|
ProfessorCirno posted:Suddenly spellcasting has some iota of risk connected. Heheh. How about a monster that when a spell is cast nearby, it's initiative pass comes up immediately. Or a monster that can reflexively eat ongoing magical effects to buff itself, even if it's unconcious, charmed, paralyzed, or turned to stone.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Heheh. How about a monster that when a spell is cast nearby, it's initiative pass comes up immediately. Or a monster that can reflexively eat ongoing magical effects to buff itself, even if it's unconcious, charmed, paralyzed, or turned to stone. How about a monster that, when [status effected], gets buffed tremendously for the following number of rounds equal to the spell level. Oh, and the spell effect immediately wears off at the beginning of its next turn. Sure, you can paralyze the Anti-Mage Deathkiller Monstrosity XV2000, but you better hope the damage dealers can put it in the dirt before its next turn comes around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:How about a monster that, when [status effected], gets buffed tremendously for the following number of rounds equal to the spell level. Oh, and the spell effect immediately wears off at the beginning of its next turn. "...the creature gains the benefit of righteous might and--" "I counterspell."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Just wait until they release the Balloon Golem, Piñatafish, and the Twinedaemon. Balloon golems are no joke! Once had my party taking on a crazy chaos clownmage in his wacky world fun castle labyrinth I know, not really original but it was a lot of fun. and all the golems were made of balloons full of different gas types. Pop, stinking cloud, pop, darkness, pop, rainbows!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Caphi posted:"...the creature gains the benefit of righteous might and--" Naturally you do not make it a spell effect but an innate, nonmagical ability that cannot be dispelled. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
If we're talking mage killers, what about a creature which doppels as a party member and, for all intents and purposes, divinely is that character and suffers the effects of spells - but within the same instant, the person divinely copied is also hit with the spell.
Trollhawke fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
On the subject of gently caress wizard monsters you could have a monster that overloads the targets mind with its long range attacks, adding the targets int modifier to the damage of all its attacks and causing the target to automatically fail any concentration checks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:On the subject of gently caress wizard monsters you could have a monster that overloads the targets mind with its long range attacks, adding the targets int modifier to the damage of all its attacks and causing the target to automatically fail any concentration checks. And if the spell caster has an existing Concentration spell effect on themselves, or on an ally, it explodes spectacularly doing XdY damage that goes through resistances. Also how about monsters that lower the save DC on the spellcaster's spells just by being within, say, a few hundred feet of it? then have it defend itself with a bunch of mooks that can phase through solid things (such as, say, the Fighter) with a temporary incorporeal state. No walls or warriors will save your skinny bathrobe wearing rear end!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
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 08:19
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Please tell me this is a module for something! I want to run this for a Halloween one shot. hah, I wish. just something I came up with at the mention of skeletonchat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
If you want to directly invert "punish melee" then how about a reflection aura? Spells/ranged attacks (depending on preference) outside of 10' are bounced back at the attacker (attack rolls as appropriate so a ranger can dodge their own shots), forcing the mage/archer to close to be useful, putting them in attack range and discouraging area attacks. For monster design in general, 4e has spoiled me with plentiful tips and advice. I'm fine with player-killer monsters like the intellect devourer existing, but I'd like to see a note in the creature entry along the lines of "this creature can seriously cripple a player or entire party on a single roll, be awareof that when deciding to use it" like 4e has for the rust monster. I'm sure the MM or DMG will have a note of monster use in general, but I feel some monsters need a warning right there to catch DMs who may just scan for low-CR monsters who fit the theme they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Jackard posted:BPS is just not that interesting. Ok so undead may traditionally have crush/fire vulnerability. But what would even get slash vulnerability? What seems "extra cuttable" aside from something like kraken tentacles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
To be frank, when you get down to it, I find standard vulnerability to be pretty boring too. Give me something where using a slashing weapon on a kraken reduces it's ability to attack you. Using a bashing weapon on anything skeleton - including the lich - not only does extra damage, it lowers it's stats because you're literally smashing away it's body. Using a piercing weapon on a dragon bypasses ALL of it's armor. A werewolf isn't "DR x/Silver," it's "silver weapons wounds instantly fester and deal damage over time that can't be saved against without medical attention of some type." Cold Iron weapons cause fey creatures to literally lose their magic. If fighters' big thing is "can use every weapon" then that needs a cool big thing baked into the game. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Is magic resistance still a thing for monsters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
