Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?

That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."

Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
That's not what I said. I said DM's will make a game easier for players that are new and harder for veterans to keep the game interesting. I didn't say anything about food but was speaking in general terms, even as far as fudging rolls to help new players which I think is nice on their part. Now, that doesn't mean they do it all the time but just to keep the new players used to the game and also to make sure they are entertained. I have seen some on this site in different threads act like DnD "HAS" to be played a certain way and if it's not then it's not DnD. Even WOTC have said that the rules for DnD are a guide to how you can play a game not that it has to be that way.

Then i don't see how this argument relates to the discussion at hand. What you're describing transaltes to difficulty settings, which again have nothing to do with wonky game mechanincs that arbitarily dumb down the game for everyone involved.

How does the option of eating a fruit or a vegetable dumb down a game? You don't have to use that if you don't like or you feel it's to easy for you, but don't take that option away from others. No one can speak for everyone because not everyone plays the same. When players try to change a game to fit their desires by removing options that others may like, they are then changing the game to fit their playstyle and ignoring the other players who may have a different playstyle. That's a form of gatekeeping.

Food as it was dumbs down the game because it's both an incredibly common resource and one that worked as the equivalent of a minor healing potion. It's pretty straight forward.

I'll ignore the rest of your post because i'm frankly not interested in a faux moral discussion, but i will say though that words like gatekeeping would probably still mean something if people stopped abusing them whenever they lack sound arguments.

Joined: Aug 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Flooter
Aristotle said works of fiction should favor probable impossibilities over improbable possibilities. Suspension of disbelief covers the big, crazy things like spiderman or aliens or wizards. But the audience still expects the mundane, background things to function according to intuition
Yes and i agree with that great man ...

Ragnarok, you made my day! I've seen you pick appart so many posts on this forum, wishing the whole time it could happen to me some day. Now that it has, I feel like I truly belong here. laugh

A few rapid fire responses : I didn't know Superman has frost breath, that guy seems kinda OP; I hate when people complain inconsistently, and I wish they would settle on one opinion before they came to us with their problems; I agree that the resting system stretches verisimilitude, and that verisimilitude is a great word; I always imagined eating a goodberry was like biting into a cherry tomato, releasing a stream of invigorating juice and 1d4 health points.

Jokes aside, something you said here (and elsewhere) deserves deeper examination.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
And i simply cant understand why there even exists people who demand to ruin this game for other people who are completely fine with healing food, since that is nothing new in fantasy videogames ... and demands change of rules so this particular game is "challenging enough" for them (and everyone else who never wanted that in the proces). :-/

There's a game design truism that players will do whatever it takes to win and then blame the game if what they had to do wasn't fun. From thegamer.com : https://www.thegamer.com/players-optimize-fun-out-of-games/
Quote
This phenomenon is a really interesting one, and is summed up in a pair of quotes by Civilization IV designers Soren Johnson and Sid Meier, who said, respectively: ” given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game,” and that, therefore, “one of the responsibilities of designers is to protect the player from themselves.”

Mark Rosewater, head designer for Magic the Gathering, explains it better than I ever could during his 2016 GDC talk. (Timestamp 38:27)


Ragnarok, your position as I understand it is that in this 60€ game with which I expect to have fun, food is both all over the place and the most efficient use of my bonus actions, but I shouldn't use it because it's a game design trap? Asking other players to ignore gameplay aspects they don't like is asking them to find the fun in the game. That's the designer's job.

Fun is subjective, sure, but that's why games have a lead designer. They decide what's fun, the same way an author decides what to write. When I read a book, I expect the author to give me only the good chapters. When I play a game, I expect the designers to have made the easiest way to win also the most fun way to play.


TRIBE!
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?

That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."

Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?

