D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

branar: Jun 28, 2008

Cainer posted:

Dang, friend who wanted to DM has changed his mind, so DM time for me then. Speed reading through the Hoard of the dragon queen, looks like a really fun adventure but why the hell are the monsters and magic items and poo poo not in the book? Why do I have to grab them online? Seems really dumb since they even mention it in the book that they aren't there and to go online so it can't really be an oversight.

It's even more irritating than that: some of the monsters are in the book and others are in the .pdf, and at least as far as I could tell there's really no way to determine which is where. Fortunately there's not a ton of enemy variety, at least in the first adventure.

That said, the first adventure of HotDQ went over really well at our table. For all that I think 5E has a nigh-hilarious number of rules shortcomings, I genuinely think it's a pretty excellent adventure module and a great 'first full adventure path' for 5E, especially relative to what previous editions have started with. (I was not Keep on the Shadowfell's biggest fan, although the faces my players were making around the table when we did the infamous Irontooth encounter will remain etched in my memory forever.)

# ? Sep 4, 2014 19:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 11:15

Cainer: May 8, 2008

branar posted:

It's even more irritating than that: some of the monsters are in the book and others are in the .pdf, and at least as far as I could tell there's really no way to determine which is where. Fortunately there's not a ton of enemy variety, at least in the first adventure.

That said, the first adventure of HotDQ went over really well at our table. For all that I think 5E has a nigh-hilarious number of rules shortcomings, I genuinely think it's a pretty excellent adventure module and a great 'first full adventure path' for 5E, especially relative to what previous editions have started with. (I was not Keep on the Shadowfell's biggest fan, although the faces my players were making around the table when we did the infamous Irontooth encounter will remain etched in my memory forever.)

I'm glad it went over well, this will be one of the first time we've used a module. I can't actually remember the last time we used one. Usually we just come up with our own stuff and see where it takes us. That online index thing is just messed up, its not that bad since I can just print out of the sheets but drat, annoying.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 19:26

Imazul: Sep 3, 2006; This was actually a lot more bearable than most of you made it out to be.

branar posted:

It's even more irritating than that: some of the monsters are in the book and others are in the .pdf, and at least as far as I could tell there's really no way to determine which is where. Fortunately there's not a ton of enemy variety, at least in the first adventure.

That said, the first adventure of HotDQ went over really well at our table. For all that I think 5E has a nigh-hilarious number of rules shortcomings, I genuinely think it's a pretty excellent adventure module and a great 'first full adventure path' for 5E, especially relative to what previous editions have started with. (I was not Keep on the Shadowfell's biggest fan, although the faces my players were making around the table when we did the infamous Irontooth encounter will remain etched in my memory forever.)

It's because all the monsters in the supplement are supposed to be in the Monster Manual and that is not out yet. Those that are unique to the adventure are at the end of the book in the appendix. Yeah it kinda sucks that they just didn't put all of them either in the book or in the appendix.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 19:43

branar: Jun 28, 2008

Ahh, duh. That makes sense.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 19:45

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Running starter set this weekend. Report will follow.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:02

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Power Player posted:

I lost the DCI registration card they gave me though Maybe it's at the store or maybe they can just give me the number they gave me and I can send a letter to Wizards or whatever.

You shouldn't need your DCI card for anything. The number is all that matters. It's linked to your name when you get it, assuming they do it like magic, so I'd just ask the store what your number is.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:21

Power Player: Oct 2, 2006; GOD SPEED YOU! HUNGRY MEXICAN

Babylon Astronaut posted:

You shouldn't need your DCI card for anything. The number is all that matters. It's linked to your name when you get it, assuming they do it like magic, so I'd just ask the store what your number is.

Cool, thanks! I thought I also had to register it with the code that's revealed when you scratch off the thing at the bottom.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:22

Radio Talmudist: Sep 29, 2008

How easy is it to get a module up and running vs. a homebrew campaign? I suppose the latter can take as long as you'd like.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:44

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Power Player posted:

Cool, thanks! I thought I also had to register it with the code that's revealed when you scratch off the thing at the bottom.