4E occasionally, albeit far too rarely, flirted with non-standard vulnerabilities and damage-conditional effects. The updated Flesh Golem out of the Monster Vault, for instance, has a special vulnerability where whenever it takes fire damage it immediately retreats away from it, granting combat advantage if it can't get far enough away. Because fire bad, you see. Of course if it took lightning damage then it could make a free basic attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:If we're talking mage killers, what about a creature which doppels as a party member and, for all intents and purposes, divinely is that character and suffers the effects of spells - but within the same instant, the person divinely copied is also hit with the spell. Ah, the Noble Doppleganger, or as some style it the Great Charlatan. Where the garden-variety doppleganger entertains itself by merely impersonating it's victims, the Noble Doppleganger has learned the deeper arts of disguise. Despite their skill at stealth and disguise, they are exceptionally vain, and universally wear showy or expensive clothing as well as elaborate blank-face masks, like those worn by actors. This does not stop them from disguising themselves or hiding; such is their skill. However, they rarely attack from ambush or while pretending to be another; they prefer their prey to know who is killing them and why they are dying. There are three tricks they have in common: 1. Thaumic Mimicry: For a moment they are, for all purposes relating to spell-targeting, identical to a specific target. Yes, if both they and their target are in an area of effect spell, they both get hit by it twice. 2. Thaumic Embezzlement: A step beyond mimicry; they're not just imitating someone, they embody the essence of someone in a way that the real person never could; and so, the universe obliges. For the duration of this effect, their victim loses any ongoing magical effects and the Noble Doppleganger gains them. 3. Slough Identity: By adopting completely different mannerisms to those they had a moment ago, they can trick the cosmos into thinking they're a different person for a fraction of a second; that's enough to break magical effects. Sadly, it's not good enough to trick a sucking chest-wound. Notably, Noble Dopplegangers never wear masks of gold, but prefer almost any other material as long as it's expensive. The Noble Dopplegangers claim that the right to wear the golden mask belongs to Namuci-Mara, the Divine Doppleganger, a being that can imitate and ursurp a deity, or hide itself so absolutely that not even divinations could tell it exists. All evidence says such a thing does not exist, but of course, it would, wouldn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Is magic resistance still a thing for monsters? Sort of. Some monsters do have a trait called "magic resistance." What this means is that they have advantage on all saving throws against spells and other magical effects. But there's also spells that require an attack roll of the spellcaster, or that work through some other method (e.g. Sleep being compared to hit point totals). Against those spells the magic resistance trait does utterly nothing. It looks like they included the name because grogs expect it and they just slapped on some advantage mechanic, their go-to solution for everything. But it means the trait is quite inconsistent in terms of what it can resist. It also can no longer differentiate between a monster which used to have 10% resistance or one that had 90% resistance (or between SR 12 and SR 26 , if you prefer the 3e style); everything is just an extra die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
And it's especially still bad because of how most monsters have at least one bad save that they are quite likely to fail even with advantage on the roll - the Tarrasque, for example, has advantage on saves but has a -4 Int save so any int-save spell is still probably going to hit it (well, ignoring legendary resistance).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:4E occasionally, albeit far too rarely, flirted with non-standard vulnerabilities and damage-conditional effects. The updated Flesh Golem out of the Monster Vault, for instance, has a special vulnerability where whenever it takes fire damage it immediately retreats away from it, granting combat advantage if it can't get far enough away. Because fire bad, you see. Of course if it took lightning damage then it could make a free basic attack. The Arboreals from Pyramid of Shadows had 'Vulnerable 5 fire (pushed 1 square when it takes fire damage)' - the fire wizard PC dropping ongoing damage onto a room of these and watching them run around in panic was the funniest thing I ever saw at the table in 4e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Caphi posted:"...the creature gains the benefit of righteous might and--" "You sure?" "  Yeah completely""Well dont say I didnt warn you. It eats the magic of your counterspell and is now tethered to your magic. You lose all spell casts above 2nd level until you kill it. An ethereal voice emanates from the Golem, you discern it to be a recording." "The gently caress." "The recording is just someone laughing their asses off." "Oh and The golem starts running away, very very fast. The recording is still Laughing. The Golem is also smiling." Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
I encourage you all to do super duper clever 'gotya' moments towards the people playing full progression spellcasters in your 5e games. That sounds like a fantastic idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:I encourage you all to do super duper clever 'gotya' moments towards the people playing full progression spellcasters in your 5e games. That sounds like a fantastic idea. I misread this as a super-clever "Gotye" moment and got really confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I misread this as a super-clever "Gotye" moment and got really confused. "Now you're just somebody who used to know spells..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Last night's lesson: A combat system that runs smoothly isn't necessarily a good thing when the DM is running things out of the book by the book and half ignoring the PCs actions while playing theatre of the mind. Not that anything really works there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted: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. Nobody is saying that other classes are better at using weapons than Fighters. What everyone is (rightly) saying is that the only way in which they're better (making more attacks) doesn't not make playing a Fighter interesting. It's just "I hit it with my axe" vs "I hit it with my axe... twice". Also, they get 2 more feats or stat point increases than other classes. And because of flat math, there's a limited number of feats/stat increases you can take that will directly increase your combat effectiveness. Dairy Power posted: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. Dairy Power posted: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. You consider +1 AC and +2 to hit from fighting styles a big deal, but you don't consider the (larger) differences between weapon types a big deal? That seems very weird to me. More below. Dairy Power posted: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. With +7 to damage you need a 10 on your weapon di(c)e to kill a 17 HP monster:  The maul is better in your example. Of course, whichever weapon you're using, Great Weapon Master's -5/+10 will give you a better chance to deal 10+ damage unless your original chance to hit is between 20% and 35%, since all you have to do is land the attack:  That said, both the maul and the greataxe are worse than the glaive (which gives you 3 attacks), and the glaive is in turn worse than the hand crossbow (which gives you 3 attacks at +2 attack). Dairy Power posted: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. If you want to look at actual play, the hand crossbow soars even further ahead by dint of not having to deal with all the various anti-melee gimmicks we've already seen on monsters. Dairy Power posted: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 should be using a hand crossbow or glaive, both of which offer a 100% chance of an extra attack as a bonus action. A glaive-wielding Polearm Master can (and should) also have Great Weapon master, which means that as well as the 100% chance of an extra attack as a bonus action for d4+15 he has the same 1-((1-Crit%)^Attacks) % chance of an extra attack as a bonus action for full weapon damage as the non-Polearm-Master. The same Champion with a maul deals an average of 0.1 to 2.8 more damage per attack, on average (depending on target AC) but only has the chance they have to crit (5% - 48%) of getting the bonus attack. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Nobody is saying that other classes are better at using weapons than Fighters. What everyone is (rightly) saying is that the only way in which they're better (making more attacks) doesn't not make playing a Fighter interesting. It's just "I hit it with my axe" vs "I hit it with my axe... twice". That's not how I read things, but I suppose I could have easily misinterpreted. Jack the Lad posted:Also, they get 2 more feats or stat point increases than other classes. And because of flat math, there's a limited number of feats/stat increases you can take that will directly increase your combat effectiveness. For most of the fighters career this can be a fairly large lead. Jack the Lad posted:You consider +1 AC and +2 to hit from fighting styles a big deal, but you don't consider the (larger) differences between weapon types a big deal? That seems very weird to me. More below. The weapons don't effect AC or to hit chances. I explained my reasoning for why those were in particular larger deals. Jack the Lad posted:MATH AND FACTS Very good point. I should have looked at the distributions with Great Weapon fighting and Great Weapon master first. Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I suppose I'm guilty of only considering a subset of the relevant statistics there. I think I still disagree on the argument for crossbow being better in actual play. I think it's a great supplement and all fighters should have a ranged weapon on hand, but you'll be worse off once you're engaged in melee and firing at disadvantage (I'd imagine without having actually looked at things). Unless you have other party members dedicated to keeping enemies off, I've found having at least 2 members of the party to be melee focused to be highly important given the lack of 5 foot step. Generally, that'll be part of the fighters job. If you're just playing fighter to add extra DPS, then I'd agree with you. Jack the Lad posted:Champions should be using a hand crossbow or glaive, both of which offer a 100% chance of an extra attack as a bonus action. My only argument there would be that you'll be a feat behind in getting to Great Weapon Master. What you've presented here is definitely a stronger case for polearms than I'd originally thought, though. Hopefully, they'll come out with feats for other weapon types that make them more relevant. Thanks for taking the time to write all of that up. On an unrelated note, my 5e DM is getting burnt out between school/work, so I'm taking over. I think I'm abandoning 5e for the time being. I definitely find it to play better than 3.X already, but I'm already in a Pathfinder campaign also and would prefer something that plays completely differently. I'm thinking maybe using Dungeon Worlds or FATE or something similar. What do you guys think about those systems?