|
Rosalind posted:Here's how not to do it: my character was trying to sneak through the outskirts of a crowd unseen. Not necessarily totally hidden, but without drawing any unnecessary attention to herself. The DM decided that every single member of the crowd gets a perception check. As in, he made a roll for each person in the crowd? 
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Slashrat posted:As in, he made a roll for each person in the crowd? Lord of Bore posted:
He rolled until one critted and saw through my stealth check. When I pointed out to him that this was patently ridiculous and that if he really wanted my character to be noticed, then to just have someone notice me and stop pretending that there's any probability at all of success, he responded with "I have to do what the dice say. I'm just an impartial judge." And that's when I left the table.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ what the gently caressRosalind posted:Here's how not to do it: my character was trying to sneak through the outskirts of a crowd unseen. Not necessarily totally hidden, but without drawing any unnecessary attention to herself. The DM decided that every single member of the crowd gets a perception check. who would ever think this is a good idea? at least with the current rules you'd simply compare your stealth check to the passive perception of 200 commoners (10)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:As in, he made a roll for each person in the crowd? Wouldn't want to rob the NPC's of their agency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:He rolled until one critted and saw through my stealth check. This is why Passive Perception exists in this edition. He was not impartial. He judged against the RAW (poorly.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Correction: He judged in favour of the RAI, which in 5e, is king.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
RAFU I'm the DM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:Correction: He judged in favour of the RAI, which in 5e, is king. It feels weird to defend 5e, but... No, the Hiding sidebar on page 177 makes the intention pretty clear. You get a check when a creature "actively searches" for signs of a hidden being. Passive perception is explicitly called out as being the method for handling creatures that aren't actively searching. Maybe if there were some city guards and Rosalind's face had been appearing on Wanted: Dead or Alive posters, they would get some checks. But the idea that everybody is actively scanning all the time is absurd and obsoletes the entire concept of passive perception. Rosalind's DM was a loving tool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Yeah 5E has enough things to argue about without blaming bad DMing on the system, even if some nutters on the internet think that what makes it good is it "returning power to the DM" (I'm not crazy enough to even understand why this is a thing or how 4E took it away or how 5E gives it back) People use bad DMs as an excuse to attack the system in every edition. Bad DMs can easily ruin 4E combat, but that doesn't make it bad!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
So with this new version all about rulings not rules, does the book actually provide any advice on how to run the game well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:So with this new version all about rulings not rules, does the book actually provide any advice on how to run the game well? We haven't seen the DMG yet so it's hard to say. I hope they continue talking about DMing in terms of satisfying the different player types that were present in the 4E DMG (instigator, storyteller, actor, etc.) as that was my favorite part and honestly probably the most useful tool as a DM because it makes you think more about the most important question as a DM: "What would my players find fun, challenging, and interesting?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Have you considered the Dungeon Master's Guide, by nobody important? Seriously tho I suspect any meaningful advice that isn't just a one-off paragraph or whatever will be in the book about running a D&D game, which should've come out at the same time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Hasn't Passive Perception been a thing since 3E though? While it wasn't necessarily spelled out in black and white, I distinctly remember "Taking 10" was definitely a thing, and if you used a handful of brain cells you could think "Oh yeah, this is fantastic so I don't have to roll Spot/Search/Listen all the time" or, as the GM, you could even use it for Knowledge checks to see if someone just automatically knows stuff. If they didn't, there was always the option to ACTIVELY roll on the part of the player. I'm also hoping that the Dungeon Master's Guide is as well written as the one for 4E. The 4E DMG was one of the best aspects of the system because it gave you actual advice on how to run a game and was an invaluable tool for helping you understand the ins and outs of the system itself. The 3E DMG was a heap of wet garbage because it didn't teach you how to actually run the game, didn't give you any useful advice, and was more or less just the book people pored through to find magic items and prestige classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Yeah 5E has enough things to argue about without blaming bad DMing on the system, even if some nutters on the internet think that what makes it good is it "returning power to the DM" (I'm not crazy enough to even understand why this is a thing or how 4E took it away or how 5E gives it back) From what I've seen a lot of it seems to be down to the fact that players have powers and abilities that have definite effects on creatures, and this ruins the DM's vision of how a fight might happen. Marking seems to be a big one (see recent quotes from grognards.txt), because marking someone means the DM has to pay attention to the defender rather than going "gently caress off I hit who I want".
