Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 5354516" data-attributes="member: 40166">I'd say that's exactly the complaint. Is this a known limitation in the rules, or a design feature? No sane person is going to charge enemies with a rocket launcher across an open field. D&amp;D characters charge enemies with fireballs all the time, knowing that the damage is going to be inconsiderable. I wouldn't jump off a ten feet wall; should my character be equally terrified of doing so? If no, then how tall should the wall be? There are all sorts of complaints where DMs and players had different expectations; one of the repeated ones on the board is a bridge across lava. If you kill my character because I should have known that running across a bridge five feet above lava would be fatal, or kill my character because he stood and fought instead of run across a bridge that was obviously perfectly safe, I'm going to be annoyed, and rightfully so in my opinion.There's problems, both big and small. You want to make a monk that can fall/float down a wall safely. Is this going to be a useful ability in game? What about a kit that reduces damage to 1d4 per 10', max. 20d4? Is that close enough? Should your first-level ranger in D&amp;D 3.x pick Dragons as a favored enemy? The fact that dragons are a rare enemy for a party of less than fifth level is not chargen knowledge, but a player who doesn't know that and picks dragons as a favored enemy at first level is going to be less happy then one who made a good choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prosfilaes, post: 5354516, member: 40166"] I'd say that's exactly the complaint. Is this a known limitation in the rules, or a design feature? No sane person is going to charge enemies with a rocket launcher across an open field. D&D characters charge enemies with fireballs all the time, knowing that the damage is going to be inconsiderable. I wouldn't jump off a ten feet wall; should my character be equally terrified of doing so? If no, then how tall should the wall be? There are all sorts of complaints where DMs and players had different expectations; one of the repeated ones on the board is a bridge across lava. If you kill my character because I should have known that running across a bridge five feet above lava would be fatal, or kill my character because he stood and fought instead of run across a bridge that was obviously perfectly safe, I'm going to be annoyed, and rightfully so in my opinion. There's problems, both big and small. You want to make a monk that can fall/float down a wall safely. Is this going to be a useful ability in game? What about a kit that reduces damage to 1d4 per 10', max. 20d4? Is that close enough? Should your first-level ranger in D&D 3.x pick Dragons as a favored enemy? The fact that dragons are a rare enemy for a party of less than fifth level is not chargen knowledge, but a player who doesn't know that and picks dragons as a favored enemy at first level is going to be less happy then one who made a good choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification