Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by 1varangian
It will Disintegrate if you overcome the HP. It's much more balanced like that and it makes sense a weakened target is easier to disintegrate.

I wouldn't expect old school save or die mechanics to return any time soon.

The most balanced D&D edition is D&D 4e. And is by far the worst. If something is cool, it should be in the game. Simple as that. Note that I an playing DDO at moment, doing the Temple of Elemental Evil quest and elementals uses tier 6 magic while my MC can only use tier 4 magic.

My first death with this char was to a "boss" who casted phantasmal killer, a OHK spell on 3e. And was my fault. I an entering in a place full of undead, I should have prepared myself.

Originally Posted by Niara
[quote=SorcererVictor](...)Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because heir only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies agaisnt their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning form party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM.

A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free. That's a ridiculous idea and a person who suggests that it should is being equally ridiculous.

You act as if there are no counter or protection against those spells. Deathward, a tier 4 spell can protect you from wail of the banshee, a tier 9 spell.

Originally Posted by JoB
It's been years since I've played. The only thing I know about 5e comes from Baldur's Gate 3. But it sure does sound like DnD players have gotten soft.

Used to be, things like Power Word Kill and Disintegrate kept things exciting. When characters died, it was okay. A new character was made. Stories were told about the old character dying.

Well said. 5e characters are too durable.

Originally Posted by Niara
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that. It's a roleplaying game, and the more recent renaissance of D&D has focused more heavily on that - roleplaying - than on having to reroll a new character every few sessions and not really getting attached to any of them because you know you're going to have to reroll again in a few sessions time. To each their own; plenty of groups still play like that, and AL games are generally very min-maxed as well... but it's not the main pitch any more.

No, characters on old school D&D are humans. Sure, they are incredible powerful humans, can cast powerful magic, wield powerful magical items and so on, but still humans. Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char.

And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting.

When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.


Originally Posted by Topgoon
Power Word: Kill is in particular is far more lethal in 5E than 3.5E - both auto-kills at 100 hp, but 5E is a lower HP game compared to 3.5E (where characters have far higher CON stats). Also, in 3.5E spell resistance can save you from it. Disintegrate does packs less of a punch, but it can also land far more in 5E compared to 3.5E due to the way saves work.


Actually 5e is far higher hp than 3.5e which is far higher hp than 2e.

Wizards hit dice per edition.

  • 2e - D4 + maximum of 2 CON """mod""" till lv 9 then +1
  • 3e - D4 + CON mod with no limit
  • 5e - D6 + CON mod with + 5 limit


Monsters? Monsters has a lot of hp on 5e. Examples?

Iron golem - 18d10+30 (129 hp) on 3e VS 20d10+100 (210) hp on 5e
Kraken - 20d10+180 (290 hp) on 3e VS 27d20 + 189 (472) hp on 5e

BTW on 2e the hp values are even smaller.

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Niara
If by 'soft' you mean 'generally more invested in the mental and emotional journey of their characters and more inclined towards immersed character play' than the highly disposable burner character style of play that was encouraged by older editions, then sure, call it that. It's a roleplaying game, and the more recent renaissance of D&D has focused more heavily on that - roleplaying - than on having to reroll a new character every few sessions and not really getting attached to any of them because you know you're going to have to reroll again in a few sessions time. To each their own; plenty of groups still play like that, and AL games are generally very min-maxed as well... but it's not the main pitch any more.

I have to agree.
I want to have an emotional connection with my char, not a set of stats I do not care about because it will die soon after because of an unlucky dice roll.

Please note that we are talking here about a computer game, so creating a new main char in the middle of the game is not an option.
If your main char dies you have to reload. If it happens often enough in a row players will quit.
Which is bad because it means players will miss a great game.

I play computer role playing games because I like the mix of story, exploration and combat.
I do not play them because I expect my char to die any moment because of an unlucky roll.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
You act as if there are no counter or protection against those spells. Deathward, a tier 4 spell can protect you from wail of the banshee, a tier 9 spell.

Ahem, as I said, "Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because their only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies against their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning from party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM."
Your answer bore no relevance to that, especially when the chat was about how someone thinks disintegrate should be a SoD. I reiterate again: "A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free. That's a ridiculous idea and a person who suggests that it should is being equally ridiculous." If you're going to quote me, then at least please address what I'm saying.

