|
Father Wendigo posted:You'd think they'd silo off the 'Flavor' Feats into a separate category to tie into their sleek new Background system, but that would take effort so v
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:08
|
|
v.
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
"My character is known as a savage attacker! Tell me, what of your character?" "My character is known as *trails off*" "What?" "moderately armored" Treeboy, I need to know whether your setting has a normal day/night cycle so I can decide whether to write rules for vampire sparkles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:On languages and mutiple party members having the same language. Well two wont always be redundant, off the top of my head it will be useful where the other might be a self serving insensitive rear end in a top hat and the issue calls for tact, issues with party splitting, what if the other cant talk for any reason or private negotiations. Really a good party is one with a few redundancies in case of emergency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
xiw posted:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721 You can always tell when feats are just going to be +1/-1 when you get not one, but TWO for each class of armor. Unless 'moderately armored' gives you some kinda cool special maneuver that can only be committed by people in chainmail?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
My guess for stuff like Moderately Armored is that it that it gives proficiency with that medium armor and a 1 point stat boost. Medium armor master probably gives a buff while you wear Medium armor. If I am right then Light to Heavily armored feats are useless to fighters and they can just straight up go into the Master feats. Edit: Also who gave me my new title. Also I don't think I was stupid our views on how this stuff should work is just different. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Edit: Also who gave me my new title. Also I don't think I was stupid our views on how this stuff should work is just different. No, actually, what you said was pretty drat stupid. Though a user title's a bit much; I thought that the thread title change was funny enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Yeah, games with a bunch of maths in them should probably have some thought given to maths by their designers. It's a bit like how you don't need to know mechanical engineering to drive a car, but the guy who designed it sure as hell should, or you're most likely going to get a lovely car, or at best you're leaving it up to luck. Mearl's tweets all just sound like, "I'd drive the car sideways with two wheels missing - drivers choice!" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, games with a bunch of maths in them should probably have some thought given to maths by their designers. I don't even bother bringing up his tweets. One of my big issues on the complaints was just because somthings stats are based on how the creature should feel does not mean the math does not work for it. Though I just want Augaust 8th to come. Basic will be updated then and people will have the PHB. This way people can complain about the final product instead of using outdated stuff to make their complaints. The biggest issue I think I am having with some of the other people here is that I don't see how this is a bad game and I don't get their complaints here especially. On other sites were there are complaints I tend to understand it, but here I honestly don't get what people are actually complaining about. Asymmetrikon posted:I thought that the thread title change was funny enough. I did too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
@dromaskald : A DM judges it easy For the monk, not the paladin PC To climb up a wall With no armor at all: May she give Pally a diff'rent DC? @mikemearls : yes - it's all in the DM's hands Should the whole game just be run on DM fiat, or are skills always destined to be the bastard children in D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Garl_Grimm posted:@dromaskald : A DM judges it easy From the start they said they were putting more control in the DM's hands. They stated it was a feature not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:From the start they said they were putting more control in the DM's hands. They stated it was a feature not a bug. Thank god. I thought they were accidentally releasing a terrible game. I'm glad to know this is intentionally a terrible game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:From the start they said they were putting more control in the DM's hands. They stated it was a feature not a bug. There is no such thing as "putting more control in the DM's hands," the de facto assumption in almost any RPG ever made is that the DM can do whatever the gently caress he wants with the only limitation being how much the players are collectively willing to tolerate it. A game that bills itself as "putting more control in the DM's hands" is the equivalent of selling someone a stone that keeps tigers away. This is why someone bought you that title.