|
MonsterEnvy posted:I am not saying that! Is the reply. I have never once said that. Ok, so why do you think telling me to ignore the part of the book that I don't like will somehow change my opinion about that part of the book?
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You make stuff up all the loving time. Making stuff up is not the same as making a mistake. And with the fire ball circle thing it only does not work when you increase the size of the circle which fire ball always has the same size of. AlphaDog posted:Ok, so why do you think telling me to ignore the part of the book that I don't like will somehow change my opinion about that part of the book? Because your ignoring it so it should not factor into your opinion of the book at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:8d6 damage 20 ft radius sphere. You have to look at in once in the new edition to know how it works. It also spreads around corners, but how far? You can cast with a higher-level spell slot to do extra d6s of damage. Do monsters get spell slots? It ignites flammable materials in the area. What happens to them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
So as a newbie to 5e, I've got a question. How does running a campaign work before they release the Monsters Manual and the DMG? How is the DM supposed to make up balanced monsters, traps, etc? I've got a group of friends that is just starting a campaign so we have our choice of edition, but a lot of them have heard "4e is bad for role-playing" so they wanna do 3.5 or 5e. Personally I think 3.5 has some pretty serious balance issues w/r/t spellcasters, so I'd be interested in doing 5e if we can get it to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:"This monster can cast fire ball, detect magic, Hold Monster and Wall of Fire. it's a piece of crap because I have to look up what it can do." To which I say you are super lazy and stupid if you can't remember what fireball does. Wall of Fire is the only one worth looking up and if you are too lazy to do so then simply don't use the spell just use the other powers the monster can use. Yes, that is exactly what people are talking about. Not inane bullshit like quote:Cantrips (at will): light, sacred flame, thaumaturgy Don't ever stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Kortel posted:We... do rolls for fun? We also do arrays and pregenerated characters. Play several other systems, all have pros and cons. Systems and settings determine what we feel like playing. Every system we play has things we like about that that help reinforce the narrative aspect. We also take the bads of each system, house rule where needed. "We anecdotally find this fun, the end" when it's already been spelled out why that's effectively meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Because your ignoring it so it should not factor into your opinion of the book at all. Ok, maybe we're getting somewhere then, because I want to know why you think this. Like, is there anything else that is perfect because you can just ignore any flaws, or is it just this particular Dungeons & Dragons rulebook?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So as a newbie to 5e, I've got a question. How does running a campaign work before they release the Monsters Manual and the DMG? How is the DM supposed to make up balanced monsters, traps, etc? I've got a group of friends that is just starting a campaign so we have our choice of edition, but a lot of them have heard "4e is bad for role-playing" so they wanna do 3.5 or 5e. Personally I think 3.5 has some pretty serious balance issues w/r/t spellcasters, so I'd be interested in doing 5e if we can get it to work. Everthing you need to successfully run a game (including monsters, magic items, and otherwise) is available here: DnD Basic Rules As for traps, yeah, you'll probably have to make those up. All of those issues are still present in 5e, but 5e is still a better system in my opinion. Also, I don't know if I would say 4e is bad for roleplaying. It's mostly just extremely neutral on it (i.e. make your own fun variety).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:It also spreads around corners, but how far? Corners don't provide protection. It does not say how far so how many ft a are left in the spell are how far it spreads. Unless monsters have spellcasting no. Innate spellcasting does not give slots. Flammable meterials are burned. They are probably destroyed. The 1st and 3rd honestly don't matter that much
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
What do I do if I have a bad DM? Houseruling problems is always a good idea in any system, but what if it is flawed or not implimented?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:What do I do if I have a bad DM? Houseruling problems is always a good idea in any system, but what if the actual houserule is flawed or shut down? You talk to him outside of the game or find a new DM or suffer through it if the pros outweigh the cons. This kind of question sorta trails the line for life advice rather than Dungeons and Dragons discussion. The number one rule to hanging out and playing dungeons and dragons is to not hang out with and play with lovely people. Well, the number one rule is to have fun, but those usually go hand in hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Ok, maybe we're getting somewhere then, because I want to know why you think this. Like, is there anything else that is perfect because you can just ignore any flaws, or is it just this particular Dungeons & Dragons rulebook? With stuff like rolling if their is an option that replaces it that is just as valid then yes it does not matter. For stuff being ignored were there is nothing that can be used to replace it in the book then that is a problem and I would consider it a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So as a newbie to 5e, I've got a question. How does running a campaign work before they release the Monsters Manual and the DMG? How is the DM supposed to make up balanced monsters, traps, etc? I've got a group of friends that is just starting a campaign so we have our choice of edition, but a lot of them have heard "4e is bad for role-playing" so they wanna do 3.5 or 5e. Personally I think 3.5 has some pretty serious balance issues w/r/t spellcasters, so I'd be interested in doing 5e if we can get it to work. Here it's on the wizards site. http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/hoard-dragon-queen http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules DM basic rules contains more monsters and Magic items along with how to build encounters. Hoard of the Dragon Queens online supplement contains even more monsters, magic items and a few spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:You talk to him outside of the game or find a new DM or suffer through it if the pros outweigh the cons. This kind of question sorta trails the line for life advice rather than Dungeons and Dragons discussion. Why can't I just have a game good enough that someone's limited understanding of the rules doesn't actively damage my experience? Why is this considered pie-in-the-sky?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:With stuff like rolling if their is an option that replaces it that is just as valid then yes it does not matter. For stuff being ignored were there is nothing that can be used to replace it in the book then that is a problem and I would consider it a flaw.  You were agreeing with me all along?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Why can't I just have a game good enough that someone's limited understanding of the rules doesn't actively damage my experience? Why is this considered pie-in-the-sky? That is a issue with all games that are run by someone. It's a issue that can be best solved by talking it over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
Apparently. I had no idea we agreed ether. I find it kind of funny in the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Why can't I just have a game good enough that someone's limited understanding of the rules doesn't actively damage my experience? Why is this considered pie-in-the-sky? This becomes harder and harder to accomplish with more and more rules. Dungeon World is probably a good go for a system like this, but you're still gonna have a bad time if you don't like who you're playing with and how they play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Apparently. I had no idea we agreed ether. I find it kind of funny in the end. Just to confirm, when I say that I don't like monsters with spell lists because it's lazy design and introduces points of slowdown and confusion that don't need to be there, you will say what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a perfect system. You can argue about numbers and rules and how X system is not fun because NUMBERS all you want. Maybe you should switch over to uh... actual wargames rather than a narrative system supported by poorly balanced systems? I will honestly never understand how players function in such an enviroment. If you find something not entertaining or agree with the decions made in the system... do not play it? Recommend another system to your group?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Kortel posted:There is no such thing as a perfect system. No one is arguing for perfect. Drop the strawman. Wanting to have good rules that don't oppose you at nearly every turn is not a bad thing. Wanting better rules is not something to slam with the dumbest strawman pertaining to rules, the one about "perfection".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
I was just told that a game is not fun because numbers. I am not trying to straw man. Players have fun for differt reasons, I do not understand one of those reason and recommend that if a game doesn't support a need then why play that system if there are plenty of other options. In this case there are five editins to pick from. I do not mean to seem like I was attacking some one. Genuine question: what about 5E do you folks actually enjoy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Kortel posted:I was just told that a game is not fun because numbers. No you weren't. You were told OneThousandMonkeys posted:"We anecdotally find this fun, the end" when it's already been spelled out why that's effectively meaningless. which is not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Kortel posted:I was just told that a game is not fun because numbers. No, you weren't. You were told that mechanically, 5E is a bad game, compared across editions of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:I'm glad your subjective experiences were fun for you and your group but the rest of us here are talking objectively about the failings of rolling stats and stat arrays in general. 'Fun' does not, and never will, excuse bad mechanics. Hmm. I think people may be talking at cross purposes here. I would say that if people play two games, and consistently have more fun playing Game A than Game B, that Game A is in some meaningful way a "better" game. If those two games are (1) a given edition of D&D, using point buy, and (2) the same edition of D&D, rolling stats... Well, me personally, I usually prefer point buy. But I know some people who consistently report enjoying the games more when they roll stats, and I don't know why, but if they are having more fun, then that is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the mechanic is a good mechanic for them. The only purpose of any mechanic in a game is to make the game fun to the players. If the players like a mechanic better, it's not "bad" in any useful sense. Of course, personal taste being personal, it's quite possible for a single mechanic to be good for some players and bad for others. FWIW, the 5e game that a friend of mine started up (so far: we've got characters and a party together) used stat rolling. I don't know why, but he appears to prefer it, and people have gotten stats they are not miserable with, and we'll see how it goes. And yes, someone has a 3. It went in wisdom and may become a recurring plot hook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:No you weren't. You were told So.. enjoying something for what it is meaningless because? Honestly trying to understand your folks perspectivr. 5e has problems, I agree. Edit I think Seebs explained what I was trying to get at very well. Thank you Seebs for having a much better write up. Kortel fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Kortel posted:So.. enjoying something for what it is meaningless because? Honestly trying to understand your folks perspectivr. 