|
I've been DMing for a pair of players who haven't played since 3rd (I DMed for 4e a few years ago), and even they are commenting about how swingy poo poo is. We had a jaunt through some spider-infested mines, and I would have had to shave off a few spiders from the last two (properly-budgeted per rules) encounters if they hadn't just burned everything down, because one giant spider (CR1) could have and did drop one of my players in one hit. A single attack hits for 1d8+3 plus 2d8 poison if they fail the save, or half on success. That's (not exactly, I know) 2d8+3 minimum, and 3d8+3 on a full hit. A loving crit would have triggered massive damage and killed the fighter instantly instead of just knocking her out. I've decided to make the monster crits knock targets prone instead like someone earlier suggested, and will be vetting every loving monster now, but it's disheartening. Both my rusty players and myself are enjoying the easily-grasped rules, but it's pretty lovely I'm already using houserules as duct tape.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
It's important that we make the low levels as swingy as possible so people can boast about how lethal the system is and then start at level 5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
How are fighters NOT better at using weapons than other characters? They get the most extra attacks and action surges. No matter what weapon they are using. They can pick it up and make more attacks and then make even more a few times a day. They get more feats and stat point increases than anyone else, which also makes them better at using a random weapon, generally. I mean, if you choose polearm master, it's your choice to specialize. You could have just increased strength again or taken Great Weapon Master or something far more general. And even if you took it and don't happen to have a polearm available for whatever reason you are still plenty effective-- you still have action surge and your superiority dice to gently caress stuff up with. If you're dismissing Fighting Styles as "just" a +1 AC or +2 to hit, I think you're missing how things scale in 5e. Outside of proficiency bonuses and stat bonuses (and, potentially magic weapons), where else are you getting a bonus to hit from in 5e? For the first 10 levels, that +2 to hit is very helpful. Going from a +5 to +7 to hit against a hobgoblin takes you from 40% chance to hit to 50%-- a 25% increase in expected damage. Similarly, going from 20 AC to 21 AC takes a Hell Hound from a 30% chance to hit to a 25% chance to hit-- about an 17% expected damage reduction. Later on these bonuses won't be as big relatively, but can still be very helpful. One more thing that I see a lot and really don't agree with: the whole fighters are basically picking the best weapon or they've made a worse decision. That's only true if you only consider *mean* values in a vacuum. Mean doesn't give you the best idea of what's actually going on. Say you're fighting a monster with 17 HP and you have a +7 to damage. Would you rather have a great axe or a maul? Personally, I think the great axe comes out ahead in that situation. The great axe has a 1/4 (3/12) chance of doing enough damage to finish the monster off in the first hit, and only a 1/144 (rolling 1 on a d12 twice in a row) chance of not finishing it off in two. The maul has a 1/6 (6/36) chance to finish the enemy in a single hit, though no chance of not finishing it in 2. Looking at the whole probability distribution adds a lot to the picture, rather than deciding everything off some mean DPS happening in a vacuum. I'm not saying that this makes great axes better or anything of the sort. I just think a lot of options are being outright dismissed based on small differences in statistics that really don't capture what will happen in actual play. Stats are only as helpful as their model, and DPS in a vacuum isn't a very good model of D&D in my experience. On the "Champions suck" argument: The increased crit range also increases your chance of getting a bonus attack with great weapon master, which is nice if you're looking to use a maul/greataxe/greatsword. Also, as previously mentioned, there are very few opportunities for the extra fighting style to get a flat numerical bonus, so I think that feature is frequently underrated. That said, I probably still wouldn't play one. alarumklok posted:I've been DMing for a pair of players who haven't played since 3rd (I DMed for 4e a few years ago), and even they are commenting about how swingy poo poo is. I've never understood why level 1 doesn't include several hit dice for a PC to prevent this BS. I was really hoping 5e would have moved away from the whole 1HD per level thing. I think systems that start with more HP and have a much slower increase feel way more even. I guess I'm basically saying: Gort posted:It's important that we make the low levels as swingy as possible so people can boast about how lethal the system is and then start at level 5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
