|
I have a bit of an issue with the setup of those thought experiments. Surviving an infinite conga line isn't what D&D combat is typically like. It's usually a race to depletion, exhausting their lives before they exhaust yours. Why does this matter? Well, for example take the Lay on Hands ability. It gives 30 extra hp, great, but it also takes a whole action. There are many situations where you'd rather make your two extra attacks instead of Lay on Hands. Killing the last orc right now is more valuable than restoring some hp and giving the orc another chance to shave some off again. Polar Bears (or better yet, cave bears) on the other hand can self-heal and still dish out tremendous amounts of damage. In terms of accuracy and damage I think they're actually ahead of 6th level Fighters. Especially ones that put their feats and maneuvers into survivability. I suspect Fighters and Paladins can be more tanky than Druids in terms of pure damage soaking, but in terms of contributing to an actual fight the Druid is still unmatched.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:...yes it would. Like I posted, he wanted to know if he'd done anything wrong. I can't believe I missed that, though. I missed it when actually playing too. Even if Bark Skin stays up all the time, it won't matter super-much. The orc DPS goes from 0.7 * 9=6.3 to 0.5 * 9 = 4.5 So your rounds as a bear go from 27 to 38, so you'll survive 11 rounds more. That's still less than the Fighter and the Paladin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I have a bit of an issue with the setup of those thought experiments. I have the same issues with these scenarios. Can you suggest a better way of trying to figure this out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I have the same issues with these scenarios. Can you suggest a better way of trying to figure this out? Not a mathematical one, no. That's a strength and weakness of RPGs: they blend together an endless array of elements, priorities, and situations. The fight against five ogres you happen to spot down the road is nothing like the fight against the five ogres who killed your parents, even if you all stat blocks are otherwise the same. There's also the place within the session to consider. Did you fight other things before this encounter? Do you still have your best spells and powers available because you really need to nail your parents' killers or did you already spend them to make sure you even got this far? Do you expect other fights after this one? Will you conserve some power or will you go full nova because you can't let these killers get away, even if it'll increase later risks to yourself? And so on. Math works great for comparing one spell with one other spell, or one feat with another feat, things like that. But whole classes over whole fights? I can't get closer than some math at the micro-level and use that to build a gut feeling. A better man than I will have to come up with a good way to handle these thought experiments through math. Hmm. That was a lot of words to say "nope."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
That's more than reasonable, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I have the same issues with these scenarios. Can you suggest a better way of trying to figure this out? Also, while it doesn't make much (any?) difference, your friend's math on the parry dice is off in the first scenario. It assumes an average roll of 4.5, which is the average for 1D8+0, but ignores the fact that on a roll of 7-8 the fighter parries more damage than the orcs deal out in a round. Actual average is 4.125, for 16.5 extra HP worth of damage reduction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
I feel like it's unreasonable to have the Paladin just burning his actions on self-healing every round. What does the math look like if they're assumed to be, say, attacking 2 out of every 3 turns or more?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
It's also pretty unreasonable to spend all your superiority dice on Parry - or even to take Parry, honestly. Heavy Armor Mastery is also very questionable in CharOp terms (as far as anything in 5e can be). e: Like at that point you have to start looking at stuff like the Dodge action. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Why is heavy armor mastery questionable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Why is heavy armor mastery questionable? It doesn't scale. At all. DR3 is amazing at first level when kobolds are trying to hit you. And pointless at high level when dragons are trying to snack on you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:It doesn't scale. At all. DR3 is amazing at first level when kobolds are trying to hit you. And pointless at high level when dragons are trying to snack on you. It's true that it doesn't scale, but in 5e many higher level monsters rely on multiple attacks rather than just one big wallop. An adult red dragon is one of highest level monsters in the game and it attacks physically for 26/15/15 damage, so 56 total if they all hit. HAM can reduce that to 47 which is about a 15-20% reduction. I don't think that's a poor investment. If you'd taken a +1 Con bonus instead you'd get at most 20 hp out of it, but this feat can exceed that value in just seven hits. Not all at once even, just spread out over the day. I don't think the feat is pointless against high level fights, but I do think it's absolutely bonkers against hordes of lower level trash. Anybody else remember that claim that 5e would support big fights against larger hordes thanks to bounded accuracy? Well, HAM kind of wrecks that idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