Quote
No, characters on old school D&D are humans.

Maybe yours are. Mine are usually halflings. What we are, are mortals.

Quote
Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char. ... And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting. ... When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.

Except it doesn't really lend itself to individual character immersion, due to the fact that the character doesn't last for any reasonable length of time, and you don't feel that sense of satisfaction or accomplishment the vast majority of the time either, because you burn through a dozen different characters for every one that makes it as far as even the mid levels, because the older editions are designed to be harsh character-burners, comparatively speaking, that will frequently and abruptly kill your characters is silly or unfair ways, and you're asked to just accept that as funny and all-in-good-fun, and part of the game. Well, it's not... Not for me, at least, and not for a great margin of modern players in the present day systems. In the older systems, you aren't ever going to trace a character all the way through their personal journey from 1 to 20 because, short of a party wipe, you're going to lose your character several times in a campaign, and bring in a new one to continue on with the rest of the group. You are not going to finish the story with the character that started it; no-one is without a high degree of player meta and mechanical optimising, and likely not even then. A game system riddled with SoD and OHK spells, traps and abilities is inherently not compatible with people who want to play a game where they develop a long-term immersed character experience, and follow them through a personal journey even as you pursue your main campaign. You can't really do that, in a game setting that expects to randomly kill off characters over singular die rolls with little to no warning.

If you need SoD and OHK spells to "Keep things exciting", then I'd politely suggest that you REALLY need to get a better Dm.

Just as an example, I've got a character who is level 8 right now; I've been playing her for several years... I have a lot of strong emotions tied up in that campaign and the story that we as a group are exploring and creating together. Character death can, and ideally should, be dramatic, emotional and poignant; I'll be devastated if it happens, but it's always a possibility. There is plenty of risk and challenge, and we've had a number of very close calls... it has been a very exciting game, as well as a deeply involving and investing one... However, the idea that I might lose this character beyond any possibility of retrieval due to a random trap containing a 5th level spell in the middle of some random ruin would be complete anathema to the entire principle of what I play this game for.

Now, if a system that heavily skews your odds towards sudden death of characters due to a plethora of OHKs and SoDs, and thus a game style that involves moderately frequent character death, and the loss of a decent handful or more for every one that makes it to the end, is your idea of fun, and fulfills your idea of character immersion and investment, that's great; to each their own... it doesn't really sound compatible with the idea of individual character investment to me, but different people have different perspectives, and that's fine...

If being at more risk of sudden character loss is what makes you feel immersed in playing your character, that's great for you. If it is, then I can certainly understand why save-or-die spells sending you to the re-roll table half a dozen times per campaign might be a positive thing, and might legitimately enhance your gameplay experience. For me, the things that make me feel more immersed in my character are character roleplay with others and building connections and relationships with them while we undertake perilous adventures together, and the idea of heading to the re-roll table multiple times per campaign as an expectation, due to the reintroduction of SoD spells, is not a positive thing and would not in any way enhance my gameplay experience. Both of these mindset and ways of playing are perfectly cool.

What is not cool is denigrating other players for favouring different styles and putting their fun value on different things, as the person you're defending and agreeing with was doing... and seemingly came into this thread with the sole purpose of doing.

Last edited by Niara; 11/03/21 03:58 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
This is why in Session Zero I ask my players what they love about D&D, and I record their answers. I want to know if I have players who are emotionally attached to their characters. I actually try to get players who are more invested in their characters, it makes it easier to create an immersive experience. They will give me NPCs I can add in, and I don't have to think them all up on my own. It also inspires me to make combat more varied & strategic, "is this an enemy the players can reason with? How much intelligence does this monster have?"

Sure there are players who live for the wild magic TPK or a fumble chart TPK. But I don't want that to happen frequently to characters I wrote two pages of backstory for, with multiple NPCs approved by the DM.

I don't think it's soft to care about the character. In fact we could argue it's soft to create burner characters. If you don't write a backstory and you don't care if the character is killed off, are you playing the game to the fullest? If the DM isn't creating social experiences, is the DM playing the game to the fullest?

Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Your lv 20 wizard on 2e will probably have around 40 hp. That means that a bear can mole him to death in a single round if he is caught by surprise without spells or anything supernatural to defend him. That makes me fell far more imersed into my char. ... And make adventuring more fun, threatening and interesting. ... When you finally reach mid to high levels, you fell acomplished because you saw a lot of other adventurers dying and failing to obtain that power.
It's immersive if the wizard tries to use Animal Handling or Misty Step to just avoid the bear. Not all outcomes should end in combat, what if the bear is starving and just looking for food? Can the party toss food at the bear to satiate it? Could the bear get distracted by Prestidigitation?

It's also un-immersive if characters are dying left and right. Do the characters really have no emotional response to another's death? Would the surviving party members not consider a different career path? Would they turn to the simple life of farming after seeing so many of their friends die? Would the wizard go back to being a cloistered scholar?

Originally Posted by Niara
If you need SoD and OHK spells to "Keep things exciting", then I'd politely suggest that you REALLY need to get a better Dm...


What is not cool is denigrating other players for favouring different styles and putting their fun value on different things.

Agreed 100%

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Please note that we are talking here about a computer game, so creating a new main char in the middle of the game is not an option.
If your main char dies you have to reload. If it happens often enough in a row players will quit.
Which is bad because it means players will miss a great game.

I play computer role playing games because I like the mix of story, exploration and combat.
I do not play them because I expect my char to die any moment because of an unlucky roll.

You again is ignoring hat there are protections against it and a faster and more brutal combat makes the game more interesting.

Also, on mid to high levels, there are ways to revive party members.

Originally Posted by Niara
Ahem, as I said, "Most players don't really think it's fair or fun to have their entire campaign ended by a single bad die roll, or having to reload their game multiple times because their only option is to succeed a random chance roll, with no gradation or middle-ground. A DM who thinks it's fair or fun to levy save-or-dies against their party and risk complete and irretrievable character loss based on a single die roll, beginning from party level 7 or 8, just because, is also a pretty rotten DM."
Your answer bore no relevance to that, especially when the chat was about how someone thinks disintegrate should be a SoD. I reiterate again: "A 5th level spell should not be able to one-shot any creature in existence for free.

1 - Random death happens. I see no problem with it in a game.
2 - You keep ignoring again what I said about protection
3 - What is the problem of starting from char level 7/8? IF the adventure is designed for that level, players who wanna play that adventure should start at that level. Same for video game adaptations. Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager has you starting at lv 8. Baldur's Gate 2 too around lv 7~9 depending on the class. Hordes of the underdark on nwn1? Start at lv 15.
4 - If you throw a necromancer able to cast wail of the banshee against the a low level party(without expecting that they will find a way around)
5 - Disintegrate is a 6th level spell and can't one shot any creature in the existence. On 3e, the DC to resist that spell would be 10 + 6 + INT MOD, assuming greater spell focus transformation, and 22(superhuman) intelligence, the DC will gonna be 24. An mature red dragon only would need to roll 3 to not be OHKilled and it if happened, is a fun lucky situation in the table. This not considering the spell resistance. And note that contrary to 2e, disintegrate on 3e can't OHK sadly.

Originally Posted by Niara
, I've got a character who is level 8 right now; I've been playing her for several years... I have a lot of strong emotions tied up in that campaign and the story that we as a group are exploring and creating together. Character death can, and ideally should, be dramatic, emotional and poignant; I'll be devastated if it happens, but it's always a possibility. There is plenty of risk and challenge, and we've had a number of very close calls... it has been a very exciting game, as well as a deeply involving and investing one... However, the idea that I might lose this character beyond any possibility of retrieval due to a random trap containing a 5th level spell in the middle of some random ruin would be complete anathema to the entire principle of what I play this game for.

That is the game which you are playing. Very low level, very low lethality. Guess what. Only a sadistic dm would ever throw a necromancer capable of casting finger of death against a low or mid level adventure. Raise dead is a 5th level spell.

GURPS is far higher lethality than D&D 2e, mainly on high tech or high magical settings. A .338 lapua magnum rifle can OHK the average players several times with a single shot. People do everything that they can to avoid being exposed to lethal risk and is part of the game. You can say that you don't like higher lethality but IMHO, D&D nowdays lacks any sense of peril.

