|
Lord of Bore posted:Verbal component: Unintelligible yelling or "Take that nerd!" Anime Yelling needs to be a class feature for sure.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
moths posted:It's also a 8th level spell and needs to be a first level fighter feature. What about something like: Ring the Bell posted:Using this maneuver, a fighter targets the head of his opponent, Stunning them and ending any active Concentration effect they have. If the target is a spellcaster, they cannot cast any spells for 1 round as they gather their senses
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:What about something like: Name is could use some work. But that is a really cool maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I'm familiar with the song, I just find it funny that there's a spell that totally shuts down casters, but to a varying degree since it's an Intelligence save. By the time a caster can drop 8th level spells you're looking at a proficiency bonus of +5, so the minimum DC of 8 + proficiency + ability score modifier is 13 + ability score modifier, which is likely going to be an 18 or 20 for a +4 or +5 modifier for a DC of 17 or 18. In comparison, if you're not proficient in Intelligence saves unlike a wizard, you're not going to be adding anything but your Int mod, and even that isn't likely to be all that high if you're not the resident smart dude since there's no bonus for a high Int other than Int skills, saves, and spells. So you could be rolling 1d20 + 1 or even +0 if you don't have any blanket save boosters, and thus have a high chance of being completely shut out. But a wizard is likely to have both a high Intelligence and Intelligence save proficiency, so an equal level wizard can be throwing around a +10 or so before save boosts- which still means you can have a 30% chance of losing your poo poo and your life shortly afterwards. Of course it can only be cured by months or a spell, but if your cleric, druid or bard got tagged with Feeblemind then you're pretty much out of luck barring a wish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Name is could use some work. But that is a really cool maneuver. Yeah, I couldn't really come up with anything other than that. I've heard head injuries referred to as "getting their bell rung".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:them to go along with trying out both. I don't know much about DW, but with Fate the system is mechanical only - there's no fluff at all if you use FAE or Fate Core. The nice thing is with the Fate Fractal the settlements you're building and the steps of political intrigue can be treated as their own characters with attacks, stress tracks, stunts, and so on. And their own advancement tracks. And engaging in an assassination attempt via third parties uses no different mechanics than smacking a dude with a chair. I'd advise going to the Fate thread to get some good ideas on how to represent what you want to do though. What Fate isn't all that good at is crunchy combat, though some of the extras and add-ons people have invented take care of it a bit. In general though, there's no inherent "flanking bonus" or special weapons or anything of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Hand crossbow + shield works RAW: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding". I guess my confusion comes down to when the weapon's loading occurs. Does an attack action when using a ranged weapon mean fire then reload/draw or load/draw then fire? If it's the latter, the hand crossbow would no longer be loaded, so anyone strictly interpreting the RAW might rule against it because the bonus action is triggered after an attack action. Of course, what's the point of the extra attack benefit from this feat in the first place if that's the intended design? Nothing aside from its sub-optimality would prevent someone from firing a hand crossbow in their offhand even without the feat, right? If my DM rules the the +2 AC from holding a shield and +dex mod to the bonus attack's damage are overpowered, I could always refer him to the "spells" section of the PHB  Grimpond posted:Yeah, I couldn't really come up with anything other than that. I've heard head injuries referred to as "getting their bell rung". In the playtest, I think one of the battle master maneuvers was actually called "bell ringer".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It is still six seconds. It was six seconds in 4e too. Nothing changed here. I'm looking for rules text to this effect in the D&D NEXT rules manual. quote:Yeah, I couldn't really come up with anything other than that. I've heard head injuries referred to as "getting their bell rung". "Bell ringer"? E: What the guy above me said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:In the playtest, I think one of the battle master maneuvers was actually called "bell ringer". RPZip posted:"Bell ringer"? E: What the guy above me said. Well, don't I look dumb! Like I said in an earlier post, I only have the Basic Rules to work with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
RPZip posted:I'm looking for rules text to this effect in the D&D NEXT rules manual. Pg. 69 of the Basic pdf. "The Order of Combat"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
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. RAW crossbow expert also removes the disadvantage from casting a spell attack within 5ft of somebody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Pg. 69 of the Basic pdf. "The Order of Combat" RPZip posted:I'm looking for rules text to this effect in the D&D NEXT rules manual. Page 15 of the how to play pdf on the D&D Next playtest. Generic Octopus said the page were it is in 5e. I will state it again. D&D next is not the name of this edition it was the name of the playtest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I will state it again. D&D next is not the name of this edition it was the name of the playtest. I have houseruled that it now is. For everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I asked my DM and you're right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I will state it again. D&D next is not the name of this edition it was the name of the playtest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:He wants the D&D Next page quote. Not the 5e page quote. You are the worst-best poster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I will state it again. D&D next is not the name of this edition it was the name of the playtest. Far as I can tell, it's not called D&D Next or 5th Edition in the PHB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
The replacement will be D&D 5-2
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:He wants the D&D Next page quote. Not the 5e page quote. Sometimes I just want to pinch your cheeks.  The books don't call it 5e either, although I guess you could make a case for this being the D&D, the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game edition, or D&DTWGRPG for short.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I just checked the OP and it's clearly called D&D Next. Speaking of the OP, the thread where we (Medibot, Wolfshirt, Myself, et al) were playing D&D Next in the LP subforum has shifted to 3.5, because a) we don't want to officially support the 5e product with the people connected to it and b) at least we could use Tome of Battle. The first 3 sessions are from the last D&D Next playtest, and the sessions after are in 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
We call it Fred around my table. D&D Fred. I am the DM and I said so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Far as I can tell, it's not called D&D Next or 5th Edition in the PHB. You are right it is called D&D officially. It is called 5e by the designers and the forum they have on the site. It's official name is just Dungeons and Dragons. Nihilarian posted:Does it really matter? Not at all. But I have slight OCD so the title just bugs me, and calling it D&D Next in bold does as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Did I dream the part where this thread was called D&D PREVIOUS for a while? If I didn't, can it please be called that again because it was funny?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
That was no dream! And it was funny. I laughed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
 Rust monster preview's out. Permanent -1 stacking penalty to non-magic metal weapons you hit it with, or -1 to AC to non-magic metal armour it touches (you at least get a dex saving throw if you're wearing it) with the item being destroyed completely if it reaches -5 damage or 10 AC (O for shields). moths posted:That was no dream! And it was funny. I laughed. Phew, I'm not crazy
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
FINALLY, a monster to take melee Fighters down a peg!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
I remember it taking a while for a rust monster to pop up in 4e, and it was relegated to a Dragon issue with the explicit warning of "look, you and I both know this isn't a very fun monster, but people have been asking for it SO here's some ways to include the monster while also not screwing your players over immensely." I'm glad to see they completely ignored that advice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Not at all. But I have slight OCD so the title just bugs me, and calling it D&D Next in bold does as well. You should be less OCD about the name of the latest edition of Dungeons and Dragons and more OCD about the rules the latest edition of Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
CR: 1/2 What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:
Almost all of its powers relate to ferrous metals, but Rust Metal corrodes ALL nonmagical metals that hit it. So, uhh, I guess it can hurt a wizard's wallet. If the wizard attempts to hurt the rust monster by pelting it with coins, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:I remember it taking a while for a rust monster to pop up in 4e, and it was relegated to a Dragon issue with the explicit warning of "look, you and I both know this isn't a very fun monster, but people have been asking for it SO here's some ways to include the monster while also not screwing your players over immensely." Hmm, not quite. Ecology of the Rust Monster (Dragon #376) came out slightly after they were already introduced in Monster Manual 2. No such warning either. That said the 5e version of this monster is still pretty drat stupid. No no, it doesn't resist nonmagical weapons... it just happens to destroy them. See? Much better! And yeah it leaves wooden weapons alone but there aren't really any good ones. For its CR this is just yet another "gently caress you for being a Fighter" monster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
It's like the 5th Edition designers are just trying to make bad monsters. Like, on purpose and stuff. That Intellect Devourer posted a few pages ago was just the worst though, like holy hell. Also, does every loving description of everything in 5e need to be pointlessly wordy as all hell. Was the guy who wrote this stuff paid by the word or something? goldjas fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Note that aside from the whip, all martial melee weapons are made of metal or have metal heads in the case of spears, flails and the like (unless you try and claim your maul is made of stone). Hope you packed a staff or a club or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Not at all. But I have slight OCD so the title just bugs me, and calling it D&D Next in bold does as well. Just like I'm doing right now by calling you out on using OCD wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Hmm, not quite. Ecology of the Rust Monster (Dragon #376) came out slightly after they were already introduced in Monster Manual 2. No such warning either. Well poo poo, I clearly remember that wrong. Whoops. the rust monster is still a lovely and unfun monster
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
I sure hope ropers are next!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Well poo poo, I clearly remember that wrong. Whoops. They are not as scary as they used to be because they can't effect magic items. Plus if not over used they can be quite fun to scare a party with. Dairy Power posted:I sure hope ropers are next! Roper posted:Roper MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You are right it is called D&D officially. It is called 5e by the designers and the forum they have on the site. Lord of Bore posted:
Where did this stupid idea for a monster even originate? How could anyone at any edition of D&D look at that and think it would be fun or fair to use?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They are not as scary as they used to be because they can't effect magic items. Plus if not over used they can be quite fun to scare a party with. The rust monster has never been scary, it's just been "this is a lovely monster meant to take away/ruin equipment." It is not fun and has never been fun. Grimpond posted:Where did this stupid idea for a monster even originate? How could anyone at any edition of D&D look at that and think it would be fun or fair to use?! Supposedly Gygax (or one of his crew) made it up after using some cheapo toy figure that resembled the rust monster as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:We already got the roper stat block. Huh. That seems surprisingly reasonable. A part of me is almost disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:22
|
|