Just noticed a funny thing.
Monks of the Open Hand get a fun little bonus whenever they hit with their Flurry of Blows:
- It must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or be knocked prone.
Note how there's no mention of creature size here. A Monk's DC is 8 + prof bonus + wisdom mod. Assuming 20 wis, the level 20 DC for the Dex Saving Throw is 19. The previewed tarrasque has a Dex saving throw of 0, which means 90% of the time, a monk can knock a tarrasque on their back with the touch of their hand. Of course, the tarrasque can just shove it off... but that seems like a pretty silly usage of Legendary Resistance.
A slightly more applicable usage of this would be knocking flying monsters out of the sky. The Ancient Red Dragon has a Dex saving throw of +7, so you knock an ancient red dragon out of the sky 55% of the time. (A flying creature knocked prone falls).
Now, how does a monk fly up to meet his enemy in the sky? Well, they could use an external resource like a wizard... or you could just be a Monk of the Four Elements. They can Ride the Wind (cast fly) and then use Water Whip to literally whip a dragon out of the sky (knocking prone). Best part is you don't need to get through AC... it's exclusively a dex saving throw.
Suddenly, I'm imagining a great monastery where monks train to fight giant titans and literally bring them down out of the sky. A tiny flying gnome monk whipping an Ancient Dragon's flight sky gives me the giggles.
Kalani wrote:
And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
I think the rule of "What? No." Overrides the rule of kewl.
Wuzzard wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
It depends on your view of D&D. If you like sword and sorcery epic heroics by all means slap that dragon. If you are in to a more simulationist approach tha's cool too and you table can certainly tone down the lizard slapping.
Atheosis wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Well then isn't it 'Rule of Cool' that my Fireball can incinerate the whole of Waterdeep, or my Fighter/Apprentice's Wizard Action Surge allow me to cast faster than an Arch Lich Wizard whose been studying magic three centuries longer than I have?
No it isn't - it's 'Rule of School' - and primary school at that.
Childish rules lawyering trying to exploit obvious rules errors and hiding behind the equally childish 'Why can't I can have nice things!' *stamp little feet* routine too often seen on these forums to justify other crap.
Nearly every other ability that knocks things down restricts it to Large or smaller creatures if carried out by a character. Saying you can slam dunk the Tarrasque with such an ability will be ruled firmly out until errata'd by any DM who doesn't think they are running a game of Exalted, in which characters are reincarnated Gods at the START of the game...
Wheaton's Law is far more applicable here - and those claiming Rule of Cool on this kind of thing need slapping in the face by Wheaton... repeatedly...
shamurai7 wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Wait, you're calling this a low-level ability, when the only reason the Monk is getting ANYWHERE with this is because of a high proficiency bonus and legendary-like Wisdom because the Monk is a high level?
Class features with ability score bonuses and proficiencies added are not "level-locked" abilities; they are scaling abilities. Sure, at low level, the feature is meant for breaking normal humanoids stances and whatnot, but this is one paragon of a Monk. This Monk's entire arsenal should be considered up there with casters of 8th and 9th-level spells, with Fighters who are somehow able to make 5 weapon attacks in 6 seconds, with Paladins turning into Angels and flying around the battlefield. 20th-level is when you're NOT realistic whatsoever anymore. Monks are the Oriental Martial Arts class. In all the films, shows, stories, etc, these sorts of characters not only gain new powerful ki techniques as they get stronger, but they HONE their more basic, groundwork abilities. To the Way of the Open Hand, this proning attack is a basic martial arts endeavour that obviously has been honed by the rules. You can see that in how it asks for Wisdom and Proficiency. If it was meant for just small fry, it would have a static bonus – but here, it scales both with your class level AND your Wisdom. The idea here is, as the Monk gets wiser, the strike's placement on various enemies gets more effective. And as the Monk gets more powerful in general, it also gets more effective. Rather than calling this a rules oversight, where other proning abilities are focused on larger or smaller creatures, I would instead offer (and rule in my games) that is was PURPOSEFULLY left like this so that Monks could, in fact, emulate the heroes of legend and fiction, to draw on those martial arts tropes. EVERYONE becomes supernatural by 20th level. What is it about the Monk's particularly flavour of supernatural that it shouldn't be allowed in a game? If it's because you don't like anime, wuxia films, martial arts tropes, etc in general, you might as well disallow the Monk entirely!
Also, as for Water Whip, that thing is ENTIRELY supernatural from the get-go. Why can't a 20th-level Monk create a Water Whip so huge that it could topple the Tarrasque? I would call these ideas by my players INVENTIVE.
What's so hard about saying Yes when the players think up a cool, flavourful idea? ESPECIALLY when they're beyond the point of disbelief already, being at the top levels possible?
Also, shamurai7, I would read the forum rules again – namecalling, even something like that word – is against the ToS. I'm not reporting you because you seem confused on the ToS, but someone else who's less forgiving or feels hurt by your words might. >_>
Caliburn101. wrote:
I'd be fine with this. I don't plan to houserule something away to make the game less cool.
Hmm, this is an interesting extension of the "Wizards Rule, Fighters Drool" phenomenom. Monks are clearly on the fence of this issue: be they magic or be they mundane?
To me, the answer is clear: they are using a limited resource and so it should work as advertised. In addition, the application of Ki clearly lets them perform magical things.
The fact that it is a low-level feature doesn't matter. Are you going to tell the caster who uses a cantrip "Sorry, that doesn't work...that is a level 0 spell!"?
Lastly, to me, the idea of a monk knocking down a huge (or bigger) creature also makes sense thematically. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is a monk expression, is it not?
If it's an actual magical "whip" of magic water, couldn't he just bind the Dragon's wings and thus justify the prone condition that way?
Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque rights itself upsidedown.
Stone to Mud
Dispel Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque falls into mud, upsidedown.
Mud to Stone - Tarrasque can't get leverage to right itself as it is pinned into the earth.
Leave it alone, or set up a roadside attraction charging coppers to "See the Tarrasque!"
Further, what if the tarasque had been turned into a slime?? What then! Oh, tha madness!
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
knightserpent wrote:
spelley wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
What does the math look like on the chances the 20th-level monk hits AC 25 at least once given two attacks granted by Flurry of Blows? With a Dex 20 and +6 Proficiency bonus, we're at +11 on the low end of attack bonuses. That's a 57.75% chance of forcing the tarrasque to make the Dex save. If the math is right, it goes up from there due to magic or whatever. Another +5 in bonuses, brings it up to an 84% chance. I think once you get to 20th-level, you've earned the right to smack monsters down.
So now what you do on the DM side is you go full on Man of Steel with it. Create a map, something like 70,000 square feet which is 20 "blocks" of 50 foot x 70 foot rectangles (roughly). If more than half the city is destroyed, the city is lost and the PCs lose. On any given turn, the Tarrasque can destroy one block. So the Tarrasque spends much of its time just rampaging and devouring the city, trying to get to its win condition (more than half the city destroyed). Perhaps it goes back to full hit points and recharges its Legendary Resistance when it takes out 10 blocks. Knocking it prone means a 50 foot by 70 foot swath of the city that it falls on gets reduced to a fine powder unless it falls in a block that is already destroyed or in an area like a park or field or whatever. Here the monk can go nuts knocking the Tarrasque prone, but he's going to have to be mindful of where he does it.
Hmm. I may have to write up this encounter and post it.
Atheosis wrote:
It makes sense if you want it to make sense and doesn't make sense if you don't. It's a fictional world of magic. You can choose to think of ways it doesn't work or you can choose to think of ways it does. Just know that it's a choice and that the choice you make may be sidelining the ideas and engagement of someone at your table.
Caliburn101. wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Guys, every other instance of knocking someone prone in the book limits it to either Large or smaller, or maxes at one size bigger than the character (which for most would be Large). I can only assume that this *Level 3* Monk ability would have the same restriction even if it's not explicitly stated. As a DM, I enjoy players being creative, but there's no way I'd allow a 6 foot tall character to leg sweep a 50+ foot tall legendary monster.
KarlB wrote:
Easiest way to resolve this completely pointless debate is to tweet Rodney and ask.
Let's start a list of all the spells that can push, restrain, or knock huge creatures prone!!!
Entangle
Entangling Smite
Forceful Blast (Eldritch Blast)
Grease
Telekinesis
Thundering Smite
Thunder Wave
Wall of Force
Web
I'm sure I'm missing more.
