Okay, other than "because I say so" what logic dictates that?
For me, I'm looking at other effects. For example, submerging yourself in lava does 18d10 or 99 damage. Napalm is cooler than lava (by about 400 degrees F) so it would do less damage, and a high speed hollow metal shell to deliver it wouldn't have more impact force than a boulder. The highest boulder throw I can find is 4d12 or 26 damage. So even if we somehow made Napalm HOTTER than lava (which it isn't) and because of the speed gave it the impact force of a much more massive and dense object.... it STILL wouldn't reach the level of Meteor Swarm
What you're touching on is that 5e wasn't consistently designed and that fact is highlighted in optional rule variants the designers admit were never even balanced to begin with.
"I'm going to dismiss your use of the rules by pretending they don't matter" Very convincing. So, what if the antimatter rifle was OVERpowered and should be weaker then? Wouldn't that make my case stronger?
You're now talking about something entirely different.
No, I'm not. I don't have to break the laws of space-time to warp something. Altering the geo-politics of the planet for half a century IS reality warping power to have in the hands of a single person.
That wasn't condescension Im literally saying thats what we ought to be talking about. God forbid I try to be to humorous with a meme this isn't that serious of a conversation.
Yeah, you know humor doesn't translate well via text and unknown memes right? And humor can be mocking?
And if you wanted to be talking about martials, then it is rather pointless to bring up "well a cow kicking over an oil lamp once destroyed a city made of wood, so the ability to throw missile strikes with your mind can't be THAT powerful." because you are somehow trying to conflate "something devastating can happen" to "therefore it isn't powerful that one person can do it on command". Or talking about nuclear missiles and high-speed jetliners like those are things Martials characters in DnD just have in their back pocket.
Souls aren't real either. Some consistency would be appreciated.
Souls are real in DnD, so.... I am being consistent. Something not known to be possible and entirely theoritical in one world and absolute hard fact of reality in another. If you can say "but Boeing 747's are common in our world, so meteor swarm must be common in the fantasy world" and "but digitization of the human mind might be possible" then I can talk about souls in DnD.
As said, you're starting with the conclusion and working backwards to justify it.
Even if I was, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And I'm not. Seriously, you just seem like you can't comprehend the difference between "a government spending tens of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars" and "some dude wiggled his fingers". That alone makes such a massive difference in every single example you have given.
You brought these examples up, and its not an either/or. If you can't find a game that satisfies everyone at the table, it isn't any of those game's fault, and it then is on you to seek a playgroup better suited to your preferences if you cannot work out these differences with the one you have.
Like, one of my hard lines is sexual roleplay. The farthest Ill go is jokes and a fade to black if its really wanted. I will not under any circumstance roleplay or even be present for the roleplaying of actual intercourse of any kind.
Not everyone in my group is like that, but we all have a mutual understanding and the three that like doing that run their own sessions when they want to go into it. No harm, no foul, everybody is happy.
If these are real issues you're having, talk to your group and hash it out. It isn't 5e's fault you're having this problem, even if it exacerbates it.
And what if my whole group agrees we should change the rules of 5e? What then?
You keep trying to dismiss people's concerns by basically saying "But I fixed it in my game, so it can't possibly be a problem you are really having." But you keep missing the fact that it had to be FIXED. And even if you allow fighter's to triple backflip, pull out a nuke and surfboard it into the castle, another DM is going to say that jumping more than 10 ft up in heavy armor is impossible and rolling a nat 1 means they cut off their own head. And sure, maybe that player should find a better DM, but the problem with relying on the DM to allow you to do things by vague interpretations, is that you never know which it is until you are mid-session and try something.
Meanwhile, the rules at the very least allow for consistency. And that's important.
If the wizard, of all the playstyles, is the one who had the idea to rush in and snuff the lights, then you could have done that too, is my point. You have considerably less to think about, after all. What else you might have done depends on the circumstances, of which you've given no details.
And again, it isn't a competition. You're not lesser because you didn't have the thought to snuff the lights.
Right, you are missing the entire point of the example.
You want know one of my theories why they thought about? Because they used one of the torches early in either the same fight or the previous fight in a different room, with their catapult spell to deal fire damage (scribe wizard). They have a spell that takes items in the environment, and turns them into weapons. So they are already keyed to looking at the environment to find ammo. Because I remember thinking that's what they were doing, when I read the post.
Me? I may have "less to think about" but I don't have anything that interacts with the environment. Sure, I use some flavor text, but mechanically nothing I pick up off the ground is better than my weapon. To me, a torch is a -4 weapon (assuming I get to add my strength mod), and it would mean either dropping my real weapon or my shield. It is useless to me. So, I discount it. To her, a torch is a 3d8 fire damage piece of ammunition (more damage than I can deal on a turn) so she is looking for that stuff.
And it isn't a competition, sure, but I've spent four rounds standing in front of the enemy, hitting it, and taking hits. Because if I'm not doing that, party members will die. But after four rounds... I've run out of flavor text. I'm not doing anything dynamic. I'm just slugging it out. Same monster, same attack pattern, sure I could try and create space for our archer to get advantage but... then I'd have to take a free hit (which would probably kill me, since the healer is barely keeping me up) unless I used my action to disengage, and I don't have the spells to reaction defend and protect myself like the wizard did. Which means it would take me two turns to snuff a light. So even if I wanted to, tactically, it would be a stupid move. So my best move is to... be utterly bored just slugging away.
I pointed this out because it covers a few of the bases in this "just improvise actions!" argument. 1) It shows that anyone can do it, not just martials. 2) It shows how a use of spells can still make casters better at improv (using the reaction to defend against the attacks, leaving the action free) 3) It highlights the feeling of the lack of choice, and how that narrows your scope. I'm not just NOT doing these things, I don't even see the options, because I have nothing to hook into. Everything I do other than attack must be improv'd and either hope the DM doesn't veto, or hope that I can get enough of an effect to make losing the damage worth it.
My OP has failed!
