|
PeterWeller posted:That was kinda silly. You can play through that game as anything you want. I've played through 1 and 2 without expansions with a bard and a fighter/mage, and went through the entirety of the Enhanced Editions with a plain-rear end ranger. And then you spend a few minutes trying to random roll a decent set of scores with good exceptional strength and...  I might go back and try it again sometime, but I don't think there's really any denying the underlying system is kind of silly.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Ok so where is the sidebar where they explain THAC0 in the new book? Can someone scan it for review purposes? I'm so morbidly curious how they try to frame it because it is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Ok so where is the sidebar where they explain THAC0 in the new book? Can someone scan it for review purposes? There is a sidebar?! I thought it was just an easter egg in the index.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Oh man, I was hoping they were being serious. I have a friend who still thinks in terms of THAC0 and descending AC because he is kinda dumb and forgets that we haven't done things that way for over a decade.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Pretty sure I heard it mentioned as being in the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Hey, plain-rear end ranger was a killing machine in Baldurs gate 1! Not as good in 2 but he was the cornerstone of dps in my party through the first one. Never did try a bard run, how did that one go? Yeah, ranger is p great in BG1, but you can say that about any class that can use bows with a decent THAC0. Bard is meh. The theater is a cool "home" in BG2, but I relied on the rest of the party to do real work. That's really what makes those games good--you can roll whatever you want because the companions are pretty well optimised and will cover your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Yeah, not my best idea. I played a paladin back in the day and wanted something different, but wasn't sure what would be fun. CTRL+SHIFT+8 errday Rolling for stats in D&D is already terrible, rolling for stats with infinite retrys until the game arbitrarily decides you finally have permission to have good stats is insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
What does CTR+SHIFT+8 do? Rerolling stats until you get a real good array is pretty classic for Baldur's Gate though. Although it might drive you crazy when you keep doing it and then accidentally go to far by clicking reroll when a good stat array came up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:What does CTR+SHIFT+8 do? Rerolling stats until you get a real good array is pretty classic for Baldur's Gate though. Although it might drive you crazy when you keep doing it and then accidentally go to far by clicking reroll when a good stat array came up. It was the cheat code to just give yourself all 18s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:To put this in perspective, Robilar beat the temple of elemental evil by himself. He kinda beat it. He sort of released Zuggtymoy into the world. Cainer posted:Also, my group continues Hoard of the dragon queen tonight, can't wait to go around bearing it up and squishing my enemies into goo. Will have our full party too so hopefully not as many close calls as last time. How has your game gone, I love hearing session reports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Ignore
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, ranger is p great in BG1, but you can say that about any class that can use bows with a decent THAC0. Bard is meh. The theater is a cool "home" in BG2, but I relied on the rest of the party to do real work. That's really what makes those games good--you can roll whatever you want because the companions are pretty well optimised and will cover your rear end. Bards are actually super amazing in BG1&2. It's easy to forget but bards and rogues level way faster then other classes so bards end up getting the fight changing spells faster then wizards do, and most of the REALLY good defense spells for a F/M are obtainable by a bard. And in BG2 they get better armor then a F/M due to some bard only gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Bards are actually super amazing in BG1&2. It's easy to forget but bards and rogues level way faster then other classes so bards end up getting the fight changing spells faster then wizards do, and most of the REALLY good defense spells for a F/M are obtainable by a bard. And in BG2 they get better armor then a F/M due to some bard only gear. You're overselling them. Bards provide a decent source of fight changing spells at low and medium levels, but they can't provide the DPS to help end those fights, and they don't get access to the big defense piercers and summons that higher levels require. There's a window at the end of BG1 and towards the beginning of BG2 where bards are king thanks to fear and chaos and all those other spells that cause your enemies to run about like morons while your warriors hack them down, but then you end up fighting stuff that those spells bounce off, but it doesn't last that long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Even with faster levelling, bards only get level 2 spells at the same time as a pure mage, and are behind by quite a bit for all the others, and in any Baldur's Gate game will be stuck with lower level spells by the end. Bards don't even beat F/M to new spells most of the time. Bards do get HP pretty quickly, especially in the very early game, and their fireballs and such will be cast at a higher level when they do get them, but I don't think they're that great as far as munchkin-y powergaming goes. Edit- One thing I do like about Next is that bards are apparently 9th level casting fight-mages, as opposed to poorly thought out hybrids. LeastActionHero fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