5e has problems, I agree. I can give you an ironclad guarantee that I could sit down right now with my regular group, a premade adventure and characters, and the Next PHB, and we would have fun. We would also have fun doing the same thing with BECMI, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, and 4e, not to mention Pathfinder, FATE, Dungeon World, or Hackmaster. We would also have fun playing The Quiet Year, Everyone is John, Mario Kart, or Monopoly. Which one of those is the best game, based on our experience of "we had fun with all those things"? "I had fun" is a loving useless measure of how good a game is compared to other games. If you want to talk about what you liked and didn't like, that's great! Lots of people are doing that. When you counter a statement of "I didn't like this part, it's broken in these ways" with "doesn't matter because I had fun", that's completely meaningless. E: To be clear, the statement is not "fun is meaningless", it's "...'but I had fun' is a meaningless response to criticism of the rules". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:No, you weren't. You were told that mechanically, 5E is a bad game, compared across editions of D&D. And for good reason! It is! Still though, plenty of people had fun with 3.5 so keep on keeping on. Saying you had fun in a session or campaign is cool. Telling us that you don't see what the big deal is because the problem didn't show in your anecdote is useless because many mechanics are still objectively bad. Kortel posted:I do not mean to seem like I was attacking some one. Genuine question: what about 5E do you folks actually enjoy? I like the layout of the book! And I like that the Warlock is still a core class and that drow and dragonborn are playable from the gate. I also like that they stole the concept of archetypes from Pathfinder. I like that the rules have been simplified and made elegant in comparison to 3.5 (which is why I ultimately prefer it), regardless of whether some mechanics are arbitrary or not. I like the addition of backgrounds, and I like that numbers scale more linearly, and that magic items are meant to be more rare and more interesting. It also caters to my playstyle because I like to run thematically low-magic games (typically cutting out classes that get 9th level spellcasting), although this is NOT a pro. This is an objective con in relevance to the designs and goals of the system. I like that low-level combat sounds swift and cutthroat compared to the most recent editions because this encourages roleplay (talk it out vs fight it out). I also feel like the game is very robust and has a lot of room for strong supplements, regardless of the balance issues. opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:I like that low-level combat sounds swift and cutthroat compared to previous editions because this encourages roleplay (talk it out vs fight it out). Have you played editions before 3e?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
moths posted:Have you played editions before 3e? Haha, yes, I have. Sorry, that wasn't a fair comment and I should edit that to say "compared to the most recent editions." opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Also I remember back when archetypes were called kits 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Also I remember back when archetypes were called kits I miss class handbooks. Maybe we'll see them this time around? Or something like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Just to confirm, when I say that I don't like monsters with spell lists because it's lazy design and introduces points of slowdown and confusion that don't need to be there, you will say what? I like monsters with Spell lists if there are not too many of them. If every Demon and Devil in the book had a list of spells I would not be a big fan. But for the few that have it they make for very versatile enemies with lots of options. So stuff like the Lich gets passes for this. Stuff like the Pit Fiend and the Yuan Ti have a tiny bit of Innate spellcasting. However they tend to have very few spells and the ones they have are easy to remember and do a bit to spice up encounters with them so they get a pass from me as well. The Androsphinx does not really need it's spellcasting but in that case it has a ton of other powers that it can use instead of the spells so its not a very big deal for me. (Most of it's spells are not even for combat anyway)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Kortel posted:I miss class handbooks. Maybe we'll see them this time around? Or something like it. They are apparently against stuff like that for this edition. It looks like the next story line after Tyranny of Dragons is called Elemental Evil. They so far have two books announced for it. Princes of the Apocalypse and the Elemental Adventurers Handbook. The later is apparently what they plan on doing for splats. It is said to contain Adventurers Handbook posted:Create Heroic Characters to Conquer the Elements in this Accessory for the World’s Greatest Roleplaying Game Some guesses as to what will be included are the Genasi and the Elemental Sorcerer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
I think that rolling for stats is appealing because of the message it sends at the table that the game isn't about balance and numbers. Lots of people don't like optimization and rolling stats tells them in the very first session that optimization is right out. I definitely get that feeling, and I love optimizing. But, see, I don't love optimizing to have the best character in terms of combat effectiveness (nor non-combat effectiveness). I like to optimize for weird things like making the character with the longest reach or the most resistances or the fastest regeneration. But I don't want to feel like I'm falling behind the curve and letting down the team when I do it. Having a game that says "balance? LOL" means that I can optimize for maximum skeletons or for peak bears and not worry about the fact that turning into a dragon would give me more DPR. Of course, the other solution is to have a well-balanced game without trap options. That's the goal of Strike! You can happily maximize your reach or regeneration, secure in the knowledge that the game gives you a strong baseline and you cannot fall far behind no matter what you pick. Even 4e had plenty of trap options and broken bad classes or powers, albeit fewer than 3e. As an aside, if you like breaking games, I invite you to try break mine. It's more challenging than breaking 5e and it's useful because I can still fix whatever you break before I publish. The last guy who tried found some important stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They are apparently against stuff like that for this edition. It looks like the next story line after Tyranny of Dragons is called Elemental Evil. They so far have two books announced for it. Princes of the Apocalypse and the Elemental Adventurers Handbook. The later is apparently what they plan on doing for splats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
