>With an inflated sense of superiority and entitlement, pit fiends form a grotesque aristocracy in the infernal realm. These domineering and manipulative tyrants conspire to eliminate anything that stands between them and their desires, even as they negotiate the convoluted and dangerous politics of the Nine Hells.
>"Your war-torn kingdom is rife with corruption, its people dying from starvation and strife. They cry out for new leadership—someone with the charisma and the courage to put an end to the turmoil and suffering. You could be that someone!" —Herobaal the Pit Fiend
CR 20 pit fiend social skills: Deception +7, Insight +4, Intimidation +7, Persuasion +7
CR 4 succubus (any evil alignment) social skills: Deception +9, Insight +5, Intimidation +5, Persuasion +9
CR 1/8 generic petty human noble social skills: Deception +5, Insight +4, Intimidation +3, Persuasion +5
5e pit fiends are clearly not that special in terms of social skills, so why have succubi not already socially outmaneuvered them with the help of charmed CR 1/8 generic petty human nobles?
>>46852266
Succubi aren't 'big picture' enough for that as a whole, and the establishment keeps it that way.
All those 'redeemed succubus' stories? Political exile from the Nine Hells.
>>46852266
>>46852288
And succubi are there to do a job. Nobles tend to be listless after soul loss.
You are asking why the construction worker isn't running the transit dept.
And c'mon, the pit fiend is named Hero!
>>46852313
>succubi are there to do a job
And are better at the job than the bosseslike in real life.
>>46852266
>using an enemy famed for their political and social expertise, long-ranging plans and role as a villain hiding behind the scenes as anything but a simple loot-and-xp pinata
You're probably a grognard neckbeard with greasy, salty tears.
>>46852266
Succubi are better at deception and persuasion, because that's literally their entire job (that and sucking your soul out through your dick). A pit diend is a huge devil that can rip you apart with your bare hands, and also has better social skills than your average nobleman. A succubus might be able to socially outmanouver one, but the pit fiend is still a) higher in the infernal hierarchy and therefore the boss b) can crush the succubus like a bug if he finds out that she's been plotting againt him.
The succubus will at best be the Starscream to the pit fiend's Megatron.
>>46852494
>also has better social skills than your average nobleman
Just barely. And the noble can deceive the pit fiend more often than not.
CR 20 vs. CR 1/8 in the land of bounded accuracy, everyone.
>>46852510
>implying a pit fiend would even take the time to listen
Funny thing about social power, you can't force it on someone unlike physical power. Sure, the noble (or even the succubus) might be able to deceive the fiend if they were playing a game of poker - but for the most part, the more "socially powerful" noble and succubus hold about as much power over the pit fiend as a con man on death row holds over the warden of his prison.
>>46852510
Still probably better than 3.5's model where every high CR monster had a list of skills and bonuses half a page long. You know, for the time you really need to know that a Pit Fiend has +29 on is disquise skill, which increases to +31 if used for acting (Pit Fiends are actually great actors, but rarely have a chanse to showcase their talents).
>>46852568
You don't know a thing about 5e, do you?
The nobleman who can command thirty shit-covered peasants with slings/throwing spears actually has more than enough force to take down a pit-fiend without any casualties (or at least ones that he'd care about).
>>46852654
>The nobleman who can command thirty shit-covered peasants with slings/throwing spears actually has more than enough force to take down a pit-fiend without any casualties (or at least ones that he'd care about).
That's part of the problem with bounded accuracy, you dolt.
>>46852660
Let me see
>at will, Fireball
>3x/day, wall of fire
>Fear Aura
>Fly
>peasants
>How about no?
Even if he just retarded himself and messed around, he could terrorize a whole city for daaays
>>46852660
> problem
>>46852570
Or we could use 4e's model for skills, which is much better than 3.5 and 5e's.
A 4e pit fiend has:
>Bluff +27
>Insight +23
>Intimidate +27
>Perception +23
>Religion +24 (religion covers everything from the Astral Sea in 4e, including devils)
>+24 for all other Strength-based checks
>+21 for all other Constitution-based checks
>+20 for all other Dexterity-based checks
>+19 for all other Intelligence-based checks
>+18 for all other Wisdom-based checks
>+22 for all other Charisma-based checks
Then the pit fiend has whatever rituals the GM wants, because monsters in 4e have always worked that way with rituals.
More sensible, eh?
>>46852654
And if you were to hog-tie a moose and fill it up with a liter of tranquilizers of varying strength, I could fist fight it and win. Or you could realize that hectopeasant ratings are a meme that purposefully ignore advantages of the stronger side, like say an at-will Fireball spell with a range of 150ft. Use some common sense my dude.
>>46852266
>+2 Deception, +1 Insight, +2 Persuasion, -2 Intimidate
>Outmaneuvering differences
Pit fiends aren't dumb. Meanwhile Succubi/Incubi can't stand up to the raw power of a Pit Fiend, let alone a Pit Fiend aristocracy. There's a reason for the 16 fucking CR difference.
>With an inflated sense of superiority and entitlement
If they were actually good at their jobs, their sense of superiority and entitlement wouldn't be inflated, it'd be well justified.
>>46852711
>>46852707
Exactly, this isn't a legendary monster, which means you have to build its organization, army, and allies. Its not mean to be fought alone, because then they would have made it a legendary monster, or one with lair action.
perhaps they were tired of the whole "evil superpowered general faces off solo against the part"
besides
>Who needs skills when you have scholars, tacticians etc, you are a general
>>46852654
>Pit Fiend doesn't just fly and fireball the peasants into oblivion out of their weapons' range ( slings have max range of 120' )
>Even if 30 peasants all hit, the damage is further reduced by resistances.
>Pit Fiend -being alone-
>Finding even situation where you can attack pit fiend on fair ground
The +6 INT and +4 WIS is not for fucking nothing.
You are special sort of person, are you not?
>>46852660
That's exactly the point I was making, you ignoramus.
>>46852266
>master of fighting, magic, social skills, and most importantly, bureaucracy
>vs slightly better social skills with nothing else to brag about
Hmm.
>>46852675
>>46852684
>>46852742
Fireball has a range of 150 feet.
A generic human scout's longbow has range 150/600 feet.
Firing with disadvantage for long range and dealing half damage due to resistance, a human scout has an 8.75% chance of dealing 3 damage damage, and a 0.25% chance of dealing 5 damage. However, a human scout fires two arrows with each standard action.
Therefore, each standard action from a human scout deals 2 * (3 * 0.0875 + 5 * 0.0025) = 0.55 damage.
A pit fiend has 300 hp and will go down in 545.45 standard actions from generic human scouts. Note that the humans do not have to be that numerous. They just need to take that many standard actions in total from long range.
>>46852654
The Pit Fiend can cast fireball at will. Killing 31 low-level human opponents is nothing.
>>46852797
>most importantly, bureaucracy
No skill to represent this.
>>46852729
Well, you can be good at your job and think you're great. That would still be inflated.
>>46852816
Know what disrupts a line of archers? A strafing run from a monster that can cast fireball.
>>46852822
Contain your autism, grognard, there's more to the game than the stat sheet.
>>46852816
One of your friends yells in joy, as his arrow, alone amongst you, hits its mark, the Demon of Fire and Shadow for barely any damage at all.