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Hasn't Passive Perception been a thing since 3E though? While it wasn't necessarily spelled out in black and white, I distinctly remember "Taking 10" was definitely a thing, and if you used a handful of brain cells you could think "Oh yeah, this is fantastic so I don't have to roll Spot/Search/Listen all the time" or, as the GM, you could even use it for Knowledge checks to see if someone just automatically knows stuff. If they didn't, there was always the option to ACTIVELY roll on the part of the player. This is exactly how it worked. Passive Perception is just a simplified version of that with a big sign over it going, "HEY LISTEN!" so that people like Rosalind's DM don't have an excuse for being fuckwits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I know it's tradition to dump all this stuff into a separate book but it would probably be a good idea to include the some words on the fundamental dynamics of playing the game up front, in a book they've actually released. There's other ways of getting this information across with the magic of the internet but they seem determined to drop the ball at every point. Their demo videos were awful and Mearls' Twitter has become a running joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:I know it's tradition to dump all this stuff into a separate book but it would probably be a good idea to include the some words on the fundamental dynamics of playing the game up front, in a book they've actually released. I think it is acceptable to NOT include those kind of things when... you release all 3 books at the same time. Still, I'm a strong believer in the idea of a 'core book' instead of a PHB/MM/DMG, and then releasing all three of those as humongous supplements. In that scenario, the PHB would include existential blurbs about being a good player the same way the DMG includes them about being a DM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:I know it's tradition to dump all this stuff into a separate book but it would probably be a good idea to include the some words on the fundamental dynamics of playing the game up front, in a book they've actually released. Also I still can't believe that they haven't even discussed what kind of digital releases they're going to do. I mean there's that crudely designed app that they've been trumpeting by the company with the rape quote on their front page. Will all digital materials have to go through that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:I know it's tradition to dump all this stuff into a separate book but it would probably be a good idea to include the some words on the fundamental dynamics of playing the game up front, in a book they've actually released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:That's in the starter kit. The one for newbies. I didn't realize there was a starter set as separate product with pre-made characters and an adventure. I thought there was just the downloadable rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
I mean, there's a good reason besides tradition for them to have the PHB and DMG be separate books: they can charge $20 less for the PHB than most games charge for hardcover, glossy core rulebooks and get a lot more buy-in from people who will either never DM or never play the game at all. But I agree that it's dumb not to release them at the same time, and the fact that they didn't do so for some/every prior edition isn't really an excuse for why they do it this way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:We haven't seen the DMG yet so it's hard to say. I hope they continue talking about DMing in terms of satisfying the different player types that were present in the 4E DMG (instigator, storyteller, actor, etc.) as that was my favorite part and honestly probably the most useful tool as a DM because it makes you think more about the most important question as a DM: "What would my players find fun, challenging, and interesting?" Alpha playtest DMG doesn't have anything about DM advice. I figure they'll just copy/paste the 3.0 DMG section and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
A little extra time and feedback can really only help the DM Guide. Personally, I'd rather have everything piecemeal and get books as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Alpha playtest DMG doesn't have anything about DM advice. I figure they'll just copy/paste the 3.0 DMG section and call it a day. Oh man you got to see the Alpha DMG as well? Did the alpha have rules for playing as monsters as the preview for the actual DMG had listed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Here are some more things for my "Cool things a non-Magic Man can Do" list. I am probably going to split them up by class a bit and dole them out maybe every 3 levels or so. I am looking to come up with a pretty large list, and some of these still do need some tinkering. Unstoppable advance Once per combat a character may advance up to twice her