D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

Mendrian: Jan 6, 2013

seebs posted:

For as long as I can remember, the consensus has been that if you thought a rule worked differently, you generally get to pick actions that conform to the new rule. So, for instance, if you thought you didn't need to have a guard, but you do, you get to replan your rest arrangement.

Huh. We normally manage to resolve things like that by some combination of appeal to balance/fun, and it generally isn't much for drama.

I guess what I'm not understanding is how exactly you can be genuinely unable to live with a ruling. I mean, worst case, absolutely cannot make the character concept work anymore because of a ruling or a change, I'd expect the GM to let me reroll and get comparable levels/gear.

While I'm not one to claim Next has a tight rule set, this stuff is true. In my years of running games, blind siding a player with a ruling typically means ruling in the player's favor. This will happen in any system. Next's designed ambiguity certainly doesn't help but there's always gonna be rules arguments, most people sort them out by handing credence to the most generous or assumed interpretation.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:03

EightFlyingCars: Jun 30, 2008

Daetrin posted:

Sounds awful close to some of FATE's mechanics.

They're already borrowing heavily from FATE with the Inspiration mechanic, so why stop there

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:38

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

seebs posted:

For as long as I can remember, the consensus has been that if you thought a rule worked differently, you generally get to pick actions that conform to the new rule. So, for instance, if you thought you didn't need to have a guard, but you do, you get to replan your rest arrangement.

And all this, again is supposedly saving time? Nope. The way to save time in this scenario is to have a clear rule in the book. That's certainly a lot quicker than a retcon rule that might result in people reversing an hour of real-time (and eight hours of game time).

quote:

Huh. We normally manage to resolve things like that by some combination of appeal to balance/fun, and it generally isn't much for drama.

There wasn't much drama in that particular case either, it was just a bit weird and frustrating and iirc we did a time out and ironed it out.

The difference is that i'm willing to see the problem involved, and look with care on the groups who have bigger problems as a result, while you're willing to be, frankly a little bit smug about it, and call them all assholes.

quote:

I guess what I'm not understanding is how exactly you can be genuinely unable to live with a ruling. I mean, worst case, absolutely cannot make the character concept work anymore because of a ruling or a change, I'd expect the GM to let me reroll and get comparable levels/gear.

Wait so, i'm replying to you saying this:

You, the previous post posted:

Because, really, we don't care that much about the exact ruling, as long as we can all agree that it's a ruling we can live with, which it turns out we can.

So which is it? Are you willing to accept dissent, or do you not see any way that somebody can genuinely not be ok with a ruling?

And again, on what planet does a complete rebuild of a character make for a faster game, than just having clear rules in the first place? Use the Assassin example people are talking about on this page. Surely it's much much better and simpler to make it clear how stealth and surprise works?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:43

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

Mendrian posted:

While I'm not one to claim Next has a tight rule set, this stuff is true. In my years of running games, blind siding a player with a ruling typically means ruling in the player's favor. This will happen in any system. Next's designed ambiguity certainly doesn't help but there's always gonna be rules arguments, most people sort them out by handing credence to the most generous or assumed interpretation.

The better the rules, the fewer the arguments, and there is no upside to 'im not going to tell you how elves trance'. It doesn't save time, it doesn't even save pagespace, really.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:45

Grim: Sep 11, 2003; Grimey Drawer

A Catastrophe posted:

The better the rules, the fewer the arguments

If the only rule in the game was "Have fun!" then half the people in this thread would argue that players were having fun wrong

# ? Aug 8, 2014 06:01

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

Grim posted:

If the only rule in the game was "Have fun!" then half the people in this thread would argue that players were having fun wrong

A few pages back somebody was accusing people of one-true-waysim, and now the looming specter of badwrongfun raises its head. It's like the greatest hits of RPGnet.

Not everything is a matter of preference. Some games work better than other games. Some approaches to design work better than other approaches. Case in point, if you have a game based primarily around a combat system using precise measurements like feet, then you should have some kind of map to allow those measurements to function.

If you don't, the result is not a different kind of game that Fun Tyrants are trying to ruin with their Funthoritarian Joygma.
The result is in fact, a Bad Game, that Doesn't Work Very Well.

One of the things a good game does is make things as clear as it can. It's not too much to ask the system questions like, 'is my character conscious right now?' and 'does this class get to use one of it's key high level features?'. Nor is it a waste of page-space, nor will it make the game more complex.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 06:14

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

A Catastrophe posted:

A few pages back somebody was accusing people of one-true-waysim, and now the looming specter of badwrongfun raises its head. It's like the greatest hits of RPGnet.

Not everything is a matter of preference. Some games work better than other games. Some approaches to design work better than other approaches. Case in point, if you have a game based primarily around a combat system using precise measurements like feet, then you should have some kind of map to allow those measurements to function.

