|
Elmo Oxygen posted:Is there any good reason you guys can think of why the Incapacitated status effect still allows movement? Several other conditions which list incapacitated as a subcondition then immediately state "and also you can't move" so you are clearly correct. I think they just chose a really non-intuitive name for the 'can't take actions' condition.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Can a Tome Warlock cast the skeleton summoning spell? I'm wondering if you could play a simple necromancer by running a Tome warlock. Nope. Pact of the Tome lets you cast 3 cantrips of your choice from any class's spell list (I'm not sure if you can get them from 3 different classes), and any number of rituals if you take the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation. Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell and it's not a ritual, so it's ineligible. EDIT: The quick build suggestion has Ray of Sickness listed as a 1st level spell a Warlock should take, but that's not actually on the Warlock's spell list. Maybe you could try asking your DM for permission. 
dublish fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
dublish posted:Nope. Pact of the Tome lets you cast 3 cantrips of your choice from any class's spell list (I'm not sure if you can get them from 3 different classes), and any number of rituals if you take the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation. Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell and it's not a ritual, so it's ineligible. This. Interestingly what the Book of Ancient Secrets does allow you is the Find Familiar spell as a ritual - or about 75% of the benefit of Pact of the Chain. Book is far and away the best pact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not sure why them being dark arts or not is relevant to the discussion, considering that we got into this because I mentioned Dumbledore being more like a D&D wizard than the older fictional examples being presented. Because in the paragraph you quoted I specifically singled out the Dark Arts (more specifically the three Unforgivable Curses).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
How would D&D 5e fair if you gutted the spellcaster lists of utility spells like Knock, Invisibility, etc. and made those Class Features for non-casters? For example, putting Invisibility in as a Rogue class feature at ~5-6th level, and Greater Invisibility in at a higher level. The Rogue can do this x/day or whatever to put a hard cap on it. Wizard and other casters would not have access to these effects anymore, which is fair as we already have emerging specialized spell lists within things like Druid, Cleric, and hell even Paladin and Ranger. So why not Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, etc with their own unit Spell-esque abilities. And of course put more rails on the caster freight train, like only being able to cast out of 1-2 schools you specialize in. I'm not saying it would fix everything, or anything really, nor bring it up to the level 4e was but i'm curious. Another gut feeling idea I've been playing with for the Fighter, how does this sound; Champion and Battle Master fighter builds should be a default part of the Fighter class. Every non-caster should have access to the Maneuvers and d6 or d8 Superiority dice (varying by class.) Superiority dice should be one a turn and recharge every round, unless you're a Fighter who then gets lots of superiority dice and they all recharge every round. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:This. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, but none of the pacts really thrill me. Blade gives you a weapon that changes its form (unless you want a magic weapon). Chain gives you the familiar whose only advantage over regular familiars is a poor attack and a low DC poison that can only be used if you give up your own attack. Tome lets you learn 3 extra cantrips and an underwhelming selection of ritual spells. Am I just being too pessimistic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:They actually are going to be selling spell cards, one deck for each class, except wizards, sorcerors and warlocks share a single deck Yeah -- I really like the look of these and will probably get them when they come out. I only rolled my own because we're playing again real soon, and I knew if I didn't make some sort of easier reference, the wizard would just end up casting the same spell over and over again. He also totally ignored cantrips, and Mage Hand and Prestidigitation probably would've come in handy from time to time. I'm also thinking of making spell slot cards, big 1s and 2s and the like, with a number in the corner to indicate what level you gain that slot at... LuiCypher posted:Watch it there, dude. You're venturing dangerously close to 4e territory. Some more forceful, more adventurous personalities might suggest to you that if you're already making 'spell cards' or even 'ability cards' you might as well abandon the pretense of 5e and 'go back' to 4e. I can't "go back" to 4E because I haven't played it and don't own it. The last time I ran D&D was 2E, and I only ever played in one 3E game, and that was with an alternate player's handbook (Arcana Unearthed?). I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other and would play it if I got the chance, but 5E for me is more about a new edition coinciding with a resurgence of my own interest in RPGs. I've got this home game, am playing in a game at my FLGS, and it looks like I'll be running Stonehell Dungeon in 5E at the store starting next month... atholbrose fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I just wanted to point out that in the world of Harry Potter, everyone with any kind of impact on the plot at all is a witch or wizard, or otherwise capable of performing magic, and muggles are only ever portrayed as clueless victims. It is caster supremacy taken to its logical conclusion. I want to point out that magic in harry potter almost always creates problems and very rarely solves them and even