|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:So we made an example combat, that contained 3 IDs, because people cannot stop bringing up IDs, because your brains have been devoured. Yes if you can't fight what the rules say you can fight then the encounter rules are hosed, that is correct. EDIT: It's also worth noting that "hey sure ID's are hosed so it's possible to make a 2nd level encounter broken, but what about a 13th encounter huh?" and the response was, "lol flat math". Also you spending 3 pages simultaneously trying to argue that an ID is an outlier which isn't representative and also totally fine. 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Oct 14, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
"My all bard party that crawls everywhere couldn't handle a centaur. I can't fracking believe how broken this game is." UGH this game that has always required having a healer around still requires a healer, somebody call the system mastery alert hotline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:"My all bard party that crawls everywhere couldn't handle a centaur. I can't fracking believe how broken this game is." They were a balanced party, you moron. EDIT: Again, cannot bring yourself to admit that bard getting one-shot is a bad thing, clearly it's the 5th haters who are forcing us to argue about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:They were a balanced party, you moron. Sorry, I was just trying to have fun making a post where I mischaracterize somebody else's opinion. You know, just to be silly. edit: if you actually read the thread you will see that i both admit that a bard getting one-shotted is bad, and suggest an easy way to address it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Sorry, I was just trying to have fun making a post where I mischaracterize somebody else's opinion. You know, just to be silly. Except that nobody's mischaracterized your opinion, your opinion is just bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
quote:Yes if you can't fight what the rules say you can fight then the encounter rules are hosed, that is correct. 5e = AWFUL because of IDs. Come on, say it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But would you seriously espouse Pathfinder over 5e? Because I think it is head and loving shoulders over that steaming pile of poo poo. I mean, I'd recommend other systems first (I've recommended Legend before) but yes, I would recommend Pathfinder over DnDNext simply because I don't have to pay the designers a loving dime in order to get the mess I have to bend into a functional system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Because of IDs. See if you'd said like 10 pages ago "okay but ID's are broken so just remove them from the system and try again", then that would have been the conversation we had. Instead you said "lol you guys are obsessed with ID's but they're also chumps and there's nothing wrong with them."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:No. Why would I want to play a game system where the designers intentionally avoided fixing even the most obvious problems, as a deliberate part of their sales strategy to calve off a big chunk of 3e grogs? I loving hate pathfinder. That's why I'm so interested in 5e: I am hoping that it will cause game groups to move away from pathfinder in general. I think I am setting myself up for disappointment, though. C'mon now you're just making it too obvious. friendlyfire posted:Yes, yes, very funny, but a lot of the complaints about 5e's "problems" are preferences, not problems. As an exampple, I don't like caster supremacy, but clearly a lot of people do, at least in practice. 5th Editions "problems" are largely the same ones that Pathfinder has. The specific examples are different but the underlying issues are very similar. How do you think 5th Edition in it's current incarnation is better than Pathfinder on a system level that for some reason makes it more worth saving?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Pathfinder doesn't cost 150 dollars. The price really is a huge problem, here. How is a thirteen year old kid supposed to afford these books? Speaking only of game mechanics, though, 5e is a much better system and seems like it would require far, far less work for me to bend into something I could enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
And then we spent like 5 pages rehashing the math behind them. AGAIN. And then you tried to insist that there were resources that the party could use to counter them which were being unfairly drained. And then everyone pointed out that that wasn't the case. And then you said indomitable would save the fighter. And then we rehashed the math behind ID's. AGAIN. And then you said that you should send the players on a quest to get a bunch of mental protection magic items to protect them from ID's before they even THOUGHT about going into a mindflayer compound. Then people pointed out how magic item attunements work in 5th. AGAIN. And then you finally admitted that ID's are broken but we're so obsessed with them lol why are we still talking about ID's?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:The price really is a huge problem, here. How is a thirteen year old kid supposed to afford these books? Speaking only of game mechanics, though, 5e is a much better system and seems like it would require far, far less work for me to bend into something I could enjoy. All iterative attacks are made at full BAB, throw out the idea of Full Attacks, moving isn't an action anymore it's just a certain amount of space you can cover in one turn, anything that grants a +2 bonus is Advantage/anything that grants a -2 penalty is Disadvantage. There you go you can enjoy Pathfinder now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Misandu posted:5th Editions "problems" are largely the same ones that Pathfinder has. The specific examples are different but the underlying issues are very similar. How do you think 5th Edition in it's current incarnation is better than Pathfinder on a system level that for some reason makes it more worth saving? Okay, seriously: Before 4e came out, I had years to grow tired of terrible attack of opportunity rules, endless turns with meaningless iterative attacks, endless buff spells poured onto a single character that could do 150 damage a round, endless cheese with flying spells, universally terribly designed classes and feats, lack of distinct character roles, single encounters taking seven hours to run, and so on. These are the problems that leap to mind. 4e came out and I played it with moderate happiness, but eventually drifted off due to too much "sameness" in every aspect of the system, from player characters and their abilities to monsters and their encounters. Also to what I feel was a lack of customizability of that system. I'm not tired of 5e's problems yet, and am even unconvinced that they would be real problems to me in practice. It does not go all of the way with fixing the things that I have personal issues with, but taken as a whole it is much more palatable to my personal sensibilities than either Pathfinder or 4e. So I'm excited at the idea that gamers might switch to it. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:"My all bard party that crawls everywhere couldn't handle a centaur. I can't fracking believe how broken this game is." I've had more than 1 4th edition party without a leader. Game still works. Maybe 5th ed works without healers? I wouldn't know since the very existence of save or dies has rendered me entirely uncaring about it other than to enjoy this gong show of a thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Even 3.5/pathfinder doesn't require a healer since people can just spam CLW wands or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Misandu posted:All iterative attacks are made at full BAB, throw out the idea of Full Attacks, moving isn't an action anymore it's just a certain amount of space you can cover in one turn, anything that grants a +2 bonus is Advantage/anything that grants a -2 penalty is Disadvantage. There you go you can enjoy Pathfinder now. I really can't. I see what you are saying vis a vis 5e, but Pathfinder's issues are more systemic. I barely scratched the surface about why I dislike it. I also don't think that any pathfinder group that I meet is going to be amenable to the tweaks I would find necessary. Failboattootoot posted:I've had more than 1 4th edition party without a leader. Game still works. Maybe 5th ed works without healers? I wouldn't know since the very existence of save or dies has rendered me entirely uncaring about it other than to enjoy this gong show of a thread. Yeah, I'm not thrilled about the poor implementation of save or die poo poo, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Okay, seriously: Before 4e came out, I had years to grow tired of terrible attack of opportunity rules, endless turns with meaningless iterative attacks, endless buff spells poured onto a single character that could do 150 damage a round, endless cheese with flying spells, i]universally/i] terribly designed classes and feats, lack of distinct character roles, single encounters taking seven hours to run, and so on. These are the problems that leap to mind. 4e came out and I played it with moderate happiness, but eventually drifted off due to too much "sameness" in every aspect of the system, from player characters and their abilities to monsters and their encounters. Also to what I feel was a lack of customizability of that system. I bolded the parts that 5th Edition fixed for you. friendlyfire posted:I really can't. I see what you are saying vis a vis 5e, but Pathfinder's issues are more systemic. I barely scratched the surface about why I dislike it. I also don't think that any pathfinder group that I meet is going to be amenable to the tweaks I would find necessary. Honest to god best advice I can give you: It sounds like you don't really like D&D! It happens to the best of us don't take it as an insult. I love 4th Edition and it's my favorite version of the game that I've played but I wouldn't run it now because there are too many other games that require way less effort to get just as much fun out of and are very easy to teach new players.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Does anyone remember skeleton chat? Skeleton chat was fun and interesting and led to cool ideas and settings. It annoys me to see people say that this thread never talks positive about 5th edition when we spent pages and pages going over builds for all kinds of different characters. Juggling people as monks, finding out bards were better spellswords then Eldritch Knights, abusing shapechange rules to become a better dragon then a dragon. Actually even ID chat had led to cool ideas, like having the ID controlled fighter become a new party member and having the player keep playing only now they also had the memories of the ID past lives as well. That sounded like it could lead to all kinds of interesting plot hooks and drama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:IDs are pretty easy to kill for a level 13 party! Are you going to argue otherwise? I loving hate action denial. I kind of wish that was one of the things they'd get rid of from the game, forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Does anyone remember skeleton chat? Skeleton chat was fun and interesting and led to cool ideas and settings. It annoys me to see people say that this thread never talks positive about 5th edition when we spent pages and pages going over builds for all kinds of different characters. Juggling people as monks, finding out bards were better spellswords then Eldritch Knights, abusing shapechange rules to become a better dragon then a dragon. Actually even ID chat had led to cool ideas, like having the ID controlled fighter become a new party member and having the player keep playing only now they also had the memories of the ID past lives as well. That sounded like it could lead to all kinds of interesting plot hooks and drama. You know what would be a fun set-piece fight? If you buffed ID's to be a solo-type monster and instead of having them instantly murder fighters you had them swap bodies with people. And they could even do this in their new body so by the end of the fight, everyone's character sheets were swapped and they had to finish the session like that before getting healed. This wouldn't work so hot in 4th ed because TOO MANY POWERS but this could be a legit fun thing in 5th maybe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Misandu posted:I bolded the parts that 5th Edition fixed for you. Believe it or not and regardless of the collateral damage to fighters, I like 5e's attacks of opportunity better. I also think the turns move faster than 3e or 4e above a certain level. I also think the feats are chunkier and choosing them is more meaningful than in either previous edition. Flying can still be an issue, but whatever, I could nix it with the newly reinvigorated DM fiat that is so heavily plied in this edition. The classes in 5e are better than the classes in pathfinder, fo' sho', and it's silly to pretend otherwise. They don't hammer in the character roles the way 4e does, but it's not like 4e does that in a way that I really appreciate, either. I regard 5e as a very solid step up from pathfinder. Misandu posted:Honest to god best advice I can give you: It sounds like you don't really like D&D! It happens to the best of us don't take it as an insult. I love 4th Edition and it's my favorite version of the game that I've played but I wouldn't run it now because there are too many other games that require way less effort to get just as much fun out of and are very easy to teach new players. I have a very limited regard for your advice, so please do not bother trying to tell me what I do or do not like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Even 3.5/pathfinder doesn't require a healer since people can just spam CLW wands or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Misandu posted:I bolded the parts that 5th Edition fixed for you. Edit: Also, the Druid of the Land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I loving hate action denial. I kind of wish that was one of the things they'd get rid of from the game, forever. Yeah. The only reason a player should miss their turn is if they are unconscious/dead. ascendance posted:Looking at your list, 5e also fixes the 7 hour encounters, and I'd say most of the classes are quite well designed. I'm just not a fan of the fighter, monk, and ranger (which only seems to exist so bards can steal their quiver spell). I assume those classes did not receive a huge amount of negative feedback during playtesting or they would have been modified. I wonder what the deal was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Yeah. The only reason a player should miss their turn is if they are unconscious/dead. Same with saves. Players should get better saves, because the action economy favors monsters. friendlyfire posted:I assume those classes did not receive a huge amount of negative feedback during playtesting or they would have been modified. I wonder what the deal was. The rules for fighters changed from packet to packet, so I think they didn't really know where they were going. They decided to err on the side of conservative once there was a huge outcry when they talked about giving fighters lots of skill dice, etc. Monks were seriously toned down - again in response to grog outrage. I think druids and rangers were insufficiently playtested. ascendance fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Action denial in 4e was not just a dumb decision they made on the regular either, it was a sign of deeper issues. Solos were supposed to be boss/mini-boss type fights, but unlike normal bosses, solos were BORING to fight and because of the action economy they were generally chumps too. So rather than do something about that in general, they just loaded solos down with a lot of action-denial to balance out the action economy and reduced their hitpoints. The result was shorter, more balanced fights, but they also somehow got MORE BORING. I think the lair actions are a good response to this but ~~~~5e~~~~
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Does anyone remember skeleton chat? Skeleton chat was fun and interesting and led to cool ideas and settings. It annoys me to see people say that this thread never talks positive about 5th edition when we spent pages and pages going over builds for all kinds of different characters. Juggling people as monks, finding out bards were better spellswords then Eldritch Knights, abusing shapechange rules to become a better dragon then a dragon. Actually even ID chat had led to cool ideas, like having the ID controlled fighter become a new party member and having the player keep playing only now they also had the memories of the ID past lives as well. That sounded like it could lead to all kinds of interesting plot hooks and drama. Oh but surely that must make way for the three goons who want to madpost about meanie 4vengers What if your Fighter got brainsucked, but won some kind of opposed roll and took over the Intellect Devourer's old critter body? Would he be more effective? Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Oh but surely that must make way for the three goons who want to madpost about meanie 4vengers
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
ascendance posted:See, this is one of the things where monster rules and player rules should be different. Action denial is fun for players to impose on monsters. It's not like it screws over the DM, since the DM runs a bunch of different monsters, sometimes more than the players. I dislike action denial even on monsters, mostly because I enjoy running solo monsters (they are often easier and share time with the players better).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
ascendance posted:It's pretty nuts to deny that weren't any meanie 4vengers who would constantly argue you should play anything but 5e. But a pair of the "4vengers" just started talking about 5e and all any of the poor beset-upon 5e players wanted to talk about was comparing editions, so
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
ascendance posted:The rules for fighters changed from packet to packet, so I think they didn't really know where they were going. They decided to err on the side of conservative once there was a huge outcry when they talked about giving fighters lots of skill dice, etc. Monks were seriously toned down - again in response to grog outrage. I think druids and rangers were insufficiently playtested. I semi-followed the development process and it seemed like fighters just kept changing and what we have is just what happened to be in the docket when the deadline hit. At least with the monk, I'm sure gamers everywhere are enjoying the cottage industry of publishing monk fixes that has been booming since 2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Oh but surely that must make way for the three goons who want to madpost about meanie 4vengers Ettin made it quite clear a few pages that he's just gonna let this thread burn itself to the ground so enjoy it while it lasts I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I semi-followed the development process and it seemed like fighters just kept changing and what we have is just what happened to be in the docket when the deadline hit. At least with the monk, I'm sure gamers everywhere are enjoying the cottage industry of publishing monk fixes that has been booming since 2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Does anyone remember skeleton chat? Skeleton chat was fun and interesting and led to cool ideas and settings. It annoys me to see people say that this thread never talks positive about 5th edition when we spent pages and pages going over builds for all kinds of different characters. Juggling people as monks, finding out bards were better spellswords then Eldritch Knights, abusing shapechange rules to become a better dragon then a dragon. Actually even ID chat had led to cool ideas, like having the ID controlled fighter become a new party member and having the player keep playing only now they also had the memories of the ID past lives as well. That sounded like it could lead to all kinds of interesting plot hooks and drama. Yeah, that stuff was great. It also gave regular posters a fun way to briefly reverse their usual roles in this thread. "I don't like many of the rules in this game, but gently caress yeah, skeleton army! I got maximum skeletons like this, who can do it better?" "I love nearly everything about this game, but skeleton army is a broken rule that my game will disallow in the following ways." friendlyfire posted:I semi-followed the development process and it seemed like fighters just kept changing and what we have is just what happened to be in the docket when the deadline hit. At least with the monk, I'm sure gamers everywhere are enjoying the cottage industry of publishing monk fixes that has been booming since 2000. I'm pretty sure you're right about that. I followed the dev process and playtest pretty closely. I played at least one game with each packet, and I did every single survey. I can't recall ever being asked to give detailed fighter feedback on the same level as the multiple questions I answered that were along the lines of "which of these spells feels most like an iconic D&D spell?". Maybe the problem is that the dev team didn't see any fighter ability beyond "armor and sword" as iconic, so they were throwing stuff out there to see what worked. But there wasn't a way to give the design feedback that would have been needed on those things at any point during the playtest - just "did X feel like it belongs in D&D" and "how satisfied were you by X". I think the lovely part, to me, was that a couple of the earlier playtests had fighters that were more fun and also better mechanically than they actually ended up being. The one I played in the first or second Caves of Chaos kicked an unreasonable amount of arses and was only a little bit more boring that I would have liked. I can't remember exactly which packet it was now, but I'd have been satisfied with that fighter as the final version, but couldn't say why during the survey because all it asked was "did you think the fighter <had enough hit points>, <had good enough AC>, <did enough damage>, <felt a lot / a little / not like D&D>?" e: You'd have to look in the last thread, but I was pretty excited about this game throughout the early playtesting. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Skeleton Army vs 10 pit fiends who wins?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
The ID, duh
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:The ID, duh You laugh now, but an Ilithid coup on the Nine Hells after an ID successfully hijacks the head honcho would be incredible. You tear through an army of fiendish Mind Flayers and suddenly "IT'S ME AUSTIN! "
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Skeleton Army vs 10 pit fiends who wins?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Skeleton Army vs 10 pit fiends who wins? From memory, the important factor here is whether or not all the skeletons are lined up in a 5' wide passage. The Bee posted:You laugh now, but an Ilithid coup on the Nine Hells after an ID successfully hijacks the head honcho would be incredible. You tear through an army of fiendish Mind Flayers and suddenly "IT'S ME AUSTIN! " ..and the only person who can stop them is Dave the Necromancer and his Skelebuddies! and his meat-based friends, but who wants to hear about them?. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:..and the only person who can stop them is Dave the Necromancer and his Skelebuddies! and his meat-based friends, but who wants to hear about them?. If he dual-classes into bard he could be a Necrodancer. Bundalini's all-skeleton band!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:40
|
|