|
Post by Animayhem on Jan 26, 2019 18:24:06 GMT -5
In away it is. Unlike some servers where there is unlimited resting, here after you rest you can not rest again for a specified time. That's actually the opposite of what I meant. I meant I'm surprised that fatigue does not set in if you don't rest periodically. I understand, I have played on worlds where you have a bar showing hunger, fatigue and thirst levels. I suppose a fatigue indicator bar could be added but personally I do not think it's really needed.
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Jan 26, 2019 19:07:28 GMT -5
I understand, I have played on worlds where you have a bar showing hunger, fatigue and thirst levels. I suppose a fatigue indicator bar could be added but personally I do not think it's really needed. In fact, I do not need fatigue. I need to know how to use my resources, as example horse, properly and effective to receive best result. Topic is "running in game". Running give advantage in movement and speed of receiving resources (loot,experience). Quick movement can be done by caravan and teleport. Price of caravan is not very much. Cost of full equipped horse is 13K. For this money we can order more as 130 tickets. What is advantage to have horse? Hunt. Quick hunt is biggest advantage of horse. For the same time it is possible to earn twice more. As we already spoke, even if server is strong RP oriented, standard way of receiving money and experience is hunt. A horse gives you movement speed increase, even while you're walking instead of running the poor creature into ground, this movement speed increase even when walking is significant and could be considered a light trot with full running reserved for moments of urgency. That is an advantage, a horse also gives you some social status as an owner of a horse, a cool RP prop, a bit of fun to own it and care for it IC and an increase in Armour Class while riding such depending on the armour the horse has and your characters skill at riding.
The rules are clearly defined, the exact amount of time you can reasonably run does not need to be spelled out, spelling such out only leaves it open to abuse as people then begin pushing towards the maximum length and then slowing down for a bit before rinse/repeat and then claim that such is perfectly legal rather then being responsible and doing things ICly and for a reasonable sum of time at most here and there with long rests between.
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Jan 26, 2019 22:06:19 GMT -5
Again. RP transends the full extent of available mechanical effects. You are -EXPECTED- as part of logging in to role play every. Single. Interaction. And effect with the world. Just as if the characters were real. Your character should grow tired after effort. Should grow hungry over time. Ect. These are matters given to us to freely use under the expectations that we must use them every log on. Places with food/water/sleep bars are somewhat cagy I find. As now you no longer have control over when you want a story effect to rise. Such as when you say your character eats/sleeps/drinks. The aim of FRC is not exp and gold through dungeons. But shared stories within the context of a world built upon the frame of the game. To pretend, if you will. That the game is a real world, that functions like ours. Judt magically so. Emote your haste when it's called for, speak your intentions as they come. Get tired as you act. Get hungry as you would. Use yourself as a time reference if you need to. But ALWAYS RP thr fact and matter. A lack of mechanics is not the same as a lack of it's existance. It just means the world isn't enforcing the penalty. But instead leaves it upon you to place upon your character. My apologies for casual readers at the ranty tone. I think this is like. 5 cents.
|
|
abby
Old School
Posts: 323
|
Post by abby on Jan 27, 2019 4:36:32 GMT -5
OK, In this case annoying low-level beggar begging money and food near INN of GG should looks as very respectful person... OK, maybe, I will dedicate one of my characters for it. Wait what!? Hey! Abby isn’t an annoying low level begger! She’s mid level.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Feb 15, 2019 22:40:09 GMT -5
This is honestly the first community I ever heard of to walk into combat, and to avoid AOO of all things. I never even knew walking avoided it and it always seemed random which full on charging person got the AOO.
If we wanted to be PnP about it, one can sprint amount of turns in a row equal to con stat. So those 30 con dwarves, technical can sprint non stop for three minutes straight.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 16, 2019 15:53:27 GMT -5
Running in and out of combat in reality greatly varies between situation, Equipment and training. In Eastern styles of fighting are usually lighter. With more vulnerable arms and armour they often take a careful approach I found. Unless the goal was to blizt with a surprise. I found in heavier armoured combat the situation varied between what the arms and armour of the target was. IN HMB and HEMMA I Found that charging was effect when you faced a target that had swinging based attack motions. Anything with a thrusting weapon required more caution. However a Bullrush which is often used in HMB and With heavily armoured fighters is not considered unwise as long as you know your situation. I Found with Japanese styles they would favour small burstful charges under circumstances. In Chinese styles I learned They would often approach with caution with a empathises on fighting on the true distance. (In short a range that benefits you better. And your target less). I found in the Heavy armoured combat I learned from both HMB and Hemma that your armour and your own arms. And that your targets, heavily decide how you will approach. In some cases you can just run and bully your way around. Because you 'can' trade a blow and come out ontop. In some other cases you might not want too. As from a mma perspective of pure unarmed in the ring do not run. In the streets run only when it means a sense of surprise or you know. Get the the hell outta of a bad situation. Running in combat in nwn is not at all realistic but if you treat it tactfully I can understand it especially when your in a group fight. Running may save a allies life. As long as you know how to approach your targets range without being in range. Or if that range would even effect you. As for running out of combat. It all depends what is the ic situation. I like to look at the characters weight load and con modifiers. I Personally think a fort save would make more sense but. *shrug* 3.x made their own rules so what ever. Honestly most pnp rpgs do a awful job at the Fatigue department. Often being lack luster or not at all. I know only a few game systems that actually nailed it. And Sadly dnd is not one of them. I mean in all theory dnd characters have ultimate stamina in combat because you could have a character fight 50 rounds without any save for fatigue but a forced march will require a con save. Because the game system was designed with a epic fantasy theme in mind. Any worthy, good DM, would have players rolling fortitude saves, con checks, to see if fatigued after 33 to 67 rounds of combat, and then would follow fatigue rules, and would give negatives, penalties to hit, and damage. Then after say 150 to 500 to 1000 rounds of combat, would tell the player that they stop fighting, collapse, drop, involuntarily rest, pant, drop, stop, etc, that they are too fatigued to even lift their weapon, move weapon, that they are too