1250 exp (lvl2) 2500 (lvl3) 5000(lvl4) Bard 2500 exp (lvl2) 5000 (lvl3) 10000(lvl4) Mage Bards get spell levels twice as fast for large stretches of the game, and while they don't have as many spell slots, they can then just grab their weapon and do fairly well there. Plenty of those spells are also twice as strong since the bard is higher level. In fact, bard is probably the best "evocation" master in BG1 because of this. Then in BG2 you get the blade kit and welp. Like, sure, they're not the level of stupid power that you get from Kensai/mages or berserker/mages, but the latter may as well be a no BG1 allowed build, BOTH have significant "wind up" due to duel classing, and I'm not exactly claiming that Blades are the best things forever. They're still super good even if they're not the BEST.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Bards get: level 1 spells at character level 2, 1,250 XP level 2 spells at character level 4, 5,000 XP level 3 spells at character level 7, 40,000 XP level 4 spells at character level 10, 160,000 XP level 5 spells at character level 13, 666,000 XP level 6 spells at character level 16, 1,320,000 XP Mages get level 1 spells at character level 1, 0 XP level 2 spells at character level 3, 5,000 XP level 3 spells at character level 5, 20,000 XP level 4 spells at character level 7, 60,000 XP level 5 spells at character level 9, 135,000 XP level 6 spells at character level 12, 750,000 XP Fighter/mages get level 1 spells at character level 1, 0 XP level 2 spells at character level 3, 10,000 XP level 3 spells at character level 5, 40,000 XP level 4 spells at character level 7, 120,000 XP level 5 spells at character level 9, 270,000 XP level 6 spells at character level 12, 1,500,000 XP And they generally have 1 spell caster level over a pure mage, or 2 over a F/M. That's nice, but it's not double.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Ah, I forgot that not all classes used the spell level / 2 as when they got access to 'em. Well. Bards are still good! :p
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Does 5E compare favorably to 3.5? Because if I wanted to play a bad and redundant revision of 3E, Pathfinder has an unending asston of source material.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
First Bass posted:Does 5E compare favorably to 3.5? Because if I wanted to play a bad and redundant revision of 3E, Pathfinder has an unending asston of source material. Pathfinder's sheer amount of splatbooks and knick-knacks does blow 3.5 the gently caress out of the water, but it's still largely 3.5 where everything is balanced against a given designer's prejudice/lack of knowledge about what is actually effective instead of math. That being said, 5E has advantage/disadvantage and casters only being able to hold one buff at a time. This is the sum total of major mechanics changes. Meanwhile, 5E math is brazenly non-existent (especially in regards to monsters and damage spells) and sometimes it doesn't even explain basic rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
First Bass posted:Does 5E compare favorably to 3.5? Because if I wanted to play a bad and redundant revision of 3E, Pathfinder has an unending asston of source material. I think its been pointed out here but the big giant advantage of 3.5 is that its about creating this crazy combo character to fulfill a concept. You want to play a guy who kills people using throwing knives, theres probably some way to build it and make it pretty effective. D&D NEXT allows you to run the standard D&D type game a lot easier without things collapsing as quickly (though there are many problems you will need to figure out and sort through, most of the problems are the same as 3.5 but there are some brand new ones to discover). I enjoy Pathfinder, its bad obviously but theres definitely fun to be had especially if you run a party of all half-casters and/or using Path of War stuff (which i think lets everyone be pretty even power wise and definitely have enough abilities to have engaging combat and big shiny things as you advance).