Comparing chess to dnd is apples and oranges. Chess has a set of rules where you HAVE to play that way or else you can't play the game. In DnD the rules are there as a guide. If not a guide and you HAVE to play 5e the way it is, then homebrew rules would not exist.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
That's not what I said. I said DM's will make a game easier for players that are new and harder for veterans to keep the game interesting. I didn't say anything about food but was speaking in general terms, even as far as fudging rolls to help new players which I think is nice on their part. Now, that doesn't mean they do it all the time but just to keep the new players used to the game and also to make sure they are entertained. I have seen some on this site in different threads act like DnD "HAS" to be played a certain way and if it's not then it's not DnD. Even WOTC have said that the rules for DnD are a guide to how you can play a game not that it has to be that way.

Then i don't see how this argument relates to the discussion at hand. What you're describing transaltes to difficulty settings, which again have nothing to do with wonky game mechanincs that arbitarily dumb down the game for everyone involved.

How does the option of eating a fruit or a vegetable dumb down a game? You don't have to use that if you don't like or you feel it's to easy for you, but don't take that option away from others. No one can speak for everyone because not everyone plays the same. When players try to change a game to fit their desires by removing options that others may like, they are then changing the game to fit their playstyle and ignoring the other players who may have a different playstyle. That's a form of gatekeeping.

Food as it was dumbs down the game because it's both an incredibly common resource and one that worked as the equivalent of a minor healing potion. It's pretty straight forward.

I'll ignore the rest of your post because i'm frankly not interested in a faux moral discussion, but i will say though that words like gatekeeping would probably still mean something if people stopped abusing them whenever they lack sound arguments.

Don't be condescending. If you dislike something, that is your opinion but DO NOT come into threads talking down to people because you disagree.

Joined: Apr 2021
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?

That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."

Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?

Comparing chess to dnd is apples and oranges. Chess has a set of rules where you HAVE to play that way or else you can't play the game. In DnD the rules are there as a guide. If not a guide and you HAVE to play 5e the way it is, then homebrew rules would not exist.

It is not that far-fetched. There are flavours that you can change freely - chess should not be black/white, you can use other colours (this is what Dms change in DnD). It will not change the game. But if you are changing the fundamental rules, you have another game.
There are core mechanics in DnD that no DM will ever change. Rest system and action economy are at the very heart of the system. You change one thing - the whole system falls apart. Food eliminates healing and rest, breaks the rule of Bonus Action, makes some spells useless, changes encounter levels.

With that addition, you literally bring checker's rules into the chess game. Systems are incompatible - it's either DOS or DnD, together they do not work. Once again, Larian did not say "we are using our homebrew variation of DnD", no. What was promised is 5e, and 5e people expect.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Is RPGs purpose is to simulate life in a fantasy world. If you can eat an entire rack of ribs in less than 3 seconds and be healed more than a magic potion, that's broken.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Dexai
Goodberries are berries enchanted by a Druid to be magically filling, and heal a single hp.
Wich means 4 Goodberries should make enough resources for our 4 member party to Long Rest ...
Have you seen anyone (else than me :D) complaining about that? smile

Once again ... immersion only when it suits us.

Originally Posted by Dexai
The mere existence of that spells strengthens the argument that food shouldn't heal up. Why waste a spell slot on casting Goodberry when you can just eat a normal carrot?
There is as much reasons as there is people who did that ...
Also, as far as i know, there is no rule that forbids playing uneffectively ...

We could also ask why waste Action for Truestrike ...
Or why waste spellslot for Prayer of Healing, when we have Short Rest ...

The option is just there, for you to use ...
Its not Larians (not even ours) job to find out why you want to use it.
That is basic definition of option. laugh

Originally Posted by 1varangian
It has been explained many times over why the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument isn't valid.
Nah ... it was stated many times, but never even once explained. laugh

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Why do you feel like you need exactly food healing? What's wrong with another Short Rest, or even a free full heal after every combat? If you want more healing, why should it be done in a way that many players find immersion breaking when there are other ways that make sense and would even be more convenient?
Like for example what?

- As far as i know, you have limited amount of Short Rests, and they are tied to much more resources than just HP ... so that is not an option, if you just wish to heal some minor wounds.
- There is not any "free full heal after every combat" ... so obviously, non existent mechanic will probably not an option.

