|
It seems that everyone in here is forgetting that the grapple rules let you do all the 'keep enemy pinned to the ground' and 'rip their arms off' features that fighters have! However I'm pretty sure the grapple rules are actually incomprehensible so maybe it's not actually possible to do what they describe.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Please post the rules for tearing off a dragon's wing. I don't have the phb. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who plays the new D&D and honestly and unironically enjoys it? Full disclosure: I do. Well, I'm looking forwards to running it, and I like my character in a PbP I just started playing in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I like the idea of skill checks for spells but instead of failure being a null result, make it a hard choice: Yeah, that's an idea. I already use Dungeon World style failure states for most things these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
The rule would be a called shot with a critical hit and a good enough severity roll. Called shots automatically determine location. Only problem is the size category issue, I'm not sure how you'd get around that. I think unarmed is bludgeoning, which only lets you break wings, not actually rip them off but same mechanical effect. This is from 2e, I don't have the 5e book to check with. Hell, since the Beowulf example is used so often it's easy to model in grappling rules - really long combat, tons of called shots that didn't critical, a few that did but Grendel saved on, then one that went through and the arm got ripped off. I'll admit though that the rules don't allow for 'ripping off' with bludgeoning because it isn't thought through and good old DM fiat could work with that (since at the same severity but with slashing/piercing you can sever the limb, so it makes sense ripping would do it too). mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Fantasycraft too crunchy, Dungeon World not crunchy enough? Fantasycraft is hella crunchy. Like, it's a better game than 3.X (again, low bar and all, but it's a good game beyond that metric) but your group really needs to like lots of levers and dials and moving bits to really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:I wish there was a thread for these kinds of people. The edition is great for my party (4e, while I absolutely love it, is a bit too tactical for what this group wants), and every time I look at the book I see things I like. And then every time I look at this thread I feel like I should regret purchasing the book or something. Honestly? You shouldn't regret it. How mechanically sound your system is maybe makes up the third or forth most important part of how good a tabletop game is. If you've got a good DM, good friends, and are enjoying yourselves that's what really matters. I mean, we're gonna theorycraft, critique, and try to come up with better alternatives, but that's just because it leads to interesting discussion. But unless everyone onboard really isn't digging the system, what you play specifically matters less than how and with who you play it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who plays the new D&D and honestly and unironically enjoys it? Full disclosure: I do. It's serviceable; I thought it functioned okay at early levels (like, 1-4, maybe 5) when my friends & I messed with it when Basic came out. Mostly I think you have to steer people away from the poo poo classes (or rather, the ones that become poo poo at higher levels, namely Fighter and Rogue, maybe others iunno) and you can have a pgood time. Not worth spending oodles of cash on for the phb/dmg/mm though imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I would rather run Runequest 6, but my players want to play D&D. My thought is to just make everyone play two characters, one caster, and one not, that way if their favorite type is terrible, they can at least spend all their time buffing them with their caster. Kind of like a miniature troup from Ars Magica.
remusclaw fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
So question for those who have done the starter adventure is there a reason why there are 2 fighters and not one Fighter and a Ranger? Would anyone find that too game breaking to just flat out switch the class to ranger and tweak the modifiers ever so slightly? I'll be dm'ing it tomorrow and so was asking so we weren't double up on classes, even if one is ranged and one is melee
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I don't see any reason you can't or shouldn't do that, with the caveat that low-level Rangers actually seem weaker than low-level Fighters to me. In any case, I imagine the reason they did it that way is so you can run the starter adventure with only the basic rules, which only include the four original classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Okay I may just be blind but is there any way to remove petrification in the PHB at present? I ask because I'm working out a game world for my players and they will find a petrified warrior fairly early on as a teaser. I don't expect them to find a way to remove the petrification for quite some time but I just can't find any spells that do it and that bugs me. There's Flesh to Stone, but no Stone to Flesh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:53
|
|
+ 
= 
|
