|
Gort posted:Maybe they'll re-write the Monster Manual to take into account the monster creation rules at some point. lol
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
One of the devs already tweeted about that. Basically the guidelines in the DMG are for non-pro game designers and when you have the time to really test and balance things (and ~game design skills~) you can design monsters case by case and even if they don't always abide by the DMG guidelines it's actually better. e: Found it quote:Q. Monster Manual stats seem lower than guides in DMG for making CR-leveled monsters. Are MM monsters under powered? We could afford to be more thorough, and more precise, than the DMG guidelines 
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
kingcom posted:lol They rewrote them for 4E, why is this so lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If you play 5E as close to RAW as possible, including random item drop tables, then theoretically the party's martials are going to come across +1 weapons before the first "need magical to hit" monsters show up, so it's not supposed to be an issue in that regard unless you're also following the tables so blindly that you throw ghosts against a party that just happened to roll unluckily on the random tables in the first place. The only reason I could see throwing characters without magic weapons against a monsters with the immunity is just to kind of preview a villain or something. Example: players are investigating a spooky castle that people in the city have been complaining about. Come across a force far greater than they could have expected and uncovering a much more sinister plot. They get in a fight that they can't win against the big bad (because this is the beginning/middle of the adventure not the end), finding that their attacks are powerless. They get saved/escape before getting wiped out, vowing to better prepare and hunt down the villain. That's the only way I could see using the immunity effectively. Other than that, why does it even exist? It seems like such a pointless characteristic unless WotC is going for the return of the rear end in a top hat antagonistic DM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:They rewrote them for 4E, why is this so lol It would have been good if 5E was an improvement on 4E.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:It seems like such a pointless characteristic unless WotC is going for the return of the rear end in a top hat antagonistic DM. I think you answered your own question there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Ranger Abilities
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:I think you answered your own question there. But... why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:That's the only way I could see using the immunity effectively. Other than that, why does it even exist? So your villain can stomp through a town of villagers, and they'd be literally unable to harm him? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:But... why? Because that's how it was done in the past, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:But... why? Watch Mearls dm and you'll get an idea of how he/the team think the game is supposed to be played. IIRC those streams showcased wights pulling a near TPK because they paralyzed on hit and could attack multiple times per turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Watch Mearls dm and you'll get an idea of how he/the team think the game is supposed to be played. IIRC those streams showcased wights pulling a near TPK because they paralyzed on hit and could attack multiple times per turn. Ooof. That's not to say there aren't a few aspects of 5e that I like. I'm probably going to houserule the movement system into my upcoming 4e game, but I think I'll hold off on touching 5e for a few years to hopefully allow them to fix a lot of these glaring issues. And I mean, to be fair to 5e, even 4e had a lot of hosed up things at launch that did get better over time (such as monster stats with the introduction of MM3).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Watch Mearls dm and you'll get an idea of how he/the team think the game is supposed to be played. IIRC those streams showcased wights pulling a near TPK because they paralyzed on hit and could attack multiple times per turn. Ghouls, not wights. Did they ever fix ghouls, btw?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:They rewrote them for 4E, why is this so lol Because they ran from 4E as hard as they could and CR is very deliberately a throwback to 3E-style monster construction. Mordiceius posted:That's the only way I could see using the immunity effectively. Other than that, why does it even exist? Because every other edition did it, and specifically AD&D or older editions where you really have to bank on the random drop tables giving you a +1 weapon before the random encounter tables came up ghosts. If it didn't and you were a martial class, you just sort of ran interference while hoping that the Wizard had enough spells to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Gort posted:How far back did you quote this from? Jack the Lad posted:Also: CR is not a pure mathematical formula Jackard fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Because every other edition did it, and specifically AD&D or older editions where you really have to bank on the random drop tables giving you a +1 weapon before the random encounter tables came up ghosts. Because that style of game play sounds like SO much fun. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Old D&D grognards are far less concerned with "fun" than what they perceive as RIGHT™.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Because that style of game play sounds like SO much fun. I can dig that playstyle, but since I can get that much more easily/whenever I want with a roguelike I'd rather spend my tabletop time with friends doing something a little more grand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Jackard posted:How is it a formula then No one gives a poo poo about a formula.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Because that style of game play sounds like SO much fun. Well certainly I'm not saying it's a good kind of gameplay, only that it's what the justification is. Dick Burglar posted:Old D&D grognards are far less concerned with "fun" than what they perceive as RIGHT™. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:No one gives a poo poo about a formula.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Watch Mearls dm and you'll get an idea of how he/the team think the game is supposed to be played. IIRC those streams showcased wights pulling a near TPK because they paralyzed on hit and could attack multiple times per turn. I'll have you know that ghouls paralysing and killing a PC who doesn't get a chance to react is right there in the AD&D PHB's example of play. It's traditional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'll have you know that ghouls paralysing and killing a PC who doesn't get a chance to react is right there in the AD&D PHB's example of play. It's traditional. I'm pretty sure the only time I've ever used ghouls post-2e was a special Ghoul with a couple of levels of Cleric, that I used as a boss fight in a dark, maze-like chamber at the bottom of a tomb. I hosed around with the party for a few rounds by having him make little noises from around corners and stuff, and then started the actual fight by having him try to stealth ambush the party's Ranger. I can't imagine legitimately thinking, "Yes, I will have this large group of ghouls ambush the party in the night, killing them all with paralysis and coup de gras maneuvers"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
I was wrong, it was the AD&D DMG. What happens is that the PCs cleverly solve a puzzle, and hoist the gnome up to open the secret door. The gnome goes through, rolls 1 for suprise, and is hit and paralysed by a ghoul "whereupon the DM judges that the other 3 would rend him to bits. However, the DM does NOT tell the players what has happened..." and just describes to them a sickly grey arm pulling the gnome into the dark, followed by tearing and munching noises or something. Like, the reward for solving the puzzle is literally "you are eaten by ghouls". It's very AD&D-by-Gygax, but how anyone would look at it and think "this sort of thing fits right into a modern fun game about heroes" is something I will never understand. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I was wrong, it was the AD&D DMG. I can totally understand having a buttfuck hard adventure such as Tomb of Horrors or the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. But those are the exception, not the rule. To me, those are like one off adventures or "what if" adventures, not the tone of an entire campaign. If you want "gently caress me in the rear end" difficult filled with constant death, that should be relegated to Dark Sun or Gamma World. It seems like some of the 5e creators confuse "illusion of difficulty" with "legitimate impossibility"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Well, our group, with 5 characters at level 6 with a level 7 monk due to some deck of many things hijinx(we had literally 3 player characters put into the Donjon, and when my character won 50k gold worth of gems I had to give it to mordenkainen to get our party leader back though the other two players went ahead and made new characters), was pitted against a Pyronhydra or whatever, a CR7 monster. It won initiative on us, used it's breath attack on the first action, bringing the majority of us down below half hp aside from the Paladin and Monk. The fighter and warlock failed their saves but were still up. Fighter used second wind, warlock eldritch blasted the hydra. The paladin hit it so hard he cut 2 heads off. The monk ran around to the back of the hydra. I cast bless on the party since I was worried about saves. Since it's breath weapon recharged, the DM had it breathe again. This time the warlock was killed outright, while my character went down along with the fighter. The paladin and monk were still up and the rogue had gone to pick up a friend to give him a ride somewhere so was off to one side with plot armor. Then the paladin and monk killed it before it could breathe again because the DM rolled the recharge a second time. Yay rocket tag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
I remember running a hellhound against a level 2 or 3 party and thinking "holy poo poo, a couple of good recharge rolls and I could TPK these guys pretty loving fast" so good to see it only gets better as levels go up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Really, there are a few different ways to play D&D (and many more ways to play RPGs as a whole, many of which can be shoehorned into D7D to more or less success) it's just good to be on the same page as the players about what way you're doing it, and note enemies who could overturn that accidentally. It's a fine line to walk between providing a challenge and ending the game in a couple of unlucky rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
I just don't like when the idea of challenge is "throw a monster that can one hit kill at the party." I feel like there should be better ways to do things, because at the same time you don't want to just be exchanging minor blows. But personally, I don't think any enemy should be able to do more than 1/3 of the life of a character in one move. And if they do have an attack that does, it should only be able to be used once during the fight, or be telegraphed with some sort of charge or be disruptable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does the Paladin's Channel Divinity: Sacred Weapon seem like... it shouldn't be an Action? I mean, you're basically losing your turn to get +X to attack rolls. Is that even worth it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
I think that a "charging attack" would be an interesting mechanic to give a boss. I don't mean charging like running, but charging like building up power. If I were to implement it, it would be something where the boss forgoes all actions to be able to focus on the charging attack. Perhaps the boss calls in minions to defend him. While the boss is charging, he takes 1/2 damage from all sources and requires 1/4 of his life to be taken to break the charge attack. For every round he charges, the damage of the attack goes up by like a d10 or something. That way you're able to give the boss a "gently caress everyone up attack" but the only way he gets to use it is if the players ignore his threats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Ghouls, not wights. They can only attack once a round so I guess. Anyway I like strong monsters with immunity to non magical weapons just so it is impossible for an army of commoners to take them down. Also you still don't need magical weapons to beat them. The magic weapon spell exists after all. But I like magic items and would probably never have a game with out them. So the scenario of having to rely on the magic weapon spell is unlikely for my games. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They can only attack once a round so I guess. "It's ok because [a Wizard/the DM] can solve the problem."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
If they're not meant to be a nation-destroying threat, making them resist regular damage is fine if they still have an exploitable weakness. Traditional fantasy vampires for example. Mortal weapons are long-term ineffective, but fire works, as does correctly applied wood and religious symbols. A military champion following their basic "stab it with my steel pointy thing" tactic wont put it down, but a bunch of peasants can still drive them back into their home and burn them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They can only attack once a round so I guess. Strong monsters having immunity to non-magical weapons would be fine if the game didn't assume that half the classes don't come with any way to deal damage with anything OTHER than non-magical weapons unless the DM lets them. But it DOES assume that, so the PCs are reliant on getting magicced up somehow if they want to defeat said monsters. What's much, much more bullshit is that things like Intellect Devourers and Salamanders have resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons. So, the fighter can't even deal normal damage to the creature which is LITERALLY AN EXPOSED BRAIN WITH LEGS by STABBING IT IN THE BRAIN. He has to get the shitfingers to shitfinger his sword first. Shitfingers here being a wizard. Because of all the bat guano, y'see. Immunity to non-magical stuff is fine in specific, very limited cases, but should not be overused, and in those cases, there should be some way for people not using magic to contribute. Next WILDLY overuses it and doesn't by default give some ability for those people to contribute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I think that a "charging attack" would be an interesting mechanic to give a boss. I don't mean charging like running, but charging like building up power. It's a shame that the dialog around RPG's has to be so afraid of MMO terms, because MMO style raid bosses are EXACTLY what we should have gotten in the latest version of D&D. They're loving perfect for this format (arguably even better than they are as video game bosses) and I really hope more designers figured that the gently caress out. Powering up/telegraphing big attacks, changing arenas/rules. It's so loving good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:It's a shame that the dialog around RPG's has to be so afraid of MMO terms, because MMO style raid bosses are EXACTLY what we should have gotten in the latest version of D&D. They're loving perfect for this format (arguably even better than they are as video game bosses) and I really hope more designers figured that the gently caress out. Powering up/telegraphing big attacks, changing arenas/rules. It's so loving good. Lair actions are almost going in that direction. Some of them are just save or suck (I mean, on a roll you can get teleported thirty years into the past/future?), but the general concept is pretty fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Is it just me, or does the Paladin's Channel Divinity: Sacred Weapon seem like... it shouldn't be an Action? I mean, you're basically losing your turn to get +X to attack rolls. Is that even worth it? A round is 6 seconds, and the effect lasts for a minute, so that's an attack bonus for 10 rounds, and attack bonuses tend to be the best thing you can do to your DPR short of damage you can declare after a confirmed hit, so it's probably ruled as a good enough buff to be worth blowing a whole turn on. I personally would probably allow dropping that down to a Bonus Action, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:It's a shame that the dialog around RPG's has to be so afraid of MMO terms, because MMO style raid bosses are EXACTLY what we should have gotten in the latest version of D&D. They're loving perfect for this format (arguably even better than they are as video game bosses) and I really hope more designers figured that the gently caress out. Powering up/telegraphing big attacks, changing arenas/rules. It's so loving good. Yeah, stuff like MMO bosses or old school jRPG bosses are honestly what D&D could use. I like the idea of powerful attacks taking more than one turn to use or requiring a build up. Something else I think would be cool to houserule in would be a counter system. Let's say you have an orc barbarian attacking you with his battleaxe. He swings and his attack roll is better than your AC, you could then use your action for that round as a block and counter. You roll and attack roll vs his attack roll. If it's better than his attack roll, you block his attack. If you successfully block, you can roll again against his AC for the counter. It would need some workshopping but could be neat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Something else I think would be cool to houserule in would be a counter system. Let's say you have an orc barbarian attacking you with his battleaxe. He swings and his attack roll is better than your AC, you could then use your action for that round as a block and counter. You roll and attack roll vs his attack roll. If it's better than his attack roll, you block his attack. If you successfully block, you can roll again against his AC for the counter. Normally I'd say that's not a great idea, but if it ate away at your attacks, a fighter with 4 attacks/round could suddenly prevent a lot of attacks. If you wanted to stop the fighter, you'd need to pile people on him. I mean, there's no reason to stop the fighter when you could attack the wizard, but.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:39
|
|
