|
MonsterEnvy posted:They are not. Look at this compelling argument. MonsterEnvy posted:Also I don't recall Tenser's transformation being in the game. Mordenkainen’s Sword is though. Anyway I'm sure Tenser's Transformation will be in the next free supplement. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Aug 13, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Powerful Wizard stops time, summons rocks from space, teleports around the battlefield, draws a dick on the enemy general's face, walks back, starts time. His apprentice looks on awe-struck. The Wizard smirks and says, "You think this is fighting? Well check this out" and hits a guy with a quarterstaff for 1d6 damage, x2 crit.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:I love the idea of animated dead being honored family servants, or societies condemning criminals to eternal servitude in death. Or both. You could mark skulls or have the skeletons wear items that would indicate their status. It's a very "realistic" idea, has lots of flavor and feels like an alien world of fantasy. Crusader: "Die, heathens! We'll burn your village to the ground!" Villager: "Ancestors, protect us!" Crusader: "Your heathen superstitions can't save you now! Wait- AGGGHH" *is killed by twelve generations of skeleton-dads*
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
D&D Next: Thank Mr Skeltal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
If you don't put "powered by the apocalypse" on your gaming manual you are automatically drafted into the skeleton war
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
So we've talked about skeletons as the cornerstone of a society, but what about skeletons as the core components of a computer http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Deep_Rot
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:So we've talked about skeletons as the cornerstone of a society, but what about skeletons as the core components of a computer That's cool as hell, but it contains the stupid assumption that "you'd have to kill more than half the people in the world..." to do whatever. No, no no. You just need that many skeletons. The dead outnumber the living. You'd still need an impossibly huge number of skeletons to make a useful computer. It'd probably be better (in terms of skeletons required) to make a physical network of skeletons passing written messages and packages hand-to-hand around your cities. Fight a few wars and you could probably even connect these networks into some kind of... inter-city network. It wouldn't be like a big wagon, more like a series of animate skeletons. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's cool as hell, but it contains the stupid assumption that "you'd have to kill more than half the people in the world..." to do whatever. No, no no. You just need that many skeletons. The dead outnumber the living. What, just finding skeletons, like they're under the ground or something? That's crazy talk. Next you'll say there are specific places society dedicates to storing skeleton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Saguaro PI posted:What, just finding skeletons, like they're under the ground or something? That's crazy talk. Next you'll say there are specific places society dedicates to storing skeleton. I know, right? But they said the same thing about oil. Everyone thought it just came from whales and stuff, but it turns out you just dig down in the right spot! You still have to fight wars and stuff for oil, though. And then you have to dig. Directly using the skeletons cuts out the digging. e: I'm sure that a previous incarnation of this thread had nearly the same conversation for a completely different reason. Is this subforum just obsessed with skeletons? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Skeletons aren't flashy, they aren't fancy, they don't get movies and trashy romance novels about them. The last great skeleton heydey was Jason and the Argonauts, god rest Ray Harryhausen's soul. From there it's just been early Castlevania levels and a whole lot of background extras appearances in Hellboy trades. But they're reliable, dependable, hardworking, and low maintenance. You don't have to feed'em, you don't have to pick up bits of rotting flesh or deal with enthralled villagers showing up at all hours, they don't relentlessly multiply and take over the world by accident, they're coordinated enough to use weapons, open doors, or operate machinery, and they're collapsible for easy storage. When you think about it, skeletons are basically the ideal undead servant and I hope you agree with me that it's a critical failing of D&D Next that creating and controlling an army of skeletons is exclusively the province of necromancers when it should really be something that all classes have equal access to. I plan on tweeting to Mike Mearls extensively about this until he tells my DM to sign off on my comprehensively outlined skeleton equal distribution accord.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Skeletons I once played a campaign where we were all skeletons. It was actually pretty great. So I haven't been paying attention to D&D in a while. I wasn't big into 4th and moved over to pathfinder like I think a lot of groups did. Seems like the consensus by people who did the same is that 5th seems pretty good as a design skeleton, but kind of messed up with balance? (One of my friends played a playtest and told me half his party got one-shotted turn one in their first encounter). I read the basic rules book and I am kind of on the fence. I like the saves but death and resting seem a bit convoluted. Is it worth trying to convince my group to give it a go, or should I stick with PF at least until some more books come out? Should I play 5th but make the entire party be necromancers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
MrAptronym posted:should I stick with PF at least until some more books come out? If you like bloat, don't play 5e; it's basically the only selling point vs. other editions/PF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:If you like bloat, don't play 5e; it's basically the only selling point vs. other editions/PF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Give it time. The implied caveat being, "if you DON'T like bloat, now's the time to play 5e."