And Larian with the hp bloat rule is makign it even worse.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It's immersive if the wizard tries to use Animal Handling or Misty Step to just avoid the bear. Not all outcomes should end in combat, what if the bear is starving and just looking for food? Can the party toss food at the bear to satiate it? Could the bear get distracted by Prestidigitation?

It's also un-immersive if characters are dying left and right. Do the characters really have no emotional response to another's death? Would the surviving party members not consider a different career path? Would they turn to the simple life of farming after seeing so many of their friends die? Would the wizard go back to being a cloistered scholar?

Of course, but my point is to point out how fragile chars are on 2e.

Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
Arguing over whether or not one hit kill spells are good for gameplay is pretty pointless. 5e doesn't have save or die stuff and I doubt they will suddenly start over and convert BG3 to AD&D 2e just because SorcererVictor wants to Disintegrate level 20 Barbarians left and right.

Larian are obviously not going to start buffing spells beyond what they are in 5e, especially since they already made Long Rest trivially easy to do whenever.

So I would be petitioning for an accurate conversion of the rules here, starting with making Long Rest a more restricted resource so spells don't have to be nerfed eventually. We will reach level 11 at least, and a level 11 Wizard unloading all spell slots in every single encounter would be a balance nightmare no one wants, even if they think they do.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Arguing over whether or not one hit kill spells are good for gameplay is pretty pointless. 5e doesn't have save or die stuff and I doubt they will suddenly start over and convert BG3 to AD&D 2e just because SorcererVictor wants to Disintegrate level 20 Barbarians left and right.

Larian are obviously not going to start buffing spells beyond what they are in 5e, especially since they already made Long Rest trivially easy to do whenever.

So I would be petitioning for an accurate conversion of the rules here, starting with making Long Rest a more restricted resource so spells don't have to be nerfed eventually. We will reach level 11 at least, and a level 11 Wizard unloading all spell slots in every single encounter would be a balance nightmare no one wants, even if they think they do.

I an pretty sure that modders will implement a 2e optional mod. But my point with this thread is not if spells will be nerfed to 5e levels. My concern is if Larian will nerf this spells even more than 5e levels. And not only to OHK spells. 5e already took high CR undead alway from necromancer and OHK spells. Even a lv 20 necromancer on 5e can only get skeletons/zombies. Imagine it + a single summon limit, necromancer which is already very lackluster comapred to the evoker, would become a meme.

But honestly how someone can ever think on surviving this??

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
"Parwyyd Hanifar casts disintegrate to destroy the Great Door." https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Disintegrate

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
SoecererVictor, are you sure you are a friend of classical role playing games?
You sound a bit like a fan of dark souls or rogue likes.
One single mistake and you are dead. Reload the game (if it is nice) or start again with a new char.
Some games are so sadistic that death means you get a penalty that gets bigger with each try.

BG1+2 are great games.
But I am happy that some game mechanics have changed since then.
Give us BG3 with the 5E rules of Solasta and I am even more happy.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Spoilering this because it's getting a bit off topic:


Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
1 - Random death happens. I see no problem with it in a game.
2 - You keep ignoring again what I said about protection
3 - What is the problem of starting from char level 7/8? IF the adventure is designed for that level, players who wanna play that adventure should start at that level. Same for video game adaptations. Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager has you starting at lv 8. Baldur's Gate 2 too around lv 7~9 depending on the class. Hordes of the underdark on nwn1? Start at lv 15.
4 - If you throw a necromancer able to cast wail of the banshee against the a low level party(without expecting that they will find a way around)
5 - Disintegrate is a 6th level spell and can't one shot any creature in the existence. On 3e, the DC to resist that spell would be 10 + 6 + INT MOD, assuming greater spell focus transformation, and 22(superhuman) intelligence, the DC will gonna be 24. An mature red dragon only would need to roll 3 to not be OHKilled and it if happened, is a fun lucky situation in the table. This not considering the spell resistance. And note that contrary to 2e, disintegrate on 3e can't OHK sadly.

If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually *Enhances* your game experience and makes the game *More* fun for you, that's cool. You're in an EXTREME minority of D&D players if that is the case. Most don't like it; many think it's a part of the game sometimes, but few, if any, genuinely think it's something that increases their fun or enhances their game experience. Character loss should be significant when it happens... SoD and OHK spells are, quite simply, the opposite of that.

