>Player: "I want to kick over the table and dive for

>>48101991
Oh look, it's another Pathfinder is the only edition of D&D thread.

>>48102163
I think OP may be implying that that is shit too desu.

>>48102163
>>48102216
Op is just digging shit out of the archives.

Some ass hat is "trolling" us.

>>48101991
Shit DM's make for Shit games, who knew?

>>48101991
>Kicking over a table is a standard action with a set DC
Yeah? In what book? What page? Strawman please.

>>48101991

Why would you duck for cover in a melee?

>>48101991
I declare that kicking over a table is minor action, and as long as the table isn't unusually heavy there shant be a DC, given that each point in strength equates to a passive ability to displace 10x pounds of weight without having to make a check.

Get a new DM, OP, yours is no fun.

>>48101991

1) Kicking over a table has no defined action cost. That's a ruling by the GM.

2) The DC for kicking the table over is also undefined, including whether there should be one at all. A DC of 15 is definitely way too high, since you don't need a STR of 20+ to consistently kick a table over, unless it's a fucking billiards table or something.

3) Ducking for cover behind the table is *definitely* not a move action. It's certainly less than a five-foot step, which can be taken as a free action. Unless you're ducking for cover behind something other than the table, in which case why did you kick the table over in the first place? What was the point? In any case, unless your character is planning on "diving" for cover that is 10+ feet away, it's a free action to do so.

4) Well, yeah, it's gonna provoke an attack of opportunity, because kicking over a table for cover *in fucking melee* just opens you up to attacks. It's a stupid maneuver.

File: 1467078053595.jpg (92KB, 463x700px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 463x700px

>>48101991
Why is a table a DC 15 str check?
Why do you provoke AAOO if the enemy isnt right next to you and youre not leaving their melee threat radius? And you are in its threat radiuswhy bother kicking the table over in the first place?

ITT: Shitty DMs and players blaming the system.

A table is not actually suitable cover. Arrows and bullets will pass through it like it's nothing.

The only thing a table blocks is line of effect.

>>48103075
>having shit tables

Stay poor and enjoy your cardboard and sheet metal tubes.

>>48103075
While bullets I'll agree with you but arrows? A wooden shield can block arrows. Why not a really long shield made of wood or rock? I mean as long as they dont press their back to the table i'm sure it could block arrows and bolts.

>>48102984
>Why is a table a DC 15 str check?
Why wouldn't it be? Study Dwarven Oak tables are not meant to be tossed around like your plastic patio furniture If the enemy is not next to you it should not provoke AoO, but the action itself implies letting your guard down to commit yourself to something else.

>>48103205

>For example, climbing the outer wall of a ruined tower may have a DC of 15.

Because thats not how DC is supposed to scale.


>but the action itself implies letting your guard down to commit yourself to something else.

So it shouldnt provoke an attack as you yourself said.

My original point still stands, stop being shit and blaming the system.

>>48101991

when I couldn't find anyone to play with

I just heavily mod skyrim with a few followers with generic classes and spells and pretend im in a group

>>48103331
Well fuck I hate to go logical fallacy on you but
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
You're literally quoting things I didn't say and pretending I made arguments I didn't make mate. I didn't even realize we were in disagreement.

>>48102699
Break line of sight of a caster?

Still bullshit due to being a standard action and DC15.

>>48103685
Fireball would still reach around the table.

>>48101991

>Playing a martial character.
>Surrounded on all sides by enemies.
>"I'll spin in a circle t-"
>"Sorry anon, you can only do that if you have [spin in a circle while swinging a weapon] feat and that'll provoke an AoO. What's your AC?"

And then I proceeded to eat four different AoO's and died.

Fuck 3.X

>>48105269
>>"I'll spin in a circle t-"
Sorry Anon, you can't because that's fucking retarded.

>>48105285

What's ridiculous about it?

I'm spinning in a circle in order to hit multiple opponents at once so I don't end up eating four different attacks on my subsequent turns.

I'd imagine getting a penalty towards hitting someone like this, not eating four AoO's just for attempting to perform it without the required feat that's unavailable until like level 10 or something.

>>48105001
>Every spell is fireball.

Yeah, that's a bad argument. It's like saying why take cover because your enemies might be packing grenades. Could be trying to avoid a spell like disintegration, or hold person instead.

>>48105347
Attacks of opportunity incurred from an action (not movement) occur after the action takes place.
Therefor they can only aoo you if you fail to oill them in the attack.

Hit harder.

>>48105347
>presenting your back wide open to enemies
>not expecting AoO
Uhh?

>>48101991
A conversation me and one of my better players had about how the bookkeeping was murder. If not murder-inducing in its own right, then inspiring thoughts of murder in those having to deal with it.

Loot, feats, skills, spells, what your attack bonuses are, buffs, debuffs, magic items, resources at your disposal, whos and wheres and whys, all that stuff has to be kept in the forefront of your mind while you're playing, and it distracts from actually playing.

Also, for as much as I like the spirit of their item creation system, it boils down to arbitrary bullshit-tier garbage-ass ass-garbage where fairly simple magic items can end up costing tens if not hundreds of thousands of gp, because of how the system is basically built around the basic tenet of, "this is a guideline, we don't actually know how it works, or even how it should work, use other, similar items to help you."

>>48105479
I thought AoOs interrupt the provoking action. Isn't that how spellcasting in combat's supposed to work?

>>48105520
They happen after. Which is why I said that.

>>48101991
>meanwhile in Exalted

Ok, that's a two point stunt: you gain two additional dice and one free success. Roll to hit and your normal damage.

>>48105507

I was already surrounded.

Hence the hail mary "I spin in a circle while swinging my sword."

>>48105347
It's fucking stupid because spinning in a circle with any kind of weapon will just get you hit on the back and get your weapon stuck. The first who just put a weapon in the way of yours will stop you and you're dead meat

>>48105549

In reality sure.

In D&D where wrinkled old prunes can summon lightning by waggling their fingers and reciting the gay national anthem, I'd say that it's just as possible for someone to swing in a circle to hit multiple enemies that are surrounding them.

>>48105594
>It's fantasy so you can do anything you want and realism doesn't matters
I hate this meme

>>48105594
While I do agree that it gets annoying that you need feats in pathfinder/d&d3.5 if you want to do anything outside the norm as a martial, spinning around to hit all enemies is stupid anime shit and I have no sympathy for you.

File: whirlwind attack.gif (773KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 500x281px

>>48105549
Basically this. Spinning is -not- a good trick.

>>48105594
Not until you git gud it's not.

>>48105594
Ok, make your normal number of attacks at your normal attack bonus and tell me which ones you want to target. As normal.

Or shove, tumble, or overrun your way out of being surrounded.

Are there ceaving rules for regular attacks in 3.5/Pf ?

>>48105618
>>48105639

>"Oh, spinning to hit multiple opponents at once, that's unrealistic."
>"Turning bat guano and sulfer into a bead of fire that blows up a small convo, perfectly legit and totally appropriate to the setting."

I hate this meme.

Especially when most of the bullshit that martials want to do, don't even break the game.

>>48101991
>dc 15 to kick a table over

the fuck?

>>48105669

>Just full attack you fucking pleb, you don't get to be creative!

Also, shoving, tumbling, and overrunning require feats to perform admirably and even then, you might eat an AoO anyway.

>>48105707
>Turning bat guano and sulfer into a bead of fire that blows up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder

>>48105707
A martial that jump six meters easy?
I take it.
A wizard who use a fireball to make explode a pool of water?
Fuck him

Stop thinking in D&D terms.

>>48105722

Okay?

It still doesn't mean that you can take bat shit and sulfer and blow something up with it IRL.

I mean, the components for lightning bolt is a piece of metal and some wool but last I checked, nobody shoots lightning outta their dick they start rubbing a nail with a sweater hard enough.

>>48105594
And the wrinkled old prune needs to know the right spells to summon lightning ... just as the jock needs to know the right techniques to pull off his faggoty pirouette without getting his spine, left kidney and right lung simultaneously fucked by 12 hard inches of steel.

>>48105795
How long are you sticking around on your bait thread? Do you have some sort of auto alert or something?

>>48105812

Yet the jock is penalized for trying to do something outside the box while the prune can basically devastate a small village with magic without any questions asked.

While they're both considered roughly the same in terms of power level, as far as 3.X is concerned.

It's bullshit.

>>48105866
no, it's not bullshit, it's a bait

>>48105719
>I should be able to suddenly decide I can make four attacks in one action to get myself out of a jam because the only rule is the rule of cool!
If there were 1000 enemies coming at you, would you expect to be able to attack 1000 times?
I don't believe you got that far without realizing you were playing a style of game that doesn't cater to your tastes.

>>48105866
The prune isn't doing anything outside the box though.

The ability and application is written pretty clearly. Outside the box would be using lightning bolt to commence electrolysis.

>>48102936
I wouldn't say it provokes. The enemies are going to be concerned about what is going on with the table. Potentially using their shields/weapons/off hands to keep it from hitting them.

I am making an assumption from the OP post that the the enemies are adjacent (Beside or opposite the table) if they are getting AOO.

>>48105866
It's unbalanced, but not for that reason.
A fighter cannot do things he doesn't know how to do.
A wizard cannot do things he doesn't know how to do.

>>48105866
Sorry you have had shit DMs.
(YOU)

>>48105921

Three things.

1) I should be able to attack four opponent who are tightly bunched around me in a DESPERATE attempt to take at least one of them down with me.
2) If there were 1000 enemies, I'd only be able to swing at 8 per turn at the most.
3) The wizard's fireball can attack a group of enemies within the AoE (20 ft.) and deal more damage to more targets with one spell than I can with multiple sword stabs.

Consider that this entire thread was about "when you realized D&D was shit" in the first place.

>>48103075
>arrows will pass through tables
not all of us are so poor that we own cardboard tables, anon

>>48105950

I, as an out of shape nerd, could take a stick or a piece of rhubarb and spin in a circle to attack multiple people around me. It's not going to work like I hoped it would but the point is, it's something that I, as an untrained person, would know how to do.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fighting man apparently cannot do this simple maneuver while being stronger than the average peasant just because the player didn't give him the correct feat to do so.

You're right though, it is unbalanced.

>>48106035
Post video of yourself making a circle attack. No enemies necessary, I don't want to be unreasonable.

>>48106035
>as an untrained person

Answered your on complaint on why simply making him stronger will not resolve the AoO problem.

The guy simply has not mastered the technique to reliably perform a whirlwind attack.

>>48105985
1) Well your character in that game can't, because he doesn't have that ability, so you don't get to just make shit up. A wizard without the required training would not know how to spin in a circle with a sword to hit four people at once either.
2) Do you think it's reasonable to take a swing at 8 people at once and have any chance of hitting most of them, when YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED THAT ABILITY? Unless they're all gelatinous cubes completely filling their spaces, they're not going to just stand there and take it. Sure, D&D is not perfectly realistic, but if you want to do something clearly fantastic that most people cannot do, YOU HAVE TO LEARN THAT ABILITY.
3) Yeah, so? The wizard's fireball has a description and RULES explicitly saying it can target any number of creatures in an area. The fighter's sword does not.

>>48106057

Why do you even need training to spin in a circle to attack multiple targets though? It's not like I expected it to actually kill more than two people at the most.

At most, I'd expect to take penalties to my hit until I gained the feat or maybe even an AoO if any of my opponents survive if the GM wants to be deadly but not automatically eating four AoO's just because I decided "welp, might as well channel my inner Link and hope for the best" when I was already fucked anyways.

Where's the logic in that?

>tfw no one remembers that interacting with scenery is a free action in 5e

>>48106050
https://youtu.be/HPPj6viIBmU

>>48106086
Because spinning like that will open you up to being hit hard when you turn your back, side or even just raising your sword arm like the nounce your character is being.

I mean bully for asking but if you lack the ability to see how it won't work so well in a combat scenario you might need to have been cuddled more as a child.

The training is learning how to whip around effectively while keeping yourself free from reprisal,

>>48106082

1) I'm spinning in a fucking circle while holding a piece of metal, it's not like I'm enflaming it while increasing the size of it or anything. How is basic bullshit considered an "ability" to you when anyone could do it?
2) I do if I'm taking multiple penalties for doing so and I don't expect to survive anyways. I mean, I take down maybe 2 guys and the other 998 enemies kill me next turn anyways, so what's the issue?
3) The point was, why can't I perform a stupid action that probably won't kill more than two people, at best, while the wizard can pop a spell that deals more damage to more people at the cost of a spell slot and nobody bat an eye?

I understand that it's magic but if we're supposed to be the same level, why is the gap between of our abilities so large for achieving the goal of striking multiple opponents in one turn?

>>48106150
>How is basic bullshit considered an "ability" to you when anyone could do it?
Fucking prove you can do it, faget.

>replying to trolls

Only trolls do that at this point. This thread is just faggots.

File: laughing lizard.jpg (134KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x333px

>>48106116

>>48106137

So you basically ignored the part where I said that I,

1) Expected massive penalties for doing said action without the feat.
2) Expected for this move to fail at performing what I wanted to do.

Maybe your parents should've taught you how read properly, not to immediately jump to conclusions, and not be an asshole.

File: star_wars_kid_narrowweb__300x226_020110724-22047-1grald.jpg (8KB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x226px

>>48106150
>I'm spinning in a fucking circle while holding a piece of metal
And you're not going to come close to hitting a single person. You're not going to do anything but look stupid, because you're not aiming at any body part in particular. Have you ever seen a swordfight outside of Star Wars? Do you not understand how big a 5-foot square is?

>>48106177

Are you saying you can't spin in a circle while swinging a weapon?

Can you even wipe yourself anymore?

>>48106197
>>48106198
>trolls trolling trolls

Kill yourselves.

>>48106198

For the umpteenth time, I don't expect it to work and I don't expect to do this without taking on penalties for it.

It's the principle of, why is this stupid tactic listed as a special ability that's worthy of a feat with multiple prereqs for it?

>>48106204

Third party anon.
I present the case that spinning with a weapon in hand is completely different from striking in a full circle.

The momentum you'd need to keep going past the first hit would be ridiculous. All of your inertia would be lost. It's a dumb way to try and smack someone down.

>>48106204
I don't even own a weapon. Now take that Genuine ™ katana off your wall, bust out the ol' webcam, and show us what you've got.

>>48106197
I don't see where I failed? I explained why you'd eat 4 AoO and why performing it without the feat will cause those attacks, the actual technique will not make swinging it more deadly or less likely to make contact, only protect yourself from counter attacks.

As you've mentioned any retard can spin in a circle slashing wildly, the feat exists solely so you can defend against the AoOs while you do so.

>>48106220
4th party anon.

You're all acting like retarded cunts. Grow the fuck up.

5e doesn't have these problems

>>48106251
Yeah, it is pretty dope in it's simplicity and homebrewability.

>>48106220

Hence the penalties and lack of confidence in striking down more than maybe two people without a feat.

File: bingo.png (615KB, 750x900px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 750x900px

>realism

>>48106251

Thank christ for that.

Not having to know half a dozen useless feats just to do one thing that's obsolete by the time it's learned is one of the reasons I love it so much.

>>48106219
Because actually doing it EFFECTIVELY requires significant training and practice. Thus the feat.

They don't really give you the option to do it sans-feat because they probably didn't want to expand the rulebook 3 times over listing all the dumb shit you can try at -20 penalties or w/e.

So many morons that think whirlwind attack is just spinning in place with your weapon extended... It's actually making several quick and accurate attacks among different targets while not presenting any openings, which is actually extremely impressive.

Go get 4 buddies. Tell them to double flank you. Tell them to attempt to tag you with whatever object in hand when you try to spin with your "weapon" and attempt to tag them at the same time. It does NOT turn out well for the guy surrounded.

>>48106298
Indeed. There's like 25 feats and odds are you have at most one or two.

Just decide what you want to do have have the dm decide the cost of it.

>>48106282
see>>48105769

The actual example was SHIT. And I mean pure, unaltered shit. Spinning in a circle is autismo-tier figther.

Whine because you can't half-sword or mordhau. That's better.

File: its a dnd thread again.png (186KB, 298x423px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 298x423px

>>48106220
>>48106198
>>48106137
>>48106082
>>48105549
>>48106306
>realism

File: 1429154842039.jpg (48KB, 627x626px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 627x626px

>>48106336
>If you complain about shitty unrealistic fighters, you must like shitty omnipotent wizard

>>48106336
Because I'm not the habitual Barbarian in game.

I just fucking hate the 'le creative' combat shit people try, I do not expect you to be able to cut off someones armor, or slaughter a room in one go any more than I expect the Apprentice Wizard to cast Wish.

>>48106306

Y'know what, let's agree to disagree and say that the retarded spin attack move done in desperation is not something you'd do as your go-to melee attack.

Let me rephrase the question, why do I have to wait until level 10, at the latest, to learn how to attack people in an AoE that only goes as far as melee while the wizard can learn multiple spells that can deal more damage and attack multiple targets, at ranged, as early as level 5?

Level 5 is supposed to be the point where you stop being ordinary people and start becoming fucking badasses who can perform herculean feats of might and magic, if one class learns an AoE ability then the other classes should have access to an AoE ability as well, even if it's just something that works against a group of enemies if they're within melee range of you.

And if that's not the case then why is that? Because it's certainly not for balance, otherwise the wizard wouldn't have a 20 ft. AoE spell at level 5 in the first place.

>>48106403
Because D&D is garbage. That's kind of the subject of the thread.

>>48106219
>I don't expect it to work
No, you expected it to have a chance to KILL TWO PEOPLE. >>48106086

>>48106436

Crits are an amazing thing anon.

Whcih is why I said "at the most."

>>48105921
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5mcvn2C_c
Sure why not.

>>48105269
That's rather retarded. And fucking yeah it should provoke and AoO - you're literally showing your back to everyone.

>>48105542
>I was already surrounded.
Which means that you should've applied your creativity beforehand - in your attempts to NOT get surrounded. If the enemies are roughly the same level and you're on your own than you're totally fucked when you get surrounded by them regardless of what you do, and that's the way it should be.

>>48105985
> I should be able to attack four opponent who are tightly bunched around me in a DESPERATE attempt to take at least one of them down with me.
4 AoOs sound desperate enough to me.
> The wizard's fireball can
Of course. He's a fucking wizard and you're a dude with a stabber. The fuck did you expect? If you don't like the power gap go ask your GM for a Holy Flamin' Frost-Brand Gronk-Slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' Woundin' an' Returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-Out-Yer-Bum
>Consider that this entire thread was about "when you realized D&D was shit"
It's shit if you desire power balance in the party, but the situation was just you being amazingly dumb.

>>48105347
>>48106035
No, hitting someone is a bit harder than that. Your weapon prof is a reflection of how well your char knows all the techniques required for landing blows in the enemy. It's not just "he swings it and they suffer", just landing a blow on someone resisting is REALLY DAMN HARD and requires a lot of focus and effort.

>I, as an out of shape nerd, could take a stick or a piece of rhubarb and spin in a circle to attack multiple people around me
And if you actually take a solid hold on your Exotic Weapon and try to hit something big and heavy while spinning in one place, you're gonna fall down on your ass. I fucking guarantee that. Even someone really well trained would fall on his ass, which is why trained people don't try that shit and it requires le epic fightan levels to be able to perform something like that.

>>48106403
First, the wizard spell in question comes with its own set of drawbacks. For example:
-He has to have gotten a full night's sleep and an hour of "me-time" in the morning.
-An enemy grappling him, or even a fierce storm can make him unable to use the ability. Similarly, anything making him unable to retrieve the bat guano from his pouch also nixes the spell.
-He can't make the fireball distinguish between allies and enemies, (including himself at short range!) while the fighter whirlwinding can.
-He suffers from the usual caster class drawbacks, which include danger HP and crappy AC.
-The spell slot used to do a single fireball is done for the day. A whirlwinding fighter can keep throwing the tactic as long as seems sensible.

Now I'm not saying the game is actually balanced. Good players can definitely do more when sitting behind a caster character sheet than an equivalent melee, but don't try to pretend that melees are never ever needed.

You ever try to be a wizard in an anti-magic area? How about when golems show up? Or when the enemy has some good monks that will pass their saves and be in your face grappling instantly? Melees can be relevant. Maybe your DM just doesn't know how to deal with good caster PC's.

>>48106524
>but don't try to pretend that melees are never ever needed.

They are needed, but there's plenty of options that can both melee and caster, often at the same time.

>>48106486

Listen, we've already moved on at this point.

I wasn't even arguing that spinning in place like a retard was a good idea, just that I should've been able to attempt it without the feat while taking on shitloads of penalties for doing something incredibly stupid in desperation in the first place.

But anyways, it's really only an issue for 3.X so it's really nothing that I have to worry about anymore now that we moved on to 5e.

File: mouse cord.png (45KB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x301px

>realism
Literally a non-argument.

>>48106446
If your only justification for attempting this action was "I might roll a crit", then you didn't expect it to work. This is "I intimidate the avalanche" level of desperation.
Furthermore, a natural 20 is only a crit if you would've hit without the "nat 20 always hits" rule.
You attempted an action that you expected to fail, and it failed. No problem here!

>>48106554
well yeah, if you wanted to take -4 to hit and -20 to hit any further guys after hitting one, as well as being flat-footed for the round, I'd let you swing that.

>>48103590
That sounds both sad and fun at the same time. How did it work out?

>>48106524
What this guy said.

Plus the way I like it, casters are supposed to be more powerful in the terms of fucking shit up per turn. But they are also supposed to be rare and busy. A party's sole trump card played by a competent player who knows how to kick ass when it's needed without hogging up all the spotlight. If you're a sole martial in a party full of wizards and druids and clerics doing your run of the mill dungeon crawl, and you can't even reach the enemies before the MMO raid behind him ends the encounter, and your GM doesn't help you with build optimization and by showering you with artifacts, and there's nothing else for you to do - then you are doing this wrong and should just go play WoW.

>>48106580
>nerd with 8 dex trying to do this

>>48106580
>The only rule is rule of cool!
>I should be able to just decide my character has whatever ability I need to win the fight, and not take any penalties for it!
D&D is not for you.

>>48106554
>doing something incredibly stupid in desperation
>shitloads of penalties
HOLY MOLLY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I EXPECTED!

Also
>a DESPERATE attempt to take at least one of them down with me
Then why didn't you just attack one of them?

>>48106524

>1

Rope trick

>2

Freedom of Movement or something like Misty Step.

>3

There are still spells like chain lightning that can in fact distinguish between allies while dealing damage to multiple enemies at once.

>4

Drawbacks that are easily remedied with spells like stone skin, mage armor, and vampiric touch.

Ignoring the fact that mages can summon walls, teleport, or summon monsters to get between them and the enemy.

>5

One spell slot, which the wizard has tons of as well as other spells that can force an enemy to SoL/SoD if they so choose.

>don't try to pretend that melees are never ever needed.

They aren't when the Cleric and Druid are both classes that can swing in melee while having the utility of a wizard to boot.

There's a reason why CoDzilla exists.

>You ever try to be a wizard in an anti-magic area?

You try swinging at something without the bonuses granted by magic items?

>How about when golems show up?

The golems with DR 10/- on top of decent AC that the martials will have to swing at for ten turns?

>Or when the enemy has some good monks that will pass their saves and be in your face grappling instantly?

Monks and maneuvers suck ass anyways, not to mention we've already covered spells that can escape a grapple already.

>Melees can be relevant. Maybe your DM just doesn't know how to deal with good caster PC's.

Or maybe it's because the game sets up arbitrary road blocks that limit what a martial is able to do while mages can ignore the rules and overcome most encounters due to the fact that spells are bullshit.

I mean, you think nobody, in third edition's ten years of existing, didn't suggest the things that you've suggested already?

>>48106524
>You ever try to be a wizard in an anti-magic area?
An incredibly niche situation that doesn't actually come up unless you're out to waste the caster player's time.

>How about when golems show up?
Plenty of spells that don't target magic saves.

>Or when the enemy has some good monks that will pass their saves and be in your face grappling instantly?
>monks

>>48106580
It can totally be a swift action. It just takes training, so - has to become a swift action for martials after getting a few levels.

>>48106602
I wouldn't give him more than 6.

>>48106583

Which was my point.

>>48106611

Because if I critted I might have been able to take out more than one person.

>>48106580

>expecting a desk jockey to have any form of coordination beyond expert joystick controls

mm.

>>48106581

"NAT 20 always hits" is pre-baked into the system though.

Same as "NAT 1 always fails."

>>48102699
Repeating crossbows?

>>48106636
>Because if I critted I might have been able to take out more than one person.
Your tactical and math capabilities are on par with those of a mentally handicapped person.

>>48106621
>I mean, you think nobody, in third edition's ten years of existing, didn't suggest the things that you've suggested already?
Sane people are fine with them since they are not playing The Game of Casters: Outcheesin' Thy Neighbor.

>>48101991
>Meanwhile, in FFG Star Wars...
GM: "The Gamorrean moves in while pulling the vibroaxe out of his belt..." (2 maneuvers)
Player: "Blast! I'm going to kick over that table and dive for cover!"
G: "Sure. You're not exactly disengaging... gimme an Easy Brawn check for a maneuver. 1 purple."
P: "Can I use Athletics?"
G: "Hell yeah". (P rolls) "Ok, 2 successes and a setback... you flip the table and take cover behind it; that'll impose a Setback die on the Gamorrean's attack next time he takes a turn... as for the setback, it seems the table was heavier than it looked! Take 1 strain. You going to attack him? What's next?"

>>48106660

>Your tactical and math capabilities are on par with those of a mentally handicapped person.

Why do you keep missing the part where I said I wasn't expecting to work.

It's not like being flanked by four guys is leaving me with much options in the first place.

>>48106676
My experience with FFG Star Wars is more like
>Meanwhile, in FFG Star Wars.
>(P rolls) "Ok, 6 advantages and 1 failure..."

>>48106695
Git gud, spend destiny

>>48106695
6 advantages is kind of a killer roll; you might not have succeded, but that's a lot of boosts you can pass to other people

>>48106650
And did you roll a nat 20 with your spin attack? Did you?

>>48106621
Yes, congratulations. In the immense library of spells you found broken ones and ones that cover the usual weaknesses. We know, just like we did over a decade ago in 3.5.

And he specifically mentioned fireball, so the chain lightning is irrelevant. He also specifically mentioned wizards, thus CoDzilla is irrelevant.

Most people don't play their wizards in "I must be invincible" mode. I fully admit it's possible if you know the correct assortment of spells, but he seemed to be speaking about your garden variety "rear line party wizard," not the "demi-god that's letting the party tail along to cheer him on."

>>48106684
Your whole argument is regarding the fact that the DM did give you penalties for the action, and it failed, and you bit it.

Why are you even still typing if you're agreeing with what the DM did? What's your end game here autismo?

>>48106684
>Why do you keep missing the part where I said I wasn't expecting to work
You expected it to maybe crit and kill more than one dude. Except that you wasn't really expecting it to crit and kill more than one dude. But you did it anyway. And god mad that it didn't work as you expected, all while not expecting it to work.

...

What sort of a mental illness is this?

File: 1466449999222.gif (565KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 246x205px

>>48106716
BUT I DON'T WANT THE FUCKING ADVANTAGES I JUST WANT TO SUCCEED

>>48106743

>>48101991

When I first saw the book, I realized that the game was far from what I wanted. So I never played it and I bought and play more interesting ones.

>>48106768

>>48106743

No, because the GM said I couldn't do it at all because I didn't have a feat and I ate four AoO's before I could even attempt a roll.

>>48106787
Then you couldn't attempt it at all. That's GM discretion. Don't like it? Play a vidya game.

>>48106755

Five spells, most of which aren't any stronger than level 3.

Plus, I'm pretty sure there's a metamagic feat that allows you to shape spells or something.

>>48106762

To be fair, he didn't get mad when he didn't succeed, because he wasn't allowed to try it in full in the first place.

Something about 4 attacks of opportunity...

The GM handled it poorly - attacks of opportunity shouldn't really be made if movement isn't being spent, and moving in a fucking circle doesn't really get the player anywhere. Should've been done as a series of strength checks to keep the sword going after a successful attack. First failed attack or check ends the spin and rains down the killing blows from the remaining baddies.

>>48106762

The original post said that he ate four AoO before he could even roll his spin attack.

That's the issue here.

>>48106778

I tried to do the dice rolling thing but it didn't show up for some reason.

>>48106695
>You accidentally launch the table in his face! He drop his weapons and all your allies get a boost die to drop on him
It's better than a success

>>48106799

If I couldn't do the action in the first place then why am I eating AoO's for an action I didn't do?

Is it like Minority Report where you get punished for even thinking about breaking a rule because that's the only way I could make sense of the whole situation.

>>48106801
Again, yes. There are things. Spells, feats, magic items. I outright said the game isn't balanced in my first post. The good part is that most people that play wizards don't bee-line to those spells/items/feats, because they don't want to make the party superfluous.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here?

>>48106858
If that's the case, your problem is a shitty DM, or a miscommunication during a combat session, which happens sometimes, there's a lot going on.

The moral of this story is that, had you tired it, that should've been the result. Since you didn't and still got penalized, there was a fuckup somewhere in the chain of events, which you should've talked about with your DM before spewing your bile all over these fine gentlemen.

>>48105507
Facing's not a thing in 3.5 and beyond, sempai. There's no special advantage gained for attacking from behind, that's one of factors lost in the abstract nature of the system's combat. If you don't like that, you don't like the system's rules, but that doesn't affect how the rules work.

>>48106676
Next line:
>P: Oh, that knocks me catatonic; I reached my strain threshold

>>48106872

Why do I have to wait until level 10 to get an AoE that only strikes in melee while the wizard gets an AoE that can strike anything within a 20 ft. radius while dealing much more damage at no cost.

The game isn't balanced but it should still make some lick of sense considering we're all supposed to be the same level.

Then again, this thread was supposed to be bitching about 3.X so I guess we can just call it retard logic and move on.

>>48106858
Maybe because your dude daydreamed about being Link while he was surrounded by angry men. I don't know, I'm not your DM. Sounds like that question should've come up in conversation when the event happened.

But really, man up and reroll. Hell roll up a wizard since you seem to think they're so unfair.

>>48106843
Combat advantages are literally pre-defined in a table. Nice try.

>>48106891

Says the guy who immediately went on the attack in the first place.

That's not D&D being shit, that's your GM being shit. Don't get me wrong, 3.x IS shit, just not because of that.

>>48106923

>If you want to win, play a mage.

What about people who don't want to play tabletop WoW?

>>48106381
what's wrong with creative combat? i mean the whole thing with these games is the ability to play however you want. i can play a fisty boi and punch someone but i can also try to explode their heads by squishing it in between my giant orc hands. what is wrong with that?

>>48106928
...Yeah?
Three advantages to drop the weapon, one to give a boost die to the next ally, two for any ally.
We play in a group of three.

>>48105719
>Also, shoving, tumbling, and overrunning require feats to perform admirably and even then, you might eat an AoO anyway.
Or you could be playing an edition that doesn't constantly shit on you.

>>48106945

Because 3.X is designed so that you cannot have fun unless you're playing a mage.

>>48106909
Exceeding thresholds will drop you unconscious, but yeah...

>>48106917
Because classes have advantages and disadvantages. That same wizard has to wait til level 10 to walk through a blade trap without dying when you can do it at level 5.

AoE's are not usually a standard feature of the fighter-types. They do tend to be a standard feature of the caster types. It's like you're complaining that your magic red deck doesn't have counterspells and life gain.

If you think they're so much better, play them.

Also
>at no cost
Spell slots say hi. Every slot used is another that isn't there during the next encounter that day.

>>48106954

This was a thread asking when you realized D&D was garbage.

>>48106940
... wasn't "tabletop WoW" the only edition where wizards were actually roughly on par with fighters?

>>48106917
>Why do I have to wait until level 10 to get an AoE that only strikes in melee while the wizard gets an AoE that can strike anything within a 20 ft. radius while dealing much more damage at no cost.
The same reason that the wizard has to wait until level 20 to get 100 HP and 30 some odd armor class, which the fighter will have had since level 8. Because wizards and fighters have different roles.

AoEs are not the fighter's role, tanking is not the wizard's role. You're bitching because you're trying to play your class in a role it's not suited for. Try playing the class that does what you actually want to do.

POLLANON STRIKES AGAIN!!

http://www.strawpoll.me/10662512

Let's see what most elegan/tg/entlement want. Realism vs Awesome, Fight!

>>48106940
Most of them aren't in this random thread bitching, so they're probably fine.

>>48106945
I said 'le creative' creative. IE doing dumb shit thinking rule of cool will save you like a green fighter riding a table down a flight of stairs while sword fighting.

Simply put it detracts from the game as much as That Guy being put in charge of a caster. Creative combat like pulling a chandelier down on someone or taking cover or using meat shields is fine, but the retarded shit is just retarded.

>>48106962
You not understanding this point is just embarrassing, anon.

>>48102163
First post nailed it

>>48106940
Stormwind fallacy. Try again.

C'mon bud

>Okay, roll for it

>>48106965

>Because classes have advantages and disadvantages

Yet the disadvantages of playing a mage can be sidestepped through liberal uses of magic, which kinda defeats the fucking purpose.

A mage can take a feat that allows him to recycle spell slots for one that's higher or lower than the slot being sacrificed.

A Fighter cannot attack multiple times unless he doesn't move beforehand.

A mage can stack shit like stone skin or ethereal body to walk through danger without worry.

A Fighter's only defense against those measures are high HP since armor doesn't actually prevent damage beyond making you better at "dodging."

>If you think they're so much better, play them.

Fuck you.

Why should I have to play a mage just to have fun beating enemies to death with a sharpened piece of metal?

Especially when it's an option that's supposed to be just as strong as any other class.

>>48107018
>Why should I have to play a mage just to have fun beating enemies to death with a sharpened piece of metal?
You absolutely shouldn't, anon.

You play a cleric to do that. "Mage" refers exclusively to arcane spellcasters with casting progression up to 9th level spells.

>>48106968

No, tabletop WoW was the system where every other obstacle can only be overcome with a roll.

Wanna talk to a guard? Roll Charisma!
Wanna break down a door? Roll Strength!
Wanna pick a lock? Roll disable device!

Unless you're a mage, then you can just cast a spell and overcome the obstacle without having to even make a roll.

Yay balance!

4e's only fault was streamlining combat and balancing classes so they were actually worth playing. If the change wasn't so drastic, or was a game that wasn't D&D, people wouldn't have had so bad of a reaction to it.

File: pathfinder complaint.jpg (61KB, 640x368px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x368px

>>48101991
>>48106282
>>48107018
>>48107032

>>48107018
Calm down ragebro.

I'm well aware that well-built wizards trounce fighters by comparison. That's not new.

You can either build a dude that uses some magic while hitting people, or optimize the best fighter you can...

...Or option 3, you could just realize that the game isn't a competitive sport and stop getting bent all out of shape that your dude isn't the best dude ever. If that's what it takes for you to have fun, maybe you should try a different game.

>>48107048
>streamlining combat
4e did the opposite and then later came back and streamlined their own combat. Both 3.5 and 4e has convoluted combat, 5e streamlined it again.

>>48106985
ah okay. i thought you were just bashing creativity lol

>>48106933
Nope, only posted twice in this thread, not your nemsis

>>48107101
God no, would die of boredom if I didn't use/allow it.

>>48107069
Lots of people bring up "it's not a competition" as defense for poor balance, and it's almost never valid. Every player at the table deserves to feel useful, and ideally not just in incredibly niche situations that might as well be neon signs that say "TIME FOR THE FIGHTER'S BACK PATS".

File: Снимок.png (5KB, 269x254px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 269x254px

>>48106971
STUNNING, BUT THIS IS REALLY DEBATABLE AND NOT "TWO LOUD SPERGS VS EVERYONE"!
KEEP VOTING!

>>48106970

1) You're basically arguing that the wizard getting a poor passive ability is the same as the Fighter having several poor active abilities

Even then, there are ways for the Wizard to gain high HP and AC through the use of feats, spells, and special abilities while the Fighter will never be able to perform an AoE attack until he's at a point where the ability becomes obsolete.

2) A level 20 wizard will also have access to spells that allow him to stop time, summon planar creatures, lock people behind an inescapable prison, and more in the time it would normally take the Fighter to swing at something.

A +20 BAB to hit doesn't stack against the ability to smack someone before they even perform their turn.

3) The main point is, there should be an option, especially since the AoE for the martial would be inherently limited by the fact that it'd only have a range of 5 ft. as opposed to the wizard who can launch a bead about 100 ft. before detonating it into a 20 ft. blast.

>>48107125
The thread we are in is entirely about d&d being garbage. We all realize that here. Some people still use it, because it can be fun with a good group, or because it's the only system everyone knows, or it's the only game in town.

You don't like it? Teach your group another system, you'll be happier for it.

File: 14484878986150.png (128KB, 273x252px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 273x252px

>>48107153
>filename
N - Nezameten

>>48106997

>I'm sorry, you cannot do this thing because the rules say you can't.
>But why?
>Because the rules say you can't, don't question me!

In other words, the same reasons why you cannot climb walls or travel outside of the area in most games because of an invisible wall or the lack of a prompt telling them that they can.

>>48107069
>it's not a competition, balance doesn't matter
So you'd okay a party composed of a dragon, a beholder mage, a mindflayer Alhoon, and a human Commoner, then? Is that how far you'd take this philosophy?

>>48107076

Eh, the worst part of it was how wonky the math was and how monsters initially played like they were still from 3.X.

Nowadays, they fixed it and even if it did take a while, at least stuff was still happening beyond,

>you hit, roll damage
>you miss, okay it's X's turn.

Though the GM was also shit too but eh, whatever.

>>48107201

Slippery slope.
If those were meant to be played, they would have been made into character options.

>>48107188

WotC actively encourages the use of the DM's Guide as a framework. You know - the bones upon which something is built. Shit GMs with shit creativity is not the game's fault and is a system agnostic issue.

I played a lot of D&D based computer games as a kid but never had any wish at all to play the tabletop.

When I did finally get into tabletop rp it was through d10 and d100 based systems so I pretty much became allergic to the whole "poly set" rubbish after that.

>>48107241

Except the framework they provide doesn't work due to the fact that, on top of class imbalance issues, the CR math is fucked beyond belief.

It's hard to balance around classes who can end combat in 1 turn vs. classes that need multiple turns just to crack through a monster's AC, HP, and DR if they have it.

>>48107241

There are rules for converting monsters into PCs.

>>48107183
Why should I hide, mememongling faggot-sempai?

>>48107153

Vote's now 7/4 in rule of cool's favor.

>>48107156
The wizard also sports poor active abilities, in their inability to attack endlessly for appreciable damage as the fighter can, which they trade off for their sharply limited number of spells.

Just as the wizard can buff himself through various means, the fighter can buy equipment to get new options. You can perform as many AoEs as you can afford to buy Flasks of Firebreathing, Necklaces of Fireballs, and vials of Alchemist Fire.

I'm not saying it's the same, or even that it's well-balanced. I'm saying that "No, there should not by necessity be an option for the martial to make AoEs for free, that's not the role the character is meant to fill. Every class does not need to have every possible play option be equally valid. Play a class that does what you want to do rather than bitch because your rogue can't heal, your fighter can't cast fireballs, your cleric doesn't have sneak attack dice and your wizard isn't proficient with tower shields".

File: 14135554717600.jpg (117KB, 800x908px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x908px

>>48107282
Take it easy. I just noticed it.

>>48107280

Then it's solely upon the GM to delineate where to draw the line. Anyway, there are also rules for monster creation, so even if he did have that whackadoo party, the GM could make something to wipe the table with a single roll.

>>48107272

Your players making it a race to see who can do the most burst damage is not the game's fault. Get creative. Apply resistances. Have opposing casters. Silence is a level 2 spell and deals with caster classes for a full 10 minutes. That's a hundred rounds.

>>48107311

>The wizard also sports poor active abilities, in their inability to attack endlessly for appreciable damage as the fighter can, which they trade off for their sharply limited number of spells.

Except for cantrips and simple weapons like crossbows if you really want to attack someone as a mage.

>Just as the wizard can buff himself through various means, the fighter can buy equipment to get new options. You can perform as many AoEs as you can afford to buy Flasks of Firebreathing, Necklaces of Fireballs, and vials of Alchemist Fire.

Except that the wizard gets to do these things innately, by design, while the Fighter has to drop a small fortune on equipment that will be taking away resources that he could be using on the Big 6.

Yeah, real balanced.

>Every class does not need to have every possible play option be equally valid.

Yet the wizard can deal damage better than the Fighter, sneak better than the Rogue thanks to invisibility, give himself touch attacks like chill touch or shocking grasp to deal better unarmed than the monk, track better than the Ranger thanks to WIS and perception boosting spells, and even heal thanks to wands of cure wounds, which they can produce if they have the gold to do it.

Yet you're saying that the Fighter shouldn't have a shitty AoE with a range of melee because "that's not the job he was designed for."

Sure, right, makes perfect sense.

>>48107241
>slippery slope
That's not what slippery slope means, anon. Slippery slope is insisting that a course of action will lead to disastrous consequences. If I said allowing unbalanced classes to be fielded in the same party would inevitably lead to dragons and Commoners sharing the same party, I'd be committing the slippery slope fallacy. I am not doing that, I'm merely applying your philosophy to an extreme example to see if it can withstand it.

Your Misused Fallacy count stands at 1, now, and you still haven't given me a satisfactory answer.

>If those were meant to be played, they would have been made into character options.

Appeal to authority. The designation of what are and aren't player options is totally arbitrary, decreed by people who've proven themselves tremendously inept at understanding the balance of the game they created.

Your Fallacies Legitimately Committed count also stands at 1. So... if class balance doesn't matter because it's not competitive, why is not okay for dragons and Commoners to roll together? Why can't the biological attack helicopter with spells and the chicken-infested peasant both contribute equally to an adventure?

>>48107318

You realize how strong a dragon, mindflayer, and beholder are.

Even then, the argument was whether or not a commoner could fit into this metaphorical party in spite of being much weaker and being unable to contribute anything to the combat that they would be expected to fight against.

>Get creative.

Oh boy, let's see what you come up with.

>Apply resistances.

There are spells that outright ignore saves and spell resistance, even then, it's much easier for a mage to crack SR than it is for a martial to crack AC or DR.

>Have opposing casters.

So what are the martials supposed to do while the mages in the party deal with the guy who can rend reality asunder?

>Silence is a level 2 spell and deals with caster classes for a full 10 minutes.

And silent spell is a feat that you can buy as early as level 3 IIRC.

