D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

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

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Ratoslov posted:

Because you want mechanical encouragement to turn every dungeon crawl into a pub crawl with everyone getting shitfaced for bonuses and trying to make out with the gorgon.

I think people would make out with a medusa, and instead go gorgon-tipping at night.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:38

Mendrian: Jan 6, 2013

I seem to recall a very early play test packet did have a drunk condition. I want to say it gave some kind of DR in exchange for Disadvantage on like... everything. I'll go look for it.

Edit: here we go.

quote:

Intoxicated
• The creature has disadvantage on all attacks and checks.
•Damage against the creature is reduced by 1d6.

Mendrian fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 5, 2014

# ? Sep 5, 2014 19:54

Cainer: May 8, 2008

homullus posted:

I think people would make out with a medusa, and instead go gorgon-tipping at night.

Getting drunk AND stoned? Truly a daring adventuring party.

If getting drunk let you ignore being on fire I really want to see the idea being role played out with the party. There's gotta be the guy that comes up with the plan and tries to explain it without sounding like a complete loon. "Ok guys, you are all gonna need to get plenty drunk for my next amazing idea that is 100% foolproof."

# ? Sep 5, 2014 20:03

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

If you want to encourage people to play realistically, the PHB would list that drunk people take less damage, while the DMG instructs DMs to secretly track and apply this missing damage and increase the difficulty of all checks.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 20:10

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Yeah, it's just because there used to be, and I'm wondering if there still is. :shrug:

# ? Sep 5, 2014 20:32

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

It's a great rule, that as you said, is overlooked all the time. The other one I like a bunch is one from RC: you roll on a curve by using incremental d6's as ascending difficulty. That's actually in the book! Why that never took off I have no idea.

Can you elaborate on this?

# ? Sep 5, 2014 21:37

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

homullus posted:

I think people would make out with a medusa, and instead go gorgon-tipping at night.

Well outside of D&D land Medusa was the name for one specific gorgon, instead of them being two different species of monsters that turn things to stone. But then again this is the D&D 5th edition thread, which seems to be almost nothing but legacy mechanics for the sake of tradition, so point taken.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 22:17

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Covok posted:

Can you elaborate on this?

Sure. The default way to roll an ability or skill check was to roll a d20 under your ability score, and if you had a relevant skill you added it to your score. To change the difficulty, the DM modified your roll by 1-4. The alternate rule was instead to roll a number of d6's against your ability score according to the difficulty. This was pretty cool, because you would have an expected result, and certain tasks you just couldn't fail at. So instead of doing something mundane with a sizable bonus and still having a chance of crapping out, you'd just win. That helps with what I call the keystone kops effect: usually in D&D, about one in twenty times you attempt a roll you will hit a 1 no matter how good you are. I hate the "critical fail" rule for this reason. Rolling multiple dice makes it better to attempt difficult tasks than 1d20, because every number on the d20 is just as likely, while multiple dice make a curve. This was in the Rules Cyclopedia back in '91, and solved the swingy d20 problem decades ago.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 22:42

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Babylon Astronaut posted:

Sure. The default way to roll an ability or skill check was to roll a d20 under your ability score, and if you had a relevant skill you added it to your score. To change the difficulty, the DM modified your roll by 1-4. The alternate rule was instead to roll a number of d6's against your ability score according to the difficulty. This was pretty cool, because you would have an expected result, and certain tasks you just couldn't fail at. So instead of doing something mundane with a sizable bonus and still having a chance of crapping out, you'd just win. That helps with what I call the keystone kops effect: usually in D&D, about one in twenty times you attempt a roll you will hit a 1 no matter how good you are. I hate the "critical fail" rule for this reason. Rolling multiple dice makes it better to attempt difficult tasks than 1d20, because every number on the d20 is just as likely, while multiple dice make a curve. This was in the Rules Cyclopedia back in '91, and solved the swingy d20 problem decades ago.

Much as I love RC D&D, I don't think this is really in there. Neither the section on ability checks or proficiencies mention this.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 00:08

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

My bad, had RC mixed up with BECMI. It's on page 20 of the Dungeon Master's Rulebook from Mentzer Basic. I always assume RC has everything from the box sets, and it bites me in the rear end! So 1983, drat.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Sep 6, 2014

# ? Sep 6, 2014 00:17

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

Follow up on my thoughts from a few pages back on making a martial styled character to join a campaign in progress. I like the flavor of eldritch knight, but the thread consensus is that you can get basically the same functionality but better by going valor bard.

So I'm looking at doing a valor bard, but going the crossbow route and sitting back doesn't seem too exciting for me. My current thought is a polearm based bard and using the polearm master feat to get an extra attack instead of crossbow expert.

My question is would it be worth it to dip one level into fighter for the great weapon fighting style? Is the fighting style's increase in damage consistency worth slowing my bard progression or is the tradeoff too steep given how much of the fighter's kit is covered by the valor college's bonuses?

# ? Sep 6, 2014 00:23

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

ATP_Power posted:

Follow up on my thoughts from a few pages back on making a martial styled character to join a campaign in progress. I like the flavor of eldritch knight, but the thread consensus is that you can get basically the same functionality but better by going valor bard.

So I'm looking at doing a valor bard, but going the crossbow route and sitting back doesn't seem too exciting for me. My current thought is a polearm based bard and using the polearm master feat to get an extra attack instead of crossbow expert.

My question is would it be worth it to dip one level into fighter for the great weapon fighting style? Is the fighting style's increase in damage consistency worth slowing my bard progression or is the tradeoff too steep given how much of the fighter's kit is covered by the valor college's bonuses?

I wouldn't bother with the level dip, personally unless you absolutely want to tank your Dexterity and wear full plate. Great Weapon style is 'okay' on single die weapons, but still not as amazing as with a maul or greatsword, and really the exchange for it vs uninterrupted spell progression is dubious.

DO get Warcaster though. It syncs up well with Polearm Master.

edit: plus being a polearm using battlemage sounds very stylish

Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 6, 2014

# ? Sep 6, 2014 01:17

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

thefakenews posted:

I'm not suggesting seebs is making good posts, I'm suggesting the responses from otherwise interesting and informative posters in this thread are beneath them and are making this thread as difficult to read as posts from MonsterEnvy and seebs. It's not like anyone is gonna convince them of anything by calling them a moron (rational argument doesn't seem effective most of the time either I admit) - and just calling them a moron for it's own sake is kinda pointless.

I noticed a long time ago that if people encounter me in two forums where I don't have the same screen name, people will think I'm smart and rational in one forum, and stupid and irrational in another, and as a result I don't place much weight on it. In practice, usually, when people are really angry about how "irrational" I am, mostly it's because they're responding to a thing they think I probably meant rather than to a thing I said.

I mostly just ignore the people who are angry and insulting, because that's consistently been a really good indicator that someone hasn't got good arguments, and because if I'm patient someone will come along with a coherent argument eventually. Sometimes it's a while. It was something like five years between the first time someone told me that "4e isn't D&D at all" and the first time I found someone who felt that way and could actually explain why. I still don't really agree with her, but I'm willing to admit that I can see the thing. I actually liked 4e's pacing and things like milestones and item daily powers, because I think it does a lot to solve the Nuke And Retreat problem.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 03:56

Kai Tave: Jul 2, 2012; Fallen Rib

No, I'm pretty sure you'd be just as stupid regardless of whatever name you're going by at the moment.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 05:34

Lurks With Wolves: Jan 14, 2013; At least I don't dance with them, right?

seebs posted:

I noticed a long time ago that if people encounter me in two forums where I don't have the same screen name, people will think I'm smart and rational in one forum, and stupid and irrational in another, and as a result I don't place much weight on it. In practice, usually, when people are really angry about how "irrational" I am, mostly it's because they're responding to a thing they think I probably meant rather than to a thing I said.

I mostly just ignore the people who are angry and insulting, because that's consistently been a really good indicator that someone hasn't got good arguments, and because if I'm patient someone will come along with a coherent argument eventually. Sometimes it's a while. It was something like five years between the first time someone told me that "4e isn't D&D at all" and the first time I found someone who felt that way and could actually explain why. I still don't really agree with her, but I'm willing to admit that I can see the thing. I actually liked 4e's pacing and things like milestones and item daily powers, because I think it does a lot to solve the Nuke And Retreat problem.

Okay, I'm just going to say this because I might as well be open about this kind of thing. For a fair portion of this thread, their first encounter with you making a few posts defending Zak S on Tumblr, so their first impression of you is that you're a disingenous poo poo that is willing to defend someone by responding to a post that's the best summary of why they're indefensible. I am one of those people. So if someone like me says you're insufferable, isn't not because we think you're irrational. It's because we think you're repugnant.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 06:24

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

seebs posted:

It was something like five years between the first time someone told me that "4e isn't D&D at all" and the first time I found someone who felt that way and could actually explain why.

"Isn't D&D at all" is a pure tummy-feel emotional judgment driven largely by nerdrage backlash, in-group dynamics, and willful misconceptions about D&D (both as a whole and especially the edition in question). Of course nobody's going to admit that their collected rambling anti-4e blog's screeds boil down to "I'm asserting my team allegiance, please validate it in the comments below."

This thread is filled with examples plainly showing Next to be a slapped-together, mediocre RPG cashing in on its family name. Nobody's saying that doesn't make it "D&D" enough, hell that probably makes it the most "D&D."

# ? Sep 6, 2014 13:52

Tenebrous Tourist: Aug 28, 2008

I have a rules question about leveling up: do you add your CON modifier to your hit points every time you level? Or do you just roll the hit die and add that on top of your previous pool of hit points (which already includes your CON modifier)?

# ? Sep 6, 2014 13:57

Father Wendigo: Sep 28, 2005; This is, sadly, more important to me than bettering myself.

Jimmeeee posted:

I have a rules question about leveling up: do you add your CON modifier to your hit points every time you level? Or do you just roll the hit die and add that on top of your previous pool of hit points (which already includes your CON modifier)?

Add your CON modifier every level. If you up your modifier, you retroactively get those points added too.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 14:00

Tenebrous Tourist: Aug 28, 2008

Father Wendigo posted:

Add your CON modifier every level. If you up your modifier, you retroactively get those points added too.

Cool! Just to make sure I got it right: I'm a monk going level 3 to level 4 with a CON of 14. So my hp right now should be 4d8 (or just 20 if I go that route) +8 (CON modifier of +2 added each level for four levels). So my hp should be 28ish?

# ? Sep 6, 2014 14:05

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Jimmeeee posted:

Cool! Just to make sure I got it right: I'm a monk going level 3 to level 4 with a CON of 14. So my hp right now should be 4d8 (or just 20 if I go that route) +8 (CON modifier of +2 added each level for four levels). So my hp should be 28ish?

Your HP should be a flat number because rolling HP is for chumps :P

Remember you get max HP at first level, so a level 4 monk will have 8 HP from first level, then 5 more each time he levels. You then add your con mod each time.

So your monk with 14 CON has 10 at first level, then 17, then 24, then 31 at fourth level.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 14:19

Tenebrous Tourist: Aug 28, 2008

Gort posted:

Your HP should be a flat number because rolling HP is for chumps :P

Remember you get max HP at first level, so a level 4 monk will have 8 HP from first level, then 5 more each time he levels. You then add your con mod each time.

So your monk with 14 CON has 10 at first level, then 17, then 24, then 31 at fourth level.

Awesome, thank you! Now how does this work for characters with a CON modifier of -1? Do they add their HP up and just subtract 4?

# ? Sep 6, 2014 14:23

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Jimmeeee posted:

Awesome, thank you! Now how does this work for characters with a CON modifier of -1? Do they add their HP up and just subtract 4?

Yeah.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 14:23

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

moths posted:

"Isn't D&D at all" is a pure tummy-feel emotional judgment driven largely by nerdrage backlash, in-group dynamics, and willful misconceptions about D&D (both as a whole and especially the edition in question). Of course nobody's going to admit that their collected rambling anti-4e blog's screeds boil down to "I'm asserting my team allegiance, please validate it in the comments below."

This thread is filled with examples plainly showing Next to be a slapped-together, mediocre RPG cashing in on its family name. Nobody's saying that doesn't make it "D&D" enough, hell that probably makes it the most "D&D."

