|
counterspin posted:I think we have to accept that this is essentially a fight over a limited resource(page space) between people who use radically different parts of the monster descriptions as an important part of their DMing. I'm definitely on the side of a stat-block and almost nothing else, as I liberally reskin things in the manual to match the things in my head. I don't think I've used an ecology note in a meaningful way in the last decade. I'd rather they not go super deep into monster behaviors in the basic monster manuals because all that stuff is wasted ink for me. See I don't think we need to accept that it's a fight over limited page space. First, there is no inherent conflict between good 4E style stat blocks and interesting 2E style fluff blocks, and I want both. Second, as I've said a few times, you can fit a lot of information on a page using the 2E compendium style entries. Those had a picture, a long stat block and multiple paragraphs of fluff information.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Nessus posted:That said it would seem quite straightforward to have each print book come with a core sample of whatever-it-is and a code in the back for access to the digital product, which has all that core stuff and a bunch of bonus material and B-sides. The access code can be bought independently, perhaps at full price for the first several months of a product and then for a smaller sum later. This right here. This is a drat good idea. I'm probably biased more toward moving away from print due to seeing the incredibly sad evaporation of tabletop products in my local bookstores, but I think a move like this could capture both the bookstore and online demographics. It'd just be a question of balancing the supply and the demand. If Wizards does pull such a move, they'd have to make sure they don't make more books than they can sell due to the expense of paper and ink.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Weren't a few 4e or Gamma World books actually printed with unlock codes that never did anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
moths posted:Weren't a few 4e or Gamma World books actually printed with unlock codes that never did anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I actually don't know the marketing dynamics here. I think abandoning print entirely, as much as it is celebrated, might actually be a bad idea for Wizards. I know when I've seen the 'game section' at a bookstore or a comics shop that doesn't focus on games, it's usually had a fair stock of 4E books, often arrayed in a way which implied people are buying them in person. (There are also usually Pathfinder books and often some scattering of White Wolf or FFG Warhammer games.) Abandoning that route entirely would seem foolish from a market perspective. I wouldn't suggest abandoning print entirely (didn't intend to), but getting a proper database and/or wiki of all the content, integrating digital tools and an API so people could write their own would go an awful long way to making what I'm sure will quickly be a very complex system, a lot more accessible. You could probably do a lot with micropayments as well, not to mention useful apps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I wouldn't suggest abandoning print entirely (didn't intend to), but getting a proper database and/or wiki of all the content, integrating digital tools and an API so people could write their own would go an awful long way to making what I'm sure will quickly be a very complex system, a lot more accessible. You could probably do a lot with micropayments as well, not to mention useful apps. If DnD is really going to be a mess of fiddly bonuses and penalties, I would kill for a Character Status Checker app that kept constant updates on your attack bonuses and defenses. Or a power planner that lets you survey your current powers remaining so you can plan your moves and avoid slowing down combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I wouldn't suggest abandoning print entirely (didn't intend to), but getting a proper database and/or wiki of all the content, integrating digital tools and an API so people could write their own would go an awful long way to making what I'm sure will quickly be a very complex system, a lot more accessible. You could probably do a lot with micropayments as well, not to mention useful apps. The problem with Next is that instead of learning from 4e it continues to treat DnD as a printed-text-format-first document. What the big advantage to modularity and new clean design and all this hubbub and jargon should have done is create a digital product that provides a fast, searchable, and filterable database of assets that not only can be found when the players need it but can also update the math automatically when they do so. The books can stay. Hell the books should stay and they should probably also introduce a top tier ultra glossy nice bound incredibly limited print version too while they're at it. Its just the books shouldn't be the primary method through which they expect to express or form their content anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Bingo. It's really telling that they still insist on Dungeon and Dragon being 'monthly magazines' rather than moving into the late 90s and just making them fully online article-publishing entities like Cracked or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Thanks for writing that up, it was fascinating train-wreck reading. There are Four NPCs who are not automatically aggro'd by your presence. One (the torture chamber prisoner I mentioned), is described as malnourished and looking like he'd be a liability in a fight. He flees the dungeon at the soonest possible moment. Two is a delusional, paranoid, and half necrotized Treant who's blurb indicates he's to attack at the slightest provocation. Three is a exiled runt Lizardman who will happily provide information (but not an extra hand) if you slaughter the rest of his tribe. Four is a Troglodyte Chieftain. He will supply you with assistance provided you (1) go three rounds in his Payndz posted:I hadn't fully realised until reading that report that expertise dice are hosed. As they stand, you either have to wait an hour to recharge them (a "short" rest), or you can use an action to regain one, but only if you have none left. So in the height of battle, you can take a time-out to go "Hold on, I just need to recompose myself here" and get one back, but once it's over, then RAW you can do jack poo poo to recover them without spending a full hour sitting on your arse doing nothing. Another fun thing we found out the hard way: Crits can deal less damage than a regular attack if you roll poorly on damage. It's swingy as hell, and by the time you get to later levels a single extra die of damage is not that great of a coup. You would think that this would be fine if the enemies were single ply toilet paper thin (several varieties are!), but you've also got dudes whose HP is north of 40, and the bare minimum at least half of your damage is going to be coming from dice. It's so goddamn swingy that fighters can have trouble on minion-grade fodder with whiffed damage. When the table's cold, the next step up from minion - beefy brawler types - are terrible slogs on par with early 4e tank monsters. I've also been participating in encounters, which is it's own brand of horseshit. I'll detail that stuff later if I can find some time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:This actually sounds like a lot of loving fun, and a great idea for an event honestly. Honestly, "if you die you get to come back as an undead and keep playing" does sound like a pretty rad idea for a meatgrinder-ish dungeon romp, though A). that seems like the sort of thing that you'd maybe want to highlight up front in big flashing letters and B). the adventure as presented still sounds like a boring slogfest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Bingo. No but you see, they need control over all that content that you'd get that is totally useless without a book or a DDI sub anyway. Also, I was there for that 5E event. It might sound fun to you. It wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Beholders seem super rad. I know literally nothing about them. This is their entire entry in MM1: No it isn't. There are a couple of other paragraphs like the one saying "Beholders use a wide range of minions and striek alliances with other powerful monsters..." quote:I ask questions like: The big ones never work together? What would make them work together? "An eye tyrant's ego prevents it from getting along with others of its kind." What can convince someone that egotistical to play second fiddle? quote:What else, explain stuff too me. Are they magical or is it like superman eyes? Define the difference please. quote:Are they fey creature? "Large aberrant magical beast" So no. quote:Do they want to dominate other species or just think they would to a better job? "Beholder Eye Tyrant". "Eyes of flame prefer to fight behind a group of submissive soldiers or brutes." quote:I want way more than whats there. And once again I've answered your questions from what is actually there. FRINGE posted:Making up basic stats takes no effort at all, whereas designing thoughtful lore takes time. This is true if and only if you don't care about the quality of stats you come out with. If your idea of stats are "HP: 4, THAC0 19, AC: 6 Size: medium, damage: 1-6" then yes producing stats takes no effort at all. But was I talking about an orc, a goblin, a kobold, or a dog? I'd never waste a dollar buying a book full of stats like that. On the other hand stats that are genuinely evocative and a good demonstration of how the monsters think and behave? That are condensed fluff as opposed to mere keeping score? And that take more thought to get right than mere extruded fluff? Those I'd pay for. quote:You then claim that having less lore "made worldbuilding easier". I assume when you say "worldbuilding" you mean putting figures on a grid and calling the package orc figures "Snuggletoothglumphs" and giving them extra hitpoints. And that is because you are about as ignorant of 4e and the use of a genuinely good statblock or two as you claim others are of your favoured editions. The fundamental conceit of 4e is that "It's not who you are underneath that matters, but what you do on the outside that counts." And in particular your personality shines through the most clearly when the rubber meets the road - of which combat is one major example. 4e stat blocks show me this. And if you think that monster psychology and organisation isn't an integral part of worldbuilding, we have very different ideas on what actually matter. Which, I suppose, is why "Goblin tribes contain 38 goblins including two chieftains, an overseer, and three wielding bohemian ear spoons" is something 2e fans see as useful and I do not. quote:Theres a lot of words being spent on why "having words to read is bad". More like a lot of words being spent on "Cookie cutter monster tribes and combat abilities buried in fluff blocks in a way that slow the game down is bad." petrol blue posted:Thanks for writing that up, it was fascinating train-wreck reading. Possibly because 4e is best as a story-focussed game, so they are going right back to 1e dungeon crawling (and not being good at it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
