|
Razorwired posted:The DM's character is the Dungeon Nuh uh! It's the totally tricked out half-elf half-farie NPC who's also a vampire that follows the party around and always saves them if they get into trouble and has a huge crush he won't admit on Chaz's girlfriend's character but it's cool because he sometimes gives us plot hints and magical items but also sometimes annoying because we'd like to be the guys who beat the final boss sometimes. What kind of DMs do you play with? 
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
theironjef posted:My Dwarf is a 3rd level Dungeon!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Every Warforged is actually a tiny dungeon. Their immune system of tiny dragons constantly thwarts the plans of tiny adventurers trying to steal their precious innards. Depending on the particular dragon called to the defence side effects can include fever, chills, acid reflux, or the involuntary discharge of several dozen tiny animated skeletons. You said this as a joke but I legit want to play this character. Very badly. I NEED to play this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
rex monday posted:You said this as a joke but I legit want to play this character. Very badly. I swear that in some supplement for 3.5 somewhere, possibly a third-party one, there's a PC race of tiny bugs that assemble themselves into roughly humanoid shapes for purposes of interacting with other sentient species.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Not sure about PC race but there is the Worm that Walks template, that has no LA. Also there is an ECL 18 or so good creature that is an aberration shapeshifter swarm. It seems really cool but very high level and has at will Polymorph any Object limited to creatures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Wait, this is new and good. quote:In the final form of the rule, attacks can break your concentration and cause a spell to end. Casters who use concentration spells thus still want to avoid melee and take cover whenever possible This wasn't in the packets, iirc. It's new and smart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
...and by "new" you mean at least 2E, right? I'm pretty sure it's earlier than that, but that's when I started so it's where I have the most knowledge. I think there was something similar with the speed thing in Basic? I've only played a time or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:...and by "new" you mean at least 2E, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
And not very useful/fun without some real way for other party members to discourage enemies from just charging the spellcaster beyond the DM not wanting to gib them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
It means ongoing spells this time, I think. You can end ongoing spells that a caster is "concentrating" on by attacking them, even after it's cast. It finally gives some purpose to the entire idea of spells you have to concentrate on to maintain, I'll give it that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Asimo posted:And not very useful/fun without some real way for other party members to discourage enemies from just charging the spellcaster beyond the DM not wanting to gib them. Some possible ways: movement-related opportunity attacks, tactical fighter feat, defensive fighting style. Of course, this is still crazy with Next pushing TotM combat, but... Rulebook Heavily posted:It means ongoing spells this time, I think. You can end ongoing spells that a caster is "concentrating" on by attacking them, even after it's cast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Every Warforged is actually a tiny dungeon. Their immune system of tiny dragons constantly thwarts the plans of tiny adventurers trying to steal their precious innards. Depending on the particular dragon called to the defence side effects can include fever, chills, acid reflux, or the involuntary discharge of several dozen tiny animated skeletons. I am Large, I contain Multitudes and d100 from treasure table 6b
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I am Large, I contain Multitudes and d100 from treasure table 6b
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Can I be a tavern? Actually, wait, does that mean adventurers will inevitab...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Good Pork Chops on sale megacheap means it is time to make the ones I usually make, and also try out the Gordon Ramsay recipe for sweet pepper chops. Any other good things to experiment with??
