|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wrote a short guide for myself to compile all of the Actions and conditions and Next-specific terms into a single document, and also to write-up level 1 character examples for quick character creation and kind of got carried away. Maybe someone will find it useful. Feedback would be appreciated There's a really good cheat sheet made by ritorix that's linked in the op. I printed those out and have copies to my fellow players and the dm. Perhaps because we had all played other versions of dnd, we assume that certain things worked a certain way when that's not always the case. Anyway, as much as I like that, I like this guide, too. I especially appreciate the pregens as I haven't yet played any class besides the cleric so I might use some of those. Gerdalti posted:A few questions about actions and bonus actions. It specifically says in the players guide that you can only cast one spell per round, even if it's a bonus action. But if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can still use a cantrip as a regular action. It also says in the description of potion of healing that it takes an action to drink it. As far as allotted actions, I think you have a bonus action, an action or a bonus action and also a move.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
A polearm adds five to your reach when you attack with it. If you're standing there frozen in stasis because it's not currently your turn, your reach is still its default 5' and so creatures will provoke attacks from you if they move more than 5' away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
OfChristandMen posted:This is very cool, forwarded it to my players because as much as I've played of 5th so far, specifics still elude us (Concentration Checks/Grappling). Thank you! Specific to grappling though I want to point out that the effect I'm describing in the document already includes the Grappler feat. There's a section at the very end where I note down all the places where I took liberties with the rules. Grappling as written is: 1. If you can attack multiple times, Grappling replaces one of your attacks - it does not need to take up the entire Normal Action 2. A grapple target can never be two sizes larger than you, and it needs to be within Reach 3. You need a free hand to grapple (gently caress if I know how to determine whether someone has a free hand or not) 4. Make a STR(Athletics) check, opposed by the target's STR(Athletics) or DEX(Acrobatics) check 5. If you succeed, the target is now Grappled To break a grapple 1. Use a Normal Action to take a STR(Athletics) or DEX(Acrobatics) check, opposed by the grappler's STR(Athletics) check. If you succeed, you are no longer grappled 2. If the grappler can be incapacitated, the grappled target is released 3. If the grappled target is forcibly moved out of the grappler's reach, the the grappled target is released The Grappled status is: 1. The grappler's movement speed is halved, but the grappled target moves wherever the grappler moves. If the grappled target is two sizes smaller than the grappler, there is no movement reduction 2. The grappled target's movement is reduced to 0 The Grappler Feat is: 1. The grappler has Advantage on melee attack rolls against the grappled target 2. The grappler can use a Normal Action to make another grapple check. If it succeeds, both the grappler and the grappled target are Restrained until the grapple is broken 3. Characters that are one size larger than the grappler do not automatically succeed checks to break the grapple Restrained is: 1. Movement is reduced to 0 2. Attack rolls against a Restrained target have Advantage 3. Attack rolls made by a Restrained character have Disadvantage 4. A Restrained character has Disadvantage on DEX saving throws The word grapple has no more meaning to me now. That's a funny word, grapple. Grapple Grapple Grapple. Gerdalti posted:Does a bonus action have to be a bonus action? Could you do 2 "bonus actions" in a single combat round by using your action? PHB page 189 says: "You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available." DMG page 139 says: "Drinking a potion or administering a potion to another character requires an action." Also, I want a time-traveling machine to punch Gary Gygax (or whoever did it) in the mouth for starting the layout tradition of character creation first before basic game mechanics. That was 188 pages and dozens of mentions of the phrase "Bonus Action" before you get to the part that actually tells you what a Bonus Action is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
