|
treeboy posted:Really my only beef with the talent is that it doesn't *help* the person getting attacked (just punishes the attacker) and reactions seem like a sorely limited resource. I'd allow the fighter protection ability to trigger for free during the same reaction. It has to be intended to work that way, right? Them screwing it up almost feels like a callback to the fact that the 4th ed PHB fighter's ability also didn't work together correctly RAW.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:So what's your excuse going to be, then? There won't be one if I like it I will simply argue in it's favor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
the rest of the thread posted:Monk and Warlock stuff So how much better would the game be if you just removed Fighters and Wizards and renamed Monks Fighters and Warlocks Wizards?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Not quite, iirc defender aura was just -2 attack to any enemies within 5' of you if their attack didn't include you. While this is technically true, any class that got Defender Aura also got an Opportunity Action power that they could use against dudes in the aura who didn't attack them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
MartianAgitator posted:So how much better would the game be if you just removed Fighters and Wizards and renamed Monks Fighters and Warlocks Wizards? +/- 2% Rough estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Spellcasting for the Warlock is weird. They get 4 general spell slots of any level up to 6th. They also get an ability that essentially grants one spell slot each of 7th, 8th and 9th level. I don't understand why they didn't just save the space and give them a progression table. Also, yes, holy poo poo, that Fiendish feature. In the context of 5e that's pretty awesome. Star Pact's is one of those ones that sounds interesting on the page, but in reality characters communicate non-diegetically by default. All in all good to see the Warlock's still pretty cool. (Also thanks Treeboy, too!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Maybe...but that could bork action economy balance. Remember that action cost is one of the ways the game balances abilities. I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that a Combat Reflexes type feat could easily give you 1-2 extra reactions, but still limit your Attacks of Opportunity vs. single targets. Martial characters do far more with their reactions than the caster types do, especially Rogues and Fighters. I think unlimited reactions ala Imp. Combat Reflexes would be too much, but currently you're kind of up a creek if someone provokes your AoO but you used your reflex to avoid dying or to protect your ally. Either that or make Attacks of Opportunity a separate thing which doesn't consume a reaction. heck why not: quote:Combat Reflexes It would require tweaking a bit, the extra AoO might be a bit much, and it could potentially have some crazy interactions with certain classes, but that would just make martial more awesome. edit: interestingly this setup would mean only Human Rogue/Ranger/monk could likely start with the feat, maybe a fighter/paladin with higher than normal Dex. Perhaps a level requirement if its aimed more at the level 5-10 range. As it is most Fighters wouldn't nab this until likely 6th level at the earliest, others would be waiting until 8th unless they had the dex prereq at 4th and skipped stat increase. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Would making reactions 1/turn instead of 1/round break much?
Apple Mummy fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
LFK posted:So do they take their subclass (I'm assuming their pact is their subclass) from level 1, or are they... somehow... getting their warlock powers from nothing in particular for two levels? I guess that's no odder than the Cleric setup. They get their pact (Infernal, fey or star) from level one. They get their pact type (Blade, Tome, Chain) at level 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that a Combat Reflexes type feat could easily give you 1-2 extra reactions, but still limit your Attacks of Opportunity vs. single targets. Martial characters do far more with their reactions than the caster types do, especially Rogues and Fighters. I think unlimited reactions ala Imp. Combat Reflexes would be too much, but currently you're kind of up a creek if someone provokes your AoO but you used your reflex to avoid dying or to protect your ally. It's not bad as written, but remember that feats aren't restricted by class and the Rogue gets an ability that lets them halve damage from an attack as a reaction. It's okay when they only get to do this once per round...but two or three times a round practically doubles their hit points. And that probably isn't the only troublesome interaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:It's not bad as written, but remember that feats aren't restricted by class and the Rogue gets an ability that lets them halve damage from an attack as a reaction. It's okay when they only get to do this once per round...but two or three times a round practically doubles their hit points. That's why I wrote it as is. The first bullet disassociates Opportunity Attack from Reactions, the second bullet grants a second Opportunity Attack, so the Rogue will still only have one evasion (or whatever its called) per round. Even with this feat you'd only have one reaction, you just wouldn't have to spend it on AoO. Apple Mummy posted:Would making reactions 1/turn instead of 1/round break much? As reactions are explicitly not executed on the users turn this gets weird quickly. Can you make one reaction for EACH other persons turn (if applicable?) in a big fight this could be huge, 10+ reactions. Easier to keep it per round and make it a limited resource.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
That's what I meant. Like how opportunity actions are in 4e, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Apple Mummy posted:That's what I meant. Like how opportunity actions are in 4e, basically. Reactions are really broad in 5e. You have things like the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge which cuts damage in half as a reaction, so this would pump the power of that sort of thing a whole lot. 4e had 1/round Reaction/Interrupt Actions and 1/turn Opportunity Actions. Hacking that into 5e and saying that only attacks are Opportunity Actions solves most of the issues, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Check out this cutting edge rules tech: bonus reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Check out this cutting edge rules tech: bonus reaction. To be fair, 5e does a lot of neat things with reactions, it just fails at scaling those options by providing more resources to spend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I actually want to play this game, but I was just reading the basic rules and with mountain dwarves getting proficiency in dwarven weapons as well as in light and medium armor I kind of want to play a mountain dwarf wizard refluffed as a really cool fighter. Shield? This guy's just so cool he can react to attacks at lightning speed, even punching magic missiles out of the air. Thunderwave? Guy hits the ground with his hammer, knocking away all his enemies through sheer force. Or I could just play a game that let me do all that as a cool fighter guy straight out of the box. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
looking at it i'm actually tempted to tie the homebrew feat into proficiency so it scales better towards lvl 20 allowing a martial character to take half a dozen Attacks of Opportunity per round. Realistically, even with 6 Opportunity Attacks available at lvl 17+, on a grid you'll likely never have more than 2-4 enemies in range, you can still only attack each enemy once, they have to *provoke* in the first place, and to make the most of it you need to have purchased Sentinel to lock down enemies in close range. If they're attacking you directly the only thing that might trigger it would be Polearm Master which gives AoO vs. targets entering reach. Furthermore it has the benefit of not buffing the War Caster feat since that specifically uses a spell as a reaction instead of an attack of opportunity. edit: on an unrelated topic, I was looking at adventure modules online and was generally curious how pricing usually works. What are people typically willing to pay for quality modules and how do you go about finding them? word of mouth? treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I'm not sure if I actually want to play this game, but I was just reading the basic rules and with mountain dwarves getting proficiency in dwarven weapons as well as in light and medium armor I kind of want to play a mountain dwarf wizard refluffed as a really cool fighter. Shield? This guy's just so cool he can react to attacks at lightning speed, even punching magic missiles out of the air. Thunderwave? Guy hits the ground with his hammer, knocking away all his enemies through sheer force. I'm hardly an expert, but doing the whole 'Thoradin Spellhammer' mountain dwarf wizard thing for better constitution and armor seems like a strong contender versus the single point of intelligence and extra cantrip from being a high elf.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Opportunity Attacks Play some 4e as a defender, and tell me your "Average Opportunity Actions Triggered Per Round" in the trip report. While the structure of 1/rd Immediate + 1/turn Opportunity wasn't the most elegant, merging the 2 (for "simplicity") with no consideration for mechanical implications is textbook Nextiness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Play some 4e as a defender, and tell me your "Average Opportunity Actions Triggered Per Round" in the trip report. Defender was generally one of my favorite roles in 4e though it's been a year or more since I've had a chance to actually play. Also I'm not super sure of what you're arguing. Are you suggesting that Opportunity Attacks aren't worth it, or that this would be unbalancing? That's they're super common or uncommon? Because that would depend a lot on the DM's encounter setup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Defender was generally one of my favorite roles in 4e though it's been a year or more since I've had a chance to actually play. Also I'm not super sure of what you're arguing. Are you suggesting that Opportunity Attacks aren't worth it, or that this would be unbalancing? That's they're super common or uncommon? Because that would depend a lot on the DM's encounter setup. They're saying that 5e allows only one OA per round, not per turn. It is literally impossible to be sticky in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:They're saying that 5e allows only one OA per round, not per turn. It is literally impossible to be sticky in 5e. right. which was the whole point of a homebrew feat, which is what i was discussing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
treeboy posted:right. which was the whole point of a homebrew feat, which is what i was discussing. You're home brewing a feat to functionally fix another feat before the PHB has even been officially released. No judgements I guess I'm just pointing that out. Why does it have a Dexterity requirement?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Misandu posted:
Because the feat that did the same thing in 3e was Dex based — http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Misandu posted:You're home brewing a feat to functionally fix another feat before the PHB has even been officially released. No judgements I guess I'm just pointing that out. the humor of the situation is not lost on me. It's also a fun challenge to fix design issues. Personally I see it as less of a fix for the Tactical Warrior/Sentinel feat, and more of a fix for martial characters in general. Nancy_Noxious posted:Because the feat that did the same thing in 3e was Dex based — http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes That and because not all classes, like rogue, get Extra attack, and not all martial classes will have much Dex (since it provides no bonus when wearing Heavy Armor) and starting arrays are lower in general than 4e. Also because while its fine in theory (assuming theres nothing like it in the final PHB) i haven't had a chance to go through potential interactions with multiclassing or other edge character setups yet. Better to start with something narrower before widening the availability. It essentially serves as a soft level requirement since the feat is very strong at lower levels but diminishes somewhat at higher levels (thus the thoughts on tying it directly to proficiency to better scale). Potentially a flat character level requirement could be used in place of dex/feature requirements, but there aren't any other feats currently available which do that, so i wanted to avoid it until i gained a better understanding why/why not. (fully realizing there may be no particular reason why) treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
You can definitely delete all listed feat prereqs in any edition of D&D and harm nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
that's generally where i'm leaning as well. The thing I wanted to avoid was accidentally buffing casters with a feat aimed at martial characters, but so far i haven't found anything that would break there. There's a feat that allows casters to cast a spell as a reaction instead of taking an opportunity attack, vs. casting a spell *as* an opportunity attack (which is what i was initially afraid it would do, so suddenly you could cast 6 spells as AoO on other characters turns)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
I bet making it impossible for one guy to be "sticky" to multiple/potentially infinite targets without magic is a grog thing. One of my buddy's old criticisms is that optimized characters started out as "one man armies." He meant basically everyone in 4 could take way too many off-turn actions and kill a million mooks if they all tried to go after the back line. Even if "one went left while the other went right." It was as if the trap running thief no longer mattered because the new edition made them all instantly and infinitely reset. Combat Reflexes had bothered him for the same reason in 3rd, just not to the same degree. At least some classes and feats will allow for single target off-turn chasing in 5, and some immobilizing options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:I bet making it impossible for one guy to be "sticky" to multiple/potentially infinite targets without magic is a grog thing. I think that's a common criticism, and it's doubly ironic given that even in the 5e Fighter design goals Mearls tells us: quote:A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. quote:while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. Of course, we've ended up with a level 20 fighter that can kill a maximum of 8 orcs in a round and a level 20 wizard that can kill 804 (with meteor swarm), but, you know, still. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Got my Starter Kit in the mail a couple days ago, and haven't opened it yet. As a guy who has only DM'd a little bit of 4E's "Essentials" box and a little bit of Pathfinder's Beginner Box, I'm curious if this is a good "D&D for idiots" starting point. I like getting into the rules, but I play with people who don't want to spend an hour reading rules and tutorials before we start playing. As the DM, if I do a lot of the heavy-lifting with the Starter Kit (reading rules, prepping the game, becoming the 'teacher', etc...), will I be able to play quick, 'pick-up' games with my friends who know nothing about tabletop games?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Should have clarified, my bud was talking about low levels. Everything and everyone is a one man army according to him if it can stand around and watch the kills/multiattacks come in as long as things try to walk past you. Point was, maybe that should be a capstone or something, not a feat everyone picks up at level 4, or 1 if human
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
zfleeman posted:Got my Starter Kit in the mail a couple days ago, and haven't opened it yet. As a guy who has only DM'd a little bit of 4E's "Essentials" box and a little bit of Pathfinder's Beginner Box, I'm curious if this is a good "D&D for idiots" starting point. I would definitely recommend 4e as easier for new players. The rules are consistent, balanced and intuitive and the action economy is super easy to understand. I actually ran 4e myself for the first time without having read any of the books beforehand in more than a skimming way (was super hype just to jump in) and had no problems learning as we went. If you're playing in person, you can give your buddies physical power cards so that they understand what abilities they have available. You might also want to consider making simplified sheets for them. I really like these ones by the wonderful James Stowe:    
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
zfleeman posted:Got my Starter Kit in the mail a couple days ago, and haven't opened it yet. As a guy who has only DM'd a little bit of 4E's "Essentials" box and a little bit of Pathfinder's Beginner Box, I'm curious if this is a good "D&D for idiots" starting point. 4e is great but drags the further you get and the more options you allow, I love the game but it has a ton of bloat. One thing I really do appreciate with the new game is the speed of combat encounters vs. 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
treeboy posted:4e is great but drags the further you get and the more options you allow, I love the game but it has a ton of bloat. One thing I really do appreciate with the new game is the speed of combat encounters vs. 4e. Not a rhetorical question - have you played 5e yet? Because in my experience so far it's not appreciably faster, especially when there's a lot of Advantage floating around. In our last session we had a fight with 5 PCs and 5 monsters take about 2 hours. When you have Fighters rolling 8 attack rolls and Wizards casting AoE in a Theatre of the Mind encounter, things take time to resolve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Not a rhetorical question - have you played 5e yet? Because in my experience so far it's not appreciably faster, especially when there's a lot of Advantage floating around. In our last session we had a fight with 5 PCs and 5 monsters take about 2 hours. When you have Fighters rolling 8 attack rolls and Wizards casting AoE in a Theatre of the Mind encounter, things take time to resolve. I have, though not as much as 4e. I found low-mid levels to go pretty quickly, what level were you playing that 5 monsters took two hours? edit: Advantage is pretty elegant in my opinion. Part of 4e slowdown is the sheer amount of +/-'s that get thrown around beyond level 5, paragon and supplements only make it worse. (and i love 4e, it's just one of the parts of the game i wish was a little smoother)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I have, though not as much as 4e. I found low-mid levels to go pretty quickly, what level were you playing that 5 monsters took two hours? Level 3 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Level 3 this has not been my experience...wow edit: to expound - at lvl 2 we had 5 PCs (cleric, wizard, paladin, rogue, ranger) and about 15 goblins and the combat took maybe 20-30min. The Ranger and Rogue were dealing the pain while the wizard took out stragglers/runners treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
I don't really have any intention on carrying any adventure past level five. I thought I heard rumblings of "D&D Next" giving more tools to DMs to make their experience more ubiquitous and less of a challenge. I'm looking for a cool tool kit to make fun adventures that my friends and I can experience in one evening every other week or so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I don't find that lots of +1 and -1 modifiers here and there are much of a slowdown problem in 4e - if you rolled like five over the defense who cares, if you rolled a 2, who cares? You only have to worry about small bonuses if the roll could go either way. It also helps that my players pick their powers with at least some thought as to how much of a pain in the butt they'll be to track. Aura 5 which gives +1 to diplomacy when bloodied? gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
zfleeman posted:I don't really have any intention on carrying any adventure past level five. I thought I heard rumblings of "D&D Next" giving more tools to DMs to make their experience more ubiquitous and less of a challenge. I'm looking for a cool tool kit to make fun adventures that my friends and I can experience in one evening every other week or so. I've been using Dungeon World, I don't think I'll ever go back to trying to DM a D&D game. The PCs are powerful while at the same time easy to challenge, monsters/NPCs/encounters/dungeons are easy to make up on the fly. Game caps out at level 10, but it's easy to just let people cycle out characters as they get bored/if they die. For perspective, I started with 4e, loved it while I played it, but anymore I just don't see myself ever going back outside of pbp. I don't find the 5e/Next selling point "It's like a simpler 3.5/Pathfinder" to be that compelling, because DW is far far simpler for both sides of the board. The only thing D&D (of any edition) has to offer over DW as far as I can tell is initiative/turn order, which just isn't that valuable to me & my friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:54
|
|