D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

ascendance posted:

Regarding IDs... Having one very obviously broken monster so far is not too bad. Let me know if you spot any other terribad ones.

It's not "obviously broken monsters" that are really the problem though, it's that the CR/XP system is bad. Like, sure, the ID is dumb and I'm actually pretty prepared to ignore it*, but the real sticking point for me is that I just can't be bothered trying to figure out which CR X monsters will actually be more like CR X+3. Or which Medium encounters might really play out as Deadly. Or what kind of rear end in a top hat I'd be if I used this Hard encounter instead of that one.

That kind of thing just completely turns me off wanting to run a game. I could do it, but I don't see why I should have to.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

well, in 5e, yeah. There is no charge action. It is a fact that 'melee guy first turn range' has shortened.

So I'm picturing a big 80' wide room with the monsters in the middle. Is that is an unlikely scenario in your game?

*As in, I think it's pretty broken, so I won't be using it in any game I run. This doesn't mean that I think it's somehow well designed or that I will start arguing that because I ignore it there are no broken monsters included in the core book. See how easy it is to approach "I'm going to ignore this thing" like a non-fucktard?

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 12:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 17:53

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

kingcom posted:

It's 90% of the reason I read this thread. If you followed it you've probably gotten some of the coolest campaign ideas. Like the Intellect Devourer Big Bad who is helping the players get lots of xp so he can eat their brains. Or how when the fighter gets killed by the ID the player then gets to play as the ID who ate the fighter with new stats and memories about how he is friends with the party because he absorbed the fighters memories. Or the Necromancer Barons who provide armies and protection in return for the dead family members bones so the Necromancer can use them to go slay dragons and kick Tiamat's butt or the great Necromancer & Druid alliance that made the undead hordes unstoppable. The list goes on. Its gold.

The reason this thread even gets posts is the contest between shitposters--at least one of which has been an obvious troll for months--to see who can make AlphaDog pop a blood vessel first.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 12:56

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Andrast posted:

Remember, Magical items are totally optional and not needed at all.

Warning: Not using magic items may void your game balance warranty.

Ok, i know ProfessorCirno have been on the opposite sides of the 5e debate here, but I totally agree with him on Star Wars games. Who the gently caress wants to play Star Wars with no Jedi? I mean, SW:TOR had pretty much the ideal selection of classes for any SW game. But i digress.

I bring this up to ask, in a similar analogy, who the gently caress plays D&D with no magic items? Or heck, any fantasy game? I get that you dont want your character dripping with magic items looking like a Christmas tree, but everyone wants and loves magic items. Its just an excuse for lovely DMs who take DMing tips from Jigsaw to further hobble their players.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 12:59

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

ascendance posted:

I bring this up to ask, in a similar analogy, who the gently caress plays D&D with no magic items? Or heck, any fantasy game? I get that you dont want your character dripping with magic items looking like a Christmas tree, but everyone wants and loves magic items. Its just an excuse for lovely DMs who take DMing tips from Jigsaw to further hobble their players.

Nobody disagrees with you on this, but everyone, including you, including, loving, math, disagrees with the creators of D&D on this.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:00

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

AlphaDog posted:

It's not "obviously broken monsters" that are really the problem though, it's that the CR/XP system is bad. Like, sure, the ID is dumb and I'm actually pretty prepared to ignore it*, but the real sticking point for me is that I just can't be bothered trying to figure out which CR X monsters will actually be more like CR X+3. Or which Medium encounters might really play out as Deadly. Or what kind of rear end in a top hat I'd be if I used this Hard encounter instead of that one.

That kind of thing just completely turns me off wanting to run a game. I could do it, but I don't see why I should have to.

It's only about as bad now as it was in 1e and BECMI. Which means that as a DM, you may have to fudge, or let the players run if they have to. I can see why some people might like the new assumption that all encounters are fair and beatable. It forces players to try and figure out ways around fighting, or think up alternative strategies if a fight goes bad.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:06

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

30.5 Days posted:

Nobody disagrees with you on this, but everyone, including you, including, loving, math, disagrees with the creators of D&D on this.

My point is the creators are basically lying to the people who want to play D&D with no magic items. Otherwise known as marketing.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:08

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

I thought we were talking about what a fighter can do to kill IDs. If that's not what we're talking about then you presented a pointless false dichotomy; you don't need to a Gandalf to stomp on the IDs, it's just the easiest way. You arn't dependent on Wizard init.

I was simply talking that if the IDs go first they cripple stuff regardless of who is on the other end.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

I'm glad you brought up an actual gameplay example! I looked up the centaur, and it landed two attacks on its charge round against a damaged player. She would have at least made death rolls if she had the hp. It was the worst possible scenario. Which does suck, but i dont hold out much hope for level 1-2 rocket tag. Personally I will avoid it.

I'm comparing to the ogre. I would agree the centaur is stronger overall, but the Ogre has significantly more HP which probably translate into one more round to act in any given fight. *shrug* At best, it's a minor imbalance.

IDs are all anyone seems to bring up when challenged - not just here but in other forums - and it all revolves around their unique mechanics. IMO they aren't intended, mechanically, to be spammed. I don't think they're even intended to be used in groups. Now, if people think the ID is bullshit, fine. IDs cannot be an example because they do not speak to the general creature mechanics in 5e. Illithids suck brains its kind of their special thing.

Thanks for ignoring what I've said. I'll repeat it for you. Its an example, the best, easiest, most obvious example to point out problems if you would like I can point out other things which are a big issue.

Aarakoca are 1/4CR and enemies who will be constantly flying overhead hucking spears at whoever. They do 1 less damage than an orc (1/2) , are pretty sturdy themselves and are essentially screw over anyone who doesn't take ranged into account. This is unfortunately one of those 'everyone has to have a melee weapon and it screws specific classes and not others' which is hard to be tangible with but the point still stands they are half the value of an orc for a pretty game changing set of abilities.

Cambion are the same issue as the Aarakoca except they kick you in the dick with their spells while constantly charming you while they are 60 feet above you out of weapon range and have resistance to a huge bunch of stuff. For reference they swoop down 30, cast charm, then swoop 30 up again maintaining 60 feet at all times.

Umber Hulks 30foot save or your not likely to get an action confusion.

Nagas are terrifying because of all their mind control spells and seem haphazardly assigned CRs

Harpy Songs are legitimately terrifying. 300 feet range of a charm attack they can sustain with a bonus action forever. DC 11 Wisdom save. CR1?????

This is just the stuff off the top of my head.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

With indomitable?

As pointed out, doesn't do poo poo son and your burning both of your rerolls in the first turn for the entire day.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

well, in 5e, yeah. There is no charge action. It is a fact that 'melee guy first turn range' has shortened.

Its gone from 40 foot movement to (heavy armour 20foot x2) to 30 foot movement thanks to strength preventing movement reduction. Truly its changed the entire dynamic!

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:12

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

ascendance posted:

It's only about as bad now as it was in 1e and BECMI. Which means that as a DM, you may have to fudge, or let the players run if they have to. I can see why some people might like the new assumption that all encounters are fair and beatable. It forces players to try and figure out ways around fighting, or think up alternative strategies if a fight goes bad.

But you could already do that by intentionally designing encounters that are too hard. This way, the difficulty of the fight is even a surprise to the DM! Yayyyyy.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:13

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

ascendance posted:

I bring this up to ask, in a similar analogy, who the gently caress plays D&D with no magic items? Or heck, any fantasy game? I get that you dont want your character dripping with magic items looking like a Christmas tree, but everyone wants and loves magic items. Its just an excuse for lovely DMs who take DMing tips from Jigsaw to further hobble their players.

I like magic items to be unique and interesting that make your character special as a result. Its mostly the boring +1 sword math fix items people hate.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:14

is that good: Apr 14, 2012

So say you have a baseball pitching machine to let all your fun friends have some fun. It somehow exactly knows how good the person standing in front of it is at baseball I don't know I'm Australian, I've literally never played baseball nor seen a baseball pitching thing. Maybe you buy one that throws the baseball exactly as hard as it should for everyone to be appropriately challenged by it. That would be a good magic baseball pitching machine and maybe you'd have more friends. Maybe instead it throws erratically; sometimes it only ever throws super easy pitches and all your friends get bored and leave you forever for having a poo poo magic baseball pitching machine, sometimes it randomly throws pitches at mach 4 and blows your friends' arms off. Sure, you could open up the machine and manually tinker with it and kind of eyeball how hard you guess it should probably throw them and set up your own systems and nigh-on reprogram the thing yourself, but you still have a lovely RPG system or stretched metaphor or whatever.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:14

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

ascendance posted:

It's only about as bad now as it was in 1e and BECMI. Which means that as a DM, you may have to fudge, or let the players run if they have to. I can see why some people might like the new assumption that all encounters are fair and beatable. It forces players to try and figure out ways around fighting, or think up alternative strategies if a fight goes bad.

As the DM, I don't want all encounters to be fair and beatable. I just don't think I should have to put very much effort into making sure they're not accidentally unfair or unbeatable.

