|
4e had some great setting books. Aside from Eberron, Dark Sun, the Forgotten Realms (and Neverwinter), there was more world-neutral stuff like the Manual of the Planes and the two follow-up books (the Plane Below and the Plane Above) plus Underdark, which was probably one of my absolute favorites. Even the Draconomicons and Open Grave were pretty good assuming you were really interested in dragons or undead.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Arivia posted:All none of them they say they're producing, GO 5E. Hey, it's the ultimate expression of the "ask your DM" philosophy in action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
My long game is to run Night Below in 13A. After I figure out where I left it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Alright Warlocks kinda bored me with their invocations list compared to what I remember from my 3.5 Warlock. I miss my flying blasty guy. Anyways what class get some nice Controller features aside from Wizards. I enjoy controlling a bunch and am going to give this edition another shot. Also gently caress the fuckers who loving thought a non level-based sorting system was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Anyways what class get some nice Controller features aside from Wizards. I enjoy controlling a bunch and am going to give this edition another shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Also gently caress the fuckers who loving thought a non level-based sorting system was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I feel like the sorting system sucks rear end because they want us to buy spell cards or the software. I also dare someone to point this out to Mike Mearls on Twitter. "The DM can use scissors and paste to rearrange the spell list however he likes".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Psure the spell list is like it is because you have multiple spells used by multiple classes and monsters, so they kinda need to have one master alphabetical list or else print a bunch of the spells multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Psure the spell list is like it is because you have multiple spells used by multiple classes and monsters, so they kinda need to have one master alphabetical list or else print a bunch of the spells multiple times. Except you could just list them by spell level and then alphabetically within the spell level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Psure the spell list is like it is because you have multiple spells used by multiple classes and monsters, so they kinda need to have one master alphabetical list or else print a bunch of the spells multiple times. The "spells used by different classes and monsters" thing didn't stop AD&D from being sanely arranged*. This game doesn't even have the 3e excuse that different classes get the same spells at different levels. It could at least arrange by level first. Also, the decision to leave the classes that get the spell out of the spell description was absolutely fuckwitted. *To be perfectly clear on this: AD&D has duplicate spell entries where (say) the Druid spell Speak With Animals has its statblock and then the text "Except as noted above, this spell is the same as the second level cleric spell of the same name" where the spell description usually goes. This takes probably less than a tenth of a page. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
WotC cease and desisted the website with the sortable database of spells(didn't have mechanics just names, class, ritual flag, level, casting time, etc). I've had a look but haven't been able to find any information on the morningstar/dungeonscape beta. Does anyone know if it's underway? I havn't seen anyone in this thread mentioning having used it or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Anyone run across any quickrefs / summaries of points of difference between this and previous eds yet? I'm gonna be running the starter box tonight by surprise, and I'm going to have like an hour to skimread it at most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
If the spell list was arranged by level and alphabetized within levels, you'd then have to mention a level whenever you mentioned a spell, i.e. this artifact scythe casts Finger of Death (level 7) on anyone it strikes. It'd be even worse if a spell was cast at higher than its usual level - imagine that the biggest pearl of power from an entire necklace casts Fireball (level 3) but with an eighth level slot!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Yakse posted:WotC cease and desisted the website with the sortable database of spells(didn't have mechanics just names, class, ritual flag, level, casting time, etc). At first I thought you meant dndtools.eu, but that's still up. I'd kill for a site like that for 4E or 5E though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If the spell list was arranged by level and alphabetized within levels, you'd then have to mention a level whenever you mentioned a spell, i.e. this artifact scythe casts Finger of Death (level 7) on anyone it strikes. It'd be even worse if a spell was cast at higher than its usual level - imagine that the biggest pearl of power from an entire necklace casts Fireball (level 3) but with an eighth level slot! If players are going to need an alphebetised index of all spells, they should get an alphebetised index of all spells. That doesn't preclude the spells themselves being sanely arranged. Since the "problem" with sane arrangement of spells seems to now be that the PHB is a master list of magic effects and it would be hard to look them up when required, I propose the following solution. Word it like this: "This wand casts Fireball (pp.238) at level 7".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
That works, but as the list exists right now you could just write "This wand casts Fireball at level 7." Like, who's aided by a level-organized spell list? If your wizard reaches level 5, you can't just flip to the list of third level spells and scan them, because you won't know which ones are for you and which ones are for the cleric or druid or, later, the psion. There is, I believe, an alphabetized index of spells by level, so if you look at that and learn that aha, you can now choose between haste, fireball, and flight you can then go look each of those up alphabetically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Like, who's aided by a level-organized spell list? If your wizard reaches level 5, you can't just flip to the list of third level spells and scan them, because you won't know which ones are for you and which ones are for the cleric or druid or, later, the psion. I guess this depends on what the spell list is for. If it's the canonical listing of all magical, magic-like, and otherwise special effects, then you're right (except that the spell description should still list which classes can cast it). If the list in the Player's Handbook is supposed to be for players, then arranging it by anything other than level or class/level is dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
At this point it's pretty clearly the former, and the latter is wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That works, but as the list exists right now you could just write "This wand casts Fireball at level 7."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I guess this depends on what the spell list is for. If it's the canonical listing of all magical, magic-like, and otherwise special effects, then you're right (except that the spell description should still list which classes can cast it). If the list in the Player's Handbook is supposed to be for players, then arranging it by anything other than level or class/level is dumb as hell. Ah, but even listing which classes can cast a spell in the spell's description is a mug's game because an infinite number of future classes can be written that also cast that spell. I don't think 5e does the "Casts as a wizard, but..." thing any more, right? The Crotch posted:I think, in our distant, impossible dream-world, the actual descriptions of the spells would have a brief blurb to mention the classes that cast them so that you don't have to go flipping back-and-forth between two separate lists. One thing that stunned me about the basic rules .pdf was that the by-spell-level index for each class didn't contain short descriptions of each spell. You know, these guys: Limited WishX: Alters reality—within spell limits. WishX: As limited wish, but with fewer limits. Is the final 5e PHB still missing those entirely?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:One thing that stunned me about the basic rules .pdf was that the by-spell-level index for each class didn't contain short descriptions of each spell. You know, these guys: Yes it is still missing anything like that. Having the class/level lists contain a brief description and/or the damage/AoE would be a great idea and would remove most of the problems I have with the way the spell list works. So if you're listing Limited Wish: Alters reality—within spell limits. You could also list Fireball: XdY damage 30' radius explosion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Again, 5e has taken the "everything is a spell" farther then any previous edition, so having it as one big alphabetized list makes sense. Spells are not "things wizards cast." Spells are "literally the makeup of everything in the setting." 5e is the ultimate caster edition. Not because wizards are as powerful as they were in 3e, but because spells are everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
When not consulting your DM, cast Wish to change how the rules work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah I just got a copy of the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide and I'm pretty excited to read about how it plays in 4e. It should be a good fit. One of the things I noticed immediately with 3E Eberron was that most of the feats are really loving cool, something noticeably absent from typical 3E design, where each feat felt like "Let's make the idea of this intriguing, but the actual effect pretty worthless, even though feats are more difficult to get than spells."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
So I noticed there were a couple of people posting some neat ideas about how to improve Fighters. Was anybody interested in collaborating on that (in the interest of maybe 'finishing' a few of the subclasses)? I don't have a lot of spare time but I can probably try to toss out a few ideas here or there. Maybe we can even throw it in the OP eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Does any one have an inkling on whether or not the MM will have a bit about scaling monsters up/down? Obviously if your party is strong you can just chuck more enemies in until CR requirements are met, thats not so good for dialling stuff back. Is it a check with the GM/wait for the DMG/mathwringer scenario?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
dublish posted:At first I thought you meant dndtools.eu, but that's still up. Yeah it was a 5e specific database(http://5espellbook.azurewebsites.net/), it was very useful in searching for specific things that are basically impossible to do looking through the PHB(like spells that use a bonus action, or ritual spells in general)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
There is still http://hardcodex.ru/. and this spreadsheet..
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Not strictly D&D but in the "anti-mage" discussion, it reminded me of the time my group had dealt with that and wanted to share. I used to do rolemaster for years with my group, and on one of the campaigns I made a nomadic barbarian type and on the giant background options tables I rolled double-aught on the percentiles and ended up with "Unbeliever: You hold all magic to be mere tricks and fakery, but with such unique stubbornness that you gain 200% resistance to all magic that affects you". In Rolemaster, attacks and skill checks are open ended rolls so basically you could hit any target number with enough luck or with insane bonuses, so the 200 "percent" was really just an insanely high innate DC that casters had to hit (effectively around DC 40 in a d20 system). The GM and I talked about it and ultimately decided to go with it given a few provisions. Basically it meant hardly any spells would ever touch me for the duration of the campaign, but that was the case for every spell, eg. healing and anything else beneficial. So our two players with healing spells had to make (hopeless) attack rolls against me to land a heal (the GM ruled that my trait was only active if I was conscious, so our healers quickly gave up on immediate healing and learned to just let me bleed out or fall asleep and heal me up then). It was fun to close in on bewildered and rapidly panicking enemy casters, axe in hand, and our GM was experienced enough to sculpt encounters so that they were still challenging and fun for the entire group. But more memorable was roleplaying out those moments where, say, I witness something undeniably magical taking place, and after a moment I take notice that one of our party members is obviously being duped into thinking what they are seeing is so-called "magic". So I sidle over and rationally explain at them about how it's all just an elaborate combination of