|
why are people trying to overcomplicate one of the few totally positive aspects of 5e design. Advantage/Disadvantage is fantastic for a lot of reasons.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
treeboy posted:why are people trying to overcomplicate one of the few totally positive aspects of 5e design. Advantage/Disadvantage is fantastic for a lot of reasons. He's just trying to stop using a d20 He should probably just not play DnD if that's his goal but I won't deny his pursuit of happiness. opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:6d6 choose three actually exactly matches the average/expected values of d20 ad/disadvantage. Normal = 10.5; advantage = 15; disadvantage = 6. If by "exactly matches" you mean "off by about 0.5", you'd be right. The means are as follows, and for fun I tried out 5d6 keep 3 highest/lowest, which provides a slightly tighter range (lower for advantage, higher for disadvantage). pre:d20 6d6 5d6 Advt 13.82 14.27 13.43 Norm 10.50 10.50 10.50 Disa 7.17 6.73 7.57
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:I'm pretty sure if Mike Mearls didn't have a twitter account the game, in its current state, would actually seem better. It's hard to watch the lead designer constantly state how he'd "house-rule it like X" when he wrote the original rules, and it suggests he doesn't really believe in the final product. I think to me this is the weirdest and most annoying part of Mearls' whole "ask the DM" milquetoast replies, because you figure the guy who spent two to three years making a game would have stronger opinions on how his own pet project is supposed to work. Instead Mearls gives the constant impression of a guy distractedly shrugging and going "iunno, I guess maybe."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Some people on RPG.net have been working on trying to make a more worthy fighter class. One person had this as a brief idea, obviously it would have more options if they finish it up but it looks kind of interesting.Yakk;18240363 posted:Talents Known
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
As far as I know, stealth works like this: (ranged) 1. Get to a place where you either cannot be seen (EG: Behind a wall) or are obscured by terrain (EG: In some difficult terrain) 2. Roll stealth, if you succeed you are hidden 3. Shoot someone with advantage, roll sneak attack extra dice if you hit ----- Or like this: (melee) 1. Spend half your move getting to a place where you either cannot be seen (EG: Behind a wall) or are obscured by terrain (EG: In some difficult terrain) 2. Roll stealth, if you succeed you are hidden 3. Spend the rest of your move approaching an enemy 4. Stab him with advantage, roll sneak attack extra dice if you hit ----- Didn't seem too hokey to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
But then what? What happens AFTER you attack?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Melee I'd argue you're obviously open and visible. Ranged maybe you can hide again next round but with disadvantage. Like suggested
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:But then what? What happens AFTER you attack? You run away using Cunning Action. Then next turn, you Hide, then Sneak Attack, and then run away using Cunning Action. Edit: Cunning Action is pretty much poor man's spring attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
It'd probably be safer to attack out of hiding, move, hide again and perhaps move a bit more and only then end your turn. I'm actually really happy about the 5e rogue, even if it's not at wizard-levels of control over the game. The hit-and-run/sniper playstyle just plain works for it now without feeling like you're not using the class to its fullest potential. QuantumNinja posted:You run away using Cunning Action. Then next turn, you Hide, then Sneak Attack, and then run away using Cunning Action. According to the PHB, Hiding is an action on its own, so if you want to hide in the same turn that you attack, you have to Hide using your Cunning Action. You can however move 30 ft. as part of the regular action you spend on your attack. A rogue's turn is probably more likely to look like this: Be hidden at the start of your turn, move into position as part of your attack, spend the rest of the movement after the attack to get back to where you can hide, then spend your bonus action on hiding. The benefit of this is that you spend the time between your turns being hidden as well. Slashrat fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I'm actually really happy about the 5e rogue... The hit-and-run/sniper playstyle just plain works for it now without feeling like you're not using the class to its fullest potential. I'd probably like it more if I hadn't already seen rogues/that playstyle done better in other games (4e, 13a, some custom DW classes).