|
ProfessorCirno posted:I guarantee the frog statblock is there because someone wants to polymorph things into frogs, but absolutely needs to know what stats they'd have. Yeah I agree. That is probably why it is there.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
If I was ever in a game where the cat rolling advantage on a wisdom check to smell something was important enough to roll, I would leave. When you rip rear end, do you roll a handful of d20's? Ok, let's say it is something important, either you know about it and want to know if the cat smelled it, or you don't know about it and you should just decide if the cat smelling something and reacting is going to matter. No, you're making 2d20 rolls behind the screen and wasting everyone's time with "I don't know... did the cat smell it?" gently caress. Cat's aren't even known for their sense of smell, that's a dog. Cats have low-light vision. That's one of their things. Their eyes glow and everything. Everything about this is getting dumber and dumber. Why is the commoner +2 to hit? If the lovely commoner is +2 to hit, what does that make the level 1 fighter? He's even shittier with the same stats? I don't even know. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:If I was ever in a game where the cat rolling advantage on a wisdom check to smell something was important enough to roll, I would leave. When you rip rear end, do you roll a handful of d20's? Cat's aren't even known for their sense of smell, that's a dog. Cats have low-light vision. That's one of their things. Their eyes glow and everything. Everything about this is getting dumber and dumber. Why is the commoner +2 to hit? If the lovely commoner is +2 to hit, what does that make the level 1 fighter? He's even shittier with the same stats? I don't even know. It's not uncommon with small animals because of wizard familiars, of which the toad is one. At least in 3e, ravens especially were very good scouts for a party, so you did need their stat blocks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Why the gently caress would many games feature combat with CR 0 commoners? At CR0 they're essentially free for the DM in encounter-building. So yeah, you have to fight some orcs - in a mosh pit of CR0 commoners that you can't walk through. Fill every square with commoners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Why is the commoner +2 to hit? If the lovely commoner is +2 to hit, what does that make the level 1 fighter? He's even shittier with the same stats? I don't even know. Clearly it's club specialisation. Or else everything about this is getting dumber and dumber. Or both. Or that's the number that ~~felt right~~.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Rip out their bones, make some new friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
moths posted:Rip out their bones, make some new friends. Clearly the CR 0 Commoner is included so as to provide for Bob the Necromancer's burgeoning kingdom of bones. Where else would the skeletons come from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Haha, I just realised that the Commoner's +2 to hit has got to be related to the way proficiency bonus is +2 for every PC class at first level and is added to attack rolls. So I guess the only difference between being a 0-CR Commoner wielding a club and a 1st level Fighter* wielding a club is that the Fighter is (probably but not necessarily) stronger. *Fighters have "...an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat", per page 24 of the free rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Are skeletons seriously less dangerous when encased in a protective layer of commoner-flesh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Meatness is weakness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
The next phase of human evolution is skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
the bones are willing but the flesh is weak
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
So, with all the talk of boosting up the Fighter and other non-magical classes, has anyone thought about going the other way and taking the magic classes down a notch? I have, and I've got a few half-baked ideas I'd like to share, since you all seem better versed at gauging the balance stuff than I am. Let's get the big one out of the way first: the Wizard. I'm thinking about splitting the Wizard up into several classes that all draw from the different schools that base Wizards could. The Beguiler, for example, gets all the Illusion and Enchantment spells while also having an ability that lets them ape the Rogue's Cunning Action in exchange for a spell slot. Like, lose a prepared spell, get Cunning Actions for the next few rounds equal to the level of the prepared spell. Necromancers become their own class with a subclass that lets them become more martially focused besides the usual Wizard Necromancer subclass. Warmages get all the Evocation and Conjuration spells. And that leaves Wizards with Divination, Abjuration, and Transmutation. Since the main problem with Wizards is that they have a huge variety of options, I think this pares them down into something a little more manageable while still keeping the flavor of the Wizard as a general mystic-magic-y person in tact. I haven't done any real work on fleshing out those other classes yet, but they would get the same school focus benefits that the base Wizard had. A Warmage specializing in Evocation would get Potent Cantrip at level 6, for example. Besides that, do you think that shrinking the number of spells a spellcaster can prepare would help bring them more in line with the non-spellcasters? Like, instead of allowing a level 20 Sorceror to cast 22 spells over the course of a day, what if they could only cast 8? I'm leaning mostly off of the way 13th Age handles its spellcasters, so a Sorceror could have one 9th level spell slot, one 8th level spell slot, and then three 7th level or lower slots and three 4th level or lower slots. I figure most spellcasters could get the same treatment, though I'm not sure how well that would work with a few outliers like the Warlock or the Bard. This was mostly where I'm looking for input. Do you think that reducing the number of spells these classes could prepare would be a good "fix"? I realize that most of the problem with spellcasting classes isn't necessarily the spells themselves, but the narrative power that they provide compared to what a Fighter or a Rogue can offer. This is mostly why I split the Wizard up. I wanna know if I'm on to something or if I'm just grasping at straws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
red plastic cup posted:So, with all the talk of boosting up the Fighter and other non-magical classes, has anyone thought about going the other way and taking the magic classes down a notch? I have, and I've got a few half-baked ideas I'd like to share, since you all seem better versed at gauging the balance stuff than I am. Let's get the big one out of the way first: the Wizard. See my earlier reply about this. The spell bloat is enormous, many non or partial casters still rely on spells being around to function at all (see: Paladin, Ranger, anyone dealing with/countering magical effects or the mobility of monsters such as flight, etc), balance was not taken into much consideration when designing them so you'd be redoing the whole thing from the ground up. It is not worth the effort at all. Your time is better spent buffing non-casters or playing a different game entirely. Saying the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid or Cleric get to 'cast less' or 'have a random spell failure chance' or 'force them to specialize' does not do anything to fix this dilemma. It limits their resources a little more, it might punish them a bit for trying to, but they still have all the game changing powers in their hands. All you would do is reinforce the idea of taking Long Rests even more and force parties to plan even further around what the spellcaster can (and can not) do. Its also a lovely attitude to set a precedent for player power and options (casters), fail to meet it with other player classes (non-casters), and then try to nerf literally everyone else to bring them down to parity with the thing that clearly sucks (i.e. the Fighter class.) Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
The way to power down casters so that multiple people can play members of the same casting class without being effectively interchangeable is this: limit the size of the caster's spellbook. Like, I don't know, take the number of spell slots a wizard gets at each level and multiply by three. That's how many spells of that level a wizard can have mastered. Others they can theoretically cast but it'd mean consuming a scroll and spending an hour, or something like that. Also do this for clerics and druids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
All casters are NPCs played by party consensus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
moths posted:All casters are NPCs played by party consensus. Why play separate characters then. Why not be the gestalt entity that is a schizophrenic uber mage. That honestly sounds like a more enjoyable game than playing the balancing act between casters and non-casters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
FFG is launching a new game where you play yourselves in varying apocalypse scenarios. We misunderstood this as a game where you play as various apocalypses. I'd be UFOs, Ryan would be zombies, Dan would play biblical second-coming prophecy. The DM is unspecified entropy - manifested as the dying of the sun if we weren't interesting enough. It was disappointing when we realized what was actually going on. But there's no reason not to treat the most powerful guy in the setting as a party resource. D&D has forever treated casters like water in the Sahara, why not just turn him into the anti-DM? A party-controlled character with the same narrative agency as the guy "running" the show?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Why play separate characters then. Why not be the gestalt entity that is a schizophrenic uber mage. Everyone Is Overlord Xyzerax The Doombringer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
The reason toad stats are in the book is because that is the dragons only defense against a party of wizards sending polymorphed boulders in the shape of a houseflies at him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
moths posted:FFG is launching a new game where you play yourselves in varying apocalypse scenarios. We misunderstood this as a game where you play as various apocalypses. I'd be UFOs, Ryan would be zombies, Dan would play biblical second-coming prophecy. The DM is unspecified entropy - manifested as the dying of the sun if we weren't interesting enough. It was disappointing when we realized what was actually going on. I could see it if it was Gandalf-like entity who's entire existence in the story is to facilitate the actual heroes going on their quest. Once per story arc you can have him do something actually magical that tips the scales in your favor or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Haha, I just realised that the Commoner's +2 to hit has got to be related to the way proficiency bonus is +2 for every PC class at first level and is added to attack rolls. Commoners only have proficiency in clubs they have plus 0 to everything else they use that is not a club. SO Fighters do have what it says. They can use all types of weapons with Proficiency and Wear all types of armors. A commoner can't. Also Proficiency is based on CR. Here is the list from the DM's Basic rules. So no it did not have anything to do with feel. Proficiency Bonus by Challenge Rating 0 +2 14 +5 1/8 +2 15 +5 1/4 +2 16 +5 1/2 +2 17 +6 1 +2 18 +6 2 +2 19 +6 3 +2 20 +6 4 +2 21 +7 5 +3 22 +7 6 +3 23 +7 7 +3 24 +7 8 +3 25 +8 9 +4 26 +8 10 +4 27 +8 11 +4 28 +8 12 +4 29 +9 13 +5 30 +9
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Commoners only have proficiency in clubs they have plus 0 to everything else they use that is not a club. Where does it say this*? Does it follow that orcs only have proficiency in greataxe and javelin and therefore are at -2 to hit with all other weapons? *Hint: It says the loving opposite on the page before the Commoner listing
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Everyone Is Overlord Xyzerax The Doombringer? Everyone is Elminster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Everyone Is Overlord Xyzerax The Doombringer? Yo, you joke, but I would legit play this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
So would I. So have I. You literally just have to rename Everyone Is John to that and play as normal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
