|
Dahbadu posted:Having attacks of opportunity only trigger when someone moves out of your reach and limiting them to one seems an elegant solution, as long as they still give you the tools to stick a couple of bad guys, which they do. And in 5e, just by picking one feat you can super boost their power making them something to fear (without being broken). I mean, the 4e fighter did literally exactly what that feat does at level 1 with nothing but "Fighter" written on the sheet. Maybe it's because I never played 3.5/pathfinder but mutliple OAs per round seemed pretty reasonable as a mechanic to dissuade large groups from rushing by people (and, alternately, multiple people trying to rush by large groups). Generic Octopus fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Oct 13, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
polisurgist posted:Multiattack. On. Every. loving. Thing is my big one. Edit: The more dice rolls people get, the more likely you are to get average results over that period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I don't know anything about how the game was regarded around here when it came out (see: avatar). I do know that right now, the complaining I see about the encounter-building rules, which are only published in the Basic preview and even in a document of preview rules are specifically called out as being a work in progress is a major thing by what appear to be hardcore 4th edition players who turn right around and tell you that you need to have played 4th edition after the third monster book and then you have to have gone back and changed the number on everything previously published before you can acknowledge that it was anything other than a Swiss loving Sundial. You can't act like the things in the past didn't exist, dude. 4e developed a working system for building encounters that was flawed when it came out and got refined to a very, very good state. Then 5e comes out, and the only thing we know for certain is that they are going to be making a whole host of mistakes all over again - mistakes that were made in 3.x and thrown away for good reason. quote:who turn right around and tell you that you need to have played 4th edition after the third monster book and then you have to have gone back and changed the number on everything previously published before you can acknowledge that it was anything other than a Swiss loving Sundial. No they're not, quit making things up. No one is saying this. What they're saying is that the designers have already gone through the hassle of figuring out something that works, just for them to throw it out for no good reason (not even trying to adapt it into the new system) and jump back into a system that never worked and was never able to be fixed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Yeah I did, why else would I specify "when the game came out." IT BEGINS posted:4e also had big problems out of the box. No one is saying that game was perfect. It's just that we want 5E to have learned from 4E's mistakes and successes, not have to re-fix a bunch of the same loving problem. This, by the way, is the problem I have. 4e had problems at the start, fixed a bunch of them, developed a bunch of new ones, and ended with a good idea of how to fix those too. Then 5e promptly loving ignored virtually every advance and improvement. I've never claimed 4e was perfect. But when you take something like, say, OAs, and in fixing them, make them worse than readied-action cheese which is one of the worst bits of 4e's combat design and has basically to be avoided by 'let's not be dicks to each other guys'... surely it's fairly clear what the problem is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
ascendance posted:You get way less of them. Given that people are supposed to get through 6-8 encounters in a day, wizards are basically supposed to pull out 1-3 game changing spells each encounter. It's not (only) about quantity. Spells in Next are meta-gamey as gently caress. "High Con save? Luckly I have something that calls fora Wis save! Oh, no bad saves? Well, I'll just use something that calls for an attack roll then!" and so on. If opportunity attacks "detract from the fiction and turn the game into dry rules-lawyering", so can spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:4e also had big problems out of the box. No one is saying that game was perfect. It's just that we want 5E to have learned from 4E's mistakes and successes, not have to re-fix a bunch of the same loving problem. It did try to address a bunch of issues in 4e. The question is more whether they were successful or not with the fixes. We can and have written thousands of posts about where each of these went wrong. Things they considered a success and kept around: -4e's encounter building was good and is basically the same in 5e ("add xp totals up to a budget, don't use monsters of too high a level"). The multiplier for number of monsters for encounter XP budgets is an attempt to factor in action economy. -The death system. This was a big improvement over the 'die at 0' or 'die at -10' systems. 5e tweaks it so a natural 20 gives you your whole turn to act instead of losing your turn. -Healing Surges and Second Wind brought the concept of self-healing to D&D, which sort of survives as Hit Dice. If 5e was entirely a 3.x derivative it wouldn't include bits like this. The big mistake that 5e learned from and corrected is play speed. Play speed was a big criticism of the last few editions, so 5e drastically reduced the number of status effects, buffs, off-turn actions and powers to track during combats. Concentration and Advantage are components of that fix. So is only getting 1 reaction and bonus action and details like less magic items and less pages to the character sheets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
S.J. posted:There's nothing arbitrary about the tanking mechanics in 4e, if that's what you mean. If anything, it reinforces the narrative of the game - there is a dude with a sword who will beat your rear end to death if you ignore him. Do you ignore him? Y/N Ranged attackers who aren't standing in the melee range of a fighter should absolutely be able to shoot at a higher priority target with no issues. From the way people have complained in the thread previously about "focus firing the wizard at range", this would appear to be impossible to do in 4th. Which seems stupid to me. Focus firing should absolutely be a possible tactic for intellegent enemies. It forces the wizard/cleric/bard to take more defensive measures, instead of solely relying on save or suck/damage spells. Illusions, fog clouds, walls, shields, etc. Primarily the "deal with it" portion seems really anti-GM. Their entire job is getting people to have fun and the game to run smoothly. Being constrained by RAW constantly, (with "helpful" reminders of it every other round by certain gamers) is an issue that gets in the way. IMO of course. For instance, my most hated game is 3.5, and a fine example of RAW being a raving pain in the rear end is one of our PC's figured out a way to deal armor spike damage from range, and then whined for 20 minutes about it being RAW. That sort of thing is why I prefer less concrete rules. On both sides of the screen, I might add, as I'm not usually the GM for D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
I really don't think people who criticize 4E tanking have actually played a 4E defender. This isn't WoW, where the monster's attention snaps based on some aggro meter. This is in fact the opposite, where you're simply reacting to what the monster does. Maybe the divine force of your challenge compels them, weakening them if they don't hit you. Or maybe you just bap them upside the head when they aren't paying attention. Maybe your command of nature lets you grab a distracted opponent and drag them away from their preferred target. But you aren't just turning to the DM and saying "yeah no the monster does this instead," outside the case of specific powers in which that already existed as a spell long ago. If you can lose your will save and fail to resist a magic compulsion, why can't you fail to resist a physical taunt? They both go to the same place in the brain. A WoW tank never wants the squishies to get hit because it means he's doing his job wrong. A 4E tank laughs at the opportunity to kick up some extra carnage, or simply redirect the threat all based on what's in character for the attacking monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:what appear to be hardcore 4th edition players who turn right around and tell you that you need to have played 4th edition after the third monster book and then you have to have gone back and changed the number on everything previously published before you can acknowledge that it was anything other than a Swiss loving Sundial. You won't find many 4e players who won't agree there was plenty of bad and broken poo poo on release. (Really, the whole release was a mismanaged poo poo-show.) You're just really missing the point. The point is not about 4e on its release - which was broken in a lot of dumb ways. The point is that poo poo got fixed after that, including the immense change in monster math. But then it just got broken again with 5e. I'm hoping 5e gets similar love, and the designers are willing to issue errata for the broken poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ranged attackers who aren't standing in the melee range of a fighter should absolutely be able to shoot at a higher priority target with no issues. From the way people have complained in the thread previously about "focus firing the wizard at range", this would appear to be impossible to do in 4th. Which seems stupid to me. Focus firing should absolutely be a possible tactic for intellegent enemies. Focus tactics are absolutely still a thing, your example doesn't really make sense. Even if the fighter marks multiple targets, it can only actually enforce (by that I mean, attack) one mark. Plus the fighter only marks things they attack, so your ranged attacker would either be in melee or would've been attacked by a ranged attack for it to be marked at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:It's not (only) about quantity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Multiattack. On. Every. loving. Thing is my big one. The DMG is supposedly going to have an alternate rule for "single strike, cumulative damage" On the topic of the DMG, I also found out that it's supposedly going to have rules for 13th Age-type backgrounds for a skill system, rest variants, second wind, and marking. Between those and optional feats (and granting that all of those we can create out of house-rules anyway), I think it'd be worth taking another look at. EDIT: Oh hey that post right above just reminded me of the "every attribute is now a save" system :welp: gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Focus tactics are absolutely still a thing, your example doesn't really make sense. Even if the fighter marks multiple targets, it can only actually enforce (by that I mean, attack) one mark. Plus the fighter only marks things they attack, so your ranged attacker would either be in melee or would've been attacked by a ranged attack for it to be marked at all. Which is fine by me, I don't have an issue with that sort of thing (aside from what I'd already said) but then why were people whining about ranged focus from goblins or kobolds on the mage being able to kill a PC earlier? Is it just people don't like lethality?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Focus firing should absolutely be a possible tactic for intellegent enemies. It forces the wizard/cleric/bard to take more defensive measures, instead of solely relying on save or suck/damage spells. Illusions, fog clouds, walls, shields, etc. quote:Primarily the "deal with it" portion seems really anti-GM. Their entire job is getting people to have fun and the game to run smoothly. Being constrained by RAW constantly, (with "helpful" reminders of it every other round by certain gamers) is an issue that gets in the way. IMO of course. For instance, my most hated game is 3.5, and a fine example of RAW being a raving pain in the rear end is one of our PC's figured out a way to deal armor spike damage from range, and then whined for 20 minutes about it being RAW. That sort of thing is why I prefer less concrete rules. On both sides of the screen, I might add, as I'm not usually the GM for D&D. It lets me set up a fair fight in Director mode, then take the gloves off when I'm switching to Adversary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ranged attackers who aren't standing in the melee range of a fighter should absolutely be able to shoot at a higher priority target with no issues. From the way people have complained in the thread previously about "focus firing the wizard at range", this would appear to be impossible to do in 4th. Which seems stupid to me. Focus firing should absolutely be a possible tactic for intellegent enemies. It forces the wizard/cleric/bard to take more defensive measures, instead of solely relying on save or suck/damage spells. Illusions, fog clouds, walls, shields, etc. 'Deal with it' as in, I have now created a tactical situation for you to deal with, how will you, playing the part of the monsters/badguys solve this problem or get around my character, not 'deal with it  ' as in, gently caress you got mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
My favorite comment anyone made in a 5e sessions was when we were telling each other what buffs we received or handed out, our fighter piped up with, "Wow, it's just like 4e." That combat encounter took over an hour and was the only one we completed that night. We're only level 4. We're about to hit level 5. I don't know about our casters, but I know my paladin will both be picking up his second level spell slot AND an additional attack per round. I just don't feel like 5e solved the play speed issue, but instead we've been playing at such low level for so long that we forgot what it was like to have so many options. By the way, just throwing this out there because people are discussing tanking, but my 5e Paladin is in some ways stickier than my 4e Paladins, if only because Compel Duel spell actually forces the enemy to attack me and only me as opposed to Divine Challenge/Sanction, which merely gave the monster a tactical lose/lose situation, but never forced it to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Primarily the "deal with it" portion seems really anti-GM. Their entire job is getting people to have fun and the game to run smoothly. Being constrained by RAW constantly, (with "helpful" reminders of it every other round by certain gamers) is an issue that gets in the way. IMO of course. The Fighter isn't forcing your hand, he just has abilities that make it so that it's in your best interest to attack him regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
ritorix posted:It did try to address a bunch of issues in 4e. The question is more whether they were successful or not with the fixes. We can and have written thousands of posts about where each of these went wrong. The death system is the only one of those that isn't a step backwards, and I'd be the first to admit that it's one of the things 5e actually improved over 4e. Encounter building: 4e managed fine without needing an action economy modifier. i'm not really sure why it's a thing to be honest. If the monster maths and design were up to scratch it wouldn't be needful - and again it's something 4e had problems with early (MM1 solos being notoriously vulnerable to hard control and easy to take out of the fight without killing them, for instance) but SOLVED not by adding fiddly multipliers, but by making the basic assumption '1 PC:1 monster' and adding more actions and rounds to solos. 5e took a step back on this one, even if you assume the monsters are balanced, which they're patently loving not. Surges and second wind: 5e's watered-down version misses the point entirely, which is that surges are supposed to be a session- and day-pacing mechanic. They're how you measure how worn down your character is, when the assumption of the robust encounter building system is that HP are an encounter resource. Characters starting with one or two hit dice and being able to spend them for a piddling random amount of HP is missing the point so far it's not even funny. The whole game was designed and built around them being a pacing mechanic, and enabling each fight to be tense and meaningful with the PCs able to be put in tough scrapes and fight their way out. Whereas in 5e that tension seems only to arise from 'does Wizard cast spell y/n?' It's thing like this that are so drat disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
S.J. posted:The issue is that any point in time, the GM can decide that the fighter doesn't get to interact with the fiction for any number of reasons, and then the fighter has no way to enforce his role in the party with the rules of the class. And no, he doesn't have to be an rear end in a top hat or lovely GM for that to be the case, either. If narrative was a more significant part of the rules, the fighter would be able to declare what he was doing and the GM would have to deal with it, not the other way around. If the If the map-based mechanics were more solid, the fighter would be able to make tactical decisions that the GM would have to deal with, not the other way around. If any player makes a declaration that the rest just ignore they absolutely are being lovely assholes unless there's a cut and dry rule saying the declaration isn't enough, in which case the declarer has to elaborate and converse until a ruling is made usually with the aid of dice. That's the game. I noticed this in the DW thread as well, that people really need specific rules that aren't there--especially if they used to be in some other game they're familiar with--and are totally dissatisfied with the general ones that are there in the new game they're playing at the moment. "The horde regards you as a speed bump on the way to your vulnerable allies, what do you do?" ceases to have a chance of an surprising answer if the mechanics already say "I make a free attack on them each of them on their turns as they try to run past me and inflict a -2 penalty to hit anyone but me whether it hits or misses." What more is there to say? Who cares after such a definitive response anyway? The game is playing itself. Without that mechanical answer crowding out all others, space is opened up for new answers. That's why I don't think defender mechanics are a great loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Wait idgi, why would readied action cheese work? You say what the enemy is preparing to do out loud so it seems pretty easy to deal with? The fighter moves to a spot that breaks the charge or just delays until the rest of the party gets their shots in, or prepares an action himself. If you're hiding the readied action from your players then (A) that's not in the rules so you're making poo poo up just to screw your players and (B) you don't understand what readied actions are. Biding your time isn't readying, it's delaying. Readying is preparing to shoot the first thing that comes out of cover with your bow. The point of readying is that it's immediately apparent to everyone watching what you're preparing to do. The idea that you are going to gently caress someone who does the wrong thing and so players need to find a tactical way to stop you, like flanking. If you're hiding the prepared action then you're using readying incorrectly and also not playing RAW so the argument is kind of pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:By the way, just throwing this out there because people are discussing tanking, but my 5e Paladin is in some ways stickier than my 4e Paladins, if only because Compel Duel spell actually forces the enemy to attack me and only me as opposed to Divine Challenge/Sanction, which merely gave the monster a tactical lose/lose situation, but never forced it to do anything. Compel Duel is a much stronger "mark" than DC/DS. 4e Paladins weren't very sticky without PPs, the play-style was different from the 4e fighter's (I didn't really like 4e pallys much).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The DMG is supposedly going to have an alternate rule for "single strike, cumulative damage" Yeah, as much as I'm a proponent of 5th, I'm not on the "the DMG will make it all things to all people" train. I think if you want a game that plays like 4th, you should play 4th, and the "5th edition will be beloved by everyone" is an exaggeration of a marketing slogan and therefore at least two orders of magnitude distorted from reality. Things I don't like about this game, I'm going to fix or try to ask around to see whether other people have come up with good fixes for. If something comes out in an "official" book, that's fine, but for the time being, I'm going to wait around until it's possible to have an actual conversation about this game in public without facing a tribunal demanding that you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're enjoying yourself first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I think that's supposed to balance out the fact that fights tend to go for 2-3 rounds. At low levels, just giving monsters more damage would make things absurdly swingy. Oh, I get the reason for it. I just also know it's going to be a pain in my rear end; one that seems worth dealing with for now though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:"The horde regards you as a speed bump on the way to your vulnerable allies, what do you do?" ceases to have a chance of an surprising answer if the mechanics already say "I make a free attack on them each of them on their turns as they try to run past me and inflict a -2 penalty to hit anyone but me whether it hits or misses." What more is there to say? Who cares after such a definitive response anyway? The game is playing itself. I'm fine with these things happening in a limited fashion though. If it's limited by say, your dexterity, it makes sense that you're a dangerous badass on those you can hit, but even you have limits to what you can do in a given span of time. Limiting it to a single creature is some poo poo, because even my pasty white rear end can hit two guys running past me with a