Well good thing this game has that.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 06:21

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

MonsterEnvy posted:

Well good thing this game has that.

It doesn't, though. 5th edition does not use a map by default. A functional map is an optional addition to the game that requires a bunch of material the basic rules do not provide you with, such as how bursts should be shaped, how to establish who has cover from whom, etc.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 06:35

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

Daetrin posted:

Sounds awful close to some of FATE's mechanics.

Can you elaborate? My only FATE experience is Strands of Fate (for which I don't recall anything of the sort), and with a quick skim of FATE Core, I'm not seeing it.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 06:43

Ryuujin: Sep 26, 2007; Dragon God

Huh, this is an interesting build someone has.

quote:

Why play a Blade Pact Warlock?

The Polelocke - Level 5 Human Warlock:
-Blade Pact: Form a Glaive/Halberd/Pike (congrats, you're proficient with it)
-War Caster Feat (Human Variant): Adv on Conc Checks, Cast while Wielding Weapons, Replace an opportunity attack with a spell that targets a single creature.
-Polearm Master Feat (Level 4): Can use the haft as a 1d4 melee weapon as a bonus action, enemies who enter your reach grant an opportunity attack.
-Invocations: Agonizing Blast (Cha to Eldritch Blast); Repelling Blast (Eldritch Blast knocks target 10 feet away); Thirsting Blade (two attacks);

Now you have a character with reach attacks who can also hit with the Haft of his Polearm for a 1d4 weapon damage melee attack (nothing says that attack doesn't get your strength bonus).

And now for the juicy part, when someone enters your reach (in addition to leaving your reach) you get to make an Opportunity Attack against them. With Warcaster you can instead cast a spell that takes a single action - which will likely be Eldritch Blast (this is a Reach weapon, so when he enters your range he isn't within 5 feet of you, so no disadvantage). So you get to hit him up to twice for 1d10+Cha and potentially knock him back 20 feet away from you. The enemy is now hurting, up to 25 feet away, and may not be able to even get to you without using his action to dash. And this isn't even on your turn.

Technically you can do this from level 4, but only with 1 Blast/Attack. And it just gets better at higher levels. Once you get Thirsting Blade to add your Cha to your pact weapon's damage that means that you're attacking 2x for 1d10+cha+str and 1x for 1d4+cha+str in addition to having devastating opportunity attacks.

Pick whatever Patron you wish. My suggestion is Fiend for the extra staying power it's features provide and it gives you some much needed AoE options with your spells.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357844-Why-play-a-pact-blade-warlock#ixzz39mN1ZqxV

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:25

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Ferrinus posted:

It doesn't, though. 5th edition does not use a map by default. A functional map is an optional addition to the game that requires a bunch of material the basic rules do not provide you with, such as how bursts should be shaped, how to establish who has cover from whom, etc.

It actually does not saw anything about no using a map. If it does tell what page on the basic rules it says it's not using a map. On the Grid part this is in the rules

quote:

Playing on a Grid
If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures
or other tokens, follow these rules.
Squares. Each square on the grid represents 5 feet.
Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by
square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot
segments. This is particularly easy if you translate your speed
into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed
of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares.
If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in
squares on your character sheet.
Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have
at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is
diagonally adjacent to the square you�re in. (The rule for
diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth
play. The Dungeon Master�s Guide provides guidance on using
a more realistic approach.)
If a square costs extra movement, as a square of difficult
terrain does, you must have enough movement left to pay for
entering it. For example, you must have at least 2 squares of
movement left to enter a square of difficult terrain.
Corners. Diagonal movement can�t cross the corner of a
wall, large tree, or other terrain feature that fills its space.
Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two
things�whether creatures or objects�start counting squares
from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.

As for bursts and cover.

Cover

quote:

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide
cover during combat, making a target more difficult
to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an
attack or other effect originates on the opposite side
of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind
multiple sources of cover, only the most protective
degree of cover applies; the degrees aren�t added
together. For example, if a target is behind a creature
that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives threequarters
cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and
Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an
obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle
might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow
tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an
enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus
to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has threequarters
cover if about three-quarters of it is covered
by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an
arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
A target with total cover can�t be targeted directly
by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach
such a target by including it in an area of effect. A
target has total cover if it is completely concealed by
an obstacle.

That pretty easily tells you what has cover.

Bursts

It straight up tells you how they are shaped.

Anyway the Grid is supported so don't complain about it not being as it is by far the stupidest complaint one can make. It's in the game and supported.

MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:27

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

I really want to emphasise how much of a non-thing Concentration is.

Wizards once again have all the tools they need to bypass their mechanical limitations. War Caster gives you Advantage on Concentration saves at level 4 and Transmuters get proficiency to Con saves at level 6.

With a +2 Con bonus, your odds of passing a DC10 Concentration check are therefore as follows:

The DC does not go above 10 unless you're hit for more than 20 damage in one hit.