That is the thing, "make sense and would even be more convenient" ... that litteraly fits to mechanic that was allready there. laugh

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
No one is forcing you to eat food to replenish you health if all your other options have been used.
They said to you its immersion breaking and illogical ...

[sarcasm]
To have food and actualy being able to eat it to provide your body needed energy and nutrition so it can regenerate ... such incredible nonsence, where did you even get such twisted fantasy?

While on the other hand ... having food, that magicaly dissapears during the night when you click on your bedroll, and having all your wounds healed by themselves ...
Now that is immersion! I can litteraly taste that realistic feeling. :3
[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
When players try to change a game to fit their desires by removing options that others may like, they are then changing the game to fit their playstyle and ignoring the other players who may have a different playstyle. That's a form of gatekeeping.
Nah, thats being selfish a*****e ...
*Tiefling Woman pointing her finger to the sky and twisting it* ... "There is plenty of us around here." laugh

Originally Posted by Amirit
Should they say "we are making BG3 but with our system" - they could do whatever they want. But the deal was "use 5e rules", so, it is expected, that the game will follow 5e rules.
The deal actualy was "the game will be BASED ON 5e rules" ...
Not "tha game will be litteral transcription of 5e rules 1:1". wink

So, in other words "5e rules with some changes" ... as Swen multiple times tells us in every PFH, in their opinion tabletop rules dont translate to Videogame properly, so some changes are litteraly needed. wink

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
The rules 5e are not set in stone, even WOTC have said this. They are meant to be a guide, the DM is still the final say on rules. That's why homebrew rules exist.
Yup ... sadly even DM can submit to pressure of its players, if that group is large, or loud enough. frown

And that is exactly what happened here ... except it was few hundert (i doubt it honestly, but maybe thousands) out of millions of players ... so basicaly around 1%, probably even less. laugh
Just saying so its clear wich situation happened here. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?
So there should be no changes in rules?
So in order to actualy play BG-3 we should get back infinite long rests, healing by food during combat, AoE effects from cantrips, and all other stuff that was changed or removed since the EA started? :P

I think not.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."
Cute ...
How often do you play Chess in single player mode and i dont mean here against computer, or against yourself ... in pure singleplayer, meaning there is just you and your figues, few individual NPCs and nobody else? laugh
Or, just to have it covered all ... have you ever played Chess in co-op multiplayer? I wonder how that looks. laugh

That is why your examples are irellevant pal. wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?
The problem is that game is not "designed around the new rules" ... if it would, you would be forced to use them, the game would be nearly or litteraly impossible to play without using them.
But you are not ... wink

Also, we are still talking here about Singleplayer, or co-op Multiplayer ... since as far as i know, BG-3 dont offer option to play "against other player". wink

Originally Posted by Flooter
Ragnarok, you made my day! I've seen you pick appart so many posts on this forum, wishing the whole time it could happen to me some day. Now that it has, I feel like I truly belong here. laugh
What can i say except: smile

----

Anyway im glad i will have someone who will actualy read my post. laugh

Originally Posted by Flooter
A few rapid fire responses : I didn't know Superman has frost breath, that guy seems kinda OP; I hate when people complain inconsistently, and I wish they would settle on one opinion before they came to us with their problems; I agree that the resting system stretches verisimilitude, and that verisimilitude is a great word; I always imagined eating a goodberry was like biting into a cherry tomato, releasing a stream of invigorating juice and 1d4 health points.
Oh yes, Superman is totally OP, even for superhero standards ... that is one of reasons why his previous comics were allways boring for me, (basicaly Superman comes, superman saves ... no matter what was the problem, somehow he manage even if that would mean to break litteraly every law of physics that are there ... the bright example is his ability to "chatch falling plane" by its underbelly laugh ) lately they started to explore oter side of his power and i must say that his character starts to feel quite interesting to me. smile