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:How has your game gone, I love hearing session reports. Its been going really good, there were a lot of close calls in our first session but that was probably cause we were down a man. Although, we also had a bunch of close calls tonight. Our first mission of the night went ok, we went and saved people from some kinda sanctuary, though the towns people almost got ambushed and eaten on our way out, that could have been bad. After that we went to the old mill where we were ambushed and poo poo went south pretty fast. A lot of those first spears hit pretty deeply before they made it into melee and put a few of us at disadvanatage till our monk said no and flipped behind them with some crazy monk stuff. I went bear, paladin didn't care cause he was in heavy armor and has that DR feat, the warlock spent most of the time trying to hide behind me cause bears + sentinel is amazing. Though even with hiding he was barely keeping himself in the green with blasts/hexes and temp hit dice. That was our last mission before we decided to do a full rest, we were all running on dregs and it was pretty painful near the end. So far we have saved a poo poo ton of people but its been pretty down to the wire a couple of times. Still, we're all having a really fun time and I can't wait for next week to see where we are going next. I have a completely new found respect for monks, our monk was solid pretty much the whole night, dodging and flipping out stab/punching everyone to death on a pretty regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I think its been pointed out here but the big giant advantage of 3.5 is that its about creating this crazy combo character to fulfill a concept.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Can we talk about Adventurer's League? After a shakeup at the game store saw us lose both DMs, I stepped up to run Episode 3 of HotDQ (cuz I'm a sucker). After reading it, I want to modify encounters in the Dragon Hatchery: anything with multiple guard drakes, the encounter in the hatchery room proper, and the encounter with Cyanwrath and his berserkers. Because Adventurer's League allows drop-in/drop-out level 1-3 play like the previous Encounters program, the players at our store are a smattering of 1s and 2s with only a couple level 3s. Presumably, the PCs should be all level 3, but if they aren't, tough luck--because any advice in the module about modifying battles is sparse. That's fine, I'll use the Basic DM rules to figure out how to rebalance fights: Whoops, it's clear that Hoard of the Dragon Queen was written way before the monster stats or encounter guidelines were complete. Still OK, I can try to puzzle out the experience rewards and then back-calculate a more appropriate encounter by changing out monsters and lowering the levels of the minibosses: Whoops, there are no rules yet for how exactly a monster's CR and combat values are calculated or how to increase/decrease monster levels. When you ask who gives a poo poo about a formula, it's me, trying to rewrite the franchise adventure module that almost all new 5e players are going to experience so that I can give people a favorable impression of a game in which I'm only ironically interested. Reading about the development of HotDQ is a trip. The writers admit they wrote in creatures and encounters without having any stats or way to judge what those scenarios would look like after all the rules were complete (but it's OK, balancing everything after the fact is up to the DM), so a lot of the fights are either way easier or way harder than intended. Apparently, this is a feature, not a bug, because it teaches players to think/make them realize that they can't just win every fight/assorted other catchphrases. People bring up "player skill" and how 4e dumbed things down by allowing/expecting players to be able to deal tactically with most threats instead of having to outwit the DM, but have any of the PHBs had a section where they lay out what a player's expectations should be? Maybe give advice on how to deal with overwhelming threats, what the rules are for traps and some ideas on how to deal with them, etc? Nah, let's just make another PHB that's all spells, combat rules and yet one more iteration of the section about overland movement speeds. I know some of this stuff may be obvious to we experienced real Dee an Dee'ers, but a couple paragraphs explicitly stating that in this edition sneaking around may be the best course of action, or how you can't expect to win every fight, or what a ten-foot pole is and why it's still included on the equipment list--that could go a long way to letting new players know what this game is about (which is apparently not the escapist power-fantasies that its art, introduction and overall genre would suggest), rather than forcing them to get their fighters murdered over and over again until they learn the right way to have fun. Instead, we have to keep relying on nerd oral tradition to teach new players how great it was to roleplay in the heady days of the late 1970s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Is it actually intended that warlocks are the only caster in the game to get their spells back after a short rest? Because that seems imbalanced as all get out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Is it actually intended that warlocks are the only caster in the game to get their spells back after a short rest? Because that seems imbalanced as all get out. Yes because they only get level 5 spells in those slots. Their level 6-9 spells are once per day and they can only know one of each. I mean granted, what this leads to is builds entirely built around maximising how much you can poo poo on people with Eldritch blast. But still. Re: Warlock Rogue, I've been considering this in combination with the Warlock ability that lets you turn invisible as long as there's a shadow nearby. You could use it to effectively restealth yourself if you get exposed without expending a spell slot. Although I'm not sure if you're running Swordlock that anything trumps burning two feats and getting Warcaster/Polearm Master. You get that and the eldritch blast upgrades that allow you to add your Cha modifier and push any enemy that gets hit by it 10ft away and set yourself up with a glaive. Any time anything comes into 10ft reach you get an attack of opportunity through Polearm master, you use Warcaster to replace this with a spell of your choice, eldritch blast, hit them for a bunch of damage and blast them back 10ft away from you so they're sitting 20ft away and hurting like a bastard ready for the next turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
IIRC warlocks get like 4 casts per short rest at max level, and there's quite a few of their invocations that also require them to spend one of those to use. They won't be throwing down spell after spell in combat, and essentially giving the class a 30 minute ritual version of any spell they know isn't a big deal when you remember that the wizard exists. The warlock actually seems like it hits the sweet spot between wizard and fighter. Their basic function in combat is to try and kill things with their special cantrip, modified in various interesting ways by their invocations, and they get maybe one or two opportunities per fight for most of their career to also cast a spell that can alter the whole fight. Outside of combat they can affect things much more freely with their spells as long as they have plenty of time. They get plenty of stuff to do out of combat, without also being handed the ability to pour all that stuff into single-handedly winning every fight. Basically, I think the other classes ought to be more like the warlock. Slashrat fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
So you're saying that the game would have been better if all classes had at-will, encounter, and daily use abilities? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Is it actually intended that warlocks are the only caster in the game to get their spells back after a short rest? Because that seems imbalanced as all get out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Is it actually intended that warlocks are the only caster in the game to get their spells back after a short rest? Because that seems imbalanced as all get out. ImpactVector posted:Short rests are an hour long, so you're lucky to get one per adventuring day. Basically this. Short rests being an hour means that, when I play, my Warlock at level 4 either is at full spells (because the day has just begun), or hoarding spells because I used one of them, and I only have one left, and I am not getting caught without a Misty Step again. And spending a whole hour doing nothing just to get a spellslot back? No one at the table aside from you is going for that except at the most leisurely adventuring day you can think of. So unless hour-long 'short' rests happen a LOT more than is likely (or were shortened to say, 5 minutes...), you get to enjoy running Eldritch Blast: The Warlock. But hey, it's up to the DM, right, so it can't be ALL that bad. Right?  And while I'm bitching about Warlocks, far too many of the (extremely limited!) Invocations are basically "Cast X spell, using a spell slot." Assuming a short rest between encounters, that is not bad. At my table, it's basically a writeoff immediately unless it is a no-braienr I would drop every fight, because when it comes to spellcasting, knowing enough spells isn't the issue. The telepathy is cool, and some of the Invocations are good too. But I'm sitting here and looking at the Warlock and thinking, "Well, you know, I am kinda pining for the 3.5 version, which at least didn't pretend I am going to be doing anything aside from wacky gimmicks and Eldritch Blasts." I know 5th is about ignoring 4th edition, but when it does something worse that 3.X did, you done hosed up. Also, for anyone willing to answer this one: Why is 4th poo poo for not making monsters and PCs off the same stats and math, but 5th edition hasn't gotten called out due to that because?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
If you don't always short rest between encounters...when do you heal between fights? Not directed at anybody, just a general question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:Also, for anyone willing to answer this one: Why is 4th poo poo for not making monsters and PCs off the same stats and math, but 5th edition hasn't gotten called out due to that because? I'd guess when Next does it it's perceived as a nostalgia-for-AD&D thing rather than a dumbed-down-MMO thing. Don't ask me why, because I have no loving idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:If you don't always short rest between encounters...when do you heal between fights? Not directed at anybody, just a general question. My group typically heals with my healing kit & healer feat, or our Paladin's Lay on Hands after a major encounter. If I've used up enough of my spells (I'm playing a necromancer), I'll suggest