Suddenly HellFire erupts in the middle of your ranks, consuming a few dozen of your friends in an instant. Their cries of pain and horror fade as they die
>Well, only 520 rounds left, says the captain. Cmon now
>>46852828
>Know what disrupts a line of archers? A strafing run from a monster that can cast fireball.
Fireball has range 150 feet. The pit fiend has fly 60 feet.
The generic human scouts have range 150/600 feet.
Meanwhile, in 2e, pit fiends require at least +3 weapons to harm at all.
>>46852816
OK, so you can kill a pitfiend with an army of 500 bowmen. However, if the pitfiend marches alone against 500 bowmen and just lets them take potshots at him, he's doing something very wrong.
The pitfiend is a highly intelligent and powerful devil. It would likely avoid fighting a force with vastly superior numbers, and if it did intent to go againt an army, it would bring its own army with it (and 500 bowmen will get massacred by an equal-sized force of infernal footsoldiers), and use its high intelligence and cunning to device a strategy where it would be able to force the enemy army to fight at a disadvantage.
Plus with its fireballs, wall of fire and fear aura, the pitfiend does have a good chanse of fucking up the bowmen in most scenarios that don't involve parking the fiend on the other side of an empty field and plinking it with 500 arrows a round.
>>46852816
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this post is.
>>46852862
>Well, only 520 rounds left, says the captain. Cmon now
That's not what >>46852816 is saying at all.
If there are 546 generic human scouts and each of them take ONE standard action at long range, the pit fiend is fucking dead.
It's worth noting that neither the President or a homeless man likely have class levels, but it would be considerably more difficult to kill one than it would be to kill the other.
>>46852880
>an army of 500 bowmen
Please, Agincourt had several thousand bowmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Numbers_at_Agincourt
>>46852884
So if you set everything aside in a white room and give one side an enormous advantage specifically tailored to beat the enemy, then that side will win. What point does this prove exactly?
>pit fiend stands there watching the arrows approach it from 600ft away
>doesn't move out of the way
>doesn't cast fireball to burn any arrows
>it stands there, waiting
>>46852816
First you changed from peasants with slings to scouts.
Second you are implying they would hit all the attacks.
Third even if they actually hit all attacks it's fucking 545 standard actions, do you know how many rounds it is? You really think a pit fiend wouldn't kill them in so many rounds?
>>46852928
Bitch, I'm not the one who was talking about slings.
>Second you are implying they would hit all the attacks.
Hell no, the calculations already take misses into account.
>>46852901
I mentioned 500 because you'd need 500-something shots to kill the fiend in one round.
The pitfiend would be even less likely to march against an army of several thousand men alone. More likely, in that situation you'd get to recreate Agincourt except the French are replaced with literal devils from Hell.
>>46852927
>Acupuncture for outsiders
>>46852927
Fireball doesn't work that way and doesn't have enough range.
>>46852927
>doesn't cast fireball to burn any arrows
What?
>>46852943
How does it "not work that way"? Cast it on a point in the air which the arrows are going to pass through. Fireball appears, arrows pass through it, big chunk of the cloud of arrows disappears.
>>46852816
>>46852862
>>46852828
>>46852880
>60 multimeltas
>>46852970
Well, that's not something Fireball does in 5e, and that's also not, like, how fire works?
>>46852970
>>46852927
>Why aren't you making rules up to counter your players?
Literally retarded.
>>46852979
>Not how fire works
No, it's how Fireball, the magic spell, works.
>>46852943
Fireball is a ball of very hot fire which often kills large beings. It can burn the fletching off an arrow. It has 120ft range, the arrows, all 500 of them, will need to enter that range, and many of the arrows, being fired at approximately the same time, from the same place, at the same target, will be quite close to each other.
>>46852979
Heat that kills men in an instant is bad for a thin piece of wood with fletching and other aerodynamical considerations.
>>46852949
You see, arrows are made of this flammable substance.. It is known as 'wood'
>>46852981
This is D&D. The entire game is based around looking at the rules and saying "Hey, I know it's not in the book, but how about we..."
>>46852987
>>46852995
>>46852997
Do you guys think a house just disintegrates if you drop a match on the porch or something? If you expose wood to fire it doesn't turn into smoke, it becomes *flaming fucking wood*.
>>46852970
There is no mechanical basis in the rules for the thing you are describing to take place. Attacks happen and are resolved before the pitfiend has any chance to cast fireball. We know intuitively that is not how real physics works but we're operating within the framework of game mechanics, here.
What the pitfiend does have, though, is the ability to generate a sixty foot wide, twenty foot high opaque wall of flame 120 feet ahead of it, which will make it impossible to see, so the pit fiend can close large parts of the distance between it and the archers without them actually knowing precisely where it is, rendering their odds of hitting it with any arrows to be approximately fuck all.
>>46853007
There's a bit of a difference between match/house and MAGIC FUCKING FIREBALL/flimsy arrow.
You wilfully obtuse cunt.
>>46852884
But that's okay.
I think a Pit Fiend should die to a thousand arrows. That's still amazing.
I don't like the ridiculousness of upper level monsters, they just lose any grounding to reality.
D&D shouldn't be about superheros.
>>46852997
>>46852995
>>46853005
You can't cast a spell when it's not your turn. You're literally unable to do this. With D&D rules, the arrows aren't even all fired at the same time, because each peasant gets his own initiative. Even if you could cast a spell when it's not your turn, you'd take down one arrow. You are literally making shit up to counter this concept.
I get that reading is hard, but you should give it your best try before you go around spouting stupid shit like this.
>>46853017
D&D IS about superheroes. What do you think a high level character is?
>>46852997
...and Pit Fiends are immune to fire. It's the perfect defense!
>>46853009
>[The fire] ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
Not saying he's right, not saying he's wrong, but there is a mechanical basis outside of just GM fiat.
>>46853017
>D&D shouldn't be about superheros.
It's been that way since 2e, 3.X, and 4e, dude.
>>46853007
>fireball is equivalent to a match
>an arrow in flight is equivalent to a house
I have appropriate terms for this reasoning, but I don't think it would help.
>>46853030
I'd disagree. All that says is that he's being hit with flaming arrows instead of regular ones.
>>46853009
Well if the pit fiend knows where they are and what they are about to do BEFORE they fire, then it can simply move away and leave their range.
>>46853009
Wall of Fire is a terrible personal defense when you look at the spell description.
>>46853026
Well, to be more specific, I think high level D&D characters shouldn't like Superman, Thor, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter.. any of the top, cream of the crop superheroes.
They should be more like mythological heroes, like Merlin or Theseus.
The power difference in D&D 3.5 (which I do love dearly) was so fucking enormous, it made the existence of early level adventurers pointless.
>>46853020
So you assume when an arrow is shot it immediately materializes at its target, no time of flight passing at all? Realistically you would have plenty of time to raise your shield to protect yourself, or do various other things too.
I think the real takeaway here is that people who play D&D are horrible.
>>46853020
No, I'm pointing out the idiocy of slavishly obeying rules which fail to account for such obvious issues with a scenario. Do you think arrows fly 600 feet in an instant? It would take probably around 10 seconds for them to go that far. Because the put fiend does not stand there gaping while watching it happen.
>>46853031
Yeah, but I think 5e compressed the levels in terms of power so much that this has been alleviated somewhat.
