|
United States47024 Posts
On January 22 2015 08:08 PrinceXizor wrote:
yeah. knowing whether a blow will hit or miss is insanely different from knowing the roll, which is what goumindong is suggesting.
Not exactly, no. But to a pretty reasonably good approximation for low/mid-level fighters, definitely. And for high-level characters? It's actually quite likely they can assess an opposing fighter's skill to that degree of accuracy.
A reasonably practiced fighter definitely can distinguish between "I got hit because he got lucky" and "I got it because he's way better than me".
|
Functionally knowing the roll is no different from knowing whether or not a shield spell would stop the attack. We care about the latter part and some people think its reasonable to know it. I think its easier to just give players the numbers because their is both no confusion and also because in my mind, knowing the numbers isn't much different than knowing whether or not a shield spell would stop it.
Xizor seems to think that there is a tangible difference which is OK i suppose. But he also seems to think that there is simultaneously ambiguity and not ambiguity in descriptions of it, and that this simultaneousness is somehow better. Which is something I don't quite grasp as to why that would be the case or how it can be so. If he is stressing the idea that he, as a DM is going to tell the player a situation which has clear implied results and that the player will be able to assess that situation but would still choose the "suboptimal result" due to roleplaying but that that can only happen if he describes it as such then maybe? I don't know, its weird to me
|
GMD Unerring means Making no errors. not infallible. Using a thesaurus is different from using a dictionary. If i meant infallible i would use that word instead. they may be interchangeable in certain situations, but words mean different things and have slight differences. Though even infallible wouldnt mean that magic couldn't stop it. Inevitable would probably mean that, Infallible means incapable of making mistakes. you can see how the nuance of those words is different, and would apply to situations differently. a fallible person can be unerring but not infallible.
Unerring certainly does not mean there is nothing you can do about it, unless its like a riddle i guess. that's Inevitable, which means certain to happen and unavoidable. rather than an action that was made without mistake as Unerring implies.
2. no if the player thought about the words and decided to try to shield, then i'd probably give a description like: "As you quickly attempt to block the blow a field appears in front of the axe and buckles and cracks almost immediately, the axe continues to crash through your defenses and strikes you." depending on the situation i could roll a 1d8 rather than d10 for the orc using both his hands to swing the axe, as the force of his blow has been somewhat muted.
3.I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. its kind of a mess of thoughts. um If marrit was a calculated robot he probably would have optimized his combat and stood behind Najid who is nigh impenetrable in his chain mail and significantly stronger than marrit. rather than desperately trying to make a plant do his bidding.
4. yango we're talking about wizards. that a level 1 wizard with shield would instantly know the rolls on an attack and whether shield would work perfectly or be barely not enough. but a level 1 wizard without the shield spell would remain ignorant. purely that reading about one spell grants that ability. extrapolating that, any level 1 human who opted for a feat that gave them the ability to cast shield would instantly know attack rolls in GMDs world.
also GMD i wrote that last post right before i fell asleep so sorry if it hurt your feelings.
|
In general I agree with PX a little bit more than others (for once  ). Apart from all the back and forth that misses the point, the main idea of knowing the enemies attack roll takes away from my enjoyment of the game.
Functionally knowing the roll is no different from knowing whether or not a shield spell would stop the attack
This is pretty much accurate, apart from evaluating the potential bonuses, etc. But there is a reason the DM rolls behind a shield. I think it would be much more enjoyable for the character to ask "do I think I can stop it with a shield" and the DM answering "you think you can" and eventually this would always be accurate but maybe at low levels if it would tie he would say that but you would still get hit. Like i said previously I had always played that you wouldn't know if sheild/hero points/w.e. would work at the time. Even in my most power-gaming OP 3.5 number cruncher combat oriented campaigns. I didn't even consider the alternative as an option. There are different ways to run games and one is not inherently "better" than another but i'd prefer to play 5e right now without knowing/guessing/mathing out the stats of my opponents and more roll play it. Once I learn the stats of most the monsters etc. and break it down like GDong does I won't have the opportunity to explore with the same sense of the unknown ever again.
|
Oh god, shut the fuck up already. Just agree to disagree or take it to PMs.
|
K lets discuss how disappointed we are in Gahlo's beard removal. i am very, can i mark anyone else down for very?
|
On January 23 2015 00:22 PrinceXizor wrote:
K lets discuss how disappointed we are in Gahlo's beard removal. i am very, can i mark anyone else down for very?
castlevania
|
On January 23 2015 00:22 PrinceXizor wrote:
K lets discuss how disappointed we are in Gahlo's beard removal. i am very, can i mark anyone else down for very?