I'm not ignoring what you say about protectives; nothing 'protects' you from disintegrate, with the exception of Death Ward, and most parties aren't in a position to Death Ward everyone in the group just on the off chance that they run into a caster with disintegrate. It's also not a widely accessible spell - cleric and paladin only, in fact, so if your group doesn't have one of those at a high enough level to burn their limited spell resources on that high level protective for everyone (and at level 8 you won't), then it's pointless to bring it up. As I said, it also doesn't address the point or have any real bearing on it... Which is your contention that disintegrate should be a 6th level spell (i.e. a spell which a level 8 party might realistically face from major caster villains), which is simply a SoD, in a way that such a party would have literally no way to restore a character from the effects of, thus making it a cheap and largely unfair character destroyer in an edition where save failures can be guaranteed in other simpler ways.

The 'problem' which comes into play once the party reaches level 7-8 (more likely 9) or so is that that is the level where main villain caster bosses will start to have 5th and 6th level spells, such as disintegrate, and the party, at their level, will absolutely not have excess 4th level slots to burn on preemptive protectives, nor, more importantly, any hope of having the means to restore a character from disintegration.

Disintegrate is still perfectly powerful in 5e; it will never bounce of spell resistance, which doesn't exist, and there are ways to ensure a dex save failure quite easily, and at the point in the game where characters start having the chance of having to face it down, only the very *sturdiest* classes have much chance of not getting zeroed out by a failure... my level 8 bard, which I mentioned, certainly doesn't - she's only got 30 hit points at level 8; even at level 13, she's only likely to have approximately 50 hit points, if she rolls average, which is still guaranteed death from full hp. At level 20, she'll only have, if she gets average from here on out, 78 hit points. A base level 6 disintegrate would likely kill her even at level 20... if your theoretical barbarian example is good, then so is my actual character example. Disintegrate is plenty strong as it is.

Mentioning all the other limiting factors that Disintegrate had in earlier editions is actually reinforcing the point; suggesting that spells like disintegrate should be made back into OHKs/SoDs, in an edition that does NOT have spell resistance, or unbeatably high save modifiers, and also contains simple ways to guarantee save failures, both on players and on enemies is a ridiculous suggestion.

Quote
That is the game which you are playing. Very low level, very low lethality. Guess what. Only a sadistic dm would ever throw a necromancer capable of casting finger of death against a low or mid level adventure. Raise dead is a 5th level spell.

Level 8 is not 'very low level', it's approaching mid bracket. The campaign is likely to go to about 12 at most, and onto a new adventure after that if we make it. It's also not low lethality at all. We've had a lot of very close calls and a lot of near saves and almost-losses. Raise Dead is indeed a 5th level spell, which is a lovely piece of academic knowledge for a party that doesn't actually contain a cleric and who are currently only level 8. We did have a major caster boss to deal with recently - she had up to 8th level spells; head on was not the way we handled it, in the end, but handle it we did, and it was terrifying, exciting and very nearly cost all four of us our lives. End of the day, you don't need SoD spells to create that excitement and that danger - and the danger feels more legitimate and fair when it's not contingent upon single roll SoDs, and I'll say it again - if your DM thinks they DO need SoD and OHK spells and abilities to keep things interesting or exciting for your party, then they, as a DM, have failed.


Quote
And Larian with the hp bloat rule is making it even worse.

On this score, I absolutely 100% agree with you.

Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
So ask for a resting system where Long Rests are more restricted so they don't have to start nerfing higher level spells and basically any class that operates on a per day basis. This is where BG3 is currently at. It's closer to eliminating all resting completely and turning into DOS rather than D&D style gameplay where smart resource management is part of the game. We can't have powerful magic before that's sorted. Assuming they care the least little bit about class balance in a game that also has multiplayer.

Last edited by 1varangian; 12/03/21 01:25 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Madscientist
SoecererVictor, are you sure you are a friend of classical role playing games?
You sound a bit like a fan of dark souls or rogue likes.
One single mistake and you are dead. Reload the game (if it is nice) or start again with a new char.
Some games are so sadistic that death means you get a penalty that gets bigger with each try.

BG1+2 are great games.
But I am happy that some game mechanics have changed since then.
Give us BG3 with the 5E rules of Solasta and I am even more happy.