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:According to the PHB, Hiding is an action on its own, so if you want to hide in the same turn that you attack, you have to Hide using your Cunning Action. You can however move 30 ft. as part of the regular action you spend on your attack. A rogue's turn is probably more likely to look like this: Be hidden at the start of your turn, move into position as part of your attack, spend the rest of the movement after the attack to get back to where you can hide, then spend your bonus action on hiding. The benefit of this is that you spend the time between your turns being hidden as well. Oh, drat! Everyone gets Spring Attack for free in 5E. That's really awesome. I assumed it was still classic "move then attack, or attack then move, but no attacking partway through". A rogue with a good move speed can easily move-kill-move-hide in both dungeons and large, open areas. With Second-Story Work, the rogue can even ninja up walls to hide away, meaning they're pretty much Batman. For the first time in my life I want to play a rogue in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Melee I'd argue you're obviously open and visible. Ranged maybe you can hide again next round but with disadvantage. Like suggested Ranged is what I'm talking about, as it's very obvious in melee. I think being able to hide again immediately at disadvantage after popping out of cover for a pot shot is a good idea and probably how I would rule it - but why isn't there anything about it in the book? Just because you fire a bolt doesn't mean the enemy knows where you are, only the direction it came from. I guess you could also rule in a spot check at this moment to disable the new hide Edit: I'm at work so don't have my book. Does it actually say, RAW, that attacking breaks stealth? I mean, in the interest of being an rear end in a top hat, can you attack in melee without breaking stealth? opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:I was thinking about switching from using 1d20 to using 3d6, to create a bell curve. What should advantage and disadvantage look like in this scenario? Presumably 4d6(take the highest 3) would be too minor a benefit, but would 6d6(take the highest 3) be too great a benefit? It depends on why you want to switch to 3d6. I don't mean "a bell curve," but what you're trying to achieve in terms of play experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Ranged is what I'm talking about, as it's very obvious in melee. I think being able to hide again immediately at disadvantage after popping out of cover for a pot shot is a good idea and probably how I would rule it - but why isn't there anything about it in the book? Just because you fire a bolt doesn't mean the enemy knows where you are, only the direction it came from. I guess you could also rule in a spot check at this moment to disable the new hide The Basic rules (which I assume are identical) say: D&D Basic Rules, p. 73 posted:If you are hidden---both unseen and unheard---when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Edit: I'm at work so don't have my book. Does it actually say, RAW, that attacking breaks stealth? I mean, in the interest of being an rear end in a top hat, can you attack in melee without breaking stealth? PHB says that when you attack, you reveal yourself and are thus no longer hidden, regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. There is a feat however that, among other things, makes you remain hidden if your attack misses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Cunning action is an excellent class feature. Rogues are basically permanently Hasted for free, except they can't use the bonus action to attack or cast a cantrip. Unless... The Thief build gets to Cunning Action to "Use an Item," and some items are used by taking improvised ranged attacks--alchemy flasks, oil, and holy water. Improvised weapons apparently have 20/60 range and deal 1d4 damage even if they resemble no weapon, so maybe a Tavern Brawler Thief could do some decent damage throwing crap at the enemy. Toss an oil pot then attack with something on fire every other round if being hidden offturn wasn't an issue? Maybe one could take the Healer feat and have a chance to do some backup healing and make sure the party member who keeps getting KO'd (there's always one) from missing their turns without giving up one's own. They can also wear heavy armor without penalty at level 9 as long as they move at half speed, which is mandatory for most characters who want to search and be stealthy in exploration anyway. And for all the flack the assassin got for its "impossible to use" lvl 17 feature Death Strike, which can double their damage on a surprised enemy they hit that then fails a save, the Thief's gives them pretty much the same thing with none of the hoops. Two turns on the first round of combat is potentially double damage, just a little slower, and all it requires is the thief isn't surprised (take the Alert feat).