In new postmodern D&D, combat powers are fluff. When somebody deals 1d6 damage a certain way, my luckmeat is suddenly filled with flavor and I am instilled with lore, like "goblins are small!" and "beholders have lasers!". Every small creature has a racial power having to do with its smallness--finally, crunch and fluff bound together in a single, superior storytelling language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:I ran a pre-gen fighter through the Vault of the Dracolich D&D Gameday event a few weeks ago, and I've been putting off doing a post-mortem for a while now. I was one of seven people in a party of two fighters, two rangers, a wizard, a paladin, and a barbarian. No Cleric, no rogue/thief. I'm pretty familiar with Next at this point, so reading through your tale I was thinking things like 'Spot is for finding hidden monsters, just like 3e!' and 'They fixed Cause Wounds a month ago, which used to be 4d8 pre-nerf,' and 'skipping rests is just as painful in Next as it was in 4e, dont do that.' But really it reminds me of the many mistakes any group will make if they don't have at least one player that actually knows the rules. Typically that's the DM. But if he didn't know what Spot was for, then he also didn't know how Stealth worked. And that meant he was clueless on the exploration rules too which would have helped with all that trap finding. I'm sure a lot of other poo poo went wrong too and no one even knew it. So when it comes time to give feedback on the actual playtest rules, feedback gets mixed in with all the rules misunderstandings and comes out pretty garbled. It reminds me of all the growing pains going into 4e, like when the Kobold was officially the most confusing monster because it taught new players that they could shift as a minor action (no, they cant!). People came out of the 4e intros (remember KoTS? ugh) with all sorts of weird misunderstandings and they stick for a long time. I haven't played Vault, but if it's just a bad module like KoTS was, on top of not even knowing the rules, that's a recipe for a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:In new postmodern D&D, combat powers are fluff. When somebody deals 1d6 damage a certain way, my luckmeat is suddenly filled with flavor and I am instilled with lore, like "goblins are small!" and "beholders have lasers!". If you think that there's a hard distinction between fluff and crunch then you're doing it wrong. With both fluff and crunch. Crunch informs, illustrates, and amplifies fluff, and vise-versa. quote:Every small creature has a racial power having to do with its smallness--finally, crunch and fluff bound together in a single, superior storytelling language. A vast improvement on just a few tiny bonusses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I can see where you're coming from, but you can ignore what the book says and shake your head at the players who try to argue with your version of abolethic ecology. I might very well ignore the what the book says myself, but on the other hand, the stuff the book says might give me some inspiration for new ideas. Basically, I'd like them to give me everything, and then I can choose what to ignore. I really want them to give people some sample ideas to get them going, but I think my ideal presentation is as a set of 'Rumors' rather than 'Facts'. I think fantasy is at its best when your opponents are a little mysterious and weird, so I just like the idea of the books encouraging the DM to warp and outright reskin monsters to fit their campaigns. The job of fluff, for me, is to establish a baseline of coolness that inexperienced or underprepared/flustered/hung over DMs can fall back on when needed, and which they can harvest for ideas when they are feeling creative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
isndl posted:Keep in mind this event was designed around the idea of multiple tables collaborating in the same dungeon and that there would be hot-swapping players between tables when you hit certain trigger events. I would be pretty interested in knowing how this was intended to work. It sounds like a neat (though impossible) idea for an event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:And once again I've answered your questions from what is actually there. Are you trying to miss the point? Do you know why I'm asking these questions? Because those a very easy follow up discussions the book could throw at you. I'm using the basic information based on whats there. Also how can you make a 'what would normally happen?' relation. The thing is a GIANT FLOATING EYE WITH MORE EYES AND TEETH. I don't know what they hell they would want. Take the githyanki they have a whole big set of backstory and history to do with them. I would use them because I want that stuff to be involved in some way. If I didn't everyone