|
Peas and Rice posted:For gently caress's sake, why. Who wants this. Seconding. The only good Kender are the ones in Ravenloft who Lord Soth massacred until they became reclusive xenophobes who were terrified of outside contact. I was amazed Soth wasn't immediately released from Ravenloft for community service after doing that.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Selachian posted:Fortunately, he was quickly disqualified when he answered all questions by shrugging and saying, "That's up to the judge." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
So my group finished Zeitgeist #4 for 4e, and I asked them if they wanted to finish Phandelver as an interlude. They basically told me they'd played quite enough 5e. So we're doing Mentzer Basic instead. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
The only setting I want is spelljammer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Alignment seems like the poster child for a mechanic that should have been a DMG module. That way you could have OD&D Law vs. Chaos, AD&D 9 point alignment, in-game factional allegiances, etc. all available for people to choose from. There's no reason to bake it into the baseline game aside from nostalgia. It's kind of strange, I associate Law vs Chaos with, like, B/X and BECMI, but then I recently found a copy of Holmes Basic (1977). What do I see?  Dr Holmes posted:Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite unpredictable and cannot be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interests. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. ... If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. So it's not the chaotic evil PCs that lead to party conflict; it's those filthy neutrals. Can't blame AD&D for everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Alhireth-Hotep posted:It's kind of strange, I associate Law vs Chaos with, like, B/X and BECMI, but then I recently found a copy of Holmes Basic (1977). What do I see? That's right - as I checked, alignment as a prescription of behavior reared its head by as early as Holmes Basic and then also the B/X sets and so on. Perhaps Gygax wanted to change what alignment meant even as early as between Holmes and the Three Brown Books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
If you are selfish to the point where you're robbing allies, you are not neutral. You are evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:If you are selfish to the point where you're robbing allies, you are not neutral. You are evil. But what if you're doing it to help your starving orphan brothers? Or so that true evil doesn't corrupt your allies with wealth? Or so that... Oh right nine point alignment is stupid as gently caress unless you use it entirely as a "this person is mostly acting sorta like this" set of guidelines and even then it's just a rough set of rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Holmes basic was supposed to be an OD&D starter product while they were working on AD&D. It's not really basic like Moldvay and Mentzer are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Alhireth-Hotep posted:It's kind of strange, I associate Law vs Chaos with, like, B/X and BECMI, but then I recently found a copy of Holmes Basic (1977). What do I see? Would you be willing to transcribe or photograph the alignment section? I have this alignment comparison/discussion post rolling around in the back of my mind, and part of it is just the sheer absurdity of how alignment definitions change with every single edition published, but Holmes Basic is the one that I don't have access to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:For gently caress's sake, why. Who wants this. Who is dumb enough to willingly play with anyone who wants to RP a kender?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
I have no idea how the inventors of Kender didn't understand they were making the most annoying little shits to ever be put to page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
I don't really get the kender hate except in that one of their writeups is really lovely; in all the games I've played with PC kender they've just been pretty much rogues with stickier fingers that don't gently caress the party for giggles. So, uh, don't play with lovely people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Take a thing that worked OK in that one novel (this is fantasy though, so one trilogy also counts), then expand on the idea until it stops making any kind of sense and becomes annoying, then include it in AD&D somehow. Kender are D&D as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I don't really get the kender hate except in that one of their writeups is really lovely; in all the games I've played with PC kender they've just been pretty much rogues with stickier fingers that don't gently caress the party for giggles. The thing is that the kender writeup is basically an invitation for people to be lovely. It's "lovely Player, the D&D race." If you want a short, thieving rogue, well hey, there's this thing called halflings. All kender have going for them to make them distinct from the other "short, good at thieving" race is a collection of exceptionally insufferable behavioral quirks. There's nothing interesting about them, they're just halflings with an extra-annoying paintjob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
Someone really needs to show this video to the D&D devs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk&t=251s Modern conceptions of archery are way slow and impractical and apparently old timey archery was way faster and cooler. More to the point, here is a video of a real life human being doing poo poo that your legendary d&d character can't do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Lars Andersen is a Wizard who casts bow and arrow-based spells. e: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