Hell if anything the problem with 5th is that its too D&D. To the exclusion of being a well design game, innovating in almost any way, or trying to attract new players to the game.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 15:51

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

seebs posted:

I noticed a long time ago that if people encounter me in two forums where I don't have the same screen name, people will think I'm smart and rational in one forum, and stupid and irrational in another, and as a result I don't place much weight on it. In practice, usually, when people are really angry about how "irrational" I am, mostly it's because they're responding to a thing they think I probably meant rather than to a thing I said.

Hey, I get this part, definitely. One time I had people thinking I was friends with James Desborough because I had written a post ambiguously and people read the wrong thing into it. (To be clear, I have never even talked to the guy and I have a big problem with what he has written. I am anti-Desborough.) But with you, I don't think there has been any such mistake. You defended Zak S. Then once you read more, you didn't just apologize and drop it. You apologized but then went right on defending him, so what the gently caress, man.

As for being misunderstood in this thread, your pal Zak thinks the following:

Zak S posted:

"Are you responsible for how others experience you in conversation?" No.

This is bullshit. Take responsibility for your posting. If you're being misunderstood, either fix it or quit.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 19:19

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

Vorpal Cat posted:

To the exclusion of being a well design game, innovating in almost any way, or trying to attract new players to the game.

While I agree with the general sentiment, we are seeing in the MM some innovation along with a bunch of regression.

I love what they are doing with Legendary monsters. Lair actions and regional effects are super-cool concepts, and Legendary actions are a step in the right direction. All of these were clearly influenced by 4e. Lair Actions are a cool way of building on 4e's terrain and traps, and the regional effects go beyond anything I saw in 4e.

The coolness of Regional Effects also teaches us important lessons: taking a fluff element and putting it in a statblock with a label emphasizes that element of the monster and makes it cooler. Standardizing legendary abilities doesn't make them any less awesome. Calling out one specific evocative piece of fluff can be more effective than writing several paragraphs.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 19:41

SmellOfPetroleum: Jan 6, 2013

I'd like to revisit two pages back and ask about Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Anyone have actual play experiences? Skimming it, there seems to be some good writing. I like the caravan chapter. Yes, I know they split monsters between the supplement and the book. I'm more interested in the actual adventure. Chameleon posted about "attrition," and I didn't really follow what that meant, so now I'm worried.

SmellOfPetroleum fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Sep 6, 2014

# ? Sep 6, 2014 19:51

Cainer: May 8, 2008

I usually try to steer clear of the RPG online community since its usually just edition wars or other toxic bullshit but the posts on Zak S got me curious enough to look him up. Holy poo poo, how does a person like that actually have anyone taking him seriously let alone honest to goodness fans :stare:

# ? Sep 6, 2014 19:54

Nihilarian: Oct 2, 2013

Cainer posted:

I usually try to steer clear of the RPG online community since its usually just edition wars or other toxic bullshit but the posts on Zak S got me curious enough to look him up. Holy poo poo, how does a person like that actually have anyone taking him seriously let alone honest to goodness fans

Doesn't matter how terrible your opinion is, you can always find someone who agrees with you.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 19:58

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

Jimbozig posted:

While I agree with the general sentiment, we are seeing in the MM some innovation along with a bunch of regression.

I love what they are doing with Legendary monsters. Lair actions and regional effects are super-cool concepts, and Legendary actions are a step in the right direction. All of these were clearly influenced by 4e. Lair Actions are a cool way of building on 4e's terrain and traps, and the regional effects go beyond anything I saw in 4e.

The coolness of Regional Effects also teaches us important lessons: taking a fluff element and putting it in a statblock with a label emphasizes that element of the monster and makes it cooler. Standardizing legendary abilities doesn't make them any less awesome. Calling out one specific evocative piece of fluff can be more effective than writing several paragraphs.

Thus the almost qualifier, things like Advantage/Disadvantage and Lair effects are legitimately good ideas they're just lost in a sea of :effort:

game design.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 20:01

Solid Jake: Oct 18, 2012

Cainer posted:

I usually try to steer clear of the RPG online community since its usually just edition wars or other toxic bullshit but the posts on Zak S got me curious enough to look him up. Holy poo poo, how does a person like that actually have anyone taking him seriously let alone honest to goodness fans

Fun Fact: Zak S is credited as a consultant in the 5e PHB!

# ? Sep 6, 2014 20:07

Noxjunx: Jul 25, 2009

So I rolled a rogue over Gencon. I had a lot of fun with him but it was never clear what the best stat was for detecting traps. It seemed like a toss up between perception and investigation but the rules don't seem clear about it.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 20:08

SmellOfPetroleum: Jan 6, 2013

I've started treating Investigation as either a time investment where the deductions take longer than perceptively noticing things, or as a cluefinder, where they don't spot the trap or the monster hiding but the scrapes on the floor and the abnormally large webs.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 20:16

neonchameleon: Nov 14, 2012

SmellOfPetroleum posted:

I'd like to revisit two pages back and ask about Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Anyone have actual play experiences? Skimming it, there seems to be some good writing. I like the caravan chapter. Yes, I know they split monsters between the supplement and the book. I'm more interested in the actual adventure. Chameleon posted about "attrition," and I didn't really follow what that meant, so now I'm worried.

Unless our GM is screwing up by the numbers (wouldn't be the first time an actual play problem was in fact bad DMing) each combat is pitched, 4e style, so that it's meant to look as if it can seriously threaten you although you should win. If you avoid combat too much seriously bad things happen to the NPCs in front of you. (We're talking burned alive the way it was set up).

Each fight being threatening is fine if you have healing surges. When your party total healing is 1hd each, two castings of Cure Light Wounds, and a fighter's Second Wind (and you need an hour to spend those hit dice) and the whole thing takes place over the course of one night you can last maybe three tense combats before everyone is out of hit points.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 22:02

DalaranJ: Apr 15, 2008; Yosuke will now die for you.

dwarf74 posted:

Yeah, it's just because there used to be, and I'm wondering if there still is.

In the starter set instances of people being drunk off their rear end where handled by the 'poisoned' condition. Instances with less drunkeness were mechanically ignored.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 23:05

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Alright! So I just ran a 5-hour session of 5e, using the Lost Mines of Phandalin. Mostly pre-gen characters, but the Human Fighter was replaced with the aforementioned drunken dwarf Barbarian. So some observations...

First off, I give huge props to the adventure-writers. This is an excellent little adventure, with good PC hooks and a nice mix of stuff. We made it through the Goblin Den, Phandalin, and parts of the Redbrand Hideout. The PCs got midway through 2nd level.
Leveling up so fast is great. That little on-ramp is a great way to start out a game, easing the players into the new mechanics and offloading major decision points for a while. I like it.
Combat is, indeed fast. Which is good.
Combat is exceptionally swingy, though. My players lucked out vs. the goblins; I couldn't roll above a 10 on anything but initiative for that whole little dungeon. I did almost no damage to anyone. On the other hand, an encounter with 4 Redbrands almost did them in.
We did Theater of the Mind. This made it go fast, but in the end I think it was a mistake. For quick battles, fine, but against the Nothic and Bugbears it would have helped. This is doubly true once the Rogue hit 2nd level; his extra action basically demands minis and a map.
"I Attack" is strong in this edition. Combat is quick, but it's definitely at the expense of tactical depth. Of course it's fast; you only have one option most of the time.
Cantrips are fine; they aren't as good as regular attacks, even.
And, the biggest one? My players all have 4e experience, and every single one said something like, "You know, I miss the options I have in 4e." They missed the battle maps and the tactical choices. Even the wizard - without Encounter powers, wizarding isn't as wizardish.

We want to finish out this adventure, but we're not sold on the edition as a whole.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 23:21

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

dwarf74 posted:

Alright! So I just ran a 5-hour session of 5e, using the Lost Mines of Phandalin. Mostly pre-gen characters, but the Human Fighter was replaced with the aforementioned drunken dwarf Barbarian. So some observations...

First off, I give huge props to the adventure-writers. This is an excellent little adventure, with good PC hooks and a nice mix of stuff. We made it through the Goblin Den, Phandalin, and parts of the Redbrand Hideout. The PCs got midway through 2nd level.