OK that makes sense. Magic has the store do it because they report results to DCI the day of.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:48

Power Player: Oct 2, 2006; GOD SPEED YOU! HUNGRY MEXICAN

Babylon Astronaut posted:

OK that makes sense. Magic has the store do it because they report results to DCI the day of.

Apparently that code is just to update your information but otherwise I don't need it.

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:50

Strength of Many: Jan 13, 2012; The butthurt is the life... and it shall be mine.

So if one were to play a Drow Ranger dual wielding a hand crossbow and (weapon) is a better option than, say, two scimitars?

# ? Sep 4, 2014 21:58

seebs: Apr 23, 2007; God Made Me a Skeptic

Jack the Lad posted:

I can't believe this particular bit of sophistry has gone on so long.

Yes, BMX Bandit feels more different from Angel Summoner than Beowulf does.

But that's a bad thing.

Really? This is fascinating, because the development of a genuine, universal, objective standard for what makes games fun for everyone is a major breakthrough!

See, I thought 4e's design was pretty fun and I liked it, but I had always assumed that the people who didn't like it just had different "preferences" than mine (I'm not sure if the concept of "preference" still exists in this brave new world), but apparently I am now informed that they were *objectively* wrong as to whether or not they liked one thing more or less than another.

And, heck, at least some people I know observed that they enjoyed 4e as its own game, they just didn't think it felt-like-D&D anymore, because they felt the diverse resource management styles were part of the "feel" of the game.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 00:33

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

seebs posted:

...diverse resource management styles were part of the "feel" of the game.

What diverse resource management styles are you talking about?

# ? Sep 5, 2014 00:36

seebs: Apr 23, 2007; God Made Me a Skeptic

AlphaDog posted:

What diverse resource management styles are you talking about?

The huge gap in how you play between martials and casters, mostly. That thing where you don't all have the same mechanic governing your resource usage, so some people run out of their stuff, and others don't.

Some people really like that, playing a 1e/2e fighter, all they had to worry about was keeping their gear up to par and then charge in and roll dice hoping for big numbers. Or really like that a wizard can be completely out of spells. And some people really prefer the thing where absolutely everyone ends up with a mix of at-will and encounter powers which they can use forever as long as they have hit points left and get to end one encounter before starting another.

A 4e wizard who is "out of powers" still has a bunch of powers for every new combat. A wizard in PF or 5e who is "out of spells" can cast cantrips, and that's it. In any other edition, a wizard who is out of spells is a weak guy who can hit stuff but not very well.

And some people prefer that. And I'm conflicted on it, because I like both approaches, but I like them in different ways.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 00:52

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Didn't they release a fighter that only did basic attacks? I mean, I can't help the people who hate wizard encounter powers and wish they could blow their load in one combat and be useless in the next, but I'm pretty sure there was at least one fighter who just attacked over and over again, so those guys should be pretty happy.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:01

LaSquida: Nov 1, 2012; Just keep on walkin'.

seebs posted:

The huge gap in how you play between martials and casters, mostly. That thing where you don't all have the same mechanic governing your resource usage, so some people run out of their stuff, and others don't.

Some people really like that, playing a 1e/2e fighter, all they had to worry about was keeping their gear up to par and then charge in and roll dice hoping for big numbers. Or really like that a wizard can be completely out of spells. And some people really prefer the thing where absolutely everyone ends up with a mix of at-will and encounter powers which they can use forever as long as they have hit points left and get to end one encounter before starting another.

A 4e wizard who is "out of powers" still has a bunch of powers for every new combat. A wizard in PF or 5e who is "out of spells" can cast cantrips, and that's it. In any other edition, a wizard who is out of spells is a weak guy who can hit stuff but not very well.

And some people prefer that. And I'm conflicted on it, because I like both approaches, but I like them in different ways.

