|
MonsterEnvy posted:To be fair the Cleric there was pure luck. But Clerics are a good class though nowhere near as powerful as they used to be. The cleric is still top dog when it comes to the important field of 'doing the martial's job better than them'. Exhibit A) Krag Hack
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Covok posted:What exactly do you mean by "spells in stat blocks?" Are you referring to the monster simply having spells or how it's formatted?  The kind where I need to borrow a PHB or keep some spell reference open to run them properly.I kinda expected it for the NPCs, although I still think it's terrible. But when I see a monster like the Flameskull casting spells, it sets off warning bells. MonsterEnvy posted:It's Personally not a big deal to me (If you don't memorize them you can always write them down as well) as the ones in the starter set have pretty simple spells that are rather easy to remember. Besides there won't be nearly as many monsters with spells in the statblock as their used to be. It's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:Its math is hosed in all sorts of ways How is the math screwed up. I am not an expert but I don't see how it is. I won't talk about the rest of your post because I am tired and honestly don't have time to write a bit response right now. Also they stated that they were not going to use spells in monster stat blocks unless the creature was a caster. (My defense for caster stat blocks is that they have much more veristily then other monsters and it does not bloat the stat block as much as showing everything would. ) Anyway I am overall tired of this thread as well. I will post news and stuff here but until the players handbook comes out I won't be posting as much. It's kind of needed for us to fully judge the game anyway. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It's Personally not a big deal to me (If you don't memorize them you can always write them down as well) as the ones in the starter set have pretty simple spells that are rather easy to remember. Besides there won't be nearly as many monsters with spells in the statblock as their used to be. Also you're wrong about there not being "nearly as many monsters with spells in the statblock as their used to be." If something was a caster in 3e or earlier it's a caster now. Even a goddamn Flameskull, a monster that has no sensible reason to be a Level X Spellcaster, has spells instead of powers. There will be just as many casters in 5e as in 2e and 3e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It's Personally not a big deal to me (If you don't memorize them you can always write them down as well) as the ones in the starter set have pretty simple spells that are rather easy to remember. Besides there won't be nearly as many monsters with spells in the statblock as their used to be. You are the poster child for "modules". Like the ultimate Jerry's Kid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Anyway I am overall tired of this thread as well. I will post news and stuff here but until the players handbook comes out I won't be posting as much. It's kind of needed for us to fully judge the game anyway. Like a candle lit from both ends, you burned out too soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
If something is a caster mob, and it has spells in it's stat block, are you supposed to use/know how many spell slots it has? Or can it just use it's spells however, whenever?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Oh yeah I got a starter set too today. I'm gonna read it but FRIST this bottle of wine needs to get finished. Its a preventative measure. Initial impressions: good art at least, 5e has to be the first cheesecake-free edition with actual armor and whatnot. And nice pregen sheets (paper quality) and...uh...yet another set of dice for my dice monster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:
I agree with almost all of this but I also have a few questions (for anyone to answer.) Firstly, how is the math hosed? Not in a "it looks fine to me!" sort of way, but in a "I haven't taken a closer look, what are you guys finding wrong with it so I can keep a look out?" sort of way. Secondly, I'm here because, like many others in this thread I'm sure, I want to play a D&D fantasy game because the system is fun and I want to relive the highlights of AD&D or 3.5e but 3.5e is a mess and AD&D didn't age well and Pathfinder managed to be just as horrible as 3.5e in less than half the time. D&D Next is literally my lesser evil at the moment. I really feel you on the "this is a bad game but that doesn't mean you can't like it for what it is." Anyway, my question is, what are games like DnD that I will enjoy? Aside from 13th Age and Numenera because those are already on my need-to-check-out and not-for-me lists respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Anyway, my question is, what are games like DnD that I will enjoy? Aside from 13th Age and Numenera because those are already on my need-to-check-out and not-for-me lists respectively. If you like cool dudes doing cool poo poo and not worrying too much about the rules, Dungeon World. If you like lots and lots of rules and feats and other crunchy choices, Fantasy Craft. I'm assuming you've already looked at 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:I agree with almost all of this but I also have a few questions (for anyone to answer.) The last time the Fighter gets a meaningful ability is level 5. It has the 3e problem that higher level spells are harder to save against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