tired, fatigued, exhausted to do anything but to do NOTHING, but to sit, lie there, and either be helpless, do nothing. And any opponent could auto hit them, unless they the opponent had fought as long as the player. Sure that may or may not technically in the rules, but it doesnt have to be, because the DM should be, are allowed to do things not in the rules, as long as it makes sense. For example. I was running a game where there was a room, that had a undead gate, sealed up by a seal, dome of force, Mythal by a 30th Level Caster in Myth Drannor. One of the players was a 11th to 13th lev Rogue who MAXED Open Locks, Doors. He could roll a D20 + 40 to 60 to 80, because of Skill focus feats, etc. I gave him a DC of 50 to 75 to 100. And he still made his check. He then said that according to the rules, the door opens even magical doors, because he made his check, according to the rules. And he was technically right. That's what the rules said. The door should have technically opened because of the rules. But common sense, logic dictates a level 13 rogue, would not be able to open a magically sealed door by a 30th level caster. The seal would have to be dispelled by a high enough caster. Or unlocked by a 30th level Rogue that could unlock magical doors, or teleport in. So according to that a 13th Level Rogue should not be able to unlock, open that door, no matter what the rules say. And so I overruled the rules, said that he couldnt unlock, open the door. And that was the right thing to do. And I rightfully did that as the DM. And thats why have DM's, GM's, because a good DM, GM, is there in case there is a flaw, lack in the fule, game, system,etc. To many DM's, GM's, players can be helpless, dont know what to do, solve problems, etc, because of a problem, flaw, etc, in the rules, game, and they dont know how to compensate, adapt, etc, so because of that, some silly DM's would let players fight for 1 zillion, infinite combat rounds with no consequences, because the rules, game says they can fight infinite rounds, no consequences, and so dont overrule those rules, because they are silly DM's who wont ever overrule the rules, because theybmist follow the rules no matter what, no matter how silly, etc.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Feb 18, 2019 12:18:59 GMT -5
Running in and out of combat in reality greatly varies between situation, Equipment and training. In Eastern styles of fighting are usually lighter. With more vulnerable arms and armour they often take a careful approach I found. Unless the goal was to blizt with a surprise. I found in heavier armoured combat the situation varied between what the arms and armour of the target was. IN HMB and HEMMA I Found that charging was effect when you faced a target that had swinging based attack motions. Anything with a thrusting weapon required more caution. However a Bullrush which is often used in HMB and With heavily armoured fighters is not considered unwise as long as you know your situation. I Found with Japanese styles they would favour small burstful charges under circumstances. In Chinese styles I learned They would often approach with caution with a empathises on fighting on the true distance. (In short a range that benefits you better. And your target less). I found in the Heavy armoured combat I learned from both HMB and Hemma that your armour and your own arms. And that your targets, heavily decide how you will approach. In some cases you can just run and bully your way around. Because you 'can' trade a blow and come out ontop. In some other cases you might not want too. As from a mma perspective of pure unarmed in the ring do not run. In the streets run only when it means a sense of surprise or you know. Get the the hell outta of a bad situation. Running in combat in nwn is not at all realistic but if you treat it tactfully I can understand it especially when your in a group fight. Running may save a allies life. As long as you know how to approach your targets range without being in range. Or if that range would even effect you. As for running out of combat. It all depends what is the ic situation. I like to look at the characters weight load and con modifiers. I Personally think a fort save would make more sense but. *shrug* 3.x made their own rules so what ever. Honestly most pnp rpgs do a awful job at the Fatigue department. Often being lack luster or not at all. I know only a few game systems that actually nailed it. And Sadly dnd is not one of them. I mean in all theory dnd characters have ultimate stamina in combat because you could have a character fight 50 rounds without any save for fatigue but a forced march will require a con save. Because the game system was designed with a epic fantasy theme in mind. Any worthy, good DM, would have players rolling fortitude saves, con checks, to see if fatigued after 33 to 67 rounds of combat, and then would follow fatigue rules, and would give negatives, penalties to hit, and damage. Then after say 150 to 500 to 1000 rounds of combat, would tell the player that they stop fighting, collapse, drop, involuntarily rest, pant, drop, stop, etc, that they are too fatigued to even lift their weapon, move weapon, that they are too tired, fatigued, exhausted to do anything but to do NOTHING, but to sit, lie there, and either be helpless, do nothing. And any opponent could auto hit them, unless they the opponent had fought as long as the player. Sure that may or may not technically in the rules, but it doesnt have to be, because the DM should be, are allowed to do things not in the rules, as long as it makes sense. For example. I was running a game where there was a room, that had a undead gate, sealed up by a seal, dome of force, Mythal by a 30th Level Caster in Myth Drannor. One of the players was a 11th to 13th lev Rogue who MAXED Open Locks, Doors. He could roll a D20 + 40 to 60 to 80, because of Skill focus feats, etc. I gave him a DC of 50 to 75 to 100. And he still made his check. He then said that according to the rules, the door opens even magical doors, because he made his check, according to the rules. And he was technically right. That's what the rules said. The door should have technically opened because of the rules. But common sense, logic dictates a level 13 rogue, would not be able to open a magically sealed door by a 30th level caster. The seal would have to be dispelled by a high enough caster. Or unlocked by a 30th level Rogue that could unlock magical doors, or teleport in. So according to that a 13th Level Rogue should not be able to unlock, open that door, no matter what the rules say. And so I overruled the rules, said that he couldnt unlock, open the door. And that was the right thing to do. And I rightfully did that as the DM. And thats why have DM's, GM's, because a good DM, GM, is there in case there is a flaw, lack in the fule, game, system,etc. To many DM's, GM's, players can be helpless, dont know what to do, solve problems, etc, because of a problem, flaw, etc, in the rules, game, and they dont know how to compensate, adapt, etc, so because of that, some silly DM's would let players fight for 1 zillion, infinite combat rounds with no consequences, because the rules, game says they can fight infinite rounds, no consequences, and so dont overrule those rules, because they are silly DM's who wont ever overrule the rules, because theybmist follow the rules no matter what, no matter how silly, etc. I understand overruling in some circumstances can make the game better. But the whole point of a player overinvesting in a skill is that they can surpass DCs appropriate to their level.
|
|
abby
Old School
Posts: 323
|
Post by abby on Feb 18, 2019 14:45:57 GMT -5
Running in and out of combat in reality greatly varies between situation, Equipment and training. In Eastern styles of fighting are usually lighter. With more vulnerable arms and armour they often take a careful approach I found. Unless the goal was to blizt with a surprise. I found in heavier armoured combat the situation varied between what the arms and armour of the target was. IN HMB and HEMMA I Found that charging was effect when you faced a target that had swinging based attack motions. Anything with a thrusting weapon required more caution. However a Bullrush which is often used in HMB and With heavily armoured fighters is not considered unwise as long as you know your situation. I Found with Japanese styles they would favour small burstful charges under circumstances. In Chinese styles I learned They would often approach with caution with a empathises on fighting on the true distance. (In short a range that benefits you better. And your target less). I found in the Heavy armoured combat I learned from both HMB and Hemma that your armour and your own arms. And that your targets, heavily decide how you will approach. In some cases you can just run and bully your way around. Because you 'can' trade a blow and come out ontop. In some other cases you might not want too. As from a mma perspective of pure unarmed in the ring do not run. In the streets run only when it means a sense of surprise or you know. Get the the hell outta of a bad situation. Running in combat in nwn is not at all realistic but if you treat it tactfully I can understand it especially when your in a group fight. Running may save a allies life. As long as you know how to approach your targets range without being in range. Or if that range would even effect you. As for running out of combat. It all depends what is the ic situation. I like to look at the characters weight load and con modifiers. I Personally think a fort save would make more sense but. *shrug* 3.x made their own rules so what ever. Honestly most pnp rpgs do a awful job at the Fatigue department. Often being lack luster or not at all. I know only a few game systems that actually nailed it. And Sadly dnd is not one of them. I mean in all theory dnd characters have ultimate stamina in combat because you could have a character fight 50 rounds without any save for fatigue but a forced march will require a con save. Because the game system was designed with a epic fantasy theme in mind. Any worthy, good DM, would have players rolling fortitude saves, con checks, to see if fatigued after 33 to 67 rounds of combat, and then would follow fatigue rules, and would give negatives, penalties to hit, and damage. Then after say 150 to 500 to 1000 rounds of combat, would tell the player that they stop fighting, collapse, drop, involuntarily rest, pant, drop, stop, etc, that they are too fatigued to even lift their weapon, move weapon, that they are too tired, fatigued, exhausted to do anything but to do NOTHING, but to sit, lie there, and either be helpless, do nothing. And any opponent could auto hit them, unless they the opponent had fought as long as the player. Sure that may or may not technically in the rules, but it doesnt have to be, because the DM should be, are allowed to do things not in the rules, as long as it makes sense. For example. I was running a game where there was a room, that had a undead gate, sealed up by a seal, dome of force, Mythal by a 30th Level Caster in Myth Drannor. One of the players was a 11th to 13th lev Rogue who MAXED Open Locks, Doors. He could roll a D20 + 40 to 60 to 80, because of Skill focus feats, etc. I gave him a DC of 50 to 75 to 100. And he still made his check. He then said that according to the rules, the door opens even magical doors, because he made his check, according to the rules. And he was technically right. That's what the rules said. The door should have technically opened because of the rules. But common sense, logic dictates a level 13 rogue, would not be able to open a magically sealed door by a 30th level caster. The seal would have to be dispelled by a high enough caster. Or unlocked by a 30th level Rogue that could unlock magical doors, or teleport in. So according to that a 13th Level Rogue should not be able to unlock, open that door, no matter what the rules say. And so I overruled the rules, said that he couldnt unlock, open the door. And that was the right thing to do. And I rightfully did that as the DM. And thats why have DM's, GM's, because a good DM, GM, is there in case there is a flaw, lack in the fule, game, system,etc. To many DM's, GM's, players can be helpless, dont know what to do, solve problems, etc, because of a problem, flaw, etc, in the rules, game, and they dont know how to compensate, adapt, etc, so because of that, some silly DM's would let players fight for 1 zillion, infinite combat rounds with no consequences, because the rules, game says they can fight infinite rounds, no consequences, and so dont overrule those rules, because they are silly DM's who wont ever overrule the rules, because theybmist follow the rules no matter what, no matter how silly, etc. Well a DM can do what they like for the purpose of maintaining the narrative of the story, but I'll admit I don't like this reasoning. In order to get a skill that high, you have to sacrifice feats and equipment choices. I would be a little disappointed if I was told Abby couldn't perform some feat of healing-craft that she has the skills to accomplish, simply because her "level" wasn't appropriate and other clerics her level don't have the same level of healing skill. If you're going to focus solely on a specific skill, RPing as a "specialist" in THAT skill to the detriment of all the other feats/gear/skills you could have taken, that shouldn't be taken away from you based on your level. Obviously if something requires an appropriate level of HD, that's different, but if its just a skill DC... When it comes to magic locks, I used to DM a PnP rogue campaign where a party of thieves was trying to ascend to the top of Waterdeep's underworld. Everyone in the group was rogue mixed with something else, and a huge part of the adventures were dealing with locks and traps. Rather than requiring a 2 dimensional roll to disarm or open a lock, the PCs had to role play figuring out what the trap was, identify what made it go, then roll skills to disarm each component part or stage of the lock without setting it off or alerting the guards. The traps especially were like in-game puzzles that could kill you. Anyway, when it came to magical traps and magically sealed doors, there were ways to disarm these using mundane, non-magical means. For example, carefully sliding a lead sheet or mirror between the glyphs so that the magic wouldn't trigger once the door was opened. But since these were always non-magical means, or maybe using magic items to "trick" the spell, the rogues level didn't matter.. only his knowledge, skill and tools he had on hand. Its not a caster level check so you don't need to be the same level as the caster. You just have to identify how his magic works, and figure out what substances or tricks can block, fool or counter it. Obviously though, sometimes a DM needs to use plot armor and just say "you can't open that door."
