Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

...which goes back to the part about getting padded out to match the power inflation of high level PCs.

Or how about Frodo?  He's like 20 Dexterity tops (He actually is heroically agile so merits the full 18 + racial modifier which mandatory for PCs).  That means Frodo and the Balor have equal touch AC; it would be equally hard to hit the hulking giant as to hit the especially agile hobbit...

[Bauglir]

Basically, you're telling me that the Balrog must be a Balor because it's aesthetically similar, and backing that up by saying that it must be very high-CR because characters need to be high-level to fight it because it's very high-CR. There's no reason you can't run a high-level Tolkien game, provided you ban the right spells, but you there's equally no reason to assume anybody's level is higher than it needs to be in order to accomplish the things they do and have the qualities ascribed to them in the original narrative.

So, basically, I'm being a little facetious when I say "Gandalf was probably between level 5 and level 7". To be strictly accurate, I ought to have said, "Gandalf could have been between level 5 and level 7, and I think that power level suits the story better." But then we couldn't argue.

[Fniff]

Has anyone mentioned DM of the Rings? Because it is very appropriate.

[mainiac]

There's no reason you can't run a high-level Tolkien game, provided you ban the right spells

What spells would you leave in?

[Bauglir]

Above level 2 spells, blasting spells and Dispel Magic. They're the only ones that scale in a way that permits high level to completely negate their increased power, and they're so terrible that all the wizards are going to fill their slots with low-level battlefield control, illusions, etc.

[Sergarr]

There's no reason you can't run a high-level Tolkien game, provided you ban the right spells

What spells would you leave in?

Well obviously Pyrotechnics, the Knock spell, Arcane Lock and nerfed Weather Control.

[Fabulous death bringer]

Wow this topic got a little off track....... But intellectual discussion is better then anything. As i said before I like 5e, and It is fun when  i have a friend who knows so much about 3.5e, i love comparing what they changed. He is sad about some rules getting taken out but is get such enjoyment from others. Like learning you can kite people in 5e, so got 30ft attack, walk away 30 feet.

And i like how some of the prestige classes and other classes from 4e and 3.5e got turned in to archetypes and the such, so even if 3 people are monks they could all get different abilities based on what path they went down. The roleplaying ability in 5E is nice since it lets the dm play with stuff, and I like customizable-ness, oh and multiclassing is EASY.

Now all that is needed to have a broken build contest and see what shenanigans can be done

[Criptfeind]

Couldn't you kite people in 3.5 the same way? Or not, since in both they can just run to catch up to you?

[Bohandas]

Couldn't you kite people in 3.5 the same way? Or not, since in both they can just run to catch up to you?

....Or use a charge attack

EDIT:
Also, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you move out of melee range

[Fabulous death bringer]

Acutally no, in 3.5 you acutally need a feat to kite. From what i have been told, you can't spilt up your movments the same way. Like you can move to attak but you can't move attack then move again unless you get a feat. But in 5e you can Move, make action, and move if you haven't used up all your movement, and you can even move inbetween attack but that might be limited to a 5ft step.

I see this as an interesting difference from 3.5 to 5 and I am personally interested in learning more about the differences or the edits

[Kadzar]

It's not limited to 5ft step, since 5 ft step isn't even a thing in 5e. You can break up your movement as much as you want, even between actions and individual attacks.

[Criptfeind]

That is true, but that won't let you kite in 5E. You'll still be taking opportunity attacks and you still won't be fast enough unless you're much faster then them (against a stupid opponent you gotta be at least ten feet faster, against a smart opponent you would need to be like, over three times faster then them.) You could use a reach weapon to avoid the attack of opportunity if you want, but they will still be attacking you again next round unless you're unrealistically faster then them.

Of course, you could use a ranged weapon. But you can do that in 3.5 as well.

[Kadzar]

Well, you can also use Disengage as a bonus action as a Rogue (thereby ignoring opportunity attacks). Monks can also spend a Ki point to do that, too.

[Sergarr]

You know what I personally think would improve D&D tactical combat? If Attacks of Opportunity were actually threatening at high levels. I've noticed that while there are feats to increase the amount of AoO you can do, there appears to be no way to actually make them deal level-appropriate damage, or have any interesting effects (which is a general problem with all D&D core fighting classes in general, though). Making AoO actually threatening would give fighters an ability to sort-of-tank people without explicitly forcing them to attack only him with quasi-magical taunts.

[Bauglir]

You know what I personally think would improve D&D tactical combat? If Attacks of Opportunity were actually threatening at high levels. I've noticed that while there are feats to increase the amount of AoO you can do, there appears to be no way to actually make them deal level-appropriate damage, or have any interesting effects (which is a general problem with all D&D core fighting classes in general, though). Making AoO actually threatening would give fighters an ability to sort-of-tank people without explicitly forcing them to attack only him with quasi-magical taunts.

Helpful for 3.5.