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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 5355888" data-attributes="member: 40166">I don't care whether it's an attack or not. The rules are my interface to the world. If a small fireball and a 50' fall both do 5d6 points of damage, averaging 18 points, then my character knows that, even if not quantitatively. He probably is more familiar with the damage that a fall does than the damage a fireball does, given how often parties fall in pit traps. Taking pain and damage is all part of the job and if you want my character to fear falls, they need to be something to fear in game.I don't buy the fireball is a kind of an attack thing. When a fireball goes off at the feet of someone in plate mail, they're encased in a ball of fire, no escape. It is a lot more plausible to me that someone could learn how to fall well--acrobats do it all the time--then someone encased in plate mail could learn to deal with a ball of fire in such a way that it would seriously reduce the amount of damage they take (and even negate the change of being killed.)  I think many do; damage is damage. But on the other hand, at higher levels, these are people who have died, repeatedly. In some cases, a little luck, maybe a touch of the gods (DM), was all that left anyone alive to keep them from being turned into undead lich toys. And that little light in their head that should have told them they had more than enough money and fame to retire and live the good life, free of poison gas, arrows, fireballs and, oh yeah, pit traps, it didn't turn on. For whatever reason, PCs no longer respect pain, injury and even death in the way that any reasonable person would.I can't. If a 50' fall isn't going to seriously hurt my characters, and I know that, and my character knows that, it's going to be seriously frustrating to me to be told that I've act as if my character doesn't know what falls feel like.Okay. But when a character does decide that the lethal heat behind him is less scary then the multitenticalled stinging ooze demon in front of him, the mechanics need to match the description. My character has been through his share of fireballs and attacked his share of Fire subtype creatures; he knows the difference between a little singeing and real damage. And again, he's fighting a multitenticalled stinging ooze demon that could drive a dozen Call of Cthulhu characters insane by just looking at them; why should he be terrified of a little heat that he's faced before?Playing a weak character sucks. I've played many characters with cool concepts that never worked out in play. So knowing these rules, knowing whether or not something will be useful in play, is key to how much I enjoy the game. I'd argue strongly against one of your suggestions; unless the DM really pushes it, taking Favored Enemy: Dragon, for 3.x ranger at first level means that you're going to get less time to shine and are more likely to feel like a redundant fifth wheel. And given the distance between the rules and the reality you encourage, I don't see why it matters what they write down on the sheet. Even in game, you can argue that wanting to be a dragon hunter doesn't mean you have the skills to be a dragon hunter. If someone is willing to work with them, a new player doesn't need to know any rules. "You want to play a dragon hunter? Here's a dragon hunter. Oh, you don't know how to fill out the skills; let me do that for you." But if you want to play a really brave character you have to know the rules that tell you that Iron Will is the feat that will make your character less likely to fail Fear checks, and you'll have to consider the cost-benefits of taking Iron Will versus a feat that will make you more bad-ass in battle. Making a D&D character is part of the game for most people, and without knowing the rules, it's not going to be as satisfactory part of the game.</blockquote>

Verification