when it does it doesn't do so directly. Harry is literally the jock of the wizarding world (he's even good at wizard sports)and solves almost all his problems trough physical prowess, luck and heart, never magical skill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:How would D&D 5e fair if you gutted the spellcaster lists of utility spells like Knock, Invisibility, etc. and made those Class Features for non-casters? For example, putting Invisibility in as a Rogue class feature at ~5-6th level, and Greater Invisibility in at a higher level. The Rogue can do this x/day or whatever to put a hard cap on it. Wizard and other casters would not have access to these effects anymore, which is fair as we already have emerging specialized spell lists within things like Druid, Cleric, and hell even Paladin and Ranger. So why not Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, etc with their own unit Spell-esque abilities. I wouldn't remove powers from any class (and, obviously, add them to the classes that get none) and tier them like: 1. You've mastered these and practice them regularly; at any time, you can spend one of your power points or spell slots or whatever to deploy one 2. You've studied these and are familiar with them but you need at least a little time and/or cash and the right set of circumstances to use one, or to swap it with one of the powers you've got in tier 1 3. These are available to your class and so technically within your powers, but you haven't really studied or practiced them at all; if they're really far below your level you can improvise them easily, but otherwise you'd need to retrain them at least up to tier 2, or else spend lots of time and money setting one of them up for a single use in a specific way In familiar terms, a wizard wouldn't have to commit to a single school or whatever, but the number of spells they can keep in their spellbook would be limited by class level just like the number of spells they can prepare at once is. Wanna cast Knock? Sure - you've learned how to open a lock with magic, which is at least as hard as opening it with your hands (but certainly useful, even if you've also got a rogue around - it can work at a distance, or affect a ghostlock that solid hands pass through, or whatever). That took up time you could've used studying something else, though. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I wouldn't remove powers from any class (and, obviously, add them to the classes that get none) and tier them like: Actually, if you are interested, here is my misguided attempt at house rules after minimal playtesting and going by my gut instinct (which I imagine is what the devs did too, heh.) edit: This is a really quick, roughshod method. I think Ferrinus' is probably a better example of what to do. Maybe use a Superiority Dice/Action Point/Power Point/whatever system for non-casters to mimic spells relevant to their class niche? Though there are particular (non-caster) class features I would still deeply consider altering on a fundamental level. Specific ones that have been demonstrated worse than their Spell counterparts. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
I haven't played since 3.5 (and one terrible attempt at 4.0) but was thinking about getting back into it. Is next better than 4.0? And how different is it than 3.5. Is it worth learning now, or should I wait for more books to come out before committing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I want to point out that magic in harry potter almost always creates problems and very rarely solves them and even when it does it doesn't do so directly. Harry is literally the jock of the wizarding world (he's even good at wizard sports)and solves almost all his problems trough physical prowess, luck and heart, never magical skill. It's really funny to realize that wizard fans always point out the equivalent of NPCs as the characters they want to play as, never PCs. They don't want to be players. They want to be authors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I want to point out that magic in harry potter almost always creates problems and very rarely solves them and even when it does it doesn't do so directly. Harry is literally the jock of the wizarding world (he's even good at wizard sports)and solves almost all his problems trough physical prowess, luck and heart, never magical skill. Except when he wins magic duals using only low level counter spells, an obscure wand rules the
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
RC Cola posted:Is next better than 4.0? And how different is it than 3.5. Is it worth learning now, or should I wait for more books to come out before committing? As for better than 4.0: Objectively, the rules are not as clean. That said, they perform very differently so that's a tough comparison to make when someone is asking if they should play it or not. It's different from 3.5, but not at a glance. They share the same themes and have similar design philosophies. It would be hard for me to recommend 3.5/PF over 5e. Now is the perfect time to jump in. Everything you need to run a strong campaign exists, and the next two books will be out not too far from here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I wouldn't remove powers from any class (and, obviously, add them to the classes that get none) and tier them like: This still doesn't solve the overall issue of casters simply being good at everything. Especially as the wizard levels and more and more spells become available to keep in their spellbook. Or they simply carry two spellbooks and get around this issue. Wizards (and Clerics as well to a slightly lesser extent) are a kitchen sink class. They will always be stronger and more versatile as long as they can do everything everyone else can just as well, if not better. Let the rogue be permanently invisible and unlock any door. The wizard can still fly and shoot fireballs while polymorphing demons and himself into dragons, open doors where there was not door to even unlock, and force NPCs to do what