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The biggest issue I think I am having with some of the other people here is that I don't see how this is a bad game and I don't get their complaints here especially. On other sites were there are complaints I tend to understand it, but here I honestly don't get what people are actually complaining about. There are two complaints you aren't getting. First and foremost: Caster level progression equates to spells, the spells are (once again) better than everything else. Casters are "balanced" by one specific thing - the concentration check - and it now seems that a feat exists that will neuter that one drawback to playing a caster. This will lead to caster supremacy like 3e again, and people here really don't like that (because its lovely). On top of that, the fighter has been, once again, relegated to hitings things with a stick while the wizard gets the ability to do everything, which means that all non-full progression casters are likely to be mostly useless. The will exist in game primarily to facilitate the wizard not having to take certain spells - have a rogue? Wizard doesn't need Knock any more! Have a fighter? Don't need the Hand spells! the second complaint is extremely simple. There is no math behind the game. Things simply "look/seem" right to the game designers. "How hard should an ogre hit for/how much health does it have? This seems right" is not a way to build useful encounters. People here are worried about going back to the old 3x style of challenge making where CR was pretty meaningless. If you need it simpler than that, try this: Casters should be no more awesome than non casters. It should be easy to tell how hard a fight against your party will be without ever reading the stat block for a monster. Those two statements are currently not true in what we've seen of 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Garl_Grimm posted:Thank god. I thought they were accidentally releasing a terrible game. I'm glad to know this is intentionally a terrible game. I don't get why this is a bad thing. I am serious because they leave some stuff up to interpretation it's bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't even bother bringing up his tweets. One of my big issues on the complaints was just because somthings stats are based on how the creature should feel does not mean the math does not work for it. Though I just want Augaust 8th to come. Basic will be updated then and people will have the PHB. This way people can complain about the final product instead of using outdated stuff to make their complaints. Here's the problems I think your not really comprehending. You can have fun with a system that is bad. I play and enjoy pathfinder, a system that is an overcomplicated mess with infinite flaws. I've played in several games of 5e now, I've enjoyed myself but not as a result of the system. The math is very swingy and requires you to spend far too much effort optimizing yourself for any solid payoff. The difference between an optimized and unoptimized player are still fairly big. The system provides very little in the way of roleplaying mechanics beyond some good stuff like the backgrounds, is too complicated for a quick and simple character creation if you want to keep up. On top of all of that the way combat in the game is designed, classes like the wizard and anything that can drop AoE attacks on enemies dominate fights. This leads to other classes to become increasingly less relevant. Additionally ever class now has different methods of regaining their resources so the party either argues about what type of breaks they take and when or they often take full rests which gimp players who repeatedly use short rests (if your resting an hour your generally better off resting a full hour). The roleplaying mechanics often operate at a detriment of other areas so you are crippling yourself if you want to partake in something interesting (unless your a wizard). To top this off none of the DM rules we have seen so far provide any useful guide to running this stuff well. Combat Rating does not provide a clear and easy system for the GM to generate encounters that can be relied upon to provide interesting fights that do not shift the balance between TPKs and a interesting fight for the players to overcome (unless the DM personally figures out each and every monster to understand what, how, why and when they are going to be limiting themselves). The GM has to actively fudge the game to get this to work right. Due to the way CR is designed the game seems structured under the assumption the players fight packs of lower CR monsters (hence why the game is dependent on aoes to clear the field) as equal level CR is incredibly an brutal rocket tag design or comes associated with plenty of gently caress you abilities that simply retract from the players fun. It is impossible to identify what monsters are gently caress you or rocket tag until you break down the monster itself relative to how well your party has optimized and how relevant that optimization is. For example, a CR2 Ogre is a completely trivial encounter to some level 1 parties and will TPK a level 1 party with zero effort depending on the party makeup. This is a huge amount of effort for a GM to go to for virtually zero payoff. Oh yea and some classes are dead weight while others can literally do anything they imagine. The point is that the game is supposed to provide a structure and framework to make everything about it easier. Instead it does none of that. All the work still needs to be done with nothing to assist in the process. Half the rules don't function as intended and as you may notice from mearl's twitter your actively told to just wing it. If nothing in the rules actually help you run the game. Why are you bothering to buy the game and use the rules if you have to do all the work anyway? EDIT: This is not the same thing as putting the control in the GM's hands. The GM always has control over everything regardless of how the game or system works. A system that is absolutely perfect and flawless can be houseruled. A system that has literally nothing in it thats functional can be houseruled. When the GM has to houserule basic and fundamental aspects of the system you are running into the problem of the system itself not being useful to actually solve any problem. If you are forced to houserule basic aspects of the game then you are far better off using an extremely rules-light system which saves you the time to learn rules which are broken and going to be changed anyway. I could go on. If this doesnt give you at least some understanding of why people think this game is dumb I dont know what else to say. kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't get why this is a bad thing. I am serious because they leave some stuff up to interpretation it's bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't even bother bringing up his tweets. One of my big issues on the complaints was just because somthings stats are based on how the creature should feel does not mean the math does not work for it. Though I just want Augaust 8th to come. Basic will be updated then and people will have the PHB. This way people can complain about the final product instead of using outdated stuff to make their complaints. Thing about this is that we've all heard the "just wait until X happens!" argument before. When people complained about the playtests, it was "Wait for the next playtest!" then when those weren't any better and they stopped even releasing them, it was "Wait for when the maths team has overhauled it!" and now we've seen the results of that and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maths in the system and monster stats are still just plucked from the air at random it's "Wait for the full release!". They've had loads of chances to wow us with good design but it hasn't happened the last three times, why would you expect it to happen now? quote:The biggest issue I think I am having with some of the other people here is that I don't see how this is a bad game and I don't get their complaints here especially. On other sites were there are complaints I tend to understand it, but here I honestly don't get what people are actually complaining about. * Extremely limited options for the non-magical classes to contribute in or out of combat * Suggestions of randomness in character generation (rolling for stats and/or HP which can leave you unable to actually fulfill your class role and/or negate one of the things your class is supposed to be good at) * "Gridless" combat that has stuff like "this spell affects a 15-foot cone" which is bound to cause arguments at the game table when the DM tells you your fireball can only hit one orc without hitting your friends when you were sure he described them as being on the other side of the cavern a moment ago * Monsters with spells that aren't described in their stat block, meaning you have to trawl the PHB for those spells one-by-one to see what their options are, not to mention that the spells will not be next to each other in the book so you'll have to wrench the PHB away from the Wizard and Cleric players who are also trying to look up their spells so they can see what their options are * Damage swings wildly compared to monster HP - at level 1 you'll kill an equal-level enemy in two rounds, later on it will take four times as long * Monster powers and spells can kill you in one hit before you have a go if you fail a save, and if you don't have proficiency in a save since your class doesn't get one, you have very little chance of making the save, and less and less as you gain levels * Healing spells start out with weaker options that allow the cleric to still act in a round and cast a healing spell, allowing them to contribute to other parts of the combat than replenishing other characters hit points, but later on the Heal spell is by far the most effective healing spell, and it can't be cast quickly, meaning the cleric's turn becomes a choice of who to cast their Heal spells on * Halflings don't get a strength penalty despite weighing 40 pounds and being 3 feet tall (where's that article that 3rd ed designer wrote about how ridiculously small that is) but let's give them disadvantage when they use heavy weapons just to gently caress with them because Those enough to get you started?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
TheAnomaly posted:There are two complaints you aren't getting. First and foremost: Caster level progression equates to spells, the spells are (once again) better than everything else. Casters are "balanced" by one specific thing - the concentration check - and it now seems that a feat exists that will neuter that one drawback to playing a caster. This will lead to caster supremacy like 3e again, and people here really don't like that (because its lovely). Along with the concentration check there is also. Casters have much less spells. Spells are not as powerful as they once were. Only one concentraion spell can be used at a time. From what we know of the feat all it lets you do is increase your odds of making the check it does not get rid of it. The Fighter is strong, durable and easily out paces the Wizard when the Wizard is not using it's very limited spell set and because a Wizard has a very limited spell set they are capable of doing anything but not everything and from what we can see the only thing they do better then someone else is aoe damage. Knock is last case scenario that should only be used if their is no other choice as it uses up a valuable spell slot and alerts everything within 300 ft to you. I don't know what you are getting at with the hand spells. People are worried about a pair of letters with out seeing stuff in action. Even if the design is how this monster should be. (Which is the way it should be made in my opinion.) does not mean it does not work in the game. From actually playing and testing out the limited stuff we have of the game CR and the XP value work here. Casters and Non casters are fairly close in this edition. A caster will only ever out pace the rest of the party when they are blowing all of their spells at once in a single encounter. Which can be bad is something else comes along. Looking at the CR tells me roughly how challenging a creature should be from the starter set.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:That would imply that they took the siloing/pillars thing to any kind of logical conclusion rather than build a fighter that's 95% combat / 5% exploration (better jumping, woo!) / 0% interaction. The real question is this: can he become a Prone Shooter? That's all flavor, baby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Gort posted:Thing about this is that we've all heard the "just wait until X happens!" argument before. When people complained about the playtests, it was "Wait for the next playtest!" then when those weren't any better and they stopped even releasing them, it was "Wait for when the maths team has overhauled it!" and now we've seen the results of that and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maths in the system and monster stats are still just plucked from the air at random it's "Wait for the full release!". Then play 4e. This stuff does not bug me. *Rogues will be doing most stuff out of combat the casters don't have that many utility spells that are useful out of it. *Then don't use the random generation it's just one of the three options they put forward. *If you don't like theater of the mind or Gridless combat then don't use it. I use a grid and there is nothing in that rules that say you should not use a grid. *This does not bug me and there is not going to be a lot of them anyway. Caster Monsters are matter of opinion. *Thats because monsters are much stronger at that point. I highly doubt you want level 20 characters taking down things like Balors in two rounds. *This also does not bug me. Just means those monsters are theats. *Then do more then heal and use different tactics. *People don't like penalties and the lack of heavy weapons helps make a clear difference between small and medium creatures. Anyway I am tired of this I doubt I will convince any of you and you guys won't convince me. I won't be back until August 8th.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't get why this is a bad thing. I am serious because they leave some stuff up to interpretation it's bad? Heavy Armor gives disadvantage on stealth checks. Instead of using an existing rule that can apply broadly Mearls wants to empower the DM to arbitrarily alter DCs on a case by case basis. He doesn't have a system other than what feels like D&D to him behind this decision. How should this apply to other skills? Should Wizards get lower Research DCs than Fighters? It makes sense that smart, bookish people know more about books than sword dudes, right? Should Fighters target lower ACs than Clerics because Clerics don't fight for a living? The rules are taking a backseat to a DMs personal views on the game. What wrong is that this isn't a game system, but instead a toolbox that you can craft a system out of. He's asking me to pay to do his job for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
We had CR in 3rd ed. There were many examples of it not working at all, where creatures would need to roll 20s to hit adventurers who they were supposed to be challenging, where high-level monsters were entirely reliant on mechanics that adventurers had long been immune to (EG: Grapple). "Eh, just eyeball it, this looks like it belongs against level 2 adventurers" is a poor design philosophy. You should start from a set of guidelines like these ones and then modify from there. If you don't have an idea what "normal for level 15" is supposed to look like, you're going to have a hard time when you're called upon to make a particularly deadly melee combatant, or what another designer thinks is a particularly deadly melee combatant. I found the "proud nails" article about the mistakes 3rd ed designers felt they'd made on that edition. Check out the sections entitled "Seemingly Random Spell-Like Ability Lists" and "Gnome and Halfling Height and Weight" in particular - these are both problems they fixed in 4th ed but have actively backpedalled away from for 5th ed, and the many examples of this behaviour (another of which is how the fighter went from very dull in 3rd ed, to arguably the best-designed class in 4th ed back to being very dull in 5th ed again) are some of the reasons you might find disgruntled D&D fans in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Look buddy, pal, chum. You seem to fail to understand how context works in a lot of these games. Let me explain.MonsterEnvy posted:Along with the concentration check there is also. Casters have much less spells. Spells are not as powerful as they once were. Only one concentraion spell can be used at a time. From what we know of the feat all it lets you do is increase your odds of making the check it does not get rid of it. The Fighter is strong, durable and easily out paces the Wizard when the Wizard is not using it's very limited spell set and because a Wizard has a very limited spell set they are capable of doing anything but not everything and from what we can see the only thing they do better then someone else is aoe damage. You say these spells are limited but really, they aren't. By level 5 the wizard has 9 spells a day and can recover 3 levels of spell slots per hour rest (if your group bothers with these). While your cantrips might not do quite as much as the fighter they have solid chances to hit, are ranged, do very nice effects and have far better bonuses to hit that a fighter will. They dont NEED to burn all their spells on a fight. They can simply pop one aoe or two to clear an encounter or against something like an ogre they can just ray of frost it and kite it forever. A wizard is not going through fights where they are dropping more than 9 spells per day particularly with how quick combat tends to go in this game. 1 or 2 rounds per fight at most. MonsterEnvy posted:Knock is last case scenario that should only be used if their is no other choice as it uses up a valuable spell slot and alerts everything within 300 ft to you. I don't know what you are getting at with the hand spells. Heres the best part about that. Alerting everyone in 300 feet of you means basically nothing. Translating that into a not-terrible measurement system thats about 90m. Essentially your alerting everyone in the building to your presence so stealth is out the window. Guess what, stealth was ALWAYS out the window. There is no group stealth system to protect the party so that idiot fighter in full plate is not going to be able to sneak past. So your options are: send one person in alone, at which point the big door explosion is actually an amazing distraction for that one character. Have the wizard cast invisibility on everyone. At which point who cares about the door. OR three, try to stealth and have half the party inevitably fail this and start the fight which will be loud enough to alert everyone in the building anyway. The Knock spell just speeds all this up. Yeah you can probably use it as a last resort to save yourself a spell slot but really, the consequence isnt really something to take note of. MonsterEnvy posted:People are worried about a pair of letters with out seeing stuff in action. Even if the design is how this monster should be. (Which is the way it should be made in my opinion.) does not mean it does not work in the game. From actually playing and testing out the limited stuff we have of the game CR and the XP value work here. No they are not. The CR swings so massively depending on the party composition, the monster has entirely swinging values based on what defence is targeted (guess what class is allowed to pick which defence they target  ). The CR gives very little indication as to how powerful it is. For example a CR1 wizard is infinitely more dangerous than that ogre unless your party has no casters. MonsterEnvy posted:Casters and Non casters are fairly close in this edition. A caster will only ever out pace the rest of the party when they are blowing all of their spells at once in a single encounter. Which can be bad is something else comes along. Looking at the CR tells me roughly how challenging a creature should be from the starter set. LOL
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Anyway I am tired of this I doubt I will convince any of you and you guys won't convince me. I won't be back until August 8th. Like a candle lit from both ends, you burned out too soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Then play 4e. This stuff does not bug me. I don't want to play 4e, and I'll thank you not to try and frame this as an edition war. I would like to play 5e, but one that builds on the successes of 4e and at least attempts to fix the problems with it, rather than backpedalling away from the entire edition with their fingers in their ears. quote:*Rogues will be doing most stuff out of combat the casters don't have that many utility spells that are useful out of it. Casters get tons of utility spells that are useful out of combat. Rogues can climb and swim. Casters can fly and teleport. Rogues can pick locks, casters can cast knock. Rogues can sneak, casters can turn invisible. The big difference here is that rogues have to roll dice to make their stuff happen and can fail, while casters just say it's so and it is. Not to mention that this is all stuff casters can do that's supposed to be what the rogue is for. The casters also have enormous all-encompassing niches that rogues can't even enter, let alone hope to compete in, such as save-or-die spells, turning people into toads, teleporting to the next country, healing someone from nearly dead to full health, and so on. Making the rogue optional is just a bonus. quote:*Then don't use the random generation it's just one of the three options they put forward. There shouldn't be any trap options in character generation, especially not when it's the primary option they present. "You generate your character's six ability scores randomly", says the Basic PDF. If you end up with Bob's Cleric having 12 Wisdom and Bill's Cleric having 18, how on earth is that a desirable outcome? What does Bob do, get his character killed for better rolls next time? Or do you give him a reroll until he gets "better" scores, invalidating the entire system? quote:*If you don't like theater of the mind or Gridless combat then don't use it. I use a grid and there is nothing in that rules that say you should not use a grid. Using the grid is listed as a variant rule. The default is gridless. The game doesn't support its default rule nearly as well as other, already released in full games do. quote:*This does not bug me and there is not going to be a lot of them anyway. Caster Monsters are matter of opinion. I seem to recall you saying that there won't be many caster monsters before. What on earth gave you that idea? As you levelled up in 3e nigh-on every monster had some kind of spells or spell-like-ability to fling at you. In any case, having a few rotten apples in the barrel is fine? There shouldn't be any - especially when previous editions had this problem solved. quote:*Thats because monsters are much stronger at that point. I highly doubt you want level 20 characters taking down things like Balors in two rounds. The adventurers are supposed to be much stronger at that point as well, and the ones who express themselves in manners that aren't hitpoint damage are. Save-or-die spells, remember? Meanwhile the non-magic plebs get to slog through more and more doughy hitpoints as they gain levels, with attacks that don't keep step. quote:*This also does not bug me. Just means those monsters are theats. "If you encounter it you may die instantly before you get to act" isn't what I'd call a "threat". I'd call it "a good chance of a lovely encounter". quote:*Then do more then heal and use different tactics. If the monsters are putting out lots of HP damage, the cleric has to heal it. He doesn't have much of a choice in the matter, since people will start dying if he doesn't. quote:*People don't like penalties and the lack of heavy weapons helps make a clear difference between small and medium creatures. No, people don't like penalties, and having no penalties on races is a good step. Which is why you excusing a penalty to halflings (inability to use heavy weapons effectively despite having equal strength to other races) is completely inconsistent, and a step backwards in game design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Like a candle lit from both ends, you burned out too soon. Why do I have Deja Vu? Is it because MonsterEnvy is a terrible liar?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Guys, guys come on. Its over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
The art looks good so far. I didn't much like the poser-esque stuff in the 4e PHB and thought it was often a step backwards from 3rd ed artwork. Especially this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:The art looks good so far. I didn't much like the poser-esque stuff in the 4e PHB and thought it was often a step backwards from 3rd ed artwork. The art in this edition is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:The art looks good so far. I didn't much like the poser-esque stuff in the 4e PHB and thought it was often a step backwards from 3rd ed artwork. Does the artist do independent work? Because I like his art but don't want to support DnDNext.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Does the artist do independent work? Because I like his art but don't want to support DnDNext. Sure looks like it. They've a shop here - looks like they've also done Legend of the Five Rings stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Really the fact that D&D Next says it's gridless is probably the most mindboggling thing about it. It doesn't really support gridless play at all, the rules pretty much clearly are written with some sort of grid in mind, with all it's 5 feet intervals and stuff but hey we SAY it's gridless and it's supposed to be so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Okay, Treeboy, here are some monsters for you. Rat AC 11 HP 2 1dSmall Speed 20, climb 5 Str 6 Dex 12 Darkvision CR 1/8 Special: Packticks: Gets advantage for flanking Act: Bite +0 1 damage -- Bat AC 12 HP 2 1dTiny Speed 0, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 14 Darkvision 120 (sonar) CR 1/8 Act: Bite +0, 1 damage Tougher Specials (Rat and Bat): Filth: On hit, DC 12 Con or poison until short rest. CR +1/8 -- Crow AC 13 (Nat) HP 4 1dTiny+2 Speed 20, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 12 Con 14 Darkvision CR 1/8 Act: Peck +3 (fin), 3 damage -- Hellcrow AC 14 (Nat) HP 8 2dTiny+4 Speed 20, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 14 Con 14 Darkvision CR 1/4 Act: Peck +4 (fin), 4 damage Tougher Specials (Crows): On hit, DC 12 Will or vulnerable to necrotic damage until end of Crow's next turn. CR + 1/4 -- Blasphemous Statuette AC 14 (Nat) HP 28 8dSmall Speed 0 Object (can't fail mental saves or concentration, always fails physical saves) Tremorsense 60 CR 1 Special: The statuette's spells can be recharged by one short rest worth of worship from at least three worshipers. Spellcasting: Guiding Bolt (3 uses) +2, 4d6 psychic damage Lvl 1 Bless (1 use) Lvl 1 Aid (1 use) -- Star Pact Prophet AC 15 (Spell Effect) HP 39 6d8+12 Speed 30 Str 14 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 14 CR 3? Special: The Star Pact Prophet is constantly under the effect of mage armor. The Star Pact Prophet is constantly under the effect of Spirit Guardians. Wis DC 14 3d8 Psychic damage (The spirits do not take a recognizable form) Neither of these effects can be dispelled. Act: Eldritch Bolt +5, (10) 2d8+2 cold damage, Wis DC 14 or frightened save ends Mace +5, (5) 1d6+2 damage -- Alchemical Chaos Golem Ac 15 (Nat) HP 22 4d8+4 Speed 20 Str 16 Dex 8 Con 13 CR 1 Special: Death Throes: On death, the golem erupts in a 10 ft. sphere dealing (6) 1d12 damage of its current type. Chain Reaction: When hit by damage of its current type a golem instead explodes in a 10 ft sphere dealing (12) 2d12 damage of its current type. Act: Fists/Slam +5, (10) 2d6+3 current type damage. On an even roll the golem's type becomes acid, on an odd roll it becomes fire. (Tip: Use two sided tokens to keep track of the monsters type.) Alternate special: Feel free to switch up the two elemental types of the golems if this encounter is used multiple times. -- Lesser Werewolf Ac 15 (Nat) HP 22 4d8+12 Speed 40 Str 16 Dex 14 Con 16 Darkvision CR 1 Special: Packticks: Gets advantage for flanking Attack: Bite +5, (10) 2d6+3 damage, DC 13 save or knocked prone -- Vampirelings Ac 14 HP 18 4d8 Speed 30, flight 10 Str 12 Dex 18 Cha 16 Darkvision CR 1 Special: Gaze: range 60 DC 13 Cha or Charmed save ends Attack: Bite +3, (8) 2d6+1 damage, critical hit against charmed targets Inflict Wounds (1 use), +3, (16) 3d10 necrotic damage Tougher Special (Vampire/Werewolf): Infection: On bite hit, DC 13 Wis vs vampire or DC 13 Con vs Werewolf or become infected. Start down a condition track where you can voluntarily advance to activate your vamp/wolf powers. As you advance more powers/penalties accrue. That's about all I can take for now. This system just fights you every step of the way. I hope this is some help to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
One quick breaking of my goal to not post here until August 8th. (Not to argue however) The game is not D&D next. It's just D&D, D&D 5e or 5e. It was officially stated that next was the name of the playtest not the product. Yes this is minor and rather pointless but because I know the threads name is incorrect it just bugs me. Now Goodbye (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:One quick breaking of my goal to not post here until August 8th. (Not to argue however) To be really sure of what to call it we should probably wait for the NEXT release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:One quick breaking of my goal to not post here until August 8th. (Not to argue however) This post = HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT HOW GODDAMN STUPID I AM 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
D&D Next: the XBone of elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:One quick breaking of my goal to not post here until August 8th. (Not to argue however) lol what do you care nerd
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:D&D Next: the XBone of elfgames. They called the 5th one the 1st one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
5E has been super fun, I've been running a game since the first playtest was released, we play 6-8 hours every Saturday. I've DM'd every edition since 1st and enjoyed the hell out of them, except 4th. I found fourth predictable and boring, and after about a year of playing it, gave it up after I realized I just wasn't having fun. I was going to quit D&D for good, or at least until I felt like rebuying some 3rd edition books, but I was pretty disheartened that for the first time, I wasn't enjoying the newest version of D&D. I figured that was the direction D&D was going and maybe I should move on to a different system, but I tried a couple of indie games and didn't like them much. 5E is a godsend, because I once again feel like I have an edition I can be excited about and obsessively buy all the books for. 4E is a totally different playstyle and feel than the other editions, and that's fine. It's more restrictive and balanced than the other editions, and probably has the most polished combat. I have friends that think it's the best edition, and that's great, I'm glad they enjoy it. But there are also a large section of gamers like me who did not like it, and we are not all grognards clutching our white-boxes in a deathgrip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 09:16
|
|