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:I don't think I'd have as much as a problem with 5e if it was the only RPG out there. Problem is, there are so many other RPGs out there that do a lot of things better than 5e that I really don't see much of the point of the system. WotC already poo poo the bed with the OGL and doomed themselves to playing second fiddle to Pathfinder, so there's not a very compelling reason to retread that ground. If people are still playing 2e, after weathering both 3e and 4e they're still going to keep playing 2e at this point. In terms of making a narrative game (which if people are still trying to fool themselves that an RPG based off of a wargame's rules is more narrative in scope than other RPGs, I salute your delusion), I think FATE's a far superior system (let alone the other niche elfgames out there). As a murderhobo dungeoncrawler, 4e has pretty much every other edition of D&D beat. As I've said before, I think 5e is largely aimed at AD&D fans who transitioned to 3e sorta against their will. There's a reason he tried to play up his OSR credentials for awhile and talk about how much he loooooves AD&D. 3e fans might want a simpler game with a less broken core, sure, but they also want 3e. They've had almost 15 years of 3.x material saved up. And that's not even touching Pathfinder fans who by and large have an incredible brand loyalty. Both at Pathfinder forums and a lot of 3.x forums, not everyone's biting. This is also why Mearls keeps saying "ASK YOUR DM" because that's exactly what this crowd wants. It's something I see often on ENWorld and the WotC forums - "Finally the DM has authority again!" If all the rules say "ASK YOUR DM" then those filthy peasant "players" can never quote a rule or get all uppity at their proper superiors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I think it's disingenuous to accuse OSR players of wanting to put their players in their 'place' and I think it's probably not even true in a majority of cases. True, there are a lot of people cheesed off that the DM had his power 'taken away' during the 3.X/4e era but I think a lot of what we see on grogs.txt and poo poo is weirdos and outlyers, people who feel so disempowered (sic) that they take to the internet to proclaim their superiority. There's a not-insignificant number of people in the 'Ask your DM' camp that just think that style of play is simpler. And I mean, they're right. Leaving it up to the DM to decide what is both fun and sensible is a lot easier then memorizing a bunch of rules. 'Seat of your pants' play just hums along, especially if the DM makes convincing rulings on the fly. I'm not saying it's better because there are a hell of a lot of potholes with that, and anyway without proper DMing advice it's all so much wasted breath, but I think it's important to remember most people who play TTRPGs do it because they think it's just normal, meat-and-potatoes fun and not because they're closeted sadists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Cunning action is an excellent class feature. Especially when you compare it to the Monk's terrible Step of the Wind. Trade your bonus unarmed strike for a less versatile cunning action AND it costs you ki points for the privilege!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
treeboy posted:in this example (sneak attack) rogues almost always have it available anyway since it activates if there's an ally within 5' of the target. Stealth would be more about trying to gain advantage for the reroll Could a pair of fighters dip into rogue to get sneak attack then always make sure to be up on the same target, activating sneak attack off each other every hit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Could a pair of fighters dip into rogue to get sneak attack then always make sure to be up on the same target, activating sneak attack off each other every hit? Better yet, a Ranger could do it and make sure their pet is always up on the same target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Could a pair of fighters dip into rogue to get sneak attack then always make sure to be up on the same target, activating sneak attack off each other every hit? As long as nothing gives them disadvantage on the attack, yep, totally can. If they're both Battle Masters with Commander's Strike then after level 6 they can each get a Sneak Attack on each other's turn. 5 levels of Fighter and 15 levels of Rogue is a pretty sweet run, all told.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Thanks to people who gave advice on switching to 3d6, particularly Fuschia tude - I'll play around on AnyDice with a few scenarios.Sir Kodiak posted:It depends on why you want to switch to 3d6. I don't mean "a bell curve," but what you're trying to achieve in terms of play experience. Yeah, "bell curve" isn't really a reason, huh? I guess I'd like a character's +2 proficiency bonus to matter more than it currently does, and having the dice produce mid-range results more often seems to do that, without requiring anything else to change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Yeah, "bell curve" isn't really a reason, huh? I guess I'd like a character's +2 proficiency bonus to matter more than it currently does, and having the dice produce mid-range results more often seems to do that, without requiring anything else to change. My suggestion: just give people more than +2 for the proficiency bonus. It will prevent you from having to consider the impact of this change on every other element of the die-rolling system. Moving to 3d6 significantly adjusts what a higher difficulty means, which is a core element of the combat and spellcasting mechanics. It is not worth it in order to make proficiency more meaningful when a simpler solution exists. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Thanks to people who gave advice on switching to 3d6, particularly Fuschia tude - I'll play around on AnyDice with a few scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There's a not-insignificant number of people in the 'Ask your DM' camp that just think that style of play is simpler. And I mean, they're right. Leaving it up to the DM to decide what is both fun and sensible is a lot easier then memorizing a bunch of rules. 'Seat of your pants' play just hums along, especially if the DM makes convincing rulings on the fly. I'm not saying it's better because there are a hell of a lot of potholes with that, and anyway without proper DMing advice it's all so much wasted breath, but I think it's important to remember most people who play TTRPGs do it because they think it's just normal, meat-and-potatoes fun and not because they're closeted sadists. It's not simpler, because everyone now has to memorize precedent table by table, leading to huge lists of house rules (which are already a problem either way) It's not more fun, because it results in arguments, uncertainty, disengagement and so on- apart of course from the always-anecdotal grogtable where none of these things happen. And what's worse, each of these things feed into the other- if you don't establish rulings, then the GMs variable whim IS going to result in more arguments, ect, and hence less fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Also forget about multiple DM campaigns. Especially regarding monstrous races or anything of equal importance to your character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's disingenuous to accuse OSR players of wanting to put their players in their 'place' and I think it's probably not even true in a majority of cases. True, there are a lot of people cheesed off that the DM had his power 'taken away' during the 3.X/4e era but I think a lot of what we see on grogs.txt and poo poo is weirdos and outlyers, people who feel so disempowered (sic) that they take to the internet to proclaim their superiority. 'Ask your DM' has never been an option that has been off the table in any edition of D&D ever. In any way. Coherent rules that clearly explain how the game is supposed to work and provide a balanced baseline without needing to get the DM involved is purely a benefit. Purely. Most especially for the DM who doesn't have to think about things that they don't consider important enough to their game for them to have an opinion on. Like rules. If people haven't learned a particular rule yet, then the DM just does it seat of the pants like always. It isn't simpler to have ill-defined hand-wavy rules that the player's can't understand without relying on the DM to adjudicate everything, because that means the DM has to adjudicate everything instead of simply telling a story and letting the system rules just run silently in the background. If the story and the system rules conflict in a scene, the DM just says: "well, normally its like this, but in this scene it is like how I want it because I want the story to do X", and everyone is OK with that because they've all seen at least one movie. The accusations of neckbeardy behavior largely stems from there being no leg to stand on for people railing against a coherent and well balanced rule system that provides clear rules for almost every situation that don't require DM adjudication: Because you can still ask the DM. Which makes people strongly suspect ulterior motives, and look for the sorts of behavior that ill defined rules benefit. The king nerd DM who demands to be bribed with pizzas and adulation else they may rule capriciously to amuse themselves with their ability to lay players low is the exact sort of setup that is mortally damaged by clear and balanced rules. Clear and balanced rules beg questions about why the DM needed to go off the rails. If there isn't a clear story reason, then the jig is up for the king nerd. When it is non stop fiat rulings because fiat rulings are required to make the game work, then they've got some plausible plausible deniability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There's a not-insignificant number of people in the 'Ask your DM' camp that just think that style of play is simpler. And I mean, they're right. Leaving it up to the DM to decide what is both fun and sensible is a lot easier then memorizing a bunch of rules. 