1eejit wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
I feel bad for the people who cry " I would never let this work " when it is exactly what is supposed to work. It makes no sense that it wouldn't work in a world full of superhuman abilities and magic and monsters.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dungeons & Dragonballs!!!!!!
That is the game your looking for right RAW lawyers?
Where you wear basketball shorts as armor because a misplaced comma makes them superior!
You punch a legendary Terrasque through the side of a mountain because the devs left out a clause!
You roll infinite damage dice because of an improperly placed proper noun!
You chop of an epic monks fists and make nunchuks from them because monks fists do 1d10 each!
BUT THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT! lol... get real.
Personally, I have no problem with this. Epic level characters are supposed to represent the pinnacle of fantasy achievement.
- Epic Fighters are supposed to simulate the likes of Hercules, Perseus, Samson, Conan, Rurouni Kenshin, and the like.
- Epic Wizards represent the most powerful mages in fantasy: Merlin, Raistlin Majere, Elminster, Gandalf, Saurumon, Sauron, or Voldemort (ignore the fact that many of these characters are semi-divine).
- Epic Rogues represent the most legendary thieves, spies, assassins, etc.
Characters like Aragon, Legolas, James Bond, Xena (Warrior Princess), Indiana Jones, or real world legends such as Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Attilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Boneparte, or Alexander the Great wouldn't even count as epic....
At best, such individuals would be paragon-level (11-16). Sure, they are (world) famous and powerful - but such characters pale when placed alongside their betters (Hercules, Samson, Son Goku etc).
So why is it so difficult for people to accept that an Epic-level monk should simulate the ultimate expression of the trope - these being the Wuxia masters?
- Epic level monks should be able to approximate mythical wuxia powers such as those seen in many shonen anime or wuxia films.
A 20th level monk is one of the most powerful creatures in existence. S/he is equal in power to that of the mightiest of dragons, the most powerful of Fiends and Celestials (eg. the Balrog of Moria), and the most powerful of wizards (yes that includes Gandalf, or Raistlin). S/he is a Z-warrior among peasants, capable of performing amazing feats of Ki not seen in the real world.
It seems to me that some of these simulationists, cannot stand the idea of a 20th level non-spellcaster being equal in power to that of a 20th level wizard.
That is fine, but the only way you are going to simulate "realistic" martial arts is to put a level cap on non-casters. Nonspellcasters are limited to 11th character level (not class level). To breach the level-cap, one needs to be semi-divine; have at least 10 levels in a spellcasting class, or be artificially advanced beyond the level cap through powerful (artifact-level) magic.
Only by implementing a level cap will you be able to show a disparate power gap between mundane and magical characters. Without one, all bets are off and at the level that wizards are throwing meteor swarms, fighters and monks are bitch-slapping the Tarrasque.
Orzel wrote:
It occurs to me as well that as a Legendary Action (usable at the end of someone else's turn), the Tarrasque can move half its speed. Since standing up from prone costs half speed, that could apply. So monk could slap the beast down, but it gets up almost right away. Other players would have to ready actions to get any benefit from the creature being prone, if that's their angle, and that costs reactions, right?
There is one thing we are all forgetting when reading this thread....
Sure, a monk is fully capable of knocking the tarrasque to its knees (knocking it prone) and can do so reliably - if given the chance.
However, while s/he is fully capable of such a feat - we must be mindful not to view it in a vaccum, under "theoretical" conditions. It is the DMs job to challenge the players, at all levels of play. Sure, the monk might be capable of knocking the tarrasque prone, but by the time s/he is facing it - it should not be easy to do so.
These are epic-level characters we are talking about. The challenges should be epic in scope as well, and no - throwing more powerful enemies at the heroes is not what constitutes an "epic" challenge. At this level of play, the DM is supposed to be throwing everything at the heroes (including the kitchen sink) in order to provide an appropriate challenge, with each senario carefully planned in order to provide adequet challenge to each of the party members. If a DM is unaware of their monks ability to knock the Tarrasque prone, and does not plan accordingly - that is their fault as a DM, and maybe they aren't ready to run campaigns for "epic" heroes and should stick to a level cap they are more comfortable with.
As such, the DM should be making full use of the Tarrasques various powers and abilities, combined with liberal use of environmental and tactical challenges, in addition to time-sensitive choices, which put the heroes in a difficult situation...
For Example:
The Tarrasque was summoned by powerful cultists for a purpose (not just wanton destruction). While the heroes are distracted by the Tarrasque rampaging through a major city or assaulting an important Stronghold, said cultists are using the distraction to achieve their "ultimate" purpose (whatever that may be). The heroes are faced with multiple dilemas which they must solve, all of which are time-critical:
- Defeat and/or subdue the Tarrasque
- Prevent the Cultists from succeeding in their primary objective, knowing that these cultists are easily paragon and/or epic level characters in their own right.
- Prevent casualties and minimize structural damage.
The encounter would make full use of environmental hazards, tactical quandries, and the full array of powers and abilities of all enemies involved. The encounter would be designed as a split-encounter.... The players either choose a, b, or C).
- A) The players let the citizenry fight the Tarrasque using mass-battle and seige rules, perhaps bolstering their defenses before the assault and then hoping their preperation was enough. Meanwhile, the players confront the cultists directly, hoping to end the conflict swiftly so that they may aid in the defense.
- B) The players ignore the Cultists, and focus their attention on defeating the Tarrasque, knowing that as they do - the Cultists are drawing ever closer to fulfilling their ultimate objective.
- C) The players split the party, devoting some of their resources to both A and B simultaneously. This makes both senarios more difficult, but addresses both problems simultaneously.
Further adding to this senario, you could also throw something like an earthquake or errupting volcano into the mix (either caused by the Tarrasques awakening, or the ritual that summoned it).
Sure, the monk might have the power to kick it on its butt....but that doesn't mean that they will get the option to (at least not without considerable effort beforehand). If they do manage to overcome the challenges and get to a point where they can knock the beast prone - let them have it. They earned the right to knock it prone.
That doesn't mean it will stay down however, or that they will get a second chance.... But knocking it down once is the stuff that legends are made of.
Xilia, the Titan Slayer.... The legendary monk who knocked the mightly Tarrasque to its knees!
Great post, Kalani.
Yeah, if I can make a challenge out of CR 0, 0-XP, 0 damage seahorses, it should be easy to make a challenge out of the tarrasque even if the monk can knock them prone. A good encounter is more than just the monster in it.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
I guess the game being played at some tables is "Guess What the DM Will Allow You to Do Against the Tarrasque." Guess correctly and you are magnanimously granted the player agency you mistakenly thought you already had!
Kalani wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don't ascribe too heavily to "making sense."
typically i ask, "what would be the most metal thing to happen here?" and do that.
For me, a Tarrasque that plods inexorably forward is fine. However, one that's charging down a town, only to be water whipped and knocked over, cascading forward on its side, causing subduction and an earthquake and knocking everyone within a mile over - that's freaking metal. I'm gonna do that.
Atheosis wrote:
This is a non-issue. By the time the players reach the Tarrasque, the campaign will already have gone on long enough that both players and DM will already know the expected "Suspension of Disbelief" level of the group. The player wouldn't try it in the first place if they thought it was too outlandish for the style of game; the DM wouldn't disallow it arbitrarily if it fit with the style of what had gone before.
Lawolf wrote:
5 panels stacked 4 high. Should do.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
What if the monk took some magical, unbreakable rope, attached it to the tarrasque's foot then used his awesome speed to wrap it around the tarrasque's legs a few times. Then when the beast tried to move forward, it trips forward on its face. Then someone flies in, shoots it in the head, and it explodes.
That work for some of you DMs or should I keep on guessing?
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"“Then someone flies in, shoots it in the head, and it explodes.
That work for some of you DMs or should I keep on guessing?”
That depends, Do the players have access to AP/11 Dual Laser Cannons?
iserith wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Still, this entire argument boils down to a congnitive dissonance issue.
- It is perfectly acceptable for a Wizard to topple the Tarrasque through magic, because we are conditioned to accept wizards who are capable of such feats.
- At the same time, most people here find it incredibly implausable for a monk to topple the same Tarrasque through magic, due to our understanding of RW martial arts and its limitations.
This despite the fact that both of them are performing the feat via magic (spells or ki). It is a dissonance disconnect that is occuring. One which I solve for myself by seeing the ki-wielding monk as being a shonen or wuxia style monk, one who routinely blends magic and martial arts into a seamless whole.
They are not RW martial artists....They have been blending magic and martial arts since 2nd level. This is RAW.
