Quote from: cranebump;793267Polymorph, actually.

LOL the exact same spell that crowd brabbled about in the early days of third edition.

These people will never, ever have fun or be happy. They like it that way.

Quote from: Omega;793274Again?

That makes I think four threads now on how broken/aint broken/is too broken the spell is.

When not applying same to Mage Hand which some read to be able to garrot people and god knows what that the entry on it says it cant do.

What was it this time? Polymorph the fighter into a red dragon?

A T-Rex.

One Major convo was about the DM ban after the fact.

Isnt that how bans come about often? Players break or abuse something and the DM has to say NO at some point before it gets out of hand?

There seems to be a weird cult of people who think polymorph can only be called 'balanced' if it can only transform your target into a form that is only as effective as the target already is.

This is like arguing that Fireball can only be balanced if it does the same damage as a wizard's dagger attack...

"Begins"?

Where have you been all this time?

A T-Rex has an Intelligence of 2...

Well done, you're now tough but almost brain-dead and unable to do anything in an intelligent manner.

Quote from: One Horse Town;793326A T-Rex has an Intelligence of 2...

Well done, you're now tough but almost brain-dead and unable to do anything in an intelligent manner.

Aw, come on now.  You should know that people like this who try to break the system and bitch about the game tend to conveniently ignore anything that helps mitigate the power level.  It's like all those people who bitched that casters in AD&D were way too powerful compared to fighters based solely on spell descriptions, while ignoring things like components, chance to learn, chance to fail, interruptions, etc.

Quote from: cranebump;793251...two separate threads featuring stories of players min-maxing to make certain things automatic, then bitching about how now they don't feel challenged. Wanna bet the same players would pitch a hissy fit if the DM threw them a heavy dose of fiat? (man...really hate "system masters"...enough to drive you into story gaming permanently.

I have to wonder if you count up all the forum poster and look at the total number of gamers, does it even amount to much?

For example the theRPGSite has a rough total of 6,600 members throughout its histories.

Fantasy Grounds alone has 122,000 games being played and that is just one virtual tabletop software.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64542&d=1413299545

Roll20 was able to generate a survey out of 15,000 players.

http://blog.roll20.net/post/100246471625/what-is-the-orr-group-industry-report-and-what-does

I think it reasonable to guess that the non-VTT players of tabletop just dwarf these numbers.

When you see the vehement bitching you have to keep it in perspective.

There is one common denominated on every thread on the WOTC boards about something being broken, a feat tax, overpowered, or not working.  And that common denominated is a user named Zardnaar.  All he does is cry wolf.  He's a total attention whore, and he just posts his daily outrageous claim about something being busted in the game to garner attention.

It's not that he is purely a theorycrafter - he does play the game.  But what he does is then report on ANYTHING that went right for players, and proclaim it broken.  Was the bard instrumental in defeating a foe? Bards are broken.  Was a spell useful in overcoming a challenge? Spell is broken.  Did a feat help rescue the party? Feat tax.

I've told the guy if he keeps doing it he will eventually drive everyone away from responding to him...but of course that's not the kind of advice someone like that will listen to.

It has made me step back from the board, there is better DnD discussion here.

Quote from: cranebump;793264It's hard for me to understand, really, the value of tweaking out every positive mod in an attempt to be unbeatable. There's no inherent value in it. Being unbeatable ruins aspects of risk and drama. I'm not sure how the game can be entertaining played that way. Then again, I'm not much of a "system master," so maybe I'm missing out on the huge joy of finding my own version of Pun-Pun.

These people can't help themselves. They encounter a system that can be analyzed, and they have to try to break it. If that's the way your mind work, I suppose nothing is going to change that. What I don't understand is why they think the rest of us should care.

Quote from: estar;793334I have to wonder if you count up all the forum poster and look at the total number of gamers, does it even amount to much?

For example the theRPGSite has a rough total of 6,600 members throughout its histories.