would be human. I use something non-human because they have something interesting about them. What atmosphere do beholders work in? Are they comical spastics that are all about being mad scientists or are they supposed to be being of unimaginable power that descend on from high? SELL ME ON THEM. Make me give a poo poo about them. If I don't what hope do I have of the players caring about it? I mean its a beholder surely they could come up with more than that right? kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I would be pretty interested in knowing how this was intended to work. It sounds like a neat (though impossible) idea for an event. A review pulling it all together is up @ http://dungeonsmaster.com/2013/06/dd-game-day-vault-of-the-dracolich-wrap-up/. This one was like 6 groups all doing it at once:  They marked up a big poster map of where each group was located: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
kingcom posted:What atmosphere do beholders work in? Are they comical spastics that are all about being mad scientists or are they supposed to be being of unimaginable power that descend on from high? If you are playing a comical game, the first, and if you are playing a serious game, the latter? I mean Beholders have been both things throughout D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Are you trying to miss the point? Do you know why I'm asking these questions? Because those a very easy follow up discussions the game can have and throw you. I'm using the basic information based on whats there. Also how can you make a 'what would normally happen?' relation. The thing is a GIANT FLOATING EYE WITH MORE EYES AND TEETH. I don't know what they hell they would want. Take the githyanki they have a whole big set of backstory and history to do with them. I would use them because I want that stuff to be involved in some way. If I didn't everyone would be human. I use something non-human because they have something interesting about them. What atmosphere do beholders work in? Are they comical spastics that are all about being mad scientists or are they supposed to be being of unimaginable power that descend on from high? SELL ME ON THEM. Make me give a poo poo about them. If I don't what hope do I have of the players caring about it? I mean its a beholder surely they could come up with more than that right? Your being deliberately obtuse here, it sounds like you want setting book level information on Beholders, not Monster Manual level information, which is fine, but for a setting book. The MM really tells you all you need to know and you can just fill in the blanks with the rest, and besides, everyone who plays DnD knows what a Beholder is, like everyone knows what an Orc or a Goblin is, no one really needs to know that much about them, so it's probably a waste of page space(in a monster manual, go all hardcore in setting books) to say a whole lot about something everyone already is familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Your being deliberately obtuse here, it sounds like you want setting book level information on Beholders, not Monster Manual level information, which is fine, but for a setting book. The MM really tells you all you need to know and you can just fill in the blanks with the rest, and besides, everyone who plays DnD knows what a Beholder is, like everyone knows what an Orc or a Goblin is, no one really needs to know that much about them, so it's probably a waste of page space(in a monster manual, go all hardcore in setting books) to say a whole lot about something everyone already is familiar with. I have never played DnD until very recently, thats been my whole point. DnD constantly jumps between having a setting and then not having a setting. If everyones already familiar with all this stuff, why is it not completely a stat book and just having stat block + picture all down the line? Surely theres the idea that people dont know about this stuff? I hear monster manual and think you are explaining monsters to me and not just explaining rules to me. EDIT: To be fair if its just rules I would prefer the suggestion way up in the thread of a set of math rules to make monsters of certain categories and then loads of tables of special abilities designed per-level. Saves room and gets you more out of it that way. Mormon Star Wars posted:If you are playing a comical game, the first, and if you are playing a serious game, the latter? I mean Beholders have been both things throughout D&D. I'm explaining this from the standpoint of 'knows nothing about the topic'. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