It is not a great word laugh as non-native english speaker (and most people would say im not even speaker in any other way) i really hate long words. laugh

Interesting idea with that goodberry. smile

Originally Posted by Flooter
Jokes aside, something you said here (and elsewhere) deserves deeper examination.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
And i simply cant understand why there even exists people who demand to ruin this game for other people who are completely fine with healing food, since that is nothing new in fantasy videogames ... and demands change of rules so this particular game is "challenging enough" for them (and everyone else who never wanted that in the proces). :-/

There's a game design truism that players will do whatever it takes to win and then blame the game if what they had to do wasn't fun. From thegamer.com : https://www.thegamer.com/players-optimize-fun-out-of-games/
Quote
This phenomenon is a really interesting one, and is summed up in a pair of quotes by Civilization IV designers Soren Johnson and Sid Meier, who said, respectively: ” given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game,” and that, therefore, “one of the responsibilities of designers is to protect the player from themselves.”

Mark Rosewater, head designer for Magic the Gathering, explains it better than I ever could during his 2016 GDC talk. (Timestamp 38:27)

I didnt need Mark Rosewater to tell me that ...
Im aware just from my own experience here on this forum. laugh

The fact that i know its happening dont change that im litteraly unable to understand such behaviour tho.
I dont wish to claim that im more mature than those people, even tho there is no other word fully expressing what i have in mind, when i say that ... so take it with reserve ...
But i also had my time when i was younger ... time when all i cared about was to beat the game, no matter what ... so i played with cheats, mods, trainers, guydes (not those that tells you what are you suppose to focus to be effective ... but those that told you litteraly step by step how to beat every single puzzle in game, where to find best gear, how to beat certain bosses, etc.) ...
But as time passed, i find one day that its not fun anymore ... so since that day i play games "by rules" and i enjoy them ... if there is (and there allways is some, so this is more like matter of if i notice laugh ) some option to exploit the system, i usualy save the game ... try it, have my fun, then load and continue properly. laugh

It might seem like argument for accepting DnD rules for BG-3, but actualy its not. smile
When you want your serious game, you are allways able ...
When you want to just get in and make a mess, you should also be able ... after all, its your 60€ and it should be your ( certainly not "other forum users" laugh ) decision what you wish to do with them. :P

I was member for Bloodlines 2 forum, while that was still active ... and one of most cotroverse topic that was there mentioned was the fact that this game supposedly should have implemented option for people to skip certain missions that could trigger them ...
People was furious about it and i dont really see why? If anyone wish to spend 90€ for clicking 50 times to "skip" button and then watch final credits ... i dare to say its his decision. laugh

Originally Posted by Flooter
Ragnarok, your position as I understand it is that in this 60€ game with which I expect to have fun, food is both all over the place and the most efficient use of my bonus actions, but I shouldn't use it because it's a game design trap?
Nah ... i shouldnt use it, bcs i find it stupid, immersive breaking and rulebreaking. laugh
Or at least those are arguments that was most used here. smile

The same story is with Barrels ...
- I have option to blow a Barrel and kill the enemy by that ...
- I also have option to ignore a Barrel and go fight the enemy regulary ...
- I want to fight enemy regulary, since that is what i like, that is what i wish to do and that is what i believe is right thing to do, unlike the other option, wich i despise ...
>> And so i go and blow a Barrel, bcs its "more effective way to do that" ...

Seriously where is litteraly ANYTHING logical in such behaviour? laugh

Originally Posted by Flooter
Asking other players to ignore gameplay aspects they don't like is asking them to find the fun in the game.
Well, not exactly ... since those players clain they allready have their fun ...

Only existence of those options is ruining it to them ... wich can be easily fixed by ignoring them ... you refuse to use it, therefore final effect is exactly the same as if that would not be possible at all. laugh

Originally Posted by Flooter
That's the designer's job.
Thats is where we disagree ...