It looks like my group is going to be switching over to 5e after this week's game. What would be the best place to start learning the changes to the system for someone who's played 3.x(and Pathfinder), but not 4e? I have a copy of the PHB, and since the DMG isn't out yet I get the feeling we're going to be fighting a lot of humans for the first few weeks. Other than Fighter(which I see from the last few pages still sucks?) are there any other obviously terrible classes? I've only read the sections on Paladins so far, because that's what I think I'm playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:It looks like my group is going to be switching over to 5e after this week's game. What would be the best place to start learning the changes to the system for someone who's played 3.x(and Pathfinder), but not 4e? Use this for monsters. http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1_PrinterFriendly.pdf Most of the class balance is okay at first level (though poo poo like the horrible healing rules and the wizard possibly ending encounters with a single spell seem like they'd be constants the entire game) so I'd just play what you want to play (except someone basically must be a healer) but be aware that it will fall apart horribly once you've a few levels under your belt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:It looks like my group is going to be switching over to 5e after this week's game. What would be the best place to start learning the changes to the system for someone who's played 3.x(and Pathfinder), but not 4e? They don't suck and will be useful. People are just over blowing it because they are not as good as the Wizard, but they are useful. Also you should not worry about fighting humans. There are a lot of monsters that have been released in the basic rules online. So you will have a pretty wide selection to fight. Paladins appear to be the single target damage kings of the game according to some people. So that is a pretty good choice of class. In other news the DMG has been delayed so they can make it higher quality http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dmg-release-date For those of you that don't care about this it came with this rather cool pic from the DMG of the Modron march.  Gort posted:but be aware that it will fall apart horribly once you've a few levels under your belt. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
if they're currently the single target damage kings then I'm probably going to get mocked relentlessly for my next question: How viable is an actual 'tank' build in 5e? Is there any sort of mechanic for trying to prevent monsters from just going to hit someone else? I'm planning on playing up the whole "defender of the people," angle and focusing on support and defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Gort posted:Use this for monsters. http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1_PrinterFriendly.pdf This like 100% opposite of my experience. We're playing at 6th level and things are still good. This is by far the least overpowered I've ever felt as a spellcaster. Fireballs are great against hordes and only marginally effective against a few big enemies given how few I can sling. My control spells are resisted about half the time and I can only have one going at any given point, so they're helpful but not encounter ending. The rogue is flitting around combat pumping out sneak attacks and being awesome in and out of combat. The ranger is probably our MVP overall due to spells like Pass Without Trace (+10 stealth whole party) and his wilderness skills and consistent damage output in combat. Our barbarian is smashing and tanking like a boss, too. Our "healer" is a bard we hired to travel with us, and he gets the job done plenty well even only being level 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:if they're currently the single target damage kings then I'm probably going to get mocked relentlessly for my next question: How viable is an actual 'tank' build in 5e? Is there any sort of mechanic for trying to prevent monsters from just going to hit someone else? There are some feats for it. But I have not tried to built a tank in the game so I would not know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have a release schedule for the rest of the year? I'm trying to work out a time scale to get Noskelhome finished by, and seeing what (if anything) I need to cut. I've not really been working on it, due to having other things I needed to do, but I'm 2 cities done and have begun work on the monster list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
I know the DMG is coming out in November and the MM is coming out before that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:I know the DMG is coming out in November and the MM is coming out before that. The Dungeon Master's Guide has been pushed back to December 9th for official release. Monster Manual is still September 19th for early release, and the 30th for normal retail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