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's cool as hell, but it contains the stupid assumption that "you'd have to kill more than half the people in the world..." to do whatever. No, no no. You just need that many skeletons. The dead outnumber the living. Skeleton internet: the nxt logical extension of the peasant railgun? Seriously, loving skeletonchat is getting irritating. I feel like going and raising it on the WotC forums just to see the world burn. And yet we don't spend 8 pages on how abominably lovely the monster design is? Seriously, the combination of 15 spells you have to look up and natural language bullshit that takes 5 times as long to read as 'Miss: half damage, no prone' is probably the biggest avoidable step back in the entire edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Oh poo poo, over on enworld people are looking at the skeletal horde, after Jack's mathematical breakdown of the game-breaking implications, and saying, "eh, sounds about right." Man, when someone pointed out that level 20 fighters couldn't achieve actual real life physical tasks, ENWorld went "Yeah sounds about right, they're FIGHTERS, not ATHLETES. Those weight lifters could ONLY LIFT WEIGHTS, while the fighter can do ANYTHING!" Every time you think of 5e, think of it's targeted audience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:And yet we don't spend 8 pages on how abominably lovely the monster design is? I tried, but we worked out that it was nearly perfect and that the minor flaws would all be fixed soon. Haha, nope. The monster design is goddamned awful. Stuff either has a list of wizard spells, attacks twice instead of once, doesn't do anything interesting at all, or has some weird level-inappropriate Save or Die/Suck effect. There are a few exceptions, but not many. The format of the monster entries leaves a lot to be desired. It's not that easy to find at a glance the actual information you need to play the game. This has a lot to do with "natural language", but is made worse by the absence of keywords. The way the monsters are listed is bad. Because it's alphabetical, stuff that you would expect to find together isn't together - Elementals (just for instance) aren't listed under "Elemental, Air", but "Air Elemental", which means they're not near Fire elementals. Draft horses, Ponies, Warhorses, and Riding Horses are spread out alphabetically too - I missed "riding horse" on my first glance through and thought it was weird that they left it out. Speaking of the monster list... 28* of the monsters are "giant" variants of other monsters in the list. All of those are listed under "Giant X" so they're separated from their normal sized counterparts. Still, that means 28 monsters (1/6th) are really duplicate entries that could have dual statblocks (ie, Cat: regular/giant). That's not to mention the absolute retardation of the Giant Seahorse and Giant Frog seemingly requiring separate entries from the Seahorse and Frog, both of which have no defensive capabilites, are worth zero xp, and don't even appear in the swarm entries. Speaking of Swarm entries, it's awesome they are included. I still can't figure out why "Rat Swarm" and "Rat" are two different entries, or why "rat" (or bat, or lizard, or...) need their own entries at all. If the CR is zero, maybe don't loving include it in the MONSTER manual. Or if you really must, put it under a "vermin" entry and be done. Look, an actual rat swarm is a terrifying thing, and is probably even a worrying thing to face even if your name is "something The Mighty". A single rat? A single bat? Really? There are other functional duplicates too. Eagle and Falcon get separate entries but why? Surely "bird of prey, regular" would cover it? Hell put ravens in there too for all it loving matters. Wait, I get it! It's included so you can upgrade your Falcon to an Eagle and be slightly more efficient at hunting the fully-statted-out Rats and Frogs. *I've just realised this isn't quite true. There is no regular sized Wolf Spider or Fire Beetle listed. I'm sure this will be fixed in the next supplement. e: This might be made up for by the way there's no giant Falcon or Jackal. I'm not sure and I don't care. e2: Why are there not useful giant animals? Imagine the steaks you could get off a cow at 5:1 scale. e3: I really don't understand why anything you'd never fight is in the monster manual. Like, I'm not going to be playing Frog Stompin' Dan the Halberd Man or Justin The Goat Slayer. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
The martials need to be doing something whilst the wizard kills dragons with his boney mates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Speaking of Swarm entries, it's awesome they are included. I still can't figure out why "Rat Swarm" and "Rat" are two different entries, or why "rat" (or bat, or lizard, or...) need their own entries at all. If the CR is zero, maybe don't loving include it in the MONSTER manual. Or if you really must, put it under a "vermin" entry and be done. Look, an actual rat swarm is a terrifying thing, and is probably even a worrying thing to face even if your name is "something The Mighty". A single rat? A single bat? Really? CR0 monsters need to exist by their own rules so the druid can turn into them, a druid couldn't simple be turn into an animal and do stuff, it needs to be: TURN INTO THIS SPECIFIC ANIMAL
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I tried, but we worked out that it was nearly perfect and that the minor flaws would all be fixed soon. tl;dr: VERISIMILITUDE
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
