|
Not insanely detailed, but his read of it roughly matches what I hear from people playing it.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
There's a lot of passive-aggressive "praise" happening in that review.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:This "Natural Language" bullshit is starting to grate on my nerves. Is it really too much to ask to have a codified set of rules that are as unambiguously written as possible? This is 2014 for Christ's sake. That entire section on Opportunity Attacks could be condensed into as little as one loving paragraph and have its meaning as clear as crystal, but NOPE! Gotta add a bunch of flowery language instead of using clearly defined terms! I mean, look at Apocalypse World. The entire thing is written in language that is easy to read and puts one in mind of a friend helpfully describing the rules and what they are for. If it was just the rules without the advice on how to implement them and the reasoning for their existence, I guarantee you it would not have caught on. I think the designers of D&D are taking the natural language thing too far in terms of the inclusion in statblocks. But generally I think the problem is that they are just poo poo at writing unambiguously. I could certainly write the rules using mostly (not all, but mostly) natural language. The trick is just to drop into technical terms when neccessary and then go back to natural language once the rule is clear. Sticking to natural language ENTIRELY is clearly a problem. Not using the word "squares" is a problem. Hell, you don't even have to use the word squares if you just include a color-coded diagram with a grid to clarify. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone else who was talking about it. Just adding my take on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
re: Apocalypse World and natural language We shouldn't forget that the natural language used on the moves is very economical. If one follows the development of a *World hack, they will certainly notice que effort put in the way the moves are phrased. Moves use natural language but (for the most part) tend to be crystal clear. Also, in the case of Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts, further elaboration and/or examples of how a given move works isn't part of the move — it's in a separate section. It's good because it keeps the rules text itself (i.e. moves) brief and clean. (In this respect I find moves similar to 4e powers.) Now contrast it with Next/3e rules — stuff is over-written and vague, it's the antithesis of the economical and clear phrasing of moves. Next uses natural language in order to obfuscate the system's workings and make rules text as ambiguous as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
seebs posted:Okay, now I think we must be talking about two different questions. We really aren't. Games with higher levels of implied and implicit GM authority often reflect this in the rules, games that are more willing to spread that out also often reflect it in the rules, and they both also reflect their design in the style that the game encourages. You're trying to make a clear-cut distinction out of something that isn't actually cleanly segregated into two discrete categories. Style feeds into rules and vice-versa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The breath weapon is a 90ft x 5ft line, so it's actually surprisingly bad at hitting lots of skeletons at once if they're arranged in (for instance) a semicircle. the skeletons it creates, are they the standard MM/starter kit skeletons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
treeboy posted:the skeletons it creates, are they the standard MM/starter kit skeletons? It doesn't actually specify but I assume it's the stat block in the back of the PHB (They have a list of things people can transform into such as some animals and fey creatures + the skeletons and zombies)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
so strictly speaking skeletons are not immune to fear (unless there's a general rule about undead somewhere i'm not seeing). Also I'm assuming you'd have to equip your skeletons before hand, no rules on whether they can carry more than one weapon or not. You could assume they have both shortsword and bow I suppose If the skeletons all go before the Adult Blue Dragon, they would do ~150 damage the first turn (30% chance to hit, 5dmg per hit). But after that I'm guessing most would either be frightened by Frightful Presence, destroyed by Breath, or get hit by the Wing Attack (DC20 dex check, 2d6+7 bludgeoning) and be destroyed. Then the dragon is airborne out of melee range. The remaining ~15 skeletons would have to shoot it. edit: interestingly its worse than that for the skeletons. Legendary actions are taken at the end of another creatures turn. The dragon could Wing Attack after the first skeleton attacks. edit2: on a hilarious DM RP note, the players then return to town after their, not nearly as clever as they thought, wizard manages to exhume, and destroy, the towns entire ancestry (or a good portion of it) from the local graveyard. treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
