|
It didn't make it into the book, the dude who made Dark Dungeons talked to him about it. The DM tells you what the monsters are planning to do. If you say what you're going to do before that, you get +1. After, -1. It's on a d6 so it actually does matter. That way if you want to charge ahead and leave the wizard to his own devices, you can, and you are more likely to attack the monsters first. You can tank for the wizard by waiting back (which you always did after level 9, because you went last anyway) and hearing if the wizard is going to be pummelled or not and getting in the way.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I'm not too familiar with Mantzer D&D - what kind of bonus did you get? Old-school D&D had a strict order in resolving actions. Per my reading of the text from the Basic set, it goes something like: 1. The DM rolls a d6 for monster initiative, one player rolls a d6 for player initiative. 2. All characters will declare their intended actions for the round 3. Characters from the side with higher initiative, that choose to move, will move 4. Characters from the side with higher initiative that choose to fire ranged attacks, will shoot 5. Characters from the side with higher initiative that choose to cast spells, will complete their casting 6. Characters from the side with higher initiative that choose to engage in melee, will conduct their melee attacks 7. Repeat steps 3 to 6, but for the side that lost initiative 8. Do this for every round. Yes, that means that one side may potentially get back-to-back turns And sometimes you would do this for individual characters rather than whole sides. Everyone rolls a d6 (players can have theirs modified by DEX), then everyone declares, then everyone's actions get resolved in order of their rolls. In cases of ties, the DM can choose to have rerolls to break ties, or have ties happen "simultaneously". That is, even if you kill the goblin with your melee attack, the goblin still gets to do his melee attack against you. The thing is, since you tell the DM what you want to do in step 2, any spellcaster that declares that they will cast a spell, but are interrupted by taking a hit, will lose the spell, and other suc temporal considerations. And I think that since it was never explicitly spelled out when you need to "declare actions" whether it's before or after step 1's rolling for initiative, then some people have rules where "if I declare my action before initiative is rolled, I get a +1 to the d6 roll". You're trading away the ability to react to the result of the roll, in exchange for a sizable chance of going first and not needing to react in the first place. EDIT: Okay yeah, Dark Dungeons, which is a retroclone of the Rules Cyclopedia, does codify this: 1. If you wish to declare your action before everyone else, you get a +1 to your d6 initiative roll. Do this now. 2. The DM declares actions for the monsters 3. Anyone who hasn't declared their actions yet, must do so now, at a -1 penalty to their initiative roll. You're trading knowledge of what the monsters are going to do in exchange for a sizable chance of letting the monsters go first 4. Characters roll initiative individually, with the modifiers from steps 1 and 3, and further modified by DEX 5. Actions are resolved in order of initiative gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:
Hey now, 2e had the Kender Taunt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Tendales posted:Hey now, 2e had the Kender Taunt. Yes but that was too effective. We had to kill them all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Everyone arguing that fighters need mechanical ways to tank are inherently buying into caster supremacy. The number one risk in playing a spellcaster in 2e and earlier is death, due to low hps, low armor class, and being targeted. So to be successful the wizards needs to stock up on self defense skills to stay alive, not death spells. Having the dm ignore attacking wizards with arrows is the same result as wanting martials to have mechanical ways to force tanking. It results in the wizard being able to use his limited resource of spells only to be offensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Everyone arguing that fighters need mechanical ways to tank are inherently buying into caster supremacy. Not really. There are always going to be situations where an NPC wants to go where the players don't want it to, and it's not always going to relate to the wizard. Unfortunately for the D&D world, unless your tavern's bouncers are wizards, they can't do dick to keep anyone out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I don't agree. Caster supremacy means that wizards rule the encounter and fighters are irrelevant. I think it's okay for one class to be a damage-dealing artillery platform and the other to be a defender who controls enemies and protects the party - then everyone has an important role to play. This is what 4E did, as far as I can tell. In 5E, even if fighters had tank mechanics, the wizard would simply be inconvenienced for the lack of one, and can still fly away or turn invisible or reverse gravity and plunge all the enemies into the sky or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Everyone arguing that fighters need mechanical ways to tank are inherently buying into caster supremacy. 5e has been predictable with survivability.The classes I see actually dropping in combat the most are the mid or low AC ones. Bards, rogues, anyone that thought AC14 and D6 hit dice was good enough to melee and that have no built in defense option. Casters already survive pretty well, partially due to range, and thanks to shield and dipping for armor. The two most used 5e wizard spells are sleep and shield. Offense and defense. If anything, the shield spell is too good, and should only grant the bonus vs the single incoming attack instead of the rest of the round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Everyone arguing that fighters need mechanical ways to tank are inherently buying into caster supremacy. The number one risk in playing a spellcaster in 2e and earlier is death, due to low hps, low armor class, and being targeted. So to be successful the wizards needs to stock up on self defense skills to stay alive, not death spells. Having the dm ignore attacking wizards with arrows is the same result as wanting martials to have mechanical ways to force tanking. It results in the wizard being able to use his limited resource of spells only to be offensive. Not really though. They're saying at least that fighters have a contribution - a useful and meaningful way to protect their squishier allies. If you're playing a defender and getting pissed because your job is defending your allies, you're probably playing the wrong class. If you're playing what's nominally a defender, but you're getting pissed because you have no meaningful mechanics to back up the role, you're probably playing 5e 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I suggest you stop posting in this thread before someone buys you a red title. I'm not trying to be mean or saying Oh look out! Some angry Internet nerd with Cheeto fingers is so mad at me they spent  of their allowance to give me a red title. Sure showed me! If you think melee characters are useless since they can't force monsters to attack them exclusively because you and your group are too dumb to figure out soft tanking tactics like having ranged players stand far enough back that the monster has to waste it's entire turn moving and eating AOOs or your combats are all taking place in featureless 50' by 50' rooms please go ahead. Clearly nothing I could say will convince you otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:02
|
|
I'm saying that the purpose of this thread is for people to bitch at each other on the internet.