We'll need more monster stats to see how common that is, but in what we've seen so far it's not very common at all. A Balor attacks for 21 and 29 damage with their multiattacks, for instance.

Consider the situation of a Wizard flying around with Fly, which I've seen talked about a lot in terms of, "It's totally balanced now, because you can shoot them with arrows and break Concentration!"

A longbow does d8 damage. At max damage roll with 20 Dex, that's 13 damage. On a crit, doubling the damage die, a max damage roll and 20 Dex gives you 21 damage.

That's still DC10.

Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:40

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

MonsterEnvy posted:

It actually does not saw anything about no using a map. If it does tell what page on the basic rules it says it's not using a map.

What? What? Are you kidding me? On what page of the game does it tell me that it doesn't use a computer?

It says "you can use a map if you want". It does not say "this game uses a map". 5th edition is a theater of the mind game and has been repeatedly touted as such by its own developers. The word "if" is right there.

quote:

On the Grid part this is in the rules

~~Is diagonal movement 1-1-1 or 1-2-1?~~

This one's answered, my bad.

quote:

As for bursts and cover.

Cover

That pretty easily tells you what has cover.

How do you tell if someone is behind something? If there's a pillar at #5 on the numpad, and you are at 4, and I am at 9, do you have cover from me? How about if I am at 8? How about if I am at /? What if you are at 1, your cover is at 4, and I am at 8 or at 9? The cover rules make reference to a piece of cover's physical size and appearance but no reference to a piece of cover's physical position on the battlefield, because the cover rules do not assume or enable the use of a map to adjudicate combat.

quote:

Bursts

It straight up tells you how they are shaped.

No, actually, it doesn't. A fireball is a sphere - but how is a sphere represented on a grid? Is it a square? Is it a "rough", pixelated-looking circle? Am I supposed to break out my compass, draw a circle on the map, and apply the damage to anyone whose square the circle touches? Anyone whose square the circle encompasses a majority of?

quote:

Anyway the Grid is supported so don't complain about it not being as it is by far the stupidest complaint one can make. It's in the game and supported.

Seems like you're either really dishonest or don't understand the substance of the complaint whatsoever.

Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:46

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

^^^The Quote indicates 4e style diagonals, with a note that the DMG contains the 3e style system.

This btw, is a good measure of how much influence 4e had on 5e. In a part of the system tacitly ignored but actually vital, the default way to measure space is the obviously much better 4e one, but people would still complain about that so in this rules-lite game there's a note about a DMG alternative rule deemed more 'realistic' despite both systems being abstractions with little to do with actual space or movement.

Jack the Lad posted:

I really want to emphasise how much of a non-thing Concentration is.

But they still need it to concentrate to sustain most stuff, right? Because while i'm impressed by them feat-blocking it out of damage risk before release, my real interest is how long it takes for it to completely shatter that one buff limit. I'm guessing it'll last until The Complete Mage.

A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:51

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

A Catastrophe posted:

But they still need it to concentrate to sustain most stuff, right? Because while i'm impressed by them feat-blocking it out of risk before release, my real interest is how long it takes for it to completely shatter that one buff limit. I'm guessing it'll last until The Complete Mage.

Predictions:

Your familiar concentrates for you
Magic staff or w/e that concentrates for you
You can offload concentration for a particular spell onto a party member
Ritual circle or something that concentrates on a spell for you so long as the spell stays in the area
Somehow specialize in/master a given spell so that you concentrate on it for free, or so that Concentration is no longer in its duration line

# ? Aug 8, 2014 07:56

Garl_Grimm: Apr 13, 2005

Ferrinus posted:

Predictions:

Your familiar concentrates for you

Magic staff or w/e that concentrates for you

You can offload concentration for a particular spell onto a party member

Ritual circle or something that concentrates on a spell for you so long as the spell stays in the area

Somehow specialize in/master a given spell so that you concentrate on it for free, or so that Concentration is no longer in its duration line

Will the answer be a feat or a module? :iiam:

# ? Aug 8, 2014 08:01

A Catastrophe: Jun 26, 2014

Ferrinus posted:

Predictions:

Your familiar concentrates for you

Magic staff or w/e that concentrates for you

You can offload concentration for a particular spell onto a party member

Ritual circle or something that concentrates on a spell for you so long as the spell stays in the area

Somehow specialize in/master a given spell so that you concentrate on it for free, or so that Concentration is no longer in its duration line

The issue is then as noted above, will these costs Feats and hence how easily will they stack? I suspect you'll end up with 1 from a feat, 1 free from certain magic items, 1 free from a certain familiar, and the net result is every wizard except the one 'at my table' will be walking around swimming in buffs.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 08:44

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Jack the Lad posted:

I really want to emphasise how much of a non-thing Concentration is.

Wizards once again have all the tools they need to bypass their mechanical limitations. War Caster gives you Advantage on Concentration saves at level 4 and Transmuters get proficiency to Con saves at level 6.

With a +2 Con bonus, your odds of passing a DC10 Concentration check are therefore as follows:

The DC does not go above 10 unless you're hit for more than 20 damage in one hit.

We'll need more monster stats to see how common that is, but in what we've seen so far it's not very common at all. A Balor attacks for 21 and 29 damage with their multiattacks, for instance.

Consider the situation of a Wizard flying around with Fly, which I've seen talked about a lot in terms of, "It's totally balanced now, because you can shoot them with arrows and break Concentration!"

A longbow does d8 damage. At max damage roll with 20 Dex, that's 13 damage. On a crit, doubling the damage die, a max damage roll and 20 Dex gives you 21 damage.

That's still DC10.

Monsters are going to be hitting much harder then that at higher levels. Don't use the playtest Balor as an example monsters have all been buffed. All so it still prevents you from casting more then one con spell.

Also they have repeatedly said that they won't bring out something that gets you around concentration. You can make the checks easier on you but you can never get rid of it.

Ferrinus posted:

How do you tell if someone is behind something? If there's a pillar at #5 on the numpad, and you are at 4, and I am at 9, do you have cover from me? How about if I am at 8? How about if I am at /? What if you are at 1, your cover is at 4, and I am at 8 or at 9? The cover rules make reference to a piece of cover's physical size and appearance but no reference to a piece of cover's physical position on the battlefield, because the cover rules do not assume or enable the use of a map to adjudicate combat.

No, actually, it doesn't. A fireball is a sphere - but how is a sphere represented on a grid? Is it a square? Is it a "rough", pixelated-looking circle? Am I supposed to break out my compass, draw a circle on the map, and apply the damage to anyone whose square the circle touches? Anyone whose square the circle encompasses a majority of?

It says opposite side of it. There is your answer. So no I would not have cover.

To the later yes. They will probbaly give us some templates to use in the future as well.

MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 08:56

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

MonsterEnvy posted:

It says opposite side of it. There is your answer. So no I would not have cover.

No, that's not an answer. If I'm at 4, you're at 2, and a big crate is at 5, while we are not on opposite sides of the entire crate we are on opposite sides of the crate's protruding southwest edge. Then there's like, I'm at numlock, the crate is at 5, you're at 3. The rules don't cover for this because they don't care to - they refer to how an object is described and how the characters around that object narrate their actions, not the object's spatial coordinates.

That you don't need a grid is literally a touted element of 5e. It's just a lie, is all.

quote:

To the later yes. They will probbaly give us some templates to use in the future as well.

Yes? Yes to what? There are three different, contradictory possibilities!

Like, gently caress, tell me this. I create a 10' radius burst.

Is it centered on a square, or on a corner of a square?

Does it make a big square, or does it make a Civ4-style "fat cross"?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 09:15

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Ferrinus posted:

No, that's not an answer. If I'm at 4, you're at 2, and a big crate is at 5, while we are not on opposite sides of the entire crate we are on opposite sides of the crate's protruding southwest edge. Then there's like, I'm at numlock, the crate is at 5, you're at 3. The rules don't cover for this because they don't care to - they refer to how an object is described and how the characters around that object narrate their actions, not the object's spatial coordinates.

That you don't need a grid is literally a touted element of 5e. It's just a lie, is all.

Yes? Yes to what? There are three different, contradictory possibilities!

Like, gently caress, tell me this. I create a 10' radius burst.

Is it centered on a square, or on a corner of a square?

Does it make a big square, or does it make a Civ4-style "fat cross"?

I don't care if it's a lie or not. I use a grid and it says I can use one so I don't see any reason to complain about it.

As to the later there is nothing called 10' ft radius burst in 5e. For Sphere's I personally will be using "Fat Cross" but if you want to use a straight up circle then you can. It does not matter do it how you want to.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 09:22

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

MonsterEnvy posted:

I don't care if it's a lie or not. I use a grid and it says I can use one so I don't see any reason to complain about it.

As to the later there is nothing called 10' ft radius burst in 5e. For Sphere's I personally will be using "Fat Cross" but if you want to use a straight up circle then you can. It does not matter do it how you want to.

Huh, so all along you agreed with me that the game didn't support gridless play but at the same time failed to provide full rules for use of a grid, and simply didn't care? How strange, I never suspected.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 09:34

Mendrian: Jan 6, 2013

5e is in a weird place, I won't lie, and the grid/gridless thing is probably the weirdess place of all.

Like you can play 5e on a grid and you'll probably be able to puzzle it out. 4e for the most part described most of the answers you could ever have questions within the space. It wouldn't be hard to invent some kind of whacky edgecase for which there was no official 4e ruling but there's typically enough precedent to figure it out even in the most unusual cases. ((EG: "How do I describe the shape of a lightning bolt under water? If an effect requires an object to move in a straight line, how does that interact with diagonals? How do I map this completely bizarre architectural interior? There's usually some answer close enough to interpret confidently.))

I don't think a lack of rules is inherently bad design. Seeing a game as a series of design questions meant to prompt the DM into creative-problem-solving is a valid approach to design, it's just not really in agreement with D&D's statement, which is rules-heavy to begin with (even a 'rules-lite' 5e is still pretty rules heavy.) The lack of grid OR true TotM rules is like a poster-child for lookwarm design, and is like a shining example of how Nexts' 'fans' are mostly angry that the game didn't really innovate enough in any particular direction.

As an aside, I think the elf-trance thing is not a good point to keep harping on. 5e has enough weirdo problems without using Mearls' offhand bathroom posting as canon.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 09:48

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

MonsterEnvy posted:

As to the later there is nothing called 10' ft radius burst in 5e. For Sphere's I personally will be using "Fat Cross" but if you want to use a straight up circle then you can. It does not matter do it how you want to.

It literally doesn't matter do what you like falls apart as soon as two people have different expectations. At the very least, the game grinds to a halt while you work out how the current group is going to handle something that should already be a rule. DM's call though, right?

If I wanted to make up rules, I wouldn't need to buy a game at all.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 10:24

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

quote:

Warlock Invocations

Agonizing Blast [req eldritch blast]
Add CHA to damage dealt.

Armor of Shadows
Mage armor at will

Ascendant Step (Req lvl9)
Levitate at will

Beast Speech
Speak with animals at will

Beguiling Influence
Proficiency in Deception and Persuasion

Bewitching Whispers
Cast compulsion once/day using a spell slot.

Book of Ancient Secrets [Req Pact of the Tome]
Add Rituals to your Tome.

Chains of Carceri [Req lvl15, Pact of the Chain]
Cast hold monster at-will, only against celestials, fiends, elementals. Cannot cast it twice on same creature per long rest.

Devil�s Sight
See in normal/magical darkness out to 120 feet.

Dreadful Word [Req lvl7]
Cast confusion once per day using a spell slot.

Eldritch Sight
Cast detect magic at-will.

Eldritch Spear [Req eldtrich blast cantrip]
Range is now 300.

Eyes of the Rune Keeper
Can read all writing.

Fiendish Vigor
Cast false life at-will as 1st level spell.

Gaze of Two Minds
See through willing creatures eyes while concentrating.

Lifedrinker [Req lvl12, Pact of the Blade]
Add CHA mod necrotic damage to pact blade attacks.

Mask of Many Faces
Disguise self at will

Master of Myriad Forms [Req lvl15]
Alter self at will.

Minions of Chaos
Conjure elemental once per day using spell slot.

Mire the Mind [Req lvl5]
Cast slow once per day using a spell slot.

Misty Visions
Silent image at will.

One with Shadows [Req lvl5]
Use Action to become invisible while in dim light or darkness. Lasts until you move or take any actions.

Otherworldly Leap [Req lvl9]
Jump spell at will.

Repelling Blast [req eldritch blast cantrip]
Knocks back target 10 feet.

Sculptor of Flesh
Polymorph once per day using spell slot.

Sign of Ill Omen [req lvl5]
Bestow curse once per day using spell slot.

Thief of Five Fates
Cast bane once per day using spell slot.

Thirsting Blade [Req lvl5, Pact of the Blade]
Make two attacks when take Attack action with pact weapon.

Vision of Distant Realms [req lvl15]
Cast arcane eye at will.

Voice of the Chain Master [Pact of the Chain]
Can see and speak through familiar.

Whispers of the Grave [req lvl9]
Speak with dead at will

Witch Sight [req lvl15]
Automatically see true form of magically disguised or shapeshifted creatures within 30 feet.

Warlocks can outjump even Remarkable Athlete Champion Fighters all day.

Also all their stuff is just spells but renamed and sometimes 1/day.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 12:12

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

Codename: Morningstar has posted their beta version of a character sheet:
http://www.codenamemorningstar.com/blog/its-a-bard-knock-life-now-with-screenshots/

Like all things D&D Next, it makes arbitrary design choices that make no sense. I'm not a UI designer, but I do some UI design as part of my larger job as a biostatistician (designing data collection tools for our studies), and if I handed in something like this, even as a beta, my boss would think I had fallen and hit my head. Here are the problems with it:

1. Everything is way too spaced out. It looks like they're all double or even triple-spaced for no particular reason. Horizontal spacing is also an issue. Everything is just so far away from everything else and it doesn't seem to have a particular reason. I think if you adjusted the spacing, you could fit this entire page of information in a single column.