A level 20 martial is Achilles, not the Hulk
>>46853068
>realistically
I don't think that will work on the kind of people you are arguing with.
>>46853076
I think the real takeaway is that /tg/ as a collective has autism.
>>46853077
>10 sec
Nope, shit, wrong number. Gonna have to recheck.
>>46853078
Achilles was literally invincible against everything but his weak spot.
But in 5e, pit a level 20 fighter with a shield against 80 generic bowmen and you get this pathetic scenario:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/37282162/
>>46853068
>Realistically you would have plenty of time to raise your shield to protect yourself
Your AC takes this into account. Disadvantage takes this into account. For fuck's sake, do you not know how the game works?
>>46853077
The arrow spends enough time in flight for the attack to be made at a disadvantage. There is still not enough time to react, defend yourself and cast a spell. The rules already take it into account. Stop making shit up in your attempts to prove that your favorite monster can't be killed by peasants with bows. You're exactly like those GMs that absolutely can't handle letting their players win.
>giant monster can die if dozens of men pin cushion it with arrows
Why are you idiots acting like this means anything? And worse why are you idiots acting like an intelligent creature would allow it to go down as a head on fight?
>>46853099
> Achilles was literally invincible against everything but his weak spot.
Yeah but he wasn't destroying cities on his own, he was still just a guy who was good at fighting - and it wasn't that swords bounced off his skin, it was just that he was that good. It was a fated thing, rather than impenetrable skin.
A level 20 Fighter should go down to 80 men. That's fine. I want D&D to be that. 1:80 is fine.
What force ratio should a level 20 be defeated by level 1s? 100? 1000? Never?
Level 20 should be ten times the power of a level 1, not so much more powerful that it resembles a FF game.
>>46853099
>A fighter, even a high-level one, starts a fight 500 feet away from 80 archers in an open field with no cover to speak of and no ranged weapon.
>He dies
People are mentioning all these cons, but all I'm hearing are pros.
Even wuxia heroes usually get boned by that kind of situation.
>>46853147
>A level 20 Fighter should go down to 80 men.
He literally can't even close the distance to the 80 men.
>>46853149
The fighter actually does have a shield and cover in that scenario.
>The fighter has a source of three-quarters cover (e.g. "a thick tree trunk," as per page 196 of the Dungeon Master's Guide) for +5 AC on demand, bringing the fighter's AC up to 34. However, a natural 20 on an attack roll is an automatic hit and a critical hit, as per page 194 of the Player's Handbook, but one does not require the other (such as with expanded critical ranges)
>>46853162
Right, but even a low wall or a hole in the ground makes him completely immune to arrows.
Just anything other than running directly towards a firing line for 14 rounds straight.
>>46853155
They are archers 500ft away and he's charging across open ground. Yeah, that's fine.
Why does a fighter have to be able to accomplish that? I mean, what's the argument here?
You are operating under what previous editions established, that 1/2 CR enemies should be so completely inadequate at defending themselves that it's a miracle they haven't become extinct from simple predation by animals.
A level 20 Fighter should go down to a hundred archers, eventually. A 20 Fighter should be killed by 40 bears attacking simultaneously.
What's the problem? I genuinely want to know.
>>46853189
A low wall/hole in the ground and a big-ass shield.
>>46853112
No, you misunderstand, I'm saying it's an irrelevant scenario. I'm fine with pit fiends being killable by a small army of humans, D&D power creep is silly.
>>46853099
It's been a year and a quarter, and people are still acting surprised and upset by the fact that a lvl 20 fighter fails in a situation specifically designed to make him fail with absolutely no recourse other than to defy all logic and plunge headfirst into failure.
>>46853112
Well you should be able to take actions that increase your AC, like raising your shield for example. People aren't wooden training dummies that just stand there waiting for the attack!
>>46853214
Your AC score assumes you do exactly that for every attack.
>>46853213
It's like the argument is level > sense.
You make leveling more powerful than actual common sense, you get murderhobos. The only purpose in their existence is to gain levels.
When a clever bandit leader with 80 men can kill the greatest hero the world has ever seen, with a bit of ingenuity, cunning and luck... well fuck me the world suddenly got interesting again.
And those Level 1-4 adventurers killing off all the mooks? They are USEFUL.
>>46853252
>When a clever bandit leader with 80 men can kill the greatest hero the world has ever seen, with a bit of ingenuity, cunning and luck... well fuck me the world suddenly got interesting again.
That's not so much my cup of tea. I mean, level 20 is a borderline god at that point. I'd much prefer a level 20 fighter to just be able to wade through an army of nameless dudes.
But then, my first RPG was Anima which literally has rules for 'This guy isn't notable enough to hurt you'.
>>46853280
> 20 is borderline god
In previous editions.
This is like saying "but Starbuck is a man" over and over again.
If it's not your cup of tea, there is nothing wrong with that. But 20 = Godlike is just how it's been previously, it's not something intrinsic to the D&D experience.
And a 20 Fighter can. In favourable conditions, with support. He can even fight his way out of imprisonment alone, or hold the breach solely until reinforcements arrive.
I find settings where the player characters are "beyond" what can be seen as human anymore, they fall apart. I mean hell, that happens in Vampire the Masquerade.
When the 80 strong town guard can still kill you, no matter how high level you are, the world and its people remains a feature in your adventures, and not as unremarkable as the vegetables in a garden.
>>46853366
>When the 80 strong town guard can still kill you, no matter how high level you are, the world and its people remains a feature in your adventures, and not as unremarkable as the vegetables in a garden.
I'd disagree there. Most people in Anima can't really do squat to even a level 4 character but it doesn't make them less a feature in your adventures.
>>46853149
I agree. A fighter, who even at high level is ultimately a mortal man, rather than a supernatural being or something, dying if he charges at 80 archers through open ground 500 feet away makes sense. Even legendary heroes tend to die against overwhelming odds. The fact it takes those 80 archers over a minute of shooting and hundreds of arrows to kill this man is pretty impressive.
I never really liked how in 3.5 mythical heroes like Beowulf and Hercules would at most be low- to mid-level and high level characters and monsters can just wade through armies.
5th edition does have a problem with somewhat wonky damage scales, though. That same fighter that got killed by the bowmen could dive naked into a pool of molten lava, or get bitten by a house-sized monster, and sustain only minimal injuries.
>>46853238
Sounds like AC is woefully inadequate protection for what it represents.
Still kind of moot though, seeing as >>46853144, >>46852880 and >>46852936 all have a point - what pit fiend (INT 22) is going to march up in a straight line, alone, against an army, giving them a clear opportunity to shoot them? (assuming they all have the balls to fire directly on a giant fuckoff devil and not run away)
>>46853280
>>46853366
>>46853430
The fighter has a shield up and is weaving from cover spot to cover spot in that example.
That's usually enough for action heroes to get by.
>>46853430
>I never really liked how in 3.5 mythical heroes like Beowulf and Hercules would at most be low- to mid-level and high level characters and monsters can just wade through armies.
Can 5e Beowulf even work? Unarmed damage blows chunks now for non-monks. A level 20 fighter would have a hard time grappling and tearing the arms off most giant monsters.
If I want low fantasy, I can go play one of the gorillion and one "gritty low fantasy" RPGs out there on the market.
