|
LightWarden posted:You can only take Resilience once, putting you at 3/6 proficiencies (4/6 if you have a class that gives you a bonus proficiency, or 6/6 if you're a level 14 monk). Hope you like making tough choices. That's not so bad - someone made a list of all the saves that were used and the vast majority of them were Dex, Con and Wis. Just means occasionally you're going to come across one of the three saves that hardly come up and get screwed over, and it means the monsters that use those rare saves are going to be that much more unexpectedly deadly.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Fort/Ref/Will being target numbers instead of rolled makes the mechanics more consistent and speeds up play (you know, that thing 5e was supposed to be good at). Every time one of the spellcasters in my group casts anything they have to ask "Wait, is this the one where I roll, or you roll?" I also sorely miss the 4e thing where you would use the higher of two different stats for each defense. It gave you a lot more freedom to make your character how you wanted without gimping yourself horribly. Now it's honestly worse than in 3.x because the game pretends all the stats are just as important and then makes 90% of the spells save against Con/Dex/Wis anyway.* At least 3.x warned you those stats were more important. *Someone made a table forever ago of how many spells used each different save. Does anyone still have that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's not so bad - someone made a list of all the saves that were used and the vast majority of them were Dex, Con and Wis. Just means occasionally you're going to come across one of the three saves that hardly come up and get screwed over, and it means the monsters that use those rare saves are going to be that much more unexpectedly deadly. Problem is that of the classes in the PHB, only the rogue even gets close to having the ability to get all three primary saves by taking Resilient (start with Dex, get Resilient for Con, then Slippery Mind at level 15 for Wis). They deliberately made it so each class had one primary save and one secondary save proficiency, and you can't pick up proficiency in other saves through multiclassing (unless you're taking 14 or 15 levels in Monk or Rogue for those features). Only the Monk's proficiency in all saves at level 14 is different. If you're anyone else, you will have two holes in your defense from the very start, and you will still have problems one of those three primary saves even after you take Resilient once. polisurgist posted:Literally none of the feat descriptions aside from Resilience, of course. My bad, it turns out that there is actually one feat with the wording that says that you can take it more than once- Elemental Adept. Resilient is not one of those feats though. This may be unintentional, or it may very well be by design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
It sort of feels like they were going with Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses up until they switched to "every attribute is a save" at the last minute and threw in a smattering of saves from the other stats, but didn't have the time or inclination to do more than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Fun fact about the ID: after it stuns someone it can't detect them anymore outside its 60ft blindsight. It's also got lovely strength, which governs how good it is vs getting grappled or shoved. It's also tiny sized, small enough to stuff into a Also just spitballing, but if it can magically consume a brain and teleport inside the cranium, it might be able to magically regurgitate a brain or points of intelligence. The thing has telepathy so it can be communicated with. Imagine the tense hostage negotiation that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Literally none of the feat descriptions aside from Resilience, of course. Wow, I thought it didn't. I guess I was wro... PHB, page 168 posted:Resilient
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Fun fact about the ID: after it stuns someone it can't detect them anymore outside its 60ft blindsight. Oh so the stunned character can just run and hide then!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Also just spitballing, but if it can magically consume a brain and teleport inside the cranium, it might be able to magically regurgitate a brain or points of intelligence. The thing has telepathy so it can be communicated with. Imagine the tense hostage negotiation that could happen. It would be good to have SOME feasible way of getting your brain-sucked companions back when you encounter the thing at level 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Your friends could move it and/or you. If you had any.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Wow, I thought it didn't. I guess I was wro... Perhaps you've forgotten about a little thing called Rule 0. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Does the brain-eating even require a grapple? I thought it was a spell-like effect, so it gets to ignore plebeian concerns like game balance or common sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Perhaps you've forgotten about a little thing called Rule 0. No, but the errata'd text will surely read "just do whatever", so he's right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Does the brain-eating even require a grapple? I thought it was a spell-like effect, so it gets to ignore plebeian concerns like common sense. No, the Intellect Devourer's version is just an Intelligence contest against an incapacitated target. While normally that requires the Intellect devourer to set up by draining your Int first, anything that stuns, paralyzes, petrifies or knocks you out can set you up for some brain chomping, such as the Mind Flayer's own Mind Blast (cone of DC 15 Int save or psychic damage + stun) or Tentacles (on a hit, you're grappled and need to make a DC 15 Int save or be stunned for the duration of the grapple). If the mind flayer is grappling an incapacitated creature then it can do 10d10 piercing damage and eat your brain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Well, they could always raise you as a skeleton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Well, they could always raise you as a skeleton. Why not just recruit the new brain eating fighter? Monster PC!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Why not just recruit the new brain eating fighter? Monster PC! Would he need to keep eating brains to survive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:If you cast Faerie Fire as a third level spell into a Darkness, what happens? Can I see Detect Magic auras through Darkness? Darkness posted:Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose Faerie Fire posted:Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in This leaves, to me at least, the following decision tree:
From my own interpretation the ruling would be: No, FF is not overwritten, and yes, casting FF inside of darkness would still work. But I can easily see others interpreting it differently, depending on what areas of what descriptions they put more weight on. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:From my own interpretation the ruling would be: No, FF is not overwritten, and yes, casting FF inside of darkness would still work. But I can easily see others interpreting it differently, depending on what areas of what descriptions they put more weight on. How are you getting that ruling, exactly? Is it because you're not interpreting Faerie Fire as creating an area of light? Is the same thing true of Light? Why or why not? Also, this part of your thinking is really weird: Bhaal posted:[list][*]However, would Darkness overlapping a single object affected by FF dispel the entire FF spell (and thus all objects that were lit) as per the text saying the entire spell is dispelled, or only dispel the item that overlaps? Why is that a question? Surely it would do what it says in the text? Edit: I can't find any rules text that explains whether or not a spell cast with a higher level slot "counts as" the original spell level or the level of the expended slot. Does anyone know where it is? e2: I found it. Right where it should have been. PHB, page 201 posted:When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into. Seems pretty clear cut. A 4th level casting of Faerie Fire is a 4th level spell. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Would he need to keep eating brains to survive? Well I'm not saying there won't be a couple changes to your lifestyle depending on party alignments but what with bandits seeming to grow on trees with how many of them there are out there. It shouldn't be too much of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I'd hesitate to say that it's because magic items will make up for it. "You won't need magic items at all" isn't the marketing claim for this game, it's "you wont need magic items just to keep up." Magic items are a bonus that's good to have, but not a requirement and not something intrinsic to your character. How many monsters will you be doing half damage to without a magic weapon, exactly? If anyone's done some analysis of that I'd be interested to see it, since I'm betting it's "a lot". 30.5 Days posted:So in 4E it wasn't tied to dex, and most defender classes had some fun abilities that buffed their AOO's into track-stopper territory. Having even more AOO's contributed to slowing down combat, though, so I'm going to take one step closer to my eventual fanboyism ban and say that Strike! fixes the problem by just having AOO's do flat damage with no roll + whatever goodies. The result is really fast without punishing the classes whose job it is to issue AOO's. Strike doesn't actually exist, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Why not just recruit the new brain eating fighter? Monster PC!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
As much as I agree that the whole brain eating business is way out of line, I do like that it makes coming up with a story related way of solving the problem enticing for players. For example, making your brain taste like literal poo poo with an alchemical concoction, which will have all sorts of nasty effects on the one who tries to take a sip. It's a shame none of the books so far really covers that kind of thing. I don't believe there's anything about severing limbs, save for the Troll's specific entry. You would think Beholder would lose something for cutting off it's eyestalks, for example, but there are several monsters with multi-attacks that could be hampered with a severed hand or such limb (then again, maybe that out right kills them anyways). I guess the DM book could house such things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The loss of the attack of opportunity is probably the biggest issue I have with 5th edition. I'd be fine with spellcasting not provoking one (as Mage Slayer allows you to do so), or standing up, etc. But moving out of your melee range should always provoke, and it shouldn't cost your reaction. This is likely the first thing I'll be houseruling when our current campaign ends and I run my game. I have always thought that attacks of opportunity were the worst idea to come out of 3e (or more accurately 2e Combat & Tactics). They slow down and interrupt combat, make peoples' turns take longer than necessary, and in both 3e and 4e were the most difficult concept to get new players to understand. I am disappointed that Mearls retained attacks of opportunity in any form, rather than devising an alternative mechanic that fulfilled the same role. I think a case could probably be made that AoOs give people a reason to pay attention when it is not their turn, but I don't think the pros outweigh the cons. I'd prefer to see some sort of damage penalty that did not involve extra attack and damage rolls, like a "penalty damage" or something that just gets automatically assigned when provoked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Lothire posted:As much as I agree that the whole brain eating business is way out of line, I do like that it makes coming up with a story related way of solving the problem enticing for players. For example, making your brain taste like literal poo poo with an alchemical concoction, which will have all sorts of nasty effects on the one who tries to take a sip. A Wound system for HP, where at certain HP thresholds you can chose different ways of hampering enemies, would be really interesting. Especially if you build off of it into additional features for classes like fighters, who at a certain level become such combat experts they can wound on any strike. Heck, wound systems, Basic style weapon specializations, being the most physically and mentally sound of any party member. Its so easy to make fighters the Best At Fighting even if you don't want a 4E style power system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I've read it pretty thoroughly, and my conclusion was that the fighter doesn't get very much that's useful in this ed. I was curious why you thought different. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. I love this edition far more than the preceding one for many reasons, but I do think they failed to make the fighter-as-written interesting or badass enough. It's pretty weird, because I don't think adding more stickiness or tank would be incompatible with any design goals. I guess they wanted more of an offensive melee guy than a really effective tank. Maybe it was too hard to get the fighter to tank well while retaining compatibility with the Theatre Of The Mind stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. I assume that with any edition you are going to rewrite or house rule a goodly percentage of stuff. Even the best, most perfectly compatible-with-your-playerstyle system in the universe is going to get house rules and errata. It seems clear that the encounter building system is one of this system's weak spots. But it's not like 4e didn't have weak spots out of the box, like the initial way skill challenges were presented. And later the presence of such voluminous errata is in and of itself a serious con. That doesn't vindicate the sub-par encounter building system of the present edition, but I think building encounters is one of the areas where "gut feeling" is most necessary. Mike Mearls doesn't know how well your players work together or optimize their characters, and he cannot predict whether your monsters aim for unconscious players or focus fire, either. Plus, it is clear to me that only reason 4e's encounters were so predictable was because that game's internal math was dry as a bone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Maybe it was too hard to get the fighter to tank well while retaining compatibility with the Theatre Of The Mind stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Plus, it is clear to me that only reason 4e's encounters were so predictable was because that game's internal math was dry as a bone. Well I don't like this edition's soggy math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. There's a bit of a difference between "who the gently caress knows how hard this encounter even is" and "fights take too long". The other issue is that 5th edition isn't comparing to 4th edition at launch, it's comparing to 4th edition as it exists right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Plus, it is clear to me that only reason 4e's encounters were so predictable was because that game's internal math was dry as a bone. What does this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:What does this even mean? Well he's right, the fact that the game is balanced means that the DM can predict how the encounters will play out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:What does this even mean? He means that when you make a normal encounter in 4e using the rules it won't just completely wipe the party in 1-3 turns because the monsters won initiative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It's pretty weird, because I don't think adding more stickiness or tank would be incompatible with any design goals. I guess they wanted more of an offensive melee guy than a really effective tank. Maybe it was too hard to get the fighter to tank well while retaining compatibility with the Theatre Of The Mind stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:He means that when you make a normal encounter in 4e using the rules it won't just completely wipe the party in 1-3 turns because the monsters won initiative. That isn't what I mean. I don't think my remark requires clarification. AlphaDog posted:Well I don't like this edition's soggy math. It makes for play that interests me more. I'm not going to play this edition unless I really have to but I think that the consistently predicable damage outputs in 4e made for a bland playing field. I like things being [i]a little/i] swingy, and I have no problems trusting my own intuition, so a flawed encounter design system doesn't turn me off. I never bothered using the encounter design systems of previous editions, and didn't have any problems. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted: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. RPZip posted:Strike doesn't actually exist, though. Anyway, the game is totally playable in the meantime, and I'd love to see more people playing it. If anyone wants to play with the character creation stuff that's missing from the preview all they gotta do is PM me and ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:That isn't what I mean. I don't think my remark requires clarification. No it does, please tell us all about hot wet Next math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
It should the the players, not the dice or the encounter YOU designed, that surprise you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
D&D Next: Now with better, wetter math. e: D&D Next: Moister math and softer rules! Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
I'm just trying to imagine how dice and arithmetic would ever not be pretty goddamn dry. If you make it all swingier with better chances to gently caress people over then it's still dry, and also aggravating. Unless you can somehow remove the numbers completely, maybe replace the dice with a set of those awkward couple's sex-game dice or something. We know that four skeletons can replace the Fighter, but how about SPANK skeletons vs. a Fighter who can do COUCH NIPPLES damage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
There's not some magical poo poo that happens when you have swingy combat math. All that you get is unpredictable results - which, as a DM, is generally bad. People think the mark of a good DM is the ability to improvise. It is certainly an important part of DMing. However, the point of a system is to allow you to improvise meaningfully, not to force you to improvise. When the black dragon suddenly rolls all 6's on it's breath weapon and slams the party fighter into -30 HP instead of just burning him to 50% HP, that's not good. Yeah, it's "interesting" ... for everyone except the DM and the guy who gets to sit this fight out. Now the DM has to scramble to adjust the encounter for a party of 3. How is that good? How is that 'wetness' useful? A good system encourages you to make things interesting by showing you exactly what effect it will have. I want to know that adding a Troll to my level 5 encounter is going to make it around 30-40% tougher - not that it might do anything from effecting no change to suddenly turning the encounter into a guaranteed TPK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:08
|
|