The implied setting - which lives extensively in the monster fluff - needs enough detail to give the DM ideas about what framework to improvise around, without being so intricate as to render adaptation difficult. As this is the cooking thread, I'm sure some of you understand the idea of seeking out a new recipe so that you can ignore it. Tabletop games and cooking have a lot in common, in fact, and I don't just mean that they take place at a table and involve prep work. Rulebooks as cookbooks. OneThousandMonkeys posted:In new postmodern D&D, combat powers are fluff. When somebody deals 1d6 damage a certain way, my luckmeat is suddenly filled with flavor and I am instilled with lore, like "goblins are small!" and "beholders have lasers!". Juffo-Wup fills in my fibers and I grow turgid. Violent action ensues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Beholders just want to be part of the team.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I'm explaining this from the standpoint of 'knows nothing about the topic'. If the game is comic why isn't the DM just making the monsters comic? Your question relies entirely on setting, not on generic monster info. It's the people running the game that determine the tone. Is an orc appropriate for funny games or serious games? Either! You're the one putting them in, you determine the tone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I'm pretty familiar with Next at this point, so reading through your tale I was thinking things like 'Spot is for finding hidden monsters, just like 3e!' and 'They fixed Cause Wounds a month ago, which used to be 4d8 pre-nerf,' and 'skipping rests is just as painful in Next as it was in 4e, dont do that.' Looking at the new bestiary, you're right! It's down to 4d8 for the mid-tier, and 5d8 for the top-tier. Now I'm genuinely wondering where in his rear end he pulled the 8d8 from. However, the 'skipping a rest' thing was because it was stressed at the start of the adventure that the situation was very 'time sensitive,' which didn't jive at all with several hour long rests. With some discussion, the group figured we only had X total short rests before the Dracolich popped. (It's actually automatic once the first idol is picked up from any table) Looking back, the DM did nothing to deter us from thinking this. Now, since I've found someone to grill on Next: here's my understanding of how skills work in next. Each potential obstacle can only be solved by one particular skill. However, you're free to try to tie your 'trained' skills to any time you make a check related to said skills in order to get an additional d6 added to the roll. Is this good? Am I to understand that there's no wiggle room for using other ability scores for checks? Also of note: why in the coldest hell did they give the pregen fighter have a background trait (Nobleman: You demand respect from nobility, and get free boarding and food in all civilized keeps) that is totally useless for this adventure?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:If the game is comic why isn't the DM just making the monsters comic? Your question relies entirely on setting, not on generic monster info. It's the people running the game that determine the tone. The question is rhetorical. I'm pointing out that I don't know what this is or how to use it, so why not provide...oh lets say 2 paragraphs giving me some more detail. Its not a discussion on what a monster is. Its a question designed to prompt this. Why is it that people are fine with elves being agile and smart and living longer than humans by default but giving a beholder some background information is crazy and going to disrupt world building? DnD has a default setting. It says it doesnt but it does, very clearly it does. They even give you a whole religious pantheon by default. All I've been saying is do what is done to every other part of DnD to the monster stuff. You know, the part that makes a GM's life much easier because it provide ideas and a fall back point for information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
A generic monster manual and a setting manual with monster info in it serve two purposes and need to be handled in different ways. In a setting book, having a ton of grounding info is really good. Drow getting a ton of work in Eberron makes sense, because it is exploring the world and giving you setting-specific hooks that are relevant to what you are playing. There's already buy-in, here: You are buying the Eberron monster manual because you want to know how things work in Eberron, so several paragraphs on Drow culture and scorpion worship and their history with the giants rules. A generic monster manual shouldn't be about grounding the monster in the setting, because it should be a toolbox to help you make your setting. Five paragraphs about how Goblins fit into Points of Light doesn't help anyone who isn't playing points of light. If you are thinking about making your own setting or playing in an established setting, you are getting exactly what people are complaining about in the thread - just a statblock. I mean, was anyone who didn't play Greyhawk happy when the Monster Manual for the entire game relied on Greyhawk as the setting? Who cares about the Yoemanry, I am playing [any other setting because Greyhawk outside of the Suel Empire was kinda dull]. A good Monster Manual shouldn't be five paragraphs on goblin tribal structure, take those five paragraphs and give me five suggestions to how I might work goblins into my game. Here is a paragraph on Goblins as a race of familiars in a Wizard Country, here is a paragraph on tribal goblins whose shaman prophecy animal movements, here are goblins who secretly manipulate kobolds in a vast underground empire, here are goblins...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Are you trying to miss the point? Do you know why I'm asking these questions? Since every single question you asked was already answered by the actual entry, I presume you're asking them because you're either lazy or not very good at reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