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Feb 18, 2019 20:17:22 GMT -5
For example. I was running a game where there was a room, that had a undead gate, sealed up by a seal, dome of force, Mythal by a 30th Level Caster in Myth Drannor. One of the players was a 11th to 13th lev Rogue who MAXED Open Locks, Doors. He could roll a D20 + 40 to 60 to 80, because of Skill focus feats, etc. I gave him a DC of 50 to 75 to 100. And he still made his check. He then said that according to the rules, the door opens even magical doors, because he made his check, according to the rules. And he was technically right. That's what the rules said. The door should have technically opened because of the rules. But common sense, logic dictates a level 13 rogue, would not be able to open a magically sealed door by a 30th level caster. The seal would have to be dispelled by a high enough caster. Or unlocked by a 30th level Rogue that could unlock magical doors, or teleport in. So according to that a 13th Level Rogue should not be able to unlock, open that door, no matter what the rules say. And so I overruled the rules, said that he couldnt unlock, open the door. And that was the right thing to do. And I rightfully did that as the DM. And thats why have DM's, GM's, because a good DM, GM, is there in case there is a flaw, lack in the fule, game, system,etc. To many DM's, GM's, players can be helpless, dont know what to do, solve problems, etc, because of a problem, flaw, etc, in the rules, game, and they dont know how to compensate, adapt, etc, so because of that, some silly DM's would let players fight for 1 zillion, infinite combat rounds with no consequences, because the rules, game says they can fight infinite rounds, no consequences, and so dont overrule those rules, because they are silly DM's who wont ever overrule the rules, because theybmist follow the rules no matter what, no matter how silly, etc. I understand overruling in some circumstances can make the game better. But the whole point of a player overinvesting in a skill is that they can surpass DCs appropriate to their level. Or you could just go with, while the door is now unlocked the magical seal remains not having been dispelled. While you could walk through the doorway other aspects of the warding remain in place. You can pass but with out the correct phrase you still risk the discharge of arcane energies set by an epic wizard of renown. Care to ah... proceed? *with a malicious evil DM grin*
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Feb 18, 2019 20:59:00 GMT -5
One of rogues literal unique special ability, is the ability to deal with magical traps.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 12:27:33 GMT -5
Any worthy, good DM, would have players rolling fortitude saves, con checks, to see if fatigued after 33 to 67 rounds of combat, and then would follow fatigue rules, and would give negatives, penalties to hit, and damage. Then after say 150 to 500 to 1000 rounds of combat, would tell the player that they stop fighting, collapse, drop, involuntarily rest, pant, drop, stop, etc, that they are too fatigued to even lift their weapon, move weapon, that they are too tired, fatigued, exhausted to do anything but to do NOTHING, but to sit, lie there, and either be helpless, do nothing. And any opponent could auto hit them, unless they the opponent had fought as long as the player. Sure that may or may not technically in the rules, but it doesnt have to be, because the DM should be, are allowed to do things not in the rules, as long as it makes sense. For example. I was running a game where there was a room, that had a undead gate, sealed up by a seal, dome of force, Mythal by a 30th Level Caster in Myth Drannor. One of the players was a 11th to 13th lev Rogue who MAXED Open Locks, Doors. He could roll a D20 + 40 to 60 to 80, because of Skill focus feats, etc. I gave him a DC of 50 to 75 to 100. And he still made his check. He then said that according to the rules, the door opens even magical doors, because he made his check, according to the rules. And he was technically right. That's what the rules said. The door should have technically opened because of the rules. But common sense, logic dictates a level 13 rogue, would not be able to open a magically sealed door by a 30th level caster. The seal would have to be dispelled by a high enough caster. Or unlocked by a 30th level Rogue that could unlock magical doors, or teleport in. So according to that a 13th Level Rogue should not be able to unlock, open that door, no matter what the rules say. And so I overruled the rules, said that he couldnt unlock, open the door. And that was the right thing to do. And I rightfully did that as the DM. And thats why have DM's, GM's, because a good DM, GM, is there in case there is a flaw, lack in the fule, game, system,etc. To many DM's, GM's, players can be helpless, dont know what to do, solve problems, etc, because of a problem, flaw, etc, in the rules, game, and they dont know how to compensate, adapt, etc, so because of that, some silly DM's would let players fight for 1 zillion, infinite combat rounds with no consequences, because the rules, game says they can fight infinite rounds, no consequences, and so dont overrule those rules, because they are silly DM's who wont ever overrule the rules, because theybmist follow the rules no matter what, no matter how silly, etc. Well a DM can do what they like for the purpose of maintaining the narrative of the story, but I'll admit I don't like this reasoning. In order to get a skill that high, you have to sacrifice feats and equipment choices. I would be a little disappointed if I was told Abby couldn't perform some feat of healing-craft that she has the skills to accomplish, simply because her "level" wasn't appropriate and other clerics her level don't have the same level of healing skill. If you're going to focus solely on a specific skill, RPing as a "specialist" in THAT skill to the detriment of all the other feats/gear/skills you could have taken, that shouldn't be taken away from you based on your level. Obviously if something requires an appropriate level of HD, that's different, but if its just a skill DC... When it comes to magic locks, I used to DM a PnP rogue campaign where a party of thieves was trying to ascend to the top of Waterdeep's underworld. Everyone in the group was rogue mixed with something else, and a huge part of the adventures were dealing with locks and traps. Rather than requiring a 2 dimensional roll to disarm or open a lock, the PCs had to role play figuring out what the trap was, identify what made it go, then roll skills to disarm each component part or stage of the lock without setting it off or alerting the guards. The traps especially were like in-game puzzles that could kill you. Anyway, when it came to magical traps and magically sealed doors, there were ways to disarm these using mundane, non-magical means. For example, carefully sliding a lead sheet or mirror between the glyphs so that the magic wouldn't trigger once the door was opened. But since these were always non-magical means, or maybe using magic items to "trick" the spell, the rogues level didn't matter.. only his knowledge, skill and tools he had on hand. Its not a caster level check so you don't need to be the same level as the caster. You just have to identify how his magic works, and figure out what substances or tricks can block, fool or counter it. Obviously though, sometimes a DM needs to use plot armor and just say "you can't open that door." I get what your saying, but your getting the point I was making about the 1 zillion rounds of fighting with no penalty, because the rules allow it. Sometimes the rules are FLAWED, dont make sense, etc. And IF, When that happens, the rules get OVERRULED, by a good DM, GM, no matter what game mechanical, RP investments by the players. Realism, RP, etc, come first. Is it realistic for a character to be able to fight for infinite rounds without Penalty? No THEN OVERRULE. Is it realistic, that a 11th to 13 lev Rogue is going to be able to unlock a DIVINELY MAGICALLY SEALED DOOR WITH A 30TH LEVEL DOME OF FORCE SPELL, SEALING THE DOOR? NO Is it realistic that the Deities, Lloth, Queen of Darkness of the Multiverse, and Tiamatt, the deities of the Cult of The Dragon 30th level Priest, are going to let a 11th lev to 13th lev Rogue is going to unlock, open the door? Is it realistic that the 40th level MYTHAL cast by a 40th level BAELNORN LICH cast on the door, and the ENTIRE RUINS OF MYTH DRANNOR DUNGEON AREA, would be unsealed, dispelled, unlocked, etc, by a simple 11th level to 13 level Rogue, using thieves tools to unlock, open door. And as impossible as that either is, should be, etc, if a 11th lev togue were to open up such a door, would Eternia, The Watcher, Lords of Balance, etc, of the whole Multiverse, allow such a impossible, unrealistic, unbalanced thing to happen? No. The DM, GM Ultimate Deity of the game, would say NO that is not Balanced, that is not realistic, should be, is impossible, therefore The DM, GM does not allow it(A good DM anyways) Another Example: The Stupid 5 foot step rule in 3.5 Ed that stupidly allows a Wizard with a fighter's sword at the Mage's neck, to take a 5 foot step back, cast a spell that will kill the fighter, with the fighter getting no attack of opportunity, to try and stop the mage, even tho that is not realistic, not fair, and even tho in all previous editions, the fighter would have gotten attack of opportunity, and splatted the mage. Is that realistic? No Then in each of the above examples the DM rightly overrules to be more realistic, fair, balanced, RP, etc. In the door example, I revealed the plot, reasons why the Rogue could not ipen the door, initially pissing off the other players that the plot revealed. Gave the Rogue a 7,000 xp penalty for arguing, causing to reveal plot, etc. And all the players, even the Rogue character, after Plot, reasons revealed, eventually agreed that it was right to overrule the rule, not let the Rogue unlock the door.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 12:55:05 GMT -5
I understand overruling in some circumstances can make the game better. But the whole point of a player overinvesting in a skill is that they can surpass DCs appropriate to their level. Or you could just go with, while the door is now unlocked the magical seal remains not having been dispelled. While you could walk through the doorway other aspects of the warding remain in place. You can pass but with out the correct phrase you still risk the discharge of arcane energies set by an epic wizard of renown. Care to ah... proceed? *with a malicious evil DM grin* I kind of did do that, explain that in a way, but differently. Your right that even if unlock door, you still have to deal with the MYTHAL, ward, Dome of Force, sealing the door, that would make it so that the door cant open, even if unlocked, until the Mythal, ward, Dome of Force, were dispelled, and that only a 30th level Rogue might be able to dispell. After unlocking the door, after trying to open the door, the Rogue would find that the door would not move open. And even the strongest person in multiverse, if they tried to bash the door, would just bounce off the door, or bounce off of the magical forcefield of the Dome of Force. I explained, revealed all that to the player, and the player finally got it, after arguing, after plot, reasons, etc, revealed, after a 7k, xp penalty, loss. I thought about letting the Rogue open door, walking into room, and ALL the epic undead from the undead gate in the room, but thought that wouldnt be fair to rest of players, who also would be killed by undead. And also was just unrealistic to even let that happen, as much as I wanted to let happen to player. The other problem was the room was at the end of the 1st level to 30th level campaign. The campaign started at 1st lev in beginning of Myth Drannor Area, then by the time they find a way into the room the 11 level Rogue was trying to unlock into, they are suppose to be 30th Level going against Epic Draco Lich, Epic Wizards, Priest, Cult of Dragon, Tiamat, Lloth. Letting the Rogue open the door would not only be unrealistic, but go to the End of Campaign Epic Encounter, INSTA KILL PARTY, END OF CAMPAIGN, AT 10TH LEVEL AVERAGE PARTY MEMBER LEVEL. And I wasnt about to let that happen, and ruin everything for everybody, including all the hard work by everybody, unrealistic or not.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Feb 19, 2019 12:59:23 GMT -5
This is the sort of thing I try to deal with by house rule before people even start building their characters, rather than springing it on them in the moment when they try to do things. That way the character knows what is unrealistic just like I do as the tabletop DM, just like I know I can’t jump over the moon or run through a brick wall without needing God to explain this to me the moment before I try. And nobody has character builder’s remorse when they find out their abilities don’t do what they thought.
|
|
tirelesstracker
Proven Member
Whenever you sacrifice a clue, put a +1/+1 counter on Tireless Tracker.
Posts: 189
|
Post by tirelesstracker on Feb 19, 2019 13:20:38 GMT -5
TBH, unless I was told the 'house rules' before the game started during building, I'd likely quit at that point. If I built for a specific thing, sacrificing other benefits to enhance that specific thing, and then the DM dropped on me 'nah you're too good at that skill for your level, so I'm saying no' then I'd be more than a little miffed. Rules are the structure in which a game is built upon. If you wish to alter this and add 'house rules', cool. Make sure everyone is in agreement to that. But if you don't add house rules, and then change things mid-game? That's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 13:20:55 GMT -5
One of rogues literal unique special ability, is the ability to deal with magical traps. A Magical Trap is DIFFERENT then a door SEALED by BOTH A 40TH LEVEL MYTHAL, that covers the entire RUINS OF MYTH DRANNOR dungeon area, by a 40th level Elven Baelnorn Lich, and a 30th level Dome of Force, sealing the door. Let me put it another way, only ELMINSTER, KHELBEN BLACKSTAFF, ALUSTRIEL, MYSTRA, ETC, would have been able to open that door, NOT a 11th level Rogue. Yes Rogues can disarm Magical Traps, and unlock Magically locked doors But that does not count against Epic level Magic, that is BEYOND THEIR KEN, UNDERSTANDING. Now NORMAL low to semi medium magic traps, magic locked doors, yes. The DC's for the Rogue, only go up to about 50 to 75 to 100 to 150. To cover the DC of the Magic involved, the DC would have had to be 500 to 5000, for the 11th Level Rogue. And I could have said DC 500 to 5000. But figured there was no need. Didnt know that the player spent all his Feat slots on multiple Skill focus +3 to Open Locks, for about +15 to Open Locks, with +7 to +10 dex bonus to open locks, with 15 max skillpoint ranks to open locks, that could pull off about a D20+40+ lock check and hit about a DC of 50 to 75 DC.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Feb 19, 2019 13:40:51 GMT -5
Regarding the door... I think I understand, and largely agree, with what you did. The problem, I think, would be in giving it a DC at all. Plot devices like that are different IMO, and it's perfectly fair to require the players to have something specific to bypass it. But if there's a DC, then if a PC can make the roll it should work.
Oh the example about the AoO, on the other hand, I disagree. If the fighter actually had his sword to the wizard's neck, then he should have declared a readied action, which is different from an AoO.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 13:41:13 GMT -5
TBH, unless I was told the 'house rules' before the game started during building, I'd likely quit at that point. If I built for a specific thing, sacrificing other benefits to enhance that specific thing, and then the DM dropped on me 'nah you're too good at that skill for your level, so I'm saying no' then I'd be more than a little miffed. Rules are the structure in which a game is built upon. If you wish to alter this and add 'house rules', cool. Make sure everyone is in agreement to that. But if you don't add house rules, and then change things mid-game? That's a problem. DM FIATS(Overrulings with no good reason), are would be a good reason for you, anybody to quit. But if there is a DAMN GOOD LEGIT REASON, then player should not quit. I'm sorry, but not really sorry, if the rules say you can fight forever non stop, without logical, reasonable penalty, consequences: That is UNREALISTIC, ILLOGICAL, ETC. And as such I as a good DM would overrule the rules on, about that, and give appropiate, fair consequences, to both you the player, the other players, and to the NPC's, and to the Monsters. Yes that should be covered in house rules. But there are so many rules. And not everyone, including the DM is perfect, going to remember ALL the rules, and how they will affect, effect realism, situations, etc, ALL the time, EACH AND EVERY TIME. So while yes it should be covered in house rules, there will be times that come up as EXCEPTIONS, when will have to deal WITH A UNFORESEEN UNREALISTIC situation like IF the rules were to let a player jump over the moon at 1st level, where DM overrule, not let that happen. And if that happens, if the DM does that, the players should not have a problem with that. And MOST players dont have a problem with that. And the only players that do have problems with that, are game mechanical, min max freaks, that dont care about roleplay, realism, etc. And if do have problem with that, that is the players problem or problem with the player, NOT the DM.
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 14:07:25 GMT -5
Regarding the door... I think I understand, and largely agree, with what you did. The problem, I think, would be in giving it a DC at all. Plot devices like that are different IMO, and it's perfectly fair to require the players to have something specific to bypass it. But if there's a DC, then if a PC can make the roll it should work. Oh the example about the AoO, on the other hand, I disagree. If the fighter actually had his sword to the wizard's neck, then he should have declared a readied action, which is different from an AoO. Figuratively, not literally at, on wizards neck. From, in every edition, thru 0 to 3rd edition, until 3.5 edition, when a fighter was either had sword very close to either wizard, neck of wizard, or was had sword pointed at wizard, very close to wizard, or 1 inch to 1 foot, to within a 5 foot step, box, hex, etc, from wizard: The fighter either got a attack of opportunity, an or hit the wizard. Why? Because in that kind of situation, it is unrealistic, unfair for the wizard to be able to take a 5 foot step back and cast a spell to kill the fighter. The whole reason why a fighter is either charging to attack, or get extremely close to the wizard to be in position to try to attack, kill, interrupt, etc wizard, is to be able to stop the wizard from casting a DEADLY Spell. So if going to let a Wizard just take a 5 foot step back, and cast a DEADLY spell with no response allowed from fighter, which is unrealistic, then why woukd a fighter ever bother to charge in, get close to a wizard, if cant respond, attack, stop wizard from casting, etc. Its unrealistic, and even prominent DM's, players, developers, authors, etc, said it was unrealistic, stupid. And I wasnt the only DM that overruled the stupid rule. And the game even came out with a feat that allowed a fighter to ignore rule, get attack against wizard anyways, despite stupid rule.
|
|
abby
Old School
Posts: 323
|
Post by abby on Feb 19, 2019 14:32:11 GMT -5
If all these GREAT AND POWERFUL DIVINE AND MAGIC LOCKS BY LICHLORD HALF DROW GODS OF THE MULTIVERSE have DCs on their magic doors that a level 13 rogue can reach by investing and sacrificing to achieve the necessary skill, then...
YES
He can unlock them. If you don’t like it... raise the DC or else make it unlockable for anyone but who you, as a DM feels can harness the magic necessary. If you set the DC and a player who RPs a master lock smith can match that DC, his level doesn’t matter. Bad form to nullify his PC because of all-caps nonsense above. If they were so great, their DC would have been higher or the DM would have added specialized spells/tools that the rogue doesn’t have.
A rogue is not a wizard. A level 30 rogue is no more a mithil-busting arch mage than a level 13 rogue is. Rogues use tool, tricks and skill to beat magic locks. If they’ve got the skill to match the DC... ward busted.
Set higher DCs or else just loose the DC if you think it shouldn’t be pickable and put another path to it.
Also players can only fight for infinite rounds when they aren’t fighting challenging monsters. So they should get binged for soulless farming before they ever need to get binged for fatigue. I consider HP loss to be, in part, fatigue. So as players are loosing HP, they are becoming exhausted. The hit that kills them is the one they were too tired to dodge or parry. If they aren’t loosing HP fast enough, then they’re fighting enemies who are too weak for them and should up their game.
Also: min/maxing freaks!? Really? There’s another way to describe this, it’s called “nitch” character. And in my opinion D&D is at its best for party dynamics when you have groups of individuals who excel at specific things and suck at others. It means everyone in the group gets to shine when their talents becomes needed, and everyone in the group relies on one another to survive. Abby is a min/maxing freak healer and she works best with nitch rogues and nitch fighters. Each with a specific job that they do best. I’ll take a balanced party of min/maxing freaks over a group of jack-of-all-trades competing for the spot light any day.
If I have one complaint against epic levels and prestige classes it’s that they ruin party dynamics. The reason older editions of D&D make multi-classing hard was because Gary Gygax knew something all you young noobs have forgotten: Party Dynamics are what make D&D great. When everyone can do everyone else’s job almost as well as they can, what’s the point of a balanced party? Fighters should fight, wizards should wizard clerics should cleric and rogues should rogue. Bards were meant to do a little of everything, but not that well... in case someone got knocked down, they could fill their shoes until they got back up. Modern D&D where everyone can do everything is a mess and has the feel of a single player game more than a multi-player group effort where the party survives by combining their unique talents toward a common goal.
Ps. Also why I hate the modern cleric. The cleric now does the job of the fighter and the wizard almost as well as they can (better in the case of the fighter). That’s why I play a healer, because that’s what a cleric was meant to be. Good against undead and protecting the party, not there to overshadow the fighters and make them feel useless.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Feb 19, 2019 15:30:22 GMT -5
If all these GREAT AND POWERFUL DIVINE AND MAGIC LOCKS BY LICHLORD HALF DROW GODS OF THE MULTIVERSE have DCs on their magic doors that a level 13 rogue can reach by investing and sacrificing to achieve the necessary skill, then yes. He can unlock them. If you don’t like it... raise the DC or else make it unlockable for anyone but who you, as a DM feels can harness the magic necessary. If you set the DC and a player who RPs a master lock smith can match that DC, his level doesn’t matter. Bad form to nullify his PC because of all-caps nonsense above. If they were so great, their DC would have been higher or the DM would have added specialized spells/tools that the rogue doesn’t have. A rogue is not a wizard. A level 30 rogue is no more a mithil-busting arch mage than a level 13 rogue is. Rogues use tool, tricks and skill to beat magic locks. If they’ve got the skill to match the DC... ward busted. Set higher DCs or else just loose the DC if you think it shouldn’t be pickable and put another path to it. Also players can only fight for infinite rounds when they aren’t fighting challenging monsters. So they should get binged for soulless farming before they ever need to get binged for fatigue. I consider HP loss to be, in part, fatigue. So as players are loosing HP, they are becoming exhausted. The hit that kills them is the one they were too tired to dodge or parry. If they aren’t loosing HP fast enough, then they’re fighting enemies who are too weak for them and should up their game. Also: min/maxing freaks!? Really? There’s another way to describe this, it’s called “nitch” character. And in my opinion D&D is at its best for party dynamics when you have groups of individuals who excel at specific things and suck at others. It means everyone in the group gets to shine when their talents becomes needed, and everyone in the group relies on one another to survive. Abby is a min/maxing freak healer and she works best with nitch rogues and nitch fighters. Each with a specific job that they do best. I’ll take a balanced party of min/maxing freaks over a group of jack-of-all-trades competing for the spot light any day. If I have one complaint against epic levels and prestige classes it’s that they ruin party dynamics. The reason older editions of D&D make multi-classing hard was because Gary Gygax knew something all you young noobs have forgotten: Party Dynamics are what make D&D great. When everyone can do everyone else’s job almost as well as they can, what’s the point of a balanced party? Fighters should fight, wizards should wizard clerics should cleric and rogues should rogue. Bards were meant to do a little of everything, but not that well... in case someone got knocked down, they could fill their shoes until they got back up. Modern D&D where everyone can do everything is a mess and has the feel of a single player game more than a multi-player group effort where the party survives by combining their unique talents toward a common goal. Ps. Also why I hate the modern cleric. The cleric now does the job of the fighter and the wizard almost as well as they can (better in the case of the fighter). That’s why I play a healer, because that’s what a cleric was meant to be. Good against undead and protecting the party, not there to overshadow the fighters and make them feel useless. I largely agree with your observations except for the cleric. Yes clerics are healers but it depends on their god and what is expected. For instance, cleric of Tempus heal but they support a god of battles so naturally most of them would combine healing and fighting. I play an Elven cleric of Corellon who is a healer but also a fighter. She has gone to the front if no other choice but often flanks. Also not all healers are clerics as druids and rangers can also have the gifts. Marister is a pure ranger. He can spot traps but not disarm them nor can he unlock doors and chests. Rather than put skill points in rogue or taking rouge, he has studied and can call forth some healing spells.
I have nothing against dual classes but yea I understand wanting the ability to do other things. I think in regards to rogue skills, which seem to be the more common of cross classes, if not already so, offer higher dc and fail rates to those who are not pure rogue if you feel it is more balanced. Personally it does not bother me. Remember this is a game and not real life. A place we can do things we cannot in real life.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Feb 19, 2019 15:45:49 GMT -5
I largely agree with your observations except for the cleric. Yes clerics are healers but it depends on their god and what is expected. For instance, cleric of Tempus heal but they support a god of battles so naturally most of them would combine healing and fighting. I play an Elven cleric of Corellon who is a healer but also a fighter. She has gone to the front if no other choice but often flanks. Clerics have always been able to fight, I think the objection was that they should not be better at it than fighters (except in very limited circumstances).
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Feb 19, 2019 16:14:25 GMT -5
Also: min/maxing freaks!? Really? There’s another way to describe this, it’s called “nitch” character. And in my opinion D&D is at its best for party dynamics when you have groups of individuals who excel at specific things and suck at others. It means everyone in the group gets to shine when their talents becomes needed, and everyone in the group relies on one another to survive. Abby is a min/maxing freak healer and she works best with nitch rogues and nitch fighters. Each with a specific job that they do best. I’ll take a balanced party of min/maxing freaks over a group of jack-of-all-trades competing for the spot light any day. If I have one complaint against epic levels and prestige classes it’s that they ruin party dynamics. The reason older editions of D&D make multi-classing hard was because Gary Gygax knew something all you young noobs have forgotten: Party Dynamics are what make D&D great. When everyone can do everyone else’s job almost as well as they can, what’s the point of a balanced party? Fighters should fight, wizards should wizard clerics should cleric and rogues should rogue. Bards were meant to do a little of everything, but not that well... in case someone got knocked down, they could fill their shoes until they got back up. Modern D&D where everyone can do everything is a mess and has the feel of a single player game more than a multi-player group effort where the party survives by combining their unique talents toward a common goal. Ps. Also why I hate the modern cleric. The cleric now does the job of the fighter and the wizard almost as well as they can (better in the case of the fighter). That’s why I play a healer, because that’s what a cleric was meant to be. Good against undead and protecting the party, not there to overshadow the fighters and make them feel useless. Can not speak to 3.5 but I played a lot of Advanced D&D as PnP. Sorry clerics there were fabulous. Even then the clerics were front line types. Effrel, may Lloth claim her soul. *chuckling* Also clerics are not always healers. The good ones are, hmm more so at least. Those of the more ethically challenged sort use potions or wands. Cantrips only, well mine do anyway. Also took a lot of grief back then about not casting healing spells on the party *laughing*. Curry my favor and then we will see about whether I deem you worthy of curative magics *laughing*
|
|
tirelesstracker
Proven Member
Whenever you sacrifice a clue, put a +1/+1 counter on Tireless Tracker.
Posts: 189
|
Post by tirelesstracker on Feb 19, 2019 17:51:07 GMT -5
Again, rules are the entire structure of the game. People play and build with these rules in mind. What you did with that lock is a DM fiat. Had that door been that important, you'd have just plot-locked it and called it good. Not set a DC and then decide against it when your rogue beat it. Whether you agree with them or not, the rules of the game are in place. 'Realism' only goes so far in a -game-. A game built around rules. A lot of rules, to be as concise as possible. It's the job of the DM to have a firm understanding of these rules, and build the campaign around them, and make any alterations to them prior to the game's beginning.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Feb 19, 2019 20:28:24 GMT -5
One of rogues literal unique special ability, is the ability to deal with magical traps. A Magical Trap is DIFFERENT then a door SEALED by BOTH A 40TH LEVEL MYTHAL, that covers the entire RUINS OF MYTH DRANNOR dungeon area, by a 40th level Elven Baelnorn Lich, and a 30th level Dome of Force, sealing the door. Let me put it another way, only ELMINSTER, KHELBEN BLACKSTAFF, ALUSTRIEL, MYSTRA, ETC, would have been able to open that door, NOT a 11th level Rogue. Yes Rogues can disarm Magical Traps, and unlock Magically locked doors But that does not count against Epic level Magic, that is BEYOND THEIR KEN, UNDERSTANDING. Now NORMAL low to semi medium magic traps, magic locked doors, yes. The DC's for the Rogue, only go up to about 50 to 75 to 100 to 150. To cover the DC of the Magic involved, the DC would have had to be 500 to 5000, for the 11th Level Rogue. And I could have said DC 500 to 5000. But figured there was no need. Didnt know that the player spent all his Feat slots on multiple Skill focus +3 to Open Locks, for about +15 to Open Locks, with +7 to +10 dex bonus to open locks, with 15 max skillpoint ranks to open locks, that could pull off about a D20+40+ lock check and hit about a DC of 50 to 75 DC. I whole heartedly disagree. around 100 DC is appropiate for epic characters and normally requires epic lvls in order to pull of without proper over focusing. Lvl 5 characters have literally taken other character's god status in the time of troubles. One of the things I love about DnD is that level IS NOT everything. That being said, when taking the feat skill focus multiple times, I am pretty sure it has to apply to a different skill each time. So merely enforcing the real rules would have made it so he could only get a bonus 3 not 15 in open locks. Maybe there were other feats too, but you can stack skill focus feats on the same skill. You could also do other things like how he cant roll forever until he gets a natural 20 (and thus cant take a 20) because of weird safety mechanisms like how entering my password too many times in a site might block me out. You could make it so it requires both a successful disable device and a pick locks right after each other. Many ways of doing it besides "Oh sorry, you are not epic."
|
|
|
Post by asturonethoriusaline on Feb 19, 2019 22:54:23 GMT -5
About Clerics: Clerics have always been the most Bard Like, except jack of all trades, and almost master of some.
