Do you ever just

>Me (DM): "Okay the wizard has cast fly on himself and has moved into the air! It's your move now!"
>Player: "Okay. I'll attack him with my longsword."
>Me: "Alllright. How do you do that?"
>Play: "Huh?"
>Me: "He's in the air right now. You need to be able to reach him to be able to attack him in melee."
>Player: "... uhm..."
>Me: "..."
>Player: "..."
>Me: "You could, attempt to jump up on a ledge to reach him? Or take out your bow and shoot him with an arrow? Or if you wanna be ballsy you could throw your sword up at him even though it'd disarm you."
>Player: "... I don't know."
>Me: "... well any of those will work, just so you're aware."
>Player: "I dunno I skip my turn."

Other urls found in this thread:

knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee
youtube.com/watch?v=tYKPdNvH800
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Are you playing with actual retards? I've had some dumb players, but never this fucking stupid.

Me: "I pull out my net and try to catch him and pull him back down, of course!"


it really does annoy me too that so many players think they're stuck with only being able to do one specific thing, or only fight in one narrowly confined style. Come on, you tards.

From what I've seen of the guy he's an okay dude but he's like, got super social anxiety and might also be kind of autistic.

He likes to plan out moves 1 or two turns in advance and when presented with a situation where he needs to do something *now* he just freezes the fuck up and can't register anything.

What I showed was just the most egregious example of his playstyle but in general he just can't seem to come up with any idea on the fly and when he does actually get a plan going the moment you force him to be even a little bit flexible he just turns mopey and stops doing anything until the other party members need to rush in and save his ass.

Example: his cleric thought it'd be a good idea to intimidate the goblin horde by lighting some oil on the ground and trapping them in a circle of fire (well more accurately a corner with some fire around them). Me, remembering a few of them were wizards who had some basic cold spells, responded by having them attempt to put the fire out with ice and... he just fucking froze there and did nothing until the other party members stepped in to shoot at the casters through the fire.

Like, I almost feel like in order to give this guy any amount of time in the spotlight I need to just do exactly what he wants without even a mild amount of struggle or change in tactics.

>it really does annoy me too that so many players think they're stuck with only being able to do one specific thing, or only fight in one narrowly confined style. Come on, you tards.

Oh my god this.
*Wizard flies up*
Waaaaah martials cant do anything they suck!
Dude just pull out a longbow
I don't have one.
Why not?
Because my to-hit with ranged weapons sucks!
So you're just going to sit there with your thumb up your ass all combat instead of at least ATTEMPTING to do some damage?
Yes. And that's why martials are bad!

I mean to be fair a wizard can switch between melee and ranged and relies primarily on Intelligence for both possibilities while a martial relies on Strength for one and Dexterity for ano-

OH NO YOU LE *DON'T*

that's true, but what drives me up the wall are those dipshits that think it is somehow better to just not attack at all, instead of attacking with a penalty. Like somehow they are going to un-hit the opponent or something.

RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


I fucking hate people like that.

For a while, I tried to make microlite20 work.

I offered stunt bonuses and created dynamic situations where they could do heroic shit and stuff.

"I walk up and hit him. *roll die*"

That's all they ever did, because "Without feats and combat maneuvers, there's nothing to do"

>Player insists on playing a hacker-class character in a combat-focused campaign
>Party is fighting an archangel on top of an office building
>Hackerman succeeds in hacking the lighting system
>I ask him what he wants to do with the lights, thinking he might try to summon additional help by flicking them or shining them at the archangel to blind him
>"Turn them on and provide a critical hit bonus."
>Tell him that fluorescent light does not have this effect
>Rest of the party laughs at him
>He gets pouty and surges the grid, blowing all the lights and reducing the party's hit chance
>Jumps off the roof
Why even play?

>DM: The enemy has damage reduction
Rogue: Okay well it's impossible for us to kill it.
---
>DM: The enemy is immune to critical hits.
Rogue: I can't do anything
---
>DM: The enemy damages you a little if you hit it in melee.
Rogue: So it's impossible for us to fight it without dying.
---
>DM: The enemy is heavily armored, you need to roll like a 13 or higher on the die to hit it.
Rogue: So I'm never going to be able to hit it.
---
>DM: Standing up is a move action, so you can't stand up, run over, and still attack.
Rogue: So this turn I do basically nothing.
---
Rogue: I want to do something clever and cool.
>DM: Cool idea, although doing that will provoke an attack of opportunity so you might-
Rogue: Nevermind then I'll just stay still and do a full attack.
---
Rogue: I get an extra attack with two weapons?
>DM: Yes but it's at a penalty.
Rogue: Well that's broken.
---
Rogue: What do you mean improved critical and keen don't stack?
>DM: Well you're already using a shortsword which criticals 2 out of 20 rolls. 4 out of 20 is kind of pushing it, and 8 would be completely nuts.
Rogue: Oh, actually, I'm using a kukri which crits 3 out of 20 normally, 6 out of 20 with keen.
>DM: And crit'ing 12 out of 20, which is more than half the time, seemed reasonable to you?
Rogue: Yes...?
---
Rogue: Am I flanking from this position?
>DM: No you're both on his left side, sorry.
Rogue: Alright well I'm useless.
---
>DM: Roll initiative.
Rogue: 27
Tank: 9
>DM: The rogue goes first.
Rogue: I charge into the room and get behind the enemy so I can flank it with the tank.
>DM: ...okay. The enemy is going to go next.
Tank: Why do you even have improved initiative?
---
Rogue: I hide.
>DM: You're in the middle of the room. There's no cover.
Rogue: Can't I roll stealth?
>DM: You have nothing to hide under, behind, or inside of, and the room is well lit. You also stabbed the enemy like 12 seconds ago.
Rogue: So what's the point of my +17 stealth skill?!

rogue_players.txt

Rogues are always that guy.

>DM: You have nothing to hide under, behind, or inside of, and the room is well lit. You also stabbed the enemy like 12 seconds ago.
If I remember correctly, that's only a -20 or so to stealth, assuming he has a distraction to hide with.

No, a wizard cannot "switch between melee and ranged". What is happening here is someone has optimized their fighter to do one attack really, really well, and when given a choice between something that gives them some versatility and something that gives them another +2 (effectively), they took the +2.

I could play a character with 12's in every attribute and have a good time. Some players just can't make themselves take the weaker attribute or feat. And when their narrow choices aren't rewarded by an imaginative DM, they turn into special snowflakes at the table.

>No, a wizard cannot "switch between melee and ranged"

You say this then proceed to explain that fighter players are just whiney babies.

Which okay whatever I'll give you but uh your post doesn't support your mission statement very well.

A combination of Anxiety and Apathy will choke the game out of you. I've played with ENTIRE GROUPS that do this shit.
>Is the action risky?
>Nah, won't do it. Not ever. Even if the risk is low, and the rewards high, if I could look like an idiot in front of people, I'd rather not.

>tfw when your players have almost died several times and are desperately struggling by on the skin of their teeth.
>They keep on keeping on.

I'm proud to call them friends.

To be fair, a lot of that can be chalked up to mistrust of the GM.

If the GM isn't willing to bend the rules to protect PCs from rules getting in the way of cool shit on occasion, and will punish you by removing agency(killing your character) for exercising freedom, then many players will go into videogame mode.

You have to actively cultivate a sense of trust and freedom with your players to encourage them to come out of that kind of play.

You used the term "mission statement" which added to your straightforward manner of answering, so I'll reply to you.

There is a strange class of wizard that is only talked about on gaming forums, and he's called the "Quantum Spellcaster". He has the weird and overpowered ability to have any spell the poster imagines he would need for any given scenario, and he would have it ready at that moment in the game (which he is never in, because he doesn't exist, except in game discussions).

Wizards cast spells, and those spells have ranges. That's it. If the player develops (or builds it) a specific playstyle, I will reward him by letting him feel like a rock star for a while, then challenge him and show him the weakness of his "build". Other players will have to pick up the slack. One example of this is the flying elementalist lightning-slinging caster. Pretty cool. Not so cool in the narrow confines of a dungeon.

Anyhoo, this thread is about dumb players, or the dumb habits they bring to the table. Challenge the players. Egg them on with promises of treasure and fame, then dangle the rewards just out of reach until they
>use their imaginations
>act as a team
>take risks outside of their comfort zones

Have some bewbs.

Of course, the corollary to this is the versatile caster (which I tend to play). My fireballs don't hit as hard as an evoker. My lack of divination specialization doesn't guarantee me to go first in the round. I don't conjure monsters with +2 to their stats....BUT....I often have some sort of spell ready for MOST situations, providing it hasn't been a long day for our adventurers.

Have some more bewbs.

Very good point, and well said.

>He has the weird and overpowered ability to have any spell the poster imagines he would need for any given scenario, and he would have it ready at that moment in the game (which he is never in, because he doesn't exist, except in game discussions).

He could past a certain level due to scrolls and the ubiquity of knowledge one possesses. Not to mention the act of restricting spells and giving them out piecemeal only serves to add a layer of tedious balancing and double-checking that few if any DM would be willing to tackle in conjunction with the balancing of monsters and other classes or encounters.

And this isn't even getting into the nitty gritty that you're discussing tracking and monitoring a class with 380 options in the players handbook ALONE and explicitly picking which ones to hand out or building encounters explicitly around them which is just a headache no matter how you slice it.

not to mention said individual can just "drop" that build between downtime and pick up a whole new list of shit they can do for the next adventure which can mean literally changing the gameplan immediately. Unless you assume said character only has spells you explicitly gave them permission to attain in which case congratulations you're some kind of human computer with perfect memory recollection or you just like to keep people on a really short leash.

But that's enough of that...

Unless he has a way to fly up or ground his opponent inside of one round he's probably lost already, why not let him ride it out with some dignity.

I had a rather unimaginative friend once, but when I introduced him to D&D he made a pretty decent Barbarian. He had two hand axes on his belt and a javelin on his back. His main weapon was a hammer he stole, but if something was too far away for him to hulk smash, he also enjoyed trying to pin hobgoblins to walls.

I'm so glad my Rogue wasn't like this. At level 10 they found a wand of spider climb, so I let them use it in their "stealth missions" to often hilarious, sometimes disastrous results.

>Rouge: "So I'm like... 15 feet above him right?"
>Me: "Yeah sure."
>Rogue: "I drop on one, and stab him in the neck. He should also take damage from me falling on him."
>Me: "You take it too, though."
>Rogue: "But he broke my fall!"
>Me: "Bony humans cushioning you? Sure, you're a halfing. I'll take two off the roll though, both ways."
>Rogue.: "Fuck yeah, banzai!"

This is what I was thinking of paraphrasing but you already delivered the concept

I've grown to accept "cool protagonist shit" supersedes "let's be terrified of the GM and avoid provoking an ant hill in his setting"

Let's never forget that it isn't rules, nor worldbuilding, nor playing NPCs that is the primary job of the GM.

It all comes down to creating the right kind of group dynamic that will produce fun.

I think there is a tendency online to exaggerate caster supremacy, but I do think a well-built wizard comes into any situation with significantly more options than most classes. In particular, at higher levels, or when they have time to prepare or investigate this can become a bit glaring.

It doesn't help that there are many spells that are effective in many different circumstances. A fighter can carry a sword & shield combo, a two-handed damage weapon, and a bow, maybe some potions, traps and the like. Each of those fulfills a function, but they are all relatively similar, dealing hp damage or keeping the fighter alive. If the wizard just brings summon monster, create pit, glitterdust, invisibility, resist energy, and haste, he covers a pretty large range of situations. He can protect allies, deal damage, crowd control enemies, negate stealth, buff, all of which are ongoing effects. Those are just second and third level spells.

Hiding in plain sight is possible if you have modifiers out the arse, but no amount of lying on the floor and pretending to be a wooden plank will make the guy you just stabbed forget about you.

Where did this reee meme come from? No one ever addresses it.

knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

>Cool idea, although doing that will provoke an attack of opportunity so you might-
Why I dislike 3.5e in one line.

I have an entire party of these. When I was running them through their first dungeon there was a mechanical pitfall trap which they narrowly avoided. They had also found the mechanism that closed the pit and knew exactly what would trigger it, so they were quite capable of simply closing it and bypassing it entirely. It quickly devolved into a mess of someone saying they should go forward, being reminded that they can't, applying no effort to continuing on, then someone shouting WHY AREN'T WE MOVING because they chose to complain about all the conversation without actually listening.

They ended up using the monk as a human bridge, which took an impressively higher roll than the meager jump check which even the wizard could've made. While I will say that makes a far more impressive story, I start to wonder if all the evil wizard needs to do is dig enough holes to make them give up.

>Us (me and other PC at simultaneous turn): We grapple the wyvren
>DM: w-what?
>Us: We grapple the wyvren, it's big enough, and we both passed excellently unless you can beat 22 at disadvantage
>DM: (looks on for a few seconds): (fails) It flies up and tries to shake you off
>Us: (slight concern) We pass, and we attack it
>DM: It flies higher and again tries to shake you off
>US: We pass, and attempt animal handling to gain control
>DM: You failed, it flies even higher and tries to shake you off

In the end we succeeded and got to the ground alive, but come the fuck on. Instead of panicking for a turn or two, or trying to in a frenzy attack us, it automatically, as if there's no imminent danger trying to wrestle with it that would possibly make it even more irrational then it's low intelligence would lend it being, flies into the fucking air as straight as an arrow, and does the most optimal thing to kill us? I know you thought Dragon's Dogma was stupid, get over it. Would you prefer we just bash it to death? If we try to scale a colossus from the back would it automatically ball backwards and crush us too? Thanks for rewarding any creativity and fun.

Maybe wild wyverns are commonly broken so the ones that remain untamed learn how to fucking kill any attempt at it?

Your friend sounds like an Aspie, and has what I like to call White Paper fear, he's afraid of making mistakes on a blank canvas, or the unknown, and thus tries to plan something perfect to fit within that space. You need to break him out of that shell of perfect planning, and show him it's okay to do things on the fly, even if things don't go as planned. I might sit down and tell him to stop planning, and just do the first thing that comes to mind, whatever it may be. If he's too nervous to do it in your campaign, maybe take a break and play something more loose, like the Dread system, where it's more in the now and the unknown, and actions are more freeform. Basically, you've gotta be firm but encouraging, and praise him when he does something impulsive, even if it fails for him.

>playing Dragon's Dogma
>Climb an ogre from behind to start givin it some one two because it worked on the cyclops
>get fucking suplexed
Biggest surprise of any video game ever.

Pretty much why I prefer 5e in a nutshell, but that rogue is also just sort of retarded.

Also how is critting on a 12 OP? It's not like it's still an auto-hit on a 12, sneak attack isn't effected by crits and I doubt the rogue has high static damage (not to mention the things you'd miss out on getting improved crit as a rogue). There's also still ways to get crit insanely high despite that lack of stacking

Besides the general stuff he needs, stuff like that doesn't get fluffed. And even if it was (unlikely, he even told us his methods), 2 vastly different regions/cultures. The second one was even trained as opposed to the wild first, but both reacted exactly the same. He just hates grappling big things and Dragon's Dogma. Simple. It's shit that one of our most fun (and this time not stupid) plays got shot down hard, both times.

>5e
>standing up is half your movement, so it does nothing and you may as well never trip someone
>I want to do something clever and cool
>You can't/time to invent a rule
>What do you mean I can't boost my critical range, and that it's locked behind one class at a very high level and all the weapons have no differences?
>Am I flanking? Good, it does effectively nothing for anyone not-rogue

Sounds like he needs to meet a player who keeps coming up with bad ideas, then sticking with them because they are perfectly in character.

The kind of person who would have their character jump out of a window if it seems like a good idea. Then, when the GM asks if they remembered to open it first, they have a decent chance of responding with 'no'.

I once thought it'd be fun to stay in the forest at night. The goblins/hobgoblins never stopped coming until sunrise. In the end, we only moved maybe like, 500 feet from our starting position, the whole way paved with dead goblins.

What? That sounds exactly like what a flying animal would do to get away if you grappled it. Flying is like, the first response.

Especially if you know anything about how birds and shit fight, height = winning.

Not saying that your DM shouldn't have had it frenzy and try to attack you first instead, just that your reasoning for why it should have done that is retarded and gay.

The correct reasoning, is so that the game would be more fun even if it comes at the expense of realism.

Because it sounds like you're kind of a whiny bitch about that sort of thing, and you have to compromise with your players preferences so that everyone has fun.

I personally would be more than okay at playing that with your DM. Especially since it looks like he wasn't actually out to kill you since you eventually succeeded and got to the ground alive.

This is why, as a DM, I lose a little faith in humanity whenever someone decides to 'enforce the rules' in response to me ignoring stupid shit or make something up.

Literally why don't you just play this.

This is a game built around following basic narrative logic and having that relate to the PC's abilities. There is no "tripping just takes away half your movement action" because why the fuck do you need rules for how many actions you can do in a round just don't be a dick and demand 10 attacks rolls right now asshat.

I can think of a system or two where all of those things are a waste of a turn. Hell, depending on the system and the character you might end up losing more damage output by putting your sword away to draw the bow than if you'd just waited for a useful class to knock it out of the air and hit it next turn with something you're actually able to deal damage with.

Attacking a tripped person gives advantage to attackers, and tripping something in the air causes it to fall

There's rules for cool shit too, but it's built with generally less restrictive language that doesn't always imply a lack of rules means it needs a feat or some shit

You're talking about a kukri wielded by a rogue. That's like 1d4+2 vs 2d4+4. Pretty minor without dumping all their money into gimmicky weapons. Also since rogues need feats crazy bad it's that much harder to have two weapon fighting, staggering strike, craven, improved initiative, darkstalker, or tons of other better shit

So? Also there are optional flanking rules

Oh yeah, the mechanic that is used literally everywhere because adding three numbers is hard.
Oh yeah, feats. You get 5 over 20 levels, and they're all pretty boring. And you have to choose between that and attribute bonuses. 5e did a really good job of completely removing character customization. Nice that they made all weapons incredibly samey and made some literally better than others in every way. Also Vancian Casting I'm mad about that too.

Yeah, that's why I suggested the Dread system. It's rules-light, built for Oneshot style play, and pretty much forces players to get into that loose play-style. As the game will almost certainly end with everyone dying, it's a pretty great system to make mistakes in. Though if anyone has a better suggestion for a system like this, I defer to them.

>Player trying to attack flying creatures under the assumption that they can hit them, despite them, you know, flying
>Player attacks a large gang of flying monsters that were minding their own business. He's outnumbered, and genuinely surprised that he's losing
>Player zoning out and going AFK in the middle of the game for long periods of time with no warning
>Other player acts like they're a pro when they know nothing about the game
Sometimes I don't know why I GM for the group

>Literally why don't you just play this.
Honestly,my main reason is that the nature of the central mechanic just sort of bugs at me. I don't even know what it is.
Ironically, despite the classes getting more moves than a typical D&D 3.5 Fighter, it seems like there's less there.
I'm not sure how I can explain it, other than it feels like the game is missing something.

>Especially if you know anything about how birds and shit fight, height = winning.
It's not a bird. It doesn't think like a bird. It's got many more options then a bird diving to insta-kill its prey. Why would flying up be auto-response (twice) if it's not put in situations where that'd develop?

>your reasoning for why it should have done that is retarded and gay
Ah I see, wyvren in fantasy land fight just like birds do in the real world. Of course, silly me.

>more fun even if it comes at the expense of realism
I agree, both my and the other PC and third PC would have enjoyed it more if he let us have some fun. Don't see the realism we're losing though.

>whiny bitch about that sort of thing
Isn't the point of this thread to bring examples of shit that would/did solicit response appropriate for "do you ever just". I'm over it btw, faggot. It's been a while.

>you have to compromise with your players preferences so that everyone has fun
What's the point of this statement you troglodyte? There is no compromise to be had, literally no one needed to lose or gain anything for fun to be had, the GM just need to hold his hate boner for grappling big things (guess he's losing out somehow though huh).
Are you maybe trying to get off by lecturing me?

>I personally would be more than okay at playing that with your DM. Especially since it looks like he wasn't actually out to kill you since you eventually succeeded and got to the ground alive.
That's cool. We are too. He's generally great. Glad you'll never be invited though.

Also ya he was. It's not rocks fall shit. It was death intended to use mechanics which would eventually work against us, and nothing more. Which we avoided by using nothing more then fair mechanics with small chances of success, and a lot of luck. They'd would have been fair deaths, but they'd have been cheap and petty,

The problem is that the curse of meta makes it so that if you don't hyperspecialize, you actually do become a detriment for the party, because the GM just designs encounters expecting everyone to be optimized.

Then you get yelled at for not doing your "job" right.

Only if you have a Shit Group of Optimizers focused on Combat over anything else. Honestly, a creative player playing a Versatile Wizard can have just as much impact on the field as a Glass Cannon build. Sure, you may not be casting the all-powerful Fireball every encounter, buy if you know what you're doing you can be brilliant at Crowd-Control, Tactics, and Field Advantage.

Expounding on this, it's probably why everyone complains about 4e being samey- everything you do is a move, or there's a move for it.
Which leads to funny situations like:
>>I want to shoot the chandelier, dropping it on the enemy.
>Well, you don't have a move that interferes with nearby objects. do you want to Volley or Attack instead?
>>Why can't I shoot the chandelier instead and do damage based on how powerful it is?
>Because if you could, I'd have to make up a move for it and everyone would start using it all the time.

>Only if you have a Shit Group of Optimizers focused on Combat over anything else
AKA people who go into it with the video game mindset. Which happens to be a distressingly large amount of groups out there.

That's not even the biggest sin 4e does.

Its biggest issue is that since everything is POWERS POWERS POWERS, you have to constantly be HITTING with your attacks to have a tangible effect.

I play in a 4e game, and I'm the only character with an 18+ in my actual combat stat, thanks to the GM including houserules that let me use int as my to-hit stat. I am the only character to have an actual effect on combat while everyone else constantly whiffs, because at most, they have a +3 to their attack. I had to build completely around buffing allies' to-hit rolls just so we don't die.

4e is a game in which combats drag on for 2x as long by SIMPLY NOT PUTTING AN 18 IN YOUR KEY STAT.

That's fucking terrible.

Are you seriously suggesting that doing 1d8 damage a turn is contributing meaningfully in a fight?

i have and they do exist. holly fuck.

1 guy just never wanted to learn to play. he ended up breaking the group apart. we all tried our best but holding his hand through the game for over a year was just too much

Once I ran around doing 1d4 damage every turn, with not enough armor to avoid getting hit nor enough health to make me not die the moment something look at me funny.

And I was a motherfucking fighter. And I was FINE with it (except when I got one too many "he's not actually dead"s out of pity).

Wouldn't that go double for Dungeon World, then, because you're limited to a statblock of 16, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8 (+2, +2, +1, +1, -1, -1) and a +1 to hit is doubly important on a scale of 1-12 than on a scale of 1-20?

I haven't ever played with anything quite *THAT* dumb before, though there've been some close ones.

>punish you by removing agency(killing your character)

You gotta have some stones and roll with the risks if you wanna be cool.

That should be +3/+2/+1/+1/-1/-1.
Dunno how that happened.

Not the guy you're responding to, but he's right, you do sound like a whiny little scrotum complaining over something totally reasonable that didn't even have a poor end-consequence.

Chill out dude.

always carry a sling in every game no matter the setting. modern / future can be fun to lob grenades over city streets

>and a +1 to hit is doubly important on a scale of 1-12 than on a scale of 1-20?
That logic means means that +2 is analogous to +4.

Ya, glad you see it as reasonable. But it really wasn't. And lacking a poor end-consequence doesn't take away from him trying to purposely and quickly kill 2 PCs because they did thing he didn't like from a game. But whatever, we both have rights to differing opinions.

i don't mind rail roading
i don't mind no content
i had a DM who rail roaded through no content
everything had to be his way. broke up our group when he refused to give up his position when 4/5 of the players asked him to leave.

we played a game of mine sweeper for a puzzle room. instead of mines they were just pits with spikes. we tied a rope to 1 guy and he ran across. fell down. we pulled him up before he hit spikes. we just ran across the map and made jump checks after that

>broke up our group when he refused to give up his position when 4/5 of the players asked him to leave.
So instead of those 4 (and maybe the fifth too) just gathering together sans the old gm you all went your separate ways?

Well, I mean, look at it this way.
>+3 to hit means you get a 7+ on a 4+ ( 91.66%) roll, and a 10+ on a 7+ (58.33%) roll
>+2 to hit means you get a 7+ on a 5+ (83.33%) roll and a 10+ on a 8+ (41.66%) roll
>+1 to hit means you get a 7+ on a 6+ ( 72.22%) roll and a 10+ on a 9+ (27.77%) roll
So yeah, the difference between +3 and +2 DW swings between +1/2 (8.33%) and +3 (16.67%) in d20 terms.
The difference between +2 and +1 is (11.11%/+2 d20) and (13.89%/+3 d20), and between +3 and +1 is (19.44%/+4 d20) and (30.56%/+6 d20).
So, funny enough, that's actually pretty accurate.

How the fuck do I deal with paranoid players?
>everything is a trap
>DM describes something for background detail? Better burn it the fuck down before it attacks
>Every NPC is a traitor
>Air wants to choke me

Introduce a player who isn't paranoid.

Let the rest be amazed as that thing ISN'T a trap, that the NPC ISN'T a hired assassin that is going to try and murder them in their sleep, that the air ISN'T there to cause you to suffocate, and maybe they'll leave the background details alone.

>Are you seriously suggesting that doing 1d8 damage a turn is contributing meaningfully in a fight?
If it's a level 6 wizard, then each hit is 1/6 of his health. If you crit, that's half his health in one go. You're probably going to hit because his AC is most likely about 12. If you have a +3-strength bow it gets even better. Yes, you're contributing.

i agree though i have seen the reason that those rules exist in the first place. my DM was shit and made up rules even if it was against what he was doing. he thought hard was bull shit killing the PCs. we all ended up breaking up the group. the rules can be broken if your smart but those rules are supposed to protect the PCs from the DM

Here's a fun fact: People don't seem to wonder so much about whether the room they're entering is secretly filled with poison gas when there's a tiger in the room.
If you can't convince them that a passive threat doesn't exist, make them focus on an active one instead. They may soon equate 'silence' (no immediate threat) with safety, like non-paranoid people do.
I'd like to hope this works, but they may try to prevent him from doing risky things forcefully because it's so ingrained into their minds.

From /r9k/, "robots" make REEEE sound when a man not like them tries to post "hurr i'm different and better than you virgin nerds"
youtube.com/watch?v=tYKPdNvH800

>there's a tiger in the room they come from.
Bleh. Incomplete sentences.

>Here's a fun fact: People don't seem to wonder so much about whether the room they're entering is secretly filled with poison gas when there's a tiger in the room.
It obviously isn't if the tiger is alive. If the tiger is lying there freshly dead with no visible wounds then it's time to worry.

as long as you don't rail road and arn't against having an entire game of no combat role playing then i think you could take over for my group

I'll give you that one.

played a character who refused to fight saying "violence is not the path of enlightenment". pissed the DM off especially sense he was the only one who wanted to do combat. everyone else wanted to role play not roll play.

long story short it was 2 guys who wanted to just hang out with the DM. the old DM was a real dick and made his "friends" stop comeing

so i guess this conversation has turned into ARE RULES IMPORTANT and CAN PLAYERS HAVE FUN WITHOUT THEM.

more like who can make the rules. the DM or the players or somewhere inbetween

The thing is I was playing an autistic (no really, part of the entire character) honor duelist kobold who was maxed on Dex/Cha, and everyone's idea of rogue was "thief", which was against the whole honor duelist thing.

The rules are important because they act as a focus for creativity.

See I say autistic because internet lingo has shrunken my fucking vocabulary.

Then I figure out that "childish" is far better only AFTER I press post.

>That greentext.

That's not 4e's fault, it GM's for being such a massive faggot with even bigger stick up his ass.

>because at most, they have a +3 to their attack.

Doesn't STR/DEX Modifier applies to hit together with proficiency as well? And how the fuck you got +18 to hit. What level you on?

make a bunch of suicide choristers and send them to there death. especially if you talk to the DM then maby you can work out some compromise. your character dies but he can do some cool stuff and inspire the other PCs

>The rules are important because they act as a focus for creativity.

this can be true but if there used incorrectly you just get "i attack it"

>Party enters wizard's library
>No rogue; wizard uses their familiar to scout
>Locked door at the far end with several keyholes; a single chest down each row of bookshelves; obviously some are trapped, some contain keys
>Barbarian starts down one row; magic books fly off the shelves and try to attack him but he laughs off the damage, opens the chest, pulls out the key
>Paladin starts down another row; magic books fly off the shelves but he's heavily armored so whatever, opens the chest; actually it's a mimic, grabs him, starts chowing down
>Party minus barbarian rushes to the paladin's aid
>Barbarian gets a bright idea
>Knows which direction the paladin is in, uses strength to knock over the bookshelf next to him which knocks over the next one et cetera like dominoes
>Last bookshelf smashes on top of the mimic...and the entire rest of the party except for the wizard
>Does damage to the mimic but not enough to kill it, also slamming its jaws shut on the paladin's midsection doing even more damage to him

Actually, wait, my bad, thought we were just discussing general player idiocy and not "refusing to do things."

Sorry for the random story dump then.

might just be me but 4e seems kinda boring. not enough diversity. the only feet that seems good is the one that gives a +1 to attacks. might be missing something though.

No amount of freedom will fix that by itself. You need prodding from the GM and other players, AND/OR examples of creative play from your fellows.

That's a result of the curse of the metagame. Meta is a cancer on games of all kinds, an unfortunate byproduct of people who equate "fun" with "win".

It's a pretty fun story, though.

Definitely something is up.

>not enough diversity.

Listen, I will sound like a massive shill about 4e right now. I am self-aware, I am aware that 4e is FAR, FAR from perfect and definitely has some retarded shit.

But claiming it isn't diverse is the utmost bullshit I've ever heard. Everyone can do SOMETHING now, powers are great way to actually diverse shit; the fighter doesn't have to just say "I hit now", all that fluff text for powers is there for a reason; it describes what your character does.

Something is amiss, I am sure. I remember getting like +7 to hit on LEVEL ONE.

Also feats are retarded, I hope your GM let you get a few feats for free at character gen aka tax feat. Because if I have to name one thing that's wrong with 4e, it's gonna be feat bloat.

Its possible to get +10 easy. 20 main stat (+5), +3 prof weapon, +1 from class feature & +1 from feat.
Granted, it works only with martial characters.

>while this is happening in my head I'm thinking "If I was the player, I'd be like I DRAW MY SWORD AND START RUNNING ALONG THE WALL UP TO HIS ASS AND LEAP BEFORE I LOSE MY FOOTING AND SLICE HIS ASS" *makes roll*

I wish I could be a player instead of forever DM ;_;

The DM...that's literally their entire job at the table...

to clarify on not enough diversity i was referring to everyone has the capability to do a grate sword worth of damage through at will powers.

i cant help but notice that they brought back everything from 3e to 5e that wasn't possibly part of a broken combo. then they nerfed it. now the only classes worth playing are barbarian thief and if your pissed off at the DM a sorcerer with wild magic