What's your point?

File: laughingmarines.jpg (12KB, 385x278px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 385x278px

>>48107409
>silent spell

1) Although the whole "fireball vs sword attack" debate almost always favor the wizard. Getting to a point where such a clear fireball attack is possible is really really rare. So that's a moot point.
2) B/X and retroeditions were better with their different XP rates.

>>48107464
>Getting to a point where such a clear fireball attack is possible is really really rare.
nigger what?
how many combat encounters per spell limit do you think casters get into?
because I've never seen anything but a 1/1 ratio, so what the fuck do you mean by really rare?

>>48107374
>Except for cantrips and simple weapons like crossbows if you really want to attack someone as a mage.
I said "appreciable". Not "less of a tangible threat to the orc than the hemorrhoids he currently has".

>Except that the wizard gets to do these things innately, by design,
By burning resources from a sharply limited pool that refreshes on a timeframe he has no power to effect, leaving him completely at the mercy of events until they do so, yes. Stop acting like spells are free.

>Yet the wizard can deal damage better than the Fighter, sneak better than the Rogue thanks to invisibility, give himself touch attacks like chill touch or shocking grasp to deal better unarmed than the monk, track better than the Ranger thanks to WIS and perception boosting spells, and even heal thanks to wands of cure wounds, which they can produce if they have the gold to do it.

Burning those steeply limited resources, again, yes. Occasionally. He can exceed other classes at their fortes a few times a day, in contrast to all those other times when he's absolutely not doing that.

>Yeah, real balanced.
Never said it was balanced, we call it Caster Edition for a reason and ultimately Tier 1 casters are better than anyone else. I'm saying the fighter does not need to poach features from other classes at the cost of zero resources.

>>48107289
7/5
>>48107317
'kay

>>48103611
He's not trying to quote you.

>>48107490
>Stop acting like spells are free.
not him

I wrote >>48107489
please tell me how they are anything but effectively free, when one gets into only one combat per threat spell refresh anyway

>>48107489
There's no way a wizard gets a clean shot for his fireball unless the party gains surprise or the monsters are dumb enough to come down running in a sweet block formation. Also, Wizards can only hurt all their intended enemied through looking at the minis' layout and saying shit like "i cast the fireball in this particular space, for no apparent reason".

>>48106971
That's a nice false dichotomy there, bro.

>>48107523
>There's no way a wizard gets a clean shot
>no clean shot
>for an aoe, or a lock on spell

please keep digging that hole, you are already near china

>>48107536
Hmmm?

>>48107018
My personal solution is as follows; spell preparation now takes a full day; casters need to be more conservative.

First time we tried playing with this rule the casters very quickly popped out their melee weapons and used magic as a last resort rather than first option.

That said, obviously the casters might feel the best about this.

>>48107549
You can easily have both, faggot.

Hence false dilemma, and dichotomy.

>>48107490

>I said "appreciable". Not "less of a tangible threat to the orc than the hemorrhoids he currently has".

It's not like the Fighter doesn't fall into this range once you start fighting CR5+ creatures anyways.

>Stop acting like spells are free.

Rope Trick

Basically allows the wizard to retreat to a safe space where nobody can hurt him until he decides to leave while the rest of the party is forced to wait for him to finish resting.

Even if that wasn't the case, you only need one good spell to end an encounter and at that level, you have a dozen or so spells to choose from.

>Burning those steeply limited resources, again, yes. Occasionally. He can exceed other classes at their fortes a few times a day, in contrast to all those other times when he's absolutely not doing that.

Point is, the wizard has the potential to do all those things and more if he decides to cheese the item creation rules.

While the Fighter cannot even say that he's the best at his area of expertise due to everyone having ways of dealing appreciable damage.

>I'm saying the fighter does not need to poach features from other classes at the cost of zero resources.

Having a 5 ft. AoE attack at level 5 is not poaching anything.

If anything, the T1 classes poach more class features than the Fighter ever could and giving him whirlwind attack at level 5 would help in justifying his existence beyond "glorified commoner."

>>48107553
>My personal solution is as follows; spell preparation now takes a full day

how is this still anything other than one combat per refresh?

either that or the dm is literally scheduling combats so that the casters are effectively always out of some spells, because if it takes a whole day to prep, then the wizards have a valid reason to never roleplay, because they have to spend every second out of combat prepping

>>48107521
You're basing the observation that wizards only get hit by one spell-sapping encounter per recharge on your own personal experience, I see. Not everybody plays that way. Lots of people do, we have a term for it, Ten Minute Workday. But it isn't universal. Plenty of people play games where they throw encounters at exhausted casters.

>>48101991
When I GM'd for a couple min-maxing pros in 3.5
>Set up interesting fantasy realm
>Players meet a demigod
>Shred him at level 4, he was a level 16 w/ tons of shit.
I literally haven't touched 3.5 since then and that was 3 years ago. I like 5E though.

>>48107523

Do you realize how large 20 ft. is?

That's a 4x4 block of enemies that instantly take damage that's comparable to a sword swing if they fail.

That's in addition to setting anything flammable on fire as well.

>>48107622
which makes the casters useless,or dead

great solution

>>48107540
Fireballs do hurt your allies too, bro. Even yourself.

>Lock-on Spell
Unless its magic missile it has a chance to fail and then they wouldn't have an aoe.

>>48107649

There are metamagic feats that allow a caster to shape spells so it doesn't hit allies.

File: nolongerpodracing.jpg (50KB, 444x337px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 444x337px

>>48105269
>I'll try spinning. That's a good trick!

>>48107678

You're about four hours late pal.

>>48107649
>fireball with a chance to fail

citation please

>>48107549
If "the logic of real life for nonmagical things" means there can't be some abstractions, such as levels and hit points, while magical things in the hands of a player get a free pass to be overpowered, then we don't want that.
If "rule of cool" means the GM has no choice but to allow a player to pull off whatever stupid stunt he thinks is cool without any prerequisites or consequences, such as the aforementioned spin attack, then we don't want that.
Both extremes are bad.

>>48107614
That's what you get for playing a class that relies on studying and research to cast spells.

>>48107673
Only the Sorcerer's Careful Spell at Lvl.3 and it lets allies automatically suceed on the saving throw, which means they'll still take damage.

>>48107188
>i wanna do a jump attack and do double damage
>No. That's not how that works.
>WHY NOT THAT'S NOT FAIR SHIT GM SHIT GM

>>48107694
The fireball isn't lock-on, because it triggers a Saving Throw.

>>48107716
you didn't answer, or address anything in my posts

thanks

>>48107645
The martials are useless or getting hit by the Wizards spells in literally every other encounter. You are basically complaining that a class with limited spell slots can ever run out of them.

>>48107678
I feel sorry for child actors. They honestly have no choice in the roles they get it's mostly the parents and agents using them. I know a lot of child actors don't go anywhere but it's almost gaurented you'll never act again if people don't like a fucking role you did when you were 6.

>>48107734
>aoe
>but it doesn't have lock on, therefore my misdirecting ass wins

go fuck yourself

>>48107601
>Rope Trick
Go read the description of Rope Trick again. Copy/paste the part that says the extradimensional space created can be sealed against anyone the caster doesn't feel like allowing in, or that it cannot be perceived by enemies. Come back with that and I'll accept that it's an infallible way of avoiding aggression.

>you only need one good spell to end an encounter and at that level, you have a dozen or so spells to choose from.
Enemies make their saves sometimes, you know.
>Point is, the wizard has the potential to do all those things
The potential to do any of them, not the capability to do all of them. Opportunity cost is always at play.
>by cheesing the item creation rules
You what, nigga? Item creation is a terrible fucking player option, unless you're specifically specced for it. If you're not playing an Artificer crafting magic items is a trap option.

>If anything, the T1 classes poach more class features than the Fighter ever could and giving him whirlwind attack at level 5 would help in justifying his existence beyond "glorified commoner."

It would help. Not necessarily a bad idea; God knows Fighter is an NPC class in disguise. But it's not mandatory either, and you're not justified feeling entitled to it.

>>48107739
that wasn't my complaint at all

my "complaint" was how are casters not effectively free casting when dms rarely place casters in encounters more than their refresh rate?

>>48107737
It's actually balanced you fucktard. A full day for preparation makes perfect sense since any encounter can't be solved by the wizard unloading every spell slot and then setting up for an 8 hour rest to do it again in the morning. Per normal rules the Wizards are basically walking plot devices.

>>48107727

Why can't I roll acrobatics and add my ranks as a bonus to attack and damage?

Oh, right, because the rules say you can't and that's all the GM is good for, citing the book anytime the players want to be creative.

>>48107601
The reason this is dumb is that you're making up rules in the middle of combat. It would be like a wizard making up a spell in the middle of an encounter to defeat a specific enemy.

Players and DM can coordinate to make up new house rules, I do it all the time. But making up a new rule in the middle of combat, and then demanding the DM let you use it, and then proceeding to throw a temper tantrum when he doesn't let you is just dumb.

The rules are there to limit the players and the enemies for the sake of balance and consistency. If a new rule is going to be added, then it should be done out of the game at a point where everyone playing the game can consider how it will change things and what the numbers behind it should be, not in the middle of an encounter.

>>48107769
I didn't say it wasn't balanced, i said it gave the players in in universe excuse to ignore roleplaying if you have any.

and i said that the problem of the GM scheduling so that the 1 combat encounter to the refresh rate is still existant, so the same "solution" could just be generated by having the GM make more encounters per refresh, instead of trying to alter rules

pull your ego out of your ass

>>48107763
>You what, nigga? Item creation is a terrible fucking player option, unless you're specifically specced for it. If you're not playing an Artificer crafting magic items is a trap option.

Nigga what? It literally doubles the worth of your WBL. You can't do it in ALL campaigns, obviously, but when you can it is immensely beneficial.

>>48107622
>Fighters don't have expendable resources that they need to recharge
Sorry, I forgot, what does HP stand for?

>>48107766
The answer lies in the fact that the GMs you play with do not actually run every D&D game, and some people force casters to manage their resources. Your anecdotal experience is not descriptive of every game ever played.

>>48107845
nigger it wasn't my games

its the vast majority

not to mention that still doesn't address the problem between your solutions "effectivly free VS useless and dead"

>>48105719
>shoving, tumbling, and overrunning require feats
What the fuck? It will be a DC 25 in 3.5. You don't need feats for that, just ranks and a high Dex. You can easily get a +10 at level 3 without even trying.

>Want to talk about the role of GM adjudication in non-wrote scenarios
>Not sure how to phrase the question to maximize discussion
>Instead post obvious bait
Every time

>>48107831
No, it just offloads the cost of WBL onto another resource entirely, XP, that itself is a far more valuable currency than gold pieces, and that if anything you have less control over acquiring. Class progression is nearly always the optimal use of XP as opposed to item creation, you gain more benefits from character levels gained than you do for any number of magic items.

Assuming we're speaking of 3.5's item creation rules rather than Pathfinder's, anyway.

>>48107810

>The rules are there to limit the players and the enemies for the sake of balance and consistency.

How would a Fighter getting a melee AoE at level 5 be damaging to the game as a whole?

Because last I checked, it wasn't the martials who could end combat in one turn.

That could also be the trade off.

Martials can mix different abilities and skills together to use in conjunction with their melee attacks (which would also help in justifying skill rolls as a whole) to gain more utility from their attacks while Mages are limited in what their spells can do while also being more powerful by default.

At the very least, it'd make martials exciting to play again since they're not limited to rolling attack until either one side dies or the mage casts their encounter ending spell at the enemy.

>>48107898
+10 means you still fail like, 70% of the time against a 25 DC.

Also
>shoving, tumbling, and overrunning require feats TO PERFORM ADMIRABLY

Don't selectively quote pls.

>>48106102

It's usually the same in 3.5. Except there's no real rules for it. As there should not be.

>>48107906

>No, it just offloads the cost of WBL onto another resource entirely, XP, that itself is a far more valuable currency than gold pieces, and that if anything you have less control over acquiring.

Spending a few hundred XP to gain a magic item is a fair tradeoff considering how much XP the creatures you'll be fighting are worth at that point.

Shit, you can do a sidequest to murder some orks and get that XP back and more if you want, it's not that hard to regain XP.

>>48101991
mitpolautriv mitpolautriv mitpolautriv

go back to the 5th dimension where you belong.

>>48107754
???
I think we have a really different idea if what aoe means, brosky.

>>48107780
Suppose the wizard player wanted to "be creative" in this way while using spells, for example, adding his ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) to the attack bonus and damage of a Scorching Ray spell. Would you allow it? Or do spellcasters have to play by the book?
And that's just a simple HP damage spell. If he could add skills to spell effects however he pleases, he would get exponentially more use out of "creativity" than the fighter ever dreamed of. If he could come up with entirely new "creative" applications for spells that are specifically denied by the rules, he would simply cast Mage Hand inside any organic enemy's brain, GG no re.

>>48107906
The XP in 3.5 rubber-bands IIRC (not to mention increase the amount needed to level up increases exponenentially), so even if you fail behind a level, it'll only take a fight or two to catch up. Considering how OP as shit magic items can be, that's more than worth it.

>>48107993
Area of Effect

go fuck yourself, you misdirecting asshat

>>48107811
The person you've been arguing with wasnt the person you originally replied to.

Regarding the claimed lack of roleplaying; given my players arent powergaming chumps who "spend every moment of their spare time preparing spells" they wait for a free full day and do it then; say on the back of a wagon while travelling to the next destination; no reason they cant talk to the wagon driver while doing it, or plan with the rest of the party.

If anything it forces the players to take breaks from combat encounters and spend a day or two doing other things.

As for the refresh rate; it's quite a difference between "spending a night in a dungeon and preparing spells the next day" and "spending a whole day in a dungeon doing nothing". While numerically changing the time period for spell preparation doesnt actually change the refresh rate, roleplay wise players are unlikely to attempt to abuse this in most situations.

>>48107966
If your DM is a meat computer who lets you pause the game to perform sidequests and level grind, sure. Not everyone is just going to have the world stand still while you go and farm the monsters in the Sunken Gelnika, anon.

>>48108046
>If anything it forces the players to take breaks from combat encounters and spend a day or two doing other things.

when the hell are combat encounters voluntary you mong?

>roleplay wise players are unlikely to attempt to abuse this in most situations.

Then you might as well play a roleplay game, that isn't 99% combat rules

>>48108016
An aoe spell isn't lock-on, broski.
Missile spells are lock on.
A fireball bursts from a space in the mat, not out of an enemy.
There are lock-on spells which demand Saving Throws, such as Acid Spray, but most of the time, they demand spell attack throws.

>>48107922
I never said it was damaging to the game.

There is a time and a place to try and add new rules, the middle of combat is not one of them.

>>48108137
I didn't say it was lock on,taht was your asshat misdirection

fuck you

>>48108090
>when the hell are combat encounters voluntary you mong?
I'll spell it out for you
>Players complete quest
>Players may proceed immediately to the next quest, or they may stay around town giving time for worldbuilding, roleplay and other non-combat things
>If some party members require a few days off then the latter is the better option

>Then you might as well play a roleplay game, that isn't 99% combat rules
See, that's just because you ignore most of the rules; I nearly had a situation where not all of the characters spoke the same languages, let alone the whole page of skills on the character sheet; the vast majority of which are non-combat related.

Just to double check; you complained that this change hinders roleplay, then when I point out that it doesnt hinder roleplay you're now complaining that players arent just in combat all the time.

>>48108150
why are you being such a prick? the other guy is being nice and calm and understanding. cool your auts down with some MLP and then come back kid.

>>48108015
>The XP in 3.5 rubber-bands IIRC
Always a net loss, mathematically speaking.
> it'll only take a fight or two to catch up.
You're overestimating the time it takes to recoup that delayed level.
>Considering how OP as shit magic items can be, that's more than worth it.
There are a raw handful of really OP magic items, typically those that break the action economy. Most of them are not worth, and as for the ones that are? You can't just make any item you feel like, there are prerequisites in terms of feats, caster level, spells known (the one part you can bypass, through scrolls) and the amount of XP you can burn at one time, never enough to actually drop you below your level. Casters are limited to creating certain each level, and in most cases the ones they're actually limited to are weak enough that making them is suboptimal compared to simply taking the next damn level.

Unless you're playing an Artificer, or playing under some certain campaign strictures, it is simply not worth it. It only seems effective because Tier 1 casters are so broken they still shine after gimping themselves.

>>48108177
I didn't complain it hindered roleplay, i complained is was a useless addition to the rules, when the gm could just make more encounters per refresh and accomplish the same thing

and I'm not complaining that they aren't in combat all the time, I pointed out encounters are rarely voluntary

seriously dislodge your ego out of your colon

>>48108182
nice samefag

>>48108014

>Suppose the wizard player wanted to "be creative" in this way while using spells, for example, adding his ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) to the attack bonus and damage of a Scorching Ray spell. Would you allow it? Or do spellcasters have to play by the book?

Wizards, Clerics, and Druids cannot since they earn spells through either study of arcane formulae or divine power that's technically not their own.

Bards and Sorcerers, on the other hand, could do this since their powers are innate, rather than being something that's gained from an external source or education.

The limit, of course, would be that it cannot travel beyond the limitations of the spell.

For example, you wouldn't be able to perform mage hand to squeeze someone's heart since the spell requires line of sight and even if that wasn't the case, I would apply called shot penalties since you're targeting a specific spot of the body with your spell along and also apply penalties from attacking something behind cover if they're wearing armor of some kind.

Granted, I would allow you to wield a simple weapon with mage hand and treat it as an off-hand attack for that purpose but that's about as far it'd go since the parameters of the spell are

>Summons a hand that can manipulates an object that's 5 lb. or less.

>>48108049

The point stands, XP is trivially easy to regain at the level where you're capable of producing magic items.

Dungeon delving in a crypt somewhere will usually give you enough XP to make up the difference.

>>48108250
>The limit, of course, would be that it cannot travel beyond the limitations of the spell.
Then the fighter's retarded jump attack doesn't work beyond the limitations of hs body, training and equipment.
Roll a basic attack with advantage, and now you're vulnerable for the following round.

>>48108144

Dude, mages add new rules anytime they cast a new spell in combat.

>>48108228
> when the gm could just make more encounters per refresh and accomplish the same thing
Simple, it moves from "the GM designs the game such that it makes up for a design failing in the system" to "the players act in such a way as to mitigate the failing in the system". Rather than the GM having to prepare encounters (combat or otherwise) in sufficient amount such that the players never have 2 hours of rest between them is difficult and in some cases may stretch suspension of disbelief.

Designing so the players never have a full day between encounters is much easier; and as the players are aware of this they (as I've found so far) tend to be more conservative with their spells.

>encounters are rarely voluntary
There exist more encounters than combat encounters; and I'm not sure what games you play, but I try to make sure that combat takes up a minority of the session's time. Then again, different people have different sorts of fun.

>seriously dislodge your ego out of your colon
yeah nah m8, you seem to have an issue with the notion of other people not playing d&d in exactly the way you expect them to.

>>48108303
You'll fall behind the rest of your party.

>>48108331
No they don't, the rules for those spells are already laid out.

File: Screenshot 2016-07-04 11.20.50.png (91KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1680x1050px

>>48108237
sure kiddo

File: letstryitagain.png (10KB, 1334x130px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1334x130px

>>48108303
Second verse, same as the first.

>>48108321

Do you realize how far a character can leap with a good enough acrobatics?

Also, why would he be vulnerable if he made the check to land on his feet after swinging?

Realize, martials are like olmpian superstars. A jumping attack for them is as easy as a learned mage casting a cantrip.

>>48108357

I'm behind a level but gain access to magic items that provide a permanent bonus to my character's power.

A pretty even tradeoff honestly.

>>48108336
>i'm lazy, and I'm a hypocrite for calling my own solution a failing
>moving the goal posts from combat encounters to undefined "more than combat encounters"
>thinks I have a preference about how others play d&d

nigger i took one look at d7d in 7th grade and realized people could have more fulfilling games if they focused on either combat or role-play, and mashing them together was a fools errand

if they want combat then d&d is ass witha fucking 5% minimum failure rate for everything,
if they want role-play then fucking creativity inspiration card decks would be more fulfilling than d&d

>>48108331
No they don't. All the rules for spells are already in the book for everyone to see.

>>48101991
>Player: "I want to kick over the table and dive for cover."
>DM: "Okay, you're going to provoke an attack of opportunity as you move outside of melee range."
>Player: "Sure, I gain my mobility bonus due to moving though."
>DM: "Well, I'll have to roll high to hit."
>12
>DM: "Ducking under the Orc's sword, you find an opening and get past them diving over the nearby table and flipping it over, it shudders towards you a few inches as the Orcs with crossbows fire a few futile bolts into the thick, oak surface."

>>48108363

But now, the GM has to account for

>The effects
>The saving throw
>The range
>Whether or not the target gets access to a saving throw/spell resistance
>Whether or not the effect works for the situation at hand

Among other things.

It's even worse if the GM is new and has no idea how even the staple spells work.

>>48108429
That's why it doesn't fit into the thread, you're supposed to sperg about shit giving you gamebreaking advantage under extremely specific circumstances.

>>48108404
I do, and I don't care. The rules don't allow it. Either everyone plays by the rules or no one does.
Why would you demand that some classes get to say "lol rules are for dorks, imma shoot swords out of my ass because it's cool" but not others?

>>48108528
Because the rules already allow some classes to shoot mystical plasma swords out of their ass, but not the others?

>>48108467
That's not even remotely the same as arbitrarily adding new rules.

>>48108528

Because the rules that are laid out, as written, is flawed and only applies to limiting the fun of over half the available classes while doing nothing to limit the remaining classes that can do everything and anything they want to without rolling for its success.

Besides, every class deserves to have fun and feel useful, otherwise why even have classes that aren't wizards, clerics, or druids in the first place?

File: Hollande-Louis-XVI-majesté-258x300.png (212KB, 258x300px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 258x300px

>>48107810
>It would be like a wizard making up a spell in the middle of an encounter to defeat a specific enemy.
>mfw you can do that in Burning Wheel
tis a superior game for superior gentleman

File: savage-species.jpg (23KB, 339x450px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 339x450px

>>48107241
>If those were meant to be played, they would have been made into character options.

They were.

>>48108467
Are you actually mentally retarded?

It is written.
On the wizard's character sheet.
Which spells he can cast.
What they do.
How he can cast them.
And ideally a page number for reference.

That is very very different from the fighter player saying "I'll spin in a circle to hit four people at once" and "I'll jump before I attack so I deal double damage" when he doesn't have those abilities on the fighter's character sheet.

I realized dnd sucks when i started reading other systems.

>Whoa, a dice roll that lets players succeed with consequences, or fail with benefits.

Dungeon world and FFG star wars blew my mind.

>>48108453
You have issues kid, the question presented was not "are there better systems than d&d", of which there are many, but within the system of d&d how can we try and stop some players from overshadowing others.

If you dont know what an encounter is that isn't a "combat encounter" then you've clearly never DM'd before, or if you did then I pity your group. But for your sake let's give an example;

One of your players in classic murderhobo fashion is on the run from the town guards, this could devolve into a bunch of athletics checks, but instead the player decides to cast obscuring mist before making their escape. Just as if this had been a combat encounter the player has now expended a spell slot, but no combat has taken place.

I'm sure you can imagine many similar situations involving traps, chasms in the floor or similar instances where some resource is spent (such as spell slots) but combat does not occur.

>thinks I have a preference about how others play d&d
No, but it's clear that you have an issue with other people playing d&d, while I happily concede the disadvantages in the d20 system and prefer smoother bell curves, d&d does have it's own advantages (in particular, the large number of sourcebooks and materials available for it). As for roleplaying; that's on the part of the party and the DM, it's not strictly a function of the rules as combat is though it may be helped or hindered by certain rules.

>nigger i took one look at d7d in 7th grade and realized people could have more fulfilling games if they focused on either combat or role-play, and mashing them together was a fools errand
Seems to have worked well enough for every group I've been with. Excessive combat is a drudgery and roleplay without combat can be lacking, and a mixture of the two can attempt to minimise the faults of the other. But again, each to their own.

>>48108547
>some classes do things that other classes don't
No shit Sherlock. Why aren't you playing those classes then? Or playing freeform?

>>48108565

It is because now the GM has to account for every single spell that the mage could cast just to give the rest of the party any semblance of purpose beyond glorified NPCs.

Which becomes overwhelming once you realize just how much they can get away with if they wanted to.

>>48108617

The framework is already listed on my character sheet.

I can leap X ft. with a successful roll, I have Y ranks which I can add to my attack/damage rolls, and it all comes together to give me a +Z to attack and +Z2 to my damage.

Also, it should be pointed out that this is how it works in most other systems, even other editions of D&D.

Granted, it's not a simple +acrobatics ranks or something along those lines but you'd still receive a bonus for thinking outside the box while using the tools at your disposal.

>>48108638
For as much hate as it gets, DW actually had some fairly good ideas.

>>48108673

Because I wanted to play a Fighter who wielded a sword and slashed through monsters like my heroes Conan and King Arthur.

It's not even freeform, there are much more mechanical systems out there that offer this basic level of interactivity in how the players utilize their talents.

3.X's shitty rules are thankfully an exception to ttRPG's, not the rule.

>>48108764
>Because I wanted to play a Fighter who wielded a sword and slashed through monsters like my heroes Conan and King Arthur.
Play a Warblade instead

>>48108701
>I have Y ranks which I can add to my attack/damage rolls
>which I can add to my attack/damage rolls
No, you can't, unless you have a special ability that says you can. That's the rule.
You also can't fly, shapeshift, heal yourself, or take an extra turn unless you have a special ability that says you can. That's the rule.
It's not because those things are magic, it's because in a game with rules there are things you can do and things you can't.

>thinking outside the box while using the tools at your disposal
Wizards easily have 20 to 30 tools at their disposal by the time fighters can be considered superhuman. That way of thinking only makes caster edition worse. You can't say the rules only apply to some classes and not others.

>>48108829

Not Core.

>>48108856
3.5's core is atrocious and nobody should stick to it
Stick to tier 2 and tier 3 classes only

File: 1466944912185.jpg (220KB, 1047x1572px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1047x1572px

>>48108701
>>48108764
Question to you folks of this opinion, as a forever (mostly) GM:
When players want to do this stuff, such as "I shoot the stalagtites which fall for 3 times damage!", if you allow it once, you have to allow it at all times, yeah?
So if the fighter wants to add acrobatics to att/dam, then EVERYONE gets to. Meaning, the system is now different, and in fact if you have high acrobatics then EVERY ROUND becomes a jump attack. Martials now permanatly do more att/dam.
How is that any different from the existing rules? All it accomplishes mechanically is the martial is statistically a bit stronger when attacking.

I mean, if you're arguing to buff martials (ofc they're underpowered comparitively), Path of War exists, as do builds like archer or certain archetypes which deal really solid consistent zero-check damage.

You guys seen to be arguing for a buff to martials (understandable), but not necessarily for a means of flavoring up combat. You can flavor combat while keeping within the rules, i.e. if you at level 11 get 3 attacks on a full attack action, you can essentially "spinning sword" narratively, while mechanically keeping to the rules.

>>48108830

>No, you can't, unless you have a special ability that says you can. That's the rule.

Why does every special ability have to be hidden behind feats?

>You also can't fly, shapeshift, heal yourself, or take an extra turn unless you have a special ability that says you can. That's the rule.

I'm making a jumping attack to add a bonus for attack and damage.

Calm yourself, it's not that big a deal.

>It's not because those things are magic, it's because in a game with rules there are things you can do and things you can't.

So why can't I make an attack using acrobatics when I've already invested the ranks into being good at it?

>Wizards easily have 20 to 30 tools at their disposal by the time fighters can be considered superhuman. That way of thinking only makes caster edition worse. You can't say the rules only apply to some classes and not others.

Already addressed here >>48108250

>>48108907

>So if the fighter wants to add acrobatics to att/dam, then EVERYONE gets to. Meaning, the system is now different, and in fact if you have high acrobatics then EVERY ROUND becomes a jump attack. Martials now permanatly do more att/dam.

That's when you say "you didn't take a running start so you don't gain the benefits this round."

>How is that any different from the existing rules? All it accomplishes mechanically is the martial is statistically a bit stronger when attacking.

Because it allows the martials to utilize their skills in conjunction with their attacks in order to gain more utility while also giving purpose to skills that would usually be overshadowed by spells.

>You can flavor combat while keeping within the rules, i.e. if you at level 11 get 3 attacks on a full attack action, you can essentially "spinning sword" narratively, while mechanically keeping to the rules.

The difference being, the mechanical effect would still come down to rolling attack/damage at something until they die, which is boring as all get out because either you deal damage or nothing happens and the turn is wasted.

Not to mention, you have to be standing next to your target in order to strike them multiple times in one round.

>>48108950
>I'm making a jumping attack to add a bonus for attack and damage.
The rules say you're not.
>So why can't I make an attack using acrobatics when I've already invested the ranks into being good at it?
Because it's not in the rules.

>>48108950
>Why does every special ability have to be hidden behind feats?
Because they're special, because the shit-flinging ape-men responsible for D&D 3E decided they're special.
You don't have to like it. You don't have to play that game at all. But you're literally complaining that a GM doesn't let you break the rules however you want.
>I'm making a jumping attack to add a bonus for attack and damage.
Your character doesn't know how to do that. He knows how to jump, and he knows how to attack, and he probably knows how to do both in one turn. But he doesn't have the ability to add a flat number to attack and damage on every attack.
>So why can't I make an attack using acrobatics when I've already invested the ranks into being good at it?
Because that's not what the skill does, by the book. Why can't I make an attack using Craft(basket-weaving) when I've already invested the ranks into being good at it?
>Already addressed here
And it's still a double standard. Whether you give an ad-hoc excuse based on fluff does not change the fact that you are demanding for some classes to be allowed to make up any ability they want on the fly while other classes have to function by the book.
Play a different game.

>>48105533
At least in 3.5, if you get hit, it can interrupt your action while you are in the middle of it.

This is why you can die before you successfully charge through a creatures threat range or stop a wizards spell by forcing a concentration check.

>>48106858
Why are complaining about not having a 4th level fighter feat that has pretty low requirements?

You going to complain the wizard had to take fireball as a 3rd level spell to cast it?

I played 4e once.

I'm never playing anything that isn't GURPS ever again, it's the Lord's system.

>>48109060

Thank christ there's a GM who doesn't always have to follow the rules like some sort of meat computer who can only provide prompts to roll.

>>48108762
It stole them from Apocalypse World.

File: ChaoticGood.png (55KB, 278x260px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 278x260px

>>48103611
>Posts an example straight from the rules of how DC is supposed to scaled

>Its a strawman

Please say youre trolling and not actually this retarded.

>>48106197
>Expected massive penalties for doing said action without the feat.
AoO are pretty massive penalties.

>>48103611
>Doesnt know how greentexting works, or what its used for.

Sure is summer in here.

>>48109303
He also doesn't have to just smile and nod when you decide you want your character, and only your character, to get +9999 damage because rule of cool.
The time to make up new rules to fix balance issues is between sessions, or at least after combat is done. Otherwise you accept whatever the GM gives you.

>>48108197
>You're overestimating the time it takes to recoup that delayed level.

Don't you mean I'm underestimating it?

>There are a raw handful of really OP magic items, typically those that break the action economy.

Even the non-broken ones are worth it, because you can actually control what you get. Unless your world operates on Magic Mart (tm), being abe to guarantee the big six/ ring of FoM/etc. even beyond shit like metamagic wands is great.

>>48109140

>Because they're special, because the shit-flinging ape-men responsible for D&D 3E decided they're special.

Well the ape-men responsible for 3e aren't infallible and the rules they've constructed are too restrictive for anyone who isn't a full caster.

>But you're literally complaining that a GM doesn't let you break the rules however you want.

There are times when you should follow the rules and times when you should ignore them. If the rules impact the player's fun without adding an adequate reason for its existence, it's better just to ignore it.

The point of any game is to have fun, not watch someone steamroll through the game because they had the foresight to choose the "correct" option at character creation.

>Your character doesn't know how to do that.

Even children know how to leap and swing anon. Unless the martial in question has 6 INT/WIS, I don't see why he wouldn't know how to perform this generally simple task, especially if he has ranks in acrobatics.

>Why can't I make an attack using Craft(basket-weaving) when I've already invested the ranks into being good at it?

How would you perform an attack using basket-weaving?

Because nobody said you couldn't make the attempt.

>Whether you give an ad-hoc excuse based on fluff does not change the fact that you are demanding for some classes to be allowed to make up any ability they want on the fly while other classes have to function by the book.

INT based classes use vancian magic, which means that their spells can only ever do one thing and one thing only, which is why someone cannot use a fireball to light a cigar.

WIS based mages though generally receive their powers from an otherworldy force through worship, they don't just have that power within them by default, hence the term "divine caster."

CHA based mages on the other hand have that power innately, which means that it's a font of magic that's within them, rather than something that was granted by study or worship.

Last night, this obvious bait thread had maybe 5 replies.

I get up in the morning and it has 300.

Never change, /tg/.

File: 1467377692356.jpg (127KB, 806x990px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 806x990px

>>48109034
Nigga are you kidding?
Running start, granted, you're essentially asking for trading a full round attack for a movement then single attack with a bonus. Which is literally in the ruleset with a single feat, or several class archetypes. Pounce also exists, with no skill checks involved.

Using a skill in conjunction with attacks exists, they're almost exclusive to fighters too as they get nearly double of what other classes get. They're called feats!
And if you want to use a specific skill, acrobatics is used to cross the log bridge to get to the enemy in the first place.
Even in your example of acrobatics to damage, it STILL boils down to roll attack until one side dies.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually want to improve as a GM, but all I can see from what you're saying is it's more fun to roll acrobatics + attack (with bonuses) as opposed to rolling attack 3 times. Which, hey, Vital Strike? Unchained Monk's Flying Kick or Hammer Blow? Any initiator class? What is gained by blowing all of these off, even trivialising them, so you can say "because I'm rolling X skill, my attack roll gets a flat buff"?

>>48109526

You're really spouting hyperbole there mister.

At most, a level 5 character would have like +8 ranks in a skill they're proficient in it thanks to their class.

Hell, in PF, I'm pretty the amount of ranks you'd receive is half that number.

Besides, I'd still have to make the rolls and the damage I deal most likely won't be enough to deal killing damage anyways.

That and it'd only work on the first person I swing at since it'd require a running start beforehand.

In truth, it's much more believable than some of the more outlandish powers you see, such as dealing sonic damage with a clap or sundering mountains and shit like that.

I love that the edition war has boiled down to 3.5 haters vs 3.5 apologists

>>48109598

>What is gained by blowing all of these off, even trivialising them, so you can say "because I'm rolling X skill, my attack roll gets a flat buff"?

1) Martials get benefits for fluffing their attack beyond "I swing at him with my sword" until one side crumbles.

2) It gives a reason to ever play an INT based martial and gives added utility to the skills at your character's disposal, keep in mind, acrobatics to attack/damage was only an example, there are many more that you could come up with and that adds more agency since the player gets to decide how to utilize the stuff they invested in to improve their combat in some way.

3) Most feats that would grant something similar usually have outrageous prereqs that make them unavailable until they're already obsolete.

There's no reason to ever invest in maneuvers since by the time you buy that last feat in the chain, most monsters you're facing are either immune or so tough that they can laugh off the attempt.

4) Rolling three times isn't all that great since the penalties you add to it dip drastically with each swing.

A character who swings three times would have a BAB of +11 for the first swing, +6 for the second, and +1 for the third, which means that you're gonna be missing more than you're hitting.

That and you cannot even take those swings unless you're already standing next to your target, which frees you up for their full attacks when their turn comes up.

File: 1465119650650.jpg (57KB, 289x288px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 289x288px

>>48101991
I'm an out of shape, skeleton mode manlet and I can still kick a wooden table over pretty quickly. There is no fucking way that would require a DC 15, a 10 at most.
Also, ducking behind a table that you just knocked over is not an attack of opportunity, as the table is already covering you, you're just crouching.

Do you baiting retards even play the game you demonize?

>>48109657
I don't care what the numbers are, it's still not in the rules. You're saying you should be able to make up a new special ability for your character which no other character has, in the middle of combat.
Maybe the GM will allow it, depending on the GM and the party and the enemy and the context of the fight and how nicely you ask. But if you're playing D&D, such a thing should not just be given unconditionally, and you should propose your homebrew ahead of time so it can be evaluated in depth.
Also, the GM should always be reluctant to give you an exception to the rules, because once he says yes, he has to deal with other players constantly begging.

>>48109860

>You're saying you should be able to make up a new special ability for your character which no other character has, in the middle of combat.

Considering this is how it works in most games, even D&D sans 3.X, yes.

Also, it wouldn't be a special ability, at best, it'd be a tactic since it's something that anyone with acrobatics could do.

>But if you're playing D&D, such a thing should not just be given unconditionally, and you should propose your homebrew ahead of time so it can be evaluated in depth.

Realize that this is how D&D operated in older editions.

You describe an action, if the action was serviceable then you rolled, the GM would provide the appropriate bonuses to the swing, and if you succeed then it goes off without a hitch.

Hell, even post 3.X editions of D&D provide freeform in how you actually utilize your abilities.

>Also, the GM should always be reluctant to give you an exception to the rules, because once he says yes, he has to deal with other players constantly begging.

You call it begging.

I call it player agency.

Also, you're spouting hyperbole again, don't do that.

>>48109815
I'm starting to see what you mean, and I'll half-agree on the feats. A LOT of cool ones don't require much, but if you're level 3 then yeah you're pretty limited, as is the mage tho with his 5 spells per 24 hours.
But, what I still don't get is, where do you as GM step in? Like, personally I'd let the fighter get his pseudo-pounce in so he can make up for only getting 1 attack as long as he passes the acrobatics check. But then that fighter will ALWAYS opt to do so, as you said especially if the following iteraritive attacks have a high chance to miss.
So now the fighter has gained the pseudo-feat Jump Attack: add Acrobatics rank to att/dam.
So now, the fighter, by level what 8? Will have 15 acrobatics, meaning on a roll of 1 he can still leap 3 squares horizontally with no failure. Again, not game breaking, but then every enemy will want to do it too.
Is this how you'd handle it? I'm all for situational use of environment, but what you're proposing is what I imagine would be called a "house rule". As in, should I approach the table and say "hey guys from now on you can add Acrobatics to att/dam with a check that at this point is guranteed"?

>>48105269
>"I'll spin in a circle t-"

1) Your weapon will get stuck in the very first target you hit, breaking momentum and interrupting the spin.

2) Your GM is being unreasonable in not letting your character, presumably a martial character with good BAB and veteran of many battles who knows how damn stupid this is, back out of this choice instead of eating all the AoOs. That's on your GM. Nothing in 3.X rules says you can take AoOs for declaring an action you cannot actually take. The actual rules are that you can't even attempt a whirlwind attack without the relevant feat, because everyone knows exactly how stupid that is and D&D is not supposed to be a comedy routine where total idiots think they're badass and fail miserably.

>>48105949

If the enemy is on the opposite side of a table, that means they're not adjacent to you, because almost any table is going to take up a square. Enemies who aren't adjacent can't AoO in the first place. If the enemy is on the same side of the table as you, they aren't going to care at all that you're kicking it over. If they're on one of the adjacent sides, to your left or right, they have no chance of being hit by the falling table, they're unlikely to be especially surprised since it's a combat and they're already on guard, and your being off-balance from the kick is absolutely the kind of opening that could justify an AoO. If kicking over the table is how you're initiating the combat, then yes, the enemy will be caught off-guard and denied their AoO because they're flat-footed.

If there's a reason to complain about 3.X, it's...well, it's the shitty class balance. But if there's *another* reason to complain about 3.X, it's that plugging all the gaps in the rules led to a sprawling mess of rules that's impossible to keep straight.

In other words: The problem with 3.X is not what OP is complaining about, it's that 3.X tried to address those kinds of complaints.

>>48110068

>But, what I still don't get is, where do you as GM step in?

You introduce situations where the pseudo leap isn't the most optimum attack to use for every situation.

This is how every system should be run, the players come up with creative means of overcoming obstacles while at the same time, they're thrown a few curve balls so that they're always challenged and encouraged to explore their options.

I mean, if a character has shitloads of ranks in a skill, it stands to reason that they'd have some way to utilize it in new and exciting ways, not even necessarily straight damage either.

>>48105269
You dont provoke an AoO unless you leave an enemies melee threat radius.

Your DM sucks and doesnt know the rules.

>>48102984
This
>ITT: Shitty DMs and players blaming the system.

>>48109986
>You describe an action, if the action was serviceable then you rolled, the GM would provide the appropriate bonuses to the swing, and if you succeed then it goes off without a hitch.
Yeah, IF the GM allowed it. He could refuse. It was an agreement between friends, not an absolute "rule of cool" saying you MUST get what you want. No one thought they were entitled to a bonus back then. No one said the exact words "rule of cool" back then.
"I flap my arms and fly away."
"What the hell? No, you can't fly, that doesn't make any sense. No one in this party has the ability to fly, not even the wizard."
"RUUUUUUULE OOOOOOOOOF COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!"

>>48106336

Realism was the battlefield OP chose. He's the one who kept bringing up "I could totally do this in real life."

>>48106403
>why do I have to wait until level 10, at the latest, to learn how to attack people in an AoE that only goes as far as melee

Whirlwind Attack is a level 4 feat, and Fighters remain balanced with evocation Wizards until several levels after 10. There are serious martial/caster imbalances in 3.X but it's very obvious you do not know what they are.

>>48107780

So your idea of "creativity" is to come up with an idea, arbitrarily declare what bonus it comes up with even if it's the opposite of how things work (when you jump, you lose all control of your momentum and angle until you hit the ground again, so your accuracy decreases, not increases), and then bitch about it when the GM says that no, you can't just assign yourself new bonus abilities at will?

This is why we can't have nice things.

If you want to have a jump attack that trades accuracy for damage, we already have that. It's called power attack. Power attack has some flaws (for starters, it's a feat and not an ubiquitous option), but it exists.

>>48110753

You keep spouting hyperbole, seriously, stop doing that, it makes you look stupid.

Anyways, the GM has always been the one who makes a judgment call on what can or cannot be done, not the rules.

Which is why 3.X's insistence on quantifying every little thing you could do was so laughable.

Also, people didn't entitled to a bonus because every little thing you could do wasn't built on how inflated you could make your rolls.

Hell, you didn't even get a +1 unless you had a 16 in the appropriate stat.