movement speed, including moving through occupied spaces and damages every creature whom she intersects with or comes within melee range of for regular damage with weapon plus strength or Dex damage. Dex save for half damage. You are not going anywhere You stay with an enemy no matter where he goes, through whatever means you are physically capable of doing, IE. You hold on the to the flying dragons tail, or simply shadow the movements of your enemy, however you do it you remain within five feet of the enemy. You may do this once per combat and it lasts until your chosen enemy is defeated or you are. Superplex When fighting barehanded if you critical you may grab an enemy of any size and throw him to the ground violently, causing normal damage and leaving the enemy prone. Crippling Strike On a critical hit you may forgo the extra damage and instead strike a crippling blow to your opponent, leaving them capable of only moving at half their normal movement speed, you still cause normal damage. Shut up On a critical hit you may forgo the extra damage to strike a blow to the enemy’s throat, causing them to be unable to vocalize, you still cause normal damage. Disarming On a critical hit you may forgo extra damage and instead render one of the opponents arms useless, this effects their offhand first, and further use of this ability affects their other arm, you still cause normal damage. Counter attack On an opponents roll of a one in an attack on you, you may immediately respond with a regular attack of your own. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Oh God, the last thing I want them to do is encourage a return to the idea that PCs and "Monstrous" PCs should be different from one another. You want to know how to make a playable "Monster"? You make it a drat race all to itself like any other race (Elves, Dwarves, Humans, etc) and don't try to marry the CR system into the PC class system at all because it's loving dumb. I want to play a Minotaur from level 1 with a class, not have to wait until the group is Level 5 or whatever just to be horribly underpowered because I have exactly zero class abilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Sounds about right to me, and is in keeping with the way *Our Lord Gygax* did things. Minotaurs would be +2 +1 con, some kind of horn-based attack, maybe some other ability I can't think of. There, playable minotaurs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
morestuff posted:A little extra time and feedback can really only help the DM Guide. Personally, I'd rather have everything piecemeal and get books as soon as possible. Honestly, the timing of everything seems more like "let's-get-it-out-in-time-for-GenCon" rather than "let's-spend-more-time-making-a-better-book", but that's just the cynic in me talking. Speaking of cynics;  In an episode about "Asperger's", no less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Sounds about right to me, and is in keeping with the way *Our Lord Gygax* did things. You know, like 4e. Yeah, I see the problem too...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Oh man you got to see the Alpha DMG as well? Did the alpha have rules for playing as monsters as the preview for the actual DMG had listed? I don't think so but I'll double check when I get home from work. The document I got was 49 pages so there is quite a bit missing. I posted a summary in the imp zone thread if someone can find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:You know, like 4e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Did the Alpha DMG have any indications for how to run a campaign without Magic Items? I'm genuinely curious as to how they're going to tackle that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
I just now found out the basic rules are free so only have one question. Is this game an improvement on 3.5/Pathfinder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Jackard posted:I just now found out the basic rules are free so only have one question. The general consensus so far as I can tell is "probably." 3.5/Pathfinder has more 'stuff' but that cuts both ways, as we all know. And Next has a few quality of life improvements (advantage system, wizard at-wills, and other bits and bobs).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Jackard posted:I just now found out the basic rules are free so only have one question. However, the Basic rules (the free stuff) have like, 4 classes. Anything more than that costs money (I think). 3.P has so much more material, and most of it available free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Right... saw this on Facebook, but I don't know anyone there that looks at this stuff critically. What's this 'advantage system' then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