kingcom posted:The question is rhetorical. I'm pointing out that I don't know what this is or how to use it, so why not provide...oh lets say 2 paragraphs giving me some more detail. Its not a discussion on what a monster is. Its a question designed to prompt this. They already have background information equivalent to "elves are agile and smart and live longer." "Beholders are xenophobic abominations who think that their individual clan of beholders are the perfect form and kill each other over minor differences in body type." edit: to continue your Beholder example, the creator of Eberron, Keith Baker, did a Complete Beholder book where he has a page that has 9 paragraphs, each paragraph is an idea-seed for what a Beholder group would look like if they were each alignment. That would be way more useful in a Monster Manual than "This is how Beholders live in the Valley of the Mage in central greyhawk, our 'default' setting." Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:They already have background information equivalent to "elves are agile and smart and live longer." "Beholders are xenophobic abominations who think that their individual clan of beholders are the perfect form and kill each other over minor differences in body type." I want that second bit of information thats good stuff. Thats it, thats my whole argument. Have the MM say that second sentence and a few more like it. Mormon Star Wars posted:edit: to continue your Beholder example, the creator of Eberron, Keith Baker, did a Complete Beholder book where he has a page that has 9 paragraphs, each paragraph is an idea-seed for what a Beholder group would look like if they were each alignment. That would be way more useful in a Monster Manual than "This is how Beholders live in the Valley of the Mage in central greyhawk, our 'default' setting." Yea this is what I want. This is literally what I want, give me adventure seeds for monsters. Get me excited about using it and making a story for it. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Also of note: why in the coldest hell did they give the pregen fighter have a background trait (Nobleman: You demand respect from nobility, and get free boarding and food in all civilized keeps) that is totally useless for this adventure? Because fighters deserve nothing but contempt, such is Gary's vision. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
D&D has never had a generic monster manual. Every D&D monster manual has been rooted in D&D's core setting, explicit or implied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Now, since I've found someone to grill on Next: here's my understanding of how skills work in next. Each potential obstacle can only be solved by one particular skill. However, you're free to try to tie your 'trained' skills to any time you make a check related to said skills in order to get an additional d6 added to the roll. Is this good? Am I to understand that there's no wiggle room for using other ability scores for checks? Inflict Wounds is actually down to 3d8 in the june update. It just didn't get migrated back into those monster statblocks. Next has over 500 unique monsters at this point (yes, I have them in a giant .xls file) spread out in different bestiaries, but they are from various times in the testing process. That won't really get resolved until things settled down at release. I'm not sure what you're asking about skills. The core system is ability checks. DC 10 is Easy, 15 is Average and 20 is Hard. That's it, other levels exist but mostly those are what you use. Skills sit on top of that; if you are doing a trained skill, no matter what ability score it is, you add your bonus skill dice. That's pretty much the entire system. So sneaking is a Dex check and anyone can sneak, but trained sneaky people get a bonus. The DM doc lists a ton of examples and spells out that it's just a guideline and not intended to tie hands creatively-speaking. Backgrounds like Noble, Thug, etc give a package of 4 skills, some basic gear and a little RP trait. For a pre-gen they probably just did it for the skills or whatever. Nobles also get three retainers and a horse, so you should really be asking "where the gently caress is my horse, DM?!" edit: what you are describing is actually the Knight background. ritorix fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
kingcom posted:They are egotistical as a species. Thats...helpful I guess? I think talented writers could put together an entire book on this species. http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=7605 http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Monstrous-Accessory/dp/0786904046 They got three of these out before WotC canned the idea after the takeover/bailout. The other two were Sahauguin and Illithids. (The Sea Devils and The Illithiad respectively.) Splicer posted:Are you serious. Want to redefine "elves" from end to end for a specific setting? Excuse me while I cancel the game and get out my notebook. Splicer posted:If there's no canon Goblin then how the Goblins are in your world can come out during play. If the book says that Goblins are always chaotic evil then you're going to have to say "Goblins are not always Evil" (in which case if these particular Goblins are evil you're going to have some annoyed players on your hands) or the game will suffer due to your players' assumptions (if these particular Goblins are good) or their lack of surprise (if these particular Goblins are evil). I changed many things from campaign to campaign, I was able to change