If I want zero-to-demigod, I play D&D.
D&D 5e going all "low-powered low fantasy" is completely missing the point and gives it basically no niche.
>>46853195
>They are archers 500ft away and he's charging across open ground. Yeah, that's fine.
>>46853162
It's a man who can survive total immersion in lava for 12 seconds naked, given legendary armour, cover and a shield on top of his (see above) ridiculous natural defenses and set against a group of slightly trained scouts. And he can barely reach them before dying.
>>46853522
Wouldn't the same scenario happen in 3.5 though?
>>46853430
>>46853522
Not the fucking lava shit again. Look faggots, damage is abstract. Submerging yourself completely in lava and breathing that shit in is not what's happening when you take (ah fuck I forget the actual total in the book. I'm going with) 10d10 lava damage. That would be like saying "The rogue sneaks up behind the sleeping man and slides one blade into the victim's heart and the other plunged straight into his brain. He takes 5 damage, and is now at 2 hp."
>>46853648
>with a Second Wind, this fighter has a 99.84% chance of surviving two rounds of being submerged in lava that deals 18d10 damage as per page 249 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, even totally naked: http://anydice.com/program/502e
Why does the fighter get more plot armor against fucking lava than generic archer mooks?
>>46852266
>+14 to hit
>even with AC 20 you'll get hit on 6+
Holy shit
>DC 21 Constitution throw
>Even with +11 on Con saves you'll fail 50% of the time
Man, being 20th level now is worthless
>>46853630
In 3.5, fighter has higher ac, probably higher HP, defenses that aren't just AC/HP, and better equipment. And even if it did happen '3.5 is worse!' isn't en excuse.
>>46853648
So the rules for being submerged in lava aren't actually the rules for being submerged in lava? When the book says 'this is what happens when you get submerged in lava' it actually means what exactly?
I'd be more willing to believe any of you all about what's wrong with 5e if you faggots could settle on what's wrong with it.
>Waaah enemies are too strong
>Waaah enemies aren't strong enough
>Waaah PCs are too strong
>Waaah PCs aren't strong enough
>>46853742
Basically, high-level monsters and high-level PCs are too low-powered compared to generic human mooks.
>>46853472
>basically no niche
Except you know, random normal people who want to play an RPG and anybody who likes DnD but disliked both 3.5 and 4th yet wants something supported.
A man not being able to win against 80 archers in an open field is not 'gritty'.
>>46853754
>open field
>Let us set the scene: an extremely sparse forest in late autumn, the noonday sun shining down upon bare trees. The fighter has a source of three-quarters cover (e.g. "a thick tree trunk," as per page 196 of the Dungeon Master's Guide) for +5 AC on demand, bringing the fighter's AC up to 34. However, a natural 20 on an attack roll is an automatic hit and a critical hit, as per page 194 of the Player's Handbook, but one does not require the other (such as with expanded critical ranges).
>The CR 1/2 scouts are competent wilderness warriors (Nature +4, Perception +5, Stealth +6, Survival +5, advantage on Perception checks that rely on hearing or sight), and it is unlikely that the fighter can evade their notice with disadvantage on Stealth checks from plate armor. The fighter has one job: kill all the scouts, right here, right now, no matter the cost. The scouts likewise have one job: kill the fighter, right here, right now, no matter the cost.
>2. Plate armor +3 (legendary), shield +3 (very rare), battleaxe/longsword/warhammer +3 (very rare), Cloak of Protection (uncommon), Ring of Protection (uncommon).
You mean a forest with cover and way more magic items than the 5e DMG would ever entitle him to.
>>46853742
The differences between high level and low level in 5e have been dramatically reduced.
>>46853742
During the playtest, one of the devs mentioned that when they got equal numbers of contradictory complaints, they felt like they were going in roughly the right direction.
The whole game is a decent example of aiming square at the middle and hoping most people will be happy because you're never going to please everyone.
>>46853699
Because you're not supposed to just sit there underwater (underlava?) and take damage if you're using the 18d10 damage. You're supposed to just say "You're dead, fucknut." Again, it's like describing an arrow going through someone's brain and then only dealing 1d8 damage to them. The Fighter has a better chance of surviving in a situation that puts him that close to lava because he has a better chance of keeping calm enough to minimize the damage (for example by covering his open flesh with armor or wet cloth). When you roll all 1s on those dice, you're not supposed to say "The fighter accidentally swallows some lava."
>>46853723
>and breathing that shit in
Also, see above. The threat of being completely submerged in lava is what triggers the dice roll, and what the damage rolls show is what you narrate. If he gets 180 damage, there's no reason not to say that he is submerged in the lava for a second and suffers serious burns that would kill or incapacitate lesser men. But describing a fighter just lounging around in lava while taking ~70 damage is like describing a sword swing that deals 2d6 damage as "cleaving the enemy in twain."
>>46853847
>The whole game is a decent example of aiming square at the middle and hoping most people will be happy because you're never going to please everyone.
This is the complaint I see the most. Not that 5e is broken, or unplayable, or poorly designed. No, the complaint I see /tg/ make the most about 5e is that they don't have anything to complain about, and that somehow THAT'S AN INHERENTLY BAD THING.
>>46853852
>(for example by covering his open flesh with armor or wet cloth)
You... you know that's going to do basically jack fucking shit against lava, right?
>>46853876
Bounded accuracy is pretty fucking shitty.
>>46853782
Now I know it's outside the scope of that scenario, but why in god's name wouldn't the Fighter whip out a bow of his own and start plonking away? Even if he's got shit Dex his high proficiency bonus and multiple attacks per round will take a toll.
>>46853852
It's really not. You spend a turn submerged in lava, you take 18d10 damage. It's not 'if a character is exposed to lava they take 18d10 damage', not 'if a character is briefly submerged in lava they take 18d10 damage, any further and they're dead', it's 'if they are submerged in lava, they take 18d10 damage per round'
But if you don't like that example, try the falling from orbit example. How does fall damage work in 5e?
>>46853876
Aiming at the middle just gets both sides complaining - you aren't going to get a golden mean here
>>46853847
I want to know who decided that maneuver dice for all martials (and more of them) was somehow a bad thing.
Seriously, I'm still assmad.
>>46853878
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FfNBjSuc9s
I'm not saying it will immunize them from damage, but a thick layer of sweat drenched cloth could turn "dead in a split second" into "burned like hell."
>>46853926
Castersfags complained because martials could use those dice to increase the damage and that's bad and if not for damage having options on martials is inherently bad. basically martials should only swing ineffectively their weapons and that's it.
Look at the monk, a lot of people complain they deal too much damage, similar happens with GWM and Sharpshooter, pretty sure all these complains come from casterfags.
>>46853896
This argument just segues into HP as meat points vs. HP as an abstraction, doesn't it? Part of HP is plot armor, meaning that it's a bit of dependable luck to say that the best case scenario happened (the contact with lava was minimal, the person falling from orbit hit some wind shears that slowed them down or were one of those freak cases that hit the ground just right). HP is an abstraction, not meat points. You don't take the 18d10 damage because the lava invaded your every orifice, you take it because you beat unbelievable odds to minimize damage, or some other abstract thing happened to do the same.
>>46853890
The fighter has no way of taking down a meaningful number of the bowmen.
>>46853933
Lava is a hell of a lot hotter than molten lead.
>>46853904
I don't know about you, but I see far less people complaining about 5e than they do about 3.5 or 4e.
There's still some discontent obviously, but there's literally no way to avoid that.
>>46853699
>more plot armor than generic mooks
>generic
>mooks
Gee, I wonder why!
Retard.
>>46854088
No, what's being said is that the fighter has tons of plot armor against lava, but the archer mooks fuck the fighter over.
>>46853699
>Why a main character should get more plot armor than Nobody Mcwho
I dunno, if you ask me John Mcclane should have died in the first 20 minutes of Die Hard, just like any other action hero.
>>46854075
>I see far less people complaining about 5e than they do about 3.5 or 4e
The thing about general threads is that they attract the people who ALREADY LIKE THE GAME.Unless you're talking about /pfg/, which hates Pathfinder yet keeps playing it due to Stockholm.You're not going to go to a general thread just to post about how you DON'T like the game, are you?
3.5 and 4e just don't have general threads on /tg/. 5e does.
>>46852266
I imagine trying to socially outmaneuver a pit fiend when you yourself are not a pit fiend is a good way to get a pit fiend to kick your ass.
>>46852345
They're better at the practical side of things, but just because you can build a house doesn't mean you can organize a trade union.
What OP left out is that Pit Fiends have INT 22, while succubi/inccubi have INT 15. The Pit Fiend is as far above a succubus in terms of Intelligence as a standard human (INT 10) is above a housecat or mastiff dog (both INT 3).
>>46854129
>I suck at reading comprehension
>>46854139
Holy fuck this thread was about pit fiends at one point.
>>46854156
Unlike most /tg/ thread derails, it stems from the overarching topic of 5e's bounded accuracy being fucking dumb.
Its only a problem because hitting, defeating armour and wounding are all the same thing in DnD.
In a well made system first they have to hit the guy behind cover and bypass his shield then actually get past his armour before they can hurt him. Which bows are pretty bad at if he has good armour.
>>46854146
Int cannot scale like that, since claiming that int 17 character is as much above a standard human as they are above a house cat is ludicrous. It's probably more like a logarithmic scale.
>>46854178
I must admit, I'm not a huge fan of 'Bounded accuracy means that PCs are not certain to hit even lower level foes'.
Though my main issue is that of just massively increasing HP while weapon damage stays mostly static. It's one thing for a armies worth of arrows to slay a hero. It feels like another for an epic hero to take 2-3 good, solid hits to put down a guy before they move onto the next dude.
I miss Minions from 4e in that regard.
>>46854138
>You're not going to go to a general thread just to post about how you DON'T like the game, are you?
I'm going to resist the urge to be massively condescending here, but: People do this all the time. Especially here.
Did you miss the 3.5/4e edition wars? It was six years of relentless shitposting.
For a more recent example, see any Age of Sigmar thread (although I dare say AoS deserves it to an extent).
>Bounded accuracy
Only if you're a PC, some monsters get +19 to hit even without magic items, totally unfair.
>>46854309
Maybe. Personally I always assumed that it was MENSA IQ but with the last number chopped off. So for example an IQ of 100 (average) equals an Intelligence of 10 (also average). My own IQ of 127 becomes an Intelligence of 12 (not bragging; I may have above-average IQ but I'm still well below "genius" level, and I have a feeling that tabletop RPGs tend to attract people with high IQs and so on /tg/ I'm probably only average or even below average).
Anyway. Pit Fiends, thereby, have an IQ of 220, or super-genius levels. This puts them at around the level of guys like Christopher Hirata, a child prodigy and astrophysicist who has been working with NASA since age 16.
Succubi then have an IQ of 150, which is genius level but not as smart as, for example, Stephen Hawking (IQ 170, or INT 17) or Albert Einstein (never officially recorded by estimated at around IQ 190, or INT 19).
>>46852266
Because a Pit Fiend could kill a succubus by impaling her on his dick. When it comes to fiends, raw power holds more sway than a silver tongue.
>>46854138
> Unless you're talking about /pfg/, which hates Pathfinder yet keeps playing it due to Stockholm.
This meme needs to die. People like Pathfinder not because of "stolkholm", but because despite its flaws, it's a fun system. You can disagree, but you really shouldn't take the "we hate it" joke seriously.
The whole "3.5 is bad" meme that a few idiots have been trying to press on /tg/ for the last few months has really started to get out of hand, largely because those few people primarily target it because of its popularity rather than its quality. It just genuinely upsets them, so they repeat the same meaningless arguments that can't, and won't ever be able to, refute the idea that it's a system that is better than the majority available on the market and its popularity isn't some crime against humanity.
This is coming from a person who doesn't even play pathfinder or 3.5 anymore because I prefer other systems for the games I'm running. While I play other games, that doesn't somehow mean that 3.5 suddenly becomes bad, or that the exaggerated complaints against the system somehow make it a sin to continue to like it.
>>46854519
>it's shit but it's fun
Not this shit again.
>>46854519
Amigo, people have hated 3.5 since 3.5 was still the most widely played system.
Nobody's saying a poorly designed system *can't* be fun. Or that good design equals fun. At least, if they do, you can ignore them, because they're stupid.
But let's face facts: 3.5 is bad. Very, very bad. 4e ended up bad in different ways. 5e is probably the best they've done, and it's still pretty bad.
>>46854519
dunno which threads do you have been but I heard, and first hand experienced, 3.PF problems are mainly with balance, specially how the whole game revolves about spells and how intrinsically are embeded in the encounters. I GMd 3.PF for some years and you really need a fucking great group if you want to have fun despite the system
I can understand people playing it, I actually wanted to like 3.5 for a really long time, but what irks me the most is people ignoring that the system is flawed and treating people who found these problems as crazy ones who never played it
>>46854519
System if flawed and the fandom is fucking horrible, specially DMs and casterfags who assume magic being stronger than any other option, and therefore casters, is ok. That makes it hard for me to like those systems, never been in a game in where shit didn't got annoying
>>46854342
80 bowmen is not an "army."
>>46854632
Would you even be able to run 3.pf without magic? Like, no casters whatsoever?
>>46853147
>A level 20 Fighter should go down to 80 men. That's fine. I want D&D to be that. 1:80 is fine.
even a real life dentist can do better than that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_L._Salomon
>Benjamin Lewis Salomon (September 1, 1914 – July 7, 1944) was a United States Army dentist during World War II, assigned as a front-line surgeon. When the Japanese started overrunning his hospital, he stood a rear-guard action in which he had no hope of personal survival, allowing the safe evacuation of the wounded, killing at least 98 enemy troops before being killed himself during the Battle of Saipan.
>>46854791
He had a ranged weapon and was Dex-specced. Level 20 fighter.
>>46854791
Yeah, but was he running straight towards them for a full minute armed with a melee weapon?
>>46854841
He also didn't have:
>Plate armor +3 (legendary), shield +3 (very rare), battleaxe/longsword/warhammer +3 (very rare), Cloak of Protection (uncommon), Ring of Protection (uncommon)
And wasn't going up against arrows that can bounce off armor or a shield.
>>46854841
A visual aid:
https://youtu.be/GJoM7V54T-c#t=41
>>46854785
You mean no PC casters or nothing that can cast?
Because if you remove caster classes you just made encounters more difficult for the remain classes.
D&D assumes parties have classes and that's why CRs and difficulty overall assumes casters are in the party, remove PC classes won't fix much.
3.PF problems are, probably, in this order:
Caster/Martial balance
CR
Wealth per level
I had some good times playing 3.PF, not going to deny that, but I had more bad ones even though we were playing by the rules and doing everything the campaigns/manuals told us to do
3.PF without a really experienced group is a horrible experience, that's why I wouldn't recommend it for new players
>>46854562
>>46854588
>>46854632
>>46854694
Your arguments are cute, but largely worthless, and I hope one day you'll grow to understand that.
Every game has its flaws. 3.5's popularity simply made it so that its flaws are well known, and its success earned it a number of "enemies" who can't stand how something they don't like and know has flaws somehow still remains popular, and more popular than their favorite systems unless they play 5e.
if 3.5 is bad, then there are no good games. Every single game, every last one, can be used as the focus to create a long list of grievances, many of them arbitrary, most of them exaggerated, and ultimately nothing more than largely pathetic whining that doesn't do much except annoy people while emboldening annoying people. The only thing that stays the hand of the mob from attacking each game in turn is that 3.5 is the seasoned, popular target, and that it is the one that infuriates people most. All this, because they can't comprehend that what most people want from a system is what 3.5 delivers, and that their confusion as to how the 2nd largest portion of the gaming community can continue to prefer a game they revile leads them to some bizarre form of elitism where they assume that most people are simply less intelligent than they are, or less capable of seeing the flaws of a system, or are somehow psychologically compromised, ie. with Stockholm Syndrome.
Hating on 3.5 is like any other form of hate, where it's like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die. The senseless exaggeration, the endless circular arguments that simply increase the publicity and exposure of the game while the rest remain in its shadow, all the hopeless complaining that dissolves the moment someone sits down with a group to play the game.
It's a great system. Being blind to its strengths just so you can focus on its flaws is your own personal mental poison, and why you'll fail to understand why people continue to play it.
>>46855034
Oh, so all this was a bait, man, I have to figure these before I reply. 8/10.
The fighter thing is retarded.
So he's just sitting there, on a perfectly flat field of concrete?
Because an Eldritch Knight can cast Windwall and be immune to arrows.
A fireball or two later he has effectively destroyed the bowmen.
A Battlemaster can use Evasive Footwork to add a d12 to his AC, pretty much making him impossible to hit on anything but a natural 20. So long as he moves a little, he can probably kill the archers before they can kill him. If you give him alchemist's fire, he can wreck them.
The Champion is the only one who can't really do anything here but run. He takes some damage, but manages to get out of their range by the third round.
Sucks he can't kill those fools, but he *is* mortal, after all.
And, of course, this assumes the level 20 fighter, who has access to so much good loot, doesn't carry around a potion of invisibility, just in case he's in a situation where he can't win.
>>46855069
The fighter has their shield up and is moving from cover to cover.
The fighter is also a Battlemaster and Evasive Footwork wouldn't help because they're already hitting only on a 20, but still hitting him.
Go read the damn fucking thread.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/37282162/
>>46855069
>who has access to so much good loot, doesn't carry around a potion of invisibility
Good thing 5e put magic item availability strictly in the hands of the DM!
>>46855060
It was petty obvious
>>46854841
no, but the dentist didn't have magical plate armor or a magic shield either.
and the fighter in the example was making full use of cover, not just running blindly toward the archers. in the circumstances it's actually harder to imagine how the fighter is being hurt at all. here's another bullshit anime hero:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard
>Bayard was the hero of a celebrated combat of thirteen French knights against an equal number of Spaniards, and his restless energy and valour were conspicuous throughout the Italian wars of this period. At the Battle of Garigliano he single-handedly defended the bridge of the Garigliano against 200 Spaniards, an exploit that brought him such renown that Pope Julius II tried unsuccessfully to entice him into his service.
>>46855060
>>46855137
Just because it upsets you and shatters your entire shitposting lifestyle doesn't mean you should resort to calling it bait.
Face it. Your hate is misplaced and is blinding you to the point where you can't even discuss the game that dominated the market during its print run without resenting that fact.
>>46855232
Completely exaggerated and unverified story.
>>46855113
I was assuming the fighter just had nothing but regular full plate and shield.
But you know what? Fine.
He has his own damn longbow and shoots with it.
All he has to do is drink a potion of cure wounds(level 3) and take pot shots at the archers.
It takes a thousand years, but a Champion's ability to heal 10 hp a round, some potions and two people willing to do this.
Mind you, at 500 ft, the scouts have disadvantage on every attack. This means they need to roll 20s both times, or they don't hit.
Where as the fighter needs to hit 7, assuming no Dex or magic bonus.
Why not just have 10 wizards flying 100 ft up, with Windwall under them, casting fireballs?
It's not hard to design an encounter to kill someone.
>>46855306
I guess we can all agree that McDonalds serves up great, tasty, and healthy food too?
>>46855312
Mob rules ignore disadvantage/advantage.
He really wants to get that sweet sweet 10/10 and all the (you)s he can get, eh?
>>46855333
But they also can't crit. Meaning they never hit.
>>46855319
That's hardly relevant to a discussion about games, unless you are trying to say that location matters when buying books in the age of online shopping.
But, I'm not here to parry your pointless jabs, I'm here to remind you that you're just making Buddha sad.
Math autists are truly the worst thing that 3.X contributed to the hobby.
>>46855373
>If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter.
Nothing stopping the mob rules from doing this.
>>46853099
Is that fighter a fucking dropkick? Where was his ranged weapons?
Or was it deliberately skewed
>Those thumbnails
>That way of writing
>That layout
Oh, Virt has returned
>>46855429
Even allowing that natural 20s hit and this isn't a critical hit, why would we deny advantage/disadvantage?
It doesn't say we do in the rules for mob combat.
A scout *doesn't* hit on a 20. He hits on *two* rolls of 20.
>>46855307
it was considered reputable enough for the encyclopedia britannica.
but would it matter if it was exaggerated? here's how mike mearls described the fighter class when he was designing 5e:
>We also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.
the D&D fighter is supposed to be an exaggeration of a real fighter. a level 20 fighter with magic equipment shouldn't be less capable than a dentist in the real life.
>>46853099
>>46853147
>>46853195
Now I understand why there's quadratic wizards
linear fighters
>>46855483
The mob rules literally don't have any way to account for advantage/disadvantage.
>>46855113
The thread is fucking useless you colossal turbotard
>>46855531
Ah, but they do.
If we're going to RAW this thing, like we're so deep in the autism spectrum we invented it, let's do it all the way.
A scout hits on a 20, but with disadvantage, requires another 20. That's a 0.0025 chance of success.
So all we really need to do is increase the numbers until such a thing is certain.
Is 20 men is enough to guarantee a natural 20, then 400 can guarantee two consecutive such rolls.
So all we really need is 1600 archers, on an infinite cemented field, with no cover to kill a level 20 fighter.
Which seems fair.
>>46855505
Goddamn this so much, why can't martials have nice things
>>46855613
>Is 20 men is enough to guarantee a natural 20, then 400 can guarantee two consecutive such
This is not how probability works, you fucking dimwit.
>>46855828
I am aware of how probability works, you festering baboon sphincter.
I'm using the game mechanic logic to extrapolate.
>>46855424
I believe the point was that saying 3.5 can't be called a bad system because every system has flaws is like saying McDonalds food can't be called unhealthy because every food has some potential unhealthy effects (hell, even drinking too much water is bad for you).
>>46856171
Dude, he's baiting, he only cares about the (you)s
>>46856171
I think saying you can't call 3.5 a bad system because it's flaws are comparable to those of every other published game and it has a multitude of strengths that offsets those flaws make the whole McDonald's analogy largely meaningless. Just a little diversion.
>>46856250
Dude, get over your hate already. It's far less healthy than [random unhealthy thing].
>>46855505
Who says wizards have to be gods just because a fighter cannot beat 80 guys with bows using a melee weapon?
>>46856271
That requires someone to be so dishonest or so deluded they think 3.5 is somehow average in how flawed it is.
>>46856814
Well, like we mentioned, it actually takes 1600 scouts to kill that lvl 20 fighter.
The 80 scouts scenario is only valid in 200 ft.
And, again, this is only true for the Champion. In the scenario where he *must* charge in this unwinnable fight.
Again, assuming he has no healing magic whatsoever. A potion so common, it's actually exempt from the magic item creation rules.
Also assuming no Heavy Armor Master, which grants DR 3 /magic. Which is important if he's getting 4 shots of 1d8+2 or something of that nature.\
Also assuming no Mounted Combatant, which forces the archers to hit you instead of the horse you're on.
Really, it implies a scenario the Fighter is completely unprepared for, with foes he can't reach nor escape.
>>46856814
A 20th level wizard can be actually a permanent ancient dragon which has more AC and more HPs than a fighter, it also flies, breathes fire and cast spells
>>46857512
How?
Shapechange and Polymorph last an hour.
You don't keep your spellcasting when in this form. Nor do you get legendary actions.
>>46857625
Read the spell, if you concentrate for the duration of polymorph it becomes PERMANENT!
>>46856858
Your exaggerations are worthless, you know that, right?
You can't really argue if you insist on wearing hate lenses, because you just end up saying things that can be easily dismissed as your own personal dishonesty and delusions.
Take off your hate lenses for a while, and you might be able to see that your opinions really are only that, and that 3.5 is actually a pretty good game when all is said and done and you take a look at the whole thing. It's got flaws, but when you're reduced to trying to argue about the subjective quantitative value of those flaws in comparison to some subjective quantitative value of the flaws of other popular systems, that's the point where you start to look a bit silly.
You don't like it? Neat. You hate the flaws you perceive in it so much that you are willing to ignore its strengths? Cool. But, that's hardly the attitude of a person who comes here to discuss games or has any head for game design, and more of a bitter child who can't allow himself to understand the actual reasons why people love a game, and instead has to delude himself into coming up with derogatory reasons to make themselves feel better.
>>46857815
I'm afraid you might be thinking of a different edition, my friend.
>>46857886
No, I meant the high level Polymorph one.
>>46857886
it's safe to assume he's talking about true polymorph
>>46857924
Specially because he said Dragon and not beast.
>>46857911
>>46857924
My bad, I forgot about that one.
Still, you lose your Wizard stuff to become a dragon.
In the Ancients, you can be a Brass of White Dragon.
Both (indeed, all dragons) have less AC than the Fighter in full gear.
They will have more HP, the Brass has 297 and the White 333.
If the Wizard permanently becomes a Dragon, then they've got the advantage, unless the Fighter knows who he's gonna fight beforehand, in which case he can neutralize (or maybe even negate) the dragon's breath attack.
If that happens, heap on some potions of cure wounds and it's an even match.
Do keep in mind: you don't turn into a Dragon with Wizard levels. Just a Dragon.
Otherwise, the Fighter has a decent chance to disrupt the spell.
Seems to me like the easy solution is for the Pit Fiend to cast Wall of Fire in front of himself then make his way towards it until he's within fireball range.
Add in any other sort of cover and he'll never actually be in sight to get shot at.
>>46853458
Well, Grendel's exact size is never mentioned in the poem, and it's fair to assume that the monster was many levels below Beowulf, since he killed it so easily.
Actually, I think this is a common issue when people imagine their characters doing cool shit, then get disappointed when it doesn't work on the BBEG. Darth Vader didn't force choke Luke to death like a little bitch - that was one of his own low-level subordinates.
>>46858184
Vader force choked one of his officials who was in another star destroyer several km away throught the comlink
Also Vader didn't want to choke luke, he wanted to bring him to the dark side
>>46858184
Well, Grendel dealt with many experienced soldiers and killed them like they were nothing even when armed and armored.
>>46858184
>Grendel's exact size is never mentioned in the poem
True, but it does mention that his head takes four people to carry (except Beowulf who carries it alone). It's possible that he was super-dense like a neutron star, but more likely he was just really big.
>>46853876
Hi.
Bonded accuracy is terrible.
Most of the martials have been shoved back into the 'I attack' niche with no out of combat utility unless they take spellcasting archetypes.
Ranger is garbage, monk is also garbage, short rests last an absurdly long time for no reason I can fathom.
In the three games I've played we were back to five minute workdays because no one wanted to play 5e without their fun abilities because of how barebones and shitty the combat was.
>>46858467
Experienced soldiers in DND could mean that they are level 2 and 3 fighters and barbarians. Compared to normal peasants and warriors they no doubt seem really deadly, but against something like an advanced ogre they go down easy.
Am I alone in finding Pit Fiends irresistibly sexy?
>>46858872
There's three fighter archetypes.
One's a spellcaster. One's got these Maneuvers to help himself or the group.
The third is good at attacking.
You'll note there's a choice, at level three, on what you want to do. Two thirds of those choices allow you to do something other than attack.
The Barbarian *is* all about attacking and raging, that's true. Incidentally, this is what the barbarian has always been about. There's some abilities tied to it, but pretty much it's all attack.
Rogue has Cunning Action, is skill monkey, has expertise.
Ranger is shit, sadly. There's an UA archetype, the deep stalker, I think, that makes it better, basically giving the ranger sneak attack.
Monk isn't too bad, though. Not versatile, but you can hit stuff a lot, do decent amounts of damage and occasionally debuff them. Shadow Monk has a few spells and the Minor Illusion cantrip, which is great. Also: infinite Shadow Step. Only the Four Elements monk is bad.
Note: Anybody (with STR) can grapple and move enemies around.
There's none of the 4e "move enemy 20 ft and do 2W+Con damage", but it's hardly like martials are crippled.
>>46854465
1) IQ is a relative scale. This doesn't really have any impact on my point, but I thought you should know.
2) IQ changes with time. 190 IQ in Einstein's time is not the same as it is now.
3) I suspect that your 127 IQ comes from a free online test, and the general reliability of those is so well known that there's a King of the Hill episode about Hank's retarded wife taking one and believing the result.
>>46854519
>The whole "3.5 is bad" meme that a few idiots have been trying to press on /tg/ for the last few months
> last few months
What the fuck, how new can a person be?
>>46852266
Because if the tent pole baddy your intrigue campaign is built around comes straight from the MM with no alteration you're a god damn idiot.
>>46853076
Got an awful lot worse after 3e.
Pandering to the MtG crowe was good for sales, not so good for the health and attitude of the hobby.
>>46853280
>That's not so much my cup of tea. I mean, level 20 is a borderline god at that point.
A lot less so back in 2e.
I mean. Yeah; you were powerful and it was hard to kill you but there were still plenty of things that could kill you. The Wizard was closest to what you were describing, but still not quite.
You basically got "borderline God" from everything after with a game system designed by guys who never played the prior edition and had more experience making collectible card games.
Your statement is true, but only to a certain degree and it relies on a lot of basic assumptions that aren't always accurate.
>>46853847
Honestly that sounds to me more like that they were fully aware that they had created a dedicated fanbase of unpleasable little shitheads and decides to just get an equal number of people pissed off then try to change the minds of mule-headed autistic fans who wouldn't step out of the way of a speeding car if there weren't rules written for doing so.
>>46854465
>I have a feeling that tabletop RPGs tend to attract people with high IQs and so on /tg/ I'm probably only average or even below average
Our society puts too much emphasis on supposed "genius" anyway, assuming all geniuses are scientists and shit because they equate "knowing things" with "biological intelligence", which is utter horseshit as every genius ever born was a dumb-ass baby who didn't know not to shit himself and his choice to learn things was a CHOICE and not a trait by birth.
IQ is also a terrible measurement of biological intelligence too, since it was actually designed to measure how mentally DEFICIENT you were, as a mentally deficient person would consistently score low from an inability to properly study for the test.
Even a completely average person with good memorization skills can study and get an astoundingly high score on an IQ test and then forget everything afterwords.
>>46854519
>for the last few months
....how long have you been coming here?
>>46859574
>Even a completely average person with good memorization skills can study and get an astoundingly high score on an IQ test and then forget everything afterwords.
Then why does everyone tell me that the point of IQ tests is that you can't study or memorise shit for them because that's not what they're testing for?
>>46852697
Fuck off back to WoW.
>>46859604
>Then why does everyone tell me that the point of IQ tests is that you can't study or memorise shit for them because that's not what they're testing for?
Most people don't realize what they ARE for. The test was originally created to test for severe mental retardation and the like, and while a higher score means you're much smarter it's a lousy gauge of actual biological intelligence because there's lots of very smart people who don't have knowledge because they aren't educated but are still extremely cunning and shrewd individuals.
And IQ Test tests your ability to TAKE TESTS, which a truly mentally deficient person would be naturally worse at and thus it's fairly reliable measure of their impairment.
>>46852934
Slings were in the fucking premise!
>>46859604
Never trust everyone.
>>46853699
A human being can not be submerged in lava. It is too dense you would float on it
Biggest problem here is 20 always hits, remove that and the archers cannot kill the hero encased in legendary armour.
This was one hell of an autistic thread.
I enjoyed reading through it immensely.
What I have gained from this thread? How to, as a wizard, kill Pit Fiends.
Magic circle summon one in the center of a large ass flat field, with a fucking army out of fireball range but within bow range. Keep him stuck in the center long enough for archer to pew pew him to death. Yes. This will be my plan.
>>46852266
Just give them double their proficiency bonus to appropriate skills.
>Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion +19
>Able to convince an ordinary, unskilled peasant of the downright absurd half of the time, or three-fourths of the time if they have advantage.
>Gets a +15 Deception versus Insight advantage over a generic petty noble.
>Insight +16
>Beats out a succubus's Deception 77.25% of the time (giving ties to the succubus)
Not a hard solve.
So, this thread has inspired an adventure:
>sucubus seducing nobles to attack a pit fiend for some reason
>party eventually discovers this after having unwittingly worked for the sucubus through two different employers
In a system where hitting was not tied to defeating armour this would not be a problem in the first place.
>>46863379
>>46862634
The 20 doesn't hit on a disadvantage.
There's a legendary armor that makes the fighter immune to non-magical damage.
The situation is absurd, designed so that it can't be overcome, and even then it fails.
If you drop the mob combat rules, which are completely optional, then the fighter pretty much wins.
A dex build Champion fighter with a longbow +2 would insta-kill 4 archers per round, missing only on a 1.
The archers, meanwhile, would be hard-pressed to ever hit him.
This is no different from sticking a wizard in a 30 ft pit, with no means of escaping, and having waves of scouts come near the lip, shoot, then retreat. Why can't the wizard escape? Well, he just happens to have not prepared any spell that could help him do this right now, and he's shackled to the bottom of the pit.
There. Proof that level 20 wizards are underpowered in the game.
The MM stats always only show a generic representative of their species.
For exceptional species like Pit Fiends and Solars, any one that's relevant (e.g. the Dark Eight) will have its own stat block, meaning it will have developed proficiencies and have unique equipment.
In short: learn to DM you fuck.
>>46865617
>There's a legendary armor that makes the fighter immune to non-magical damage.
Resistance, not immunity. Like, once a day.
Mob rules are not optional. They're default.
>>46852266
>the stats reflect the totality of the character
Go play a fucking video game, for fuck's sake.
>>46852697
I love how 4e is now ironically likable since 5e has come out.
By which I mean, you contrarian autists never fail to fail to surprise.
>>46866791
>When handling a crowded battlefield, you can speed up play by forgoing attack rolls in favor of
approximating the average number of hits a large group of monsters can inflict on a target.
Notice that it never states you have to, only that it is possible.
Even if you go for it, then, due to sheer size, you can adjucate the fighter no longer gets disadvantage on their rolls as well. Assuming, of course, they don't have the Sharpshooter feat, which takes that away in any case.
Really, the only fighter that gets boned is one with absolutely no range capability, no defenses against ranged attacks, no healing aids, no cover and who absolutely refuses to run in that situation.
As for the armor, no, it's complete immunity for 10 minutes.
>>46852510
>Political influence of a nation
>General of hell
>these should obviously both be CR20
>>46852816
This is not how mass combat in 5e works.
>>46859154
No, the 127 came from one I took back in high school, administered by said school, for...some reason, can't remember, it was 9th grade so this would be 14 years ago now.
But like I said, I'm not bragging. It's not that special - 1 in 5 people have an IQ as good or better, and plus like I said I'm pretty sure tabletop games tend to "collect" above-average IQ holders and so I'm probably at best average and more likely on the low end of /tg/'s average IQ.
If we were going by online tests then my "IQ" could be as low as 83 to as high as 214. I know that those online tests are, to put it charitably, bogus.
>190 IQ in Einstein's time is not the same as it is now.
To my knowledge Einstein never actually had an IQ test given to him; the 160-190 is a modern estimate based on whatever it is that modern people
>>46853630
DR, magic items
>>46867657
Damn, posted too soon for some reason.
"whatever it is that modern people use to estimate the IQ of dead people."
>>46867657
It doesn't even matter, since IQ is just a cup.
>>46852887
Homeless people totally have class levels. Ya gotta.
>>46852816
>resistance to nonmagical attacks
Good luck staffing an army with enough magical arrows
I find it funny that that is the LEAST of issues in your reasoning
>>46871192
Resistance = half damage, not no damage.
The dudes in >>46852816 would completely crush the pit fiend using the mob rules, which ignore advantage/disadvantage.