In 4th, weren't you able to "trade" actions around? Also, couldn't you hold action to reset your initiative for the round? The whole action, bonus action move thing seems very rigid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Looks like potion action and spell bonus action for two rounds to get buffed then, that should be fine, thanks. Was at work and didn't have my phb handy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wrote a short guide for myself to compile all of the Actions and conditions and Next-specific terms into a single document, and also to write-up level 1 character examples for quick character creation and kind of got carried away. Maybe someone will find it useful. Feedback would be appreciated I found it very useful! Guess who is gonna be Helping and Dodging way more from now on thanks to this. gradenko_2000 posted:Also, I want a time-traveling machine to punch Gary Gygax (or whoever did it) in the mouth for starting the layout tradition of character creation first before basic game mechanics. That was 188 pages and dozens of mentions of the phrase "Bonus Action" before you get to the part that actually tells you what a Bonus Action is. You and me both. It also doesn't help that it never lays out the action economy anywhere in a simple chart going "You can action and also bonus action, with moving in there as you like it." Splitting out movement from the whole action thing was a good move and one I can't find fault with (Spring Attack feat chain was garbage to go "I move and hit a man but also keep going'), but making 'bonus' actions a thing with no coherent documentation just seems like an overreaction against minor/swift/immediate actions being such a mess in 3.X. I am trying to think of a game that actually does do it differently, and places character creation stuff in the back, basic fundamental rules (including combat rules!) in the front, and sticks class info and other less-used but useful reference material in the middle. Having differently-coloured borders visible while the book is closed so you can tell sections apart without even opening them to get you into the right area once you do it a few times is also something I love seeing in my books, even if it 'ruins' the faux spellbook thing that some books go for. But, for example, the section on "ability scores and what they do" was in the front of 3.X, and considering how much more they want them to matter here, why are they buried in the deep middle of the book?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
I think character creation first would be fine if they briefly explained why you would want to choose what or have a certain score in something and maybe an example of character creation (and why that character turned out the way it did) at the end. Just front loading all the mechanics might be a little intimidating for a new player especially if it's as crunchy as D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Thanks for the help guys, IMO it is all dumb as hell that this conversation had to even happen. It's actually about elegance in gaming construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:I think character creation first would be fine if they briefly explained why you would want to choose what or have a certain score in something and maybe an example of character creation (and why that character turned out the way it did) at the end. Just front loading all the mechanics might be a little intimidating for a new player especially if it's as crunchy as D&D. Laying it out in an intelligent manner, certainly, but then again it's not like it'd happen in D&D as it stands now, right? Like, having a third of the book being SPELLS SPELLS SPELLS is going to deep-six anything you try to do in reforming the layout anyway, so I suppose I was hoping for either a better D&D, or someone to point out somewhere it had actually been done, as I was drawing a blank on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:Laying it out in an intelligent manner, certainly, but then again it's not like it'd happen in D&D as it stands now, right? Like, having a third of the book being SPELLS SPELLS SPELLS is going to deep-six anything you try to do in reforming the layout anyway, so I suppose I was hoping for either a better D&D, or someone to point out somewhere it had actually been done, as I was drawing a blank on it. Edge of the Empire has its character creation after a chapter on how to play but its obsessed with its weird unique dice and charts so its definitely not an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
I just flipped through it, but how many random, unnecessary pieces of full page art are filling up the DMG? I noticed a few, most egregiously the giant picture of a boring city that wasn't even a map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:A polearm adds five to your reach when you attack with it. If you're standing there frozen in stasis because it's not currently your turn, your reach is still its default 5' and so creatures will provoke attacks from you if they move more than 5' away. Well I feel silly. This is obviously the correct result, but it's worded so badly. Opponent is 5' away, moves beyond that and is out of my reach, so I get to use an opportunity attack with my polearm which extends my reach to 10' but it doesn't matter because the attack triggers just before the opponent leaves my original reach of 5'. Can I OA a dude who moves from 6 to 11 feet away from me? I guess not, because my reach isn't 10' until I attack, which I can't do as an OA because that opponent hasn't left my default reach? e: dirtycajun posted:Thanks for the help guys, IMO it is all dumb as hell that this conversation had to even happen. Sorry I buggered up my initial reading. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
I'm glad you were wrong and asked about it because now I know that I was wrong and can stop being wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
A couple different rules at play there. 1) You can make an OA against anyone leaving your reach. 10' reach, 15' reach, whatever. 2) Reach gives attacks extra range. 3) Mage Slayer only works within 5' of you. If they back up 5', they don't provoke from your reach weapon and you don't get to Mage Slay them with the reach weapon. But then you need to know secret rule #4: You always have an unarmed attack option. So they still provoke for moving 5' away and you can bite them. Unarmed attacks are a melee weapon in 5e. Even if you only hit for 1 damage + STR mod, he'll have to make a CON save with disadvantage if he has a concentration spell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
I got all that, my question is whether your Reach weapon ("This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it") is usable for making an OA when someone leaves 10' of you (your reach as if you'd attacked them rather than your default reach). Asking because of this: Ferrinus posted:A polearm adds five to your reach when you attack with it. If you're standing there frozen in stasis because it's not currently your turn, your reach is still its default 5' and so creatures will provoke attacks from you if they move more than 5' away. e: Which kind of applies to what you're saying. e2: I've completely confused myself now. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
I...I don't loving know. I guess a literal reading of the rules would be 'polearms only have reach when attacking; polearms are just like all other melee weapons and can make OAs from within 5' and only from within 5'.' I doubt that was the designer intent, but when you write lovely rules we end up with reach weapons that can't reach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
That's the literal reading as I understand it, yeah. The simple rules change would be that polearms increase your reach by 5' while you're wielding them, but that would mean you could only make an OA when someone left (reach+5') of you. I can't figure out how to word rules to get the desired result (ie, you can make your OA when the opponent leaves 5' of you, or <5' or 10' of you> if you're wielding a reach weapon) without getting convoluted, introducing unintended results (like opponent switching from the front of you to beside you giving an OA*), or referring to a grid that doesn't exist. *Or an opponent moving from the 5-10' range band to the 0-5' range band giving an OA, which while that's what polearms are for also sounds like it wasn't the designer's intent, given that the optional weapon speed rules make polearms slower than single-handed stuff. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Like I said last page, this will be solved by Mike Mearls swinging a broom around the Wizard's offices and then coming up with how polearms should ACTUALLY behave you see, because at Agincourt, glaive guirsame, bohemian ear-spoon you see, the halberd can OBVIOUSLY be grasped by the short haft, but lucern hammer? I await the full Polearm Rules Module.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Here's a weapons and armour module right here. Melee weapons come in light (d6), medium (d8), and heavy (d12). Small weapons can be dual-wielded. Medium weapons can either be Finesse (can use Dex instead of Str if you want) or Versatile (use single handed for 1d8 or 2-handed for 1d12). Heavy weapons require 2 hands and give you 5' extra reach whenever having 5' extra reach would benefit you. Range weapons come in Small (d6) and Large (d8). Small range weapons pick (one-handed short range) or (2 handed medium range). Large range weapons require 2 hands and pick (unusable from horseback, long range) or (usable from horseback, medium range). Armour comes in light (12 + dex mod), medium (15 + dex mod max 2), and heavy (18). Describe your gear. I think that keeps the current rules mostly intact, if anyone wants to point out somewhere it falls apart, let me know. Unless you're pointing out that the 1 pound weight difference between a battleaxe and a longsword is necessary for realistic verisimilitude, in which case this module is obviously not your thing. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Here's a weapons and armour module right here. You didn't say what dual wielding was. Worst rules ever. Rannos22 fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
I just copied 4E's definition of Opportunity Attacks: it gets triggered whenever someone moves, casts a spell, or attacks with a ranged weapon while within 5 feet of you. Now I should probably go through the guide and change all instances of "within 5 feet of you" to "within your Reach" AlphaDog posted:Here's a weapons and armour module right here. Yeah but what about the difference between Bludgeoning and Sla-  Seriously though yeah that's exactly how it should be run. I'm also thinking about dual-wield simply turning your weapon category from Medium to Heavy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Alpha Dog's idea reminds me a lot of Dungeon World for some reason.  I still need to play that someday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Here's a weapons and armour module right here. Isn't this exactly what 13th Age does?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Here's a weapons and armour module right here. Only issue with that is that there's no reason to take a small two handed ranged weapon over a large one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
For those with more knowledge about older D&D, wasn't the idea of "Bounded Accuracy" already a thing back then? Looking at my Rules Cyclopedia, a Fighter wearing Plate Mail and a shield has an AC of 2 even before DEX adjustments. A Huge Black Dragon with 14 Hit Dice would need to roll an 8 or better to hit AC 0 according to the attack rolls table, which is a 65% chance. I'm reasonably sure that AD&D/2E followed a similar "static progression" as well In Next, a Fighter could be wearing Plate armor and a shield and the Defense Fighting Style for AC 21. An Ancient Black Dragon (CR 21) with +15 attack would have a 75% chance of hitting him In both cases, the balance/scaling could break if the DM starts handing out +1 shields and whatsits like candy, but there's no particular reason for that to actually happen I guess what I'm saying is, wasn't the "problem" of stats constantly increasing but not really since everything increases right along with it mostly a 3rd and 4th Edition phenomenon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I guess what I'm saying is, wasn't the "problem" of stats constantly increasing but not really since everything increases right along with it mostly a 3rd and 4th Edition phenomenon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:You didn't say what dual wielding was. Worst rules ever. ...no, I did not. Is it not covered in the rulebook under something other than weapon categories? Azran posted:Alpha Dog's idea reminds me a lot of Dungeon World for some reason. Damage in DW is based on your class, but I see where you're coming from kinda. Night10194 posted:Isn't this exactly what 13th Age does? I have no idea. At some point I promise I will purchase and read 13th Age instead of just reading about 13th Age. djw175 posted:Only issue with that is that there's no reason to take a small two handed ranged weapon over a large one. You're right. I was thinking "shortbow" with that (in my mind, that's like a horsebow, not a smaller longbow). Here's the point where I could talk about legacy mechanics, but instead I will admit that I just didn't think real hard about bows/slings/crossbows/whatever. I think you could safely delete that option and it wouldn't be a drama (you end up with pistol-crossbow/sling, shortbow/crossbow, and longbow categories, which I think probably covers enough?) Full disclosure: I am not, and have never been, interested in being the bow guy. gradenko_2000 posted:I'm also thinking about dual-wield simply turning your weapon category from Medium to Heavy. It pretty much does? It shouldn't give you Reach though. I think that's worth the separate wording. I'd actually also consider dividing things up into polearms (2-hand, Reach, 1d10) and heavy weapons (2-hand, 1d12), although I'm not sure you need that differentiation, and a D&D "great weapon" is pretty loving big - at least big enough in my mind to justify a range advantage. The thing I was going for was: 2 small weapons = one large weapon in terms of damage. 1 medium weapon means one of <use it as a large weapon or with a shield> or <use your dex modifier instead of your str>. Large weapon means a reach advantage and max damage, but you can't use a shield. Thinking harder, all small weapons need the finesse option so that rogue types can do big damage properly. (e: thinking again, I'd say you can use a medium finesse weapon with a small weapon to dual wield too, but it doesn't change your damage output compared to using two small weapons). gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah but what about the difference between Bludgeoning and Sla-  Yes, I know you're jokinge: Actually, I think this needs a real response. Probably a paragraph something like "You can use your weapon to make unorthodox or unexpected attacks, because you have trained with it. You can even use your weapon for things other than inflicting damage on an opponent. Think about how you've described your gear. Need to pierce a barrel? Did you describe the spike on the top of your war hammer? Sweet. Need to cut a rope? How exactly are you going to do that with your "big club made from a tree trunk"? Need to hammer a nail in? You can get away with using your sword pommel at least a few times before you gently caress it up. Skeletons are immune to slashing damage* and all you have is a longsword? You're a-ok, because you're a competent swordsman and grabbing the blade and beating someone to death with the pommel was "Lesson 5/30: The Murder-Stroke" at Dodgy Dave's Discount Badass Academy** and you've only been getting better since then".  *I mean, disregarding "gently caress damage types" for a moment. **It was lesson 10 at Honest Zephim's School Of Valiant Heroes, but he believes in blocking. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
This is a good discussion! I changed the simple weapons layout to incorporate your idea, AlphaDog: Light weapons can be dual-wielded One-handed weapons are either finesse, which lets you use DEX, or versatile, which lets you the weapon as two-handed weapon Two-handed weapons require both hands, and are the only weapons that can be 10-foot Reach weapons What the weapon actually is, I leave up to the player and their group The other thing I did was turn Charge into a basic action because holy poo poo did they seriously turn it into a Feat? Night10194 posted:Isn't this exactly what 13th Age does? It does something similar. All weapons are either one-handed or two-handed, and then either small, light/simple, and heavy/martial. A Fighter's one-handed weapons are a 1d4 dagger for small, a 1d6 short sword for light/simple, and a 1d8 long sword for martial. A Fighter's two-handed weapons are a 1d6 club for small, a 1d8 spear for light/simple, and a 1d10 greatsword for martial. A Wizard's one-handed weapons are a 1d4 dagger for small, a 1d6-2 short sword for light/simple, and a 1d8-5 long sword for martial. A Wizard's two-handed weapons are a 1d6 staff for small, a 1d8-2 spear for light/simple, and a 1d10-5 greatsword for martial. 13th Age also mostly simplifies the whole dual-wielding hullaballoo: you can dual-wield all you like, but the only mechanical benefit is that if you roll a natural 2 on the attack roll, you can reroll but must use the reroll. And then only Rangers have real dual-wield-ability. Scarlet Heroes, an OSR game, goes one step farther: you can use any weapon you like, go hog-wild, but if you're a Wizard you're capped at d4 damage dice no matter what weapon you're using. If you're a Cleric, d6. Thief, d8. Fighters get the full 1d10 if their weapon reaches that high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
It's also worth mentioning that the 13A weapon dice can be situational. A dagger might be worth 1D12 if you're cutting your way out of a giant snake, while a comically oversized two-handed warmaul might only be worth 1D4 in a cramped crawlspace or underwater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Here's a weapons and armour module right here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Ignoring the damage dice things, a lot of those rules would be interesting to implement into Dungeon World
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I was thinking about multiclassing for a really fun Shadow monk. What are your thoughts on this build? Seems like the Devil's Sight + Darkness + Shadow Step combo could be ridiculously powerful, adding in Flurry of Blows, Sneak Attack and the almost always Advantage on attacks, would mean tons of damage per round. Plus the enemy would have Disadvantage against you with Darkness. code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Power Player posted:For finesse weapons, would you make it that Dex affects both damage AND attack rolls, like 5E, or make it only affect attack rolls, like 3.0/Pathfinder? I think right now one of the problems is that there's little reason to use a strength-based weapon since now finesse weapons affect both attack and damage rolls, and the only time you really need a good Strength score is for two-handers and Athletics. Meanwhile, Dex affects finesse weapon damage rolls and attack rolls, initiative, a bunch more skills, and dex saves (which are way more common then strength saves). If this were 3.X, I'd say that finesse should definitely add to hit and damage, because losing somewhere between 4 and 10 damage per hit is just way too much to miss out on. In Next, though, that's only up to 5 damage you're missing out on, and you can get 4 for 'free' by using gauntlets of ogre strength to just set your str to 19. That's annoying and basically an item-slot-tax though, so I'd be inclined to add dex to damage anyway, even if it's overpowered. The better way to make str desirable would be to add in something else to make it good. Off-hand, combining str with con would accomplish that handily. Failing that, I dunno, make heavy armour give (14 + str), and while wearing it you can use str in place of dex for saves (because honestly, you need a chance at being survivable when fireballs are flying around). That way str gives slightly better numbers (1d12 vs 1d8, AC up to 19 vs 17), but dex gives initiative and a bunch of skills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Power Player posted:For finesse weapons, would you make it that Dex affects both damage AND attack rolls, like 5E, or make it only affect attack rolls, like 3.0/Pathfinder? I think right now one of the problems is that there's little reason to use a strength-based weapon since now finesse weapons affect both attack and damage rolls, and the only time you really need a good Strength score is for two-handers and