In my brief but fruitful comparison of the monster entries as presented for the Next edition of the Dungeons & DragonsTM roleplaying game and those presented for the 3rd and 2nd editions of same, I have notice a disturbing new trend towards verbosity and over-explanation of ideas that were surely adequately explained in a single place in the previous editions' rulebooks. For instance, surely any player or gamemaster of the Dungeons & DragonsTM roleplaying game would already know from the context that the text -for example - (3d6+1) printed after an attack's description would refer to that attack's damage, and so printing the word "damage" after each instance is obviously not only superfluous but actively contributory to the cluttered nature of the line, which renders it harder to determine the necessary information at a quick glance. The monster I chose for my comparison was the Fire Giant, not for any particular reason other than that it was the monster that my PDF was already open to. No doubt this random selection will come back to haunt me as someone points out that another monster is much easier to use (probably the frog, which has no attacks). -- 2e Thac0: 5 No. Of Attacks: 1 Damage/Attack: 1-8 or by weapon (2-20+10). -- -- 3e Attack: Greatsword +20 melee (3d6+15) or Slam +20 melee (1d4+10) or Rock +10 ranged (2d6+10 plus 2d6 fire) -- -- Next Multiattack. The giant makes two greatsword attacks. Greatsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 28 (6d6 + 7) slashing damage. Rock. Ranged Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, range 60/240 ft., one target. Hit: 29 (4d10 + 7) bludgeoning damage. -- The real thing that pissed me off here is "Multiattack. The giant makes two greatsword attacks." Seriously, the "No. Of Attacks" line in 2e was perfectly loving adequate for conveying this information. It's in the same place in every monster's statblock, and you're not going to accidentally miss it because you're looking for how many and Next somehow manages not to print a digit. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
 After careful perusal of this comparison and analysis, I can declare with sufficient certainty that some roleplayers are finally getting into the mood the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
MrAptronym posted:So I haven't been paying attention to D&D in a while. I wasn't big into 4th and moved over to pathfinder like I think a lot of groups did. Seems like the consensus by people who did the same is that 5th seems pretty good as a design skeleton, but kind of messed up with balance? (One of my friends played a playtest and told me half his party got one-shotted turn one in their first encounter). I read the basic rules book and I am kind of on the fence. I like the saves but death and resting seem a bit convoluted. Is it worth trying to convince my group to give it a go, or should I stick with PF at least until some more books come out? Should I play 5th but make the entire party be necromancers? The thing about 5e is that it's a 2001 game, not a 2008 one. It ignores almost as much of 3e as it does 4e. It's a response to 3.0 that tries to hew closer to AD&D. If you liked later 3.x material, you probably still won't like 5e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:When you think about it, skeletons are basically the ideal undead servant and I hope you agree with me that it's a critical failing of D&D Next that creating and controlling an army of skeletons is exclusively the province of necromancers when it should really be something that all classes have equal access to. I plan on tweeting to Mike Mearls extensively about this until he tells my DM to sign off on my comprehensively outlined skeleton equal distribution accord.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:And when you think of it, why can't martial characters have skeleton armies as well? It's just a traditionalist assumption that only necromancers can animate the dead. I'm sure a Warrior could use a whole bunch of string or something. I'm sure there was a fantasy story with a warrior king who returned at just the right moment with an army of the dead. I can't think what kind of hack author would gently caress things up like that, but I distinctly remember the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm sure there was a fantasy story with a warrior king who returned at just the right moment with an army of the dead. LOL, you mean the guy that wrote a book with a wizard who needed help doing things? Like I'd read that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm sure there was a fantasy story with a warrior king who returned at just the right moment with an army of the dead. Sounds like a wizard with weapon and armor proficiencies. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. I don't bemoan people their DW's or 13A or any other games, many sound fun and would be very much worth running at some point, but for those of us trying to give the new edition a legitimate shot this thread is toxic and, ultimately useless. Even the occasionally critical but worthwhile posts are lost beneath a sea of dumb meme-like poo poo in some pseudo self-congratulatory circle jerk of people who are far too erudite or experienced to lower themselves to this game. It overall represents a complete lack of good faith on the parts of posters here, who care more about who wrote the game than the game itself, to even begin to care about dealing with issues that do or could arise from the rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm sure there was a fantasy story with a warrior king who returned at just the right moment with an army of the dead. Those were wraiths, he was a Wraith King. Rip Skeleton King best King.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. Isn't this basically a "No true D&D fan" argument? If anything, this people is probably full of people that really legitimately would love to like D&D 5e, but are severely disappointed with the state of the game on release. I know I fall in to that camp myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I've been playing 5e on a weekly basis for some time now, and I've been having fun. I don't think anyone is saying that it's impossible to have fun playing 5e. That doesn't mean that there aren't a whole bunch of really bad design decisions and mistakes in it, though, and it doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to talk about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
I have my PHB on pre-order and I haven't given up hope that the DMG will make it more palatable, but there's some lovely design decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