I an a very CRPG fan
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

I like Souls style of games. And they aren't one mistake and you are dead. Missing an dodge in a boss can make you took a lot of damage and require an healing opening but not OHK you.

As for CRPG's, I mentioned Dark Sun, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Arcanum, VtMB(...) Modern games aren't good as old school ones exactly due this balance cultism "balance is good because balance is good, lets make all player choices the same and remove everything cool for the sake of balance. Everyone should be playing with boring characters".

Low INT runs on FL 1/2 aren't optimal but are fun due how the world react to a brainlet PC. Nosferatu has a hard time navigating in teh city and are so deformed that even prostitutes refuses then making harder to get masquarede risk free blood. But both examples are fun to be played for most players. An modern game dev would remove nosferatu or make the deformity a -1 seduction dot for the sake of balance cultism. Killing the uniqueness of teh clan, game athmosphere and consistency of mechanics and lore or killing variety.

RPG's used to be fictional immersive worlds to live and escape from the harsh reality where a lot of injustices happens on work, university, with your health and so on. Where you can for few moments, forgive the problems of IRL and be a necromancer, be a paladin, do a lot of cool things and see the consequences of your actions. Now, they are just boring work. There are few exceptions to that rule. 5e is not boring like 4e but is not good as 2e either.

---------------

Niara, you are right that due the lack of SR, high save creatures and the fact that everything has exponentially more hp on 5e, OHK spells would't work on 5e. But I still believe that they aren't a problem on 2e.

But again,my concern is not that this spells will not be great like on 2e. My concern is if Larian will nerf then more than 5e already nerfed.

Last edited by SorcererVictor; 12/03/21 01:38 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually *Enhances* your game experience and makes the game *More* fun for you, that's cool. You're in an EXTREME minority of D&D players if that is the case. Most don't like it; many think it's a part of the game sometimes, but few, if any, genuinely think it's something that increases their fun or enhances their game experience. Character loss should be significant when it happens... SoD and OHK spells are, quite simply, the opposite of that.

Nonsense. You're the one in the extreme minority. Some players are a bit softer when it comes to certain challenges. If that's more fun for you, that's cool. But please remember, you are the one in the minority.

See how each of us can claim the other is in the minority with zero evidence? Yeah.

When character death is an option then the value of the character actually increases. The character is no longer a pet safety blanket. The character is a treasure. The character has travelled the gauntlet. This is part of what builds the connection.

Decisions get made based on the level of danger. Missions are researched. Perhaps if you learn that your mission would antagonize a powerful wizard who's known to have the disintegrate spell then you might decline the mission. Too dangerous you might think. Or maybe you would plan on a way to take out the wizard by stealth. Or maybe you would plan on having access to a death ward spell, either through another party member or by some other source.

The point is, you navigate the danger or avoid it the best way possible because you care about your character, not because your character is replaceable. Every close call, every scar revealed is a challenge overcome.

The challenge is important. It makes the triumph worthwhile. Yes, sometimes deaths are dirty. That's the way it is. But when you're actually playing a character, you're in the moment with the character, and death doesn't have to be monumental to carry meaning and be memorable.

You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

In my opinion, DnD is not a game you win or lose. It's a game you play. If there's no danger of your character dying, I'm not sure it's worth playing.

Just my opinion, of course.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by JoB
You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

Ah, very good. In that case, you're mistaken; most D&D players are not what you would define as 'soft' at all, modern day or old school.

No-one has said anything about death not being a present threat and a danger (and most in this discussion have indicated quite the opposite - that it should be). No-one has said anything at all about character deaths needing to be scripted (you're the very first person to mention anything of the sort). No-one has said anything at all about constraining challenge within a framework that makes the challenges relatively easy (No-one has said this, and most in this discussion have indicated the opposite), and no-one has said anything at all about the danger of character loss being 'unfair' (Again, no-one has said that, and most have indicated the inverse). No-one has said any of that at all, except you. You put that there.

Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by JoB
You asked me to define soft. I think you know perfectly well what soft means, but I'll give you an example: thinking every death must be noble and carefully scripted to not occur simply because of dice rolls or thinking that every challenge should be within a tightly controlled framework that allows for a relatively easy victory or thinking it's "unfair" that you might not "win."

Ah, very good. In that case, you're mistaken; most D&D players are not what you would define as 'soft' at all, modern day or old school.