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Try stuffing them with something like Feta and a fruit of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
I AM THE MOON posted:Good Pork Chops on sale megacheap means it is time to make the ones I usually make, and also try out the Gordon Ramsay recipe for sweet pepper chops. Any other good things to experiment with?? Marinate some in the Stubb's pork chop marinade. That stuff is magic in a bottle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Have any of the playtests previewed the cohort and minion rules yet? I know they said that Ranger animal companions are going to be handled under the hireling system, and that sounds a little bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Chop some onions and fry them slowly, and add the chop to the pan once they're soft. When your chop is nearly done, splash in some cider (the alcoholic stuff, I think it's called hard cider in the US) and maybe cream if you don't care about your health. Keep it stirring and cook it 'till it reduces into a cool appley, oniony sauce for the chop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Have any of the playtests previewed the cohort and minion rules yet? I know they said that Ranger animal companions are going to be handled under the hireling system, and that sounds a little bit weird. It won't necessarily be weird if they have hireling rules that are about combat/interaction rather than "a hireling is an NPC of a level one less than your own or lower and here are some morale tables".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
So this came in my Email http://www.dndclassics.com/product/123270?src=DragonspearCastleCmail. and apparently other play tester's emails as well. An Adventure for Next kind of interesting. Not buying until I know more about it however. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:So this came in my Email http://www.dndclassics.com/product/123270?src=DragonspearCastleCmail. and apparently other play tester's emails as well. It's four adventures that tie together into a long campaign for levels 1 to about 8. Setting is Daggerford in the realms. Lots of traditional d&d stuff - go into dungeons, fight dragons, deal with traps and whatnot. I liked it. I played through it at gencon and ran it for my home game. The story will tie into encounters season 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Mearls posted:A fighter or rogue doesn't need to learn this rule, nor does a paladin or bard who never picks up concentration spells. It only comes into play for those who want to use buff spells or long-lasting control spells. A player who learns the rules and knows that an evil cleric has used a concentration spell is rewarded by being able to make informed tactical decisions when fighting that cleric. However, you don't need to know the rule to play the game. Martial classes don't need to know that they can interrupt the enemy's buff spells with opportunity attacks, even though it would greatly improve their effectiveness in combat to do so. Spell casting classes will of course be familiar with this rule because they themselves will be casting similar effects and want to avoid losing them to opportunity attacks. Player skill! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
ritorix posted:It's four adventures that tie together into a long campaign for levels 1 to about 8. Setting is Daggerford in the realms. Lots of traditional d&d stuff - go into dungeons, fight dragons, deal with traps and whatnot. The description in the link makes it sounds like the blandest most generic thing ever. Does it go beyond the basic tropes and have anything to make it stand out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
rex monday posted:You said this as a joke but I legit want to play this character. Very badly. "Our Warforged is breaking down! We must shrink ourselves and journey into his systems to repair the damage!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The description in the link makes it sounds like the blandest most generic thing ever. Does it go beyond the basic tropes and have anything to make it stand out? There is a preview. But it dose not explain much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Without doing a whole writeup/review on the book I'm not sure what else to say about it. It's not the best adventure ever written, but it's the best thing for Next (alongside Mines of Madness, which wins 'best comedy option') and a lot better than Murder in Baldur's Gate. As for what you get, it boils down to 4 dungeon crawls, 1 home base town and the side quests and random encounters that link everything together. The 1st dungeon is a sun god temple taken over by a black dragon + corrupted lizardmen. That's for the 1st-level group. So you get to the dragon and have to figure out how to avoid or bargain with it. While my group was playing, we found a black dragon egg in the swamp, it hatched and called the first person it saw mama. We had a cute, acid-drooling baby dragon following us around until daddy dragon saw and bargained for its return. When I ran it, my players scared off the baby, but instead found a cursed mirror that makes you stare into it. They gave it to the dragon as a gift, and bugged out while he admired himself. Dungeon 2 is an old adventurer's lair full of traps and loot, family members' tombs, and the family members that never quite departed. This is easily the best dungeon of the 4. There's a lich in here (somewhat