Leveling up so fast is great. That little on-ramp is a great way to start out a game, easing the players into the new mechanics and offloading major decision points for a while. I like it.

Combat is, indeed fast. Which is good.

Combat is exceptionally swingy, though. My players lucked out vs. the goblins; I couldn't roll above a 10 on anything but initiative for that whole little dungeon. I did almost no damage to anyone. On the other hand, an encounter with 4 Redbrands almost did them in.

We did Theater of the Mind. This made it go fast, but in the end I think it was a mistake. For quick battles, fine, but against the Nothic and Bugbears it would have helped. This is doubly true once the Rogue hit 2nd level; his extra action basically demands minis and a map.

"I Attack" is strong in this edition. Combat is quick, but it's definitely at the expense of tactical depth. Of course it's fast; you only have one option most of the time.

Cantrips are fine; they aren't as good as regular attacks, even.

And, the biggest one? My players all have 4e experience, and every single one said something like, "You know, I miss the options I have in 4e." They missed the battle maps and the tactical choices. Even the wizard - without Encounter powers, wizarding isn't as wizardish.

We want to finish out this adventure, but we're not sold on the edition as a whole.

You have to halve damage and so on in some instances to keep it sane, yes. From what I can tell it evens out more at higher levels, usually, but that may change when we get the full Monster Manual.

# ? Sep 6, 2014 23:49

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Strength of Many posted:

You have to halve damage and so on in some instances to keep it sane, yes. From what I can tell it evens out more at higher levels, usually, but that may change when we get the full Monster Manual.

Yep. It's super swingy. Even at 2nd level. Hit points and damage either don't feel very well-calibrated, or else they are, but my expectations are off.

Little moments make a huge difference. In my game, the Bugbear Chief missed his sneak attack. (One of my long series of low rolls in that cave.) That could have outright killed several of the PCs today.

# ? Sep 7, 2014 00:46

Grimpond: Dec 24, 2013

That actually happened to me in my game as the party cleric. I was out of spells, and decided to wade in on the chief with my 18 ac, figuring I could at least absorb some hits for the fighter to move in next.

His first attack was a critical that instantly killed me :smith:

# ? Sep 7, 2014 00:50

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

dwarf74 posted:

Yep. It's super swingy. Even at 2nd level. Hit points and damage either don't feel very well-calibrated, or else they are, but my expectations are off.

Little moments make a huge difference. In my game, the Bugbear Chief missed his sneak attack. (One of my long series of low rolls in that cave.) That could have outright killed several of the PCs today.

Grimpond posted:

That actually happened to me in my game as the party cleric. I was out of spells, and decided to wade in on the chief with my 18 ac, figuring I could at least absorb some hits for the fighter to move in next.

His first attack was a critical that instantly killed me

I'm of the opinion that, at least in a game like 5e, enemies should not double down on damage when they crit. RNG is already enough of factor.

# ? Sep 7, 2014 00:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:38

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Grimpond posted:

That actually happened to me in my game as the party cleric. I was out of spells, and decided to wade in on the chief with my 18 ac, figuring I could at least absorb some hits for the fighter to move in next.

His first attack was a critical that instantly killed me

Even on a non-critical, a good damage roll on 2d8+2d6+...2? 3? could do it. Peak damage is 30 or 31, while the mean hovers around 19.

I mean, that's just crazy swingy.

More things.

The Barbarian Raged three times. It never made a difference. See above re: short combats.
Sleep wasn't that helpful for us; it took out one Redbrand Ruffian on the one time it was cast. Shield, OTOH, is a life-saver.
Healing feels super janky. You get damaged quite easily, take a lot of it when you are hit, and have very limited capacity to get anything back. I think it's too harsh for my tastes.
Trigger warning: I'm going to say "MMO." Phandalin felt very MMO-like. You could see all the exclamation points floating over NPCs' heads.
Split movement is wasted in TotM combat. Really, guys, you can run 5e as a TotM game, but like half the special maneuvers almost insist on it.
Not having to worry about flanking actually was kind of nice, though.

# ? Sep 7, 2014 01:00

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

«‹›1608 »