It is much more believable when you think of them as being masters of a magical martial art, than it is to compare it to a RW martial artist, whom would probably be better simulated by a Martial Artist Fighter Archetype.
The 5E Monk has more in common with Son Goku, Naruto, or a Wuxia Master from some movie, than s/he does with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, or a Shaolin Monk.
When viewed in that light, the congnitive dissonance dissipates..Z Fighters fight gargantuan dinosaurs as a training excersise (such as what happened when Gohan was trained by Piccolo).
A 20th level monk is probably equivalent to Saiyan Saga Tien, Yamcha, or Chaoutsu in power level, or possibly Saiyan Saga Gohan.
bawylie wrote:
Ok, cool, but if you're gonna change the hypothetical, you have to start there.
What astounds me most about this thread is all the accusations of 'rules lawyering'. If critically and creatively evaluating the rules qualifies me to be a 'rules lawyer', then sign me up for the bar. Talking about hypotheticals takes up about half of the posts on this board.
For me, the best way of evaluating rules in hypothetical situations is like this:
- Assume that there are no errors in the text. The Rules As Written are the Rules As Intended.
- Determine from that baseline assumption what the effects upon the world are.
- Evaluate those effects and decide whether or not to change the original rule.
That's much more interesting than just saying "well, that's not very realistic in this elfgame." The one comprised of dragons and magical balls of fire and giant, mytical dinosaur-things that are nearly impossible to kill.
What, exactly, are your qualifications for 'realistic'? To paraphrase Zak Smith: rules define your world.
D&D can absolutely simulate different fantasy tropes and settings at different levels. I mean, Gandalf was a 5th Level Magic-User, right?? So what does that mean for the 20th Level Wizard? Or the 20th level monk?
For my game, I love the idea of 20th Level Monks taking on mythical dragons and knocking them out of the sky. I can imagine the Monastery of the Wind Guardians, a legendary training ground for a secretive order of titan-slayers. These monks unlock the secrets of ki that let them fly up into the air and knock down flying terrors from their own natural habitat, armed with +3 Spears of Dragonslaying. Their master of the elements and their proficiency in titan slaying is so renowned that kingdoms from around the world travel to this monastery and beg the masters to come protect their country when it's being invaded by dragons. Meanwhile, Tiamat and her Cult of the Dragon Queen has planned an all-out assault on these heathens, to bring the full fury of dragon's rage down upon this place, and cement the power of the chromatic dragons forever.
I mean, doesn't that sound like more fun than "Nah, that sounds dumb, errata'd, stupid rules lawyer" ?
For me, it absolutely does. For you, that might sound silly. Okay, so we have different tastes. If you don't want to discuss more than that, that's fine. Meanwhile, I'll be over here with Iserith and Kalani and bawylie, planning out the Monastery of the Wind Guardian's epic battle through the city of Neverwinter as they try and stop a tarrasque from completely decimating it.
I'm not in principle opposed to the idea that the GM might disallow something that is allowed in RAW if it just doesn't make any sense. However, I am in principle opposed to the GM doing so unilaterally, with no attempt to compromise or work around the situation in a way that maintains the feel of the game without unnecessarily depriving players of their abilities.
I'm not quite sure why the monk knocking the tarrasque prone is such an unbelievable stretch. With a creature like the tarrasque, being prone doesn't mean its literally on its back. Even for regular humanoid characters, its would be kind of goofy if every time your fighter tripped them, they literally landed on their back no matter what. Sometimes they fall to one knee, sometimes they faceplant into the ground, etc. Prone covers all of these because they are similar enough that we can abstract them into the simple condition of requiring them to spend half their move speed or take penalties to anything they want to do, aka prone.
So if a monk is using their ki powers to knock a tarrasque prone, it obviously doesn't mean the monk is literally flipping the tarrasque over repeatedly. That would be insane. The simplest approach would be to say that their ki powers disrupt the tarrasque's leg, rendering it paralyzed for a moment, causing it to stumble and fall. That sort of thing seems pretty reasonable for a ki-powered monk; in fact, it's exactly how I would imagine a monk would approach the problem of fighting a tarrasque.
The tarrasque also gets special legendary abilities specifically to help it deal with these sorts of situations. So it may stumble from the monk's strike, but it hardly slows it down that much. It's not like letting the monk knock the tarrasque prone is incredibly game-breaking, it just slows the tarrasque down a bit and maybe lets some allies take advantage of the disruption.
This is a case where the RAW is pretty clear, and it doesn't seem difficult at all to imagine how it works in the world. So I don't see the need to knee-jerk ban it as though it were some ridiculously abusive tactic. Many quite reasonable players would assume they can use their abilities on the tarrasque, and to tell them they're being rules-lawyers and/or munchkins for making that assumption is pretty unfair. We're not talking about Pun-Pun here, we're talking about applying an annoying condition to a creature perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Yes, and just imagine how cinematic it is when the tarrasque goes down from the monk using his ki abilities - crashing into the mage tower and toppling it over into that crowd of fleeing people, its tail smashing the levies and flooding out part of the city, its bulk causing a tremor that opens a fissure of explosive gas. Now there are all manner of complications to deal with that speak to the tarrasque's raw destructive power. And all it took was getting out of the damn way of the player's ideas.
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
iserith wrote:
This thread is reminding of why I can't play with many D&D players (especially younger players). "But the rulebook says!" is quite possibly one of the most annoying things a player can ever say to a DM. If I'm the DM I say to the person playing the Monk "Hey the way that ability is written is silly to me, and likely an oversight, so I'll give you a choice: either it only affects large and smaller creatures or creatures may make a Strength save against it". And the people I play with would respond with "Cool, you're the DM. I'll choose x option." It's so freaking simple, but many of you seem to be the kind people who argue with DMs. I'll never understand why anyone thinks that's good for a game.
The inclusion of the wizard class is likely an oversight too. And the spells per day thing is riddled with typos.
Dont worry though, you can still play my sensible interpretation of what they obviously meant to put there instead.
Shadewyn wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
So a 6ft tall warrior being able to physically harm a 50 ft toll giant monster is believable?
The same warrior being able to withstand getting gored, bitten, and swallowed by this monster is also believable?
But a Level 20 monk, who spends supernatural ki energy to potentially knock such a monster to its knees...definitely totally no believable?
Ummm...ok...
Do your games ever get past level 10?
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Here is a simple hardline truth:
If you as a DM lack the skill, creativity, ingenuity, system mastery, maturity or skills to run high level adventures - Don't run high level adventures, or if you do - don't complain if your inexperience results in your players trivialize some encounters. See it as a learning opportunity. Learn from your players actions, and use it to design better encounters in the future!
If you are uncomfortable with their level of power, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking your players if you can restart at a lower level, or place a level-cap on experience, freezing players (and the adventures) at a level you are more comfortable with.
Any of these options would be the mature thing to do if you are out of your league.
Complaining about PCs making full (and creative) use of their powers, and/or arbitarily penalizing them for such is bad form. Bad form indeed.
Making ad hoc changes to the encounters difficulty however, is just par for the course.
- If this means that the Tarrasque picks up a building and throws it at the flying PC as an improvised weapon, or even as an AE attack - go for it.
- If this means having the Tarrasque fall on top of an important person, or structure doing considerable collatoral damage - go for it.
These are examples of saying: "Yes.....But"
Another example is to have the Tarrasque simply avoid the flying biting insect (flying mage with acid splash), and trample some villagers, or go munch on something less bitey, and more tastey - like the King.
bawylie wrote:
Nah, it's pretty clear how you roll. You've said so.
Atheosis wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
I'm reminded of a piece of artwork for 4e (I think it was) of a monk leaping up to smack a huge demon, her fist flaming with energy. At her feet, another of the same type of demon, dead, its chest caved in. Now, this demon she was leaping up to dwarfed her by approx. 20 feet, but it was clear that she was up for the fight.
Is it any different?
Dooflegna wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Noon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Physician, heal thyself
Dooflegna wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
So the description of flurry of blows say that you "manipulate your enemy's ki when you harness your own". This means the knock prone is not caused by the force of your attack, but rather by the manipulation of supernatural ki energy.
Also, the tarrasque has 25 AC. A level 20 monk has a +11 bonus to hit. Only one of the two attacks caused by flurry can trigger the Dex save. So the monk only has a 58% chance to hit big T each round. Even if big T fails 100% of the saving throws against the monk, he will only be knocked prone a little over half the time the monk attacks him.
That is much better than him constantly failing his save vs grease.
Stunning fist is a much more worrisome ability. Stunlocking enemies is no joke.