coincidences that can be picked apart into completely normal everyday factors. The particularly fun part was when we were travelling to find the location of an ancient city-state that was said to be tiny geographically but immensely powerful, and supposedly fell into ruin and/or abandonment eons ago. Basically finding this place was the plot hook that took the campaign into Act 2 and beyond. It has an El Dorado feel to it in that nobody has ever been able to find it, despite records and lore giving a pretty specific locale for where it should be, so it's long since been assumed it either never existed, existed somewhere else, or remnants of their society are mis-attributed from other cultures. So as we are travelling along to at least go to where it supposedly is and figure out what to do from there, the GM has us make some perception checks and after a moment the group realizes I'm missing, and looking behind them they see me retreating and figure I must have quietly turned my horse around and gone back the other way and never said anything. The GM passes me a note or two to say I am not sure exactly when everyone fell behind me but when I notice I stop, and turn around to see them shouting at me to come back and keep up with them. Despite their accusations I'm certain that I was not the one who turned around--I had been going the same drat direction for hours! These muddle-headed children believe in hocus pocus garbage and who knows what else, so it stands to reason that they can't even realize when they travel in the opposite direction they intended to go! (What had happened, of course, is the ancient city-state had placed an enchantment to ward off unwanted visitors. When you got too close, you simply turned around and walked away without even realizing it. I had burst straight through that, of course, and was able to help my party overcome it as well after some confused arguing. The adventurers, explorers, treasure seekers, and everyone else over the generations who had bothered to come out here each individually just went home convinced that the supposed location was only empty wilderness, when in fact they had only ever skirted around it and were none the wiser.) EDIT: More on topic. I picked up 5e last week, feel like it should be fine for my local group but have to ask: what was the rationale behind getting rid of "bloodied"? I thought it was such a great additional dynamic to combat, gave an easy way to indicate "how badly hurt does he look?" to the players, and how it could be both a boon and a curse depending on who got it, who you were fighting, etc. I suppose if in-combat healing is so much more rare now, that means there will be a lot less opportunity to dance above and below the bloodied threshold for your characters, so it was a mechanic that couldn't get as much play so they just took it out. I don't know, I haven't been able to figure out why you wouldn't keep something like that in. I especially loved all the "AI" in the MM that operated off of it. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:EDIT: More on topic. I picked up 5e last week, feel like it should be fine for my local group but have to ask: what was the rationale behind getting rid of "bloodied"? I thought it was such a great additional dynamic to combat, gave an easy way to indicate "how badly hurt does he look?" to the players, and how it could be both a boon and a curse depending on who got it, who you were fighting, etc. I suppose if in-combat healing is so much more rare now, that means there will be a lot less opportunity to dance above and below the bloodied threshold for your characters, so it was a mechanic that couldn't get as much play so they just took it out. I don't know, I haven't been able to figure out why you wouldn't keep something like that in. I especially loved all the "AI" in the MM that operated off of it. 4e did it
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
They think hitdice are a replacement for healing surges. Bloodied is a bridge too far. Until they release the module the other team is working on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
ritorix posted:There is still http://hardcodex.ru/. and this spreadsheet.. Awesome, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So I noticed there were a couple of people posting some neat ideas about how to improve Fighters. Was anybody interested in collaborating on that (in the interest of maybe 'finishing' a few of the subclasses)? I don't have a lot of spare time but I can probably try to toss out a few ideas here or there. Maybe we can even throw it in the OP eventually. I'd be up for trying to co-ordinate something. I don't have PMs, so can be found on googleplus as Madcat Angrymog (image is a wierd cat headed thing on a motorcycle) or email madcat at angrymog dot com The other option with the LFQW thing is to go the otherway and just embrace it - run a game set somewhere like the Known World's Glantri; crazy Magocracy for the win. (I might actually do this at some point) Angrymog fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:They think hitdice are a replacement for healing surges. Bloodied is a bridge too far. Until they release the module the other team is working on. Not an option in DMG. Probably never. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
ritorix posted:There is still http://hardcodex.ru/. and this spreadsheet.. Am I missing something or is that spreadsheet missing spells? For example I can't find cure wounds in the level 1 range or on the sheet at all. Edit: Spare the Dying & Healing Word are missing as well. Clinton1011 fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:
Not just crazy Magocracy ; Crazy FRENCH mages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Not an option in DMG. Probably never.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Is there enough core system to actually support those promised modules? The combat module would essentially be a new game, and "freeform story game" kinda needs to be that way from the start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
I love the huge, extravagant way in which they missed the point of healing surges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
moths posted:Is there enough core system to actually support those promised modules? The combat module would essentially be a new game, and "freeform story game" kinda needs to be that way from the start. The whole "modular core" thing seemed like marketing speak from the beginning. Every mention I remember was during the playtest was in the context of somebody asking about the rules on twiiter and Mearls saying "it'll be in a module".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:58
|
|