we take the short rest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:Also, for anyone willing to answer this one: Why is 4th poo poo for not making monsters and PCs off the same stats and math, but 5th edition hasn't gotten called out due to that because? Well 5th kind of does. Monsters have spell slots and prepared spells the same way PCs do, their attack bonuses/proficiencies contribute to attack rolls just like PCs, etc. Obviously there are exceptions (like the dragon spellcasting variant), but for the most part the math is structured the same. Unfortunately (at least in my mind) this only serves to demonstrate how silly it is to make monsters and PCs work the same way. The result is that most typical monsters (orcs, goblins, etc.) are boring as hell, because they're essentially a player character with no class features whatsoever and one feature stapled on instead. So kobolds are basically a bag of HP, a damage expression, and Pack Tactics. Cultists are a slightly larger sack of HP, a slightly different damage expression, and have advantage on saving throws vs. charm. Etc. I think I was just spoiled by however-many-years of running 4E monsters, which even at their worst at least felt like the mechanics really captured the flavor and 'theme' of even typical monsters - kobolds were shifty, goblins were cowardly, orcs were bloodthirsty, etc. Going back to the 3E era of monsters that are largely boring unless they're truly fantastical creatures or you run them through PC character creation to give them some class levels is not something I'm fond of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
branar posted:Well 5th kind of does. Monsters have spell slots and prepared spells the same way PCs do, their attack bonuses/proficiencies contribute to attack rolls just like PCs, etc. Obviously there are exceptions (like the dragon spellcasting variant), but for the most part the math is structured the same. I don't know about you, but I though the Goblin ability to flee as a bonus action was pretty spot-on. Our DM has used them in hit-and-run tactics against us to good effect. They're much more interesting then the instantly cleaved and killed pansies from 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:If you don't always short rest between encounters...when do you heal between fights? Not directed at anybody, just a general question. Well, you can just have however many short rests it takes to burn through your equivalent of 1d4 healing surges per day, and then after that healing becomes more simulationist. It's the perfect compromise!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:My group typically heals with my healing kit & healer feat, or our Paladin's Lay on Hands after a major encounter. If I've used up enough of my spells (I'm playing a necromancer), I'll suggest we take the short rest. Okay, sure, but what if someone didn't think to take that feat/there're no humans to take that feat, and there isn't a Paladin in the party? I mean at level 1 Lay on Hands isn't much healing anyway, it's 5 HP per long rest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Okay, sure, but what if someone didn't think to take that feat/there're no humans to take that feat, and there isn't a Paladin in the party? I mean at level 1 Lay on Hands isn't much healing anyway, it's 5 HP per long rest. If nobody is a Cleric or Paladin or has some ability to heal, it's probably a good idea to hire a henchman that can. Or just take your short rests between any encounter where you get roughed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
The Malthusian posted:Can we talk about Adventurer's League? After a shakeup at the game store saw us lose both DMs, I stepped up to run Episode 3 of HotDQ (cuz I'm a sucker). After reading it, I want to modify encounters in the Dragon Hatchery: anything with multiple guard drakes, the encounter in the hatchery room proper, and the encounter with Cyanwrath and his berserkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:If nobody is a Cleric or Paladin or has some ability to heal, it's probably a good idea to hire a henchman that can. Or just take your short rests between any encounter where you get roughed up. The problem is in a situation with no cleric/paladin you're not going to have the hit die to stay upright, especially at level 1, where you have one rest worth of healing each to see you through the day. After that you're pretty much left with chugging potions or something. Harthacnut fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:If nobody is a Cleric or Paladin or has some ability to heal, it's probably a good idea to hire a henchman that can. Or just take your short rests between any encounter where you get roughed up. Um...what henchman? I only have the PHB and didn't see them in there. My main point in all this is a certain class/set of classes/features shouldn't be required. Having a healer should be a boon, not a necessity, and it seems to get around that, you either have to change the duration of the short rest or frequently stop for an in-game hour. I don't have a problem with Hit Dice/Surges acting as a limit to healing, but gating them behind an hour of time seems unnecessarily restrictive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:40
|
|