treeboy posted:so strictly speaking skeletons are not immune to fear (unless there's a general rule about undead somewhere i'm not seeing). Also I'm assuming you'd have to equip your skeletons before hand, no rules on whether they can carry more than one weapon or not. You could assume they have both shortsword and bow I suppose More than 5 damage per hit as you add your proficiency bonus as a necromancer to all your skeletons damage, which is why you use the bows they come with (if you can start to talk about equipping them then we can upgun them to heavy crossbows), and yes this does require you to beat the dragon, however so long as the wizard beats the dragon he can throw an otto's irresistible dance on it, reducing its movement and attack capabilities until after it's first turn (The fighters DPR I was assuming also had advantage on attack rolls from the dance). You also add your wizard level to the Hp of the skeletons so with average 14x2 = 28 damage at level 16 your skeletons survive 1 wing burst on average (and he can't do two as it uses 2/3 legendary actions) My point isn't that skeletons are amazing, it's that they are with minimal spell investment from the wizard, better than a fighter on his action surge turn at doing damage which they always do
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Arent (not special)skeletons mindless, and therefore immune to fear and charm effects?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ i don't know, i only have stat blocks not the PHB, and it doesnt say anything about immunities to fear/charm in the monster stats this is where I would argue the situation simply can't play out as cheesey as described. Even a non-adversarial DM would acknowledge an army of 100 skeletons marching through a Dragons Lair would alert the dragon who would either 1) leave, or 2) ambush the party and obviate any kind of initiative advantage. Yes, i get that the spell is dumb, and the lack of restrictions on its scope is also dumb. Realistically this isn't the "I Win" button people are making it out to be, and a half round into the fight the skeletons would be 85% dead. edit2: it also assumes the skeletons can get into a circle surrounding the dragon in the first place, as if it were sleeping and/or allowed them to get into position. Most combat begin well before the party is in prime position. A long hallway would obliterate every single skeleton before they could even get through the door. treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Arent (not special)skeletons mindless, and therefore immune to fear and charm effects? I got the stat block right here, boss. They are not, but they are immune to being poisoned. I was going to say that being immune to fear would make turning them useless, but no, turning and fear are seperate effects. (^edit^: I've got the PHB and it doesn't say anything about immunity to those things here either)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
treeboy posted:edit: ^^^ i don't know, i only have stat blocks not the PHB, and it doesnt say anything about immunities to fear/charm in the monster stats It's certainly a "the adventure is now about me" button, though, which is enough. The Fighter gets exactly zero of those. Also, a large question there is how stealth is supposed to actually work. If it's "best success applies to the whole party", a good Assassin can pretty much guarantee ambushes. If not, there's no such thing as a good Assassin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:edit: ^^^ i don't know, i only have stat blocks not the PHB, and it doesnt say anything about immunities to fear/charm in the monster stats And the dragon is just as likely to notice the fighter in full plate approaching (It has a really good perception) and chew his rear end out with DPR before he can kill it, it takes him like 5 rounds to kill the thing with his Damage per round, the skeletons: Do More damage for less investment (remember I Was showing DPR of 20, which is again, 4 spells of the wizard at the beginning of the day) is harder to completely remove from the fight, and the fear doesn't even matter so long as you can make the dragon cause advantage (which a wizard can with no save)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:It's certainly a "the adventure is now about me" button, though, which is enough. The Fighter gets exactly zero of those. An entire Company of skeletons doesn't get a stealth roll edit: what are rules regarding sharing spaces for allies? you couldn't pack 100 skeletons into a 5x5' area. treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
That isnt the general point though. Its that a caster can affect and control the world around them in a much more vast way than any 'mundane' class can. Whether ir not this remains the rule is yet to be known but all signs are pointing to it continuing. E: As if a fighter in fullplate would fare any better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
treeboy posted:edit: what are rules regarding sharing spaces for allies? you couldn't pack 100 skeletons into a 5x5' area. Correct! Any small or medium creature controls a 5x5' area; control in this case specifically means 'this is how much space I need to fight effectively'. Thus, you can't share a 5x5' space with anyone, friend or foe. On the flip side, a dragon is, what, large or huge, right? That means it's taking up either 10x10' or 15x15', respectively, which means more creatures can get to it at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ im curious for sheer sake of practicality. Any DM with a player like that is going to be adding a lot of long hallways to his Blue Dragon lairs. It's also assuming the skeletons make it through the lair unscathed (a pretty dangerous assumption, especially at lvl 20)Rigged Death Trap posted:That isnt the general point though. Its that a caster can affect and control the world around them in a much more vast way than any 'mundane' class can. Whether ir not this remains the rule is yet to be known but all signs are pointing to it continuing. A fighter in full plate doesn't have AC13, with 13 hp, and deal 1d6+2 on hit. Look I get the complaint about power curve and narrative influence, but this necromancy stuff is stretching the game to ridiculous (and ineffectual) lengths to try and prove a point that could be made much more easily and without cheese using different examples. treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
treeboy posted:edit: what are rules regarding sharing spaces for allies? you couldn't pack 100 skeletons into a 5x5' area. Why would a TotM game have rules for that? The only rule is imagining how many skeletons can dance on a 5' square. treeboy posted:A fighter in full plate doesn't have AC13, with 13 hp, and deal 1d6+2 on hit. Look I get the complaint about power curve and narrative influence, but this necromancy stuff is stretching the game to ridiculous (and ineffectual) lengths to try and prove a point that could be made much more easily and without cheese using different examples. A fighter also isn't 44 of those things, refreshable every day. Also, you keep missing the +proficiency to damage. I don't have the PHB, so I can't say for certain, but it doesn't seem to me like there's any stretching going on. Certainly, if a Necromancer can sustain 44 Skeletons a day, the Fighter has no hope of competing in effectiveness or world impact. Not even by rerolling a save a few times a day!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Why would a TotM game have rules for that? i'm not missing anything, i'm reading the stat block from the only materials i have personally available. If necromancer grants some extra damage then great, they do +12 instead of +2 or whatever. My point is that the vast majority of those skeletons will never get near the dragon
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
treeboy posted:edit: ^^^ im curious for sheer sake of practicality. Any DM with a player like that is going to be adding a lot of long hallways to his Blue Dragon lairs. So the assumption is that the GM is going to have to create the adventure specifically to try and prevent the wizard from doing what the wizard does? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:We really aren't. Games with higher levels of implied and implicit GM authority often reflect this in the rules, games that are more willing to spread that out also often reflect it in the rules, and they both also reflect their design in the style that the game encourages. You're trying to make a clear-cut distinction out of something that isn't actually cleanly segregated into two discrete categories. Style feeds into rules and vice-versa. There's certainly some significant interaction between them, but I don't think that a game which says "at the end of the day, the GM ruling is the answer" is inherently less-progressed than a game which says "the group must reach consensus on a ruling". They're both answers, they both work, they produce different outcomes sometimes, but neither requires the classic adversarial Killer GM model. I mean, I really enjoy reading Knights of the Dinner Table, but I'd never want to play in a game like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i'm not missing anything, i'm reading the stat block from the only materials i have personally available. It's available via posts in this thread made by someone who has the book. quote:If necromancer grants some extra damage then great, they do +12 instead of +2 or whatever. My point is that the vast majority of those skeletons will never get near the dragon So then the skeletons trivialize the whole dungeon leading up to the dragon. Yay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Pushing things to ridiculous extremes with cheese is a part of the D&D experience though. I mean, white room arguments are extremely tedious, granted, but the fact is "I summon my horde of skeletons to zerg rush the boss" isn't really some radical outside-case scenario and doing poo poo that then forces the gameplay to suddenly be all about you whether it's by skeleton-ganking the dragon or by engaging in a drawn-out argument with the GM over how many skeletons can fit in the dragon's cave or the fact that skeletons should totally be immune to fear because it's dumb otherwise or the GM having to tailor every encounter to take 44 skeleton minions into account is exactly the sort of thing that people should be prepared for if they want the "classic D&D feel" because that's it right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
S.J. posted:So the assumption is that the GM is going to have to create the adventure specifically to try and prevent the wizard from doing what the wizard does? no, more that it'll be necessary to fit the sheer bulk of that many counters on the battlemap. Also, do the skeletons disappear when you lose control of them (crumble back to bones) or do you simply lose control of them? edit: eth0.n posted:It's available via posts in this thread made by someone who has the book. Great Caesars Ghost, you're dedicated to hating the idea of this edition. Traps have that oddly uncanny ability to chew through a lot of hitpoints. Maybe a giant boulder crushes 10 or so at a time. I don't know. The point is that the Dragon isn't asleep in the middle of a featureless white void. treeboy fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
treeboy posted:no, more that it'll be necessary to fit the sheer bulk of that many counters on the battlemap. That's assuming there's a battlemap, first off. Without a battlemap, I'd argue that 44 skeletons with bows are even more obviously superior to a melee Fighter. Second, assuming one 5' square per skeleton, that's still not that much area taken up. A 10 by 10 grid has 100 of those squares. I wouldn't expect a Dragon encounter to be any smaller than that. Finally, any skeletons that somehow end up not on the battlemap are skeletons that can't be targeted by the dragon's AoEs, and thus are skeletons that get to be useful in later rounds. treeboy posted:Great Caesars Ghost, you're dedicated to hating the idea of this edition. Traps have that oddly uncanny ability to chew through a lot of hitpoints. Maybe a giant boulder crushes 10 or so at a time. I don't know. The point is that the Dragon isn't asleep in the middle of a featureless white void. And you're truly dedicated to trying to patch over obvious problems. The fact that you are suggesting the DM fix it by doing that is you agreeing that there is a problem. A better game would not have this problem. Or it would be a part of the core design, where all the classes get awesome stuff the DM has to consider. If a class (and not all classes), playing its abilities straight as written, causes the DM to have to taylor adventures specifically to them, there is a severe imbalance going on. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
So which is it? Mat or no? Because people are constantly hating on TotM (and I agree, its dumb) stating it's unplayable, but then immediately assume it's the only way the game can be played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i'm not missing anything, i'm reading the stat block from the only materials i have personally available. If necromancer grants some extra damage then great, they do +12 instead of +2 or whatever. My point is that the vast majority of those skeletons will never get near the dragon Why do they need to get near the dragon? Don't they have bows? It sounds as though a pair of necromancers with their 200 skeletons could make dragons extinct in a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Great Caesars Ghost, you're dedicated to hating the idea of this edition. Are you kidding me? The invincible legion of skeletons is the first thing I've liked about this broken system. Now if only there were a way to grant them all Advantage...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
treeboy posted:So which is it? Mat or no? Because people are constantly hating on TotM (and I agree, its dumb) stating it's unplayable, but then immediately assume it's the only way the game can be played. Huh? My response was that if you 1) assume a battlemap, its still not an impediment and 2) if you don't assume one, there are even bigger problems. By addressing both cases, I don't actually assume either. Also, as I mentioned upthread in response to your "allies sharing space" question, the actual rules for gridded play are woefully inadequate, so assuming gridded play isn't ideal either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Huh? My response was that if you 1) assume a battlemap, its still not an impediment and 2) if you don't assume one, there are even bigger problems. By addressing both cases, I don't actually assume either. yes, because its the actually reasonable way to approach playing combat in this game. It's been clear since the first play packet when abilities still had discrete movement distances. Theater of the Mind doesn't work in D&D, the fact they include is hilarious. Also I'm not patching over problems, I'm pointing out your end game scenario doesn't hold up outside of a debug test room for more than about 5 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Could you partner with a diplomacer amd smuggle your skeleton army to the dragon's lair concealed inside of gullible peasants?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Also nobody has said whether the skeletons remain after their 24hr period, or if the wizard bites it. I'm imagining some pretty hilarious situations where the party finds themselves confronted with a dead wizard, 100 skeletons, and an angry dragon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
treeboy posted:yes, because its the actually reasonable way to approach playing combat in this game. It's been clear since the first play packet when abilities still had discrete movement distances. Theater of the Mind doesn't work in D&D, the fact they include is hilarious. The fact that they also fail to include real, complete rules for the grid is likewise "hilarious". Maybe they'll be in the DMG, but the fact that the Basic game doesn't have them, and is meant to be a complete game in-and-of-itself, is a problem. quote:Also I'm not patching over problems, I'm pointing out your end game scenario doesn't hold up outside of a debug test room for more than about 5 seconds. And every way it "doesn't hold up" is something the DM has to do specifically to rebalance the game themselves, and in the process shine the spotlight squarely on the most awesome member of the party. A Fighter will never have anywhere near that impact, when played by the rules of the game. All the "problems" you're pointing out only prove how badly the game is designed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
moths posted:Are you kidding me? The invincible legion of skeletons is the first thing I've liked about this broken system. Now if only there were a way to grant them all Advantage... Rolling 2d20 100 times for your army of kobold skeletons would be amazing
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
The problem isn't the skeleton army. The skeleton army is funny, cool, and entirely appropriate for a necromancer to have. It's that the presence of the skeletons deprecates other character types in the game as it stands, and "fixing" it revolves around taking it away so far.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:The fact that they also fail to include real, complete rules for the grid is likewise "hilarious". "Adding traps to a dungeon that deal AoE damage" is not rebalancing the game. It's standard dungeon design, one that a company of skeletons will be triggering and eating the full brunt of as they brute force their way to the end. worst case scenario the party shows up relatively fresh with maybe a dozen skeletons left over to find either 1) A dragon that's long gone because it didn't want to wait around to find out how the story ends, or 2) for a big fight with a dragon who gets a surprise round on them because it's been sitting there for hours listening to them rampage around his lair and has planned a surprise for them. I don't know if they purposefully planned for this potential to exist, but it's hardly effective, though admittedly pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The problem isn't the skeleton army. The skeleton army is funny, cool, and entirely appropriate for a necromancer to have. It's that the presence of the skeletons deprecates other character types in the game as it stands, and "fixing" it revolves around taking it away so far. The mechanics of the skeleton army are still problematic. 44 d20 rolls per round is beyond dumb into hilarious. Thematically its great, and with proper mechanics, alongside a Fighter with even more followers of their own, this would be a fine thing to have in a game. Probably not D&D, though. The only ways to make armies of skeletons and followers work in a sane way would probably make grogs scream all over again. treeboy posted:"Adding traps to a dungeon that deal AoE damage" is not rebalancing the game. It's standard dungeon design, one that a company of skeletons will be triggering and eating the full brunt of as they brute force their way to the end. So Wizard always sends a single Skeleton 30' feet ahead while progressing. Yay, now the Rogue is useless too! Seriously, if you can't find a way to make a daily supply of 44 Skeletons more useful than the Fighter in your party, you just plain lack imagination. quote:worst case scenario the party shows up relatively fresh with maybe a dozen skeletons left over to find either 1) A dragon that's long gone because it didn't want to wait around to find out how the story ends, or 2) for a big fight with a dragon who gets a surprise round on them because it's been sitting there for hours listening to them rampage around his lair and has planned a surprise for them. Why wouldn't this always happen anyway with any adventuring party? Combat is loud whether you've got a bunch of skeletons or not. The reason it doesn't is because it's dumb and anti-climactic, not because dungeons leading up to dragons actually make much sense at all. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
treeboy posted:"Adding traps to a dungeon that deal AoE damage" is not rebalancing the game. It's standard dungeon design, one that a company of skeletons will be triggering and eating the full brunt of as they brute force their way to the end. This sounds an awful lot like punishing the player for doing something fun, tbh.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:This sounds an awful lot like punishing the player for doing something fun, tbh. seems like the logical outcome of zerg rushing a lair. You take your time carefully assessing dangers or you send the disposable horde in ahead of you. Maybe you go the first route and surprise the dragon. A small army walking over every trap and breaking every pot in the palace is going to draw attention. I'm not suggesting anvils randomly start dropping from the sky killing dozens at a time because your player did something you didn't like, but I've run into some pretty nasty traps playing 4e that would chew through something as fragile as a skeleton pretty quickly. Those don't stand out to me as "punishment" but rather "to be expected in the lair of an evil sky lizard"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:44
|
|