Yeah well, it wasn't helping with the job search since I have no desire to be a lumberjack.
|
That is understandable, but you could also work in a starbucks, or move to the northwest, or just be a lumberjack and quit whining about it. xD there are men who would kill to be a well bearded lumberjack.
|
On January 23 2015 00:38 PrinceXizor wrote:
That is understandable, but you could also work in a starbucks, or move to the northwest, or just be a lumberjack and quit whining about it. xD there are men who would kill to be a well bearded lumberjack.
That's the thing, people want what they don't have.
|
On January 23 2015 01:25 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 00:38 PrinceXizor wrote:
That is understandable, but you could also work in a starbucks, or move to the northwest, or just be a lumberjack and quit whining about it. xD there are men who would kill to be a well bearded lumberjack. That's the thing, people want what they don't have.
I can say, with almost 100% certainty, that you do not want the inability to grow facial hair.
|
On January 23 2015 01:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 01:25 Gahlo wrote:On January 23 2015 00:38 PrinceXizor wrote:
That is understandable, but you could also work in a starbucks, or move to the northwest, or just be a lumberjack and quit whining about it. xD there are men who would kill to be a well bearded lumberjack. That's the thing, people want what they don't have. I can say, with almost 100% certainty, that you do not want the inability to grow facial hair.
I don't want to be able to grow it as much as I do.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 23 2015 00:13 ComaDose wrote:
This is pretty much accurate, apart from evaluating the potential bonuses, etc. But there is a reason the DM rolls behind a shield. I think it would be much more enjoyable for the character to ask "do I think I can stop it with a shield" and the DM answering "you think you can" and eventually this would always be accurate but maybe at low levels if it would tie he would say that but you would still get hit. Like i said previously I had always played that you wouldn't know if sheild/hero points/w.e. would work at the time. Even in my most power-gaming OP 3.5 number cruncher combat oriented campaigns. I didn't even consider the alternative as an option. There are different ways to run games and one is not inherently "better" than another but i'd prefer to play 5e right now without knowing/guessing/mathing out the stats of my opponents and more roll play it. Once I learn the stats of most the monsters etc. and break it down like GDong does I won't have the opportunity to explore with the same sense of the unknown ever again.
I mean, if you're playing in a game that isn't powergaming and paying such close attention to every bonus the monsters have and making meta-game combat decisions, there's an advantage of open rolling in that it makes combat much faster and smoother because the DM doesn't have to do all the bookkeeping himself. Everyone can tell you right away if the monster hit their AC or vice versa rather than the DM having to check on his side every time (with a small group it's not a big deal, but with a large group in a large combat, this can get bogged down very quickly).
The power-gamey groups are precisely the ones where you have to carefully curate the information you give the party, while the more casual ones are the ones where there are advantages to being freer with that info.
|
On January 23 2015 03:39 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 00:13 ComaDose wrote:
This is pretty much accurate, apart from evaluating the potential bonuses, etc. But there is a reason the DM rolls behind a shield. I think it would be much more enjoyable for the character to ask "do I think I can stop it with a shield" and the DM answering "you think you can" and eventually this would always be accurate but maybe at low levels if it would tie he would say that but you would still get hit. Like i said previously I had always played that you wouldn't know if sheild/hero points/w.e. would work at the time. Even in my most power-gaming OP 3.5 number cruncher combat oriented campaigns. I didn't even consider the alternative as an option. There are different ways to run games and one is not inherently "better" than another but i'd prefer to play 5e right now without knowing/guessing/mathing out the stats of my opponents and more roll play it. Once I learn the stats of most the monsters etc. and break it down like GDong does I won't have the opportunity to explore with the same sense of the unknown ever again. I mean, if you're playing in a game that isn't powergaming and paying such close attention to every bonus the monsters have and making meta-game combat decisions, there's an advantage of open rolling in that it makes combat much faster and smoother because the DM doesn't have to do all the bookkeeping himself. Everyone can tell you right away if the monster hit their AC or vice versa rather than the DM having to check on his side every time (with a small group it's not a big deal, but with a large group in a large combat, this can get bogged down very quickly). The power-gamey groups are precisely the ones where you have to carefully curate the information you give the party, while the more casual ones are the ones where there are advantages to being freer with that info.