2. The portrait is way too big. Ostensibly only the player playing that character is going to see it. They doesn't need 1/6th of their screen real estate devoted to a portrait. Make it postage stamp-sized unless the player taps on it.

3. Why is it in landscape orientation? Why not portrait? Has anyone ever used a character sheet in landscape orientation? If the goal is to mimic but enhance the experience of using paper, I would put it in portrait. This is contributing to the horizontal spacing issue.

4. They use a pop-up window for personality traits. Why? Why? Why?! You don't need a pop-up window for that. Tapping on it should just display the information somewhere on the page. Pop-up windows should be for notifications or warnings, not for displaying part of the sheet.

5. The menus at the top and bottom take up a lot of space. I hope those auto-hide when you're not tapping on them so that there's more screen real estate.

6. Currently the character sheet appears to take up 6 pages (as denoted by those little circles toward the bottom). That's insanely spread out. I've made level 15 Next spellcaster character sheets that are 2-3 pages long multiple times. If I can do that with paper, then making a 2-3 character sheet on large tablets should absolutely not be that hard.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 13:13

Daetrin: Mar 21, 2013

Rosalind posted:

Codename: Morningstar has posted their beta version of a character sheet:
http://www.codenamemorningstar.com/blog/its-a-bard-knock-life-now-with-screenshots/

Like all things D&D Next, it makes arbitrary design choices that make no sense. I'm not a UI designer, but I do some UI design as part of my larger job as a biostatistician (designing data collection tools for our studies), and if I handed in something like this, even as a beta, my boss would think I had fallen and hit my head. Here are the problems with it:

1. Everything is way too spaced out. It looks like they're all double or even triple-spaced for no particular reason. Horizontal spacing is also an issue. Everything is just so far away from everything else and it doesn't seem to have a particular reason. I think if you adjusted the spacing, you could fit this entire page of information in a single column.

2. The portrait is way too big. Ostensibly only the player playing that character is going to see it. They doesn't need 1/6th of their screen real estate devoted to a portrait. Make it postage stamp-sized unless the player taps on it.

3. Why is it in landscape orientation? Why not portrait? Has anyone ever used a character sheet in landscape orientation? If the goal is to mimic but enhance the experience of using paper, I would put it in portrait. This is contributing to the horizontal spacing issue.

4. They use a pop-up window for personality traits. Why? Why? Why?! You don't need a pop-up window for that. Tapping on it should just display the information somewhere on the page. Pop-up windows should be for notifications or warnings, not for displaying part of the sheet.

5. The menus at the top and bottom take up a lot of space. I hope those auto-hide when you're not tapping on them so that there's more screen real estate.

6. Currently the character sheet appears to take up 6 pages (as denoted by those little circles toward the bottom). That's insanely spread out. I've made level 15 Next spellcaster character sheets that are 2-3 pages long multiple times. If I can do that with paper, then making a 2-3 character sheet on large tablets should absolutely not be that hard.

Yeah, it certainly leaves something to be desired. Among other things, the (smaller size) portrait + ability scores seem like they'd be a good candidate to be a permanent fixture in the UI and have the rest scroll. Since ability scores affect a lot of things. For all I know they are doing that, but there's no demarcation as such, and it's still something that could be shrunk and tucked off in some of the dead space of the current UI.

The popup thing makes no sense.

That said the color scheme and otherwise-minimalistic look is pretty good. Seems to be sort of cribbed from Diablo III but that's fine.

Daetrin fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 13:36

LuiCypher: Apr 24, 2010; Today I'm... amped up!

Gharbad the Weak posted:

Yeah, I play a monk in the LP Forum's D&D Next thread, and the PHB is like "Hey, remember those unique abilities monks got? Well now they just cast spells with ki points, isn't that wonderfully boring?"

Fortunately, the game is a magical tea party and so we ignore everything we don't like.

That ki point system kinda sounds sucky. Monk's pretty much my favorite D&D class because it epitomizes the murderhobo aspect of the game by basically making you Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star, complete with "You are already dead" abilities.

It also just reminds me of the time where my friend and I were playing an Evil Monk and Rogue and we realized that the Rogue got his sneak attack damage against tripped targets. Cue me taking Improved Trip and the Rogue and I tumbling into flanking positions against enemies. From there, we basically just started curbstomping guys and killing them in about a round. It definitely broke the system a bit and we definitely used it to break people twice our level for fun.

Jack the Lad posted:

Also all their stuff is just spells but renamed and sometimes 1/day.

This sounds suspiciously like 4e communism and doesn't belong in 5e.

AlphaDog posted:

If I wanted to make up rules, I wouldn't need to buy a game at all.

Agreed. You play a system with rules because you want to have an experience that doesn't involve "make up the rules as you go".

# ? Aug 8, 2014 16:55

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Jack the Lad posted:

I really want to emphasise how much of a non-thing Concentration is.

Wizards once again have all the tools they need to bypass their mechanical limitations. War Caster gives you Advantage on Concentration saves at level 4 and Transmuters get proficiency to Con saves at level 6.

With a +2 Con bonus, your odds of passing a DC10 Concentration check are therefore as follows:

The DC does not go above 10 unless you're hit for more than 20 damage in one hit.

We'll need more monster stats to see how common that is, but in what we've seen so far it's not very common at all. A Balor attacks for 21 and 29 damage with their multiattacks, for instance.

Consider the situation of a Wizard flying around with Fly, which I've seen talked about a lot in terms of, "It's totally balanced now, because you can shoot them with arrows and break Concentration!"

A longbow does d8 damage. At max damage roll with 20 Dex, that's 13 damage. On a crit, doubling the damage die, a max damage roll and 20 Dex gives you 21 damage.

That's still DC10.

Assuming +2 con mod (a bit high) for a level 6 wizard (since you're buying WarCaster at lvl 4, you had to start with 14 Con), you're going to have an average HP of 35-36, your chances are not good to survive anything more than a single DC10 attack. Earlier in the thread there was a chart demonstrating that current monsters outpace Concentration save DC's, eventually you will auto fail if you get hit at higher levels.

edit: *especially* when you consider that the "broken" concentration spells like polymorph (9th lvl) are much higher level and by that point monsters are going to be hitting for well over 20 (if the YGD is any indication of a level 8 monster).

treeboy fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:07

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

treeboy posted:

Assuming +2 con mod (a bit high) for a level 6 wizard (since you're buying WarCaster at lvl 4, you had to start with 14 Con), you're going to have an average HP of 35-36, your chances are not good to survive anything more than a single DC10 attack. Earlier in the thread there was a chart demonstrating that current monsters outpace Concentration save DC's, eventually you will auto fail if you get hit at higher levels.

edit: *especially* when you consider that the "broken" concentration spells like polymorph (9th lvl) are much higher level and by that point monsters are going to be hitting for well over 20 (if the YGD is any indication of a level 8 monster).

That's pretty disingenuous - at level 6 the Fighter only has 14 more HP than the Wizard.

Also, you're absolutely going to be 14 Con. The only other stat you have any interest in is Dex.

Any attack that does 20 or less damage is DC10, which is exactly my point - making a DC10 Concentration save doesn't mean you've taken 20 damage.

And yeah, we've seen the Young Green Dragon with a 42 damage breath attack, but I would be surprised if that's not exceptional.

Polymorph isn't a level 9 spell, and it's not really very broken compared to Magic Jar, Sequester, Trap the Soul etc.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:19

Daetrin: Mar 21, 2013

Here's a question: is concentration, itself, a good mechanic?

It doesn't seem like one to me, since if you want to keep casters in line I feel it'd be better to curtail them from the beginning rather than double down on an attack roll, which has a bunch of non-deterministic factors (starting with: does the monster attack the guy in the dress?).

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:47

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

The part where buff spells and control spells require concentration, and thus a caster can only have one up at a time, is genuinely good. That, Advantage/Disadvantage, and maybe backgrounds (although skills still suck) are the bits that stand out to me as real progress. Were I to make a 4E-successor, I'd probably include those things.

The "maybe lose it on damage" part is iffy. It's not exactly bad, it just isn't a good way to reign in the caster's power. It's more on the "burning their spellbook" or "not letting them rest" side of ways to address Wizards. Basically, it only comes up if the GM specifically targets the Wizard, and thus is a jerk. If defending was still viable, that would improve the situation somewhat.

But the real problem is getting effects that are far beyond what martials can do, in the first place.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:04

Daetrin: Mar 21, 2013

eth0.n posted:

The part where buff spells and control spells require concentration, and thus a caster can only have one up at a time, is genuinely good. That, Advantage/Disadvantage, and maybe backgrounds (although skills still suck) are the bits that stand out to me as real progress. Were I to make a 4E-successor, I'd probably include those things.

The "maybe lose it on damage" part is iffy. It's not exactly bad, it just isn't a good way to reign in the caster's power. It's more on the "burning their spellbook" or "not letting them rest" side of ways to address Wizards. Basically, it only comes up if the GM specifically targets the Wizard, and thus is a jerk. If defending was still viable, that would improve the situation somewhat.

But the real problem is getting effects that are far beyond what martials can do, in the first place.

4E's sustain methodology worked pretty well for "only one at a time," and in fact meant that martials and casters could both keep up ongoing effects, as well as providing balancing by what type of sustain was required. I was more referring to the "maybe you lose your spell on damage" part, yeah.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:28

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement is up - contains more monsters, magic items and spells.

The only rare item is the Wizard staff.

The pdf contains a CR16 dragon. 225 HP, which is a lot less than my extrapolations indicated previously (453) and puts a Level 16 Champion Fighter's DPR against it at 11% of its HP. With Action Surge, the Fighter can expect to take 8 rounds to kill it. Though, of course, his chances of making a DC17 Will save against its fear aura are fairly slim.

It multi-attacks for 18/14/14 and has a breath weapon for 66 (save halves).

Also showcases the Legendary Actions and Legendary Saves.

The spells include Counterspell, which has made it through to release unchanged from the playtest and so allows you to veto a spell completely by giving up a spell slot of the same level. This allows the Wizard to completely shut down any single enemy spellcaster with their Reactions while continuing to act normally on their turn.

Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:33

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Jack the Lad posted:

That's pretty disingenuous - at level 6 the Fighter only has 14 more HP than the Wizard.

Also, you're absolutely going to be 14 Con. The only other stat you have any interest in is Dex.

Any attack that does 20 or less damage is DC10, which is exactly my point - making a DC10 Concentration save doesn't mean you've taken 20 damage.

And yeah, we've seen the Young Green Dragon with a 42 damage breath attack, but I would be surprised if that's not exceptional.

Polymorph isn't a level 9 spell, and it's not really very broken compared to Magic Jar, Sequester, Trap the Soul etc.

What? The only stats a Wizard has any interest in is Con and Dex? How about Int, the Wizard's primary stat that determines all of its to-hit and DC bonuses?

Also excuse me, True Polymorph is a lvl 9 spell, Polymorph is a lvl 4 crowd control spell.

Magic Jar, Sequester, and Trap the Soul aren't concentration so i don't see what it has to do with this discussion (and also all lvl 8+).

You're still completely ignoring the fact that a Wizard can't simply be hit infinite number of times and not lose a spell. Eventually (1-3 DC10 hits) they're likely to die and lose the spell anyway.

edit: that dragon has beefy saves, +11 con, wowza

edit2:

Jack the Lad posted:

The pdf contains a CR16 dragon. 225 HP, which is a lot less than my extrapolations indicated previously (453) and puts a Level 16 Champion Fighter's DPR against it at 14% of its HP. With Action Surge, the Fighter can expect to take 6 rounds to kill it.

Almost like they've got some kind of process for determining monster statistics to keep them within a certain range...

I'm pretty convinced there's some kind of point buy system at work for monster generation modified by templates (which i would guess simply increase the overall pt total available) with special abilities assigned pt costs.

treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:41

LuiCypher: Apr 24, 2010; Today I'm... amped up!

treeboy posted:

You're still completely ignoring the fact that a Wizard can't simply be hit infinite number of times and not lose a spell. Eventually (1-3 DC10 hits) they're likely to die and lose the spell anyway.

What's the point of designing a system with a hard counter (Concentration checks) for spellcasting when the soft counter (death) is more effective?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:05

Gharbad the Weak: Feb 23, 2008; This too good for you.

Hey, we've been talking about martial character nerfs a bit, but (other than the infinite gold thing for transmuters), did the cleric/wizard/druid trifecta receive any nerfs, significant or not?

MonsterEnvy posted:

The Monks unarmed damage apparently goes up as they level. It will only take me a bit to find how much it does.

That's always been how monks work, I just have no idea why they lowered the damage.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:07

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

LuiCypher posted:

What's the point of designing a system with a hard counter (Concentration checks) for spellcasting when the soft counter (death) is more effective?

who says it's supposed to be a hard counter? There are three primary limiting factors to concentration spells: 1) Limitation, one concentration spell at a time. 2) Concentration checks, *any* amount of damage requires a DC10 concentration check (of which there will ALWAYS be at least a 5% chance to fail by rolling double 1's on 2d20), and 3) HP (eventually the wizard dies)

treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:13

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

Gharbad the Weak posted:

Hey, we've been talking about martial character nerfs a bit, but (other than the infinite gold thing for transmuters), did the cleric/wizard/druid trifecta receive any nerfs, significant or not?

There have been some changes to Wizards (a bunch of spells getting Concentration that didn't have it, Alter Self not letting you fly any more, Transmutation no longer giving you infinite gold). We haven't seen enough of the Cleric or Druid yet to say, really, but neither of them are as crazy as the Wizard anyway.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:14

Jack the Lad: Jan 20, 2009; Feed the Pubs

treeboy posted:

*any* amount of damage requires a DC10 concentration check (of which there will ALWAYS be at least a 5% chance to fail by rolling double 1's on 2d20)

It's actually 0.2%.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:03

treeboy: Nov 13, 2004; James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.

Jack the Lad posted:

It's actually 0.2%.

yeah i was solving for rolling any doubles, not two specific, my bad. Regardless, your chart is making pretty big assumptions about expected damage curves at high levels.

edit: and some mythical lvl 6 wizard with high Int, high Dex, high Con stats who takes only feats.

treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

«‹›1608 »