|
DalaranJ posted:I'm certain that the Basic pdf will be updated in sync with the book releases. Ha ha, look at this idiot. So, in news that only I care about, I have been waiting over a month for the basic rules to be updated to include content from the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Oh look out! Some angry Internet nerd with Cheeto fingers is so mad at me they spent I realized after the fact that it sounded like a threat, but it honestly wasn't me. I don't care about 5e enough either way. I warned you though! I knew it would happen. This thread takes the "FIGHTERS STAND THERE, WIZARDS DO EVERYTHING, TIME TO POST THAT 900 TIMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN" grind very, very seriously. Also, did you know that wizards have more support from the system than fighters? I bet you didn't know that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Ha ha, look at this idiot. Which content are you expecting? They did do like 1-2 small updates weeks before the release of Rise of Tiamat and the DMG to slightly modify the encounter building rules (to match what they were going to print) and include a couple of new items.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Oh look out! Some angry Internet nerd with Cheeto fingers is so mad at me they spent For about the eleventy millionth time, hard-tanking mind control techniques and tactical positioning and DM-may-I are  NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS. 4e-style marking, the thing we're all dancing around talking about, IS NOT MMO AGGRO PULLING. It does not force monsters to DO ANYTHING exclusively. It applies a penalty to the marked monster's attacks, and the marking character may be able to do something if the monster tries to get away or attack something else.It doesn't do ANYTHING to compel the monster's actions or remove its choices. It penalises some of those choices, but they're still available choices and indeed, in some cases, very good choices. If I'm playing a defender with twice the HP of the Wizard or Cleric, and 4 points more AC, and particularly if I'm dazed or stunned, have used my immediate action, my own attacks are heavily penalised, etc etc, the monster might well think it's worth its while trying to get away, maybe taking a hit, and whaling on someone less able to weather it, at a -2 penalty. Please acknowledge that you understand this distinction. If not then it's really, really not worth anybody else engaging with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Marking is honestly what attacks of opportunity should have been, except properly distributed so defense-focused classes are better with the defense option than non-defense-focused classes. Doesn't seem lik erocket science to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:If you think melee characters are useless since they can't force monsters to attack them exclusively because you and your group are too dumb to figure out soft tanking tactics like having ranged players stand far enough back that the monster has to waste it's entire turn moving and eating AOOs or your combats are all taking place in featureless 50' by 50' rooms please go ahead. Clearly nothing I could say will convince you otherwise. No one in this thread has said or actually wants that, stop being willfully dense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Which content are you expecting? They did do like 1-2 small updates weeks before the release of Rise of Tiamat and the DMG to slightly modify the encounter building rules (to match what they were going to print) and include a couple of new items. I was looking for an update to the exploration and downtime rules. And who knows what else? The DMG probably has a lot of content I don't know anything about that they could put in the basic rules. You know, modules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:If you think melee characters are useless since they can't force monsters to attack them exclusively because you and your group are too dumb to figure out soft tanking tactics like having ranged players stand far enough back that the monster has to waste it's entire turn moving and eating AOOs or your combats are all taking place in featureless 50' by 50' rooms please go ahead. Clearly nothing I could say will convince you otherwise. And what we've been trying to tell you is that if the Fighter doesn't have the ability to inflict Attacks of Opportunity in the first place, then there is no such thing as "soft tanking tactics" I mean, what do you think AOOs are for in the first place? DalaranJ posted:I was looking for an update to the exploration and downtime rules. Yeah they actually did write rules for those, but they're in the DMG. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Oh look out! Some angry Internet nerd with Cheeto fingers is so mad at me they spent If you weren't aware, in 5e, pcs only have one AoO they can use between their turns so if the DM is playing smart, they'll send one enemy in to draw AoOs ands the rest get to rush past unscathed. If the wizard is far right that the enemy can't get to them in one turn (barring centaurs and the like who'll charge and gently caress up anything squishy they run into), them it's likely that they're also too far to actually get off spells against them. (I don't actually have the 5e rules and I don't care too look it up to check the ranges on Wizard spells)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
let's get back to a more classic flamewar Hexes vs squares: which are better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah they actually did write rules for those, but they're in the DMG. In fact, the basic rules say, basic rules posted:Part 2 details the rules of how to play the game, beyond the basics described in this introduction. That part covers the kinds of die rolls you make to determine success or failure at the tasks your character attempts, and describes the three broad categories of activity in the game: exploration, interaction, and combat. So, I think that it isn't unreasonable for me to feel that if there are specific rules about exploration then they should be added to the basic rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:let's get back to a more classic flamewar Well clearly the answer is the Theatre of the Mind~
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:let's get back to a more classic flamewar Hexes rule, despite the fact that I've never played a TTRPG that uses them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:let's get back to a more classic flamewar Triangles for small, slanted squares for medium and hexes for large size classes. Mediums can share one triangle but not both with another unit. Larges musthave at least 3 free triangles in their hex. For size classes beyond those bounds us a 6 dimensional lattice partially tracked by color, shape, and orientation. You have to be in an adjacent color band to strike a huge target with an up spin. If two tiny targets are entangled, then they share spacetime topology for the purposes of tanking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Hexes rule, despite the fact that I've never played a TTRPG that uses them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Hexes rule, despite the fact that I've never played a TTRPG that uses them. Any game can use hexes if you have a hexmap!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I've played Battletech and Mechwarrior... then may I interest you in D&D Next's Facing Rules?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:then may I interest you in D&D Next's Facing Rules?! Can characters overheat in Next as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Can characters overheat in Next as well? The mental image from this is just the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Fighting goblins at noon with clear skies in the summer in full plate? Sorry by round 3 you're incapacitated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:then may I interest you in D&D Next's Facing Rules?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Can characters overheat in Next as well? My next Bard is going to get the vapors something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Nice that my fighter has to declare a torso twist in order to protect his flank with his shield... An LRM 10 +3 of Troll slaying at level 5?! What is this, Clan Monty Haul...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:then may I interest you in D&D Next's Facing Rules?! The facing rules are amazing because you can tell how little effort went into them. Every melee fight becomes two dudes constantly spinning around the other to backstab them, slowly and inevitably moving in one direction one square at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
So you are telling me Mike Mearls plays Dark Souls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The facing rules are amazing because you can tell how little effort went into them. Every melee fight becomes two dudes constantly spinning around the other to backstab them, slowly and inevitably moving in one direction one square at a time. So basically, Dark Souls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The facing rules are amazing because you can tell how little effort went into them. Every melee fight becomes two dudes constantly spinning around the other to backstab them, slowly and inevitably moving in one direction one square at a time. That's legit what two total beginner (like 3-4 sessions training) smallsword combatants look like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Is there a combat system where they actually managed to nail down tactical movement while engaged? I mean, I consider Warmachine/Hordes to be one of the best combat systems I've ever played on a tabletop, but even then you'll be moving inside someone's engangement range to strike at someone else to avoid triggering opportunity attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Waador posted:Or the grapple action, setting their movement speed to zero. As a fighter you are [probably] proficient in Athletics which means you are rather likely to succeed on that check. Doubly so since you also probably have a high strength score. The fun part of a fighter being good at grapple is that a College of Valor Bard with the same strength at level 5 gets an extra 3 + 1d8 if they chose athletics as one of their expertise skills to get double proficiency, plus their inspiration die. That singy guy is a full caster and is much better at grappling than a fighter without even casting a spell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Victorkm posted:The fun part of a fighter being good at grapple is that a College of Valor Bard with the same strength at level 5 gets an extra 3 + 1d8 if they chose athletics as one of their expertise skills to get double proficiency, plus their inspiration die. The idea of a bard wearing those poofy little minstrel shorts & a big feathery hat while suplexing an orc is absolutely incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 01:20
|
|