MM should be out at the end of the month. DMG before the end of the year but no firm date.Tactical Bonnet posted:if they're currently the single target damage kings then I'm probably going to get mocked relentlessly for my next question: How viable is an actual 'tank' build in 5e? Is there any sort of mechanic for trying to prevent monsters from just going to hit someone else? Other than that it's body blocking and OA. You can take the MOBA approach of tanking which is two pronged: 1) be hard to kill, 2) be aggressive and in your face to the enemy, so that if they aren't containing you and forcing you to act defensively, you are instead dishing out disarms, trips and other status effects that your teammates can exploit. Basically an antagonistic pain in the rear end that is dangerous to ignore, aka. the best and only way to play fighter 
Bhaal fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:MM should be out at the end of the month. DMG before the end of the year but no firm date. I just linked the new date. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/feature
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. I was looking to beat one of the setting/event backs to the punch, so I'll be looking to get done before rise of tiamat hit shelves. I guess I'd best start planning/commissioning my art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:MM should be out at the end of the month. DMG before the end of the year but no firm date. OAs also take your Reaction, so you can only get one/round and it's a chance to use either that or the shield fighting style, not both. Tank fighters really, really aren't a thing in 5e. quote:In other news the DMG has been delayed so they can make it higher quality http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...mg-release-date I hope they can squeeze in another 24 pages of CR0 critters like they did in the Monster Manual. quote:On the "Champions suck" argument: The increased crit range also increases your chance of getting a bonus attack with great weapon master, which is nice if you're looking to use a maul/greataxe/greatsword. Also, as previously mentioned, there are very few opportunities for the extra fighting style to get a flat numerical bonus, so I think that feature is frequently underrated. That said, I probably still wouldn't play one. Champions really do suck on a mathematical basis, though; go ahead and scroll up for some math. Battlemasters are far and away more damage even if you don't recharge your superiority dice at all over the day, and unlike Champions they can choose when to apply that bonus damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:if they're currently the single target damage kings then I'm probably going to get mocked relentlessly for my next question: How viable is an actual 'tank' build in 5e? Is there any sort of mechanic for trying to prevent monsters from just going to hit someone else? Play a Battle Master Fighter, it starts at 3rd level, take Goading Attack which gives Disadvantage on attacks directed toward anyone but you. Grab the Sentinel feat. That or use a polearm and take Polearm Master. That or play a Paladin and use Compelled Duel for the spell version of an MMO taunt. The Paladin in general is probably a better choice if you want to be an actual tank. Lots of class features toward resisting/immunity to annoying status effects, spells to aid you in tanking, Smite to bolster your damage regardless of weapon choice, self-healing in the form of Cure Wounds and Lay On Hands and again, Compelled Duel. If you want to shore it up further take Martial Initiate or multiclass to Fighter 3 and go Battle Master to use Goading Attack, Rally, and so on. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Champions really do suck on a mathematical basis, though; go ahead and scroll up for some math. Battlemasters are far and away more damage even if you don't recharge your superiority dice at all over the day, and unlike Champions they can choose when to apply that bonus damage. That math didn't include potentials for bonus attacks from Great Weapon Fighter via critical hit, as far as I can tell. It's not enough to swing things in the Champions favor or anything, but it's a nice synergy. That's a 73% chance of getting a bonus attack when Action Surging at 20, which is nice for a greataxe build. In the past few editions there have been quite a few ways to get riders that go along with critical hits, which also may do quite a bit to make Champion more appealing as time goes on. But like I said, it's still unappealing compared to Battle Master for me. Just a thought, but if Remarkable Athlete were to give you full proficiency with all Str, Dex, and Con related checks and Survivor were been available earlier, I'd actually consider Champion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
