sammytheman666 @ sammytheman666 @ttrpg.network Posts 14Comments 211Joined 2 yr. ago
Its all about choice then ? What makes the game fun and what is a hassle some if not most groups tend to skip over.
My point is not dont count ammo. My point is that you only should count ammo if the players likes it.
Doom Eternal would be just as fun with or without ammo restrictions (with the exception of the BFG) but most importantly having the option to toggle as you please is important. Having just the option of playing without counting ammo would suck.
Thats what some games did with lives. Mario Odissey made lives secondary, and in crash bandicoot 4 they actually give you the choice which I found marvelous.
Hah. Nah, I dont like most WotC campaigns. I prefer to write my own. Which Im doing with level 13 party players at the moment. I doubt WotC would be able to handle it correctly. I tried a few of their campaigns, both as a player and DM and I wasnt impressed. They have big glaring holes while focusing on useless shit. Looking at you, candlekeep mysteries.
But thats my point. Do it IF you have fun doing it. Not because its in the game, or because the DM wants to. But because you the player wants to. Options are always great.
Huh. So you changed the weight...
Ok, new question for you because you are interesting and I love that. What would happen if the ranger would say to the barbarian pretty please carry these 60 arrows for me until I need them ?
Sorry, I did a mistake in my calculus. I didnt included the arrows you can pick back up and the ones that you find on enemies. So its not 200, its more like between 50 and 100 depending of the kind of enemy you fight. So way easier.
Hmmm... survival campaigns actually IS a good reason to make ammo counting a thing.
But how about this. Do you limit inventory of merchands, or can they load up on 150 arrows for 10 gold every 5 long rest ?
Remember. Average fights are 4 rounds, so 4 to 8 arrows per fight if they only do that. Meaning if you have 3 to 5 fights per long rest, that is maximum 200 arrows for 5 long rests worth of fights if you ever only shoot arrows all the time and fight a fuckton.
And its possible to load up on so many arrows. They are cheap, light and easy to craft. Meaning it becomes a hassle to take care more than a real challenge.
So, do you make them scarce, or worth more than per the PHB ? Or doing something else to tighten up the arrows available ?
Well, every caster becomes more or less 3 times more powerful ? Because spells are so much better than cantrips ? Because if there wasnt any limits on spell slots, then who wouldnt make a caster ?
When I play a caster, my main question is : when is it worth it to burn a precious spell slot.
But I never EVER saw or heard of a ranged player using a bow or crossbow thinking : is it really worth using a regular ammo here ?
Exactly. My campaign is kinda like BG3 now that I think about it. I dont give a fuck about normal arrows. Bows, magic arrows and poisons are important thought. Thank you.
The differences between spell slots and ammo is that you cannot have 30 spell slots on you at level 1, running out of spell slots is expected because you have so few of them, making tracking them easier since it actually matters, and you cannot buy your way into more easily just like that.
They are both resources, but dont go and say that an arrow is worth a spell slot.
You also cannot get spell slots back by tediously scourging the battlefield or looting basic as fuck soldiers.
And we come back to this question : what is the WORST SHIT to happen to a game if you remove the coubting of normal arrows and simply give everyon an infinite quiver that cannot be sold for gold ?
Because up to now, nobody came with a decent answer to this. Im still waiting.
Permanently Deleted
Indeed. Context is key. But lets not count the exceptions to make the basic rules shall we not ?
Of course if you use Produce flame to burn the heavy chandeleer right over the troll to make it fall down, you could make more than 1d8 fire damage in a round. But the chandeleer is doing the heavy lifting here.
So you do lack imagination then ?
I could make it work. They need to not be suspicious, so be generous with them. They need to eat and aleep, so they need some money. Same with their inventory care.
And why do you need so much money ?
Plus at some point, there is this exchange that will take place :
Player : my character has no reason to share/be with the party
Good DM : great. Now go back to character creation and make a character that will work at a minimum with the party.
So you dodge your question because you are too tired. Fine. Bebye. Maybe someone will have the ideas and the stamina to actually propose something that makes any sort of sense.
Because all you said is : its not fair.
But is it fair to ask players that do not want to trak ammo to do it because 2 other players want to ?
No. No its not fair. Its fairer to be unfair by allowing everyone to play as they prefer at once than being fair by FORCING everyone to play the same ammo wise.
So, either downvote and go away, or bring me ideas and arguments to counter this.
Someone that says : my character wouldnt be sharing gold. Then I say : but who made that character hmm ? You have imagination. Use it to justify not being an ass to your party.
I fully agree. Money is a survival resource and stealing it is akind to stabbing a player.
Fuck no. Fuck pvp. As the DM its my job to hurt my players, bot theirs. Its a coop game for fuck sake
But if its by choice, whats the problem ? You just have to say : I no longer to want to track ammo, and boom you are good.
If you want to track ammo, manage to run out, how hypocrite is it to be jealous of thoses that never wanted to in the first place ?
A very very very VERY small part of why it matters indeed. Tiny. Sadly there aren't better arguments than "because the DM said so" apparently.
I run a campaign actually. One of the restrictions at character creation is that it needs to be a small race.
If a player asks me : why ? There is a huge lore, roleplaying and world building reason behind it.
The day I answer : because Im the DM amd I say so, I will become the worst DM kind there is and will be ashamed. If there isn't a solid and reasonable reason behind every rule or specificities, it will not happen.
Because Im trying to be a fun DM that my players will like having as one.
BTW, my campaign is 2 years old and still going, so I must not suck too badly at it.
Please explain to me the fun factor of limiting arrows for the DM then ? Because from a fellow DM's perspective, it looks like a sucky way to artificially enhance difficulty to players rather than making it fun for anyone.
Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.
One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.
... thats it ? Wasnt there something else worst than this ?
Because this would spark up interesting conversations for sure.
I dont agree with this first degree. I do believe male privilege exists. But I would love to talk about it and this looks like hooking enough to generate interesting conversations where people bring you new ideas right here and there.