There is no edition but 5th edition, and Zack Parsons is its prophet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. I've no idea about most people. But I'm going to say that I will almost certainly end up playing the game. I won't run it (monster spell blocks are a dealbreaker) - but I will almost certainly end up playing it at some point or other; I think one of the other GMs in my group will get on well with it. This doesn't mean that picking it apart mathematically (as has happened on this thread) is other than a really useful thing to do. I've learned more about the actual workings of 5e on this thread than on the whole of ENWorld. Do you consider that other than worthwhile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. I'm enjoying skeleton chat and natural-language mockery more than the constant repetition of "I found a problem, look at this rule, this scenario, this math" followed by someone saying "nope" in increasingly convoluted ways while providing no evidence beyond their gut feeling. That said, I'd look forward to reading in-good-faith responses to criticism of the D&D Next rules-as-written. These probably shouldn't include things such as the following, none of which are in-good-faith responses to criticism of the D&D Next rules-as-written. "In my game, I wouldn't let that happen" "It's easy to houserule that problem away" "This is easily fixed by ignoring that rule-as-written" "I had fun therefore this criticism is invalid" "I think it's fine" (with nothing to back that up) Any variant of "No reasonable person would do that thing anyway" when the "unreasonable person" has used the rules-as-written to do the thing "Nobody will give a poo poo about this problem" "It will be fixed soon" neonchameleon posted:I've no idea about most people. But I'm going to say that I will almost certainly end up playing the game. I won't run it (monster spell blocks are a dealbreaker) - but I will almost certainly end up playing it at some point or other; I think one of the other GMs in my group will get on well with it. I'm in exactly this situation. I definitely won't be running it (I'm going to be running BECMI and Dungeon World instead, which I really enjoy running). I almost certainly will play it, and I might buy the books if I end up playing it regularly. I also think that the other regular GM in my group will do well with it, partly because he has a "cheese as hard as you want, watch what happens" attitude. I don't enjoy running that sort of thing unless the system is explicitly designed around it. I will probably have fun while playing D&D Next, but that doesn't mean it's a well designed game or that I won't look for flaws in it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. I'm actually much more likely to pick up a PHB now that I know how hilariously flawed it is. I've got no shortage of other better options for a straight RPG - but nobody else is putting out this easily breakable, slipshod bunk. I've always wanted to play a total BS KotDT style meta-game where flawed mechanics were the focus, outsmarting the DM and the designers by bending and exploring rules in ways they were never intended to be used. The actual game is secondary to the fun of marching skeletal hordes through gaping rules-holes. And look, the skeleton company is exactly a product of using rules as they were meant to be used. Imagine how hilarious that's going to be after three years of additional feats, spells, and class options. That's what I'm looking forward to: A bad game I can have fun breaking. It's more predisposed to pun-puns, city nukes, and peasant rail-guns explicitly because they ran head-first into design traps, were willfully deaf to playtest feedback, and consulted with the biggest loving chuckleheads in the industry. This is exactly the game we saw coming, and now that it's here I'm going to enjoy it as best I can. Are you going to tell me my fun is less valid than anyone else's just because they're pretending that Next was a good-faith attempt at design?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
moths posted:That's what I'm looking forward to: A bad game I can have fun breaking. It's more predisposed to pun-puns, city nukes, and peasant rail-guns explicitly because they ran head-first into design traps
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. Get over yourself and accept that people are going to pick apart problems with your edition. Pointing out flaws isn't some grand conspiracy against it, and crying that we must all hate D&D because oh no, we accept basic loving math, is absolutely pathetic. This thread if anything is the best place for 5e discussion I've seen online because it actually goes into problems you'll see in game and flaws that need to be corrected rather then endless sloppy blowjobs with a napkin named "DM WILL FIX IT." I didn't truly enjoy 3e until I actually found out WHY I was having so many issues with it online, and desperately trying to claim nothing in the game is ever really broken and that you're just playing it wrong will do more to sink it then any amount of negativity towards it will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Does he tag these in any way that would help me compile an amazing .pdf of mad god edicts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
RAW, doesn't Animate Dead only allow you to create at most 13 skeletons at once, not 40+? You get two extra per level of spell slot used, not the caster's actual level. So if you cast it from your L9 spell slot that's your initial one skeleton, plus two for each of the six slot levels above 3rd. (Arcane Recovery lets you create another 13 that day, I guess, assuming you're L18 or higher.) Still, even just 13 skeletons with shortbows should be enough for most people if they want to ruin someone's day. Skeletons. Fake edit: I also just noticed this in the Basic DMG: "A green dragon is recognised by the crest that begins near its eyes and continues down its spine, reaching full height just behind the skull." Not because, I dunno, it's green?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:50
|
|