stick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:If any player makes a declaration that the rest just ignore they absolutely are being lovely assholes unless there's a cut and dry rule saying the declaration isn't enough, in which case the declarer has to elaborate and converse until a ruling is made usually with the aid of dice. That's the game. This is literally nonsense. The gameplay is how you interact with the rules of the game - declarative statements and declarative actions are part of that. The GM doesn't have to be a lovely rear end in a top hat to know that the fighter only gets one OA/round. Why are you interested in surprising answers? Your example is awful and meaningless by the way - you're mixing 4e's map-based mechanics with a narrative structure that doesn't exist in that context. The whole point of having a huge amount of combat mechanics, something that D&D has always done and continues to do, is to provide different answers to different solutions. 5e offers no answers, but certainly has a lot of rules anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Yeah, as much as I'm a proponent of 5th, I'm not on the "the DMG will make it all things to all people" train. I think if you want a game that plays like 4th, you should play 4th, and the "%th edition will be beloved by everyone" is an exaggeration of a marketing slogan and therefore at least two orders of magnitude distorted from reality. Speaking purely for myself, I acknowledge that 4E does a lot of things right, but I haven't ever attempted to run it. I don't like feat systems and I don't like skill systems, so the DMG got me just a little bit excited insofar as it may allow me to run a game of 5E that's stripped down enough to suit my style (and again acknowledging that I could probably do it right now already if I could get the table to agree to a bunch of houserules). I didn't write that as a "hey this is going to make 5E play a lot more like 4E, great!", I wrote that as "hey this is going to make 5E play a lot more like what I want to play, which neither 4E nor 5E currently are to me"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:By the way, just throwing this out there because people are discussing tanking, but my 5e Paladin is in some ways stickier than my 4e Paladins, if only because Compel Duel spell actually forces the enemy to attack me and only me as opposed to Divine Challenge/Sanction, which merely gave the monster a tactical lose/lose situation, but never forced it to do anything. At least 5E isn't like some MMO except for this literal MMO taunt we threw in here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I don't know anything about how the game was regarded around here when it came out (see: avatar). I do know that right now, the complaining I see about the encounter-building rules, which are only published in the Basic preview and even in a document of preview rules are specifically called out as being a work in progress is a major thing by what appear to be hardcore 4th edition players who turn right around and tell you that you need to have played 4th edition after the third monster book and then you have to have gone back and changed the number on everything previously published before you can acknowledge that it was anything other than a Swiss loving Sundial. I wasn't really paying attention to how the internet felt about 4th Edition when it first came out and bought the books and ran a few games after having played 3.X for the entirety of it's life cycle. Under those circumstances the encounter building was awesome! I could do what the book told me to do and not just murder the entire party by mistake! If I felt like combats were starting to get too long I could build the newer ones with more minions, change the balance of soldiers/brutes:artillery/leaders, or use lurkers to help the players learn to focus fire down threats. The major problem I had with early 4th Edition encounters was that everyone was used to the 3.5 style of "gently caress around at the table until it's my turn then figure out what I'm going to do" which made fights drag on forever. 4th Edition's encounter guidelines/monster math were certainly flawed, in the sense that they could be improved upon and were. I remember people suggesting lowering monster HP and increasing damage very early on when I started to check out tips for running it online. The big thing is that even if you didn't do that you weren't going to accidentally TPK party if you were following the guidelines. They might get sorta bored at low levels when they ran out of encounter/daily powers, but having two at-wills was still a huge step up from just having 'swing a sword' for most of your career.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Oh, I get the reason for it. I just also know it's going to be a pain in my rear end; one that seems worth dealing with for now though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Maybe throw out rolled damage to speed things up. I think that's why they always give you average damage on every monster. I'd throw out rolled damage for 5E anyway because the encounters are swingy enough without the possibility of rolling full-dice a couple times in a row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
What I think is interesting is how pro 4e this forum is. Don't get me wrong, I think 4e is great. The issue is, when I'm at a hobby store or convention (i.e. where I can play with the masses), I'm like the only person that thinks this way. The last time I checked, the masses were hopped up on Pathfinder. I'm just interested to see what happens regarding 5e vs. Pathfinder a year from now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
If the DM says to a player "you literally can't possibly keep more than one thing from running past your character because you only get one reaction per round and that's final, I don't care what you say you're doing" that DM sucks and hasn't read anything other than the combat chapter, because all they care about is one specific rule and combat playing out by the numbers. Just because initiative is rolled doesn't mean all the other rules cease to exist or matter. The chapter on using ability scores is where everything that's "missing" from the spells and combat chapters live now, and that's better for the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
It'll be more interesting to see what happens when Pathfinder 2.0 finally comes out and they ditch the OGL.slydingdoor posted:If the DM says to a player "you literally can't possibly keep more than one thing from running past your character because you only get one reaction per round and that's final, I don't care what you say you're doing" that DM sucks and hasn't read anything other than the combat chapter, because all they care about is one specific rule and combat playing out by the numbers. Actually, no. That is how the game works, regardless of whether or not anyone likes it. You're certainly free to change that in your own game if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that D&D 5e works that way. 5e is not a narrative game, no matter how hard you want it to be. Also, technically, he can't keep anything from getting past him because making an OA doesn't mean the bad guy stops. S.J. fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I'd throw out rolled damage for 5E anyway because the encounters are swingy enough without the possibility of rolling full-dice a couple times in a row. My DM actually does this and it does seem to keep the encounters from being swingy as hell, admittedly. We've only had two party member deaths in the last four chapters of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. HotDQ Spoilers: The only party deaths we've had were my barbarian and a fighter, and that's because one of the HOTDQ encounters featured a CR 5 Roper in an encounter made for a level 3 party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:What I think is interesting is how pro 4e this forum is. Don't get me wrong, I think 4e is great. The issue is, when I'm at a hobby store or convention (i.e. where I can play with the masses), I'm like the only person that thinks this way. The last time I checked, the masses were hopped up on Pathfinder. I'm just interested to see what happens regarding 5e vs. Pathfinder a year from now. I agree. 4th ed is alright, but it didn't ring my bell, and 5th ed feels like the version of d20 I didn't know I wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:If the DM says to a player "you literally can't possibly keep more than one thing from running past your character because you only get one reaction per round and that's final, I don't care what you say you're doing" that DM sucks and hasn't read anything other than the combat chapter, because all they care about is one specific rule and combat playing out by the numbers. So are you just throwing out the one-OA-per-round rule entirely or is there some criteria you use to determine when to houserule? And the idea that good DM's houserule the poo poo out of 5E might be true but that's not a positive thing about 5E.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Why should the Fighter even be a defender role anyway? I've always felt like the casters having lower AC, hit points, etc. is a balance thing. It should be the wizard's responsibility to cower behind the fighter. If the DM wants to focus-fire the squishy people, why can't he? The only reason I could think of would be that it is ostensibly a team-oriented game and you need people to specialize, but there's very little of that anyway now that it's not 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Soggy Cereal posted:Why should the Fighter even be a defender role anyway? I've always felt like the casters having lower AC, hit points, etc. is a balance thing. It should be the wizard's responsibility to cower behind the fighter. If the DM wants to focus-fire the squishy people, why can't he? The Fighter player probably isn't playing just to watch everything blow past him and focus on the characters that matter. Talmonis posted:Honestly I hated arbitrary mechanics that force things to pay attention to you instead of the logical target. I didn't like it in the feats from 3.5/pathfinder, and it got even worse in 4th. There is no "ask for permission", it's simply you do it or you fail to do it, depending on your actions. Magic gets around this (sometimes, there's plenty of failure), because it is literally magic. I also hate it when non-casters get to do things Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:If the DM says to a player "you literally can't possibly keep more than one thing from running past your character because you only get one reaction per round and that's final, I don't care what you say you're doing" that DM sucks and hasn't read anything other than the combat chapter, because all they care about is one specific rule and combat playing out by the numbers. Or it just means he's running Next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
moths posted:Or it just means he's running Next? This is actually a thing, they even refer you back to the ability score chapter for resolution.  "It's up to your DM."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:52
|
|