|
MonsterEnvy posted:Bland because I find it bland lack of fluff and descriptions is probably the reason there. The Races part I find rather terrible because along with being bland from lack of details there is nothing to different them other then a single trait which is generally not very good or interesting. Fair enough if you take the document in a vacuum. If I read the document right, it's currently intended to be a list of changes from the existing 5e PHB and that's why it doesn't have fluff at all. MonsterEnvy posted:Also please stop undermining every post I make. No one else had to explain their posts. Notice how nobody else just posts "x is good/bad", they post reasons they think so? That's why I don't "undermine their posts" by asking them to explain why they think x is good or bad. You posted that something someone has written was simple, bland, terrible, and also had some good ideas. You didn't say why you thought it was bad or talk about what you did like. If you want to discuss things, be prepared to discuss them. MonsterEnvy posted:On the later part I was comparing it to other D&D Systems which is primarily what it matters in the face of. I have no played enough of other systems to really compare them. I agree with you. 5e's character creation is currently simpler than 4e or 3.5e. "Compared to other D&D versions..." does not appear in the post I was responding to.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
So let me get this straight. Mountain Dwarves get proficiency with Light and Medium armor, battleaxe, handaxe, throwing hammer, and warhammer. They also get +2 STR and +2 CON What class that wants a +2 STR and +2 CON doesn't have all those loving proficiencies already anyway? edit: Wait, I think I figured it out. All dwarves are designed to make Clerics better fighters than Fighters. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Dungeonscape has been canned: http://www.trapdoortechnologies.com/dungeonscape/ How was the beta looking, anyone who was involved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
xiw posted:Dungeonscape has been canned: http://www.trapdoortechnologies.com/dungeonscape/
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
How is damage-per-round calculated to factor in chance-to-hit? Do you just multiply the average damage-per-hit by the chance-to-hit? That is, 1d20+2 has a 55% chance to roll 12 or better, so does that mean 1d10+2 damage would come out to [7.5 average damage * 55% chance-to-hit] = 4.125 DPR? I ask because I'm trying to establish my own guidelines to building monsters and setting their HP and AC to last x many rounds because of z DPR by y number of players seems to be a starting point, or am I missing something? Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: I like it. I'm a huge fan of Robin Stacey's Microlites and of broad, non-specific skills in general. I usually end up rewriting whole sections of rules for my own reference just so they'd get to the point sooner, and minus all the fluff, so the straightforwardness of this approach appeals to me. If I were to make a suggestion, I'd suggest a section where you show how to fill out the character following those same steps, one at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Holy poo poo, really? That's... Wow. So uh, what online support is there for 5e then? Because besides that app they didn't have another CB or Compendium, did they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
It was poo poo. Buttons not working, "initializing" dialogue that never went away, unintuiive... Not surprising in the least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Wizards of the Coast's total incompetence regarding technology has never not been baffling. EDIT: Remember the time they were featured in The Daily WTF? http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Do-You-Believe-In-Magic-Online 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
xiw posted:Dungeonscape has been canned: http://www.trapdoortechnologies.com/dungeonscape/ It was poo poo, and I'm glad someone with the power to tell them to stop being poo poo noticed how poo poo it was. AlphaDog posted:Dungeonscape trip report: It was a lot of pages of clicking to generate a lot of pages of stuff which I guess you could use to play D&D if you were a masochist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Did they actually confirm a cancellation? Or is the project just going to someone else or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Did they actually confirm a cancellation? Or is the project just going to someone else or something? Wizards dumped Trapdoor, Trapdoor says they're still working on DungeonScape. I think what happens next is going to be based entirely on what Wizards ever even owned, exactly. Trapdoor says that they paid for the whole project themselves, so I'm not even sure why Wizards is dumping them if they won't even have an alternative yet (and never will, because it's Wizards). It's lovely software but it's also free software.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
The changelog was pretty funny (in a sad, depressing way)android beta log posted:Please Test: Known Issues: General Performance Also, character creation was literally the only thing in the android beta, so I don't really get why it wasn't ready for feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Please test: all of it. Known issues: all of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