So while watching a movie just now with my 5E group we talked a bit about wizards in 5E. The wizard player said he found several ways to be horrendously broken as early as level 7. So, he pitched the house rule that wizards specialize in one school at level 5, all other schools of magic cannot be cast past level 4 spells. I am not entirely well versed in Wizards this edition. Would this be a viable balancing act? Or mechanically is it more like slapping a bandaid on a bigger problem? Group is discussing pro and cons of the pitch. Theres nothing stopping him from doing it but it's spiraled in to a possible permenant rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I think that rolling for stats is appealing because of the message it sends at the table that the game isn't about balance and numbers. Lots of people don't like optimization and rolling stats tells them in the very first session that optimization is right out. Which is why its a toxic and misleading thing to do toward new players and reinforces the idea of terrible game design as the rule rather than the abhorrent exception. It comes off as counter to their purpose, too. If your first message to your customer out the door is 'gently caress the mechanics! Who needs them? Its all randomized and DM fiat anyway!' then.. what is the purpose of buying your product if you're going to say 'lol idk' and shrug? They could use any other system, or no game system at all and free form roleplay, which would save them money/deny you getting their money. Its why Mearls' incessant 'do what the DM says' is an enormous show of no confidence in their own product and i'm surprised they haven't shut him up at this point, saying they even care. Also, 'most people'? Lets avoid generalizations. If we want to look at demographics in the TTRPG community you will likely, though don't take my word on it, find more people in preference or experienced with point-buy these days. Chances are the only ones holding the torch for rolled stats are old hands and 3e grogs. edit: i'm an idiot Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I like monsters with Spell lists if there are not too many of them. If every Demon and Devil in the book had a list of spells I would not be a big fan. But for the few that have it they make for very versatile enemies with lots of options. So stuff like the Lich gets passes for this. Stuff like the Pit Fiend and the Yuan Ti have a tiny bit of Innate spellcasting. However they tend to have very few spells and the ones they have are easy to remember and do a bit to spice up encounters with them so they get a pass from me as well. The Androsphinx does not really need it's spellcasting but in that case it has a ton of other powers that it can use instead of the spells so its not a very big deal for me. (Most of it's spells are not even for combat anyway) That's really fair enough. I still have a problem with it. I'm just going to use examples from the Hoard of the Dragon Queen free pdf here. My problem is this: Not only are spells annoying to look up, they're used in places where a very short piece of flavor text would suffice. Look at the Vampire in that PDF. It has lots of abilities listed, including what they do. Disregarding the way I don't particularly like the "natural language" format, it's good that it contains text like this Vampire monster entry posted:Spider Climb. The vampire can climb difficult surfaces, including upside down on ceilings, without needing to make an ability check. That, in my opinion, is doing it right. It's even got the same name as the wizard spell, but it doesn't say "casts Spider Climb like a wizard, look it up". The vampire can just walk on ceilings just because. It can't be dispelled, since it's not a magic spell. It's just what a vampire is. Then three pages later, we've got the Yuan-ti entry. It includes text like Yuan-ti Malison monster entry posted:Innate Spellcasting (Yuan‑ti Form Only). That, in my opinion, is doing it wrong. Now I have to look those things up in a different book. The really annoying thing is that the abilities it has could have been done without using spells in the same amount of space, even if you use natural language instead of stat blocks. Look! Spell-like abilities done right posted:Snake-kin: Yuan-ti are friendly with snakes and often keep them as pets or guardians Same amount of space. Same game effects. I don't have to look elsewhere when I'm running it. It's already done like that for other monsters. Why not everywhere? You could even use less space by including the line about being friendly with snakes in the ecology/society/description/whatever section because there's literally no reason for that to be a spell it casts. It's a snake-monster. It has snakes as buddies. This is a fantastic world where that can happen. It shouldn't have to cast "make a snake a buddy" like a wizard/druid/whatever. Kortel posted:So while watching a movie just now with my 5E group we talked a bit about wizards in 5E. The wizard player said he found several ways to be horrendously broken as early as level 7. So, he pitched the house rule that wizards specialize in one school at level 5, all other schools of magic cannot be cast past level 4 spells. I am not entirely well versed in Wizards this edition. Would this be a viable balancing act? Or mechanically is it more like slapping a bandaid on a bigger problem? Ending 3 or 4 pages ago there's like a 15 page discussion of different ways to approach this problem. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Chances are the only ones holding the torch for rolled stats are old hands and 3e grogs. I'm neither of those and I prefer rolled stats, if you're collecting hard data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 05:01
|
|
