|
Also as someone who has regularly gone from "hey I'm okay" to "hey I'm making death saves now" in the span of a single exchange, 4E's combat math, even the post-MM3 stuff, is still plenty swingy. It's not "beep boop I know the dragon can't kill me because math says so, I'll just stand there and moon it," there is plenty of unpredictability in the system.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Again, I think people may not realize that with a coherent encounter building system. You can just go and make a fight that is intentionally stronger than players would easily be able to deal with. This makes that dangerous lethal scenario a lot of people seem to want that the players can try and plan out and kill or scramble to retreat. Its just now you know you need to retreat before one of the players dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
But if the game doesn't randomly poo poo out encounters that are way too easy or way too hard, ... then I won't have an excuse when I build a stupid encounter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
I'm super scared of making my own house rules because I'm afraid of breaking things. I know 5e is a mess in some ways, but it does have some working systems. That said, I think this would be minor enough to not affect anyone except maybe undervalue the monk. Proposed house rule: All players (and maybe tougher monsters?) get half their expertise bonus to non-proficient saves. Thoughts? Thoughts on giving it to monsters? Hits casters too hard? Edit: What about half proficiency to everything? Attacks, skill checks, etc. Or would the math be too flat then to be interesting? SmellOfPetroleum fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
4E is definitely swingy, and one of the things it does is give pretty much every class a way to override or mitigate swinginess, while not letting monsters have that--because the game is balanced toward the characters consistently succeeding, and surviving even if the rolls completely gently caress them, which they sometimes do. It also promotes teamwork in a way no other version of D&D does. Players can build their characters independently and still most of the time form strategies based on each others' abilities to make them many times more effective if they are paying attention. It's a deeply tactical cooperative miniature war game with elements of deck-building sold as an adventure game/dungeon crawler. It's generally comfortable with being a scene-by-scene set-piece game and barely comes up with rules for anything else. When it strays it gets kind of embarrassing (skill challenges). What's important is that it has a focus and gets the fundamentals largely right. Problems: -The races and classes that got designed first got most of the best core mechanics and additional material written for them. A lot of the additional classes in particular are extremely underwhelming and rely on boring gimmicks to get by at all (psionic classes especially). -Combat is noticeably long to the point that DMs should be prepared to just handwave the ends of fights . Combat is too focused on action denial. As with 3E, the most tactically effective play is still to make your enemy helpless as quickly as possible, there are just more sensible limits placed on this so that you actually have to be paying attention as a player. The consequence is that the most effective builds outside of pure damage lengthen fights to no benefit and a lot of suffering. But the monsters eventually get way too heavy on stun/dominate/just outright ignoring your character's build in order to challenge you. Stun/dominate in particularly largely do nothing but make battles take longer. The game has also got too many off-turn actions and 1-round-only effects to track. -4E is still stuck on ability scores as the thing that dominates your choices and effectiveness. Largely all this does is prevent you from having fun with certain race/class combos, teaching you not to toy with the designers' preconceived notions. That's not fun. -Feats and items are badly bloated and overcomplex. Feats are actually a thing that 5E is starting to get right now that we're on the third try with them. -Game got taken over by Mike Mearls, who really doesn't understand it and tried to turn it back over to the grognards as much as he could. By and large Essentials didn't accomplish anything notable, but you got a preview of 5E when he did his best to ignore warlords and their hated martial healing, and the "simplified" Essentials classes: Wizards who were just as if not more complicated as before, and everyone else, where you were generally stuck with something that had no actual appeal as a choice unless you were optimizing, and sometimes not even then. This is still the best version of D&D I've played. The manuals use good visual design throughout. The combat, while not perfect, is more balanced than it's ever been, and allows for surprising ideas as well as mechanics that match the flavor of your character if you are not just interested in doing frostcheese charge spam. The game encourages you to build a character around a thematic core, rather than poaching the most super-effective spells off the list with every character. You are assured a space at the table for contributing and have a lot of freedom inside the four-role system to minor or double-major in other roles. They made a character builder that, while by no means perfect, revolutionizes the ease with which you can build a character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I'm super scared of making my own house rules because I'm afraid of breaking things. I know 5e is a mess in some ways, but it does have some working systems. That said, I think this would be minor enough to not affect anyone except maybe undervalue the monk. What about just making str/con, int/dex, and wis/cha interchangeable for saves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
I think that takes a lot of the flavor out of it, and encourages min/max heavy builds where you make sure to have at least one good score in each of the Save brackets. What if I want to play an INT/WIS/CHA heavy character? 4e kind of penalized that. 5e is at least honest about it, that ability mod = save = you're hosed if you have a low stat. Why not call a spade a spade, and have an intellect devour attack your intellect stat. Plus it opens up spells/abilities when you can target individual saves. Now the fighter either wrestle the orc and STR check, or try to beat it in a drinking contest with a higher CON. Slightly more gamey, but slightly more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:I think that takes a lot of the flavor out of it, and encourages min/max heavy builds where you make sure to have at least one good score in each of the Save brackets. What if I want to play an INT/WIS/CHA heavy character? 4e kind of penalized that. 5e is at least honest about it, that ability mod = save = you're hosed if you have a low stat. Why not call a spade a spade, and have an intellect devour attack your intellect stat. Plus it opens up spells/abilities when you can target individual saves. Now the fighter either wrestle the orc and STR check, or try to beat it in a drinking contest with a higher CON. Slightly more gamey, but slightly more interesting. So why not have at least one monster that makes you save STR or die (call a spade a spade and make it a "Muscle Eater"). It should obviously mostly target wizards' poor STR saves, because abilities that target weak saves are good. Wizards shouldn't have a way to alleviate this, because that would be min/maxing by shoring up their weakest save, which is bad and makes the game flavorless. Right? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
No it's OK because the wizard had foreknowledge of how saves work in the Malcolm fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Malcolm, would you say the phrase "roleplaying, not rollplaying" finds much use in your conversations about this hobby?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
I don't see how its a penalization to be honest. 3.5? You have a 1/3rd chance of a save being relevant, and half the stats were never even used for saves. If you wanted to be a Str/Int/Cha char you'd be pretty solidly hosed. Especially when Con also defined HP, Dex also defined initiative and turn order, and Wis was the all so important ambush prevention skills. If not for Int bringing skill points to the table, those three stats might not have even showed up to the party. 4E did the same, but at least had every stat paired for your three saves. This significantly boosted the chance of you having the relevant defense. And if you wanted to be a Int/Wis/Cha heavy character, oh well. You take the lower fortitude on the chin like a man, just like a Str/Int/Cha char would be expected to for every save in the new edition. But at least with Str, Int, and Cha being unused, they were never targeted either. That meant if they fell behind you didn't have to worry. But now 5E rolls around and they become important. You've got a 1/6th chance of a save being relevant now, and 6 stats to split your save boosts among. That means you'll have way more holes in your defenses than in 4E or 3.5E. And I don't see how knowing the exact stat for the job feels any more flavorful than knowing "quick and weedy" "brainy and magic-y" and "big and tough." How would you know to tell Con from Str, or Int from Wis, without a lot of metagamery going on to tell exactly in which ways this guy's muscles are big.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:No it's OK because the wizard had foreknowledge of how saves work in the He has the INT not to even have to use his high CON to make a STR save, and combining saves is bad. I see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:I think that takes a lot of the flavor out of it, and encourages min/max heavy builds where you make sure to have at least one good score in each of the Save brackets. What if I want to play an INT/WIS/CHA heavy character? 4e kind of penalized that. 5e is at least honest about it, that ability mod = save = you're hosed if you have a low stat. Why not call a spade a spade, and have an intellect devour attack your intellect stat. Plus it opens up spells/abilities when you can target individual saves. Now the fighter either wrestle the orc and STR check, or try to beat it in a drinking contest with a higher CON. Slightly more gamey, but slightly more interesting. Also, 4E's defenses solve the problem of "spells/abilities targeting individual saves" better than it's done in 5E. In 4E, do you want to wrestle the orc? Roll +Str vs. the Orc's Fort defense, and if you go higher, you win! It's like you're making a skill check or an attack or whatever. 4E was a nice breath of fresh air because everything had a much more unified interaction mechanic: if you do a thing, you roll, and whatever you're doing the thing to has a target number, whether set by the DM or by the monster/player stats. Now compare this to the shitshow that is 5E's save system, which manages to resurrect the rear end-backwards saving throw sacred cow (which works completely the opposite of how weapon attacks and skills work) and jam it into twice the number of values to worry about, and then make half of those values worthless aside from in niche cases that can also kill you dead. And in the process, you now have niche-case rules about brain munching and instant death that have no connection to any overarching rules elsewhere. It's not good design at all, and other games, not just other editions, do it better. I'm sorry, but I find the entire design around ability saves in 5E to be awful, and it's a pet peeve of mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
The Bee posted:4E did the same, but at least had every stat paired for your three saves. This significantly boosted the chance of you having the relevant defense. And if you wanted to be a Int/Wis/Cha heavy character, oh well. You take the lower fortitude on the chin like a man, just like a Str/Int/Cha char would be expected to for every save in the new edition. My sole point is that having the "three saves" system of 4e meant that there were very obvious meta-gamey choices in assigning ability scores to boost saves (duh). 4e Int/Wis/Cha heavy characters do take it directly on the chin, much more so than a Str/Int/Cha character in 5e. Plus, I find it ridiculous that dexterity can substitute for intelligence in all saving-throw situations. "Uh oh, intellect devourer... I guess I'll just sleight-of-hand my mind free of danger." Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:Malcolm, would you say the phrase "roleplaying, not rollplaying" finds much use in your conversations about this hobby? No, I have never heard a real person say something like that and frankly I'd be embarrassed hanging out with someone who said things like that unironically. Which side are you accusing me of being on, the one that cares more about fun than rules? Or that I find gambling with dice more fun than playing D&D?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:He has the INT not to even have to use his high CON to make a STR save, and combining saves is bad. Actually he's a DEX wizard, it's just as good as INT for saves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:My sole point is that having the "three saves" system of 4e meant that there were very obvious meta-gamey choices in assigning ability scores to boost saves (duh). 4e Int/Wis/Cha heavy characters do take it directly on the chin, much more so than a Str/Int/Cha character in 5e. Plus, I find it ridiculous that dexterity can substitute for intelligence in all saving-throw situations. "Uh oh, intellect devourer... I guess I'll just sleight-of-hand my mind free of danger." That's because it doesn't. Intellect in 4E, within the context of saves, is for reflexes, quick thinking, and dodging. Either you use instinct, gut feelings, and quick feet to dance around a situation, or you tactically read the opponent and avoid anything they can throw at you before they can even land a punch. If anything an Intellect Devourer in 5E would probably target Will, so it'd be Wisdom or Charisma.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
PCs should just be proficient in all saves because the core proficiency of being an adventurer is avoiding untimely harm and because it would somewhat address the core mistake of all WotC editions: you actually get worse at avoiding lovely effects as the game progresses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:My sole point is that having the "three saves" system of 4e meant that there were very obvious meta-gamey choices in assigning ability scores to boost saves (duh). 4e Int/Wis/Cha heavy characters do take it directly on the chin, much more so than a Str/Int/Cha character in 5e. Plus, I find it ridiculous that dexterity can substitute for intelligence in all saving-throw situations. "Uh oh, intellect devourer... I guess I'll just sleight-of-hand my mind free of danger." Well that's because an Intellect Devourer wouldn't target Reflex which Intelligence helps. They'd target Will which is from Wisdom or Charisma. Specifically Intelligence effects Reflex because it allows you to predict where an enemy is. Also, how is 3/6 stats needing being taken on the chin better than 2/3?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:Actually he's a DEX wizard, it's just as good as INT for saves. Because saving throws are every application of an ability score and not one particular use. All this time my Constitution Warlock was flexing his enemies to death and I didn't even know. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Yes, it is a pretty silly system that way. Acrobatics your way out of a riddle, bench-press to reduce the effect of poison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:Yes, it is a pretty silly system that way. Acrobatics your way out of a riddle, bench-press to reduce the effect of poison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Why are you making a reflex save to solve a riddle? Why are you making any save to solve a riddle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
What kinda sadist gm puts a riddle into his campaign?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Don't ask me, I was following the skill challenge rules from the DMG. Alternatively, an evil caster attempts to trap your essence within a diabolical cage -- solve the cunning cryptography with your intellect, or wriggle out of it soul-worm style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Why are you making any save to solve a riddle? He isn't. Riddles are solved OOC, riddles involve intelligence, intelligence is dexterity, dexterity involves acrobatics. He's actively doing backflips around the table until the DM gives over the answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:Don't ask me, I was following the skill challenge rules from the DMG. Alternatively, an evil caster attempts to trap your essence within a diabolical cage -- solve the cunning cryptography with your intellect, or wriggle out of it soul-worm style. I'm starting to think you don't know what a Will save is, or what the difference between a skill and a saving throw is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Your lack of imagination is showing, why couldn't a spell target a reflex save?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:Your lack of imagination is showing, why couldn't a spell target a reflex save? Typically spells that do are a projectile kind of thing, where the ability to either dodge fast or predict where they'll be and not be there would help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
The Bee posted:He isn't. Riddles are solved OOC, riddles involve intelligence, intelligence is dexterity, dexterity involves acrobatics. I've heard of mental acrobatics but this is ridiculous! Also the notion that a fortitude or will save has to be you actively doing something rather than just being physically or mentally tough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Because saving throws are every application of an ability score and not one particular use. That tends to be what happens when you take a HULK HOGAN pact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Hulkamania! sounds like the kind of spell I can get behind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
kingcom posted:That tends to be what happens when you take a HULK HOGAN pact. But what would a pact with the Warrior involve?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Ultimate Warrior flexes and executes the dreaded Gorilla Press -- make a CON or STR save (player's choice). There, an ability that unifies 4e and 5e save systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
The thing is that 5e has the same non-AC defenses 4e does: fortitude, reflex, and will. It's hypothetically possible to make strength, intelligence, and charisma saves, but only in the same way that it's hypothetically possible to roll out a tavern brawl in which everyone uses their 1 damage fists. It doesn't actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Good point. I think the fact that 5e at least allows the flexibility of (rarely) rolling strength, intelligence, and charisma saves makes it a (slightly) more enjoyable. I don't find the "three saves" system particularly elegant or an example of good game design. Fort/Ref/Wis saves are good for most situations, but lumping STR/CON, DEX/INT, and WIS/CHA ability scores together for saves is a needless abstraction. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think the game needs to emphasize spreading ability scores out like that. Put the abilities where you want to, man. Let the saves fall where they may. Don't penalize a mental-attribute INT/WIS/CHA character for being the way he wants to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
5e penalizes an Int/Wis/Cha character much more severely than 4e does. In 4e, an Int/Wis/Cha character has lovely fortitude, good reflex, and good will. In 5e, such a character has lovely fortitude, lovely reflex, and good will. Like 5e, 4e contained rare effects that used specific attributes directly. For instance, the victim of a Maze spell had to make progressively easier Int checks in order to escape the maze. Of course, the game could've just had you keep track of a specific "Intelligence" defense instead, but that was probably judged to require too much bookkeeping. The real problem with 5e's every-stat-a-save system is escalating proficiency bonuses, though. Your good saves stay good, but your middling saves become bad and your bad saves become nonexistent. I can't understand why, because in other places an effort has clearly been made to flatten and standardize task resolution math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:Good point. I think the fact that 5e at least allows the flexibility of (rarely) rolling strength, intelligence, and charisma saves makes it a (slightly) more enjoyable. I don't find the "three saves" system particularly elegant or an example of good game design. Fort/Ref/Wis saves are good for most situations, but lumping STR/CON, DEX/INT, and WIS/CHA ability scores together for saves is a needless abstraction. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think the game needs to emphasize spreading ability scores out like that. Put the abilities where you want to, man. Let the saves fall where they may. Don't penalize a mental-attribute INT/WIS/CHA character for being the way he wants to be. But 5e penalizes them more! Because in 4e it's only Fort you'd lose out on, whereas in 5e, you lose out on STR, DEX, and CON.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
No more than the min-max master, who also loses out on 3 ability scores. This way doesn't favor arbitrary point ability point spread to make sure you have at least 1 good save in each of the 3 categories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:No more than the min-max master, who also loses out on 3 ability scores. This way doesn't favor arbitrary point ability point spread to make sure you have at least 1 good save in each of the 3 categories. They don't, though. Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma saves are bullshit - they happen once in a blue moon, if at all. Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom are the stats that give you "real" saves. If you're paying attention as you build your 5e character, you make those abilities as high as you can while ruthlessly minimizing the other three insofar as your class allows (obviously, a wizard needs high Int, but after they've got a high Int they will get a high Con, Dex, or Wis - NOT a high Cha or Str). 13th age has this exact same problem - Str, Int, and Cha are just plain inferior to Dex, Wis, and Con, and you only buy the former if your class demands it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
We have been running into all kinds of rules oddities today in the HODQ pbp/irc game. -Grapple is better than I thought. If you Shove a target to knock it down, it has no speed so has to stay prone until the grapple is broken. That lets everyone get on the advantage train and beat someone down. -The Grappler feat lets you restrain as an action. Why bother? You can already Shove them prone, and doing so doesn't restrain you as well. -Grappler gives advantage on attack rolls against a grappled target. So does being prone. But Shove is an opposed skill check, not an attack roll, so it doesn't get advantage. Unless it does because the word 'attack' is floating around in there. The rules are muddy as hell. -The Shield Master feat lets you shove as a bonus action when you attack, making that a better grapple feat than the actual grapple feat. -And of course, the best grapplers have Expertise via rogue or bard. Plan for a dip in rogue to learn how to wrestle. And don't get me started on how to adjudicate illusion magic. Holy poo poo.  We have a fight going on now that started with a stirgebomb - a druid (as a giant spider) with stirges stuck on him, slept by the wizard, deposited them near enemies. That involved an minor illusion wall to make sure the stirges couldn't see the PCs. Then the illusion wall was used as a duck blind, for line of sight shenanigans like grappling someone through it and dragging them back to the party for a beatdown. It wasn't clear how the illusions end - if physical interaction by anyone ends it for everyone, or just the interactor, or what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:29
|
|