A higher level slotted dispell Magic should end the effect. Flesh to Stone used to be reversible, but there seems to be no mention of that here. With higher level slotting working the way it does, Dispell Magic should be a level one spell. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Feats Martial classes shouldn't have to take feats to do interesting stuff, they should be able to do interesting stuff as class features. Move this list into the martial classes and let them pick from it as they gain levels, and you're looking good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Trundel posted:Okay I may just be blind but is there any way to remove petrification in the PHB at present? I ask because I'm working out a game world for my players and they will find a petrified warrior fairly early on as a teaser. I don't expect them to find a way to remove the petrification for quite some time but I just can't find any spells that do it and that bugs me. There's Flesh to Stone, but no Stone to Flesh. Greater Restoration cures petrification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who plays the new D&D and honestly and unironically enjoys it? Full disclosure: I do. Not yet playing, but I've got a group in character creation for a hex crawl game. The GM has been running a hex crawl for some friends, and said "hey, sure, I could run you guys around on the same map". And our current plan for what to do after the Pathfinder game wraps up is a kitbashed Iron Kingdoms on 5e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:The rule would be a called shot with a critical hit and a good enough severity roll. Called shots automatically determine location. Only problem is the size category issue, I'm not sure how you'd get around that. I think unarmed is bludgeoning, which only lets you break wings, not actually rip them off but same mechanical effect. For me, at least, the problem is that we've gone backward from "fighters can do cool things" to "fighters can do cool things ... if the DM is generous and the dice are kind." Anecdote time! One of the highest-level characters I played in 4E was a polearm-wielding monk. Like most polearm users in 4E, he was built with an eye toward pushing, tripping, and other movement effects. When I went into a fight, I was golfing dudes all over the place every round. With powers like Furious Bull, I could literally scoot into the middle of a crowd of enemies and knock them all flying with a single mighty swing. And I didn't NEED to explain any of this to the DM beforehand. I'd just decide what I was doing, roll to hit, and if I hit, declare that my target was now thirty feet over yonder and flat on his back. The only time the DM needed to get involved was if I tried to move an enemy into a hazard. A while back, I was invited to join a 2E game, and I rolled a fighter. I didn't want to do the boring, generic longsword-and-shield guy, so I made him a halberdier. (He was originally going to be a William Tell style crossbowman, but that ended quick when I remembered how poo poo crossbows are in earlier editions.) So I started playing him, and I quickly realized that if I wanted to do ANYTHING in combat other than "I hit him with my halberd," I would have to ask the DM first. Not that the DM was a dick or anything. But if I had to negotiate with the DM every round, either he or I would get tired of it quickly. And besides, in older editions, improvising tended to be punished by the rules. If I wanted to, for instance, trip a guy, I'd have to eat a to-hit penalty that would range from annoying to crippling. And the DM would likely expect me to give up my damage in exchange for doing the trip. It's very, very easy to get into a state where improvising just isn't worth it, and the DM doesn't have to be an rear end in a top hat to get there. There's a reason my group rarely saw a lot of improvised actions in combat until we tried Feng Shui and other games where coming up with stunts is actually encouraged and rewarded by rules. This is why, incidentally, I'm going to be very curious to see what guidance the 5E DMG gives for adjudicating improvised actions. For all its flaws, the battlemaster fighter at least doesn't fall into the trap of making you trade damage for status effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:Martial classes shouldn't have to take feats to do interesting stuff, they should be able to do interesting stuff as class features. Move this list into the martial classes and let them pick from it as they gain levels, and you're looking good. Yeah that is better. Requires more of a rewrite of the class instead of working with what is already in place, but doesn't take away any of the effectiveness they already have. What do you think would be a good way to allocate these powers? How many should each martial get per how many levels? A rewrite Savage strength of Beowulf Once per day a character may act for one hour as if her strength were 30. New Iron skin Through strenuous training the character has developed the ability to deflect physical blows, giving her damage resistance for one hour, once per day. Whirling Dervish of Death Once per combat the character strikes each enemy in a 20ft radius circle around her for weapon plus strength or Dex damage. Dex save for half damage. Unstoppable advance Once per combat a character may advance up to twice her movement speed, including moving through occupied spaces and can make an attack on every enemy who comes withing melee range of her during the move. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Greater Restoration cures petrification. Ah thank you, now I can proceed. There's a lot that I like about 5e, the spell lists and navigating them are not one them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Selachian posted:For me, at least, the problem is that we've gone backward from "fighters can do cool things" to "fighters can do cool things ... if the DM is generous and the dice are kind." It's all about fiat. The ability to make declarations about the game-world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Trundel posted:Ah thank you, now I can proceed. There's a lot that I like about 5e, the spell lists and navigating them are not one them. Or you might have them roll knowledge and go the much more interesting way of having them procure a cure, of your fabrication. Like blood of a crowing rooster, the heart of a giant or a pitcher of water from a pristine glacial stream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Basically, if you want to deal the highest damage possible as a Fighter in D&D 5e, dual wield hand crossbows and go full gun kata. So I posted about this build earlier. First off, I didn't realise at the time, but you can actually use a hand crossbow and a shield without reducing your DPR. The +2 AC means you start at 17 in Padded Leather (higher than Chainmail without a shield) and finish at 19 (the same as Plate). Also, I've been running the numbers on it and a bunch of other Fighter builds such as the Great Weapon Master + Polearm Master Pikeman and it turns out it's actually even better than I thought; I made a mistake in my math originally because I thought Crossbow Expert's extra attack came with a penalty, which it doesn't:  That's plain attacks, and as far as I can tell it's the best DPR possible with the material we have at the moment. If you want to do more than make plain attacks, you have a few things you can do with maneuvers. Feinting Attack (usually the best maneuver for damage) is a no-go because it uses a bonus action and so does Crossbow Expert's extra attack. However, you can use Trip Attack to knock something down at range, optionally foregoing the penalty from Sharpshooter to make sure you stick it. Once the enemy is down, you can move in next to it (you only get advantage against prone enemies within 5 feet) and unload your Action Surge with Sharpshooter, finishing up with a Menacing Attack to keep it from being able to approach you on its turn, then move away again if you want - eating an OA made with Disadvantage because the bad guy is Prone and maybe Frightened. That's strong, fun and interesting. Unfortunately you can only do it 2-3 times per short rest and beyond level 4 you gain no relevant abilities. This is the problem with 5e Fighters in a nutshell. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:We mostly don't talk about this because: A) Just saying we enjoyed it isn't interesting unless you say why and B) Fun is a terrible metric, like I can have fun with cortex system firefly or any number of terrible RPG systems, you kinda have to examine the system itself B) Point taken. But isn't it still somewhat subjective? One guy's terrible magical tea party game can still be another gal's awesome dungeon bashing killfest; you might still dislike a rule that I enjoy regardless of said rule's actual quality, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Gort posted:Martial classes shouldn't have to take feats to do interesting stuff, they should be able to do interesting stuff as class features. Move this list into the martial classes and let them pick from it as they gain levels, and you're looking good. It would also be a LOT better not to phrase the rules in terms of spells they can copy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It would also be a LOT better not to phrase the rules in terms of spells they can copy. True enough, I was just using it for a quick iteration of what the power will be, as it gives more mechanical guideline than saying the strength of however many men. In truth I will likely try to rewrite it so that it is more applicibale to doing great feats of strength and endurance than being simply for the sake of moving earth. If anything it would surpass the spells ability by allowing for the movement of natural stone and worked stone. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:A) OK, that makes sense. I'll need some more playing experience with 5E to contribute meaningfully though. For me, "playing experience" means around 20-25 sessions, so it could take a while. For B) You basically have to work around what kind of game it is trying to be, so yes you have to be subjective so in this case generally: IS D&D a good game at being fantasy heroes going into a dungeon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
So monk looks like it fairs okay all the way to 20 (aside from the bad level 1); quad attacks, stuns, good defenses/saves, spells/spell like effects, a save-or-die. Look good to anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Is there a system that allows for being a Mythical badass? Scion, but it runs on the Exalted ruleset (which is to say combat kinda sucks and involves multiple rolls). It's broken into 3 tiers: Hero, Demigod, and God. Unfortunately legendary stats break the game after a point (they give a unique ability and exponential auto-successes). Hero level was fantastic, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:So monk looks like it fairs okay all the way to 20 (aside from the bad level 1); quad attacks, stuns, good defenses/saves, spells/spell like effects, a save-or-die. Look good to anyone else? Stunning Fist all day long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:So monk looks like it fairs okay all the way to 20 (aside from the bad level 1); quad attacks, stuns, good defenses/saves, spells/spell like effects, a save-or-die. Look good to anyone else? I'd still like to know why they changed the elemental monk from "does unique things" to "casts spells with ki"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Can they really fly though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who plays the new D&D and honestly and unironically enjoys it? Full disclosure: I do. I honestly and unironically enjoy it. More than half my group has played all editions of D&D since 2nd as well as Pathfinder, so I think that might give us a few DMs who know to use the system to the best of its ability. I dunno, though. We most recently played 4e exclusively and we took a break from it to playtest Next and have gone exclusively 5e since the PHB came out. edit: I shouldn't have said "we might be the kind of players this thread doesn't like" because that sounded dumb and bitter. What I mean is we're probably not really the group that knows the ins and outs of how a system should or shouldn't work. Speedboat Jones fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I'd still like to know why they changed the elemental monk from "does unique things" to "casts spells with ki" I mean, the descriptive text for stuff like the Water Whip was great; more of that, please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