RPZip posted:OAs also take your Reaction, so you can only get one/round and it's a chance to use either that or the shield fighting style, not both. Tank fighters really, really aren't a thing in 5e. There was 25 pages of misc creatures. Stuff like Blink Dogs were included there so there was not that many C0 creatures and some of the beasts there are not bad for the game. Also we got the Salamander.  HQ art  No matter what you say about the stat block you must admit the art is quite awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How does a fighter in 4e get better version of his weapon through the campaign? If a fighter's choice of weapon is something insanely rare, like say, a 2 handed flail, is the DM expected to have the party find magic 2 handed flails of various enchantment power throughout the campaign? 2e/3e/5e seem to be saying no gently caress you, find another weapon to specialize in. I houseruled a ritual that let you destroy a weapon/armor to transfer its enchantments onto another one, assuming everything was legal (no putting axe-only enchantments on a mace). It was intended to support rare weapon choice as well as people who wanted to have a family heirloom sword or something that they kept using.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I remember I took up a challenge by one of these people who argued that 4E had less options than 3E. He argued that every Warlock played the same, so I said, "Alright. How about a gentleman's bet? Choose a race and a Pact for the Warlock, and I will make no less than 4 completely different Level 1 characters who will all run differently from each other. In fact, to make this even more of a challenge, I will use no multiclass options and pull only from the PHB" Was it on GITP? I think I remember that. The edition war got very hot and heavy over there (I am not claiming to have been immune to it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:I houseruled a ritual that let you destroy a weapon/armor to transfer its enchantments onto another one, assuming everything was legal (no putting axe-only enchantments on a mace). It was intended to support rare weapon choice as well as people who wanted to have a family heirloom sword or something that they kept using. No need to houserule, Transfer Enchantment does exactly that. I forget which book it was in though, it wasn't the first PHB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Masiakasaurus posted:No need to houserule, Transfer Enchantment does exactly that. I forget which book it was in though, it wasn't the first PHB. It was Adventurer's Vault
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:So you understood what I meant then ("that poo poo" contextually referring to Damage Resistance from normal, non-magical weaponry). You were talking about different types of mundane damage--bludgeoning, piercing, slashing--not resistance to mundane damage. Bludgeoning is mechanically the same as lightning or whatever, just a damage type. The problem with B,P,S is that it makes martials worry about a caster-style problem on top of all their other problems
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You were talking about different types of mundane damage--bludgeoning, piercing, slashing--not resistance to mundane damage. Bludgeoning is mechanically the same as lightning or whatever, just a damage type. The problem is that there's only immunities to BPS, never bonuses. Fighters are never rewarded. They're only "not punished."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem is that there's only immunities to BPS, never bonuses. Fighters are never rewarded. They're only "not punished."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage because skeletons support fighters both inside and out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Rock lobster, paper tiger, and scissors lizard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem is that there's only immunities to BPS, never bonuses. Fighters are never rewarded. They're only "not punished." Wasn't the that one big ruptured zombies thing? I think it was in a later 3.5 mm and the first 4E one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem is that there's only immunities to BPS, never bonuses. Fighters are never rewarded. They're only "not punished." That's a further problem (if true). But fundamentally, the problem is that it takes an interesting complication that's part of the spellcaster resource management game and makes it a chore for martial characters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem is that there's only immunities to BPS, never bonuses. Fighters are never rewarded. They're only "not punished." The Rakashasa straight up has vulnerabilities to Piercing damage from Magic weapons used by good characters. The skeleton was already mentioned. So you are wrong here already. These may only be two monsters but I am decently sure that a few more of them have similar stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
