|
Jack the Lad posted:The monsters still deal the same amount of damage to the party. They actually don't. The more they target the high-defense targets, the lower their average DPR drops. If you're a squishy ranger, get the gently caress out of the line of fire.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The monsters still deal the same amount of damage to the party. Given that 5E has gently caress-all in the way of mechanics for letting front-line fighters protect their teammates without the DM being ~gracious~ enough to just make them hit the fighter, I think that's ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
Boing posted:Yeah but when have you ever needed to hit something 600ft away? Because you can probably do something like use the ability that lets you perceive things through the eyes of another with your familiar to have a sniper/spotter setup, where your rat familiar spots a dude 600 away and you eldritch blast the crap out of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Is "characters are blind beyond a few hundred feet" seriously still a thing in some groups?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Because you can probably do something like use the ability that lets you perceive things through the eyes of another with your familiar to have a sniper/spotter setup, where your rat familiar spots a dude 600 away and you eldritch blast the crap out of him. That sounds like it should really help his DPS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Is "characters are blind beyond a few hundred feet" seriously still a thing in some groups? Its more, the monsters tend to not want to infinitely chase the thing with the 600 foot range as opposed to the stuff they can reach and attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Transient People posted:They actually don't. The more they target the high-defense targets, the lower their average DPR drops. If you're a squishy ranger, get the gently caress out of the line of fire. Rangers count as squishy now? D10 hit dice, medium armor, they're really in a pretty decent position. Just a tad above average all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Warlocks are a little squishier, especially with poor armor choices. I actually tried out the Spellsniper + Eldritch Spear combo, and it didn't do a lot of good. Yes I was initially able to attack from far away without any reasonable retaliation, others could try but at disadvantage. But the problem comes up when terrain features force you to close just so you can actually see your target. Yes I ignore anything short of full cover, but I still have to be able to see my target. So you get closer so that you can actually see some enemies, then one of them steals an ally's horse, rushes toward you as they try to escape, until they are in longbow range and shoot you with two arrows on their turn. Then they threaten to shoot your dying body again if your allies don't let them escape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So you get closer so that you can actually see some enemies, then one of them steals an ally's horse, rushes toward you as they try to escape, until they are in longbow range and shoot you with two arrows on their turn. Then they threaten to shoot your dying body again if your allies don't let them escape. That's a hell of an encounter and a pretty awesome situation. It's so rare to get a good recurring villain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Rangers count as squishy now? D10 hit dice, medium armor, they're really in a pretty decent position. Just a tad above average all things considered. Talking about 4e here. They are very squishy there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Talking about 4e here. They are very squishy there. Ah I see. Hmmm, but I've run several 4e campaigns where people played Rangers. They never struck me as squishy. Their defenses and hit points are decidedly average. And they have a couple of nasty interrupts that can make attacks miss. Maybe we handle different definitions of "squishy."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Ah I see. Hmmm, but I've run several 4e campaigns where people played Rangers. They never struck me as squishy. Their defenses and hit points are decidedly average. And they have a couple of nasty interrupts that can make attacks miss. Maybe we handle different definitions of "squishy." They're squishy (like most strikers) and a lot of their damage mitigation (especially in bow builds) is "run away/be way outside the center of combat." Strikers generally work by having the defender hold down enemies while the striker has methods to avoid and re-direct attacks entirely. If the standard ranger is taking as many attacks as the party defender in a fight, you're doing it wrong or something went very wrong. Rangers are "decidedly average" if you discount all defenders and most leaders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:In other news, I'm seeing lots of reports of PHBs jut falling apart now. Oh so not just me then, gonna have to contact them and see if I can get a replacement. In other other news, party is still going strong in the Hoard of the Dragon queen. Though we almost lost our paladin to the challenge from the dragonjerk. Everything was going well, paladin had him on the ropes but then the lightning breath started getting thrown around and the poor pally got pretty singed hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Talking about 4e here. They are very squishy there. Rangers in 4e have surprising durability if you pick utilities right IME. I'd say they're above striker average for surviveability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Everything feels squishy after you play a defender 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Yeah, what? Melee rangers can be fairly squishy (low-ish AC, low-ish HP) but ranged... rangers, with their laserlike focus on Dex, hide armor, and some pretty spiffy utilities (Invigorating Stride, just to start off with) are on definitely on the tougher end of strikers. They're not barbarians, but they're better off than melee rangers or avengers. Definitely still squishy, but above average for a striker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Also, like, a 4e ranger could devote every single utility slot they had to something like "get an interrupt defense bonus" or "shift out of a dangerous position" or "leap out of the way of an explosion" or thereabouts. They were scrappy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Also, like, a 4e ranger could devote every single utility slot they had to something like "get an interrupt defense bonus" or "shift out of a dangerous position" or "leap out of the way of an explosion" or thereabouts. They were scrappy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Is "characters are blind beyond a few hundred feet" seriously still a thing in some groups? Sorry, I was implying you use that combo to send blasts around corners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