Athletics. Meanwhile, Dex affects finesse weapon damage rolls and attack rolls, initiative, a bunch more skills, and dex saves (which are way more common then strength saves). I really want to just yell  DTAS at this part of the discussion, but it's fun trying to fit concepts inside the D&D container, so... My gut feeling is that you should have the option of using Dex for both hit and damage for finesse weapons. That's probably wrong from a game perspective though - making Dex better is probably a pretty bad idea. I like Dilb's idea about combining Str and Con, since it would probably go a ways towards fixing the ability score nightmare that martial PCs have to deal with too. That's probably outside the scope of a weapons/armour module though. Using your Str mod for saves might make sense from a game balance perspective, but I'm having trouble seeing how being real strong helps me alleviate fireball damage*. I like the idea of using your Str mod to increase your heavy or even medium armour's AC (ie, actively using your armour). Same goes for shields, although adding your full STR mod to AC for armour and shield would produce dumb numbers. Maybe armour needs to look more like this: Light AC 12 + dex mod Medium AC 14 + dex mod max 2 or + str mod max 2 Heavy AC 16 + Str mod max 2 I'm not seeing a great reason to use Medium armour with your STR mod though. Giving the full str mod to medium armour looks like it would make heavy armor useless. poo poo, maybe armour needs to just be None, Light, or Heavy? *I'm trying to fit ideas into the D&D framework here. If Str was called "Fightering" or something instead, then yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:...no, I did not. Is it not covered in the rulebook under something other than weapon categories? I dunno I was mostly joking anyways. quote:I have no idea. At some point I promise I will purchase and read 13th Age instead of just reading about 13th Age. You really should it does a good job of making a more "modern", slightly more streamlined d&d (though it hangs on to a few too many sacred cows imo).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
How insane would it be to try and convert 4E Wizard spells so that they don't get ridiculous bullshit like Wish and True Polymorph and all their generalist/utility spells, and Sleep is just "target is slowed, save ends" and Invisibility is just 1 turn? Alternatively, 13th Age's spells seem similarly not so out there and are already converted into the 9 level scheme (alternatively, just run 13th Age, but it still has Feats and I like tactical combat). And this is not solely for Next, mind you - even if I were to play Basic I'd still be dealing with the specter of Floating Disc and Knock and Polymorph and so on (although granted, not as bad if it's done strictly RAW, but who does that?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How insane would it be to try and convert 4E Wizard spells so that they don't get ridiculous bullshit like Wish and True Polymorph and all their generalist/utility spells, and Sleep is just "target is slowed, save ends" and Invisibility is just 1 turn? It's a worthwhile endeavour if you're in a situation where you MUST play Next and therefore have to make a ton of house rules to take the worst bits out of the system, but why would you have to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's a worthwhile endeavour if you're in a situation where you MUST play Next and therefore have to make a ton of house rules to take the worst bits out of the system, but why would you have to? As I said, it's not really just for Next - any D&D-derived game still has that same spell list and still has that same problem. Like, the other day the players in the campaign I'm running wanted to buy potions, and I let them buy Potions of Spider Climb because that sounded really interesting, except, oops, the Wizard gets his level 2 spells and Spider Climb is a level 2 spell. So much for interesting. Or I'd like to be more liberal with how many spells a low-level Basic D&D spellcaster can use, but if it means that they can cast so many more Sleeps, that's going to throw the balance out of whack, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How insane would it be to try and convert 4E Wizard spells so that they don't get ridiculous bullshit like Wish and True Polymorph and all their generalist/utility spells, and Sleep is just "target is slowed, save ends" and Invisibility is just 1 turn? It'd be easier and faster to port paired down combat and bounded accuracy to 4e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
LFK posted:It'd be easier and faster to port paired down combat and bounded accuracy to 4e. Yep. Also, porting aspects of 4e forward to 5e probably isn't going to work well at all, since you're losing all the framework that makes it work. That is to say, 4e's a pretty tightly designed game in that all the pieces interlock - I don't think you'll easily be able to move some pieces over to 5e without moving others, and at that point you're really just rewriting 5e completely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 14:53
|
|