|
MonsterEnvy posted:Are you talking about me or him. If your talking about me. He said which items don't change your alignment that have been previewed. I stated all of them other then the Vecna stuff and one card. I was genuinely, if hyperbolically, asking. I've not seen all the previews from the DMG, just the appendages of Vecna and the deck of dickery. What else has been previewed from the DMG?
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
All of the previews are here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/extra-lifedmg-previews Including stuff like laser rifles and alien tech. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
how good can my fighter be at throwing grenades?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
A hovercraft is just as complex as a chainsaw, and exactly twice as complex as a lighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
ritorix posted:All of the previews are here: Unless they've got some fairly exciting special rules, it kind of looks like early firearms are going to be overpriced and underpowered. Again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Quite possibly I'm  , but I really hate the term "necrotic" for radiants negative damage counterpart .
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Crasical posted:Unless they've got some fairly exciting special rules, it kind of looks like early firearms are going to be overpriced and underpowered. Again. On the plus side, it doesn't look like firearms have stupidly janky rules that make them an exercise in frustration to use. They're just regular crap now! That's an improvement, right? ... Right? Mewnie posted:Quite possibly I'm I just plain don't like necrotic damage for the anti-matter rifle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Shotguns should totally make a cone-shaped blast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:I just plain don't like necrotic damage for the anti-matter rifle. See it makes sense for undead to be immune to disintegration ray guns because
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Crasical posted:Unless they've got some fairly exciting special rules, it kind of looks like early firearms are going to be overpriced and underpowered. Again. Underpowered? The musket's more dangerous than a longbow or heavy crossbow but with shorter range. The pistol's got very short range but is almost as dangerous as a musket within that range. That really looks about right for early firearms, especially when there doesn't appear to be any special rules that would make them useless. In the context of D&D, what do you think early guns should do that bows don't do? They are overly expensive, especially when you compare them to armour. That's probably not going to matter after the first adventure, but it's still dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
I got my hopes up when I read "To simulate a character's ignorance of the technology", because I thought it would give cool advice about relating technologically advanced stuff to players in an out-of-context way, which would have been really fun and immersive guidance for a potential DM. But no, just get your players to roll a series of intelligence checks. That'll do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Crasical posted:Unless they've got some fairly exciting special rules, it kind of looks like early firearms are going to be overpriced and underpowered. Again. A musket that can fire every six seconds is not an underpowered musket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
I am unironically happy to see a page about guns and lasers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:"You're far to pure" NachtSieger posted:I just plain don't like necrotic damage for the anti-matter rifle. 
mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Got to jump into a mate's level 9 campaign last night, rolled up a quick bard of valor (with some admittedly less than ideal magic choices, but I didn't want to step on toes or be accused of being a munchkin again), and wow, combat in this can take just as long as 4e. 2 hours to kill a dozen hobgoblins, 4 hill giants and some sort of demonic succubus thing. I did enjoy it, especially breaking the module by using greater restoration and dispell curse on the enthralled NPC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Got to jump into a mate's level 9 campaign last night, rolled up a quick bard of valor (with some admittedly less than ideal magic choices, but I didn't want to step on toes or be accused of being a munchkin again), and wow, combat in this can take just as long as 4e. 2 hours to kill a dozen hobgoblins, 4 hill giants and some sort of demonic succubus thing. That's because in 4e, combat was the major centerpiece of the game and what you were expected to spend most of your time on. In 5e, combat is a punishment for not bypassing it appropriately, and thus takes for-freakin'-ever against appropriate challenges after the shitfarmer phase.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Cassa posted:2 hours to kill a dozen hobgoblins, 4 hill giants and some sort of demonic succubus thing. This sucks. I didn't get my first two-hour combat in 4e until level 9 or 10. Looks like that improved combat speed only worked at low levels after all. Meanwhile over in Strike I've been play testing higher-level monsters and found that an above-level challenge 3-player combat at level 8 took 35 minutes despite the players having to take a bit of time figuring out their new powers since we just jumped into level 8. So the problem isn't impossible to solve, you just have to actually be willing to cut the things that slow poo poo down. Cut damage rolls, use Opportunity Damage instead of Opportunity Attacks, have simple-to-run monsters, have a cover system that takes zero time to adjudicate, have proper minion rules, actually have a real math wringer to make sure monster HP doesn't get bloated relative to player damage. 5e just took away a bunch of choices from half the classes and figured that would speed things up. Which it does, a bit. But you can't just speed up one aspect and think that that will make all the difference. There are a lot of things that slow the game down and you have to shave time in a lot of different places to keep things fast at high levels. I am legitimately disappointed to hear that poo poo takes two hours because that means I will never play the game beyond the first couple of levels. For me, two hours is basically a whole session these days, and I am so over the idea of spending an entire session just to kill 8 hobgoblins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Transient People posted:That's because in 4e, combat was the major centerpiece of the game and what you were expected to spend most of your time on. In 5e, combat is a punishment for not bypassing it appropriately, and thus takes for-freakin'-ever against appropriate challenges after the shitfarmer phase. This is also wrong because that was not an appropriate challenge. I just checked. The encounter is stated to be beyond the deadly threshold when not including the Demon thing. I am playing a game that is currently level 14. Combat does not take that much longer then it used to. It's longer but that is a result of everything having more hp but it's not that much longer and more rounds are happening. The last major fight we had, our Six person party vs 2 Red Slaadi and one of each other type. Took about 2 hours and lasted 22 rounds. This was considered to be a deadly encounter and was the climax of a dungeon with several other factors relating to the rooms were fighting in. This would have taken much longer in 3.5 or 4e with a shorter number of rounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The last major fight we had, our Six person party vs 2 Red Slaadi and one of each other type. Took about 2 hours and lasted 22 rounds. Cassa posted:2 hours to kill a dozen hobgoblins, 4 hill giants and some sort of demonic succubus thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Can either of you elaborate more on what you thought caused the 2 hour fights? Was it ability selection/use? Rules adjudication? Simply hitting the monster and eating through all its HP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
A long-ish climactic battle used to take us ~2-2.5 hours in 4e, so it seems right in line with that. I never really saw the 4-hour combats that people used to talk about. I'm not doubting they happened though. Our encounters were usually in the 1-2 hour range. I'd be interested to hear exactly what is taking ~2 hours in 5e, because the times I've played combat has been really fast (like, ~20-30 minute generally for encounters, 45-60 for big deal encounters). I never played at higher than 6th-7th level, but it's not like you're getting that many extra options above that, is it? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A long-ish climactic battle used to take us ~2-2.5 hours in 4e, so it seems right in line with that. ... Our encounters were usually in the 1-2 hour range. Jackard fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
One of my homegames just converted from ~lvl16 4e to level 11 5e, and 5 PCs vs 6 "monsters built as PCs" was basically 4 or 5 hours, including me slapping together a Fighter6/Bard5. Flipping through the spellbook was a not-inconsiderable timesink, but whittling away HP was definitely bigger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Yea, and that was one of the few issues I had with 4e. Me too. I thought that "faster combat" was one of the things that Next promised and then actually delivered on (apart from when modules have stupid poo poo like 50 rats or whatever other obvious slowdown stuff), so I'm surprised to hear 2 people saying "2 hour combats", because that's what I experienced from 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
4e became tolerable with tools like the character builder or maptools frameworks which you could copy values into and automate actions, but they really could have used a NWN style game. Better yet, a tactical grid game to take care of calculations for you Jackard fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
It's really disappointing that nobody has made a really professional virtual tabletop that will track all the little fiddly bits ttrpgs are rife with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:how good can my fighter be at throwing grenades? Given appropriate feats and a highly-specialized prestige class: three quarters as capable as a Mage Hand spell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Can either of you elaborate more on what you thought caused the 2 hour fights? Was it ability selection/use? Rules adjudication? Simply hitting the monster and eating through all its HP? Ours was do to the area were fighting in. A temple being warped by the chaotic power of Limbo. Resulting in random mutaions to the dungeon. As a result there was a decent amount of avoiding hazards, party splits as a result of part of the floor rising up and creating a wall. Walls vanishing and the Fact were fighting in fairly cramped quarters anyway. Coupled with the Grey and Death Slaadi having decently powerful illusion magic making the place even trickier and more confusing. It was very fun none the less and challanging. There was also some goofing around on players part but it still went pretty quick for a major climax I find. It probably would not have taken as long had the Dungeon been more normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Crasical posted:Unless they've got some fairly exciting special rules, it kind of looks like early firearms are going to be overpriced and underpowered. Again. Yep. It bothers the hell out of me that a loving DISINTEGRATION RAY BUILT BY ALIENS just... does +dice of damage. How boring and mundane does that make the loving thing? This disintegration ray is SO GOOD it's like wielding SIX WHOLE LONGBOWS all at ones. The thing should weigh 200 pounds and shoot on-hit save-or-die in an area burst. And be immune to being moved or carried by magic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
If there's not a feat to remove the Loading property from gunpowder weapons they're strictly worse than bows and crossbows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:If there's not a feat to remove the Loading property from gunpowder weapons they're strictly worse than bows and crossbows. If only there was an optional rule to make crossbow expert apply to guns  .edit: Although theirs something kind of silly about fast firing but wimpy musket. I'm not going to argue its unrealistic, because you know d&d, but I think it would be better if they balanced them as an encounter power instead of a weapon. Make it a freaking 2D12+mod or something silly like that, but have it take like three rounds to reload so you can only realistically fire it once per battle. You could have pistols be a bit less but let you draw and fire them as part of an attack so you could fire off 3 or more per round at higher levels as long as you had enough of them strapped to your chest. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:It's really disappointing that nobody has made a really professional virtual tabletop that will track all the little fiddly bits ttrpgs are rife with. Doesn't Fantasy Grounds do exactly this? The price and need to learn how to program in xml for houserules and niche systems notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Can either of you elaborate more on what you thought caused the 2 hour fights? Was it ability selection/use? Rules adjudication? Simply hitting the monster and eating through all its HP? There were a fair few distractions, and less than optimal play on me and my friends part, this being our first time at high-ish level. Ability use and selection for sure, the monk not being entirely sure how many attacks they got (but not being off hugely), the wizard was reluctant to use any big AOE spells for some reason, and my bard and friends ranger both being new to both of us and lots of downtime reading rulebooks. Simply hitting and doing damage was a big problem as well, most of the enemies had huge HP values, and damage resist was a big problem it seemed, for our Martials at least. We caught one big break when a bard spell caught all the Giants and made then run to a point of my choosing each turn, and the succubus was caught in a paralysis spell and paladin enjoyed his auto-crits immensely. That said, this was apparently a random encounter, that was then tweaked. It didn't feel long at the time, but it also didn't feel like a particularly useful use of time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Sounds like a 5- or 6-person group. Monsterenvy also had a 6-person group. To be fair, a 6-person combat will generally take twice as long as a 3-person one (unless you gave specific rules for combat-building for large parties like I have in my game, and even then it still takes longer, just not 100% longer). So a 2-hour combat for 6 players translates into a 1-hour combat for 3 players. Which is too long, but not a deal-breaker like I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
It feels like 5e is suffering from the same problems that MM1 4e had in the combat department, if everyone is taking this long on combats. Even with a five man party the longest my group has taken on a single combat is like 30 minutes, but that might be because I've completely ignored the monsters the Basic rules give you and we don't have the MM. As a general design philosophy they ought to have just given most monsters middling-to-low defense for an adventurer of equivalent level, and then given the drat thing some kind of multiple of 10 for hp. If everything's a glass cannon then to me it reinforces the theme of 5e's combat being "fast and lethal," and would offer incentive for players to try and circumvent conflict or become lethally efficient at fighting as a team.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is also wrong because that was not an appropriate challenge. I just checked. The encounter is stated to be beyond the deadly threshold when not including the Demon thing. I am playing a game that is currently level 14. Combat does not take that much longer then it used to. It's longer but that is a result of everything having more hp but it's not that much longer and more rounds are happening. The last major fight we had, our Six person party vs 2 Red Slaadi and one of each other type. Took about 2 hours and lasted 22 rounds. This was considered to be a deadly encounter and was the climax of a dungeon with several other factors relating to the rooms were fighting in. This would have taken much longer in 3.5 or 4e with a shorter number of rounds. It doesn't matter if it was an 'appropriate challenge' or not. At high levels CRs always lie, this has been a constant for every 3.xlike, including 5e. It's a more general paradigm thing. In every D&D except 4e, you're encouraged to skip the combat as ruthlessly and efficiently as possible. If you don't, you're playing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ours was do to the area were fighting in. A temple being warped by the chaotic power of Limbo. Cassa posted:There were a fair few distractions, and less than optimal play on me and my friends part, this being our first time at high-ish level Thanks for the insight. It's interesting to hear from higher level play since that would seem to really be the test of "this is the fastest playing DND ever" is going to hold up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
dublish posted:A musket that can fire every six seconds is not an underpowered musket. AlphaDog posted:Underpowered? The musket's more dangerous than a longbow or heavy crossbow but with shorter range. The pistol's got very short range but is almost as dangerous as a musket within that range. That really looks about right for early firearms, especially when there doesn't appear to be any special rules that would make them useless. In the context of D&D, what do you think early guns should do that bows don't do? Jack the Lad posted:If there's not a feat to remove the Loading property from gunpowder weapons they're strictly worse than bows and crossbows. Jack hit it for me. They're only barely better than a longbow or crossbow for damage, hugely overpriced, and there's never gonna be any feat support for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Personally the combats in my 5e group have been pretty short so far, but I feel that's because our DM is using them as breaks in the story rather than a lynchpin of the night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Personally the combats in my 5e group have been pretty short so far, but I feel that's because our DM is using them as breaks in the story rather than a lynchpin of the night. If your low level they should be, like the rest of Next it really starts to break once you get to the higher levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 23:24
|
|