|
Bhaal posted:That's Rolemaster. What's important is if I have a chance at making Argwinkle's head explode when I botch my two-minute brain surgery drill.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
friendlyfire posted:making the monk less magical-seeming friendlyfire posted:these are things that someone might do if they were deliberately courting people that hate WoW and anime. Reserving the more magical effects for wizards would probably generally be helpful in that regard. What part of Monks literally casting Wizard spells with ki points is less magical-seeming than previous editions? You admit that you know very little about MMOs. You seem to know very little about 5e. You've said that you have no intention of playing 5e. You jump around from subject to subject and seem reticent to engage in actual discussion. I don't understand your posting. Can you distill your position into a sentence or two? Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
"MMO-like" was an expression coined by Paizo (specifically by Ryan Dancey) to blow up edition warring as a wedge issue between 3.PF and 4E. It's as meaningless as "liberty" or "freedom" because you can twist it to anything you don't like about a particular TTRPG. Even if we acknowledge the flaws of 4E, they can still be described in more accurate terms than "MMO-like", and they'd still be flaws even without the comparison to computer games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"MMO-like" was an expression coined by Paizo (specifically by Ryan Dancey) to blow up edition warring as a wedge issue between 3.PF and 4E. It's as meaningless as "liberty" or "freedom" because you can twist it to anything you don't like about a particular TTRPG. I didn't know that, and that's actually kind of funny given the fact that, okay, people discuss Pathfinder as a "cash-grab" but actually it was a necessary part of Paizo staying alive. Paizo existed almost entirely because of the OGL and wizards killed it for 4th ed so without 3rd edition staying relevant, Paizo was dead in the water. If they actually managed to create the MMO-like meme as a part of an actual strategy to keep their business alive that might make them the smartest business in tabletop. It's certainly more likely that it all just came together randomly for them but if it was planned I'm seriously impressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
There an episode of this Game Design podcast that I listen to where they interview Dancey and he's definitely pushing the angle that "When WoW was released, lots of players left the TTRPG hobby to played WoW instead, and WOTC designed 4E to try to win back some of those players by making 4E feel a lot like an MMO", along with the assertion that Pathfinder consistently beat D&D in sales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Ryan Dancey is now literally heading up the MMO Pathfinder Online (which looks terrible).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Archenemy and the planes one were extremely popular here, so idk. The point is that MMO elements aren't table-top kryptonite.mango sentinel posted:Organized play stuff like Adventurers League is exactly what game companies should be doing. This isn't an attempt at making the game "massively multiplayer." It's an attempt to foster community and make the game more accessible to new players. It's not emulating MMOs, it's emulating Friday Night Magic. At some point post 4th, Mearls was talking about how fantastic the Good Old Days were when everyone had only a handful of modules; It fostered this massive shared nostalgia for places like the Temple of Elemental Evil, the Tomb of Horrors, and Castle Ravenloft. It was a cultural touchstone for gamers, and he wanted to recapture that feel with bigger and fewer published D&D adventure paths. D&D players meeting from anywhere would be able to reminisce and bond about such-and-such adventure or so-and-so NPC... the way they used to do. Or, the way MMO players already do today. It's an interesting goal and one thing I applaud, since providing a consistent experience does make for a tighter community. Unfortunately, the bonding and shared culture seems primarily driven by white knighting lackluster mechanics and bad creative choices, making GBS threads on 4e and MMOs, and the nebulous boogeymen "balance" and tight mechanics represent. He got his community and culture, but it's no better than first-wave Pathfinder's. And it's just easier to snuggle up in an affirming 5e+ NO CRITICISM thread and say "these people get me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I sort of like the idea of treating fighters as sort of mobile terrain. Like, give them something like: "Any time an enemy enters an adjacent space, their movement ends." That's super-sticky, not MMO-seeming (I hope), and probably not a huge power bump. It just lets them do their job a bit better. I love this little rule. This is without a doubt the best thing you've said all thread. I don't really understand what the rest of your posts have been trying to achieve, but that one idea is legit great - it gives fighters a cool and effective thing and the rule couldn't be simpler. It doesn't fix fighters, but it is totally a good start. If you combine that with increased defenive abilities and increased damage, scaling up both with level, you've got yourself a class that is effective while remaining simple for newbies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
moths posted:Archenemy and the planes one were extremely popular here, so idk. The point is that MMO elements aren't table-top kryptonite. MMOs borrow more from TTRPGs than TTRPGs ever could. It's ridiculous. I think the shared experience thing is a lost cause because of the internet. Everything would be spoiled, or you would need net-wide moderation on a scale that has never been done. Organized play is possible though, just not everyone playing the same module every year at home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Once design starts getting into the nuts and bolts and exits the realm of "feels right," lots of mechanics start feeling familiar or looking similar. Ex: Between a leech, being on fire or being poisoned, all of these are or can be represented by damage over time. All of these operate on a similar logic of something continuously damaging the health or vitality of the affected. Depending on the number of dimensions of vitality representation, different stats may be affected independently or in conjunction. This also allows differentiation between the different conditions. Once a game system is reduced to its most simplest forms, it all looks the same, whether it's Pokemon, WoW, WoD or D&D. It's funny how many complaints about how being like a video game get levied even though the history of design has video games originally appropriating tabletop mechanics and computing them. While video games have evolved over time (for various reasons) tabletop games have as well, but not to the same degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Given our differing opinions on whether or not balance is a good thing, I'd like you to point me at this "balanced to the point of blandness" MMO so I can finally enjoy playing one where I don't have to re-think all my poo poo every few weeks and can just go with whatever looks coolest. FF14 is very well-balanced. The only time I ever hear balance complaints are when specific end-game encounters are tuned in a way that is rough on a certain class. And that is just for the very tip-top of content. For everything else it does not matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I think WoW is pretty boring as hell, a single player game pretending to be a multiplayer game that really doesnt work unless your going in with a bunch of people. I also hate anime, I think its unintelligible and not engaging for the most part. Yet I really am not enjoying running 5e. I can't run a low powered dangerous game because the system doesn't support it and characters like a wizard, bard and cleric can just ignore chunks of it. I cant run heroic fantasy because different classes just cant keep up. I'm not sure what type of campaign to run with it and what style of storytelling im supposed to use. Its a bunch of work so trying to adapt both mechanics and theme can be a pain in the rear end. Sure. But if there was a humanoid Panda race and "straight-up tank" class in the PHB, there are a some people that wouldn't give D&D Next enough of a shot to see whether it matches theirs tastes and expectations or not. moths posted:TTRPGs should be bending over backwards trying to emulate MMOs. The WoW TCG did a fairly good job of bringing raiding, PVP battlegrounds, arenas, and eventually dungeons to the table. Eventually MtG stole a lot of these concepts. How's MtG doing these days? Do people still like it now that it "caters to the casuals?" Was there a huge exodus after I think that there are at least three things at work there: The first is that boardgames as a serious pastime have gone mainstream over the past decade, and Tabletop RPGs have not. It's natural to want to alloy the D&D experience with something more accessible, because that would earn a lot of money and increase D&D's cultural cache. The second thing is that it is pretty natural to want to seek an escalation of D&D presentation. Grander games with seven adventuring parties all teleporting down into the same dungeon at the same time. Higher-pressure, more fun adventures where every round counts. It's natural for game designers to seek things like that out, and for official games to try and deliver something more intense than most home games. Thirdly, computerization is absolutely the wave of the future and it is stupid to try to fight back against it. In twenty years, I am pretty sure there will be more d&d games player online than in person. There really isn't an acceptable, mass-market-ready virtual tabletop app out there (though maybe Playsets or something like it will eventually be that app). It's lamentable that this doesn't exist. If Wizards produces that and makes it seamless, they will earn a lot of bank. The biggest hurdle to tabletop games really is getting everything into the same room at the same time. AlphaDog posted:Given our differing opinions on whether or not balance is a good thing, I'd like you to point me at this "balanced to the point of blandness" MMO so I can finally enjoy playing one where I don't have to re-think all my poo poo every few weeks and can just go with whatever looks coolest. My advice is to play EVE Online.  Jack the Lad posted:What part of Monks literally casting Wizard spells with ki points is less magical-seeming than previous editions? It is difficult to engage in what is essentially a disagreeable discussion with so many people at once. I have tried very hard to engage as many people as possible in discussion, though obviously not to your questionable satisfaction. I have read the 5e Player's Handbook and many of the development blogs, but do not know much about the playtest versions of the game. Someone else in this thread indicated that the monk was toned down during the playtesting process and I believe them, which is what I was referring to about the monk being made less magical. I also suggested that "MMO-seeming" is a variable value-judgment and acknowledged that I'm probably not the best person to try and explain the viewpoint, but am getting shoehorned into doing that, anyway. But my view in a nutshell: I don't hope to run 5e but have incorporated some 5e ideas into the stuff I run. I have recently moved away from my gaming group and may end up having to play or run 5e, which isn't ideal (I prefer my own homebrew, naturally) but neither is it terrible. Based on my reading, 5e is about as good as it can be while still hitting all of the marketing bells and publishing deadlines. I expect d&d editions to be published with flaws that will be addressed by the fan base or by WOTC. I think every gripe I have seen in this thread is fixable except for one: 5e is not and never will be a successor to 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I love this little rule. This is without a doubt the best thing you've said all thread. Thank you. I really am a decent game designer, though I am reticent to share anything substantial here because of how consistently hostile this thread is, even for goons. Part of what I like about that rule is that it is something that mostly the DM handles in practice, but new players can use it to get in the way and bog down their enemies without even trying too hard. It also doesn't rely on attacks of opportunity, a mechanic that I have always disliked and found difficult to convey to new players. I agree about the class needing better defensive abilities and somewhat better offensive abilities. I think the class should emphasize getting in the way, bogging down enemies, and tanking, rather than melee damage. If the class is sufficiently good at that, it doesn't need to do great damage. To my eyes, the thing 5e needs more than anything else is a variant fighter class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But my view in a nutshell: I don't hope to run 5e but have incorporated some 5e ideas into the stuff I run. Which ideas did you take? Fancy sharing your homebrew system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:Which ideas did you take? Fancy sharing your homebrew system? You are probably the most snarky, unpleasant person in this thread. Any productive discussion of 5e will necessarily exclude you from it. In short: No, I do not fancy exposing myself to any kind of ridicule from you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I am reticent to share anything substantial here because of how consistently hostile this thread is, even for goons. friendlyfire posted:You are probably the most snarky, unpleasant person in this thread. Any productive discussion of 5e will necessarily exclude you from it. In short: No, I do not fancy exposing myself to any kind of ridicule from you. Hey, uh, maybe if you want a less hostile thread...stop being hostile?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Hey, uh, maybe if you want a less hostile thread...stop being hostile? I'd like to post here without feeling constantly under attack for not holding the prevailing opinion about an elfgame, and I'd like to post some homebrew rules without it playing into a goon trap, but the present climate is not conducive to either of these things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Considering how many cheap shots you've taken at posters here, it shouldn't be any surprise. Although I honestly would like to see whatever you've come up with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I'd like to post here without feeling constantly under attack for not holding the prevailing opinion about an elfgame, and I'd like to post some homebrew rules without it playing into a goon trap, but the present climate is not conducive to either of these things. Critique of your opinions or your houserules != personal attack. It's words on a forum dude, relax. What's the worst thing that happens if it is some "goon trap"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You are probably the most snarky, unpleasant person in this thread. Any productive discussion of 5e will necessarily exclude you from it. In short: No, I do not fancy exposing myself to any kind of ridicule from you. Go post it in the game design thread then =)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Thank you. I really am a decent game designer, though I am reticent to share anything substantial here because of how consistently hostile this thread is, even for goons. Honestly, my advice is that you should just stop engaging in the back-and-forth sniping since it's obviously going nowhere. Yes, the thread is being hostile to you, and yes there are some posters who are all-negative about 5e all the time. But the regulars like Jackthelad and alphadog are putting in effort to their posts and helping people make characters and analyze mechanics through math and so on. There has been plenty of 5e discussion in this thread and the explosion of flames over the past two days has been fed in part by your posts. So keep posting, especially about cool ideas. Things to improve the game, things that you like about it, cool combinations, etc. Just don't even bother replying to people you think are being assholes. To be trite, "be the change you want to see in the thread."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You are probably the most snarky, unpleasant person in this thread. Any productive discussion of 5e will necessarily exclude you from it. In short: No, I do not fancy exposing myself to any kind of ridicule from you. OK, no worries I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Honestly, my advice is that you should just stop engaging in the back-and-forth sniping since it's obviously going nowhere. Yes, the thread is being hostile to you, and yes there are some posters who are all-negative about 5e all the time. But the regulars like Jackthelad and alphadog are putting in effort to their posts and helping people make characters and analyze mechanics through math and so on. There has been plenty of 5e discussion in this thread and the explosion of flames over the past two days has been fed in part by your posts. Well, okay. But please keep in mind that I have not played more than a few minutes of 5e and that my suggestions are all theoretical as a result. As I see it, the issues with the fighter class are one of the biggest and yet most fixable problems with d&d next: 1. It lacks a specific role to excel at. It is neither defender not tank nor melee damager. Even with the Sentinel feat, the class is still hobbled by the limit on number of reactions. 2. It is not good enough. Other classes are better than the fighter at everything, though neither is the fighter really a jack of all trades or anything resembling it. 3. It runs into caster supremacy, especially where flying is concerned. To address these problems I would propose some heavy modifications to the class. 1. Role: Defender The simplest solution for a lot of people would be to un-cap Fighter attacks of opportunity. I hate attacks of opportunity, so this seems like a sub-par solution unless you want to also have the fighters attacks of opportunity always resolve without rolls (like they always inflict 5 damage instead of interrupting everything with one or more attack and damage rolls that may or may not have advantage and may or may not reroll natural 1s and 2s). Instead, I would prefer to give the fighter the following ability at first level: "Check Foe: When an enemy enters an adjacent space, their movement ends." This allows them to effectively stop enemies from harassing softer targets without messing with the damage economy that Next seems chiefly based around. It increases the importance of positioning without slowing things down, which I like, too. My twin concerns are that it might make Sentinel so good as to be a feat tax, and that it might make it too easy to protect casters, who already have it good under Next's rules. I think that giving this at first level is the best time to do it because it makes them perfect at their job right off the bat, and makes the struggle about defeating the monsters rather than trying and failing to bog them down. A monster can still slowly work their way past a fighter if the party is cornered, or the party can have the fighter continually hold the monster off while the rest escape. Delicious either way. 2. Not Good Enough This is more uncertain territory for me. Their offensive abilities seem boring and limited, so I would suggest allowing fighters to inflict STR damage on foes that they miss with melee attacks. I do not know what level to assign this to, though first seems premature. I am also unclear on whether their tank abilities are sufficient, though Indomitable is definitely terrible. I'd append this to indomitable: "When an attack reduces you to 0 hp or below, you can also use this ability to cause that attack to instead reduce you to 1 hp." A ninth level fighter not getting dropped by a hit once a day hardly seems excessive. Importantly, it feels different from the monk's obviously superior Diamond Soul and more like the kind off thing a tank should do. 3. Caster Supremacy / Flying A big part of caster supremacy can be addressed by including a ticking clock explicitly included in adventure structure. After three days (or however long) things should start to get harder. Maybe taking so long gives the villain time to raise another twenty skeletons. Maybe certain empty rooms will have a wandering monster take up residence there. In any case, players should not feel free to rest however much they want, otherwise casters are always going to blow all their spells and take a nap, rinse, repeat. I dislike interrupting players resting to keep them from re-memorizing because it is a jerk thing to do and feels so forced. Adventure structure is where that issue needs to be addressed. As for flying, it might be a good idea to give fighters or Archery fighting style fighters some kind of Pinion Shot ability that forces flying foes to land. Bard Of Rivendell totally lands Smaug. The harpies come down to fight Jason and his Argonauts. Though it would feel kind of weird to give the ranged fighter an ability that forces their foes into melee. A taunt ability that at least forces an enemy to get within reach might work, though it certainly triggers the "NOT LIKE AN MMO" crowd. I would prefer a more abstract rule for dealing with flying, generally. Like if you assumed that flying monsters take half damage from melee and AOE because they are constantly swooping up and down, and have that be the end of it. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
The movement stopping is interesting, but perhaps have it be within reach instead of only adjacent? Or maybe have it start at adjacent, but at 3rd level you can choose some kind of Martial Archetype that increases it to reach?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:The movement stopping is interesting, but perhaps have it be within reach instead of only adjacent? Or maybe have it start at adjacent, but at 3rd level you can choose some kind of Martial Archetype that increases it to reach? I am very leery of kiting cheese. A fighter with that ability and some reach could continually move backwards a step while stopping multiple enemies from ever actually getting adjacent to them and therefore unable to actually attack them. Part of why I like the Check Foe thing as written is that the fighter himself is still at risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Has anyone from Wizards said anything about either Dragon or Dungeon coming back in the past few months?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:1. Role: Defender I understand the intent is to improve fighters, but the "Pinion Shot" idea just makes me want that to be an errata for winged flyers. When they get to 1/2 HP, they are forced to land. They don't get flying back until they roll a 6 on a D6 like with recharge powers or something equally time restricted. As for tactical movement, I also like "Check Foe." I was trying to think of ways to make it more versatile like requiring saving throws to get past, but I realized a lot of my ideas would require there to be facing in D&D. I know that's never going to happen, but has facing ever been a successful mechanic in pnp rpgs? Specifically not talking about war games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I understand the intent is to improve fighters, but the "Pinion Shot" idea just makes me want that to be an errata for winged flyers. When they get to 1/2 HP, they are forced to land. They don't get flying back until they roll a 6 on a D6 like with recharge powers or something equally time restricted. I really like the idea of de facto bloodied flyers having to land (or at least fly low enough that it doesn't matter) regardless of the source of their flight ability. It's simple and it gives everybody a chance to shine: ranged characters kick the Roc's rear end until it needs to land, then the melee finishes the job. I also really like encounters that feel like they have multiple phases to them. Your idea is great! About the tactical movement: We may disagree, but I kind of like how it's a rock-solid ability that is completely effective. I'd prefer not to bog things down with saves, and I like the idea that the rest of the party can rely on the fighter being good at blocking the enemies. Facing has always seemed like too much of a hassle for me. I tried it in a couple games and it really slowed things down without adding what I felt like was a worthwhile amount of interesting gameplay. One's mileage varies, I guess. edit: \/ \/ \/ Thank you for posting that you aren't going to play 5e. This is a major improvement to the thread and certainly clarifies your earlier posts where we had no idea that is how you felt. Anyway, there is little difference in practice between utilizing a supplementary splatbook and having a couple pages of house rules designed to improve quality of life. I don't see what's such a turn-off about it, anyway. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
I think if there's one thing I would never like to see in D&D, it's facing. I do support the idea of house-ruling 5E to unbreak certain things, but after playing 3E/3.5E straight through into 4E, I'm no longer in the mood to play games that would benefit from more than a page or so of simple add-ons. I'm not interested in more or less rewriting every class description and changing fundamental mechanics, and I'm not interested in a game that I can't set down in front of a new player without also telling him about my cool house rule bible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Yeah but talking about houserules has frequently been a suggestion for ways to make this thread less lovely, so  .Sorry I meant to be clear that I would never want facing in DnD. I was asking if other systems had ever made it work outside the realm of war games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I'm no longer in the mood to play games that would benefit from more than a page or so of simple add-ons. I'm not interested in more or less rewriting every class description and changing fundamental mechanics, and I'm not interested in a game that I can't set down in front of a new player without also telling him about my cool house rule bible. Yeah, I agree. It's a hell of a thing to try to start a game at a table and say "oh yeah we'll be doing this this and this, none of which are in the actual rules, trust me it'll make the game better" unless you're all already on the same wavelength. It's sort of why I'm looking forward to the DMG because "official support" for the alternate skill system would make that medicine go down easier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I think if there's one thing I would never like to see in D&D, it's facing. A thousand times, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Anyway, there is little difference in practice between utilizing a supplementary splatbook and having a couple pages of house rules designed to improve quality of life. I don't see what's such a turn-off about it, anyway. Because if you don't always play with the same group of people, it becomes a pain in the rear end learning how Dave runs the game versus how Jessie runs it. Oh Jessie's group doesn't get together anymore 'cause schedules got too busy, I'll see if Sarah's got room...poo poo, she's got her own houserules too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Because if you don't always play with the same group of people, it becomes a pain in the rear end learning how Dave runs the game versus how Jessie runs it. Oh Jessie's group doesn't get together anymore 'cause schedules got too busy, I'll see if Sarah's got room...poo poo, she's got her own houserules too. Not really any different than Jessie's group using the chunk of rules from a splatbook that you don't own and haven't read. Unless you're presupposing that everybody has read everything, for some reason. edit \/ \/ \/ Speaking of tedious as gently caress, you just made yet another post comparing 5e to 4e unfavorably, in the 5e thread. This is a groundbreaking opinion that has really lacked for representation in this thread and was just crying out for an advocate. \/ \/ \/ friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Unless you're presupposing that everybody has read everything, for some reason. With 4e's CB & Compendium you didn't have to. I can't imagine actually bothering to read every splat/dragon mag/dungeon mag/etc. Sounds tedious as gently caress plus I have no time for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I think if there's one thing I would never like to see in D&D, it's facing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I think if there's one thing I would never like to see in D&D, it's facing. Facing is an upkeep thing that only works if everyone involved likes fiddly upkeeps or a computer does it for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
House rules are global but splat rules are per character or encounter. You'll never have Steve telling you your character build doesn't actually work as planned thanks to a splat. Maybe it can have more options or different focuses with a splat but that's up to you to choose. House rules? If the dm says you can't make that build, too bad it doesn't work that way. All thanks to rules that may not be consistent across games or even exist most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
House rules can be a good thing in the same way that DLC and F2P models "can be a good thing." They just often aren't. I understand wanting to be a RAW purist so you can feel comfortable with the games you play, but I trend toward (not completely support) the opposite end of things. I try out new systems all the time. Learning new rules is fun for me, so a good houserule page/book/whatever makes things more interesting if done well. This is not a statement that excuses core 5E's flaws. This is a statement defending house rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Facing was hell in AD&D. I can't imagine it would be any better now. Segments... were a kind of obfuscated way of describing the initiative order. I can see them coming back, and working, if there's a way to have an initiative track and change places on it based on doing different things. It'd still be fiddly and I probably wouldn't like it, but it could work. friendlyfire posted:Flyers, fighter stuff. These are great ideas, the flyer stuff and the movement-halting fighter seem like they would be fantastic additions to the game. I've never found that OAs are hard to use or hard to teach, but I'm not doubting your experience with them. I like the idea of an OA being a flat damage thing, that would stop them from bogging things down, but instead of "5 damage", what about some kind of scaling thing like "twice your proficiency bonus"? You'd want to do some testing to get the number right, and if you feel like doing that kind of thing is too complicated to do when you level up the houserule could just be an addition to the fighter progression table that adds a column "OA bonus" or whatever. The "stop movement" thing is a great idea though. edit: For OAs, what about "moving next to the fighter stops movement and automatically does a small (scaling) amount of damage"? Or "...at the fighters option, stops movement or the fighter makes a single regular attack". Generic Octopus posted:With 4e's CB & Compendium you didn't have to. I can't imagine actually bothering to read every splat/dragon mag/dungeon mag/etc. Sounds tedious as gently caress plus I have no time for it. friendlyfire posted:Speaking of tedious as gently caress, you just made yet another post comparing 5e to 4e unfavorably, in the 5e thread. This is a groundbreaking opinion that has really lacked for representation in this thread and was just crying out for an advocate. Is "I would be fine with this if Next had something like 4e's Compendium so that I didn't have to own or borrow every single supplement, magazine article, etc" an OK statement to make? Because I'm making that statement. The Compendium was a great way for people to be able to use lots of different options without owning/borrowing heaps of books. Like, that can be a problem from both sides - nobody wants to be the guy that owns maybe the PHB and needs to go over to someone's house / borrow books to build a character with lots of options, and nobody wants to be the guy who built his dude with this one rule from Dragon#476812 and then forgot to bring the actual magazine so nobody's sure how it's actually supposed to work. SmellOfPetroleum posted:House rules can be a good thing in the same way that DLC and F2P models "can be a good thing." They just often aren't. I understand wanting to be a RAW purist so you can feel comfortable with the games you play, but I trend toward (not completely support) the opposite end of things. I try out new systems all the time. Learning new rules is fun for me, so a good houserule page/book/whatever makes things more interesting if done well. As do I, I just have a huge problem with the way people try to excuse system flaws by telling me about how they houseruled it - a rule can't both require a houserule to be good and be fine as-is. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