That's a good point, yet i feel like knowing the numbers can cause players to start meta-gaming whether they were planning on it or not. I understand the advantages of the alternatives but as far as personal preference goes I'd rather not know.
|
On January 23 2015 00:13 ComaDose wrote:In general I agree with PX a little bit more than others (for once ). Apart from all the back and forth that misses the point, the main idea of knowing the enemies attack roll takes away from my enjoyment of the game. Show nested quote +Functionally knowing the roll is no different from knowing whether or not a shield spell would stop the attack This is pretty much accurate, apart from evaluating the potential bonuses, etc. But there is a reason the DM rolls behind a shield. I think it would be much more enjoyable for the character to ask "do I think I can stop it with a shield" and the DM answering "you think you can" and eventually this would always be accurate but maybe at low levels if it would tie he would say that but you would still get hit. Like i said previously I had always played that you wouldn't know if sheild/hero points/w.e. would work at the time. Even in my most power-gaming OP 3.5 number cruncher combat oriented campaigns. I didn't even consider the alternative as an option. There are different ways to run games and one is not inherently "better" than another but i'd prefer to play 5e right now without knowing/guessing/mathing out the stats of my opponents and more roll play it. Once I learn the stats of most the monsters etc. and break it down like GDong does I won't have the opportunity to explore with the same sense of the unknown ever again.
-----
Please, if you were really power gaming you wouldn't even need to know the rolls in order to figure out the monsters stats. You can infer them from the patterns of hits and misses.
That being said. When i think of metagaming i don't really think of things like 'what are the stats of the monster we are fighting right now", except insomuch as that information won't be conveyed to me. Metagaming is knowing things that haven't happened yet, like what kinds of attacks a monster has that your character has never encountered. What they're resistant to if you haven't hit them. Once everyone swinging, you will find out fast enough what their target values are. At the very least you will know their AC very fast because you see your rolls and know whether or not you hit. Beyond that metagaming is playing like you know what the DM will do (because often you can figure that out if you know the DM) or how the DM tends to design traps/dungeons.
Otherwise that information we are talking about doesn't usually change things. You always want your most durable member in front taking the brunt of the assault, and figuring out than an enemy has a +5 instead of a +6 doesn't change that. You almost always want to focus enemies down and figuring out that they have 14 AC instead of 13 doesn't really change that.
|
United States47024 Posts
It was more applicable in 3.5 for things like optimizing Power Attack value against specific ACs.
|
and in 5th for knowing when you should be using your shield and when you should be using two weapons or two handing a versatile weapon. or using any of the abilities that do something very similar to power attack. or knowing that hey, its totally fine for the rogue to tank for the wizard this fight, so we can split up. it can make characters so completely irrational things for what the characters actually would want for the sake of optimizing combat and that can easily ruin the game for players. if you are playing in order to "BEAT" the DM you are doing it so wrong.
|
On January 23 2015 05:36 TheYango wrote:
It was more applicable in 3.5 for things like optimizing Power Attack value against specific ACs.
True. Thank god we don't have to do that anymore. So much worthless precision
|
you.. you never had to do that. it was an option for players who felt like they wanted to level a larger blow at an enemy. it was never to optimize.
|
On January 23 2015 05:40 PrinceXizor wrote:
and in 5th for knowing when you should be using your shield and when you should be using two weapons or two handing a versatile weapon. or using any of the abilities that do something very similar to power attack. or knowing that hey, its totally fine for the rogue to tank for the wizard this fight, so we can split up. it can make characters so completely irrational things for what the characters actually would want for the sake of optimizing combat and that can easily ruin the game for players. if you are playing in order to "BEAT" the DM you are doing it so wrong.
You should always be using a shield. You should always TWF if you've built for it and you're lowish level. Once you have >2 attacks you would always two hand fight as opposed to TWF. (same deal with dueling if you have the feat). But these are character optimization decisions and not play optimization decides
As well attack bonuses don't change on any of these attacks so it doesn't change any of the math.
The power attack math is so obvious its not worth talking about and well, you always know the numbers you roll right? So its super easy to find enemies ACs and no one seems to have a problem with that. No on hides that from you, or hides your HP from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