things because there was some kind of frame to hang them on. (More on this following...) It is comical that people are complaining that "writing is too hard to trust to DnD" and then defending how they are all better at it. By all means do your own thing, but there is no reason to cripple the printed game material because thats what you want to do. Splicer posted:You like lore. We get it. So why not have Monster Manuals be Monster Manuals and Setting Books be Setting Books? In general - The base "Orc" was a general monster. The variety of "Orcs" and their sub-types, and their tribal affiliations, and their disparity of morals was setting specific in FR. The specific entries did not suffer for the general entry in the MM. People complaining that "the players will be mad if the books are not empty of substantial lore" are the many of the same people that have essentially complained that DnD is terrible because "DMs are bad". If your group is that loving bad then stop playing. Splicer posted:Yeah, but as you said, those are settings. If you want setting information you buy a published setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:D&D has never had a generic monster manual. Every D&D monster manual has been rooted in D&D's core setting, explicit or implied. The times they have tried to focus on that setting impeded the monster manuals usefulness. Did you play Greyhawk? Did Greyhawk specific information in the Dungeons and Dragons monster manual help your game?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They did, and some people are mad about it. Holy poo poo, did they really name a beholder book "I, Tyrant"?! Since kingcom won't get the joke: they are called Eye Tyrants. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
moths posted:(1) Both halves are important! Creatively tinkering with lore gives you a more rewarding game than (2) loving with the stats and killing the party because whoops numbers do matter. (2) My statements were (yet again) coming from 2e, where the basic system was pretty easy to manipulate, and had some good suggestions/rails on it from how it was put together. (Yes, there were problems, we all know.) Kai Tave posted:Part of the issue, and I started up a post about this something like 50 replies ago but deleted it after deciding to go do something else instead, is the weird half-generic/half-implied-setting state of "core D&D." ... So where does the bog-standard Monster Manual fall in that regard? D&D seems to want to have it both ways, it wants to present itself as this "Make poo poo up! Do whatever! Make your own world and your own setting and have adventures there!" game and also a game with its own particular implied/overtly-stated setting even in the "generic" corebooks. It should be able to run on the fuel of "bog-standard Monster Manual", it should be easy to "Make poo poo up! Do whatever! Make your own world", and overwrite anything that is replaced by your ideas, and it should mesh easily with the various published setting material (which should [/i]also[/i] be easily changed when you want to). Barudak posted:I will also admit to reading way too much of the first edition Fiend Folio fluff and loving how committed they were to being absolute assholes to the players and using way toned down versions of those things in my campaign that I never would have thought of without the meandering fluff. Splicer posted:I don't know. What would? Sounds like something to build a campaign around! Basically this was the historical attitude before the latest edition war crusade: PeterWeller posted:Yeah, I can totally make all that stuff up if I want, and I should have the freedom to do so, but I also like when that stuff is provided for me, and I can choose to use or ignore it at my leisure. Besides based on all the playtest reports we should all hope for good fluff material that fits whatever version you already like to play. The rules themselves dont seem promising.  Father Wendigo posted:TRIP REPORT: I did not enjoy this playtest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:The times they have tried to focus on that setting impeded the monster manuals usefulness. Did you play Greyhawk? Did Greyhawk specific information in the Dungeons and Dragons monster manual help your game? They have focused on that setting in every monster manual (and compendium) ever. D&D has always had an implied or explicit core setting. The GH information in the 3E MM didn't impede my game, neither did the PoL information in the 4E MM (or the FR information in the 2E MM). PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:They have focused on that setting in every monster manual (and compendium) ever. D&D has always had an implied or explicit core setting. The GH information in the 3E MM didn't impede my game, neither did the PoL information in the 4E MM. You keep repeating that, but no one is denying D&D has had an implied setting. You know what would be more useful than Greyhawk information? A variety of information! Suggestions on how to work them into a setting! Why stick to Greyhawk when you could actually do more with the manual? edit: People in this thread keep going "But if you take away all the lore, all you end up with is statblocks." If the Monster Manual relies on greyhawk and you aren't running greyhawk, then it's the same situation - you are just paying for statblocks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 03:04
|
|