We had a sharpshooter who spent most of his time in melee flanking with the Fighter. He got his prime shot all the time, and if poo poo attacked him, the Fighter took care of it. This was paragon tier, so the prime shot feats added up. I think it's actually a better way of running a bow Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
So I saw some complaints about CR and how bad it is earlier but I just read through the Monster's Manual, and I'm not sue what the problem is? There's no math involved. A CR X is always worth Y experience. It seems like a pretty good guideline that you can make a balanced encounter by having the CR of your monsters add up to equal the average level of a four person party. What's so terrible about it? The way people were talking about it, I thought you were going to have to multiply CR by some factor depending on the level differential of the party or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
greatn posted:So I saw some complaints about CR and how bad it is earlier but I just read through the Monster's Manual, and I'm not sue what the problem is? There's no math involved. A CR X is always worth Y experience. It seems like a pretty good guideline that you can make a balanced encounter by having the CR of your monsters add up to equal the average level of a four person party. What's so terrible about it? The way people were talking about it, I thought you were going to have to multiply CR by some factor depending on the level differential of the party or something. The entire system doesn't work, because there's no attempt at coherent math behind the whole thing, and the designers have so far proven really incompetent at guesstimating how difficult monsters would be to actually fight. There are CR 2 monsters that are straight up more dangerous than CR 8 monsters. Because of the way that bounded accuracy flattens the scale, large groups of low CR monsters can be an order of magnitude more dangerous than a high CR monster of their equivalent experience value. The guidelines lie to the DM, which makes them worse than having no guidelines at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
greatn posted:So I saw some complaints about CR and how bad it is earlier but I just read through the Monster's Manual, and I'm not sue what the problem is? There's no math involved. A CR X is always worth Y experience. It seems like a pretty good guideline that you can make a balanced encounter by having the CR of your monsters add up to equal the average level of a four person party. What's so terrible about it? The way people were talking about it, I thought you were going to have to multiply CR by some factor depending on the level differential of the party or something. "DM rules PDF, pages 56-57 posted:1. Note Encounter Difficulty Thresholds. To start, make a note of the XP values that define the four difficulty categories for your party. For each adventurer in the party, find that character’s level on the Encounter Difficulty XP per Character table and note the XP numbers for each category. Add the result together to define the categories. Make a note of these numbers, because you can use the same numbers for every encounter in your adventure. So if you understood all that, the following sentence in their example should make sense to you. quote:...four bugbears, with an XP value of 200 XP each, you’d end up with a total value of 1,600 XP for the encounter. Oh, and you have to do it differently if you have fewer than three or more than five characters. Adjust it like this... DM's rules PDF, page 58 posted:Larger or Smaller Parties No math involved. Not that it helps, because CR/XP is just an arbitrary number that felt right. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Well I haven't looked at the DMG because it isn't out yet and I haven't looked at the beta materials. That does seem pretty arcane though. What's the CR2 you were mentioning flat out more dangerous than a CR8? Is that "CR is just aribtrary that felt right" statement pure conjecture or corroborated by developer interviews or something? greatn fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Haha, I forgot about that part. That's really, really bad. So, yeah; it's basically broken in every possible way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
greatn posted:Is that "CR is just aribtrary that felt right" statement pure conjecture or corroborated by developer interviews or something? I'll freely accept that it isn't based on gut feeling if someone shows me the formula that takes a monster's numbers (damage, hit points, AC, abilities, etc) and translates those into a CR. But there isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
greatn posted:What's the CR2 you were mentioning flat out more dangerous than a CR8? Sounds like the Intellect Devourer, which takes half damage from all melee attacks and has an Eat Brains instakill attack, which low-Intelligence classes have no defense against. Does anyone know some of the other CR2 monsters? A big orc with a big axe, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Does anyone know some of the other CR2 monsters? A big orc with a big axe, maybe? Ogres, who have the ability to do 2d8+4 damage and that's about it. Pegasus, which do 2d6+2 damage and can fly. Plesiosaurus, which do 3d6+4 damage and can hold their breath. Centaur, which do 1d10+4 (pike) and 2d6+4 (hooves) and can charge and do an extra 3d6 damage if it then hits with the pike. Like I said, designed by feel. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Sounds like the Intellect Devourer, which takes half damage from all melee attacks and has an Eat Brains instakill attack, which low-Intelligence classes have no defense against. Hobgoblins once per turn can smack somebody for an additional 2d6 as long as the character was within 5 feet of another enemy. So by going off of the stat block they can swing at a character with a +3 to hit for 1d8 (1d10 if using both hands) + 2d6 + 1. This will wreck most level 1 characters in one blow unless the DM rolls all 1's or takes pity. This is CR 1/2. That has a base 18 AC on the stat block. 11 Hit Points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Waiiit. That hobgoblin power sounds great for a defender type class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
I just used the math I quoted earlier so you can see how dumb it is. 4 orcs (CR 1/2) are worth 400xp. Because there's 4 of them, I multiply by 2 to get 800xp worth of challenge (but not xp). If my party is 4 level 2 characters, a hard encounter is 4x150 = 600xp and a deadly encounter is 4x200 = 800xp. 4 loving orcs is apparently a deadly encounter (800xp of challenge) for 4 2nd-level PCs, and they get 400xp for it. This is supposedly harder than fighting one owlbear (a hard encounter, 700xp of challenge), for which they'll get 700xp. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
The only explanation I can think of for such ludicrous and needlessly overcomplicated encounter building rules is that the developers just don't want anyone to actually use their system to run a game. I was only lukewarm to 5E until the whole CR bullshit reared its ugly head again and now I'm already kind of hating it. I will never even attempt to run 5E unless I feel especially masochistic. It's SO overcomplicated and bullshit that I'm willing to bet hard money that no one will be building encounters properly; Not out of desire to change said rules, but out of ignorance of how the rules actually WORK and being none the wiser about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I just used the math I quoted earlier so you can see how dumb it is. Well four orcs IS harder, it is more hit points overall and more attacks per round for more average damage per round, and being able to spread them out. If you think of the four orcs as one creature vs the one owlbear as one creature, they are more deadly... probably. But you're saying the PCs actually end up with less XP from that somehow, that is very odd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'll freely accept that it isn't based on gut feeling if someone shows me the formula that takes a monster's numbers (damage, hit points, AC, abilities, etc) and translates those into a CR. Given that their attack bonuses and save DCs are based on their CR this is at least not completely true. Anyway I am not amazing at math but this guy has been doing an anyalisis on monster stats http://surfarcher.blogspot.ca/2014/07/d-5e-monsters-master-index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well four orcs IS harder, it is more hit points overall and more attacks per round for more average damage per round, and being able to spread them out. If you think of the four orcs as one creature vs the one owlbear as one creature, they are more deadly... probably. But you're saying the PCs actually end up with less XP from that somehow, that is very odd. The Owlbear is CR 3 however and unlike the Orcs is more likely to instantly kill a level 2 PC then the Orcs are. Anyway the Building encounters thing is stated to not be final and I hope it changes a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:The only explanation I can think of for such ludicrous and needlessly overcomplicated encounter building rules is that the developers just don't want anyone to actually use their system to run a game. I was only lukewarm to 5E until the whole CR bullshit reared its ugly head again and now I'm already kind of hating it. I will never even attempt to run 5E unless I feel especially masochistic. It's SO overcomplicated and bullshit that I'm willing to bet hard money that no one will be building encounters properly; Not out of desire to change said rules, but out of ignorance of how the rules actually WORK and being none the wiser about it. Have you looked at them yourself yet? It's not that complicated if you look at the chart. I hope it changes in the future myself however as it prevents lowerlevel creatures being used with higher level creatures in any decent number. AlphaDog posted:Ogres, who have the ability to do 2d8+4 damage and that's about it. You are not taking it the other things about the monsters into consideration. There is more about them then just damage. Stuff like AC their saves and HP is important as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well four orcs IS harder, it is more hit points overall and more attacks per round for more average damage per round, and being able to spread them out. If you think of the four orcs as one creature vs the one owlbear as one creature, they are more deadly... probably. But you're saying the PCs actually end up with less XP from that somehow, that is very odd. Four orcs are also very much susceptible to more area attacks and have a harder time focus-firing. Anyway, the point is the "math" is arbitrary (there is no math).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Anyway the Building encounters thing is stated to not be final and I hope it changes a bit more. The Monster Manual is already out. The PHB is already out. All the parts have been released, the only thing "missing" is the instructions for how to mash the two together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I don't think they factored that more enemies = more actors. Damage is going to be more normalized to average, and there's much more opportunity for enemy "dirty tricks" and force-multiplying buffs, or even tactics (such as they are in ToTM...) And this is all compounded by butter-fingers tanks and controllers who can't control for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
moths posted:Damage is going to be more normalized to average Already is. One of the few smart moves in 5E is making average damage default for monsters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:20
|
|