A cleric was better then the fighter, at fighting, because the Cleric has Divine Power at finger tips, turning them into better fighters, then fighters.
A Cleric was better then Rogues, because Clerics had Spells, that dealt with traps, opening doors, etc.
And Clerics were almost as good as Mages, and could even research, create new divine spells, if their Deity Allowed it.
About Multiclassing.
Agree that trying to multiclass a character into every role, concept, character is stupid.
But some multiclassing combos are synergistical, make sense, etc.
Examples: Paladin/Cleric/Champ of Torm. Deity: Tyr.
Bard/Rogue
Ranger/Rogue
Such multiclass examples have purpose of being a fighter, a cleric, a steather, etc, and not trying to have every role, concept, combined into 1 character.
About DM/Rules:
Guess will have to agree to disagree.
Also the point I was either making or trying to make wasnt the examples I used.
The point I was trying to make, is that sometimes game rule mechanics, systems, etc, are flawed, broken, etc, and that sometimes its the DM's/GM's job to FIX the problem by either overruling, changing the rule.
Thats a true point, regardless of whether agree or disagree with the examples I used.
Instead of getting point, focus was on the examples I used, instead of on the true, valid, legit point about how a DM sometimes has to be a rules FIXER.
And even that is not the main point.
Someone made the comment about FLAWED PROBLEMATIC game system games being a problem.
My point in response to that, is if have a good enough DM/GM, RULES FIXER, then can, could have the worst game, and the DM/GM game FIXER would make the game good.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Feb 19, 2019 22:58:18 GMT -5
This thread seems a little derailed to me.
|
|
Ronin
New Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Ronin on Jul 11, 2022 7:03:57 GMT -5
Hey look I started a thing. Do you run while in combat? Do you run when you see enemies to engage? Are you supposed to walk at all times no matter what? Discuss! Yep, I know this has a little age on it, but my (personal) outlook on running is the higher my character's Con ability (i.e. the more bonuses they have), the more they run. In real life, trainees at Fort Bemning, GA's Airborne School run at all times. This is a part of their physical conditioning and a disciplinary tool by the military too. They also do stress shoots, where they run for 3 - 4 miles (or road march with backpacks on for the same distance), then shoot at a range. Once they arrive at the range, they (mostly) begin immediately shooting at targets before their heart rate has a chance to return to a resting rate. This is modern military training. In the "Last of the Mohicans" with Daniel Day Lewis, their characters are shown as running much of the time. To me, this movie exemplifies a "Colonial Era, Indian Ranger" (as in D&D Ranger, not U.S. Army Ranger, which was forming during this time period too). I'm assuming that historically, the Indians ran a lot too and there's historical evidence / precedent for what they portrayed in the movie. Either way, running is a fundamental part of being a warrior and while the majority of my characters might be part-ranger, only my true warriors have the Constitution to back up their continuous running, which will be on display during combat, or combat maneuvers (pre and post). Any running they do in a town or village (etc.) will be purely accidental due to weight shifts, accidental touches on the touch screen (which is more of a problem in combat, as you'll see them dart off into the next dimension because I accidentally touched the edge or the button press was off by a millimeter... lol), etc. Basically, any character class that gets "fast movement" (i.e. Rangers, Monks & Barbarians I do believe), should acquire a Con Score that matches a 10% RoM, which would be approaching 18... Personally, I think Paladins and Fighters should have the same Rate of Movement (RoM) increases too, it's just that wearing armor slows them down (it slows everyone down quite frankly, but how much depends directly on the armor's weight - i.e. Their power-to-weight ratio), but we're getting into mechanics and rewriting software code, etc., which I'm not endorsing. Anyways, that's my perspective. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by OJDrinker on Aug 14, 2022 21:13:13 GMT -5
There is a lot I have to say on the topic (and other topics) brought up in this thread. But I get too worked up, so I'll say one thing, then I'll skip to the joke at the end.
The enemy getting attacks of opportunity when you run up to them is yet another a bug in NWN's crappy combat system. In pen and paper D&D this does not happen unless they have reach. In fact, if you are standing there and click the enemy at the right time, YOU get an attack of opportunity on THEM. (Also a bug.)
WE DO NOT FORGIVE!
WE DO NOT FORGET!
WE HAVE OVER 9000 *moderated* AND THEY'RE ALL RUNNING ON FRC!
|
|
|
Post by DM Sauron on Aug 15, 2022 9:54:40 GMT -5
There is a lot I have to say on the topic (and other topics) brought up in this thread. But I get too worked up, so I'll say one thing, then I'll skip to the joke at the end. The enemy getting attacks of opportunity when you run up to them is yet another a bug in NWN's crappy combat system. In pen and paper D&D this does not happen unless they have reach. In fact, if you are standing there and click the enemy at the right time, YOU get an attack of opportunity on THEM. (Also a bug.) WE DO NOT FORGIVE! WE DO NOT FORGET! WE HAVE OVER 9000 *moderated* AND THEY'RE ALL RUNNING ON FRC!
This is why you either take tumble or the spring attack feat on NWN.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Community Theatre on Aug 16, 2022 0:03:11 GMT -5
There is a lot I have to say on the topic (and other topics) brought up in this thread. But I get too worked up, so I'll say one thing, then I'll skip to the joke at the end. The enemy getting attacks of opportunity when you run up to them is yet another a bug in NWN's crappy combat system. In pen and paper D&D this does not happen unless they have reach. In fact, if you are standing there and click the enemy at the right time, YOU get an attack of opportunity on THEM. (Also a bug.) WE DO NOT FORGIVE! WE DO NOT FORGET! WE HAVE OVER 9000 *moderated* AND THEY'RE ALL RUNNING ON FRC!
This is why you either take tumble or the spring attack feat on NWN.
Careful how one spring attacks when there are 9,000 *moderated* around..
|
|