A slightly more serious suggestion is to play Ars Magica. For some reason D&D grogs love to point to Ars Magica as an example of why caster supremacy isn't a bad thing, somehow managing to completely overlook the fact that caster supremacy is fine in Ars Magica because everybody takes turns playing wizards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Where does it say this*? I remember this quote. "Unless noted (Like with the cat I posted.) a monster is assumed to be proficient with the weapons it is equipped with." You can swap stuff out and say it's proficient, but by default yes. I will find the source of this quote, but I remember it. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I remember this quote. "Unless noted (Like with the cat I posted.) a monster is assumed to be proficient with the weapons it is equipped with." You can swap stuff out and say it's proficient, but by default yes. Use your PDF reader's search function to look for the words "proficient" and "proficiency" in the player's free rules and the DM's free rules. Nothing like that quote exists in either of them. In fact, the only page of the DM's rules on which either of those words appear is page 4. Just so we're clear, we're talking about whether or not the Commoner can have proficiency in weapons other than the club. Page 53 of the DM's rules PDF says "You can upgrade or downgrade an NPC’s armor, or add or switch weapons. Adjustments to Armor Class and damage can change an NPC’s challenge rating." It doesn't say anything about losing the attack bonus. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Found it, it is in the starter set. Exact quote. quote:Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap out a creature's armor and weapons, you must decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment. See the rulebook for what happens when you use these items without proficiency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Right, so the actual written rule is not MonsterEnvy posted:Commoners only have proficiency in clubs they have plus 0 to everything else they use that is not a club. It's "DM decides". You just posted the first rule-sounding thing that came into your head that supported your position. Again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
"Proficiency in all weapons!" has never mattered and will never matter unless each weapon is uniquely specialized, there's no weapon specialization, and a fighter can switch through them as no action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"Proficiency in all weapons!" has never mattered and will never matter unless each weapon is uniquely specialized, there's no weapon specialization, and a fighter can switch through them as no action. The worst part is how some weapons are just plain better. Where there IS meaningful mechanical difference, it's usually 'X is superior in basically every situation'. Then consider how much of Fighter design forces you to specialize in a specific weapon, and how older magic item design further forced specialization. Has that been fixed, at least? Are magic items less prohibitively expensive and completely and totally essential? Night10194 fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
They even removed things that differentiated weapons during the playtest, throwing things out of whack and making the weak damage, but big crits weapons strictly worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"Proficiency in all weapons!" has never mattered and will never matter unless each weapon is uniquely specialized, there's no weapon specialization, and a fighter can switch through them as no action. At least 4th edition had the golf bag fighter. Where you took all the powers that had different effects depending on the weapon type you used, took the feat that gave expertise bonus to all weapons plus let you switch weapons as a free action once per turn, then strapped a small armory to your back or had the DM let you bring a caddy with you. It sucked without inherent bonuses but at least it was there and kind of cool in its own stupid way."Sir would like a 9 maul for this orc?' 'No Patsy this looks like a job for a wedge' 'Chopping wedge or slicing?" Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
There were even some 4E Fighter powers explicitly set up to let you do things like sheathe and draw a new weapon after attacking, with various riders depending on the sort of weapon you used to attack with. Even in 4E though the big list of weapons was mostly wasted space. Show of hands, who ever used a katar? Or a broadsword? Some weapons you could get some utility out of if you went with a weird edge case build...like combining the Avenger feat that turned any weapon damage die result that came up a 1 or a 2 into a 3 with the 2d4 damage falchion, even though you'd almost always want something like an executioner axe or a fullblade anyway...but for the most part it would have been a lot more useful and space-efficient to simply cut the weapon list down to the weapon everybody actually picked and used and chuck the rest. Also no matter how many times people try to draw an equivalency between "proficient in ALL WEAPONS AND ARMOR WOW" and "casts spells" it will never, ever become true and this should be plainly obvious with about three seconds of thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Even in 4E though the big list of weapons was mostly wasted space. Show of hands, who ever used a katar? Or a broadsword? Some weapons you could get some utility out of if you went with a weird edge case build...like combining the Avenger feat that turned any weapon damage die result that came up a 1 or a 2 into a 3 with the 2d4 damage falchion, even though you'd almost always want something like an executioner axe or a fullblade anyway...but for the most part it would have been a lot more useful and space-efficient to simply cut the weapon list down to the weapon everybody actually picked and used and chuck the rest. This was the perfect and obvious place for modules! Core rules could have simple/martial/two-handed weapons with a different damage dice for each category (same with armor, just light/medium/heavy). You could then have two loving modules, too - one with a shortish list of Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Add a sanity/perils of the warp mechanic for casters, which introduces random apeshit splatterdeath charts, which improve any game ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well that kind of is the case right there in the example. Both of those things never existed before 4e. Yeah they never existed. They were new mechanics for a new system. Not "changes to the core rules" as stated. There are no "core rules", there never have been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
The only time what weapon you were using actually chose mattered in D&D was polearms in 4th edition because of the increased attack range and the ridiculous force moment shenanigans you could get up to thanks to certain feats and abilities that ether only work with polarms or have synergy with the increased attack range. Like in real life the only distinctions that matters on the battlefield for melee are shield yes/no and sharp thing on a stick yes/no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:18
|
|