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
You also seem to be forgetting it gains 3 legendary saves/day.... Meaning it can completely ignore the Trip attempt, or grease effect should it fail its save, and the DM decides it is important for the story that it succeed.
This is also ignoring the fact it also gains 3 Legendary actions/round, and may also have lair actions we are as yet unprivy to.
Dooflegna wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
And that's where we differ style-wise Kulani. I don't want to design encounters around a poorly designed ability. I'd rather just limit it a bit (as should've been done by the designers). It's not like the ability becomes bad or useless if you limit it to Large and smaller creatures. And truthfully I don't really want a player in my group that would get bent out of shape over having such a cheesy and repetitive anti-big monster tactic taken away from him/her. I'm not saying your approach isn't valid, but it comes back to style once again. My group's style isn't to go that route anyway, and none of them will be upset if the ability is altered to only affect a certain size range. If a DM is playing with people who are bent of shape by things like that, then it is probably best to take an approach like you are describing. Fortunately I don't play with that kind of group.
Knocking big-T prone does almost nothing for the party!!!!
The reason you don't like it has nothing to do with game mechanics. It is all about your close minded ness and lack of adaptability as a DM.
Big-T could easily use legendary action to stand up right after the monk hits him. This means the monk basically wastes his spent Ki trying to knock big-T prone.
Besides, the fluff of the monk ability makes no sense as to why it would have a size limit. And if the PCs are heroic enough to stand toe to toe with a tarrasque, they damn well be capable of knocking it prone. It is no more unrealistic than a normal non-magical human being able to fight such a creature in the first place.
Lawolf wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the lack of a size limit is an oversight. It's a magical effect, so it does what it says it does.
If I were playing a monk, and my DM ruled that my powers didn't work as written, I would demand that he let me immediately trade it for a new power, since it's not fair to ret-con a player's abilities mid-fight.
Novacat wrote:
If the monk is magic enough to fly, then he can can force a save to trip a titan (and then get promptly eaten for his insolence).
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
spelley wrote:
Yeah, now that I think about it, changing the saving throw type is probably the best overall approach.
Lawolf wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I was not talking house-rules...I was talking RAW.
I did state for the record that this is one rule I have always disagreed with. I am well aware I can house rule this to suit my tastes.
However regardless of my own personal feelings or houserules, it does not change the fact that this is the RAW and RAI in respect to how Hit Points were designed, and intended to function.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
During my 36+ years of playing this game, I've observed a lot of DM's who believe that they are very even-handed in their application of "realism" within their games. All I can say is "know thy DM", but if you must go into a game blind, then play a wizard or some other spellcasting class, unless you relish the idea of playing Batman in a world where you can be Superman. During all my years of play, I have almost never seen the "physics" nerfbat applied to wizards. Sure, it can be interesting and even fulfilling to play Samwise Gamgee while your buddy is playing Gandalf, but only if you understand what you're getting yourself into. If you were imagining yourself as Achilles, then you're sure to be disappointed if your DM regularly changes rules for the sake of "realism".
1eejit wrote:
This tarrasque seems too small.
Leugren wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Absolutely - one that IS an adventure site.
Gonna take aa second look at Shadow of Colossus.
bawylie wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I'd like to have some "get up on him" challenge. And maybe a sort of under shell incursion.
Kalani wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
This argument is silly and you should all feel bad for participating in it.
Furthermore, anyone comparing the 50-ft. Tarrasque to the 50-m (originally, later 100-m) Godzilla needs to be slapped with a weasle and subsequently dismissed. The King of the Monsters does not approve of your flawed comparison to your little gnat of a monster.
Do whatever you want in your own games, but any claims that an extremely high-level character being able to knock a 50-ft. creature down by using mystical abilities as something ridiculous (or whatever dismissive and disparaging rhetoric that's been tossed about) is a claim that can't be taken seriously. With all the other stupid crap that extreme high-level characters have been capable of doing throughout the editions, and you draw the line here? Nope, slap yourself with a mackrel and get over it.
Leugren wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Gatt wrote:
kalil wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gatt wrote:
"...I punch the dinosaur in the feet and send it on its ass...."
If you say "no" (which can be a healthy response to some things life throws at you), according to some, you are blocking, not "incentivising".
Azzy1974 wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Honestly a high level PC is comparable to norse gods arent they. Isnt that something high level PCs do is become demigods or even higher. Iheard plenty of peoples campaigns go that far. In every edition even. I believe thor and his crew is in the legends and lore from second edition. While I dont remember their exaxt stats. They definately could be taken down by a powerful group of PCs. Now maybe your group plays it a little more realistic(and I mean a little in a game of dragon and floating eyeballs). But to say the intention of DND is not to punch a 50ft creature and knock him down, your strait up wrong.
masterfat78 wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
here is what some people want the monk to be in their dnd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw35hjUCMoI
Mostly young kids probably. Older dnd players never had or wanted anything like that.
1eejit wrote:
Novacat wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Some people should consider returning to their own table instead of telling others that not agreeing with your house-rules or sentiments is being a rules lawyer.
There is one underlining reason why this monk ability doesn't ever bother me much.
I don't include Monks in my game anyway.
At least not any version of the "monk" D&D has offered me in the present or past.
All attempts in D&D history that they made of creating an oriental-based class (whether realistic or based on oriental fantasy) were absolutelly horrendous. Monks, samurai, etc... The 5e Monk is no exception.
1) If I were to run an oriental-based campaign (as I have many times) themed for martial arts, and the sort of fantasy related to it in oriental folklore and myth, I would never ever use this monk class or almost any of the material that has been officially released as "oriental" by D&D in practically any edition. I find that they do no justice at all to this type of fantasy and utterly fail to capture its essence and fun. Every time my friends and I have run an oriental-fantasy game we did use D&D but we created an entire system of house rules for proper martial arts styles, special techniques, and the like. Because we always found almost everything D&D had to offer as oriental-based extremely bad.
2) Even worse to me would be to mix this kind of very badly-conveiced, pseudo-oriental-fantasy material, in a western fantasy-based game, ruining its theme with elements of poor design taste that don't even have anything to do with the theme.
I do have to make one exception, though.
The Complete Ninja's Handbook for AD&D 2e was actually quite good, and the only honest attempt I can think of by D&D to actually capture the feel of oriental martial arts and theme into the game. The martial arts system in it was indeed quite interesting if still rough around the edges at some points. This book was usually the base we used to develop our more elaborate and thematic systems for our oriental games.
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
I pointed out, about 5 pages back, that the Tarrasque gets Advantage on saving throws against magical effects (and the monk is clearly using a magical effect). There's no guarantee that this will knock the Tarrasque down, given that he has Advantage.
It's also not outside the realm of the DM to say something like this even on a failed save: "The water hits the Tarrasque with a mighty force, but the Tarrasque is mightier still. It doesn't knock him down, but it does stagger him temporarily." So, I think there's a little gray area that can be explored somewhere between "it works" and "it doesn't work."
ProphetSword wrote:
For those who are obstinate that the monk should be incapable of knocking down the tarrasque using high magic supernatural abilities, you better go and nerf your spellcasters considerably.
The mage has multiple spells, some as low as first level which can knock the tarrasque down (grease for example). Even when cast in a 1st level slot, grease has a good chance of proning the Tarrasque even when cast by a 1st level mage..... They wouldn't be able to do anything else to the Tarrasque, but they can certainly knock it on its ass (legendary saves notwithstanding).
As I said before, this entire issue is about cognitive dissonance.
- We are conditioned to accept astounding, highly implausable feats of magic from spellcasters - arcane casters especially. We blink off even the most unrealistic things as simply being "a wizard did it".
- At the same time, when dealing with classes inspired by real life (monks, fighters, rogues, etc) - it creates cognitive dissonance when those same classes perform extraordinary feats rivaling that of a wizard.
The problem herein lies in our frame of reference. We are grounded in the real world. No RW fighter, monk, or whatever is capable of these kinds of feats.... And you are 100% right.
Sample 5th-11th level Characters:
- Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Aragon, Legolas, The entire Fellowship of the Ring, Indianna Jones, James Bond, Joan of Arc, Atilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon Boneparte, Alexander the Great, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Ullyses/Jason, Son Goku (Journey to the West), Inuyasha, Spiderman, Kid Goku (Dragonball Era)
Some of the names on this list are world-class legends, one in a billion...... and by RW standards, you are 100% correct. However, by DnD standards - the individuals on this list are mearly heroic or paragon level characters. This is due to the fact that, while the above individuals are absolute geniuses at their profession, their skills pale when compared against the individuals in the next group, any of which would dwarf Bruce Lee in power.
Sample 11th-16th level Characters:
- Rurouni Kenshin, Naruto Shippoden?, Batman, Achilles, Perseus (mythology), Gandalf (LotR was a very low-magic setting), Sarumon, Naraku (Inuyasha), Sesshoumaru, Master Roshi, Toshiro Hitsugaya, Renji Abarai, Byakuya Kuchiki
Sample 17th-20th level Characters:
- Merlin, Raistlin Majere, Heracles/Hercules, Superman, Elminster, Perseus (Clash/Wrath of the Titans), Saiyan Saga Yamcha, Tien, Gohan or Raditz, Ichigo Kurosaki, Kenpachi Zeraki, Genryusai Yamamoto, Sauron
You are 100% correct that a 20th level monk is capable of impossible unrealistic feats....But then again, so is every other 20th level character! They don't have real world counterparts....None of them do. Their counterparts are literal figures of myth, legend, and pure fantasy.
A 20th level monk is equal in power to a 20th level Wizard
Lets let that sink in for a minute... They are the equal of someone who can throw meteor swarms, stop time, or cast wish.
That is how the game was designed. If you are unhappy with this, there are only two solutions you can take:
- Put a level cap on all characters at a more "realistic" level... This means adventuring in the heroic and possibly paragon tiers at most.
- Put a level cap on nonspellcasters only, making a lot of players unhappy.
Also, if you're afraid that a wizard's fly spell is going to beat the tarrasque, there's always this:
"Oh, the humanity!"
Or if you feel incredibly evil, replace it with a Draconic Tarrasque. You know you want to.
Yunru wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
ProphetSword wrote:
And then it takes a legendary action to stand up (or if you want RP sense, regain balance) at the end of the Monk's turn.
Lawolf wrote:
Am I the only who thinks it's strange that the Tarrasque is proficient in INT, WIS and CHA saving throws, but not STR and CON?
Shirebrok wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
So I guess the takeaway is not that you should do things that the rules seem to allow, but to work on how you present those things to the DM so that he'll be okay with it. If he suspects you of trying to exploit loopholes, then the answer will be "No." If he doesn't suspect that, you got a better chance of doing the thing you invested your character resources in. It's all in how you sell it.
Drycanth wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
the monk is not performing "judo" on the tarrasque at all. He is using the open hand technique that allows him to manipulate the flow of Ki in a targets body when he hits them with a flurry of blows attack. The monk cuts off Ki to a part of the body, which briefly makes the target lose balance and stumble. It has nothing to do with monks being able to throw 50ft tall kaiju monsters. If the Tarrasque can fall prone in a 10 ft puddle of grease, it can fall prone from having the Ki cut off to parts of its body.
/thread
I have one final thing to say:
The monk is a magic-using class. It makes this fact very clear in the description of the class, and its class abilities.
Deal with it.
I fail to understand why it is so believable for a wizard to perform legendary feats against the tarrasque via magic, yet it is simultaneously unrealistic for a monk to perform equally amazing feats via magic.
This is especially true once you consider the fact that the Tarrasque has a legendary resistance against the wizards brand of magic, and less resistance to the monks
All monks are martial artists.
All monks are magic-using martial artists.
The reverse is not true.
Stop trying to take the magic out of the monk.
Kalani wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Knocking a Tarrasque prone is pretty far from slam-dunking it. (It's a little worse for an Adult Red Dragon mid-flight, but I don't have too much sympathy for powerful fliers. 'Sides, if the player's doin' it, they're flyin' too, and thus similarly susceptible.)
There have always been things that can knock enemies prone regardless of their size. This is one example of such a thing in this edition. If it gets errataed then fine, but until then I don't see any reason to interpret it as anything other than what it says it does.
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
iserith wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
Reverse gravity + a handful of novice clerics can kill a tarrasque in a matter of minutes. The legendary CR 30 monster loses to a level 13 wizard with some level 1 cleric backup. With 20 level 1 clerics, they can kill Big T in under a minute.
Rathyr wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Here is a simple truth:
Any DM who has not written scripted responses to the PCs favored spells, tactics (including teamwork), class abilties, and magic items, and who fails to know exactly how each NPC or monster will respond to X, Y, or Z... is simply not doing their job properly.... With the exception of those gifted DMs who are skilled at improvising responses on the fly.
It does not reflect poorly on the PCs - but on the DM.
All this proves is that the DM is either, too inexperienced, lazy, or is simply under-prepared to run encounters for characters of the PCs level.
For Example:
- Having insufficient prep time before you start the encounter is a valid excuse.
However, if you are unable to devote a level-appropriate amount of prep time to designing and scripting the encounter - do not blame the PCs when they turn your encounter into a cakewalk. Accept the results as an indication that preparing encounters for your PCs requires more effort, and time commitment on your part, and that this may require more commitment than you are willing (or able) to provide.
It is not their fault you failed to plot out contingencies, and write out scripted responses to the heroes most common tactics, as well as any off-beat tactics you can imagine.
DMs running encounters for random PCs (such as Encounters or AL) have a much more difficult time, as they do not know each PC intimately, and have no framework with which to develop scripted outcomes. As such, their best option is to either have a high degree of system mastery, or to know what kinds of tactics are currently "trending".
iserith wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
iserith wrote:
Not really, sounds like a nice guy. Definitely nicer than limiting something in a group game for a mere matter of personal taste.
Yunru wrote:
Really? Most memorable campaign I've played was with a fresh-to-the-franchise DM with nothing more than the rules and a pre-made encounter to go on. Admittedly it was 4e so it might be different because of that, but it was the best fun I've had. We completely ignored the plot, accidently saved the day because the bandits were annoying us and helped Death set up a bar.
iserith wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There isn't general rules that 4 legged creatures get a stability bonus to their roles when knocked over, or that there are modifiers for size increments? While this monk ability doesn't state it, the general rules in these situations should still apply.
All that matters is that the Tarrasque should have his ugly face back:
Man, that's one scary bastard!
The later "Bowser Tarraske" is sort of ok... but he looks like he can be defeated if Mario jumps on his head 3 times.
Mecheon wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So let's get this straight, because you can cast fireballs in 5e without need of bat guano, 5e spellcasting doesn't feel like D&D to you?
Good to know.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
There is another D&D anime out there. Slayers. That one actually captures the feel of D&D much better than Lodoss War.
In Slayers, all the important characters are magic users. They fly around all the time blasting enemies with fireballs. In fact, fireball is probably one of the most used words in the show. Oh, and the fighter is there for comic relief .
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Personally, I prefer to have my D&D feel more like Pacific Rim.
The best way to fight the Tarrasque? Have the Wizard True Polymorph the Fighter into another Tarrasque.
Seuleslintan wrote:
yes this 20 times argument is good.
but its human sense. I would not allow grease to treat a tarrasque because the area effect is too small
maybe i would allow the monk to kick off the tar one time
ok the reverse grafity would deal 10w6 damage because of 100 feet
its a stupid discussion. every side is right
enjoy the game and play it on your table as you like ^^
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
Again its not about the specific rules. RAW is the cry of the rules lawyer trying to force an outcome on a group playing the game. Its all about a trick, gimic, or cheat that allows for the rules to take prescedent over the action of the game. Specificly when some one says "guess what if I take ABC and combine it with DEF I get a super XYZ result because of the rules interactions." Its not "I have a Grand Master Monk that can cripple opponents with his CHI blocking manuvers, I will use this skill on that tarasque to try to knock him down so we might easier kill him". If you argue rules over story to a group you place yourself in authority of what happens and at that point the DM only has one rule to stop you Rule 0.
Kalani wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Knocking the tarrasque prone doesn't make a game "anime." It is simply the DM applying imagination to find no issue with the rules as written and giving the player his due for making it to levels at which these things are possible for his epic magic-wielding character. As opposed to saying "No" to things "because DM said so."
The craziest thing about this whole debate to me is where the lines between "this is realistic western fantasy" and the overblown (and frankly wrong) "this is over the top anime junk"
I'm not fully up-to-date on my DnD books, but looking back at what I remember I never read about a wizard casting more than 2-3 offenisive spells, ever, and very, very, few utility spells. Like invisibility once, which of course fails at a story appropriate moment.
A level 20 wizard can cast, if they are novaing, 24 offensive spells? I never remember Raisltin doing more than 1 or 2 fireballs without hurting (he never did much obvious magic after he went dark as far as I read)
So, I've never read a "western fantasy" that came anywhere close to the wizard power-level we have.
