Vaalingrade
Legend
In this case, however...Sometimes the rule is not dumb, the player is.
In this case, however...Sometimes the rule is not dumb, the player is.
However what? Some player wants rules thrown out because that player wants a more powerful char. It is that simple.In this case, however...
More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.However what? Some player wants rules thrown out because that player wants a more powerful char. It is that simple.
I can see that. The min maxing and squeezing every last drop out of stuff probably less prevalent.If you roll stats you can easily have a strength warrior who does not wear armor.
A lot of the "problems" people complain about are directly tied to using point buy or standard array for their stats. Rolling certainly has problems of its own, but in terms of developing varied characters it is a lot more effective ESPECIALLY if you do not let players move their stats around.
I suppose then what would be the point of playing a blind character if you won't accept any of the penalties. It should be harder to be blind rather than exactly the same (or even arguably superior since Darkness doesn't affect you in combat, perception checks, etc.).More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.
Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
Actually, that is not true. It started when I used that analogy for a player not happy with the rules and wanting the DM to give them Agonizing Blast because it would make their char more powerful. I have found, through experience, that playing a game by the actual rules when everyone around you is abiding by those rules, no matter what the game, is the mark of a good player.More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.
Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
What? I thought it started from a hexblade warlock who didn't use shields, so he ask for the proficiency to be swapped with an Invocation.More powerful as in 'not taking penalties for being blind'.
Remember that's where this line of discussion started. Someone wanted to play a blind monk but not take the blindness penalties, ie. the blindness being flavor text.
In what media featuring blind monks of blind fighters is it harder for them?It should be harder to be blind rather than exactly the same (or even arguably superior since Darkness doesn't affect you in combat, perception checks, etc.).
I don't think it's supposed to be extra challenge. The player clearly wants to play someone like Daredevil or the dude from Rogue One. They're not trying to play an actual blind person, but the trope of the blind fighter.Overall, it should be more difficult though since it supposed to be an extra challenge for the player.
That should be allowed too, but that's not what I was quoting when I made my remark.What? I thought it started from a hexblade warlock who didn't use shields, so he ask for the proficiency to be swapped with an Invocation.
Are you telling me that you wouldn't want that if you were blind?That's like a blind man asking to swap his his eyeballs for extra guns.
The Rules are 'Ask Your DM'. And I think the DM should do it because class features you have but don't use aren't making anything more fun.Actually, that is not true. It started when I used that analogy for a player not happy with the rules and wanting the DM to give them Agonizing Blast because it would make their char more powerful. I have found, through experience, that playing a game by the actual rules when everyone around you is abiding by those rules, no matter what the game, is the mark of a good player.