And hey, if I want to play a semi-random sandbox/hexcrawl kind of game (which I do!), I've got 1st ed AD&D, where "you will eventually meet a random monster that's completely inappropriate and have to run away" is a core part of that style of play and is intended.

Next isn't set up for that at all. D&D hasn't really been set up for that since 1e ended. But maybe there will be support for that playstyle in the 5e DMG and maybe it will be good enough to make me want to try running it instead of 1e/Hackmaster for a sandbox game. In that case, and only in that case, I don't give a single poo poo about whether or not the encounter math works out.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:17

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

AlphaDog posted:

As the DM, I don't want all encounters to be fair and beatable. I just don't think I should have to put very much effort into making sure they're not accidentally unfair or unbeatable.

And maybe you design an encounter to be unbeatable and it's really easy! Yayyyyy!

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:19

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

ascendance posted:

It's only about as bad now as it was in 1e and BECMI. Which means that as a DM, you may have to fudge, or let the players run if they have to. I can see why some people might like the new assumption that all encounters are fair and beatable. It forces players to try and figure out ways around fighting, or think up alternative strategies if a fight goes bad.

I think you might be confused here. I dont want encounters to be all fair and beatable. I would just want to know beforehand if they are supposed to be fair and beatable before I go start and then have to pull my punches and fudge the entire encounter to not wipe my players. My group knows eachother pretty well, they can tell when im needing to do this and it bumbs everyone out. It means theres no tension or atmosphere because we are all just pretending the fight wasnt a washing and move on.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:20

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

By the way, I think a lot of these problems can be traced back to flat math. People like to blame the XP multiplier, but I think the flat math is the bigger problem. Because as a result of it, monsters don't scale down relative to the party at the same rate as each other, so there's no one multiplier that's even possible. So even if you have two theoretically-balanced CR2 monsters that have an equal chance of killing a level 2 PC, if one of them does that with weapon damage and the other one does it with spells or some poo poo, then throwing a horde of monster A at level 20 PC's is going to be a WAY different encounter than throwing a horde of monster B. That's not the multiplier's fault, they've just designed a game that is impossible to balance at its foundation.

EDIT: What if they had different XP formulas for different monster archetypes? Just spitballing here, does any game have anything like that?

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:29

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

AlphaDog posted:

And hey, if I want to play a semi-random sandbox/hexcrawl kind of game (which I do!), I've got 1st ed AD&D, where "you will eventually meet a random monster that's completely inappropriate and have to run away" is a core part of that style of play and is intended.

Next isn't set up for that at all. D&D hasn't really been set up for that since 1e ended. But maybe there will be support for that playstyle in the 5e DMG and maybe it will be good enough to make me want to try running it instead of 1e/Hackmaster for a sandbox game. In that case, and only in that case, I don't give a single poo poo about whether or not the encounter math works out.

That's exactly the play style I intend to use with 5e, which is why the encounter math working out is not that important to me right now.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:37

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

The trouble I had running this game is that the monster design is so all-over-the-place that I don't even know what AC or hitpoints a monster at a given level is supposed to have, so I can't tell if a monster's supposed to be particularly hard to hit or tough to kill, or whether the typist just slipped and put 17 AC instead of 12.

Flying swords were the monsters that were particularly tough for my party when I ran the game.

17 AC
17 HP
+4 Dex save

+3 to hit, 5 damage

CR 1/4

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:38

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

30.5 Days posted:

What if they had different XP formulas for different monster archetypes? Just spitballing here, does any game have anything like that?

1st ed sort of had a crack at this. Monsters were supposedly worth a base level of XP based on HD (which was kind of a stand-in for "level" or maybe "CR" as well as determining HP), then extras for different kinds of special abilities, then an extra X experience points per hit point. Not what you're really talking about, but the math was right there for everyone to look at, and if the monster rolled low for HP, then it was worth less xp.

Then Gary just kind of eyeballed it for the stuff in the MM, so :shrug:

ascendance posted:

That's exactly the play style I intend to use with 5e, which is why the encounter math working out is not that important to me right now.

I'm going to wait for the DMG to come out before I make any sort of call on whether or not I use 5e like this, but my guess is that it won't support the same kind of random-world stuff that AD&D did. If it does, then I'll run it. I won't be using it for heroes-go-through-a-story play because I hate fudging die rolls a whole lot and the encounter math is currently bad enough that I know I'd have to.

Also, it's great that you can say that the encounter math is unimportant to you rather than trying to say it's not hosed.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:38

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

kingcom posted:

I like magic items to be unique and interesting that make your character special as a result. Its mostly the boring +1 sword math fix items people hate.

Seriously thinking of getting rid of +1/2/3 items, and instead having BECMI weapon specialization as a money sink.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:41

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

ascendance posted:

Seriously thinking of getting rid of +1/2/3 items, and instead having BECMI weapon specialization as a money sink.

Thats one option. I like 4e's solution where you just get inherent +1s to AC, To Hit, To Damage periodically when levelling up.

AlphaDog posted:

Also, it's great that you can say that the encounter math is unimportant to you rather than trying to say it's not hosed.

Hes growing as a person. Most of the people who shitpost driveby in the thread seem to.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:43

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Gort posted:

The trouble I had running this game is that the monster design is so all-over-the-place that I don't even know what AC or hitpoints a monster at a given level is supposed to have, so I can't tell if a monster's supposed to be particularly hard to hit or tough to kill, or whether the typist just slipped and put 17 AC instead of 12.

Flying swords were the monsters that were particularly tough for my party when I ran the game.

17 AC
17 HP
+4 Dex save

+3 to hit, 5 damage

CR 1/4

flying swords seem like they have very good defense at the expense of their ability to hit things.

I'm curious if there are actually going to be monster guidelines in the DMG, or if this poo poo is all just made up.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:46

Ettin: Oct 2, 2010

Kai Tave posted:

Best post of the thread. Ettin, lock it up, we're done.

I probably should have because nearly every post after it is white noise garbage. Look at this poo poo:

ascendance posted:

Right. So you hate 5e and think it sucks. You're not going to buy it. Why are you wasting your time venting your vitriol about it to those of us around here who think its at least vaguely playable? Go demand better from Mike Mearls, not humble end users like us.

NachtSieger posted:

"Why play 5e?"
"NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE STOP BEING MEAN TO 5E "

Slimnoid posted:

So why the gently caress do you keep posting in this thread?

Kai Tave posted:

Being a fan of a lovely sports team is vastly more economical both in a money and a time sense given that most sports games don't take up six hours of your Saturday or require you to buy a series of $50 textbooks in order to drink beer and yell at your television. What I'm saying is that the Maple Leafs are actually more entertaining than Next is and they should be proud of that.

Arcturas posted:

So go post in the threads for those better, cheaper RPGs rather than in the 5e thread?

ProfessorCirno posted:

Like, people don't hate that you like the game. I like plenty of bad or flawed games. 4e has a lot of flaws. Shadowrun is mechanically bad.

The catch is that the Shadowrun thread has Shadowrun fans acknowledging the bad, blaming the developers and producers for it, and then talking about either fixes to the system or alternate systems you can use. At no point are the bad mechanics just washed over with "They aren't REALLY bad, you can fix it."

You aren't doing that. You're getting upset at stage one: admitting the game has flaws.

Transient People posted:

Bottom line: A bad product gets bad press. If you don't like it, tough, deal. We, as customers and testers, get to poo poo on it as much you get to defend it, and probably even more justifiably. Should I go ahead and tell you about how I knew Next was going to be bad from the moment they tried to spin axing the Warlord as a positive thing? That's when I decided the team wasn't getting my money, even though I went ahead and played the game just to be sure.

Arivia posted:

gently caress you ascendance for saying something bad about the Toronto Maple Leafs. You have lovely taste in hockey, too.

Tendales posted:

If you can find something interesting to say positively about 5e, just post. That's the point a lot of people are making; there's just not that much interesting to discuss about the game if you're going to forbid all negativity.

How are some of you posting so much about how a roleplaying game is bad? Who actually posts "Well some people care about this and some don't, it's all taste" instead of something anyone cares about? When has telling someone else to get out of a thread ever actually worked? Why would you quadruple post? Who tolerates hockey? Did you guys all press Submit Reply willingly?

I would punt you guys from the forum for a day but I don't hit children. Stop making bad posts and chill out already.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:47

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

ascendance posted:

flying swords seem like they have very good defense at the expense of their ability to hit things.

Goddammit Mike, it's not a flying shield. Too late, it'll have to go in like this.

ascendance posted:

I'm curious if there are actually going to be monster guidelines in the DMG, or if this poo poo is all just made up.

I'm guessing both. I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of monster-building rules, but I'm also pretty sure that a lot of the stuff in the MM is just made up.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:48

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

AlphaDog posted:

Also, it's great that you can say that the encounter math is unimportant to you rather than trying to say it's not hosed.

lots of people have said that encounter math is totally hosed, and the math says that it's hosed. People are already trying to engineer fixes to it, but its pretty much an impossible task given that the CR system is itself, hosed.

What's eventually going to happen is people are going to re-rate all the monsters with more accurate CRs derived from play experience, and the MM2 is going to have monsters that are all less hosed.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:54

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

quote:

Indomitable reduces the odds of instant ID death from 38% to 19% for a single ID attack per day.

You asked what fighters had that protected them from save or suck. So what are you doing here? You knew all along and were just pretending not to have read the PHB? Or you didn't know and are just being a smartass?

quote:

You know, that's fair. But if we're going to talk players in an illithid stronghold they'd have to be complete idiots to not be prepared with psychic defenses of several natures. Otherwise they deserve having their brains sucked out.
***
All I've got to say to this is "lol".

I've been feeling chill up until now but this actually makes me angry. You cannot seriously be arguing that buffing and equipping to fight specific enemies - at *level 13* - is not a part of DND. I don't know if you are just :effort:

or trolling or mean something else entirely.

quote:

By this logic, the default range for fights outside the underdark is hundreds of feet.

Um...yes? Absent another reason, anyways - like a city, or a forest, or a parley, or an ambush. There are many creatures that can move more than 100 feet in a turn! Hell even orcs can move 90 feet in a turn. If I see a bunch of angry orcs 100 feet or more down the path I'm not going to wait until I'm closer.

Basically any fight thats not in a building/dungeon/etc. can and should some reasonable ranges. Look at weapon ranges! They are like that for a reason. In my experience, the main reasons people keep ranges short are because of miniatures and roll20 limitations. But you can abstract it out a bit or go TOTM and it works fine. It changes up the gameplay, too.

quote:

*As in, I think it's pretty broken, so I won't be using it in any game I run. This doesn't mean that I think it's somehow well designed or that I will start arguing that because I ignore it there are no broken monsters included in the core book. See how easy it is to approach "I'm going to ignore this thing" like a non-fucktard?

What I like about IDs is their use as solo encounters and as secret NPC controllers to screw with the players. That's how I read them fluffwise and mechanically and I do not think they are broken in that context. A level 2 party can pretty easily defeat a single ID unless it gets a surprise round on them. I've scrimmage that one out a couple times, there's just too many things people can do to shut it down. It can knock people out but in a world of grapples and snares and shoves it has a hard time finish people off.

I don't think they work well otherwise TBH.

quote:

So I'm picturing a big 80' wide room with the monsters in the middle. Is that is an unlikely scenario in your game?

I dunno man, are there doors on every wall of the room so you can come in from every side? :p

Okay, it was just wrong of me to imply that all or a majority of fights were beyond that range. It's not what I meant. My point was that the game has changed, and in that specific situation of 50 feet the IDs arnt sucking anyones brains out. Players and monsters really do have shorter melee engage ranges than in 3.5 with some exceptions.

quote:

Thanks for ignoring what I've said. I'll repeat it for you. Its an example, the best, easiest, most obvious example to point out problems if you would like I can point out other things which are a big issue.

I think you got angry without actually reading what *I* said. To be fair, I kinda buried the lede, so I'll take the blame on that. I don't consider IDs to be a valid example because I believe they are an outlier in their mechanics and abilities. They aren't the tip of the iceberg for rear end in a top hat S-O-D, they pretty much are the iceberg. And...I've been lurking this thread a while (though not reading every post) and they never stop being brought up. When we set up an actual fight scrimmage? As many Illithids as one can muster! It's frustrating.

I'm actually very glad you brought all those other monsters up! I have not fought any of those and cant say much about them, but I guarantee I'll look at them and think about it. Well, except the harpy. Odysseus figured that one out a while ago i think.

quote:

I'm going to wait for the DMG to come out before I make any sort of call on whether or not I use 5e like this, but my guess is that it won't support the same kind of random-world stuff that AD&D did. If it does, then I'll run it. I won't be using it for heroes-go-through-a-story play because I hate fudging die rolls a whole lot and the encounter math is currently bad enough that I know I'd have to.

Also, it's great that you can say that the encounter math is unimportant to you rather than trying to say it's not hosed.

The encounter math isn't final, so why not withold final judgement?

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 13:56

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

The encounter math isn't final, so why not withold final judgement?

the DMG is probably delayed because they know the encounter math is hosed.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 14:04

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

The encounter math isn't final, so why not withold final judgement?

The XP/CR numbers in the already-published MM are hosed, in that a monster can be notably better or worse than another monster at the same CR. Unless they're going to publish a list of real CR/XP numbers in the DMG, I don't see how they can possibly fix it. If they do end up going with that, it's only going to be an enormous pain in the arse to actually use.

That, and every single time in this thread I've been told to wait and see if something is fixed in a yet-to-be-published book, it's been either the exact same or worse once the book was released.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 14:15

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

You asked what fighters had that protected them from save or suck. So what are you doing here? You knew all along and were just pretending not to have read the PHB? Or you didn't know and are just being a smartass?

I meant actual protection, not a 10% reduction in odds of death once per day. (That is the actual number, btw, the odds of dying from 3 ID attacks is 10% lower with Indomitable. Not 10 percentage points, 10%.) The actual answer was, "not really much of anything".

quote:

I've been feeling chill up until now but this actually makes me angry. You cannot seriously be arguing that buffing and equipping to fight specific enemies - at *level 13* - is not a part of DND. I don't know if you are just or trolling.

Um, yes? Like I can see dedicating spell slots to specific enemies because being halfway useless unless you know what you're going to fight when you wake up in the morning is apparently a traditional thing despite how incredibly dumb it is and anyway the entire spell system is built around it, but what if your party doesn't have a class with good psychic defenses? What if your setting doesn't have "a magic item shop" on every corner meaning players can't just look up "useful poo poo to fight mindflayers with" in the reference books and throw some gold at it? The fact that we're talking about a "magic item shop" seriously is just so loving stupid it hurts. I remember that part in gilgamesh where he needed to fight grendle so he went to the mall. It was epic.

quote:

That's how I read them fluffwise and mechanically

That's weird, how I read them mechanically is that their CR makes them an appropriate monster to send three of them alongside an illithid and umber hulk as an average encounter. Being that's what the book says and all. I agree that they don't work well in the way they are described, though, maybe that's a problem.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 14:16

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

I'm not sure why Fighters don't just get a power that lets them ignore save or suck effects at high levels. This would totally be in line with the old school tradition of having great saves.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 14:29

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

quote:

That's weird, how I read them mechanically is that their CR makes them an appropriate monster to send three of them alongside an illithid and umber hulk as an average encounter. Being that's what the book says and all. I agree that they don't work well in the way they are described, though, maybe that's a problem.

In this edition, their CR is irrelevant. Encounter building actually works off XP and numbers alone with CR as minimum level guideline.

They do work pretty well as described: hunters that roam the underdark, and manipulators that lure groups of people into the clutches of the mind flayers. Lemme put it this way: It is actively counteproductive for IDs to eat everythings brains. The Flayers want those brains! IDs that eat all the brains are BAD DOGGIES. They're meant to show a brain profit so using them like attack dogs is strictly an act of uneconomic desperation.

quote:

I meant actual protection, not a 10% reduction in odds of death once per day. (That is the actual number, btw, the odds of dying from 3 ID attacks is 10% lower with Indomitable. Not 10 percentage points, 10%.) The actual answer was, "not really much of anything".

I think your math is off. The ID's psychic blast first causes an intsave, which even the presumed int8 fighter (who i guess isnt an EK, and never deigned to take Resilient in his weak save) has a 40% chance of succeeding at. If he fails this save he has to lose an int contest of 12 vs 8, or d20+1 vs d20-1. The int8 fighter has a 48% chance of winning or tieing, or about 31% chance of getting stunned. per hit by an ID before indomitable. Pretty much 53% chance of getting stunned by either one of the first two IDs which is what is required to die.

indomitably lets you reroll one of the saves which is pretty helpful. I can't actually do probability math for that offhand...

Anyone with a decent int score or proficiency is sitting pretty, of course.

quote:

Um, yes? Like I can see dedicating spell slots to specific enemies because being halfway useless unless you know what you're going to fight when you wake up in the morning is apparently a traditional thing despite how incredibly dumb it is and anyway the entire spell system is built around it, but what if your party doesn't have a class with good psychic defenses? What if your setting doesn't have "a magic item shop" on every corner meaning players can't just look up "useful poo poo to fight mindflayers with" in the reference books and throw some gold at it? The fact that we're talking about a "magic item shop" seriously is just so loving stupid it hurts. I remember that part in gilgamesh where he needed to fight grendle so he went to the mall. It was epic.

Off the top of my head, stuff thats useful: Death Ward. Greater Restoration. Mind Blank. Protection from Evil (It's not in the Basic rules, so I cant check the specific effects atm.) You don't need to go to the mall to get spells, you can grab when leveling.

If anyone has picked up a headband of intellect obviously that would help. Enhance Ability on intelligence. Any buff like that.