he wants. People keep saying 4e didn't limit the scope and versatility of the wizard, but it explicitly did by putting hard limits on the number of spells you could obtain, requiring you to actually choose between specific spells at given levels (3 spells, choose 2), as well as shifting many utility spells to rituals, which anyone could cast (much like scrolls in 5e). Wizard isn't a class like the martials and even the other casters as much as it is a vague abstract concept with no limits. edit: sometimes class and game design isn't about adding more buttons to push, it's making sure that what buttons you do have do something interesting and unique which allows you to act within the system in ways others cannot (or cannot as effectively/efficiently). At the moment the Fighter's buttons are a little underpowered and at times dull. He could also use a little more variety especially the base class progression. Meanwhile caster classes have 200 buttons, some of them break the game, others are inconsequential, and there's no real limit to how those buttons can be arranged. Talent Trees are a thing in most games these days for a reason. Games like Skyrim and UO limit the progression or total amount of skills for a reason. Fighters are generally playing by the system, someone gave Wizards debug commands. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Because in the paragraph you quoted I specifically singled out the Dark Arts (more specifically the three Unforgivable Curses). I assumed you were using those as an example and not the start to a bizarre new tangent exclusively about the merits of the Dark Arts in the world of Harry Potter that was disconnected from the discussion of portrayals of magic in popular culture and D&D in general. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:despite the fact that this is a lovely post, card style powers are something really cool about 4e and if they sold decks of cards for each class spell list, they'd probably make good money. Regardless of your opinions about my humor, you probably should have been employed by WotC for that brilliant idea about selling 4e power cards. That alone might've reversed the 4e sales trend, kept it alive, and made it easier to play (although many may argue that "Cards? In my D&D?! Wizards is turning D&D into another MtG ROAAAAAR!!!" would have been a thing... Well, Magic sells a boatload more than D&D does). RC Cola posted:I haven't played since 3.5 (and one terrible attempt at 4.0) but was thinking about getting back into it. Is next better than 4.0? And how different is it than 3.5. Is it worth learning now, or should I wait for more books to come out before committing? As much as I would love to jokingly say to just play 4e and forget about everything else, it's a good question to field. Objectively, 5e is just a refined version of 3.5 with a lot of vagueness added in (we're not joking when we say the designer's response to all rules clarification is "it's up to your DM" - nevermind the fact that the DMG hasn't even been released yet). 4e's rules are extremely clear-cut and are typically not up to interpretation. It does make combat a lot of fun though because it allows PCs and DMs to go all-out on each other without worry - the system is designed so that a proper combat encounter allows to DM to not pull punches and gives the PCs tools to counter that. Is 5e better than 4e, though? Objectively, no. Subjectively, it's very dependent on what you're looking for out of an RPG. If you want the classic murderhobo dungeon crawl, I would tell you 4e unequivocally. If you want high, player-driven drama, I'd suggest a different system entirely. If you want something that feels like 3.5e with mild quality of life improvements (i.e., you want something that feels comfortable) then you'll probably feel like 5e is better than 4e. Honestly, if you are curious about 4e I would read the 4e thread to get a better impression of the rules. If you ask a question, don't couch the language in "is 5e better than 4e?" (this is folly and will probably only get you one-word answers of "yes") - ask what they think 4e does really well versus 3.5e/5e and where they think it falls short and suggestions for learning it/running it well. As for 5e, I would advocate a wait-and-see approach. It's in a state where there's too little out to make a definitive statement, but there's just enough in the PHB, the adventure modules, and Mike Mearls' tweets to give you a decent impression as to the direction that the next two core rulebooks will take and the product line as a whole. The big upside, I think, of starting again with 5e now is that your FLGS is probably running a weekly 5e session as part of Wizards' D&D Encounters marketing drive. If you have an FLGS, it will be a lot easier to find players and DMs at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
treeboy posted:This still doesn't solve the overall issue of casters simply being good at everything. Especially as the wizard levels and more and more spells become available to keep in their spellbook. Or they simply carry two spellbooks and get around this issue. Why did you quote my post but not read it? I said there should be a limit on how many powers someone can know at once, and a limit on how many they can hold in reserve to be swapped into their active set. Like in 4e, which didn't limit the scope or versatility of the wizard (every spell or game effect was still there; one wizard could use spells of every school, deploy a bunch of varied rituals, etc), but unified the core mechanics that controlled how PCs used powers. A 4e wizard wasn't allowed to say "oh, I bring two spellbooks so I have twice as many powers". That's not how it worked. You don't have to compress things to the level that 4e did. You could give every class an infinitely wide library of reserve powers that they can swap into their active powers at the end of every day - how versatile each character is in the absolute sense is a matter of taste. But you have to give everyone powers, because D&D is about using special powers. Like I said, you can restrict every wizard to a single school of magic, and even only to spells from that school that are of odd-numbered spell level, or start with consonants, or whatever, and it'll still be bullshit if you don't give fighters and rogues any powers. It'll make the game more challenging for wizards, but "I can't challenge my wizard!" isn't the problem, "My fighter lacks meaningful agency!" is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Regardless of your opinions about my humor, you probably should have been employed by WotC for that brilliant idea about selling 4e power cards. That alone might've reversed the 4e sales trend, kept it alive, and made it easier to play (although many may argue that "Cards? In my D&D?! Wizards is turning D&D into another MtG ROAAAAAR!!!" would have been a thing... Well, Magic sells a boatload more than D&D does).