I'd very much like for enemy wizards to not be able to counterspell my firebender.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:I'd very much like for enemy wizards to not be able to counterspell my firebender.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Honestly? You shouldn't regret it. How mechanically sound your system is maybe makes up the third or forth most important part of how good a tabletop game is. If you've got a good DM, good friends, and are enjoying yourselves that's what really matters. 5e fails in a way that can be ignored, both because it's failures aren't showy- they're whimpers instead of bangs- and because people have spent years, even decades, creating excuses and fallacies and scapegoats for failures of this kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Please post the rules for tearing off a dragon's wing. I don't have the phb. Thanks. mastershakeman posted:The rule would be a called shot with a critical hit and a good enough severity roll. Called shots automatically determine location. Only problem is the size category issue, I'm not sure how you'd get around that. I think unarmed is bludgeoning, which only lets you break wings, not actually rip them off but same mechanical effect. That's a description of how to grapple (not tear off limbs) in whatever 2e expansion included rules for crit severity, and still involves DM fiat. It has nothing to do with Next. The Next Grappling rules don't actually look terrible though - and it looks like Fighters with multiple attacks might actually make it useful. You can't grapple anything more than 1 size category different from you though, and shockingly there's nothing in there about ripping bits off your opponent. So, to grapple, you make a STR(Athletics) check contested by the targets STR(Athletics) or DEX(Acrobatics). This takes the place of an attack (it specifically calls out that if you have multiple attacks, grappling takes one of them). After that, the opponent appears to remain grappled until you let go, it escapes, or something incapacitates you or moves you away. All this really does is reduce their move to 0 (and take away any bonuses to their move speed, for some reason). There's nothing in there about "you can't attack while grappling", but there's also nothing in there about "you can't attack while grappled". So I guess a fighter with 3 attacks per round can grapple like 2 dudes and headbutt/kick the gently caress out of them. Or more seriously, can grapple a dude (or even an ogre or something) and still make 2 sword attacks that round and 3 attacks each round after. Probably this falls apart a bit with PC strength capped at 20, but it's not terrible and at least allows you to immobilise someone until they break free. Oh, the book doesn't say when they get to make their escape check or what kind of action it takes, so who loving knows if they have to give up at least one attack or something to get out? e: Eagerly awaiting someone telling me it's "impossible" or "unrealistic" to make sword attack on a grappled opponent so in their game this would be immediately houseruled into uselessness. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:For B) You basically have to work around what kind of game it is trying to be, so yes you have to be subjective so in this case generally: IS D&D a good game at being fantasy heroes going into a dungeon. So far my opinion of 5E is quite positive, I like the advantage/ disadvantage system and the Inspiration mechanic, as well as the streamlining of the feat system. I think they should have stuck with just 3 saves, but if you see a save as an extension of the prof check system I guess it's not too bad. It seems to me that 5E is overall about as unbalanced as AD&D, which is how I like it. If they're reigned the casters a bit in at higher levels, I'd be OK with it; the campaigns I run usually end at around 11-12 level anyway. As far as I'm concerned, D&D is a fantasy sub-genre of it's own so I don't worry too much about being able to accurately simulate any particular book or movie. Can me and the guys clear some dungeons and bash some monsters head in without taking an engineering degree? That's what I personally am looking for. Judging by that (admittedly not sophisticated) metric, 5E is so far a good game, IMO of course. 20 sessions from now I could be singing another tune, but so far our group have enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
So... abilitiy score damage. Is there anything that restores it aside from greater restoration? Because gently caress, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
I was thumbing through the PHB and being somewhat content with the game being what it is (cleaned up 3.5) but then I get to the beastiary and... I don't think I'd ever run this game as a DM. Holy poo poo why did they throw everything decent about 4e encounter design out the window?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:55
|
|
