|
MonsterEnvy posted:Rolling 2d10 10 times does not bother me ether it takes what 10 seconds longer then rolling them all together. Aaaaaand GO!  Yeah that didn't seem so bad.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Every monster has their damage rolls averaged/staticked out now in case an encounter decides to throw 18 of them at you at once, so all you have to roll are 36 attacks or saves at a time then multiply the damage done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Aaaaaand GO! K done. I had to use one d20 cause I only own one. Results are 8 14 6 19 15 13 2 (This one shocked me.) 20 19 9 Add 4 to each roll and you got 10 kobold attacks. Took 13 seconds or so to roll them all with a single die. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
No, you did it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Hey guys, great news!! mumble mumble mumble I guess I'm spending my evening adding this poo poo to my spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:48
|
|
Now, it's 36d20 kobolds.
|
No matter how bad game /adventure design is, I hope none of you guys are actually rolling 20 do 20s for level 1 Kobolds or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
moths posted:No, you did it wrong. Oh you want the lesser rolls as well I only included the higher rolls in my original post. I only remember 4 of the lesser rolls as I did not bother memorizing the ones that were not going to be used. I got two 1's which were the lesser rolls of the 8 and the 2 a 14 which was the lesser roll of the 18 and a 12 which was the lesser roll of the 20 I don't remember the rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Hey guys, great news!! Ooh goody, more monsters I'm unironically really jazzed about this
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Ooh goody, more monsters As I'm I. I am glad at least two of us like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Man D&D is super obsessed about Tiamat, it feels like we've been having a billion adventures dealing with her and her minions since like 3rd edition at least. I shouldn't be one to talk though, she's actually dead in my campaign setting because she was a final boss in a campaign. Still kind of sick of her though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:As I'm I. I am glad at least two of us like this. Yeah the systems not perfect, but overall I'm positive on it and looking forward to running games. I wish the conversation here was more productive as far as house rule ideas or breaking down monster generation, I'm not a super experienced gm so I'll be winging it largely, but people are enjoying being pissed off about elves and dice Edit: the only thing really bugging me about monster stats is the number of hit dice. Everything else tends to follow standard PC math and I cant figure out how it's derived. I'm wondering if it's literally drawn from a DC chart like that one website was postulating treeboy fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Man D&D is super obsessed about Tiamat, it feels like we've been having a billion adventures dealing with her and her minions since like 3rd edition at least. Well the game is Dungeons and DRAGONS. Given that she is the queen of Dragons I am shocked that even more stuff does not include her. treeboy posted:Yeah the systems not perfect, but overall I'm positive on it and looking forward to running games. I wish the conversation here was more productive as far as house rule ideas or breaking down monster generation, I'm not a super experienced gm so I'll be winging it largely, but people are enjoying being pissed off about elves and dice I really want WOTC to make the art and maps available online quickly. The fact I can't get easy access to it is currently my biggest issue. As to your question about Monster Hit die I don't know the answer but this guy is doing an analysis of it http://surfarcher.blogspot.ca/ MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Holy hell, were people seriously using Pathfinder as an example of clear rules that still cause arguments? 3.X/Pathfinder don't have clear rules at all - they're even worse than 5e! Clear isn't the same thing as wordy. There are things in 4e you don't have rules arguments about because the rules make them obvious, like whether the two goblins are within ten feet of each other or if a given power caused friendly fire. There were far fewer ambiguities, leading to far fewer arguments when important game events hinged on those ambiguities. That's the point. MonsterEnvy's poo poo about burst templates was beyond disingenuous, to the point that I am actually taken aback. And now we're getting "big deal, making twenty rolls by hand didn't take me that long, especially since I didn't have to pause to compare any of them to AC, or determine if the monster was able to move into position, or resolve any reactions my players used, or wait for one or more attack targets to compute and apply the damage to see if they were still standing and therefore if any of the monsters would have had to change position, or-"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:And now we're getting "big deal, making twenty rolls by hand didn't take me that long, especially since I didn't have to pause to compare any of them to AC, or determine if the monster was able to move into position, or resolve any reactions my players used, or wait for one or more attack targets to compute and apply the damage to see if they were still standing and therefore if any of the monsters would have had to change position, or-" Indeed which is why I don't get why it's being complained about. You would have to roll for each of them individually anyway. Which is why I am saying that rolling an extra d20 is not an issue. Even if you were it would not be that much of an issue. but you won't be rolling for them as a group anyway for Kobolds. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:but you won't be doing it anyway for Kobolds. Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Indeed which is why I don't get why it's being complained about. You would have to roll for each of them individually anyway. Which is why I am saying that rolling an extra d20 is not an issue. Even if you were it would nto be that much of an issue but you won't be doing it anyway for Kobolds. It's bad encounter design. That each one demands two separate attack rolls exacerbates the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds? Because like generations of D&D players before you, you're not actually following the rules that you swear are perfectly fine rules with no stupid problems. e: Is there a "number appearing" in the new monster listings? What's that number for Kobolds?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds? You would be rolling for all monsters alone anyway is my point not just Kobolds. For Kobolds you just have to roll more then 1 die when an ally of the Kobold's are near a what they are attacking. Edit: Just noticed my post did not make much sense this is what I meant. You won't be rolling for them as a group for Kobolds. You will be rolling for each one of them like you would with most monsters. Because you would be moving them around and doing more then just attacking. Ferrinus posted:It's bad encounter design. That each one demands two separate attack rolls exacerbates the issue. How it's always worked like this. It works like this in tons of games. If this is an issue for you people I don't get why your not complaining about advantage in the first place. "Oh god this is horrible I have to roll a d20 twice." AlphaDog posted:Because like generations of D&D players before you, you're not actually following the rules that you swear are perfectly fine rules with no stupid problems. I don't get what you are even complaining about anymore and wish you would just go away. And it appears you have not even bothered looking at the list of monsters. In fact go look yourself. I think you may have not even looked at a lot of the rules and are just complaining for the fun of it. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:If this is an issue for you people I don't get why your not complaining about advantage in the first place. Because you usually have to roll it twice, not twenty times. There should be a "mob of kobolds" monster, not ten separate player-equivalent game objects skittering around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Shockingly, some DMs will run "a shitload of kobolds" as one turn/initiative. And really, breaking 20 of them amongst 5 PC initiatives wouldn't alleviate much. But I guess we're playing the game wrong in the eyes of forumsposter MonsterEnvy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Because you usually have to roll it twice, not twenty times. There should be a "mob of kobolds" monster, not ten separate player-equivalent game objects skittering around. Then you would be complaining if 20 non kobold monsters were fought. Kobolds are not rats they are humanoids that take up a space. The fact that rolling dice and picking the higher one is so hard for people is stupid. This is barely different then if you fought 10 goblins. But apparently having to roll twice for a monster once when his allies are near is bad design. Dear god it took 1 second longer. P.d0t posted:Shockingly, some DMs will run "a shitload of kobolds" as one turn/initiative. Well lets see Kobolds have +2 to initiative. Some of the Pc's will go and cause several of the Kobolds to die because their ac and hp is crap. Then they will all go at once and start moving around to get into combat. A few of them will get into combat with several pcs and attack normally while the other get advantage on attack rolls to hit deal a bit of damage. Then the Pc's will go and wipe them off the map. Because Kobolds are super wussy. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't get what you are even complaining about anymore and wish you would just go away. I am complaining about this sort of thing: Pre-edit MonsterEnvy posted:...but you won't be doing it anyway for Kobolds. Post-edit MonsterEnvy posted:but you won't be rolling for them as a group anyway for Kobolds. Response: Xelkelvos posted:Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds? Clarification: MonsterEnvy posted:You would be rolling for all monsters alone anyway is my point not just Kobolds. For Kobolds you just have to roll more then 1 die when an ally of the Kobold's are near a what they are attacking. In other words, after altering what you said so it doesn't mean the same thing, you're nitpicking that you wouldn't roll all those dice at once but rather it would be spread out over a whole round. You've decided that this is fine and that anyone who complains about it is just complaining to be complaining, rather than legitimately having a problem with rolling 30+ d20s in a single round. e: You're not offering any reason for this being ok other than "it's ok". MonsterEnvy posted:Then you would be complaining if 20 non kobold monsters were fought. Kobolds are not rats they are humanoids that take up a space. The fact that rolling dice and picking the higher one is so hard for people is stupid. This is barely different then if you fought 10 goblins. But apparently having to roll twice for a monster once when his allies are near is bad design. Dear god it took 1 second longer. 20 kobolds with advantage make four times the attack rolls that 10 goblins make. Yes, I would be complaining any time a game required me to make 40 attack rolls in one round. Make them a mob or a swarm or something. It's not like that's never been done. Wait... MonsterEnvy posted:How it's always worked like this. You do think that's never been done. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
If you're fighting that many monsters, they shouldn't all be the same, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Then you would be complaining if 20 non kobold monsters were fought. Kobolds are not rats they are humanoids that take up a space. The fact that rolling dice and picking the higher one is so hard for people is stupid. This is barely different then if you fought 10 goblins. But apparently having to roll twice for a monster once when his allies are near is bad design. Dear god it took 1 second longer. Yes, I would. Fighting ten kobolds, each a separate character, who near-automatically get Advantage is like, instead, fighting twenty kobolds, each a separate character - really bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:If you're fighting that many monsters, they shouldn't all be the same, I think. They would be in D&D Next! Next doesn't do the "varied enemy types" thing that D&D 4E does - all kobolds are the same, by default.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I am complaining about this sort of thing: Swarms would not really work for Kobolds as they are humanoids. And no I don't see an issue with rolling a ton of d20's it does not take that long. Hell you are not even doing normal attack rolls your just taking the high result for half of them and if you own at least 2d20's then it's even quicker and easier. I bet a fight with 10 or so Kobolds would only take about 10 minutes using a grid. Fighting 5 PC's of level 2. (Which according to the building encounters thing is a moderate challenge for them.) Piell posted:They would be in D&D Next! Next doesn't do the "varied enemy types" thing that D&D 4E does - all kobolds are the same, by default. Actually it does. We even have an example with the Hobgoblin captain in the monster list linked earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Swarms would not really work for Kobolds as they are humanoids. And no I don't see an issue with rolling a ton of d20's it does not take that long. Hell you are not even doing normal attack rolls your just taking the high result for half of them and if you own at least 2d20's then it's even quicker and easier. Swarms would work fine for kobolds, why the gently caress does it matter if they are humanoids? You can do swarms of anything, it's just a monster, who cares. Do a swarm of dragons for all the hell that it even matters. All that actually matters is that the encounter is interesting/fun for the players, it doesn't matter if it's realistic or whatever the hell. Rolling a billion d20s and taking ages instead of just having one swarm monster makes no sense in this context. I also noticed that DnD Next Just has Kobold, or Orc, or Goblin, instead of Kobold DragonShield and Kobold Shaman, etc. Real talk here, DnD Next. Just me and you. I honestly want to like you enough to give you another shot after the like 3 playtests I tried and didn't really like. For real here. But your monster design is making it really hard for me to ever want to DM you again. Like, just what the hell man, what the hell is this bullshit. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
goldjas posted:
Well given we only have a list of monster that only appear in a adventure I would expect that. And you also ignored the Hobgoblin Captain. Also the swarm would be crushed and is much less interesting. Plus it won't be a billion rolls and I can bet it would take 10 minutes at most. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
D&D NEXT: I wish you would just go away
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
LFK posted:mumble mumble mumble I guess I'm spending my evening adding this poo poo to my spreadsheet. You're doing God's work, friend. I'm not sure if that link includes the supplement stuff? In case not, here it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well given we only have a list of monster that only appear in a adventure I would expect that. And you also ignored the Hobgoblin Captain. I did miss the hobgoblin captain I guess, what does it do? But how is the swarm less interesting or would be crushed(stats could be anything you want, no need for it to be straight up crushed or whatever)? Kobolds in general aren't that interesting, who ever really cared about a group of kobolds. I've had single kobold NPCs who I actually gave a character and stuff to be interesting, or boss kobolds and that kind of thing be interesting, but just generic kobolds to fill an encounter, I just want them to end up making an interesting battle, since their entire purpose in existence is to be killed by the PCs but prove an interesting challenge in doing so. In that case, if you want to have the whole "holy poo poo we just killed a billion kobolds" thing going on, you either want to use Swarm rules or something like 13th age or 4Es minion/mook rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
goldjas posted:I did miss the hobgoblin captain I guess, what does it do? Kobolds are pretty much minions anyway given that they only have 5 hp. Their gimmick is pack tactics which gives them advantage. As for Hob Captain their is a link to the supplement above you look it up. goldjas posted:Real talk here, DnD Next. Just me and you. I honestly want to like you enough to give you another shot after the like 3 playtests I tried and didn't really like. For real here. But your monster design is making it really hard for me to ever want to DM you again. Like, just what the hell man, what the hell is this bullshit. I don't get the issues with the monster design it's better then 3e and 4e's was at the start. It looks good and I feel like you asses are the most nitpicky people on the internet. Also new thread title. D&D 5e: No it's not called NEXT you idiot nitpickers and formula's are a load of crap. Also yes I do have a mental disorder if your wondering. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Kobolds are pretty much minions anyway given that they only have 5 hp. Their gimmick is pack tactics which gives them advantage. I think the fact that you don't get the issues with monster design is part of the problem, because you don't seem to understand...monster design. It is not nearly as good as 4e's monster design was at the start, not even close, even considering how drat flawed 4Es monster design was at the start. That's because there basically is no monster design. There is no formula. There is no design. It's just...arbitrary numbers, eyeballed and given CRs and experience points. There is no this monster is a soldier so has base defenses of X and base HP of X at level Y and will have abilities that generally do Z due to being a soldier. It's just an ogre and we think an ogre should do this because loving OGRES MAN. Edit: I want to point out, I'm so drat nitpicky because I really don't actually like 3.x and 4e, there are a million billion real problems with them. So the fact that DnD next is, instead of being a new awesome game, is just all the bullshit that I already didn't like about 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition all rolled into one. I was hoping to at least have an evolution similar to what we had going from 3rd to 4th, or 2nd to 3rd, instead it's more like we went back to 3rd, but with stuff from 2nd and 4th randomly shoved in there as well, and it's not even the particularly good stuff from 2nd and 4th that were put in. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
5e doesn't have good monster design, it has minimal monster design. Monsters are bags of hit points with maybe one attack and one flavor power in most cases. Complicated monsters tend to be complicated because they're just spellcaster PCs painted black.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
 So Wizards picked up Demiplane in the move from Alpha/Basic -> Release.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:5e doesn't have good monster design, it has minimal monster design. Monsters are bags of hit points with maybe one attack and one flavor power in most cases. Complicated monsters tend to be complicated because they're just spellcaster PCs painted black. Given how few spell casters there are no I don't agree. Monsters don't need a ton of stuff anyway and the ones that do are the more important ones. That supplement of monsters is great and has great monsters for a good game. While the game is not to your taste that does not mean it's not good. I consider 4e and 13 Age to be good games. However I don't like how they feel and get bored by them. 5e has managed to really capture me and while it's not perfect nothing is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
goldjas posted:I think the fact that you don't get the issues with monster design is part of the problem, because you don't seem to understand...monster design. It is not nearly as good as 4e's monster design was at the start, not even close, even considering how drat flawed 4Es monster design was at the start. That's because there basically is no monster design. There is no formula. There is no design. It's just...arbitrary numbers, eyeballed and given CRs and experience points. There is no this monster is a soldier so has base defenses of X and base HP of X at level Y and will have abilities that generally do Z due to being a soldier. It's just an ogre and we think an ogre should do this because loving OGRES MAN. You know this how how how. You don't you are just assuming. Did it never cross your mind that it can be both. No you don't because you are determined to dislike this and complain about even the good stuff in this game. Edit: Then you are not a fan of D&D go play some other game that suits your taste better and stop complaining about a game you have no interest in. Ok then Good Night everybody. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You know this how how how. You don't you are just assuming. Did it never cross your mind that it can be both. No you don't because you are determined to dislike this and complain about even the good stuff in this game. I've seen the monster stats? Like, a lot of the monster stats. They've been posted in this thread, multiple times, on this page even. I do kind of like advantage. And I guess backgrounds are alright, although they kind of already existed in 4th, in later books though I suppose. Edit for below: Analyzing and breaking down monster stats has been literally something like half this thread. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
goldjas posted:I've seen the monster stats? Like, a lot of the monster stats. They've been posted in this thread, multiple times, on this page even. Have you analysed and broken them down. No I did not think so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Have you analysed and broken them down. No I did not think so. Hmmm I don't think you had time to wait for an answer here. Almost as if you have walked into all this with a completely predetermined outcome and an inability to accept opinions contrary to yours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 09:57
|
|