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Dungeon World is what my group switched to after our 4e campaign finished. I probably won't be going back to D&D of any edition outside of pbp. It's the sort of adventure stuff we wanted with much fewer moving parts. Last batch of posts in the TG Chat thread have been discussing it if you want to look there, too. Between the last couple pages. Generic Octopus fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:I'm thinking maybe using Dungeon Worlds or FATE or something similar. What do you guys think about those systems?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:On an unrelated note, my 5e DM is getting burnt out between school/work, so I'm taking over. I think I'm abandoning 5e for the time being. I definitely find it to play better than 3.X already, but I'm already in a Pathfinder campaign also and would prefer something that plays completely differently. I'm thinking maybe using Dungeon Worlds or FATE or something similar. What do you guys think about those systems? I'm having an awful lot of fun DMing Fate (though I don't think I'm all that good a DM). I can whip up ad-hoc encounters that work in less than five minutes, and my players get to do Cool Things all the time. Such as hitting a dude with another dude, or paying a Fate point to quarantine an entire city on sheer force of reputation. Or turning an accidental Mad Science overload into the ability to teleport. All of which are explicitly supported by the rules. Daetrin fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:For most of the fighters career this can be a fairly large lead. Dairy Power posted:The weapons don't effect AC or to hit chances. I explained my reasoning for why those were in particular larger deals. In the context of "Is there any reason not to houserule that fighters (and perhaps even just saying "every class with access to Fighting Styles") can decide upon rolling initiative which Fighting Style they want to use, and possibly even change their Fighting Style during combat with an action?" Also, weapon choice = hit chance = damage output. By picking a ranged weapon you're at +2 to hit vs picking a melee weapon. Dairy Power posted:Very good point. I should have looked at the distributions with Great Weapon fighting and Great Weapon master first. Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I suppose I'm guilty of only considering a subset of the relevant statistics there. Emphasis mine, because Crossbow Expert - the whole point of the build, which gives you the extra attack - means you're not at disadvantage when shooting in melee. You can also use usually-melee Battle Master maneuvers by shooting in melee range. It would be good if you read all the relevant rules before passing judgement on them. Dairy Power posted:My only argument there would be that you'll be a feat behind in getting to Great Weapon Master. What you've presented here is definitely a stronger case for polearms than I'd originally thought, though. Hopefully, they'll come out with feats for other weapon types that make them more relevant. Polearms are strictly better, and variant human means that the polearm guy has PM + GWM at level 4 and 20 Str at level 8. Agreed on hoping they release more support for different weapon types, though hopefully it's better than the existing options of power attack and +1 attack as a minor action. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Emphasis mine, because Crossbow Expert - the whole point of the build, which gives you the extra attack - means you're not at disadvantage when shooting in melee. You can also use usually-melee Battle Master maneuvers by shooting in melee range. My DM had house ruled that to make sure a crossbow couldn't eclipse melee weapons, and I'd forgotten it was a houserule. My bad. Also, what is the justification for being able to use hand crossbows in both hands and reload them? You can only interact with a single object per action. Drawing and 'sheathing' each count as an interaction, so I'm missing how you can have the hands available to reload both crossbows in tandem each and every turn. It seems to me that's why they specifically called out a loaded crossbow, but I could be missing something in the rules here too. Jack the Lad posted:Polearms are strictly better, and variant human means that the polearm guy has PM + GWM at level 4 and 20 Str at level 8. Well, I mean, I wouldn't go as far as strictly. There's always the corner case of needing to roll an 11-12 on damage to kill each of the monsters near you, allowing you to potentially take out more monsters in one turn via the great weapon master bonus attack  . But point taken.Generic Octopus posted:Dungeon World is what my group switched to after our 4e campaign finished. I probably won't be going back to D&D of any edition outside of pbp. It's the sort of adventure stuff we wanted with much fewer moving parts. Excellent, thanks. Daetrin posted:I'm having an awful lot of fun DMing Fate (though I don't think I'm all that good a DM). I can whip up ad-hoc encounters that work in less than five minutes, and my players get to do Cool Things all the time. Such as hitting a dude with another dude, or paying a Fate point to quarantine an entire city on sheer force of reputation. Or turning an accidental Mad Science overload into the ability to teleport. All of which are explicitly supported