In my opinion:
Designer's job is to presume what will be fun for me and give me options to have it ... the more options, the better chance he will hit the right spot. wink
And my job is to explore those options and use those, that will give me fun i wanted. laugh

Originally Posted by Flooter
When I play a game, I expect the designers to have made the easiest way to win also the most fun way to play.
Exactly ...
And the same expect all those other people, who have different taste. wink

The only difference here is that they dont need to ruin your fun so they can have theirs ...
Kinda sad, isnt it?


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Then i don't see how this argument relates to the discussion at hand. What you're describing transaltes to difficulty settings, which again have nothing to do with wonky game mechanincs that arbitarily dumb down the game for everyone involved.

How does the option of eating a fruit or a vegetable dumb down a game? You don't have to use that if you don't like or you feel it's to easy for you, but don't take that option away from others. No one can speak for everyone because not everyone plays the same. When players try to change a game to fit their desires by removing options that others may like, they are then changing the game to fit their playstyle and ignoring the other players who may have a different playstyle. That's a form of gatekeeping.

Food as it was dumbs down the game because it's both an incredibly common resource and one that worked as the equivalent of a minor healing potion. It's pretty straight forward.

I'll ignore the rest of your post because i'm frankly not interested in a faux moral discussion, but i will say though that words like gatekeeping would probably still mean something if people stopped abusing them whenever they lack sound arguments.

Don't be condescending. If you dislike something, that is your opinion but DO NOT come into threads talking down to people because you disagree.

This is getting embarassing.

Last edited by Innateagle; 07/11/21 02:48 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Is RPGs purpose is to simulate life in a fantasy world. If you can eat an entire rack of ribs in less than 3 seconds and be healed more than a magic potion, that's broken.

SInce I never used eating food for healing (I never even knew, it existed) how much were you able to heal? Someone mentioned as much as a normal healing potion - is that true? That would be very overpowered imo.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Amirit
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?

That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."

Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?

Comparing chess to dnd is apples and oranges. Chess has a set of rules where you HAVE to play that way or else you can't play the game. In DnD the rules are there as a guide. If not a guide and you HAVE to play 5e the way it is, then homebrew rules would not exist.

It is not that far-fetched. There are flavours that you can change freely - chess should not be black/white, you can use other colours (this is what Dms change in DnD). It will not change the game. But if you are changing the fundamental rules, you have another game.
There are core mechanics in DnD that no DM will ever change. Rest system and action economy are at the very heart of the system. You change one thing - the whole system falls apart. Food eliminates healing and rest, breaks the rule of Bonus Action, makes some spells useless, changes encounter levels.

With that addition, you literally bring checker's rules into the chess game. Systems are incompatible - it's either DOS or DnD, together they do not work. Once again, Larian did not say "we are using our homebrew variation of DnD", no. What was promised is 5e, and 5e people expect.

Since I am seeing some people wanting strict 5e rules and ONLY 5e rules. Let's take a look at the D&D Player Handbook, on page 185 section FOOD AND WATER. It states:

"Characters who don't eat or drink suffer effects of exhaustion. Exhaustion caused by lack of food and water can't be removed until the character eats and drinks the full required amount."

I know I mentioned eating food to replenish health either during or after combat, to which some are like "NOOOOO" but according to D&D we need to consume food and water or our character get's exhausted. Thereby, technically what I said isn't entirely wrong or dumb. It may not be for combat but you still need to consume food and water.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Don't be condescending. If you dislike something, that is your opinion but DO NOT come into threads talking down to people because you disagree.

This is getting embarassing.

I direct you to my last post.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Is RPGs purpose is to simulate life in a fantasy world. If you can eat an entire rack of ribs in less than 3 seconds and be healed more than a magic potion, that's broken.

SInce I never used eating food for healing (I never even knew, it existed) how much were you able to heal? Someone mentioned as much as a normal healing potion - is that true? That would be very overpowered imo.

