alt Hacker NewsYeah, both players were either rogues or tabaxi (although feline swiftness isn’t dashing)
This is also directly why I don’t like D&D. It is way too combat focused and video gamey. If your combat system is so complex that people find (or even feel that they need to find) “exploits” in it then your system probably sucks. So many class features are purely combat focused completely ignoring the actual roleplaying part of role playing games.
Also the “counter chaining” feels odd to me, is this something that actually happens? Like people waste spellslots counterspelling a counterspell?
Replies
re: grapple leapfrog, it links to this question: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/136964
Maybe the AI used the accepted answer (with 4 votes vs the next with 39) and then mangled things from there?
re: counter chaining, I think so. I spent some time watching Critical Role and iirc they liked to counterspell a counterspell.
> If your combat system is so complex that people find (or even feel that they need to find) “exploits” in it then your system probably sucks.
Couple of things.
1. People will try to find exploits in just about any system. That's kind of part of the fun.
2. If the difficulty curve sucks in a particular D&D campaign - that's the DM's fault, not the system's. Plenty of tools at DM's disposal to make campaigns less combat focused or being more lenient to players.
From my limited experience, many players and DMs seem to get things backwards in exactly the way you're describing. They take the rulebook as the starting point or the "controls" for the game and since combat is the most detailed they tend to focus on that to the exclusion of other parts of the game. I've always viewed the rules as a way of settling disputes or uncertainty instead, so you start from the role playing and only resort to rules when you need fair adjudication or clarification on complicated situations. i.e. don't give me quotes from the rulebook, tell me what your character does and we'll work it out as part of the story.