|
ritorix posted:Truly I have competed against a master, and lost. You even edited your emptyquote just as someone was asking if that was reportable. quote:I can only hope that the players who make you look passive by comparison never come around these parts.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Hey guys, great news!! I can't believe you guys are ignoring this in favor of a rules argument. I mean yeah, that's pretty much all D&D has going for it anymore, but still...
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:20
|
|
Now, it's 36d20 kobolds.
|
The best thing in that Hoard pdf is the 'swarm of rats' monster. Holy poo poo. I never thought it would happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes it will be the same amount of squares. Consider these rulings: 1) A 15' area includes those grid squares that are within 15' as defined by the movement rules. I.e., a square 4E Area Burst 3. 2) A 15' area includes those grid squares with any part of them included in a 3' circle (assuming a 1' grid) drawn by a compass centered in the origin square. 3) As 2, but only those with a majority coverage. 4) Something else? Will these all produce the same set of squares? Which is "correct"? Which is the game balanced for? In what way is the game improved by leaving this ambiguous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes it will be the same amount of squares. A kinda pixellated circle. A fat cross. A circle drawn over the grid with a compass. All 5 grid squares across.  e: becaue apparently that's not clear enough for you, here it is with 9 squares A kinda pixellated circle, then a fat cross, then "draw a circle over it" with any square it crosses being hit, then with only squares it occupies the majority of being hit. 4 different answers.  But pretty much no one will give a poo poo about a diagram. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
ritorix posted:The best thing in that Hoard pdf is the 'swarm of rats' monster. Holy poo poo. I never thought it would happen. And to think I never thought D&D would capture the essence of the Nerd-Game industry again. Boy is my face red! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A kinda pixellated circle. A fat cross. Ignoring the first one causes that could not be less of a circle. As I mentioned I would be using fat cross and the Circle you posted covers the same amount of space as it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:Again, I have to clarify. I'm not just talking about problems in the text when I talk about for instance, the Trance example. But I the case of recent tweets rewrites aren't an option if he wants parity with the print version. And they've already said they want to minimize errats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:36
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ignoring the first one causes that could not be less of a circle. As I mentioned I would be using fat cross and the Circle you posted covers the same amount of space as it. No it doesn't. The fat cross touches 21 spaces versus the 25 in the the circle drawing. Meanwhile, the pixel circle is more circular in appearance than the fat cross, though it only covers 13 spaces.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
ritorix posted:The best thing in that Hoard pdf is the 'swarm of rats' monster. Holy poo poo. I never thought it would happen. Father Wendigo posted:You really have to admire the passive-aggression it took to let anger over criticism for a lovely module stew for 2 years before they release it again twofold behind a paywall. I can't tell what you guys mean. Do you like the rat swarm?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ignoring the first one causes that could not be less of a circle. As I mentioned I would be using fat cross and the Circle you posted covers the same amount of space as it. I edited it with 9 squares as well so you can see what I'm talking about. But you don't, do you? You still think this argument is easier than having a diagram in the rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ignoring the first one causes that could not be less of a circle. As I mentioned I would be using fat cross and the Circle you posted covers the same amount of space as it. Ask a 3.5 player on how 5E's bursts translate to the grid, and good money's they will pick the first one. Because that's exactly how it works in 3.5. The circle does not cover the same amount of space as the fat cross. In this case, you can eyeball it and say the corners don't count because so little of the circle covers them. For a larger area, you'd start to get edge cases that would need to be ruled on case-by-case. e: yeah, see AlphaDog's edit as an illustration of this point. You really think you can consistently judge whether the imaginary circle includes at least 50% of a square? eth0.n fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No it doesn't. The fat cross touches 21 spaces versus the 25 in the the circle drawing. Meanwhile, the pixel circle is more circular in appearance than the fat cross, though it only covers 13 spaces. I don't count the spaces is does not have a majority in. Because I read how spacing works. As mentioned a creatures does not actually fully cover that whole space. Unless the blast covered over half the square it would not have hit the creature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I can't tell what you guys mean. Do you like the rat swarm? Don't ever leave us again, MonsterEnvy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I edited it with 9 squares as well so you can see what I'm talking about. But you don't, do you? You still think this argument is easier than having a diagram in the rulebook. Oh I think there should be a Diagram. I suspect they will provide one as well sometime in the future. It just does not bug me that there is not one right now. ritorix posted:Don't ever leave us again, MonsterEnvy. I know your making fun of me, but I do want to actually know what you mean. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't count the spaces is does not have a majority in. Because I read how spacing works. As mentioned a creatures does not actually fully cover that whole space. Unless the blast covered over half the square it would not have hit the creature. Why a half? Why not 3/4? Couldn't a medium sized creature fit into a 2.5' by 2.5' almost as easily as a 2.5' by 5'? MonsterEnvy posted:Oh I think there should be a Diagram. I suspect they will provide one as well sometime in the future.  Then what the hell are you arguing? All anyone is arguing is that it's bad and should be fixed!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They do just not with spells. Just learn what the spells do, write them down or buy the spell cards when they come out. If you can't be bothered with that or even the looking the spells up then don't use the monster. And I'll do you one better and not play the game! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They do just not with spells. Just learn what the spells do, write them down or buy the spell cards when they come out. If you can't be bothered with that or even the looking the spells up then don't use the monster. Or they could do what good games do and have the monsters abilities in the stat block. This is actually a pet peeve of mine for a lot of games, not just D&D Next mind you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:No, I'd rather have that stuff spelled out for me so I don't need to waste neurons memorizing spells. Someone else made this exact comment on another forum because having spell casting monsters is too much of an issue. I like spell casting monster for how versatile they are personally. I don't see it as an issue as you can just ignore it. If your a player it does not matter at all. If your a GM you have to know a ton of stuff anyway so knowing what spells do what is not that much of a step up. Even if any of the ways I put forward are too much of a hassle just not using the monster is not an issue. Spell casting monsters are not something that should be worth ignoring the game for. goldjas posted:Or they could do what good games do and have the monsters abilities in the stat block. This is actually a pet peeve of mine for a lot of games, not just D&D Next mind you. I don't view it as bad game design. It allows the statblock to not take up a ton of room. (Vampire statblock takes two pages for example) While at the same time allowing very versatile enemies that can preform several roles. Added on I like quite a few games that had stat blocks with spells more then several games that had all the stuff written in. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Oh I think there should be a Diagram. I suspect they will provide one as well sometime in the future. It just does not bug me that there is not one right now. Oh right, it will eventually be fixed. Why didn't I think of that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Someone else made this exact comment on another forum because having spell casting monsters is too much of an issue. I like spell casting monster for how versatile they are personally. I hate always using 4th Edition as a counter argument for stuff I don't like about Next (god knows there's plenty of stuff I don't like about 4th as well), but again, that game had spell casting monsters. The spells were in the stat blocks. No reason they can't do that here as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:56
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Someone else made this exact comment on another forum because having spell casting monsters is too much of an issue. I like spell casting monster for how versatile they are personally. Spellcasting monsters, as opposed to having a framework for monster abilities, is constraining because it requires you to write up the ability as a spell or "spell-like ability" or whatever rather than just deciding that this blizzard wizard can conjure ice, creating a wall of x spaces and doing ydz damage, without needing to create an entirely new spell players will expect to have access to like the other spells.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Well, you see, it would take up too much page space! So they'd have to cut down the spell text to a concise set of rules and that would be real bad because
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Spellcasting monsters, as opposed to having a framework for monster abilities, is constraining because it requires you to write up the ability as a spell or "spell-like ability" or whatever rather than just deciding that this blizzard wizard can conjure ice, creating a wall of x spaces and doing ydz damage, without needing to create an entirely new spell players will expect to have access to like the other spells. Given that the only monsters in the thing that cast spells are clearly just npc cleric, wizard and the Yuan-Ti (And the Yuan Ti have like two all of them super easy to remember and enough other powers that you could ignore the spell casting and still have a threatening monster.) there are not going to be a lot of spellcasting monsters and most will have powers that just create ice or something like that. goldjas posted:I hate always using 4th Edition as a counter argument for stuff I don't like about Next (god knows there's plenty of stuff I don't like about 4th as well), but again, that game had spell casting monsters. The spells were in the stat blocks. No reason they can't do that here as well. One of the things I did not like about 4th monsters was that creatures like Lichs that should be very versatile but instead were very limited. Due to not having actual spellcasting. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Just make poo poo up, it will be exactly the same as what would have been in a well-designed game had you bought one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:05
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Given that the only monsters in the thing that cast spells are clearly just npc cleric, wizard and the Yuan-Ti (And the Yuan Ti have like two all of them super easy to remember and enough other powers that you could ignore the spell casting and still have a threatening monster.) there are not going to be a lot of spellcasting monsters and most will have powers that just create ice or something like that. So, spells are completely superfluous? Why have them then?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I know your making fun of me, but I do want to actually know what you mean. Ok ok fine. I forget that not everyone has been closely watching Next over many years. Back during the first playtest, they didn't make a dungeon to fit the new edition, but just released Caves of Chaos (the oldschool dungeon from Keep on the Borderlands) and slapped 5e rules on the same exact monsters. It was part of their multiyear appeal to lost customers of editions past. The 2nd fight in is a battle vs a ton of rats. They had advantage if they were next to an ally (same as the new kobolds). So naturally you had to roll 36d20 or whatever, double the number of rats. A ton of dice. It's funny because Mikan and other goons ran this in IRC, then posted the logs of the resulting hilarity. Following that was a 'no chatlogs of playtests!' rule from WOTC. The rats were quietly changed to do what kobolds did: +1 to-hit per adjacent ally, up to +5. Advantage is worth about +5 too. The obvious answer was to just make a goddamn rat swarm and be done with it. And now that we got one, the original problem has shifted to kobolds (a common enemy in early-game Hoard, the first 5e module).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I know your making fun of me, but I do want to actually know what you mean. Did you ever know that your my heeeeeeeero! Your everything I wish I could beeeeeeee!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:But I the case of recent tweets rewrites aren't an option if he wants parity with the print version. And they've already said they want to minimize errats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Ok ok fine. I forget that not everyone has been closely watching Next over many years. I don't see an issue with the Kobolds. They get advantage on attacks when allies are near enemies. Roll 2d20 for a Kobolds attack take the better or if they are in daylight ignore the power because their sunlight sensitivity cancels it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, spells are completely superfluous? Why have them then? Because the few monsters that have them can be interesting challenges for the players. A Lich which will have casting will be very different each time you fight it due to it's wide selection of spells. (And with a Lich there is a pretty good chance you will fight it more then once.) Anyway bowing out of this argument for now as I am tired and I doubt I will convince any of the anti 5e people here (And this is probably the most anti 5e forum I know) I do like the supplement that was just released, the legendary Monsters look cool and unlike 4e solo's appear to be more then just a sack of hit points that you can stunlock the hell out of. Can't wait to see what monsters are in the basic update I suspect all the monsters in the Monsters section of the sight will be there at least. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:19
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Because the few monsters that have them can be interesting challenges for the players. A Lich which will have casting will be very different each time you fight it due to it's wide selection of spells. (And with a Lich there is a pretty good chance you will fight it more then once.) What do spells do, in this case, that requires them to be separated out from the general framework of making monster abilities. None of what you have written here requires the use of "spells" as a distinct category from other monster abilities beyond some nonsense about how the rematch boss fight needs to use the exact same monster entry.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't see an issue with the Kobolds. They get advantage on attacks when allies are near enemies. Roll 2d20 for a Kobolds attack take the better or if they are in daylight ignore the power because their sunlight sensitivity cancels it out. Let's be generous and assume only ten Kobolds. You can't actually roll 20D20 for their attacks - you have to roll 2D20 ten times because each kobold corresponds to a discrete pair of rolls. And you can't just roll 10D20 re-rolling misses because the second D20 has a potential crit effect. The best solution in this model is ten pair of color-matched D20s. The best overall solution is to play something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
moths posted:Let's be generous and assume only ten Kobolds. Or use a Die roller like I do. Not that many people own more then a few d20 anyway. Kobolds are not an issue and have a cool little power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Because the few monsters that have them can be interesting challenges for the players. A Lich which will have casting will be very different each time you fight it due to it's wide selection of spells. (And with a Lich there is a pretty good chance you will fight it more then once.) It could just be a different monster stat block each time(or well the same stat block with a different spell here and there), the different abilities being how it's changing to fight the players it keeps on fighting over and over. It's spells don't also have to be player spells, they could be abilities it's developed on it's own, specifically to counter the PCs. There's no real reason to be restrained to player spells. Also most a lot of spells in games like 3E and Next don't really need to be represented in a stat block at all. The lich summons a bunch of zombies and undead and throws them at the players. That doesn't even need to be in a stat block, that's just an encounter(demons and devils summoning other demons and devils is a big offender to this in many editions of D&D that I just can't stand). Same with things like Illusion spells, those can be encounters, or part of an encounter, and don't really need to be on a monsters actual stat block saying "Casts illusionary terrain as a level 10 wizard ritual" or whatever. Instead they just give these monsters a laundry list of spells, give it an arbitrary CR based on the spells, and so go at it, this is a Lich, or whatever. Actually a really dumb thing that 3.x games did(although I have no idea if Next is doing it, I'm just complaining about I thing I really hated in 3.X here) is just say a Lich is a level 15 player wizard but wait it's a Lich so it has these undead traits which is this list of garbage, and all those arbitrary things because LICH, which was pretty stupid. To be fair 4th edition kind of tried that too in the early MMs and I didn't like it much there either (luckily they revised and fix that poo poo in the later Monster Manuals at least). In that case the fact that it's a Lich barely matters statwise, it's just a level 15 wizard with some extra oomph because it's a Lich or a Vampire or whatever. But now I'm rambling. My point is make your monster a Lich, not a level 15 PC Wizard that keeps coming back and tends to look like a Skeleton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
moths posted:Let's be generous and assume only ten Kobolds. When you respond to criticism of D&D *) I like it, which is the same thing as it not being a problem. *) It'll be fixed soon, probably by the time it's printed. *) It's exactly the same as if it were done well, so it doesn't matter. *) Actually you're right which is what I was saying all along. edit, poo poo I need *) Just use a computer or something why is this an issue. *) I'm not arguing any more except for <more argument> Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
How isn't it an issue when you need a computer's assistance to resolve a common monster's basic attack?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
goldjas posted:My point is make your monster a Lich, not a level 15 PC Wizard that keeps coming back and tends to look like a Skeleton. Not going to bother too much with the rest because I am dropping out of that argument. But to this statement. That is a Lich. A Lich is a wizard that keeps coming back and looks like a skeleton. moths posted:How isn't it an issue when you need a computer's assistance to resolve a common monster's basic attack? Rolling 2d10 10 times does not bother me ether it takes what 10 seconds longer then rolling them all together. AlphaDog posted:*) I'm not arguing any more except for <more argument> I said I am not arguing anymore about the spell casting monsters issue. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Or use a Die roller like I do. Not that many people own more then a few d20 anyway. Kobolds are not an issue and have a cool little power. MonsterEnvy posted:Or use a Die roller like I do. Not that many people own more then a few d20 anyway. MonsterEnvy posted:Or use a Die roller like I do. MonsterEnvy posted:use a Die roller kingcom fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
It's what I have used from day 1 of playing this game. I do actully own dice now however and use them in game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:41
|
|