Search results

Right. So you admit the background forces assumptions about the world? And that part is just a half of it, it also assumes commoners who grovel before the nobles to avoid their displeasure.

You say that like it's a bad thing! But yeah, seriously, I don't think we really need to differentiate between Bohemian earspoon and glaive-guisarme. Hell, I'd be fine with combining some of the current weapons. But I think there should be some meaningful choices that would make different...

Read the noble feature for example. You don't think that doesn't make pretty drastic assumptions about the nature of nobility and how the nobles are viewed in the setting?

But in practice it means they only use those weapons they're better at. You're pigeonholed. I want the fighters to switch between two-hander and shield plus one hander depending on whether they want more offence or defence in a given situation. With fighting styles this doesn't happen, as you...

I feel the wizard spells should be divided to common (which you can learn as you level) and rare (which you need to find as a treasure.)

I already dislike how fighters get pigeonholed to specific weapons by fighting styles and would like to get rid of that. I definitely wouldn't want to make this pigeonholing even worse. I want the fighter to be a master of weapons that can grab any weapon and be effective and switch loadouts...

As that's all I had to go by. But more houserules you add to avoid the problems I mention, the closer to "rewriting the game" I said was needed to make this to work you get.

It doesn't matter that great weapon is per hit just as effective than dual wielded daggers, but the latter can hit twice? It doesn't matter that sneak attack literally does nothing or that rage doesn't improve barbarian's damage? It totally changes the game, it renders some build choices...

I think at least one of the Wizard's two free spells should be tied to their subclass.

So do I understand it correctly? It doesn't matter if your attack does five or thirty five points of damage?

Without totally redesigning the game it will utterly destroy balance and render several things meaningless.

I actually agree with this stance in broad level, I really want fantasy worlds to be coherent. But this to me doesn't mean we need to explain everything that is different than on Earth. Some things simply can be different, and that's that.

Isn't Steve wielding Mjölnir then, giving him powers of Thor, thus making him way stronger and tougher than he'd normally be?

This doesn't sit well with me. Powerful build IIRC isn't even something a human in D&D can get. A mid level martial should be able to at least match mundane athletes, whist a high level one should be able to surpass them. Like not Hulk strong, but Captain America strong.

I think high level martials, especially those that function on strength should be able to perform superhuman feats of strength, but they cannot even come close to what completely mundane normal humans in the real world are capable of. Recently in my campaign the characters have needed to move...

I was thinking the exact same thing. There might be a common denominator why groups @Hussar plays in so often wish not to continue the campaign... :unsure: EDIT: That came off as incredibly harsh, but if the participants (even completely legitimately) constantly complain or otherwise express...

But as long as the characters are not brought into the real world like in the Last Action Hero, the distinction doesn't actually matter, so why worry about it?

So not about the fiction then. No on is said they do it without training. Fighting monsters and having fantastic adventures is plenty of training to become a mythic hero. I am simulationist like you, but what it is important to realise that the reality we are simulating in a game like this is...

Fiction is important. Semantical quibbling about the fiction isn't. Like said many times in many threads, "supernatural" doesn't make much sense when talking about a fantasy world to begin with, so arguing how exactly apply the word is pointless.

But that’s just pointless semantics. However you word it the end result is the same.