When it was available and I used it, the health regained depended on what type of food you ate. Not all food healed the same. An apple gave you about a quarter of your health back and a potato have you, I believe about half.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Amirit
It is not that far-fetched. There are flavours that you can change freely - chess should not be black/white, you can use other colours (this is what Dms change in DnD). It will not change the game. But if you are changing the fundamental rules, you have another game.
In video game perspective ...
Changing Black/White to Red/Green is simmilar to download different skins ... the game looks different, but its fundamentaly the same.

Changing rules would mean creating own monsters, own spells, own rules ...

Do you claim this isnt happening?
In that case, feel free to read litteraly everything or anything on this paige:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_Homebrew

Originally Posted by Amirit
There are core mechanics in DnD that no DM will ever change.
Only Sith deals with absolutes ...
Also this is not true, personaly i know a DM that is changing a lot of core rules (including option for us to create our own spells, curently i play such session for few months and its great!) ... so, sory but your argument is invalid. laugh

I can imagine what people would say "in that case its no longer DnD" ... well, so what? laugh
You can call it "based on 5e" ... coincidentally exactly the wording that was used in advertising BG-3. laugh

Originally Posted by Amirit
Rest system and action economy are at the very heart of the system. You change one thing - the whole system falls apart. Food eliminates healing and rest, breaks the rule of Bonus Action, makes some spells useless, changes encounter levels.
And we are affraid of change, arent we? smile

You know those rules you are defending so hard are at least 5th version? That allone implies the fact that there allready was some changes in the past. laugh
Usualy its called evolution. wink

Originally Posted by Amirit
What was promised is 5e, and 5e people expect.
Can you please provide me the source? smile
I would like to finaly see it ... i mean people claim this for last year im here ... so far nobody was able to provide it. O_o
Should be easy if they actualy promised that, no? smile


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Amirit
It is not that far-fetched. There are flavours that you can change freely - chess should not be black/white, you can use other colours (this is what Dms change in DnD). It will not change the game. But if you are changing the fundamental rules, you have another game.
In video game perspective ...
Changing Black/White to Red/Green is simmilar to download different skins ... the game looks different, but its fundamentaly the same.

Changing rules would mean creating own monsters, own spells, own rules ...

Do you claim this isnt happening?
In that case, feel free to read litteraly everything or anything on this paige:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_Homebrew

Originally Posted by Amirit
There are core mechanics in DnD that no DM will ever change.
Only Sith deals with absolutes ...
Also this is not true, personaly i know a DM that is changing a lot of core rules (including option for us to create our own spells, curently i play such session for few months and its great!) ... so, sory but your argument is invalid. laugh

I can imagine what people would say "in that case its no longer DnD" ... well, so what? laugh
You can call it "based on 5e" ... coincidentally exactly the wording that was used in advertising BG-3. laugh

Originally Posted by Amirit
Rest system and action economy are at the very heart of the system. You change one thing - the whole system falls apart. Food eliminates healing and rest, breaks the rule of Bonus Action, makes some spells useless, changes encounter levels.
And we are affraid of change, arent we? smile

You know those rules you are defending so hard are at least 5th version? That allone implies the fact that there allready was some changes in the past. laugh
Usualy its called evolution. wink

Originally Posted by Amirit
What was promised is 5e, and 5e people expect.
Can you please provide me the source? smile
I would like to finaly see it ... i mean people claim this for last year im here ... so far nobody was able to provide it. O_o
Should be easy if they actualy promised that, no? smile

+1

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Is RPGs purpose is to simulate life in a fantasy world. If you can eat an entire rack of ribs in less than 3 seconds and be healed more than a magic potion, that's broken.

SInce I never used eating food for healing (I never even knew, it existed) how much were you able to heal? Someone mentioned as much as a normal healing potion - is that true? That would be very overpowered imo.

When it was available and I used it, the health regained depended on what type of food you ate. Not all food healed the same. An apple gave you about a quarter of your health back and a potato have you, I believe about half.

Oh wow - that much? That makes healing classes and healing potions/scrolls obsolete imo.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
SInce I never used eating food for healing (I never even knew, it existed) how much were you able to heal? Someone mentioned as much as a normal healing potion - is that true? That would be very overpowered imo.
When it was available and I used it, the health regained depended on what type of food you ate. Not all food healed the same. An apple gave you about a quarter of your health back and a potato have you, I believe about half.
Oh wow - that much? That makes healing classes and healing potions/scrolls obsolete imo.
Nah ... it was not so much ...
Or i remember that incorectly. laugh

As far as i know, usualy it healed the same as healing potion ... meaning probably 2d4 (as far as i know, it was never showed anywhere what healing potential wich food have, not in tooltip, maybe in combat log, i never searched for it back then) ...
But there was some more heavy foods as that infamous pig head, that were healing REALLY a lot ... i believe once i healed for 15 with it ...

On the other hand, you should note that such pighead, even if that healed a lot (wich means as much as potion with ideal rolls + few drops more) was aproximately 5-7 times heavier than standard healing potion ... and carry weight rules was much loosened back then than they are now (encumbrance and heavy encumbrance was not implemented yet ... so you could use full extention of your carryweight without any debuff)

So in my opinion it was certainly not more effective way to heal yourself ...
But some people are comparing just one number and ignoring everything else. :-/

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 07/11/21 03:50 PM.

Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Don't be condescending. If you dislike something, that is your opinion but DO NOT come into threads talking down to people because you disagree.

This is getting embarassing.

I direct you to my last post.

rolleyes

You literally just stated, on two different occations, that people on the other side of your barely built fence are gatekeeping.

Having read your other thread, and having witnessed the same pattern, i do understand this is how you operate, but please, at least try not to contradict yourself every other post even when you revert to moral talk and behavioral advise.

Of course, you could just say you want healing food regardless of rules and logic simply because it makes the game easier and that's fun for you, probably wouldn't have required you to pull out the rulebook and draw some wonky paralles between food as a source of sustenance and food as a source of literal mending, and surely would have made for a better argument, but i realize being right is more glamorous and shit.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Are we really going to talk about what does or does not feels realistic
If it was the only reason, then sure. That said an RPG, a story driven medium, should probably care more about things making sense, then let's say: DOOM. And with the world like DnD we already have something as convenient as magic to cover for "gamey" stuff - like healing potions, resurrect and spells, which make for some of the most fun interactions mechanically, but are unrealistic. Food - however - I am not aware of food in DnD having a magical properties of healing people. And fiction hangs on internal consistency. Food healing both fails from narrative perspective, and theming perspective (food isn't the most intuative explanation for items that restore HP). And there is alreay in-universe items that provide their functionality - healing potions. So what's the point of food providing healing?

Larian makes short rest too weak? Sure. There should be more healing potions to buy. Sure. What's the point of making food into healing potions?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
Goodberries are berries enchanted by a Druid to be magically filling, and heal a single hp.

The mere existence of that spells strengthens the argument that food shouldn't heal up. Why waste a spell slot on casting Goodberry when you can just eat a normal carrot?
+1

D&D is a class-based system. Clerics, Paladins, Druids, and to a lesser extent Bards are the healers. If everyone can simply eat food mid-combat to heal, this steps on these classes' roles. Healing potions are rare and much more expensive than food (RAW, an item of food is a couple coppers, and a basic healing potion is 50 gp: like 1000x more expensive) so these supplement instead of replacing healer class abilities.

RAW it costs a 1st-level spell slot to cast Goodberry, and each goodberry takes an action to eat and only heals 1hp (increased to 1d4 in BG3 and maybe a bonus action idk). There is no situation in which eating an apple found in a barrel should cost an action - let alone a bonus action - and heal a comparable amount or more. To say nothing of eating a whole pig's head on a turn.
This
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
When it was available and I used it, the health regained depended on what type of food you ate. Not all food healed the same. An apple gave you about a quarter of your health back and a potato have you, I believe about half.
just spits on abilities such as Goodberry, Cure Light Wounds, Lay on Hands, Healing Word, Potions of Healing, Action Surge, and more.

Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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