5e: Cleric Character Sheet

Brad · June 24, 2014, 02:55:11 PM

Quote from: Bill;761086What I said, was 'some degree of realism is desirable'. I assume you agree with that statement.

Your example of staff and axe has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I never said strong people do the same damage as weak people with the same weapon.
I did not say great axes and staves do the same damage. In fact, its perplexing how you came to that conclusion.

You did not address my specific example at all.

QuoteFor example, I would object to a quarterstaff doing more damage than a greataxe.

Are you purposefully changing the meaning of the words you used? I just pointed out a specific instance in which an objection by you would be raised, and you say I didn't address your example.

Look, I honestly don't give a fuck. Have fun being "right".

Bill · June 24, 2014, 02:59:05 PM

Quote from: Brad;761090Are you purposefully changing the meaning of the words you used? I just pointed out a specific instance in which an objection by you would be raised, and you say I didn't address your example.

Look, I honestly don't give a fuck. Have fun being "right".

But you didn't. That is incorrect.

You were clearly the one changing the meaning of words, as anyone can plainly see in text. Right there...in print.

It's fine if we disagree but.....it's right there for anyone to read.

Brander · June 24, 2014, 03:03:19 PM

Quote from: Bill;761049...
Some degree of realism is desirable.
...

Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.

And as far as realism goes, I'd like to see shields get their due in D&D too. I'd like to see them classed as the weapons they are. Carrying a shield and another weapon is every bit as much dual wielding as a pair of scimitars.

Sacrosanct · June 24, 2014, 03:05:54 PM

Quote from: Marleycat;761087From MerricB....he says he hasn't gone through the ability score modifiers yet... Enjoy!

Edit: He also said for humans it's +1 to every stat but the others get +2/+1 to two specific stats. Also something about humans will have other choices beyond the stat bumps but not sure if that would been seen in BASIC or if its going to happen in the Advanced game. I suppose we will know for sure soon enough.

Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.

estar · June 24, 2014, 03:08:01 PM

Quote from: Brander;761089Though yet again I can see this is too big a tradition to change for D&D.

And who would get to kill Sir Fang, Dave Fant's Vampire PC?

Marleycat · June 24, 2014, 03:09:29 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761093Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.

I know. But I kind of see the reason for it. They don't want some situation like being able to destroy the big bad lich yet not be able to do the same with some giant skeleton or whatever. But I don't prefer CR so we'll see.

jadrax · June 24, 2014, 03:19:09 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761093Every time I read "challenge rating", a bit of me cringes inside. I'll have to wait and see how it's actually handled.

As far as I can tell, its similar to how the play-test used 'Level' in 'Encounter Building', but renamed so they did not end up using level to mean yet another thing.

Sacrosanct · June 24, 2014, 03:22:45 PM

Quote from: jadrax;761099As far as I can tell, its similar to how the play-test used 'Level' in 'Encounter Building', but renamed so they did not end up using level to mean yet another thing.

I understand the reasoning behind it, and it's sound. I just wish they wouldn't use the same term as those ingrained into many peoples' brains as being a bad thing. Sort of like feats. I am not a fan of 3e feat trees and that whole mess, and it took me a while to reprogram my brain to not associate negativity with that term because 5e feats work completely different than 3e feats. I imagine CR is going to be a lot like that.

Brad · June 24, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

Quote from: Bill;761091But you didn't. That is incorrect.

You were clearly the one changing the meaning of words, as anyone can plainly see in text. Right there...in print.

It's fine if we disagree but.....it's right there for anyone to read.

Bill · June 24, 2014, 03:41:19 PM

Quote from: Brander;761092Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.

And as far as realism goes, I'd like to see shields get their due in D&D too. I'd like to see them classed as the weapons they are. Carrying a shield and another weapon is every bit as much dual wielding as a pair of scimitars.

Agreed.

I have played dnd with armor as dr instead of an ac bonus and it worked great.
It was easy; I just took half the normal ac value of the armor and made it dr, and any magic pluses remained ac.

Shields, yup, always like them to be better than the classic +1 ac.

Brander · June 24, 2014, 05:29:38 PM

Quote from: estar;761094And who would get to kill Sir Fang, Dave Fant's Vampire PC?

Heh, good point...

Though I could easily see a series of spells like: Turn Undead I-IX or Divine Bolt with spell components of holy symbol, prayer, and genuine faith.* Though Daylight works if you like vampires who burn up in daylight**

*Determined through role-playing perhaps.
**Vlad could walk in daylight in the original story.

robiswrong · June 24, 2014, 05:44:11 PM

Quote from: estar;761067But if you have the endurance and strength you can do backflips.

This is true.

But someone moving less weight will be able to move/react more quickly than someone moving more weight. Because physics.

Quote from: Brander;761092Then damage reduction is an option you might want to add to the game (since I heard they took it out). Armor has little to do with making you harder to hit, it just makes it hurt a lot less when you are hit.

Depending on the game, armor as damage resistance can get wonky with the math depending on the damage range. Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.

While armor as damage reduction might be more realistic, I much prefer the *game* effects of armor as damage avoidance. And if I really want to go the "sim" route, I'll probably be busting out GURPS or just about anything else that's not D&D.

crkrueger · June 24, 2014, 06:10:38 PM

Quote from: robiswrong;761134Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.

Which is why you play RQ6 where Critical Results can let you Bypass Armor. :cool:

jibbajibba · June 24, 2014, 09:36:59 PM

Quote from: robiswrong;761134This is true.

But someone moving less weight will be able to move/react more quickly than someone moving more weight. Because physics.

Depending on the game, armor as damage resistance can get wonky with the math depending on the damage range. Either some threats completely become non-threats, or alternately armor will be utterly useless against larger things.

While armor as damage reduction might be more realistic, I much prefer the *game* effects of armor as damage avoidance. And if I really want to go the "sim" route, I'll probably be busting out GURPS or just about anything else that's not D&D.

But a guy with a knife or a pair of nunchuks should be a non threat to a guy in field plate.

I ragged ont eh Weapon vs armour table previously becuase its so badly implemented but the idea that certain weapons or weapon types are more or less effective agianst certain armours is a sound one.

So using armour as DR and making say a military pick reduce DR by 50% seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Making the guy with a knife need able to bypass armour as a feat/martial trick/move either on a critical or under certain constrained conditions, attack against helpless foe, surprise etc seems reasonable as well.

None of this slows combat down its still roll to hit roll damage but now you subtract x from the damage

Marleycat · June 24, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

Quote from: jibbajibba;761164But a guy with a knife or a pair of nunchuks should be a non threat to a guy in field plate.

I ragged ont eh Weapon vs armour table previously becuase its so badly implemented but the idea that certain weapons or weapon types are more or less effective agianst certain armours is a sound one.

So using armour as DR and making say a military pick reduce DR by 50% seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Making the guy with a knife need able to bypass armour as a feat/martial trick/move either on a critical or under certain constrained conditions, attack against helpless foe, surprise etc seems reasonable as well.

None of this slows combat down its still roll to hit roll damage but now you subtract x from the damage

How about be a Rogue and strike him precisely or be a monk and flat ignore armour because.....well you're awesome and a Monk? Dnd isn't a good physics engine or for simulation. Other games do one or the other better sometimes both.