by the rules. drat, I read through most of Dungeon World last night and I was hoping to avoid reading through Fate also, but that sounds badass. Dairy Power fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:My DM had house ruled that to make sure a crossbow couldn't eclipse melee weapons, and I'd forgotten it was a houserule. My bad. You use a shield and a hand crossbow, not two hand crossbows. This is another reason it's so good; you're gaining +2 to hit and +2 AC while still dealing more damage than a two-handed weapon. quote:Ammunition: You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. Loading is abstracted; there's no such thing as a loaded or unloaded crossbow in rules terms. It never requires an 'interact with an object' action to load a crossbow. Even if it did, you could do it in tandem with (immediately after) your attack before making the bonus attack. If it required a free hand to reload a ranged weapon, longbows and regular crossbows (two-handed ranged weapons) would be unusable. Dairy Power posted:Well, I mean, I wouldn't go as far as strictly. There's always the corner case of needing to roll an 11-12 on damage to kill each of the monsters near you, allowing you to potentially take out more monsters in one turn via the great weapon master bonus attack lol. But point taken. Okay. If you specifically need to deal 26 or 27 damage with a single attack (as opposed to =<25 or =>28), you're 0.2 - 2.3% more likely to do so and then to crit in order to get the bonus attack as well (so as not to be behind on damage overall) with a greataxe. e: It may be less than that, I've only approximated the crit math. Will update. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I was assuming you'd have to have a free hand to load your crossbow. I suppose rules as written things just kinda happen Diablo 3 style. I wonder if they have an organized play ruling on that...Jack the Lad posted:Okay. If you specifically need to deal 26 or 27 damage with a single attack (as opposed to =<25 or =>28), you're 0.2 - 2.3% more likely to do so and then to crit in order to get the bonus attack as well (so as not to be behind on damage overall) with a greataxe. I might be reading you incorrectly here, but dropping an enemy to 0 HP will also trigger the bonus attack, which was the basis for my corner case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:Also, what is the justification for being able to use hand crossbows in both hands and reload them? Dairy Power posted:There's always the corner case of needing to roll an 11-12 on damage to kill each of the monsters near you, allowing you to potentially take out more monsters in one turn via the great weapon master bonus attack lol. But point taken. Dairy Power posted:drat, I read through most of Dungeon World last night and I was hoping to avoid reading through Fate also, but that sounds badass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Can someone clear this up for me? My group (all of us newish RPers) has been playing 5e for a couple of months now, and we keep coming up against this issue: How do you actually cast a spell? The section in the PHB uses flowery language to tell you what each part of a spell description means, what it all effects, and what it can and can't hit, but as far as we can tell, it just never tells you step by step what actual dice you actually roll to see if a spell actually hits an enemy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
theparag0n posted:Can someone clear this up for me? All I have on hand is the updated basic rules, but in the playtest adventure, spells were an attack roll on a d20 + proficiency + your ability modifier from the relevant spellcasting attribute you use
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
theparag0n posted:Can someone clear this up for me? You don't roll, most of the time - it just happens and the target(s) get to save (or not) according to the spell. Spells that refer to a spell attack roll work as described above by Grimpond.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
SageNytell posted:What's the justification for the wizard throwing a fireball? Where did he get that fire? Why isn't it burning his hands? It's a game. It's a role-playing game. A fireball from a wizard makes sense within the context of the story. Being able to load both crossbows simultaneously without some sort of explanation doesn't to me. In Pathfinder you specifically need a free hand to load a ranged weapon, thus freaky alchemist/gunslinger hybrids with extra limbs. It's not specifically stipulated in the rule book here, but the requirement of a "loaded" crossbow in the feat would seem to imply it to me. I'd at least want some sort of fluff explanation about how you were making it happen without putting one crossbow down if I were DMing. I'm guessing this boils down to a difference of philosophies. SageNytell posted:Bolded section is not something you should be using here. Forgot my colons. The smiley catches my intent better than the letters, so I suppose I am grateful for the reminder. SageNytell posted:Fate Accelerated is free online and it's less than 50 pages, including fun illustrations. Do yourself a favor and read through it, just understand that Fate is what you and your players make it, no more and no less. Super nitpicky rulings instead of going with fun things as they're suggested won't lead to a fun play environment. Well, I suppose I can't say no to free if it's supposed to be good. I'll make some time for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:You don't roll, most of the time - it just happens and the target(s) get to save (or not) according to the spell. Oh yes, i was about to edit that in. Thanks jack!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:50
|
|