friendly), a medusa and her flesh golem servant, lurkers (floor/ceiling monsters), ghosts and other weird stuff. This is for a party around level 3. Getting around and getting the mcguffin in such a dangerous place is interesting. Dungeon 3 is an old dwarven stronghold full of orcs, most of the stuff in here ties the campaign story together and I'll leave it at that. 4 is Dragonspear Castle, also known as Hellgate Keep. By the time you get here the party is pretty geared and leveled to 8-10 or so, and you are fighting stuff like vampires and fiends. The climactic battle involves 2 wizards and a death knight flying at you on wyverns. Good luck with that. Random encounters are there if you want. Some are '2d4 trolls' and some are unique locations. While running it for my home group, they were traveling through a swamp and I rolled up a hag for an encounter. So they come upon a lonely hut in the swamp with the smell of sweet, sweet cookies blowing on the breeze. "Oh gently caress no, run!" was the response. Can't say I disagree with that. We were just talking about the Dragonspear Castle - Encounters link, and here comes the new announcement: http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/scourgesc ritorix fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
New Legends and Lore is up - The Ever-Elusive Feel: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/2013Feel
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
 Dragonspear Castle and Hellgate Keep are two entirely different devil-infested ruins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
knux911 posted:New Legends and Lore is up - The Ever-Elusive Feel: Why would you ever place any significance on the specific title of a class? If your "feel" and perception of a class is sort of contrary to the more fundamental aspects of it and it simultaneously falls neatly within the wheelhouse of a different class entirely it seems sort of sensible to just make the other loving class. When you want to make a fighter who's a survivalist and uses bows as his primary weapon you don't throw up your hands and say you're not being accommodated to or that there's not enough customization; You use your brain for a split second and realize you've mentally crossed ranger with fighter and then promptly roll a ranger. This article paints that as a bad thing and I don't understand. If you can make the class that performs the way you want to in every aspect but it's not named what you want and that's unacceptable it's like what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Why would you ever place any significance on the specific title of a class? If your "feel" and perception of a class is sort of contrary to the more fundamental aspects of it and it simultaneously falls neatly within the wheelhouse of a different class entirely it seems sort of sensible to just make the other loving class. When you want to make a fighter who's a survivalist and uses bows as his primary weapon you don't throw up your hands and say you're not being accommodated to or that there's not enough customization; You use your brain for a split second and realize you've mentally crossed ranger with fighter and then promptly roll a ranger. This article paints that as a bad thing and I don't understand. If you can make the class that performs the way you want to in every aspect but it's not named what you want and that's unacceptable it's like what. I've actually seen this line of thinking from other people before. They seem to think every class should be capable of anything if you build it right and that the game needs to accommodate whatever weird build you come up with. I had a friend who was obsessed with the idea of a "wizard with a sword" and he would write these lengthy diatribes to me about why 4E sucked because he couldn't play this character he wanted to play and he can do it in 3.5 and Next therefore they're better. I responded with both Bladesinger and Swordmage but he said that those "just weren't the same". knux911 posted:New Legends and Lore is up - The Ever-Elusive Feel: I like that he uses armor types as an example seeing as dexterity is so incredibly powerful in Next that every character should start with a 14 in it which pretty much negates heavy armor as a thing. Also he honestly feel like they've successfully made classes that players can add "unique flavor to? With the reduced amount of options (unless you're a caster, of course) at my Encounters table every low-level fighter or barbarian felt exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
3.x broke people. The truth is that 3.x fans do not want classes in the first place. They want a very loose label that can be connected to whatever it is that they make. A class is something rigid and defined; that's anathema to them. 3.x somewhat fittingly is a points and skills based game dressed up like a class based game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
knux911 posted:New Legends and Lore is up - The Ever-Elusive Feel: That should be the title of an A/T thread about Dating in High School