I would be rather pleasantly surprised if it's widespread! One of 4e's problems in the later stuff was how strong elemental damage was so that almost everyone - or at least all strikers - wanted an elemental weapon. Moving vul. to weapontype would help ease that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The Rakashasa straight up has vulnerabilities to Piercing damage from Magic weapons used by good characters. The skeleton was already mentioned. So you are wrong here already. These may only be two monsters but I am decently sure that a few more of them have similar stuff. The superiority of skeletons over fighters has been well established.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:The superiority of skeletons over fighters has been well established. Your party of a skeleton fighter,a skeleton cleric, a skeleton rogue, and a skeleton wizard awaken in the depths of their ancient fortress tomb. Marauders have invaded, intent on plundering your relics and treasures for themselves. What do you do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The Rakashasa straight up has vulnerabilities to Piercing damage from Magic weapons used by good characters. The skeleton was already mentioned. So you are wrong here already. These may only be two monsters but I am decently sure that a few more of them have similar stuff. This is accurate, but let's be real: there are way more monsters that require magical weapons to damage than there are monsters that have vulnerabilities. (insert metaphor about melee being thrown a couple of bones while casters get an entire skeleton army or something) Beyond that, plenty of monsters appear to have powers that amount to little more than "make bad things happen to people who try to engage in melee." Besides the Stone Golem, the salamander you posted earlier on the page is a good example - 2d6/7 fire damage for hitting a salamander while you're within 5 feet. This is one of the core gripes I have with 5E so far. I have yet to really see any mechanics from monsters that make playing a martial character feel interesting and badass - only mechanics that penalize you for playing one. Wanted to get up in that Rakshasa's face? Congrats, you're burning up your party's third level spell slots by getting cursed from its melee attacks. Want to attack the salamander? Whoops, hope you enjoy killing yourself. Want to go toe-to-toe with that Stone Golem? Sure - hope you didn't care about using that role-defining Extra Attack feature! I recognize that there are plenty of kobolds and orcs and so on that are melee-neutral. But there are plenty where you think "nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with that" and very few where you think "whew, good thing we brought a couple of competent scrappers". The absolute best version of that is "whew, good thing we brought a couple of people to stand in front of the wizards." Stand-in-front-of-the-wizards isn't the most exciting of roles, y'know? Maybe the DMG, with its rules for flanking (that casters generally don't interact with, except when they get flanked) will make being in melee range seem cool and exciting and rewarding, instead of being the poo poo job that somebody's got to do so that the monsters don't get at your squishy casters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:Your party of a skeleton fighter,a skeleton cleric, a skeleton rogue, and a skeleton wizard awaken in the depths of their ancient fortress tomb. You joke, but I would play a Tomb Kings RPG in an instant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
forgot to include the picture 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:Your party of a skeleton fighter,a skeleton cleric, a skeleton rogue, and a skeleton wizard awaken in the depths of their ancient fortress tomb. Why, that should be obvious! Liberate the skeletons that are imprisoned inside the meat things, of course!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:forgot to include the picture "HNYEH I ATTACK THE DARKNESS GUYS" "jesus Todd give it a loving rest"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
branar posted:This is accurate, but let's be real: there are way more monsters that require magical weapons to damage than there are monsters that have vulnerabilities. (insert metaphor about melee being thrown a couple of bones while casters get an entire skeleton army or something) This is something I've vaguely been trying to point out - all the details of combat are all based on "you are trying to melee this monster, so it punishes you for meleeing it." It assumes ALL COMBAT is a fighter hitting a baddie, and the baddie hitting back. Outside of a few edge cases, "magic that doesn't do HP damage" really isn't covered. At best you have Legendry Whatever that allows auto-saves so long as you don't use the spell that bypasses it. But there's no PUNISHMENT. Like, look at those golems meant to be anti-caster enemies but end up being chump change for them. What if you changed it's whole anti-magic thing to "Any time the golem is effected by a spell in any way, cancel the spell's effects, silence the spellcaster, and deal x damage based on spell level." Now you have a loving anti-magic golem. Or hell, you could even eliminate that first part - if you cast a spell, it works, but you're silenced and take damage. Better hope that spell works. Better hope you didn't clip the golem with a fireball because it was in the middle of all the OTHER guys you're trying to fireball. Suddenly spellcasting has some iota of risk connected. But no. It - like every other monster out there - only punishes you or engaging in the punchman HPgame. Even archery is somewhat excluded from this, as very few monsters react at all to being shot at compared to the numerous, numerous reactions to being next to a baddie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:51
|
|