Now, let's look at some anime
Action anime's do have over the top action. , but it isn't nearly as bad as some people think
Naruto (not naruto shippuden), which actually makes a great example for this thread, is actually not all that crazy when compared to DnD. Let's take out the super-speed, clones, and substitution techniques (I'm only taking out clones because the DnD equivalent of mirror image can't attack unlike shadow clones). We have throwing knives, fireballs, walls of ice, fog clouds, explosives, summoning otherworldly creatures, ligthning weapons and lightning bolts, force attacks... nothing that can't be replicated in DnD. Naruto also shows Ki (which they call chakra) working. The Hyuga's are a clan who specialize in using chakra to attack the nerves, and another character (who is a master and super medic) uses ki to scramble the nerves of an opponent. Both of which fit with what we're talking about with the tarrasque and open palm monk.
Let's look at some other anime though
Rurouni Kenshin (superior swordsmanship [one giant sword which disappears after an episode or two] but nothing too impossible that I remember)
Code Geass (giant robots and mind-control-like abilities, but I would not call it over the top super action, very dark and partially philosophical)
Ghost in the Shell (androids and sci-fi future)
Heck, if we want to avoid all types of action you have Maria Watches Over Us (life at a catholic girl's school in japan), Glass Mask (journey of a young up and coming actress), Hanako 6/17 (serious high school girl gets a head injury and her memories go back to when she was six and fun-loving), Allison to Lillia (alternate world, bi-planes, and friendship), Clannad (story about high school love and loss), Eyeshield 21 (football story), Prince of Tennis (tennis story)
And these are all just shows I've personally seen, there are many, many, many other types of anime.
So, please take this as a chance to educate yourselves. There is more to anime than Dragonball Z, Sailor Moon, and Bleach. There are many anime that are very deep, philosophical type stories about love, loss, death, society, community and the afterlife. There are dramas, romances, comedies. They are made for ages 5-85.
So degrading things as 90 ft tall swords, cutting buildings in half, and blowing up planets and calling all of that "anime" is like saying all american TV is Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty. Sure that's a section of it, but it is not the entirety or even overwhelming majority of it.
Chaosmancer wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
So how exactly do you avoid a "compromised, rumpus-room of D&D"?
Because at lvl 20 a fighter's making 1.5 attacks per second.
Because at lvl 20 a wizard's mocking gravity and then takes a piss on reality.
Because at lvl 20 a bard dies.
And that's to name two non-monk examples of the sort of thing that, apparently, is rediculous for a Monk to do.
I have no problem with the monks tripping power. I do think saves in general are a bit off. I think everyone should gain at least 1/2 proficiency bonus in all saves they aren't trained in, and legendary monsters should just be profficient in all saves. Its not bad at the lower levels, but at high levels PCs, NPCs, monsters will be facing 19 DC saves with +0-2 far too often. You shouldn't need to roll a 17+ to save vs anything at 20th level. The combination of +6 from proficiency and +5 from your stat is just too much when you are going against +0, and you just are going to have a bunch of +0-2s and they are not hard to figure out. 2e and earlier had it right, your chance to save sucked at low levels(but then again you werent't facing death spells generally) but from mid to high levels your chance to save was 50% or better. Maybe all classes should gain save proficiencies every 3-4 levels.
Yunru wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lets look at this logically.
You knock the Tarrasque prone.
What are the benefits?
- PCs within 5 feet have advantage on their attack rolls
- The Tarrasque has disadvantage on its attack rolls.
- The Tarrasque is forced to crawl.
What are the drawbacks?
- The monk is standing adjacent to the Tarrasque.
- Allies with reach weapons have disadvantage on their attack rolls
- Ranged allies have disadvantage on their attack rolls.
- The Tarrasque has multiattack (5 attacks)
- The Tarrasque has +19 to hit with all of its attacks
- The Tarrasque hits most characters on a 2+, even with disadvantage.
- The Tarrasque has a Legendary Bite action, and the Swallow Ability.
Conclusion: Being prone is an advantage for the Tarrasque, which wants the PCs in range of its multiattack.
Why are you helping the Tarrasque TPK the party?
You just fed the Tarrasque the monk on a silver platter, and imposed disadvantage on your ranged allies attacks. Sure, your melee allies gain advantage on their attack rolls, but only if they bring themselves in range of its multiattack.
Were I the DM, I would make the Tarrasque fall prone voluntarilly at times.... Being prone grants it a huge advantage.
shamurai7 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I'm playing sword and sorcery not DC and Marvel comics or superhero RPG's.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The highest I can get a non-pure-barabarian character's AC to (including known magic items), is 25. And that's requiring a 20 in Dex, a 20 in Con, a barbarian's Unarmored Defense, a Shield and a Bracer of Thingy.
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Actually I've always pictured a proned tarrasque as falling to all fours (due to a loss of balance), before simply ingoring it because it's still a BAMF when on all fours. Provided it's not on all fours already, since it's not exactly dumb (read: combat wise, not intelligence wise) and, as stated, being on all fours is benefical to it.
Yunru wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Yunru wrote:
But would you not agree, "Flipped onto it's back like a turtle" is not Prone.
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Last I checked, you cannot crawl if you are flat on your back. The prone condition allows this.
In any case, I am tired of this debate. Its pointless.... I have already proven the monk gains no significant advantage in attempting this, and in fact puts both himself/herself and the party at a disadvantage for doing so.
Those bent out of shape about how realistic a monks magical attacks must be, are not going to change their minds no matter what logic is presented to show its a non-issue.
Feel free to rule it however you want. It doesnt bother me in the slightest... Just expect monks to be allowed to perform this reckless (and IMO suicidal) maneuver in an AL or Encounters game. I however, am going to go discuss something more interesting.
Kalani wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Chaltab wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chaltab wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
~~lying flat, especially face downward.
"I was lying prone on a foam mattress"
synonyms: (lying) face down, face downward, on one's stomach/front; lying flat/down, horizontal, prostrate
"his prone body"
they are correct. It specifies face down not on your back. Multiple times is says front.
so the prone condition knocks you onto your stomach/ face. Now can you say that you still think a monk should have the ability to do this on every attack that rolls more than a 2? Thats the stated mechanics that the OP puts forward. It is clearly a cheat and a broken rules interaction designed to try to force a specific result on the play group. The specific mechanical effects do not matter. You can be sure that some one will find a way to exploit that prone tarasque via some other rules interaction to make the situation grow even more rediculous and broken. Rules lawyers only care about winning. They are nothing but WAAC (Win At All Cost) jerks that ruin the fun for every one else.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
I personally used flipped over like a turtle metaphorically, although 4 legged creatures on their belly is more sitting then actually prone, nor do i see a 4 legged creature as ever crawling, something one can do while prone, since the definition of crawl is walking on all four limbs and well it walks on all 4 limbs already.
Being knocked on it's side is the more applicable meaning in tnis case, not really the issue, it is the whole knocking it down that is the issue, not the minor details of how it lands.
it is not a tarrasque that is the issue either, it is the relative differences in size, scale and general stability (4 legs) that is the issue.
MrCustomer wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
It seems to me that at some point a creature would be large enough that the same ability that could prone a medium to large creature would not be able to succeed. Even if you consider the flavor of the ability, being ki, aka magic, and disrupting the creatures own ki. How much ki can an epic monk disrupt? Isn't there some limit? Most spells have limits; the size of a door you can knock open, the area of effect, the size of a wall, etc. The lack of a limit or a way to adjust for creature size seems an oversight, so a wary DM would be justified in suspecting the rule as intended might be different than written, and so would be easily justified to to rule 0 it in a reasonable way.
Maybe the tarrasque is not that big. Maybe the epic monk should succeed at this task. Yet could there be a creature large enough where it would seem rediculous to suppose anyone could knock it prone? The size of a mountain or maybe a small moon?
A DM wanting to have a world follow predictable, sensible rules is not a bad DM. The DM's job may be to enable everyone to have fun, but that doesn't mean kowtowing to an unreasonable desire, or a slavish adherence to RAW. The players have fun when everyone understands or is able to predict the constraints placed on them. No one has fun when a single player upsets the balance by insisting on RAW when RAW leads to a rediculous result.
There was already a suggestion earlier in this thread which would solve the problem easily.
Simply change the saving throw from Dexterity to the creatures choice of Strength or Dexterity (based on the escape grapple rules). Bigger creatures would normally make a Strength save, while smaller (more agile) creatures would opt for a Strength or Dexterity save (depending on stats).