'Seat of your pants' play just hums along, especially if the DM makes convincing rulings on the fly. I'm not saying it's better because there are a hell of a lot of potholes with that, and anyway without proper DMing advice it's all so much wasted breath, but I think it's important to remember most people who play TTRPGs do it because they think it's just normal, meat-and-potatoes fun and not because they're closeted sadists. The problem is this - 'Ask your DM' happens in just about every game ever. It happens when you need arbitration on a poorly thought-out or badly implemented rule. With this in mind, it sounds like when they keep saying 'Ask the DM' that they deliberately made a poorly-designed set of rules so that you'd have to ask a DM, then turned around and advertised it as a feature. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Re: cool martial stuff. How about a last stand type ability? You get huge buffs (set strength to 30, gain advantage on every attack, maybe have really high spell resistance) but are guaranteed to die at the end? Although, perhaps it would be better as a rule and not a class ability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Re: cool martial stuff. Once per campaign, make a Famous Last Stand (otherwise known as "Hold the bridge!" or "I'll stop them, you get out the back" or "you shall not pass"). Immediately, the following occurs. - Enemies cannot move you - you cannot be pushed, pulled, dragged, knocked prone, etc unless you choose to be. - You automatically succeed on all saves. - You gain <Max HP> temporary hit points. - You can make an attaack against every enemy as they move into your reach. - You make an attack with advantage which automatically crits on a hit against every enemy who moves out of your reach. If these enemies survive, they must flee like the bitches they are. - When you run out of hitpoints, you get to fight for one more round. - When you run out of enemies (or HP then your extra round) you are stone dead forever (of exhaustion if not wounds), no chance of resurrection or revival, but 3d12 statues of you are built throughout the kingdom and songs are sung of your famous last stand for 4d100 years. - Something else cool happens, which means you go down in legend. DM will have to wing it, but it should be a legendary thing like "Afterwards, they were scared to fight him for 3 days and 3 nights, because -unmoving and undeterred- he still held the bridge! When someone finally got the courage to approach his still-standing body, they found that the spears and arrows that had pierced him held him upright, as if he was still daring them to come and fight". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's disingenuous to accuse OSR players of wanting to put their players in their 'place' and I think it's probably not even true in a majority of cases. True, there are a lot of people cheesed off that the DM had his power 'taken away' during the 3.X/4e era but I think a lot of what we see on grogs.txt and poo poo is weirdos and outlyers, people who feel so disempowered (sic) that they take to the internet to proclaim their superiority. "Ask your DM" was always an option. No small number of 5e fans don't want it to be an "option." They want it to be mandated. I mean think about it. Both Mearls and players have been touting "Finally a game that EMPOWERS the DM." The DM has literally always had all the power in the game. The only difference is now players don't have any rules they can look at at understand. This isn't "you can ask your DM," it's "you MUST ask your DM." This is only "empowering" if you think the DM has to actually be the most and only important person in the game who decides everything. So every time someone says "Ok but it EMPOWERS the DM!" they're saying "I need my players to obey me."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"Ask your DM" was always an option. You might be giving WotC a little too much credit for that design choice. I'm not saying it isn't malicious and stupid, but I would bet on it being because they are malicious, stupid and lazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Once per campaign, make a Famous Last Stand (otherwise known as "Hold the bridge!" or "I'll stop them, you get out the back" or "you shall not pass"). I think once per campaign should probably be more like once per week. I have more to say about fighters, but before I do: Yeah, sure, the 5e art is good, but I'm looking through the Hoard of the Dragon Queen book right now and... well, it could be better. It's actually pretty disappointing when almost every MTG card to come out in the past few years has such amazing art. Anyway, back to the fighter: I have two ideas for redesigning the class (and other martial classes) that I think would be very interesting. One: instead of having an archetype based around having "superiority dice", just give fighters a flat dice pool that they can use - similar to a spell pool. They get so many per long rest, and can add them to any roll that uses strength or con. Then, at certain levels in increments, they get access to abilities that utilize them in interesting ways. Abilities that mimic something a hero would be able to do. Some examples would be: Levels 1-4: Warlord; Short Rest; When rolling your initiative, you may also expend and roll a power die and add your dexterity modifier. The result counts as a second initiative step for you until you are forced to re-roll initiative or the encounter ends. (makes fighters really good at low levels and also keeps them relevant as players level by giving them an action advantage) Levels 5-9: Skewer; Short Rest; When making a charge attack, you do not have to stop at the first enemy you hit. Any enemy you move through while charging is pushed to the end of your charge. Expend and roll as many power dice as you wish. You deal this much damage to each enemy hit in this way. (a level 5+ fighter doesn't need to FIGHT goblins; he just kills them) Levels 10-14: Beowulf's Strength; Long Rest; When you successfully hit an enemy humanoid or monstrous humanoid with an attack, declare that you are using this power and expend and roll as many power dice as you wish and add the result to the damage. If you deal more than a quarter of the enemy's health in damage with this attack, you may choose a limb of theirs and dismember it. You may not make any further attack actions this round. Level 15-20; Fissure; Long Rest(? maybe weekly); Instead of attacking, you may choose to slam the ground with such strength that you create a fissure that leads to an alternate dimension. Expend and roll a power dice and multiply the result by 5. The fissure is that many feet long and five feet wide. Any medium size creature caught in the fissure must make a dexterity save (DC 8 + Proficiency + 1/2 Fighter Level) or fall in. Any medium size creature that wishes to cross the fissure must also make a dexterity save to avoid being pulled in. On a successful save, the fissure deals 4d6 chaos damage. The fissure is permanent. Consult the (nonexistent) chart to see which dimension the fissure leads to. (hey! the fighter gets a save-or-die spell for medium creatures and also battlefield control! oh and he can also, of course, push the enemy in or throw them in or whatever after the fissure is created. since it doesn't actually kill the creature sucked in, an unsuccessful save serves as fight avoidance against high cr monsters/BBEGs. this ability is possibly broken but so are wizards, so) Level 15-20; Kingdom; Permanent; You now own land and a castle with Level x Charisma Mod (min. 1) CR 6 Knights, and Level x Proficiency CR 2 Soldiers, and 500 Residents. Where this is located and how you acquire it is up to... you AND the DM. At the beginning of each month, you may roll all of your power dice and multiply the result by (a anumber) and gain that much gold. Power dice rolled in this way do not count as spent. All are just fun ideas/examples that could really use rewrites, but you get the idea. The second idea is a set of Weapon Skills that function really closely to 4e Powers. Basically, depending on what weapon the fighter is wielding, they get special attacks they can use in place of basic attacks. Things like Crushing Blow (Mace; Short Rest): On a successful attack, deal normal damage and also 1d4 Con damage. Rogues might get something like: Deadly Daggers (Daggers; At-Will): On a successful sneak attack, deal +2d6 sneak attack damage. Do you think this is a good direction to take martial classes in? Rogues would get things like Thought Steal, Barbarians would get things like Summon World Wolf (summons a huge wolf to fight alongside you for the remainder of the encounter), etc.. opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Something that irked me from the Grendel arm-rip discussion some pages ago is the idea of HP as an abstract concept closer to 'Stamina' than 'Health'. If you assume that only the final blow is fatal, and that Grendel and Beowulf fought all night before the arm rip... does D&D not model this perfectly? You punched him until his HP reached 0 (HP being his Stamina) and then the DM allows you to describe how you finish him. If an arm rip is the method the player chooses.. it doesn't upset anything.. no monster lives below 0 health unless they're a recurring villain. If it's a recurring villain - he's coming back to take your arm next time as vengeance for taking his.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
5e is the D&D that D&D fans deserve. (That was not an endorsement.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:5e is the D&D that D&D fans deserve. I wonder how many people in this thread are just waiting for 5.5. They did it with 3e and 4e (the Essentials).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:I think once per campaign should probably be more like once per week. It's a last stand. You can only do it once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's a last stand. You can only do it once. Maybe you should make them way better then!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:08
|
|