If the DM isn't giving you any tools to defend yourself than they need to take that into account when your mission is to invade an illithid stronghold. A Mind Blank mcguffin would be pretty cool. Noone do not let go of the mind blank stick!

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:03

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

In this edition, their CR is irrelevant. Encounter building actually works off XP and numbers alone with CR as minimum level guideline.

CR defines XP. It's relevant to encounter building.

D&D 5e Monster Manual, page 9 posted:

The number of experience points (XP) a monster is worth is based on its challenge rating.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:09

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

CR is like a label for xp, you don't actually use it in encounter building other than as the minimum level guideline. If you've memorized how much xp each CR has its useful for you otherwise it is not.

You never add CRs together or multiply them to determine anything, so its misleading to speak of CR as if it defines encounters.

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:16

Sage Genesis: Aug 14, 2014; OG Murderhobo

AlphaDog posted:

CR defines XP. It's relevant to encounter building.

Yeah. Every single CR 2 creature is worth 450 xp, for example. To say that CR is irrelevant and you should look at xp instead is... frankly impossible. The one is directly determined by the other.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:18

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

quote:

Yeah. Every single CR 2 creature is worth 450 xp, for example. To say that CR is irrelevant and you should look at xp instead is... frankly impossible. The one is directly determined by the other.

It doesn't do you much good. The XP number is what you need and use when building encounters. Talking about CR is misleading, itll just lead to improper estimation of any encounter with more than one enemy.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. When determining what you can fight with your group, you establish an XP budget, not a CR budget. XP is the dominant statistic.

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:20

Sage Genesis: Aug 14, 2014; OG Murderhobo

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

It doesn't do you much good. The XP number is what you need and use when building encounters.

So... what is your actual argument here? I'm really having trouble following this. You say that CR is irrelevant and it's all about the xp value... even though the CR basically is the xp value. And also, you yourself said that CR is a number that shows the appropriate minimum level the PC party ought to be to face these.

I don't see how any of this makes CR irrelevant. Nor do I see why you're making this a point of discussion. Even if we were to somehow accept that CR is irrelevant, so what? Why bring that up? 30.5 Days mentioned that by their CR, illithids and IDs can appear in the same party... and you then say CR is irrelevant. So you think they shouldn't be encountered in the same group? Or something?

Look, I genuinely want to see and participate in some good D&D talks, but I have zero clue what you're trying to say here.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:28

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

i wrote a 26 sentence post and yall are focusing on the least pointful 2 sentences! Don't complain at me that its not meaningful enough. I did math! If anyone knows how to apply the reroll to the multi-ID problem in probability thatd be grand.

quote:

30.5 Days mentioned that by their CR, illithids and IDs can apepar in the same party... and you then say CR is irrelevant. So you think they shouldn't be encountered in the same group? Or something?

Because you don't put a group like that together using CR. At all. In any way. Any group encounter almost by definition is going to be under-CR'd. You add the XP and do the budgets. CR is just a label on the file, and is putting the emphasis on the wrong mechanic in encounter building. This is quasi-worth talking about because CR was what was important in 3.5 (I dont know how encounter building works in 4e.). So pretty much anyone coming from a 3.5 background might get confused that CR is what you pay attention to in encounter building. They could in fact take CR out and put a maximum XP for this level column in the encounter building chart and it would work 100% identically. CR is irrelevant because its superfluous.

Look, if want you get down to brass tacks, the statement is meaningless. You can put anything with Illithids if you are only looking at your XP budget. 3 IDs coulda been 3 centaurs, or you could scrap the umber hulk and put in God knows how many orcs.

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:36

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

CR is like a label for xp, you don't actually use it in encounter building. If you've memorized how much xp each CR has its useful for you otherwise it is not.

CR defines XP. Like, a CR's purpose is to say "this monster is worth this many XP" as well as "this monster is an appropriate challenge for 4 PCs of level = CR".

D&D 5e Monster Manual, page 9 again posted:

An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths.

This turns out to be true (by the book) because a level = CR monster is always a Medium challenge for a party of 4 PCs.

But this might actually be where the math goes wrong. If that's all true, then the difference between the average medium encounter difficulty for 4 PCs and the XP gained from a monster of CR = PC level should be a constant increase. But it's not.

code:

PC      4 PC    4 PC    4 PC	Monster	Avg Encounter/
Level/  Medium  Medium  Medium	XP	Monster XP
CR	Min	Max	Avg	Value	Difference
1	200	299	249.5	200	49.5
2	400	599	499.5	450	49.5
3	600	899	749.5	700	49.5
4	1000	1499	1249.5	1100	149.5
5	2000	2999	2499.5	1800	699.5
6	2400	3599	2999.5	2300	699.5
7	3000	4399	3699.5	2900	799.5
8	3600	5599	4599.5	3900	699.5
9	4400	6399	5399.5	5000	399.5
10	4800	7599	6199.5	5900	299.5
11	6400	9599	7999.5	7200	799.5
12	8000	11999	9999.5	8400	1599.5
13	8800	13599	11199.5	10000	1199.5
14	10000	15199	12599.5	11500	1099.5
15	11200	17199	14199.5	13000	1199.5
16	12800	19199	15999.5	15000	999.5
17	15600	23599	19599.5	18000	1599.5
18	16800	25199	20999.5	20000	999.5
19	19600	29199	24399.5	22000	2399.5
20	22800	33999	28399.5	25000	3399.5

e: Because someone will try to misinterpret me, I'm talking about a single monster of CR = PC level, which the MM defines as something a rested, equipped party can fight without suffering any deaths, and the by-the-book numbers show as always falling into the "medium" category. I'm not taking into account multiple monsters, because the XP total you derive from them begins with the above numbers - in other words, if this bit is hosed, so will the multiple-monsters math be hosed.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:39

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

That's the current budget curve, right?

They can't use a linear xp curve when certain levels (like 5) see much more dramatic performance boosts than other levels.

Honestly CR *shouldn't* = XP. The numbers are not straightforward enough for that to be helpful anyway. If a Centaur was worth more XP and an Ogre worth less xp then the encounter builder might be truer to their performance!

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:45

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

Look, it sounds like people are talking past each other here.

Some people are saying the CR system is broken, because some monsters are much, much deadlier than others at any given CR. Others can fly, and hence can easily make themselves immune to melee attacks at low levels. This is indisputable. However, there have always been monsters of varying difficulty at any given level. And arguably, in the 4e Monster Manual, all the monsters were too easy, since they bumped up damage across the board in the errata later.

The thing about CR as it relates to XP is that the CR/XP relationship is nonlinear. 4 CR 1 monsters do not add up to a CR encounter. This is well known, and has been a property of CR since 3.X. I guess what's going on now is there's still a bit of fine tuning as designers try and implement the least broken CR/XP relationship, they can, keeping in mind the above (I.e. that CRs right now are somewhat wonky).

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:46

ritorix: Jul 22, 2007; Vancian Roulette

ascendance posted:

Regarding IDs... Having one very obviously broken monster so far is not too bad. Let me know if you spot any other terribad ones.

These tend to be monsters with abilities that kill outside of the normal HP system. That's also what lets them punch far above their CR value, the same way as the ID's int drain is very dangerous at any level.

Shadows, for example. They drain Strength as they attack. So even though their physical damage might be mitigated by cures, the STR damage will continue to add up and kill you if you drop to 0 STR.

Those are CR 1/2. But if two of them hit a level 20 cleric that dumped strength to 8, and roll 4s on their drain, he dies.

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 17:53

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

They can't use a linear xp curve when certain levels (like 5) see much more dramatic performance boosts than other levels.

So when we chart this, we should see what levels PCs gain more and better abilities at, right? Apparently level 17 is a big one, and so's level 12. Level 10 sucks though, you get a smaller performance boost 10 than at any other level >5. Level 18 seems kind of crap too.

Alternatively, no thought went into this at all and the system is just dumb as hell. I wonder which of those it is.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Honestly CR *shouldn't* = XP. The numbers are not straightforward enough for that to be helpful anyway. If a Centaur was worth more XP and an Ogre worth less xp then the encounter builder might be truer to their performance!

That's what I've been saying all along, yes. The system is hosed because the CR/XP numbers don't really mean anything.

ascendance posted:

The thing about CR as it relates to XP is that the CR/XP relationship is nonlinear. 4 CR 1 monsters do not add up to a CR encounter. This is well known, and has been a property of CR since 3.X. I guess what's going on now is there's still a bit of fine tuning as designers try and implement the least broken CR/XP relationship, they can, keeping in mind the above (I.e. that CRs right now are somewhat wonky).

The thing about this is that the CR/XP system can't actually change much, since everything already has its value printed in a published book. The best they can do is try to reverse engineer a non-poo poo formula from the numbers they've already given things. Alternatively, they could release exactly what they have now because certain people are 100% guaranteed to keep arguing that it's completely fine regardless of what the numbers look like.

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 12, 2014

# ? Oct 12, 2014 15:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

«‹›1608 »