So my group played 5e the other day, and everyone had a lot of fun. We play 3.5 when we D&D just for that frame of reference as I talk about our experience. Party is a Battle Master Fighter, Pact of the Chain Warlock, and an Oath of Vengeance Paladin. We played for most of a day and then half the next (probably ten hours total). I was the DM, and I was pretty free with XP, the group is now 5th level, we want to get a bunch of levels played so we can see how things work out at various levels. So far no one has felt useless, they've settled into roles rather easily, the paladin will take the biggest and meanest guy and try to get him into a one on one with Compelled Duel, and now that he has Mark of the Hunter and smiting, he can use those in conjunction with defensive fighting style to deal good damage while not getting too badly hurt. The fighter is dual wielding, and usually opts to carve through mooks, with a couple of lucky crits and Action Surge he killed three guys in the first round of a combat, so I let him roll Intimidate to demoralize the remaining enemies, which worked pretty well. The warlock is making excellent use of Eldritch Blast to stay relevant in fights so he doesn't have to worry too much about conserving spells. He can assist on a big bad with Hex, or use utility spells to keep himself safe if someone gets past the wall of the Fighter/Paladin combo. All in all combat goes relatively quickly, the advantage system is a great replacement for fiddly math when someone is flanking or attacking in a certain way or defending themselves while hopping on one foot. For the players, their turns are pretty easy, even with the addition of maneuvers for the fighter and spells for the paladin, they can go just as quickly at level 5 as they did at 1. Even the warlock, who still isn't used to his spell list, still seems to take less time on a turn than a 3.5 wizard or other spellcaster. For the DM, without a monster manual it's still pretty easy. Streamlining things down to proficiency rather than skill ranks and base attack bonus means I can just make poo poo up on the fly. Pirate dude is wearing leather, using a cutlass, he has 20 HP, +5 to hit, 1d6+2 damage, 14 AC, boom, done, I did similar for most mooks, and when there was a bigger threat like a pirate captain I just gave him class levels and used that to give him an interesting feature so he'd stand out, such as a half ocr barbarian using Reckless Attack. It seemed pretty easy to challenge players, they were always using abilities and making sure they had good positioning (I used a grid for every fight) and when the big bads would come out, they felt sufficiently threatened but able to handle it, although there was a moment of genuine panic. When they were 4th level, they were trying to rescue a merchant ship from a pirate attack, and were on the pirate ship slaughtering crew, when suddenly the captain, a sorceress, came back from the merchant ship. The players didn't know this, but she had used most of her spells killing people on the merchant ship, and only had a single third level slot left, so she was going to blow it on one last ditch effort to try to stop them. What they knew was that she hopped over, dropped a fireball in the middle of them, taking the warlock to -3 HP and heavily damaging them all. Their next turn, the fighter hit his second wind, the paladin used Lay on Hands on the warlock, but then the sorceress was just hitting them with cantrips at that point, so they finished her off. They weren't in a huge amount of danger, but since I rolled so well on the damage they were like oh poo poo and used long rest abilities, and then went on to win the fight, so really a successful encounter for me as a DM. Handwave short rests as "whenever there's a reasonable gap in combat" and don't bookkeep that poo poo too heavily and everything seems to work out okay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:He rolled until one critted and saw through my stealth check. ... There is no "crit" on checks. Sooo basically. Yes, right choice to leave that table. I am always mystified in the PF rules forum when people talk about how the GM had someone teleport them without a save somewhere else, dominate them, make them hand over an item, return them, and blank their memories (all with no save), then encouraged the other players to blame the victim for not being careful enough. Oh, also, that was all in one round. And the player is like "is this allowed? I don't want to fuss if it's within the rules."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Right... saw this on Facebook, but I don't know anyone there that looks at this stuff critically. What's this 'advantage system' then? Many things which used to be bonuses or penalties now grant advantage or disadvantage. They are non-stacking, and if you have both you have neither. If you have only advantage or disadvantage on a roll, roll twice, take highest or lowest respectively. It's similar in impact to giving out bonuses, but much much faster to compute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
seebs posted:If you have only advantage or disadvantage on a roll, roll twice, take highest or lowest respectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:28
|
|