5e cantrips are similar in damage output to 4e At-Wills. The naming convention has changed, but they're a far cry from the 1d3 damage popguns of 3.x

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:03

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

There aren't any divergent resource management styles pre-4e you loving idiot. There's "HAS RESOURCES" and "DOESN'T HAVE RESOURCES."

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:04

ATP_Power: Jun 12, 2010; This is what fascinates me most in existence: the peculiar necessity of imagining what is, in fact, real.

I might be joining a 5e campaign and I'v been told to bring a martial character (party is currently a wizard, a priest, a druid and a monk.) The group is pretty new to the system and (for some of them, RPGs in general) so I'm not too worried about being a spectator to a bunch of casters taking care of everything.

My question is mechanically, how do the non-caster martial classes compare to the caster martial classes in terms of being interesting to play? Do fighters and barbarians still get the shaft compared to any class that can cast spells? I'd be curious to hear people's experiences with how the classes play and their impressions of general effectiveness at killing mans. The valor bard seems like it might be more powerful overall, but for flavor reasons I'd like to play a more traditionally martial class, so Fighter, Barb or Pally.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:14

Vorpal Cat: Mar 19, 2009; Oh god what did I just post?

Nihilarian posted:

Didn't they release a fighter that only did basic attacks? I mean, I can't help the people who hate wizard encounter powers and wish they could blow their load in one combat and be useless in the next, but I'm pretty sure there was at least one fighter who just attacked over and over again, so those guys should be pretty happy.

There were two actually, the slayer subclass a striker who's class features were power attack, and more power attack, and the Knight subclass who was strong defender like original 4th edition fighter but used passive auras instead of active skills. Incidentally original 4th ed fighters got renamed in essentials to the weaponmaster subclass which I'm OK with because weaponmaster is a pretty bichen name.

Both of them however have far more interesting things to be doing in combat then a 3.5 edition fighter just due to the nature of combat in 4th edition, and are decent classes in their own right as long as they have access to feats from outside of essentials. The knight especially has a few fans on this board because it lets people focus more on tactical positioning and less on trying to get the optimum use out of their dailies.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:15

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

There aren't any divergent resource management styles pre-4e you loving idiot. There's "HAS RESOURCES" and "DOESN'T HAVE RESOURCES."

Point casters, tob classes, artifacers. If you mean "has thing, spends it" then just tob classes and the fact that psions have the focus mechanic.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:16

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

seebs posted:

The huge gap in how you play between martials and casters, mostly. That thing where you don't all have the same mechanic governing your resource usage, so some people run out of their stuff, and others don't.

Some people really like that, playing a 1e/2e fighter, all they had to worry about was keeping their gear up to par and then charge in and roll dice hoping for big numbers. Or really like that a wizard can be completely out of spells. And some people really prefer the thing where absolutely everyone ends up with a mix of at-will and encounter powers which they can use forever as long as they have hit points left and get to end one encounter before starting another.

A 4e wizard who is "out of powers" still has a bunch of powers for every new combat. A wizard in PF or 5e who is "out of spells" can cast cantrips, and that's it. In any other edition, a wizard who is out of spells is a weak guy who can hit stuff but not very well.

And some people prefer that. And I'm conflicted on it, because I like both approaches, but I like them in different ways.

Some people get resources, some don't. Therefore there are diverse resource management styless.

You're wrong though, because everyone having the same resources is like the rules of poetry, which produces the correct feelings.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:26

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Cainer posted:

I'm glad it went over well, this will be one of the first time we've used a module. I can't actually remember the last time we used one. Usually we just come up with our own stuff and see where it takes us. That online index thing is just messed up, its not that bad since I can just print out of the sheets but drat, annoying.

I find it better then being in the book. It would have added a bunch more pages to the book of which they actually have only a certain amount of pages they can use. You also don't have to flip through the book to look up monster stats. It's much more convenient to have them out of the book. Plus because they are not in the book you don't have to buy the adventure in order to get the stats.

Get the stats here if you have not gotten them yet http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/hoard-dragon-queen

MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Sep 5, 2014

# ? Sep 5, 2014 01:38

Cainer: May 8, 2008

quote: