C3%A9n%20Gap%20is%20one,nor%20boats%20must%20be%20crossed." target="_blank">darien gap</a> seem at all believable. All of the people who keep saying things like "the DM should just do x"  &  "just tell your players Y" throughout this entire thread have been demonstrating very clearly hoe much pressure doing those things places on the social contract too.  No matter what the GM does to fix this rules issue there will be a bunch of other things that a real GM with proper skills should have done instead & one or two of those might knowingly or unknowingly nerf or shut down a particular player in ways that player feels nonplussed or worse about.</blockquote>

Verification