From that announcement, it sounds like Wizards noticed that Trapdoor spent months producing something that looks like it was done in an afternoon and dumped them in favour of a non-poo poo company (or potentially the work experience kid produced something better in a week of lunch breaks).mirthdefect posted:The changelog was pretty funny (in a sad, depressing way) Is this better than an excel spreadsheet you made for yourself in 20 minutes Y/N.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:From that announcement, it sounds like Wizards noticed that Trapdoor spent months producing something that looks like it was done in an afternoon and dumped them in favour of a non-poo poo company (or potentially the work experience kid produced something better in a week of lunch breaks). I get that, but why not wait until the new thing is done since it doesn't seem to have costed them anything? Holy poo poo even the technology situation is now exactly like 3rd ed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I get that, but why not wait until the new thing is done since it doesn't seem to have costed them anything? I'm guessing that it was so obviously and irrevocably terrible that they didn't even want to be associated with it. More likely, they know exactly what happens when a bunch of incompetent shitheads tells you to wait and seeTM if the final product is actually better than the demo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Can't you write code in something that compiles on both iOS and Android? Like maybe the login interface would be device specific, but seems like the tablet stuff should all behave pretty much the same across the board. While trying to find the Play store link so I could c/p the changelog, I found this which looks lovely and has ads, but also probably works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:While trying to find the Play store link so I could c/p the changelog, I found this which looks lovely and has ads, but also probably works. Front page is not three quarters full of blank space or useless info I will never need to look during a game. 8.5/10.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Can't you write code in something that compiles on both iOS and Android? Like maybe the login interface would be device specific, but seems like the tablet stuff should all behave pretty much the same across the board. Definitely not. They are pretty rapidly different systems. You can use certain software packages to transfer large amounts of the code over but that can be very shoddy and look like crap if your not careful with what your doing. Code bases needed to be pretty carefully designed to not produce crap. Interface considerations themselves are pretty huge just purely looking at screen real-estate. None of that seemed to be considered though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Definitely not. They are pretty rapidly different systems. You can use certain software packages to transfer large amounts of the code over but that can be very shoddy and look like crap if your not careful with what your doing. Code bases needed to be pretty carefully designed to not produce crap. Interface considerations themselves are pretty huge just purely looking at screen real-estate. None of that seemed to be considered though. Ahh ok, I thought I heard about some magic python compiler or something that did both. That presupposes you can do everything in python too, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
What was the scope of Dungeonscape supposed to actually be, anyway? Obviously it was intended to end up being more than a character builder/sheet, but I have no idea what "more than" might have meant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What was the scope of Dungeonscape supposed to actually be, anyway? GM tool set - dice roller, campaign manager, document sharing, encounter builder - and digital rule books (at additional cost). All things to all people was the idea as far as I knew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
The lotus notes of TTRPG software?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Bland because I find it bland lack of fluff and descriptions is probably the reason there. Hey a vampire is a magic pretty dude who drinks people's blood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback folks, here and on the Google Doc. Boing posted:One suggestion: Maybe you can be proficient in a skill called your weapon. For example, the Mace skill could be rolled to crush armour or break objects, the Spear skill could be rolled to keep dudes at bay and skewer multiple enemies, and so on. The fact that D&D weapons all boil down to a damage type and some combination of dice was always a let down. Good idea! I'm going to put this in a module. AlphaDog posted:Is there a reason that dual wield isn't just equivalent to 2-hander damage? As in, "if wielding a melee weapon in each hand, you use the 2-handed damage for your class"? I'm not saying I don't like the way you've done it, just that there might be a simpler solution that doesn't require extra rolls. The only reason is that I took the rule directly from 5E. Your suggestion would fix two concerns of mine: that dual-wielding is often strictly better than two-handed fighting, and that it eats up a bonus action which will affect some characters more than others (and might wind up as a trap choice for, e.g., a rogue). Currently the classes are assigned weapon damage so that some get prodded towards dual-wielding and some towards a two-hander, but even if that is important it could be easily fixed by assigning monks and rogues dual-wielding 1d12 but two-handed melee weapon 1d10 or something. I do like that characters who are dual-wielding can make two attacks in a round. But maybe that could be a general rule: FLURRY OF BLOWS: Before you make an attack with your action, you can declare a flurry of blows. Your attack only does half damage. However, you can make a second attack with your bonus action. This attack also only does half damage. Covok posted:I don't see a list of backgrounds. Do they work like 13th Age backgrounds? As in, you make them up yourself? I'd just use the 5E backgrounds, but making them up should be trivial. MonsterEnvy posted:Bland because I find it bland lack of fluff and descriptions is probably the reason there. That's my fault. I've assumed more familiarity with Microlite20 than I should've. Microlite5E should be read alongside D&D 5E - in fact, making races and classes skills only works if people do have a familiarity with the fluff and descriptions in D&D! MonsterEnvy posted:The Races part I find rather terrible because along with being bland from lack of details there is nothing to different them other then a single trait which is generally not very good or interesting. There's definitely room to improve in the races section - Chris Hall and paladin935 have identified a few in particular that are underwhelming. I'd love the advice of these forums on cool new - but simple - features I can give the races. Maybe MonsterEnvy you could let me know what your favourite parts of the 5E races are that are missing from the Microlite5E features at the moment. Some examples I've thought of: Dark elves getting dancing lights is underwhelming. What if they got darkness 1/day? Likewise, tieflings might do better with hellish rebuke 1/day than resist fire. gradenko_2000 posted:If I were to make a suggestion, I'd suggest a section where you show how to fill out the character following those same steps, one at a time. Good idea, I'll put something together. -- Rannos22 posted:Does Next actually include rules or advice or whatever for this sorta world generation or was this something you just picked up or homebrewed? In fairness, the DMG isn't out yet, so it might do - I would trace the methods I used back to Dungeon World, which encourages that sort of collaborative setting building in a number of ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Your suggestion would fix two concerns of mine: that dual-wielding is often strictly better than two-handed fighting, and that it eats up a bonus action which will affect some characters more than others (and might wind up as a trap choice for, e.g., a rogue). I guess it depends on what level of abstraction you're happy with. I'm perfectly happy to abstract 2-weapon fighting into "does more damage than 1-weapon fighting", but then again when I'm picturing a fight "a hit" isn't necessarily a single swing of the weapon. I don't see how someone could know anything at all about fighting (let alone with blades) and still imagine dudes are standing there trading shots every 6 seconds and that having a second weapon will make you able to attack twice as fast, but I'm pretty obviously on the weird side of this particular thing and I'm happy to go with whatever. That said, if you want simple, two attack rolls from two weapons isn't the way to go. You could always just add a "2-weapon" column to your damage chart and make it whatever works out best. If you do want multiple attacks from 2-weapon fighting because D&D, then doing it as an option is a good idea. e: Actually, if you do multiple attacks from dual wielding as an option and take up the "different weapons have different abilities if you want to use them" thing, it probably works fine. Spears can keep people away, hammers can bash things apart, two weapons lets you attack more for lower damage/attack. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Two-weapon fighting rules don't really make any sense in most RPGs anyway. You can see the game designer logic that "more weapons = more attacks!" but nobody who actually fights with 2 weapons uses them to attack with at the same time. It's not like you can swing your second sword after swinging your first sword any faster than you can swing one sword twice. Two-weapon fighting should be about parrying and finesse, it'd be nice if you got bonuses to defense and disarming and stuff rather than just more attacks. e: I guess the dude above me said it better
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Boing posted:Two-weapon fighting rules don't really make any sense in most RPGs anyway. You can see the game designer logic that "more weapons = more attacks!" but nobody who actually fights with 2 weapons uses them to attack with at the same time. It's not like you can swing your second sword after swinging your first sword any faster than you can swing one sword twice. Two-weapon fighting should be about parrying and finesse, it'd be nice if you got bonuses to defense and disarming and stuff rather than just more attacks. As someone with modest training in smallsword-and-dagger (amongst other historical fencing things and I'm not going to sperg about it, I swear), I'd assert that fighting with 2 weapons is hardly ever going to give you more attacks. If I were going to do an abstracted game-design thing with fighting styles and go for simple and realistic-ish, what I'd do is this: Single weapon and empty hand: Standard damage, grapple option. Single weapon and shield: Standard damage, big defence bonus. Two weapons: More damage [or possibly more to-hit], small defence bonus. 2-handed weapon: More damage, more reach [or possibly more to-hit if reach isn't a useful thing]. It's probably dumb to try to discuss it without a game framework in mind though. e: One of the problems with 2-weapon fighting and "realistic-ish" is that really a single on-target stab wins a fight and it doesn't matter if it was a fighting dagger or a great big loving sword that got you. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
I think even the original D&D said that an "attack" in the context of a 6-10 second round wasn't representative of a single swing/stab/thrust, but rather an abstraction of all the positioning, parrying, jockeying and multiple attack attempts during that time frame, and a "hit" wasn't so much a single successful attack attempt so much as however more tired and bruised your opponent, hand-in-hand with the concept that Hit Points didn't represent "meat" but rather the physical stature and mental energy required to avoid being dealt a killing blow. A Fighter gained bonus attacks not because he attacked "faster" in the literal sense, but that he simply found more opportunities to beat and batter his opponent within the same 6-10 second time frame, and since an attack has nothing to do with individual arm motions, the bonus attacks would always happen regardless of what weapon would be used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Original D&D through 2nd ed AD&D used 1 minute combat rounds. Other than that, yes, that's what those old books all say. De-emphasising the abstraction of combat is one of the things that's led to a lot of weirdness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:The changelog was pretty funny (in a sad, depressing way) So it was directly mirroring the 5e PHB, MM and DMG experience?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:The lotus notes of TTRPG software? Also, I've decided to go Fighter 4/Paladin 16. I want the ability score increase and I'm willing to miss out on fifth-level spells for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
So I found a/the formula for computing DPR - my next question would be if monster HP is/should be based on an expected fight length or if it should be more towards just escalating hit dice as the level increases. My thinking was more towards the former since basing a monster's HP/AC level as a percentage of an expected average DPR means you can design them such that you're never completely outpacing a character's output, but then I don't know how long a combat should last.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:e: One of the problems with 2-weapon fighting and "realistic-ish" is that really a single on-target stab wins a fight and it doesn't matter if it was a fighting dagger or a great big loving sword that got you. The other problem with 'realistic-ish' fighting in a fantasy milieu is that a lot of the things you're fighting are way tougher than a human. A vaguely realistic crunchy system designed around a single clean strike being able to kill a man and everything else is maneuvering to get that clean strike will implode messily when your dude is fighting something as tough as a boar or a moose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So I found a/the formula for computing DPR - my next question would be if monster HP is/should be based on an expected fight length or if it should be more towards just escalating hit dice as the level increases. What, exactly, are you trying to do, and why are you trying to do it? Is the goal to create a monster in 5E?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The other problem with 'realistic-ish' fighting in a fantasy milieu is that a lot of the things you're fighting are way tougher than a human. A vaguely realistic crunchy system designed around a single clean strike being able to kill a man and everything else is maneuvering to get that clean strike will implode messily when your dude is fighting something as tough as a boar or a moose. Yes, the Boar/Moose would implode messily, because spears and reach. Well we are assuming the person is not an idiot and isnt using a prison shiv to combat an animal. And that would be cool actually. Just with the caveat that magical/quick(more accelerated) healing does exist in this world but still takes ample time. Because being out for a long time when you have easy access to civilisation isn't cool. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:What, exactly, are you trying to do, and why are you trying to do it? Is the goal to create a monster in 5E? Exactly right. I can't see any rhyme or reason to the MM monster design, but I figure it should be possible to have at least some rough guidelines on creating a monster using the capabilities of the characters as a starting point: Given the attack bonus (attribute modifier+proficiency bonus) and the basic attack damage of a player of any given level, set the AC to have about a 60% chance to hit and then adjust the HP until it'd take approximately x rounds (I'm thinking 4?) to kill. Spells and abilities and the action economy/focus fire will undoubtedly throw this off, but I figure if you start from a baseline of something like "4 goblins would be this strong against 4 Fighters", then you would at least have a better idea of how much more or less strong the individual monsters or the whole group should be as you throw in more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
In regards to two-weapon fighting within the confines of the heroic high fantasy adventures of D&D, I think coming at foes with both weapons on the offense shouldn't be a stretch. That said the mention of Flurry of Blows reminded me of how they represented that in regards to the Monk class in 4e. Once per round whenever the Monk hit with an attack, they could do extra damage to one foe within range. That seems a pretty easy solution without requiring extra rolls, and would allow two-weapon fighting to differ from the more focused single-target damage output of two-handed weapons; letting the user do extra damage to an foe that isn't necessarily the original target of the attack roll. There's something similar to cleave in 4e as well, so I suppose that could be an option for two-handers to specialize in as well, while maybe two-weapon fighters can specialize in the defensive; although that is maybe getting into a more complicated feats sort of territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:FLURRY OF BLOWS: Before you make an attack with your action, you can declare a flurry of blows. Your attack only does half damage. However, you can make a second attack with your bonus action. This attack also only does half damage. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to this. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
Really Pants posted:There doesn't seem to be any benefit to this. What am I missing? Assuming you're more likely to hit than miss, it'll make your damage slightly more consistent, but not really enough to do much of anything. And if you're less likely to hit, there's no point at all to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:28
|
|