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Why would you ever place any significance on the specific title of a class? If your "feel" and perception of a class is sort of contrary to the more fundamental aspects of it and it simultaneously falls neatly within the wheelhouse of a different class entirely it seems sort of sensible to just make the other loving class. When you want to make a fighter who's a survivalist and uses bows as his primary weapon you don't throw up your hands and say you're not being accommodated to or that there's not enough customization; You use your brain for a split second and realize you've mentally crossed ranger with fighter and then promptly roll a ranger. This article paints that as a bad thing and I don't understand. If you can make the class that performs the way you want to in every aspect but it's not named what you want and that's unacceptable it's like what. Designing the game around being able to take the class Fighter and be able to easily build either a Soak All The Damage fighter or a Deal All The Damage fighter is not in itself a bad thing. Hard to do, but not bad to try. Even if it's just that after picking Fighter you are then asked "Do you want to take the Hurt People or Soak Up Damage class starters?" The problem with this approach, which they are very careful not to mention, is that D&D has Baggage. On the one hand you have the Ranger, a nature-obsessed loner who fights with two swords and a bow. On the other hand you have a class named Fighter, which could mean anything from a dude with a giant axe to, well, a nature-obsessed loner who fights with two swords and a bow. Either of these approaches would work fine, but you're trying to cram both of them into the same game. You can either have a game where the class names are pretty generic and you build what you want with the bits available, or you have a game where all the classes have very specific mechanics and fluff attached. Neither is innately superior, but you can't do both at the same time. Which is, it appears, what the article is claiming they've decided to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:
Pfft, typical of the realms. The kitchen sink setting even comes with extra sinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Pfft, typical of the realms. The kitchen sink setting even comes with extra sinks. Hey, I think you'll find that one is an elven ruin, and the other human; and one threatens the North, while the other threatens the Sword Coast North.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Designing the game around being able to take the class Fighter and be able to easily build either a Soak All The Damage fighter or a Deal All The Damage fighter is not in itself a bad thing. Hard to do, but not bad to try. Even if it's just that after picking Fighter you are then asked "Do you want to take the Hurt People or Soak Up Damage class starters?" I think having well-defined role mechanics that are divorced from class would go a long way. Also, junk the concept of class skills; let the Party Composition Mini-Game handle covering all the bases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The problem with this approach, which they are very careful not to mention, is that D&D has Baggage. On the one hand you have the Ranger, a nature-obsessed loner who fights with two swords and a bow. On the other hand you have a class named Fighter, which could mean anything from a dude with a giant axe to, well, a nature-obsessed loner who fights with two swords and a bow. Either of these approaches would work fine, but you're trying to cram both of them into the same game. You can either have a game where the class names are pretty generic and you build what you want with the bits available, or you have a game where all the classes have very specific mechanics and fluff attached. Neither is innately superior, but you can't do both at the same time. One of the problems is that most of this baggage is, by and large, accidental and caused only by D&D's extremely long periods of time between editions. It's something unique (and sorta bizarre) to the industry - the idea that one game has to last several years. It means that mistakes that can't be patched in slowly eventually become core parts of the game through sheer inertia. D&D never looses baggage. It only adds to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:3.x broke people. Were you the one that posted that the best way to be a mid level "Fighter" when 3.5 ended was actually to be a Berserker of the Lion Totem 1/Duelist of Setting Specific Bullshit 1/Class With Free Weapon Focus 2/Thief 3/Fighter 3? Because whoever it was had a perfect example of why I told my late 3.5 parties no Multiclassing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Razorwired posted:Were you the one that posted that the best way to be a mid level "Fighter" when 3.5 ended was actually to be a Berserker of the Lion Totem 1/Duelist of Setting Specific Bullshit 1/Class With Free Weapon Focus 2/Thief 3/Fighter 3? Because whoever it was had a perfect example of why I told my late 3.5 parties no Multiclassing. Essentially the best way to do anything mechanically in 3.5e is to multiclass, and all a five-class non-caster character is going to do is spam one tactic forever. All such characters are sort of like samurai who train all their lives to master a single Iaijutsu sword-stroke technique that, when executed perfectly, ASSURES DEATH, except the path to enlightenment is to climb a mountain of inelegant bullshit mechanics, hammer it into a perfectly square peg, and then stuff it down the round hole that is your character sheet. But the ideal is to destroy your opponent in a single round, simultaneously counteracting his attempt to likewise destroy you in a single round. This is the highest ideal of any combat that you can serve in 3E. Do not play 3E.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 08:45
|
|