No-one has said anything about death not being a present threat and a danger (and most in this discussion have indicated quite the opposite - that it should be). No-one has said anything at all about character deaths needing to be scripted (you're the very first person to mention anything of the sort). No-one has said anything at all about constraining challenge within a framework that makes the challenges relatively easy (No-one has said this, and most in this discussion have indicated the opposite), and no-one has said anything at all about the danger of character loss being 'unfair' (Again, no-one has said that, and most have indicated the inverse). No-one has said any of that at all, except you. You put that there.


You wrote: "If random, ignoble, unfitting character loss actually..."

So not random? Scripted. Planned. Fitting? Deaths must be, after all, noble. Right? How does one ensure a death is noble if not through some measurable level of scripting? Some level of making sure the death isn't accidental or random, yes?

You advocated not having one shot kills. I would say not having one shot kills is *relatively* easier than having one shot kills. Which affirms the comment about a framework that makes challenges *relatively* easy.

Regarding "fairness," you wrote: "...will absolutely not have excess 4th level slots to burn on preemptive protectives, nor, more importantly, any hope of having the means to restore a character from disintegration." <---that sounds an awful lot like it's not fair.

I suggest that if you examine and parse through the things you've said, you'll begin to realize that you've put forward more of these ideas than you realize.

But thank you for your opinion about what I put where.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Nothing I said implies scripting; if you think it does, you probably need a better DM.

OHKs and SoDs do not, in my opinion, inherently add or detract from the potential 'difficulty' of the game situation. Other things that are more fair and respectful to player input do that. Again, if you think difficulty of a challenge needs to be modulated by the presence of OHKs and SODs, then you probably need a better DM.

The game should be fair to the players; it absolutely should. Players should have fair options and fair tools for dealing with the challenges that are set before them. This does not mean it will not be a deadly and dangerous situation. This does not remove or negate the possibility and danger of character death, and should not do so. If you think you need to insert OHKs and SoDs to maintain the danger and possibility of character death, then again, your DM is most likely failing you.

Last edited by Niara; 13/03/21 12:22 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
Nothing I said implies scripting; if you think it does, you probably need a better DM.

OHKs and SoDs do not, in my opinion, inherently add or detract from the potential 'difficulty' of the game situation. Other things that are more fair and respectful to player input do that. Again, if you think difficulty of a challenge needs to be modulated by the presence of OHKs and SODs, then you desperately need a better DM.

The game should be fair to the players; it absolutely should. Players should have fair options and fair tools for dealing with the challenges that are set before them. This does not mean it will not be a deadly and dangerous situation. This does not remove or negate the possibility and danger of character death, and should not do so. If you think you need to insert OHKs and SoDs to maintain the danger and possibility of character death, then again, your DM is failing you.

Soft.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by JoB
Soft.

If you have nothing to say, then don't.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by JoB
Soft.

If you have nothing to say, then don't.

What a strange comment. I did have something to say. And I said it.

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
I agree with Niara.
Nobody ever said that adventuring should not be dangerous or deadly. It should be.
All we say is that it is bad design if the GM or dev thinks that throwing SoD or OHK at the player is the best way to keep the player engaged and to give you the feeling that your adventure is sangerous.

Since SorcererVictor mentioned Kingmaker.
I finished the game recently and I remember 3 enemies that used such attacks.
- Vordakai: You are in a dungeon full of undead and you know you have to fight against a lich, so you are prepared.
- Medusas use true strike + finger of death delivered with an arrow. The first time I was surprized and some chars died. ( I expected petrify but not FoD from a medusa)
Once I knew I could handle them
- The wizard who comes together with the fiend at the lowest levels of the depths cast mass ice prison. Even if you prevent paralysis, the spell does damage every round for over 20 minutes which is a death sentence and he always casts this first against the party. Took countless tries until I could kill him before he could cast a single spell. His fiend buddy was a cakewalk.

Even with only a few enemies that use such spells, I would say that Kingmaker is a great game and it is often very deadly if you are not prepared.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by JoB
What a strange comment. I did have something to say. And I said it.
You are already on notice for your behaviour elsewhere on these forums. I strongly suggest that you either take a self-imposed break from posting, or that you start being a lot less abrasive and confrontational. You will not be warned next time, and a ban will be permanent.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5