There's a preview of downtime activities from the DMG now. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-downtime-activities Regarding the creation of magic items: 1. The DM says whether or not you can do it. 2. You must be a spellcaster to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:It's true that it doesn't scale, but in 5e many higher level monsters rely on multiple attacks rather than just one big wallop. Yeah, to me it seems like it's a must-have feat unless your DM just really loves solo monsters. With bounded accuracy you're going to get hit more by low level creatures than you would have in prior editions, so having a permanent damage reduction is incredibly useful. Going back to my ranger question, one of the players at my table is suggesting that they might as well be considered a profession like blacksmiths in that they learn to track, identify natural stuff, and calm animals. It's not a terrible viewpoint from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Oh my god there is a literal 'roll to see if I'm getting drunk' table
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
quote:The Building a Stronghold table shows the cost of building the stronghold (including materials and labor) and the amount of time it takes, provided that the character is using downtime to oversee construction. Work can continue while the character is away, but each day the character is away adds 3 days to the construction time. Am I stupid or will the construction just carry on forever with this clause. quote:You are jailed for 1d4 days at the end of the downtime period on charges of disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. You can pay a fine of 10 gp to avoid jail time, or you can try to resist arrest. quote:You regain consciousness in a strange place with no memory of how you got there, and you have been robbed of 3d6 × 5 gp. quote:You make an enemy. This person, business, or organization is now hostile to you. The DM determines the offended party. You decide how you offended them. The third makes sense as a potential plot hook, but yeah let's just randomly gently caress over the players 20% of the time on the first two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Am I stupid or will the construction just carry on forever with this clause. No, it just means that they need to spend 3 or 4 times as long (depending on how you interpret the lovely natural language) at home doing gently caress-all whilst their castle gets built, as out playing the game. gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Am I stupid or will the construction just carry on forever with this clause. If the PC never returns, yes. Otherwise no. (And if you wanted a castle there, why would you never return?) That said it's still a deeply stupid rule. The idea that an architect or skilled crew couldn't finish a castle in your absence is ludicrous. There's also this weird unspoken assumption that every PC is some sort of wunderkind at overseeing fortification constructions. Give a first level Druid a sack of cash and he'll arrange a stronghold that otherwise could literally never be finished. Edit: Minor nitpick, but... If the table makes you roll 1d100 + level, why does the entry start with 1? Unless there's rules for level 0 PCs (how the gently caress do you have downtime to spend on carousing if you level up within less than a session anyway?) there is no earthly way to ever score a 1. Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:That said it's still a deeply stupid rule. The idea that an architect or skilled crew couldn't finish a castle in your absence is ludicrous. There's also this weird unspoken assumption that every PC is some sort of wunderkind at overseeing fortification constructions. Give a first level Druid a sack of cash and he'll arrange a stronghold that otherwise could literally never be finished. I don't think it's implying that the character is directly helping out with the construction so much as the writers are projecting modern-day issues with contractors not working on a house unless the client is on-site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Minor nitpick, but... D&D next's designers are half-arsed fuckwits, news at 11?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
I think they put in backwards by mistake. It's supposed to be Every 3 days you are away adds a day to the construction time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Also loving ARGH 'truth juice, make a DC whatever CON save. Cannot knowingly tell a lie.' Christ, no. I don't know which would be worse: having a hundred different definitions of the same condition scattered over a bunch of sources or reading the same definition reprinted everywhere it comes up, but neither is preferable to just saying, "look, we already told you what this thing means, go read it here in the book we know you already have." Maybe some kind of "Pathologically honest" condition could be defined that's better than this, but meh...give casters spells and give non-casters other stuff, get complaints about non-casters not being able to do stuff. Give non-asters the ability to emulate spells and get complaints that you're just giving them the ability to imitate some spells. No-win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Which would be fine if they actually gave non-casters the ability to meaningfully impact the plot in any way at all (without saying 'like a Wizard does').
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Like a wizard who is of sufficient level, has this one spell in their spellbook, prepared it this morning and has slots of that level left, sure. There are spells that make enemies prone, like a fighter does, but they refer you to the list of conditions instead of to the combat chapter. If "excessive truthiness" were a condition and both the poison and the spell description directed you there, it would be the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I think they put in backwards by mistake. It's supposed to be Every 3 days you are away adds a day to the construction time. This would make sense which is why I'm confident it's not correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
If excessive truthiness were a condition and both ways of achieving it pointed to the 'excessive truthiness' condition, that would be fine. Just like 'prone' is a condition and fighters and wizards both point to it. But that;s not an analogous situation. The analogous situation would be 'Grease: make an area of grease which knocks the enemy prone as per the 'knockdown assault' maneuver'. And even then, it wouldn't be totally the same, because prone doesn;t have anywhere near the plot implications of 'cannot knowingly tell a lie'. And even then... part of the point is that the cross-reference to the spell is ENTIRELY unnecessary. For once, natural language actually works ('cannot knowingly tell a lie' is about as clear as natural language gets) but they felt it for some reason necessary to analogise it to a wizard spell. It's not necessary in the prone case above, and it's not necessary here, but they still do it because
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
But even if it were the "natural language" phrasing in both the spell and the poison, would the point not still just be letting a non-caster emulate a spell effect, just making it slightly less obvious that this is the case?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
*blink* The point would be that the non-caster gets a way to be cool without bringing a spell into it *at all*. SO what if it does the same thing as a sell, so does knockdown assault but that doesn't make it less cool. What would make it less could would be 'knockdown assault: knock a single enemy prone as per the grease spell'. By not cross-referencing the spell unnecessarily, you avoid reference to the spell. How is this so hard? It would be EVEN COOLER if non-casters got unique ways to affect the plot that wizards DIDN'T get, but that's YET another argument entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
The idea is that most games give you DAZED as a condition that the the wizard spell Confusion puts on an enemy, or a fighter applies by rolling a concussion crit. Except in D&D, where a fighter might daze an opponent as per the wizard spell Confusion. It's one of the stupidest things about most D&D. The mechanics of the game are coded in the rules of one class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Wizardchat aside - I asked this several pages ago but didn't get a response. I heard the DMG will be released to some brick and mortar stores on Black Friday. Is this going to be like Barnes & Noble or FLGSes or both? Or is the answer up to your GM?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:It's true that it doesn't scale, but in 5e many higher level monsters rely on multiple attacks rather than just one big wallop. Though they're also more likely to use magic weapons or have attacks that count as magical or whatever at higher levels in which case gently caress your feat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:Wizardchat aside - I asked this several pages ago but didn't get a response. I heard the DMG will be released to some brick and mortar stores on Black Friday. Is this going to be like Barnes & Noble or FLGSes or both? Or is the answer up to your GM? I called my local today and they're going to have it Friday; they're one of the special stores that get to release it first (I can't remember the name of the program), which B&N isn't, but which your game store might. Now, will stores like B&N, who have it in storage already, break the street date either intentionally or accidentally because it's Black Friday and they want it on the shelves when they get mobbed, and/or because the people doing the stocking are too overworked to pay attention to things like street date on a crate of books? Very likely. polisurgist fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:*blink* Personally, I don't see much of a difference between the two aside from ease of referencing, but I'm not gonna say you're wrong to want it the other way. My opinion is that it's at worst an annoying artifact of the spell being written first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
In which case it's only lovely editing and indexing then, which is better because
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Yo, I'm making my first 5th Edition D&D Character for a 3rd level campaign, and I was wondering if there was anything I was missing/doing wrong here: Kev, son of Kev, of the Grimidior Clan Half Orc Bear Totem Barbarian Bodyguard, True Neutral, 3rd Level Str - 17 Dex - 14 Con - 14 Wis - 12 Int - 10 Cha - 8 HP - 12+2d12+6 (31?) AC - Saving Throw Proficiencies - Strength and Constitution Speed - 30ft Languages - Common and Orcish and Dwarfish Background: Outlander (Tribal maraurder, watch over my friends, Honor, bond with my charge, slow to trust) Wanderer: Can remember terrain and forage food Primal Path Proficiency Bonus - +2 Rages per Day - 3 Rage Damage Bonus - +2 Darkvision Relentless Endurance - Once per long rest, when dropped to 0hp but not outright killed, you may drop to 1hp instead. Savage Attack - Critical hits with melee weapons gain an additional damage die based on the weapon used. Rage - 1 min duration, advantage Str checks and saving throws, damage bonus on melee weapons, resistance to blud/pierc/slash Unarmored Defense - +Con bonus to AC if wearing no armor Reckless Attack - Gain Advantage on first Str melee attack, enemies gain advantage when attacking you for one round Bear Totem - When raging, gain resistance to all damage except Psychic Danger Sense - advantage on Dex saving throws for threats you can see Proficiencies - Light and Medium Armor, Shields, Simple and Martial Weapons, Drums Skill Proficiencies: Intimidation, Perception, Athletics, Survival Spells - Beast Sense (Ritual), Speak with Animals (Ritual) Equipment: Staff, belt with pouch with 10g, hunting trap, bear claw necklace, explorers pack 2d4 Gold Weapons: Maul 2x Handaxes 4x Javelins
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Carousing is like the most boring table ever. 60-70% chance of nothing happening aside from Gold going slightly up or down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Carousing is like the most boring table ever. 60-70% chance of nothing happening aside from Gold going slightly up or down. The first thing that popped into my mind was the Dead Alewives skit, which I always thought was a joke but nope
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Like with a lot of things in 5e, I like the carousing table in theory but not in execution. The act of getting drunk as gently caress on the spoils of your last adventure is really appropriate to the genre of D&D, but turning the activity into a table where most of the results are just money going down isn't all that interesting. Basically, I'd make it so that when you carouse you spend your normal lifestyle cost, it counts as a long rest, and you get to roll on a table where all the results are all new potential plot hook. None of this "You wake up in a ditch, lose all your money," rather something like "You've become romantically involved with someone you shouldn't have," or "You wake up with no recollection of what happened last night and to find out you must follow an elaborate string of clues to discover the extent of the destruction you caused last night."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
re: carousingquote:Carouse Just play Dungeon World. Really. Still uses natural language (1) and leaves plenty of stuff up to the DM (2), but was designed by people much smarter than the nostalgia addicts that "designed" Next. 1- but doesn't waste as much space as a bloody d100 table 2- by design — because the AW engine is built that way (i.e. GM will use a hard move guided by the game's agenda and principles), not because the GM is in constant need to correct blatant design mistakes (that wouldn't be in the game had the designers done their bloody job) Also note how DW's carousing is more "interesting things happen" and less "you're arbitrarily hosed LOL".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:In which case it's only lovely editing and indexing then, which is better because Because it isn't the result of game designers publishing books to insult you, personally, because they hate you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Unrelated, my 5e campaign's second session was last night, and it's going well. Encounters, if anything, have been easier than I thought they'd be on the PCs, though not complete pushovers (except for the thug ambush where I forgot to employ their gang-up ability). They got through some investigation in the city to get an idea where a dude they've been hunting for might have ended up, we ran few just over a week of overland travel to get there, they did some dungeon-delving (four combat encounters' worth) and had kind of a strategic dilemma about whether to press on into potential danger or to cut their losses with what they have in order to come back later with more supplies. They opted to leave and come back, ran into a couple random encounters on the way home (one a bandit ambush, one helping some lost travelers find their way to the road). The two casters in the group (both bards) are getting a decent amount of utility out of sleep spells, though they're already not one-shot encounter enders (it tends to be most useful after someone else has whittled down the opposition somewhat). Trying to outfit a dungeon with a "correct" amount of treasure in the absence of the DMG is annoying, but if I overdid it somewhat, I figure I have time to make up for it with some leaner adventures. The worst combat encounter for the PCs was a green slime (reskinned gray ooze, but affecting organic matter the way the gray does metal) that one-shotted the rogue (though the rogue was back up after a heal spell on a delayed action). My one initial concern that does seem to be bearing out is that in days with roughly one encounter (as you tend to get with random encounters in overland travel), the PCs having access to all their daily resources tends to make the opposition go over easier than normal. But overall, it's been enjoyable, the whole group has contributed thus far and I've been able to deal with the PCs going off the rails a bit. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong here, because from everything I've heard, this is not how this game is supposed to go at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:36
|
|