In fact, it's spells by higher level casters which are harder to save against, which is simpler but actually worse for the guy rolling the same - a wizard doesn't need a level 7 will save to shut a fighter down when a level 2 will do just as well and hit just as often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Secondly, I'm here because, like many others in this thread I'm sure, I want to play a D&D fantasy game because the system is fun and I want to relive the highlights of AD&D or 3.5e but 3.5e is a mess and AD&D didn't age well and Pathfinder managed to be just as horrible as 3.5e in less than half the time. D&D Next is literally my lesser evil at the moment. I really feel you on the "this is a bad game but that doesn't mean you can't like it for what it is." Anyway, my question is, what are games like DnD that I will enjoy? Aside from 13th Age and Numenera because those are already on my need-to-check-out and not-for-me lists respectively. Nihilarian posted:Pathfinder is 3.5 with the serial numbers filed off. If you've played one, then you've played the other, and that includes all of the problems inherent to the system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
zachol posted:If you like cool dudes doing cool poo poo and not worrying too much about the rules, Dungeon World. If you like lots and lots of rules and feats and other crunchy choices, Fantasy Craft. Yeah I've played Dungeon World. It was my mistake to not mention it, but it's juuuuust not crunchy enough for me. Love the idea behind the system though. I have the Fantasy Craft PDF so I'll look at it. Gonna check out this Legend game. Meanwhile, I'm playing D&D Next this friday so hopefully I can have fun with it (we're all well past the point of power-gaming and high-level epic campaigns and just want to do fun adventurer stuff, so I think we'll have an anecdotally great time.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Legend (the RoC one) is pretty great but suffers from rocket tag and relatively complex monster creation. It's pretty much just "what if the 3e charop guys got tired of 3e and decided to make their own game." e: vvv don't scare them off! zachol fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
zachol posted:Legend (the RoC one) is pretty great but suffers from rocket tag and relatively complex monster creation. It's pretty much just "what if the 3e charop guys got tired of 3e and decided to make their own game." Well, that is literally what it is. RoC is made by former 3e charops people from OotS forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
starkebn posted:If something is a caster mob, and it has spells in it's stat block, are you supposed to use/know how many spell slots it has? Or can it just use it's spells however, whenever? In the playtest, it lists spell slots. They appear to be full casters, so I don't see any reason they couldn't cast all their third and above slots as fireball (or do something similar with a prep'ed spell of their choice). I'm still wondering if the concentration rule will make NPC casters less dangerous, or more dangerous. (It obviously fixes a problem for PCs.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:I agree with almost all of this but I also have a few questions (for anyone to answer.) If you are looking for a modern D&D that's not as bad as 3.x/PF, but still adheres to "tradition" pretty closely, then 5e fits the bill. It's almost literally a cleaned up and simplified 3.x with smaller numbers across the board. It also just might surprise us when the Big 3 come out. (hahah, no it won't) "D&D 5e: It could be worse, I guess."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Yeah, my impressions thusfar are that it's thoroughly adequate. It doesn't go far enough in any direction to really fail spectacularly, but everything in it has been done before and better somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
yeah, that's how I feel about it. we're playing it because we don't know what else to play.Maxwell Lord posted:everything in it has been done before and better somewhere else. perfect summary opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Yeah, I got it as a slightly belated birthday present in the mail today. I'm going to run it on the forums, I think, just not sure in what format or how I should do applications since I want to use the pregens. Man if you are going to run the Starter Set on the forums as a PbP I would be up for any of the pregens. I just want to try it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Firstly, how is the math hosed? Not in a "it looks fine to me!" sort of way, but in a "I haven't taken a closer look, what are you guys finding wrong with it so I can keep a look out?" sort of way. It was gone into way more earlier in the thread, but basically the biggest problem is that monster hp scales waaaaaaay too quickly, making fights turn into long boring slogs unless you just let a caster do 1 save or die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:It was gone into way more earlier in the thread, but basically the biggest problem is that monster hp scales waaaaaaay too quickly, making fights turn into long boring slogs unless you just let a caster do 1 save or die. Also the way fights are designed you often up against large packs of monsters that take a while to slog through or the caster uses an aoe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Clearly, there's a lot of lovely regression in 5E compared to 4E, but the most damning is the return of caster supremacy. So I got to thinking: what would a kickass fighter look like in 5E? One that's in the realm of balanced vs casters, in terms of combat capabilities, and story/world impact? I also figured, why not go back to the beginning, in the supposed spirit of 5E, and try to make a modern version of OD&D's Fighting Man? A large cadre of followers could have some real potential to compete with spells, at least with sound mechanics behind them. At this point, it's more of a thought experiment than a playable class (needs way more Tactics options for one, and I haven't gone beyond level 10), but I think it's complete enough to get the point across: Fighting Man for D&D 5E. A few caveats:
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Exhibit A) Krag Hack Seriously, anyone who hasn't played this stuff yet, please read the Dead in Thay PBP thread. It does an excellent job of at least two things: a good DM can make even a poor system fun; next is only slightly better balanced than 3e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Fighting Man for D&D 5E. This is pretty cool. If I seriously wanted to play one I'd want to see some sort of alternate class feature that replaced your followers with something more inherent/internal, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If I seriously wanted to play one I'd want to see some sort of alternate class feature that replaced your followers with something more inherent/internal, though. Sounds like a muscle wizard. D&D is a no muscle wizard-ing zone. We can't have our fantasy be unbelievable. Never you mind that Gandalf fought with a sword, and Legolas could walk on snow because he was a muscle wizard. Gotta keep our elf games pure and faithful to the roots that they don't resemble at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Well, I'm running it. Let's see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Speaking of homebrewing poo poo for 5e, I did that thing I always do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
I kinda hoped dashing corgies more involved them being so handsome rather than moving quicker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Cassa posted:I kinda hoped dashing corgies more involved them being so handsome rather than moving quicker. I think you're getting a cached version, rather than the latest, 'cause I changed the name after I updated it from its playtest-era version to be more in line with the release version. Fun fact: the playtest era language was actually less obtuse and wordy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:Speaking of homebrewing poo poo for 5e, I did that thing I always do. Pack Tactics is kind of ridiculously better than the alternative. Even in super duper tactical and strategically deep 4e, moving an extra square didn't really mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Sure would love that as a wizard. Unrelatedly, there's no way to afford the point buy with the starter set wizard to boost his dex by another point is there? Going to ask the DM if there are any bows around so not relying on cantrips after two rounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Pack Tactics is kind of ridiculously better than the alternative. Even in super duper tactical and strategically deep 4e, moving an extra square didn't really mean poo poo. That's D&D design for you!  I may change it, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
There was a tweet some time ago about an alpha player handbook going around and I managed to get a peak at what internet denizens were claiming was it. I'm starting to suspect it may have actually been the secret playtest packet, as some of the pages looked identical to the ones a goon had posted in this or the other thread (specifically the fighter maneuvers). One of my biggest complaints I've had so far was the lack of a proper two-weapon option for those wanting a STR based build. Looks like the feat was changed to accommodate just that, having dropped the light requirement for either hand. Really hoping to see that in the final book, though I'm not holding my breath as there's some differences between this book and what is in the Basic PDF. There is still the issue of having a race with no +str being capped at 15, which means only certain races are able to go after such a build. Still, someone going human could take the feat build option and get their two whatevers right at level 1. Could it be they might have actually improved something from testing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Pack Tactics is kind of ridiculously better than the alternative. Even in super duper tactical and strategically deep 4e, moving an extra square didn't really mean poo poo. I disagree on this. An extra square of movement can mean all the difference in 4E when you have powers that allow you to make multiple attacks as you move, for instance. I also know that my Ranger with a speed of 9 could do absolutely crazy stuff like shift 18 squares and then charge for 9 more squares made a huge difference with my DM who liked large, maze-like encounters. No idea if it makes any difference at all in Next though since Theater of the Mind probably means that 5 feet is negligible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Honestly none of the abilities listed are ones I made up myself, they're all cribbed from existing 5e sources circa the March 2013 playtest. I wanted something done quick and dirty which would have properly worded mechanics. If I gave more of a drat about 5e, I'd probably put a bit more effort into it. As it stands 99% of the time spent on that was doing the fluff writeup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
I think if it was something like 10 feet you could generally make use of it, even in TotM, simply because you'd be consistently faster than most other things by a significant margin. Useful in chases and escapes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
It's literally a word-for-word copy of one of the elf racial abilities, except I added in an "on all four paws" option because I took one look at it and thought "wow, how underwhelming".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
I should probably be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:28
|
|