Fantasy Grounds alone has 122,000 games being played and that is just one virtual tabletop software.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64542&d=1413299545

Roll20 was able to generate a survey out of 15,000 players.

http://blog.roll20.net/post/100246471625/what-is-the-orr-group-industry-report-and-what-does

I think it reasonable to guess that the non-VTT players of tabletop just dwarf these numbers.

When you see the vehement bitching you have to keep it in perspective.

I think it's not ridiculous to think most the online discussion occurs between four main groups in no particular order

1. DM's
2. Theorycrafter's
3. People that don't actually play
4. People that actually despise the current edition of a game for whatever reason

Very few people that actually play whatever game participate in most discussion beyond a help me question or is the DM right or is this group good type questions. I don't care if a game can be broken (they can) yet as for 5e it's surprisingly solid and resistant to pure white room stupidity and classic theorycraft shenanigans. My primary concern about a game system is fun factor not balance or the math.

Quote from: Mistwell;793342There is one common denominated on every thread on the WOTC boards about something being broken, a feat tax, overpowered, or not working.  And that common denominated is a user named Zardnaar.

You're right. He's the progenitor of the thread. And he's actually a player in the party that used it "so well." The perception was the players had an "I win" button. The arguments go back and forth about how to handle it. My beef is with folks who look for the "I win" button first and foremost. Also wholeheartedly agree that it is likely a vast majority of gamers do not play that way. I would also think that, when something like that comes up, players recognize when it can be detrimental to the game, and will likely have no problems modifying or banning such a power or combo thereof, for the sake of everyone at the table.

But then you run into some folks in real life who actually LOOK for that, and feel deprived if they can't have it. And that's what gets discussed. Leading me to overreact, naturally.:-/

Quote from: Marleycat;793349I think it's not ridiculous to think most the online discussion occurs between four main groups in no particular order

1. DM's
2. Theorycrafter's
3. People that don't actually play
4. People that actually despise the current edition of a game for whatever reason

Very few people that actually play whatever game participate in most discussion beyond a help me question or is the DM right or is this group good type questions. I don't care if a game can be broken (they can) yet as for 5e it's surprisingly solid and resistant to pure white room stupidity and classic theorycraft shenanigans. My primary concern about a game system is fun factor not balance or the math.

I haven't sank my teeth into the finished product. Playtested it for over a year, using Wiz's packets. My main observation then was monster challenge not nearly commensurate with what the PCs could do. Not entirely sure they worked that out. I've seen plenty of examples of team wipes, and plenty of team walks. I'm guessing the system needs some extensive play to make a true determination of how well everything scales. There's a lot I like about 5E. However, I've gone from being someone who would run it to someone who will likely only play it (or run the most basic version as a GM). This may change when the DMG comes out. I'm interested in seeing the dials and switches.

Just for fun lets dissect this.

Tyrannoraur
CR:8 so you need someone level 8.

AC:13. Equal to someone in chain or someone unarmoured with a good dex. By level 8 a fighters likely in alot better armour. Allmost certainly plate mail.

HP:136 (13d12+52) A level 8 fighter has a base max HP of 80 or 52 average. +0 to upwards of 24 to even 40 with a good set up. So likely the T-rex has better HP than whomever was used. Especially if they are a non-Fighter type.

Limited multi-attack: The two attacks cannot be on the same target. Fighters and any other class with more than one attack have the advantage there.

Damage is where the T-rex excells. Bite of 33(4d12+7) and Tail for 20(3d8+7) A fighter can output around say 12(2d12) max before modifiers if both attacks hit. Up to +6 or more with good stats.

Seems like alot of give and take. The biggest problem will be that the character now has a brain the size of a walnut and any sort of planning is totally out the window. But damn great for pointing at the enemy and letting loose.

Going to be absolutely vulnerable though to charms and Id hate to be the PC group that had this thing turned back against them. ow.

The polymorph does act as a potentially huge buffer of extra HP though.

Overall Im not sure what the problem is other than the temp HP and possibly the damage output?