sammytheman666 @ sammytheman666 @ttrpg.network

Posts

14

Comments

452

Joined

2 yr. ago

Its a resource management game. Either you use your imagination and roll a few chance dice, or you use an appropriate resource for it. Which is why killing a target that isnt already captures with a cantrip one shot doesnt work.

Because they suck ?

Normally you count them and get half of the shot ones back. It sucks. Thats why almost nobody does it.

Best way to decide is this : should a cantrip or level 1 spell one shot a target ?

No. No it shouldnt. Disintegrate can because its a very high level spell slot. But resources wise, foot the fucking bill please.

But I would allow its use to torture a captured target by waterboarding.

My players would just sell it back. I know, I gave them important items and they did that XD

So you liked it and had fun right ?

Good then. The question isnt to count arrows or not, but to find how to have fun yourself with the arrows. There isnt a right answer. It depends on you as a player.

If you have fun, you are winning. Doesnt matter if you count or not.

No problems. Clearly you needed someone to tell you

Taking your advice sounds awful.

What about physical training ? Callous feet ? Diet ? Real life aint a game and for good fucking reasons. If you want to, great, but that iz the question. Not Does this makes sense, but Does this make things more fun for everyone ?

Indeed. You should. Which is why coubting them is as useless as nightime embushes that everyone still heals from at the end of the long rest.

Ah, so 2 arrows at level 1 then ? Better not fucking miss

So they just cant buy them ever ?

See, thats why I dont count normal arrows. Its tedious. Its the right word

Arrows are 20 for 1 gold piece. Potions are 50 gold piece for the smallest. Spell scrolls are tens if not hundreds of gold pieces each.

Are you telling me youre gonna make them all the same price then ?

Btw, wizards can get some of their spells on a short rest.

If you need to restrict the amoubt of arrows to make your game balanced, it means you are very good at tailoring encounters to your current party and should restrict everything to make it even easier on you. After all, restrictions is how you have fun.

Its not like players like finding loot after all.

One last thing. Are you also limiting cantrips ? Or is a warlock shooting eldritch blasts with the spell sniper feat destroying your very good preparations ?

If you play in a specific way and find it boring, THAT is a good reason to switch your playing style.

If I love to snipe from afar and now I cant because arrows are a very rare commodity in this world, this isnt fun. The moment you are forced down a path is where it stops being fun, because its not your own choice.

I have a player. He does that, shoot arrows. And he has fun. I dont need to limit his fun for it to exist.

Counting arrows is like encumbrance in videogames. Its fun for some, and a rapid hassle for most, and you should be able to choose which you wanna play with as a player instead of being forced to use it a specific way.

Options are always great. Their nonexistence is never good. Unless you just so happen upon a table or a videogame that their only option is the one you prefer purely on luck.

As a player and DM : fuck that noise. Bows and arrows are part of the game, and if a DM would tell me that a sword can only hit 19 times and then need to be reworked by a blacksmith, I would either play something else or with someone.

Or you know, pick lizardfolk and make infinite arrows out of bodies.

Or ramsack any merchands.

Or loot every archer I find.

I tried to use limited arrows for the survival aspect. But its not fun or fair. Why limits arrows when cantrips arent ? Because its the rogue ? Because he has sneak attack ? Thats oretty much ALL he has. Take that away or limit it and he cant do shit. Or you force him down a path he doesnt want to take, a la breath of the wild. Everyone loves it when they cant play how they want after all.

But that bit about the DM decides ? Sure he can. He can do whatever he wants. And if he goes too far then the players will fuck off.

But Im here scratching my head and really wondering how more fun is the game if you cannot play it as you want in this specific way. Especially when the person deciding (the dm) isnt even the one directly affected by this. Or is he such a bad DM that he needs to limit an archer's arrows to make it work ?

So tell me. Why specify it in Reincarnate and not in Revivify then ?

I also checked True resurection and it also specifies that the souls needs to be willing.

The answer is this : WotC fucked up.

But I agree, the DMG does says this. Buuuuut. Since some spells mentions willing souls and Revivify dont, I would say that this spell is so fast that the soul cannot decide since its probably still hanging around and so you could use it AT MY TABLE as a way to bring back a soul, willing or not.

But RAW you are correct. Still gonna use it my way as long as everyone agrees at the table. Its not like its gonna break the game.

Sure you can. Reincarnate specifies a willing soul, Revivify doesnt. Meaning you could revivify against their will. A costy tool but useful one for a torturer.

Also, Revivify ? You dont get a choice in the matter. Hence, it would have made the joke work.

I know. But the joke here is that the death was satisfying. You aint coming back after that usually. The meat suit is secondary

I count special arrows, but normal ones ? Its not fun if you build your built around it. Plus, its very easy to carry hundreds of them at once, using your party as mules. Meaning the only moments you are lacking bolts or arrows is either your choice or your DM's. So, either you have fun yourself by adding a challenge, akind to me picking spells appropriate for my bard, or the DM's that wants to limit you in a bad way