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Excuse me, the fighter can grapple all day. Plenty of agency
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Is 5e better than 4e, though? Objectively, no. Subjectively, it's very dependent on what you're looking for out of an RPG. If you want the classic murderhobo dungeon crawl, I would tell you 4e unequivocally. I think you're framing this a little wrong. They already said they didn't like 4e. Basically, 5e is going to be a big step backwards for anyone who liked 4e more than 3e. For people who prefer 3e/Pathfinder, it's a pretty solid improvement (probably. . .the game will inevitably get more and more broken as we get more content/get better at breaking it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I assumed you were using those as an example and not the start to a bizarre new tangent exclusively about the merits of the Dark Arts in the world of Harry Potter that was disconnected from the discussion of portrayals of magic in popular culture and D&D in general. My mistake. Sorry, I assumed it was clear that was just a tangent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Regardless of your opinions about my humor, you probably should have been employed by WotC for that brilliant idea about selling 4e power cards. That alone might've reversed the 4e sales trend, kept it alive, and made it easier to play (although many may argue that "Cards? In my D&D?! Wizards is turning D&D into another MtG ROAAAAAR!!!" would have been a thing... Well, Magic sells a boatload more than D&D does).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Like I said, you can restrict every wizard to a single school of magic, and even only to spells from that school that are of odd-numbered spell level, or start with consonants, or whatever, and it'll still be bullshit if you don't give fighters and rogues any powers. It'll make the game more challenging for wizards, but "I can't challenge my wizard!" isn't the problem, "My fighter lacks meaningful agency!" is. I don't think we need to limit our conception of 3.x/5e to the idea that they only have one problem. D&D wizards being thematically incoherent is also a problem. Though, yes, probably not the biggest problem. edit: PeterWeller posted:Sorry, I assumed it was clear that was just a tangent. Just caught this edit. No worries, just a misunderstanding. I definitely could have been more polite in my response. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't think we need to limit our conception of 3.x/5e to the idea that they only have one problem. D&D wizards being thematically incoherent is also a problem. Though, yes, probably not the biggest problem. They're only thematically incoherent with fighters and rogues, though. Not with druids or clerics. In just the same way that "magic" can be used as the explanation for a thousand different discrete actions, "cleverness" or "heroism" or "skill" could be - it's just that only the former happens, ever. To summarize my position, "You can know any ten spells you want, of any kind" is better than "You can know an infinite number of spells, but they all have to be necromancies".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Gonna pick Shadow Conjuration, Greater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Thankfully, the Shadow Weave did not survive the Spell Plague and that spell is gone forever. Sir Kodiak posted:Just caught this edit. No worries, just a misunderstanding. I definitely could have been more polite in my response. Ain't no thang (hence the edit  ). I should have set it off with "as an aside," but I though it had a little relevance to the main point as an example of how foolish dark wizards are in thinking they could conquer muggles. Anyway, it's wrong to say as some others have that HP magic is unreliable and the protagonists don't really use it. Magic being reproducable and reliable is one of the ways in which HP magic is very much like D&D magic. And while Harry and friends may just rely on their natural talents to secure the Sorcerer's Stone, in all their other trials, they make wide use of spells and magic items. poo poo, book 2 is about using a magic sword to fight a basilisk and destroy a liche's phylactery. It is D&D as gently caress. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
So someone tell me how FR is changing to suit 5e's rules changes and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
S.J. posted:So someone tell me how FR is changing to suit 5e's rules changes and poo poo There aren't actually a huge number of rules changes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:There aren't actually a huge number of rules changes. I think what S.J. meant was how is FR's storyline and world changing to accommodate the change in ruleset from 4E to 5E. Because that's something that's apparently important for FR to do when new editions come out. My understanding is that, much like 5E itself, FR will do whatever it can to pretend 4E never happened, and go back to the way things were. E.g., spell weave is back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Elminster's back. And he's pissed. E: wasn't an Elminster vs. Drizzt book once in the works because I can tell you how that fight would have gone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Elminster's back. And he's pissed. Depends. How much prep time does Drizzt have?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Verklemptomaniac posted:Depends. How much prep time does Drizzt have? Less than Elminster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