Under this system, the Tarrasque would make its saving throw at +10 (with advantage). Chances of it succeeding on this save are quite high, with an average Strength save of ~25 vs. a DC 19 check.
Problem solved, without any need to say "no".
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
I'm just curious, for some of you the issue seems to be we're talking about the Tarrasque, legendary creature of destruction.
So let's expand this a tad, what other high-level creatures would you refuse to allow the monk to knock prone (or as some people say "be turned into a cartooon stumbling buffoon")
Liches?
Ancient Dragons?
Giants?
Beholders?
Balors?
Pit Fiends?
Demon/Devil Lords?
Elder Elementals?
Hydras?
Mind-Flayers?
Mummy Lords?
Vampire Lords?
All are meant to be massive, terrifying threats, meant to instill fear into the PC's. We don't have the stats for them yet, but size and threat very rarely change that signifigantly. Where is the line of "he's supposed to be scary so I can't have you making him look like a bumbling fool"? Many of the medium sized threats are undead, should that make a difference in the monk's maniulation of ki? Giants only have two-legs, does that make a difference in how they can fall prone? Beholder's typically hover, what about them?
I could find a reason not to let the monk use his ability against every thing on this list, but then my high level open palm monk, or elemental monk is getting shorted on his abilities. Why? Because I want it to be cool for the group? What is more epicly cool than telling the story of how your bare-fisted monk toppled a mountain (elder elemental)? I think that is literally an eastern legend. The Budha (20th level monk equivalent) was said in one tale, if I remember correctly, to be an immovable center against an army of demons. We are talking literal god-like tales, against appropriate foes, but it isn't "realistic" and it will "break suspenion of disbelief"? But the wizard can warp reality because he's magic? The cleric has a literal hotline to the gods? Paladins become angels and primal spirits? Barbarians get strength scores 4 points higher than any mortal, they physically enter into the realm of the gods and spirits with 24 str and con.
Deciding one is realistic and the other isn't, which has story and mechanical implications for how one class can be played as opposed to another, is favoritism. Sayig the monk ability does not work as written is like saying barbarians can't have 24 strength, because it isn't realistic for mortals to be that strong. You are hurting the core assumptions of the rules and the players, who expect their abilities to work as the rules state they do.
And before someone replies saying that the Barbarian's ability is different because it states that they can break the 20 score limit, I can just as easily respond as people have responded to the monk ability. "It must be a typo, because that isn't how all the other classes abilities work. Stop trying to use RAW to break the reality of the setting. I'm the DM and my job is to guard against things like this making my game into a superhero action story, we're playing wreaistic western fantasy not whatever it is these young people want"
I know I probably didn't convince anyone, but this is something I just don't get. This isn't powergaming, this isn't misinterpretting the rules, this isn't trying to make the game into something it isn't. This was an intentional move, by the devs, to highlight how the monk is different and what they can do. Sure they can start this at low-levels, but the save is low and actually that even increases the likelyhood this is working as intended. This is something open palm monks can do, that no other class can do. It is what defines them, using their ki to do what would normally be considered impossible
"It stumbles over and smashes the orphanage and then at the end of your turn bites as you with its legendary action."
I would far FAR rather a DM said "No, that doesn't make sense. What else would you like to try?" than "Yes, your power works. And then kills dozens of innocent children. HAHA!"
That's kind of a dick move, really. "No" would be preferable to "Yes and...now you're hosed.".
DemoMonkey wrote:
No thanks. I'd much rather have a straight "No" that would let me do something else than a punitive "Yesand".
Sometimes the best consequence is "It doesn't work, but nothing bad happens.".
DemoMonkey wrote:
Here is the thing... Saying "No" shuts down options. It does nothing to drive the story forward. In fact, it is jarring and disruptive to the atmosphere and tension.
Good narrative style involves keeping the story flowing, not creating awkward jarring moments where the players sit and rethink things.... As such, a good DM learns how to say "yes but", and alter the outcome of actions so that they are more in keeping with what the DM wants, while at the same time looking for ways they can use the players actions to drive the story foward, and/or introduce new complications.
Saying "No" outright, especially if you do it as your default response - Is railroading. You are well within your rights to use railroading if you believe it is appropriate, but lets not mince words and pretend its something it isn't.
Limiting player actions, and nerfing fixed abilities is nothing short of the DM railroading the player and taking their options away. Like it or lump it, thats what it boils down to.... It ticks me off that many DMs feel justified in railroading the "martial" classes in the name of realism, yet for the most part allow spellcasters the full range of their abilities, limited only by their own imagination.
Wheaton's Law: Don't be a jerk.
A monk is not being a jerk for using their fixed class abilities, the way they were intended. A DM is being a jerk by imposing arbitary limits for the sake of "realism" - especially, when it grants the monk no advantages (as I proved some upteen posts previous)....
USING THIS ABILITY AGAINST THE TARRASQUE IS A BAD IDEA!
It actually makes the combat that much more difficult, due to the disadvantage it imposes on all ranged attacks - and the fact that the monk has just painted a bullseye on themselves for the Tarrasques bite/swallow combo.
Using this ability against a lot of large creatures is a bad idea....Most huge or gargantuan creatures hit like a truck, and have 10 foot (or better) reach.
Kalani
"Here is the thing... Saying "No" shuts down options. It does nothing to drive the story forward. In fact, it is jarring and disruptive to the atmosphere and tension."
That statement is at the core of the philosophical difference. You hold that statement to be an irrefutable fact. I hold it to be "Yep, sometimes that's true. Sometimes it isn't." Everything else stems from the fact that that foundation point, is not one we agree on.
"Wheaton's Law: Don't be a jerk."
But see? THAT one we agree on.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Kalani wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
THE DM is not GOD
Despite apocryphal claims to the contrary.
Nor are they a Feudal Monarch
With the authority to make arbitary decisions without consultation or approval of their "lessers"
The DM is an "elected" Official
They have been granted a position of trust by their players. Yes this position is one of authority, and grants executive decision making powers, but at the same time it is a position of responsibility. As an elected official, it is your job to act as a representative of your constituents.... In this case your players. Abusing your authority, and disregarding the wishes of your players is no different than an elected official doing the same thing in government.
Abuse of Power should not be tolerated or condoned. If you cannot act with all due process as a responsible DM who maintains fairness and integrity, you should step down and let someone else take the reigns.
You are not a Dictator.
Stop acting like one. The people at your table are your peers, friends, and equals. Treat them with the respect they deserve, and learn how to compromise, and negotiate with your players so that everyone is happy with the results. Else, you may find yourselves without players before too long, unless they have nobody else to game with - in which case I feel sorry for your players, because you are most definately "not" treating them like a friend.
Dont be a Jerk
Kalani wrote:
My last post was little more than a summary of the things I have said half a dozen times throughout this thread. About the only thing that was new was my analogy to an elected official, vs a dictator or monarch.
You may see it as "ironic", implying I have been dictatoral - but when viewed in context with everything else I have said in this thread, you will see that I am only trying to convince people that the people at their table are not to be treated with contempt, and should be treated with respect, understanding and a willingness to negotiate a compromise.
I have also shown myself receptive and understanding of the opposing POV, and have suggested multiple methods by which they might resolve their internal conflct with the rules without outright rejection of the attempt. Some of these suggestions have included house rules (such as altered saving throws), which would be more pallatable to those having such difficulties.
I have spent hours in this thread, pouring through textbooks and coming up with solutions to this (rather trivial) problem, without resorting to heavy-handed rulings caused by cognitive dissonence. I have spent my precious time trying to help the opposing side find a balance (or ruling) they are happy with, so that they don't unfairly penalize their players. I honestly don't care about "winning" any trivial argument (if that is what you believe). All I care about is improving the quality of experience at the gaming table.... This is a non-issue to me, and as such - I could have walked away at any point... But I chose to stay in order to try and negotiate a compromise the opposing side is happy with.
I have been nothing but concillitory and diplomatic in the face of obstinance. It is not my fault that there are many people in this thread who are not even willing to entertain the thought of compromising with their players to come up with a happy median, which reflects poorly on them as a person, and as a DM - especially if their players are supposedly their friends.
ok learn what railroading is you are missusing the term http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading
"The first rule of being a good DM is to remember that the rules are a tool that you and the players use to have a good time. The rules aren’t in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game."
the rule book would like to argue who is in charge.
Kalani wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Kalani wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Atheosis wrote:
animeus wrote:
Metagaming in that situation would be the wizard somehow having prior knowledge of the Tarrasques magic immunity, without first making an Intelligence (Arcana), or Intelligence (History) check, or having done in-game research into the beasts weaknesses and strengths.
History CheckA history check in this example may relate the character having learned of a historical account of the Tarrasques last appearance at the end of the Shingari Dynasty. Such an account may relate "eye witness" testimony of the beast being immune to spells. Fireballs and lightning bolts had no affect on the creature, and in fact some witnesses claimed they saw spells reflected back against their caster.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Damn, this thread is still going? You guys just need to accept that you have fundamentally different DMing philosophies. It's okay.
Kalani wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Just so I'm clear, if errata for the ability were were to come out adding "to a creature no larger than Large" to the description, everyone would be 100% on board with the ability NOT working on the Tarrasque, right?
So the whole discussion actually has NOTHING to do with Monks or Tarrasques or Prone, and is only and entirely about "Do DMs have the authority and responsibility to override printed rules when they feel it's appropriate?"
Have I stated it accurately?
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"To me it's about whether or not a player can count on abilities they have invested in and understand the rules by which those abilities are governed without getting gotcha'ed by the DM. "
I absolutely agree with that.
However I believe by the time the table gets to the Tarrasque fightin' stage, the players and GM will already have a common consensus on how elastic the reality of their game world is. The DM would not even NEED to say "Uhhh, you know that's impossible, right?" because the player would know, based on the play experience up to that point.
The only time this example could possibly actually happen, would be in organized play, or with a DM and players who had not played before starting a campaign at high level. In the first case, the DM should use the rules exactly as written; it's not their job to interperet. In the second, the DM and Players should both know there is a learning curve.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Yeah. It also seems designed so you can fight it.
Like if you were gonna do a plot monster, a la Godzilla, you maybe wouldn't even bother statting it up or giving it dimensions that are within reach, or HP that are within murder-space.
I get the desire to use it as a plot monster, but we have to telegraph that fact. I think.
bawylie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I edited my above example and gave two separate endings. An incomplete/partial ending, and a complete victory ending. Both of which would be based on the players choices at the end of the City Defense encounter.
I should add for clarification though, that in the final encounter - I would let the PCs use all of their various skills and powers without any restraint - this includes monks being able to knock it prone if they so choose. I however, will also not be restraining myself when running the Tarrasque. As it would be the capstone encounter for the PCs entire adventuring career, it would also be a no-holds bared encounter.... As such, I would be trying everything in my power to TPK the party. You don't track the Tarrasque to its lair, and expect it to go easy on you.
If the party is TPKed, I would then present them the Total Failure ending....Through the eyes of their next PCs, who visibly watch the results of their prior parties failure in the opening scenes of their first adventure. Their failure would become a backdrop, or setting piece for the next campaign.
I don't see it as "The Tarrasque is pathetic because Epic Level characters can defeat it," I see it as "Epic Level characters are amazing becuase they can defeat the Tarrasque."
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
But what if a wizard gets lucky with True Polymorph and turns it into a literal monkey? Or into a brick? :P
Yunru wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gatt wrote:
I'm actually planning on bringing the Tarrasque into my game. Of course, since I'm running a game on a hollow planet, the Tarrasque doesn't live inside the planet.
It lives in one of its moons, and will rip its way free when it wakes and plummet to Mystara's surface in a ball of flame - a huge, living meteorite that will uncurl and begin destroying whatever it finds.
The troglodytes are going to be trying to wake it using an artifact stolen from the vaults of the Glantrian Prince-Magician. When it is put back into its slumber, the Tarrasque will return to the moon, which will heal around it.
Atheosis wrote:
Gatt wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
animeus wrote:
Wizard can just Wall of Force the Tarrasque up so it can't do anything to them while they pelt it with cantrips or something.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
animeus wrote:
Knocking it over is probably the weaker option for a high-level Open Hand monk to use against the Tarrasque.
Just repeatedly hit-and-run with your 60ft speed, bonus action Dash, using Quivering Palm on hits.
After all the Legendary Resistance uses are finished cross your fingers for luck or have a friendly Divination Wizard able to see the Tarrasque.
Kalani wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Kalani wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Actually, you can make a "hemispherical dome or sphere", according to what EnglishLanguage wrote.
It doesn't have to be a flat plane.
Ofcourse, the spell says you can't do what he proposes RAW, but it's still awesome.
EDIT: I'd probably offer to allow the expenditure of a higher spell slot to control the shape/dimensions the turn after it's cast.
Then he could squish the Tarrasque.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I wouldn't as your "box" would be functionally equivalent to a dome. I would however, allow the player to describe their dome as a box if they so desired. It is mechanically identical when you view its effect on a grid, - wherein the "dome" is functionally a 10 ft cube made up of 5 flat 10-foot panels.
Based on that interpretation - a dome is half as big as it would be if made using the 10 panels themselves, implying that creating a 3-dimensional effect wastes some of the spells magic.
sailoroswald wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ah, disingenuous, purposeful misreading of spells, I was waiting for this.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Let's see...
Assuming we use 3e's grid template for circles, using WoF as a dome would capture 12 Medium-sized creatures.
If instead you choose to create flat surfaces, but allow corners and the wall is "drawn" on the sides of the squares, then ten panels will trap at most 24 Medium-sized creatures; 2 panels wide by 3 panels long, each panel is 2 squares wide, so 4 sqaures wide by 6 squares long for 24 squares total. However, the top is open, so escape is possible (flight, climbing...), as well as throwing stuff out (and in!). If you close the top, you sacrifice some surface area, and can only trap 8 Medium creatures, and have two panels to spare.
Alternatively, if a wall takes up a whole square, as it does in 4e, then your wall will be 6 squares on a side (top open), with up to 16 Medium creatures inside. Top closed, you trap 8.
Allowing corners in a wall will be much more efficient if you use the first method, but the second seems more balanced with the dome. Both allow for irregular shapes (as opposed to the dome), although the first method has a clear advantage in that regard.
I suppose it comes down to what rules would be used for creating walls on a grid, but it seems the PHB is silent on that matter. If walls are drawn on the sides of squares, then I can understand not allowing corners.
Kalani wrote:
iserith wrote:
No. He's saying it's harder for an arrow that hits to strike a vulnerable point and deal damage.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
1. Then make one up that isn't rubbish by your standards. If you say there isn't one, then your imagination is the thing that is rubbish.
2. You're right there.
Kalani wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
animeus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
1. That's a sign of an imagination that is rubbish.
2. No, just the ones who refuse to use imagination to create non-rubbish explanations for things.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don't think Iserith was trying to simulate any other rule. He was using his personal ability to find creative fluff reasons why the rule as written should be used as written, no rule 0 needed. This stems from a philosophy that it is never necessary to adjust a rule, since you can always find a one off creative reason for why a mechanic just works in this specific instance. Trying to justify this narrative by tying it to other rules may be possible, but ultimately unnecessary.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
iserith wrote:
Yous gus need to get a room.
Gatt wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
If you want.
IMO, when not prone it presents more opportunities to effectively damage it with ranged attacks.
Id like to see a called shot rule in general though.
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
And that's where I get stymied again. What do we expect a called shot to do? Should we leave this open?
Can it be a kill-shot vs an unaware target?
What should we say Yes to?
What is reasonably out of bounds?
Whats the standard.
I feel like anything plausible should be possible. Even if plausible is very unlikely.
bawylie wrote:
In my opinion called shots are simple. A called shot to a vital area requires a critical hit. If you hit but do not critical you miss your targeted area but deal damage normally.
Called shots to larger, less vital areas may occur on a 19-20, 18-20 or 15-20 as appropriate. If you have an ability which increases crit range, it applies to these attacks. As these are not vital areas, you deal normal damage however the attack may impose a penalty on the target on the target for one turn.
This would be a circumstantial penalty (disadvantage to attack rolls with the affected limb on next attack, disarm unless make a save, slowed, prone, etc).
If you make a called shot to an area requiring a crit - it deals crit damage in addition to a secondary effect if appropriate (1 level of fatigue, blinded in one eye causing disadvantage on perception checks involving sight, etc)
. If a called shot is made against a limb and it is a crit - the limb is rendered useless (severed ligaments/tendons, broken bones etc)
Where possible. Always remember the KISS rule. Keep it simple stupid
bawylie wrote:
Legs - speed penalty
Arms - disadvantage on Str/Dex checks, attacks, etc.
Head - dazed (denied bonus & reactions, more?)
Hand - disarm
That kinda thing?
bawylie wrote: