|
Encounters (interesting ones at least) from level 3 on typically take about 30-45 minutes each in 4e. Once you hit level 5/6 they start to take an hour, it's the only thing I don't care for in the system.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
I also didn't like the way many of the magic items were very situational and often pretty much useless outside of one particular build for one class. I would've preferred some more "out there" stuff to throw in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted: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. Most of what D&D offers me over DW is the finer crunch points, like proficiencies and skills. The lack of in-depth character customization in Dungeon World leaves characters feeling flat. When you start pushing on a *World system to do anything it wasn't intended for, it starts to show the problems with its simplicity. For instance, in DW a fighter that makes excellent beer in his free time ends up just rolling 2d6+Wis or learning a Brew move (which is sorta costly for a fighter). I consider this both good and bad: it pushes your game into the correct genre, does its best to keep it there, and provides a light-weight system to do exactly what you need, but you end up making up a lot of one-off rules for things that don't fit perfectly in that box. The alternative, of course, is dealing with something like the crunch (and horrible martial/magic balance) of 5E. I'd encourage you to try it before you toss it aside. Edit: Also, I haven't played much 4E, but in 3/3.5, the game changes drastically between levels 5 and 10. Heck, in 1E people start getting castles and keeps and guilds at level 9. I don't think I'd run any campaign past about 10 or 11 without changing the game into something completely departed from the standard 'roam around dungeoning' thing, or doing the DW "you're now a follower of the previous character" thing. Gort posted:I also didn't like the way many of the magic items were very situational and often pretty much useless outside of one particular build for one class. I would've preferred some more "out there" stuff to throw in. My plan is to just raid the 1E Rules Encyclopedia for interesting magic items and adapt them to 5E. That's what I did when I ran Dungeon World, and that worked out great. QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Also for reference I don't miss spending 4-5 hours prepping for a single adventure thanks to needing gridded spaces, it's much nicer to draw up or print a nice looking map/location and not need strictly defined spaces/ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Why does "brewing excellent beer" need mechanical representation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:For instance, in DW a fighter that makes excellent beer in his free time ends up just rolling 2d6+Wis or learning a Brew move (which is sorta costly for a fighter). The only way a roll would come in is if there was some kind of complication, like if you wanted some exotic ingredients (which you could go on an adventure for) or you built your brewery on an ancient lich's tomb or something. And now I want to run a Dungeon Brewers game. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:And now I want to run a Dungeon Brewers game. Dammit. One of the most fun WoW dungeons lately has been a brewery that has been invaded by drunk monkey people throwing a party, belligerent rabbit people eating all the ingredients, and Alementals that spring up from magic ale and beer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
But what if he makes bad beer? That's a serious risk, you know! Also, I once cut my hand quite badly making beer! Kidding (not about the hand thing, though, or the subsequent hospital trip); Ill admit that's a flimsy example. But it was cool when I was rolling up a dwarf wizard with the Basic rules pdf and got proficiency with Brewer's Tools along the way. A better example might be the DW Fighter's Bend Bars, Lift Gates, which in context implies that, say, a Paladin can't destroy a gate. Of course you could just ask the Paladin to roll+Str, but there's some gray area in there. I'm certainly not saying DW is bad, I loved playing it and I'll likely play it more in my life, but I think the systems each have their own things to offer.Fenarisk posted:Also for reference I don't miss spending 4-5 hours prepping for a single adventure thanks to needing gridded spaces, it's much nicer to draw up or print a nice looking map/location and not need strictly defined spaces/ranges. This is so true it hurts. I can only think of a single dungeon in my entire DW campaign that I made a map for, and I never even showed it to the players. It was more for me to get the dungeon down in my head than anything else. QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:I'm certainly not saying DW is bad, I loved playing it and I'll likely play it more in my life, but I think the systems each have their own things to offer. Yeah, I'm not gonna say DW is the greatest thing ever; there's not a whole lot of depth to chargen, and there's not a lot to really fiddle with as far as options go. But in terms of actual game-play, DW is so easy to use/user-friendly that I can get a group of 7 (3 of whom never played or barely played a ttrpg before) through chargen in ~15-20 minutes and start playing. That would not have happened in 4e, and didn't happen when 6 of us tried Next/5e (chargen took ~90 minutes; people with experience finished fairly quick, newbies searched through pdfs for a long time while having things explained to them).
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Generally I'd recommend 4e if you want in-depth crunchy combat, dungeon world if you want something simpler and 13th age if you want something in-between. I don't really see 5th edition doing anything better than those games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Encounters (interesting ones at least) from level 3 on typically take about 30-45 minutes each in 4e. Once you hit level 5/6 they start to take an hour, it's the only thing I don't care for in the system. That's the thing about 4e; when you get rid of Vance's Magical I-Win Button spells, you (shockingly) have to actually fight ALL the encounters rather than just skipping the ones you don't like. So yeah, 4e combat takes longer, shock and surprise! Not to rag on you, specifically, I just see this brought up all the time everywhere and no one seems to consider this angle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:That's the thing about 4e; when you get rid of Vance's Magical I-Win Button spells, you (shockingly) have to actually fight ALL the encounters rather than just skipping the ones you don't like. So yeah, 4e combat takes longer, shock and surprise!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:That's the thing about 4e; when you get rid of Vance's Magical I-Win Button spells, you (shockingly) have to actually fight ALL the encounters rather than just skipping the ones you don't like. So yeah, 4e combat takes longer, shock and surprise! The trouble is that when combats are that long and you still need to fight four of them in a day or the adventuring day design gets squiffy, sessions get longer or squiffier than I would like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
There's no fewer than three 5e game recruits happening right now in the game room. The future is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:The trouble is that when combats are that long and you still need to fight four of them in a day or the adventuring day design gets squiffy, sessions get longer or squiffier than I would like. Yeah that's fine. I'm not praising long combat times or anything. It's just sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
I'm a lot more interested in 5e than I thought I'd be, after skimming the alpha PHB. I mean, the Fighter still gets kind of a raw deal on the 'interesting' side, but the Battle Master seems like it could be enjoyable and the Eldritch Knight seems like a pretty good source of offense. I like the overall approach of making the classes a little broader through the paths/oaths/etc. I see enough Warlord in the Bard's College of Valor and Avenger in the Paladin's Oath of Vengeance to get me by. The bard getting a 9-level spell progression also seems like a really good idea. I'm also a fan of the hybrid caster paths for the Fighter and Rogue being school-limited. Shame the Wizard couldn't be reined in the same way, somehow. Also, I was pretty surprised to see that I could do my storm/sky gimmick 4e Runepriest pretty serviceably as a Tempest Cleric. ImpactVector posted:Yeah, it's not a game for everyone or every occasion. Everyone at the table has to be on board with and actively enjoy the crunchy tactical combat and character building or it's going to fall flat. If everyone's into that it's a really great game though. Yeah, I'd have to agree with this sentiment. You have to be down for the way combat works, since it's the focus of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:the Battle Master seems like it could be enjoyable It's a pretty bad class design. As others have said, you take the powers you like the most at level 1, and from that point onwards each power you get is one you wanted less than the last, since they were all available right from the start. A better design would be to have better powers become available as you gain levels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:DW Fighter's Bend Bars, Lift Gates, Wow, they really were reaching for the nostalgia factor
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
How do people generally run combat without using a map? I've been reading through the basic rules and I was intrigued by the fact that they basically ignore grid-based combat that was such a cornerstone of 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's a pretty bad class design. As others have said, you take the powers you like the most at level 1, and from that point onwards each power you get is one you wanted less than the last, since they were all available right from the start. A better design would be to have better powers become available as you gain levels. Yeah, that's a pretty glaring weakness. They should have level-gated stuff like they did the Monk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:How do people generally run combat without using a map? I've been reading through the basic rules and I was intrigued by the fact that they basically ignore grid-based combat that was such a cornerstone of 4e. You basically just have to make it up. It makes spells like Burning Hands more powerful because a 15 foot cone is smaller than you'd think but in Theatre of the Mind you can usually hit a bunch of bad guys with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's a pretty bad class design. As others have said, you take the powers you like the most at level 1, and from that point onwards each power you get is one you wanted less than the last, since they were all available right from the start. A better design would be to have better powers become available as you gain levels. Well we don't know 100% sure that will be the final design as the info is from outdated material. It's likely but not 100%. Anyway even if it does stay largely the same it's not a bad subclass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:How do people generally run combat without using a map? I've been reading through the basic rules and I was intrigued by the fact that they basically ignore grid-based combat that was such a cornerstone of 4e. You can get away with not using a grid pretty easily, but I strongly suggest using minis pretty much no matter which edition of D&D you play. You can cut away worrying whether an enemy is 15 or 20 feet away without too much pain (just have a consistent way of handling edge stuff like burning hands spells), but you still really need to be able to answer basic questions like 'is the goblin right in front of me or 50 feet away?', 'do we have any glaring gaps in our front line?', and 'are there any bunches of enemies begging for a fireball?' without it just devolving into the GM deciding whether or not to gently caress you over this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:You can get away with not using a grid pretty easily, but I strongly suggest using minis pretty much no matter which edition of D&D you play. You can cut away worrying whether an enemy is 15 or 20 feet away without too much pain (just have a consistent way of handling edge stuff like burning hands spells), but you still really need to be able to answer basic questions like 'is the goblin right in front of me or 50 feet away?', 'do we have any glaring gaps in our front line?', and 'are there any bunches of enemies begging for a fireball?' without it just devolving into the GM deciding whether or not to gently caress you over this time. I guessing quite a few people do it this way but my way is grid for combat and areas combat is likely to take place in. Theater of the mind for the rest generally with an overview map of the area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well we don't know 100% sure that will be the final design as the info is from outdated material. It's likely but not 100%. It actually is a bad subclass, even aside from that issue, as the problem is the effects are both limited (X/encounter) and weak. Not only is there the whole roll to hit, then they roll to save thing, but some of the effects are actively useless (grant an ally an attack, no bonus or anything) and others are just really unimpactful or boring. As you level up, the Wizard is gaining Evard's Black Tentacles, Phantasmal Killer, Polymorph, Dimension Door, Cloudkill, Dominate Person, Scrying, Wall of Force, Hold Monster, etc while you are still pushing a guy 15 feet or gaining advantage on your next attack or whatever. Combined with the way that monster HP quickly and increasingly outscales Fighter DPR, it's a huge issue. An optimal Fighter can expect to take 7 rounds to kill the Young Green Dragon in the Starter Set, being attacked back all the while. A Wizard can cast Polymorph and turn it into a toad immediately, and the dragon has a 30% chance to save. A Sorceror can reduce that to a 9% chance to save with Heightened Spell. If the Wizard is a Necromancer, he can also (as well as casting Polymorph) have 16 skeleton buddies with crossbows, who each have 29 HP, shoot for 1d10+6 damage and who will on average kill the dragon in 2.3 rounds as opposed to the Fighter's 7 rounds. The Fighter and the Wizard are just straight up playing fundamentally different games. There is no excusing or mitigating this. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Combined with the way that monster HP quickly and increasingly outscales Fighter DPR, it's a huge issue. While I do agree with pretty much all of the rest of your post, this is based on numbers where the fighter gets no magic items, correct? I think that's a flawed assumption. If this is anything like previous games the fighter will end up with a +5 sword that's on fire for 2d6 extra damage a hit (at the very least, this is just an item I know is in the game) as well as strength-boosting items. What do the fighter DPR vs monster HP numbers look like with magical items assumed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Gort posted:While I do agree with pretty much all of the rest of your post, this is based on numbers where the fighter gets no magic items, correct? I think that's a flawed assumption. If this is anything like previous games the fighter will end up with a +5 sword that's on fire for 2d6 extra damage a hit (at the very least, this is just an item I know is in the game) as well as strength-boosting items. Problem is that the game has been stated to be magic item optional. GMs are often going to bypass giving the fighter his required +number weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:While I do agree with pretty much all of the rest of your post, this is based on numbers where the fighter gets no magic items, correct? I think that's a flawed assumption. If this is anything like previous games the fighter will end up with a +5 sword that's on fire for 2d6 extra damage a hit (at the very least, this is just an item I know is in the game) as well as strength-boosting items. With a +2 magic weapon at level 8, it takes 5 rounds for a Fighter to kill the dragon - approximately twice as long as it takes a Necromancer Wizard's skeleton minions, even if the Wizard is just sitting in a lounge chair drinking a martini. Also, the dragon's chance to save against the Polymorph drops to 20% (or 4% with Heighten Spell or two casts.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:With a +2 magic weapon at level 8, it takes 5 rounds for a Fighter to kill the dragon - approximately twice as long as it takes a Necromancer Wizard's skeleton minions, even if the Wizard is just sitting in a lounge chair drinking a martini. This is still the most D&D thing you can have to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Problem is that the game has been stated to be magic item optional. GMs are often going to bypass giving the fighter his required +number weapons. That statement is really stupid. You can have the fighter have decent DPR without magic items, in which case the game breaks the moment a magic sword enters it, or you can have the fighter have bad DPR without magic items, in which case the game breaks if a magic sword doesn't enter it. I am interested in the outcome that makes Next the better game and would like to test the hypothesis that fighter DPR balances well against monster HP if the fighter is given appropriately-levelled magic items. Jack the Lad posted:With a +2 magic weapon at level 8, it takes 5 rounds for a Fighter to kill the dragon - approximately twice as long as it takes a Necromancer Wizard's skeleton minions, even if the Wizard is just sitting in a lounge chair drinking a martini. Leaving other classes out of it for the moment, do magic items fix the fighters problem with monster HP inflating faster than his DPR as levels increase?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:Leaving other classes out of it for the moment, do magic items fix the fighters problem with monster HP inflating faster than his DPR as levels increase? I'm not at my computer so I can't do proper/fancy charts, but the short answer is no:  DPR as a percentage of monster HP and rounds to kill with and without Action Surge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
on an individual level i have very little problem with most of the spells, even polymorph, the problem all along has been the sheer variety available. I was sad they didnt restrict schools at all even though they make you choose a specialty edit: Also polymorph is kinda confusing. It seems like if you drop the polymorphed creature to 0 it reverts to its original form with damage, it doesn't just die. Its more of a CC than a gamestopper. treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:You basically just have to make it up. Let me share a little bit of DMing advice. Don't ever play this way in D&D. I tried to do this in 3rd E once and by the next session my players were demanding to see minis. Next is not designed to accommodate "theater of the mind" any better than any other version of D&D has been. Here is what I do when I want to run a combat without interesting terrain though: Players should have pre-established a 'marching order' by placing their minis on a card at the side of the table. Move the minis to the center of the table and then place all of the enemies in front of them in whatever formation is appropriate. The enemies should be one move away from the front line (or if you really want to shake things up 2 moves away, whoo, exciting). Don't put them less than one move away because than they can flank (read: stab the wizard) in one turn. You want the monsters far enough away that if some of them try to flank the players get a turn to respond. If you are looking for a game that you can play 'theater of the mind' combats in I would recommend Apocalypse World, Mouse Guard, or FATE. Although each of these games also has situations where I would use a map as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I'm not at my computer so I can't do proper/fancy charts, but the short answer is no: Would you post the Green Dragon's stats? Also, maybe the spell text of polymorph? Is there anywhere online I can buy the starter kit PDF? QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
The key to TOTM combat is to accept the DM rulings. If she says Burning Hands hits 2 enemies, don't argue that it should really hit 3. Once a table gets into arguments about how many critters are caught in a fireball or how safe it is for a rogue to dash through a melee and blah blah blah, the game is derailed. The DM has to rule on things, but also has to loosen up about specifics. If a dragon breath is described as a '30 foot cone', that has a specific meaning in grid play but in TOTM translates to 'a bigass cloud of gas'. You pick a few folks that are probably in the area to make saves and move on without agonizing over who is 5' away from the cone. 'IT'S LESS MECHANICAL, AND MORE THEATRICAL'. The young green has 136HP. For a level-appropriate group of characters (8th level) I can tell you that's basically a 2 round fight of rocket tag. It will get to breathe about once and die before that ever recharges. Speaking of dragons, as a DM, you can do some neat stuff with swooping attacks with the way 5e split movement works - the dragon could fly down, do its claw/claw/bite routine, then fly back up. Or use one of those claw attacks to grapple, then fly up and let go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Eh I think TOTM shouldn't rely on the DMdeciding on indistinct rule boundaries. It's absolutely possible to do TOTM with precision, you just need to accept a certain level of abstraction. 13th age does a great job abstracting positioning. Things like area affect spell effects are perfectly precise in something like Wizardry, where monsters are divided into groups who move together. One AOE = one group. Simple, no need to argue with the DM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I was always a big fan of the "this spell hits d3 nearby enemies" and "make a save to pass through an area crowded with enemies without getting a sword swung at you" methods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Gort posted:That statement is really stupid. You can have the fighter have decent DPR without magic items, in which case the game breaks the moment a magic sword enters it, or you can have the fighter have bad DPR without magic items, in which case the game breaks if a magic sword doesn't enter it. The obvious solution, and the solution that will never happen because of sacred cows, is to do away with +X magic items entirely. A flaming longsword could, instead of giving +X damage, simply A). give the user the option of dealing Fire damage on all his attacks instead of/in addition to slashing/piercing/gently caress you, playing into vulnerabilities, and B). give the character X/encounter style abilities. Hell, if you really wanted to play into the whole "magic weapons are for Fighters" thing then you could make it so that magic weapons had special powers that required spending martial dice or whatever they're called to activate them, so the Rogue could pick up and use that flaming longsword but only the Fighter can really get the most out of it. But "this weapon does +3 damage and gives you +3 to hit" is an inviolable part of the D&D Feel™ no matter how much of a pain in the rear end it makes designing the game and so it will never, ever be gotten rid of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Would you post the Green Dragon's stats? Also, maybe the spell text of polymorph? polymorph isn't in the starter kit, but it's a 4th level spell, cannot affect anything with 150hp or more. It can change them into any creature of 150hp or less, and the target gains all the stats/hp/special abilities of the new form. When it hits 0 hp it reverts to its original form and any extraneous damage is transferred to its original form. the creature retains its intelligence/awareness in the new form. Polymorph is a CC, not a combat obviation. edit: also undead/constructs and i think shapeshifters are immune treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The obvious solution, and the solution that will never happen because of sacred cows, is to do away with +X magic items entirely. A flaming longsword could, instead of giving +X damage, simply A). give the user the option of dealing Fire damage on all his attacks instead of/in addition to slashing/piercing/gently caress you, playing into vulnerabilities, and B). give the character X/encounter style abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