S.J. posted:So someone tell me how FR is changing to suit 5e's rules changes and poo poo Ao is rewriting the Tablets of Fate and FR looks like it will turn into a "best of" version of itself. Details are still sparse at this point, as the Sundering novels only really covered the beginning of the event, it's still happening, and they are not (yet) working on a 5E campaign guide. What we know is most of the dead gods are/will be back, including Bhaal, and some bits of 4E FR will survive because of novel concerns. E: and clearly any duel between Drizzt and Elminster would be decided by Alustriel and probably wouldn't involve a fight. Haven't Arivia and I taught you all anything about this setting? PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
So my group is pretty psyched to start playing 5e. Will be running the Hoard of the Dragon Queen for now since we have to learn the systems. The system looks like a lot of fun coming from only ever playing 4e. Love the advantage/disadvantage system and the general feel of combat. I don't really see the big issue with wizard that other people in the thread seem to be having but who knows, might change one the players get higher level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Imazul posted:I don't really see the big issue with wizard that other people in the thread seem to be having but who knows, might change one the players get higher level. I figure most of the time the whole caster supremacy thing doesn't rear its head until level 8 or so. In 3.x I played a cleric and felt pretty pathetic next to the fighter and our rogue until level 10, and then it was just disgusting the buffs I could stack, and I wasn't even trying to break the system or anything. Obviously things are at least a bit different this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
It's back to the 3E model where you earn your fun. At level 1 a wizard is dull. By 8-12 you are clearly better than everyone else. At 13+ you just rule the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I figure most of the time the whole caster supremacy thing doesn't rear its head until level 8 or so. In 3.x I played a cleric and felt pretty pathetic next to the fighter and our rogue until level 10, and then it was just disgusting the buffs I could stack, and I wasn't even trying to break the system or anything. To be honest it's not just the caster supremacy thing (though that's certainly *a* thing.) What's bugged me about it in relatively low-level 5E games so far is the extent to which non-caster turns boil down to "I attack" and caster turns are "well, hmm, I could sleep these three dudes, or I could Burning Hands - can I get the Burning Hands to hit those two goblins and the orc, or would it only hit the Goblins? Okay, is the orc in range for me to use Hold Person on it? Can I use a 3rd level slot and hit the orc and one of the goblins? Maybe I should just save the slots and use a Cantrip. What do you guys think?" The caster's choosing between a variety of interesting effects and the non-casters are largely choosing which person to hit. Occasionally as a non-caster you get to decide whether you want to hit something, or hit something harder (via barbarian rage, hunter's mark, sneak attack, etc.) That's about it, with a few relatively narrow and minor exceptions. And before someone says it, my players are plenty "creative" and capable of doing interesting things like pushing enemies off balconies and into fires and dropping chandeliers on their heads. And I try to give them as many opportunities to fight on swaying rope bridges and on the top of the King's Tower and inside burning buildings and underwater and in the evil wizard's ritual circle where every step is a fight against the gravity of the thousand suns the evil wizard has harnessed to fuel his dark magics and so on. But when the bulk of combat-related creativity has to come from the environment you're fighting in, rather than the abilities spelled out on your character sheet, even the most creative players (especially the most creative players?) will start to feel like they're being stifled by playing a non-caster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
I wanted to get a second opinion from you guys about a way I managed the checks a player made in the last session I DM'd (first time DM). We're playing 5E. The player wanted to take a rope from his inventory, make a lasso with it, and then round up a goblin and yank it to knock him prone. I had him make a Survival check (for knowledge of lasso and trap making with the rope), then a Dexterity check for the accuracy of the throw, and then a Strength contest with the goblin which ended up with the goblin losing and thus knocking him prone. Does that sound about right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
LoboLoboLobo posted:I wanted to get a second opinion from you guys about a way I managed the checks a player made in the last session I DM'd (first time DM). We're playing 5E. The player wanted to take a rope from his inventory, make a lasso with it, and then round up a goblin and yank it to knock him prone. I had him make a Survival check (for knowledge of lasso and trap making with the rope), then a Dexterity check for the accuracy of the throw, and then a Strength contest with the goblin which ended up with the goblin losing and thus knocking him prone. Does that sound about right? You should cut down on the number of rolls. I'd skip the initial survival check, and instead just give him prof on the dex and str checks if he was proficient in survival or had an appropriate background.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:35
|
|