No, Lars Anderson is a loving fighter, that's the loving point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:No, Lars Anderson is a loving fighter, that's the loving point. I tried to shoot a bow once and not only did I miss the target but the string slapped my arm and it really hurt. Therefore Lars Anderson is clearly just stupid anime bullshit included only to appease babies who can't handle real D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
How do you practice splitting arrows that are being fired at you? Someone write a Lars Anderson add-on for the fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Eh, just play a Ranger in 4e. E: and I imagine you practice it by asking someone you REALLY trust to fire arrows PAST you. Ditto when filming it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Eh, just play a Ranger in 4e. Someone write a "shoot incoming projectiles down" encounter reaction for the 4e ranger
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:Someone write a "shoot incoming projectiles down" encounter reaction for the 4e ranger It exists already. Ranger 3, PHB. Disrupting Attack or something like that. Immediate interrupt, melee or ranged, 3+Wis penalty on an attack. Adroit Explorer makes it two times per encounter. Not a reaction, but it's better!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:No, Lars Anderson is a loving fighter, that's the loving point.  I'm sorry for making a joke at the fighter's expense, I didn't realize this was a sore subject for you
Four Score fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Gort posted:Someone write a "shoot incoming projectiles down" encounter reaction for the 4e ranger Disruptive Strike. That's... like... exactly why I said what I said. E: there's also a utility which does much the same thing, but without the damage to the guy who shot the arrow if you really want to simulate it exactly. First Bass posted:
I appreciate the apology 
thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Would you be willing to transcribe or photograph the alignment section? I have this alignment comparison/discussion post rolling around in the back of my mind, and part of it is just the sheer absurdity of how alignment definitions change with every single edition published, but Holmes Basic is the one that I don't have access to. Besides the chart Alhireth-Hotep posted, Holmes Basic devotes all of one paragraph to alignment. Holmes posted:Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite unpredictable and can not be depended on to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who tortures or kills a prisoner. The next section, "Languages," also devotes one sentence to alignment languages, just noting that they exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Disruptive Strike. That's... like... exactly why I said what I said. E: there's also a utility which does much the same thing, but without the damage to the guy who shot the arrow if you really want to simulate it exactly. Yeah, I didn't count Disruptive Strike because that struck me as more of a "shoot the guy while he's shooting the arrow at you to throw him off" than "shoot the arrow itself down" - what's the utility?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
You shoot the arrow out of the air, and the other guy takes damage from getting served so hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Playing this tomorrow for the first time, what's the most fun character to play to start out with if it's likely we will only play one session?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
bowmore posted:Playing this tomorrow for the first time, what's the most fun character to play to start out with if it's likely we will only play one session? A character that can do something other than just fighting and can interact with people in interesting ways. e.g. mages cast utility spells, rogues steal stuff/lie well, bards can sing, be a noble and demand respect everywhere you go waving about your scroll of pedigree...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Bards are jack of all trades so that might be good I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
I'm also a fan of the paladin, starts off slowly and ramps up in power quickly, making it easy for a first timer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I didn't count Disruptive Strike because that struck me as more of a "shoot the guy while he's shooting the arrow at you to throw him off" than "shoot the arrow itself down" - what's the utility? There's also Arrow of the Saviour, which can save an ally from falling if there's a solid object nearby by giving them either a handhold or going through their shirt or whatever, which is cool. And Archer's Stairway which... does roughly what it sounds like it would. E: Sylvan Archer PP's encounter attack power is literally called shaft-splitter. It's basically disruptive strike but only for ranged weapons against ranged attacks. Really Pants posted:You shoot the arrow out of the air, and the other guy takes damage from getting served so hard Or, you know, from your arrow carrying on and hitting him. In all seriousness, it's this sort of stuff that I would really miss in 5e. Common, codified ways of doing things like 'shoot an arrow out of the air' that work regardless of exactly what's going on on the table. It could be shooting an arrow out of the air, shooting the guy as he's shooting his arrow, or shooting your own arrow and pinning the dragon's mouth together just as it breathes, but what happens mechanically is clear and codified. You can be cool without asking permission to be cool, because being cool is baked right into the system. 5e could do this. It has the tools. Reactions could be used to do exactly this. But they're not (unless you're a Wizard, and even then there aren't many). thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Inspirations are something I find my DM has totally overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Am I the only one who gets really confused whenever people talk about Metzer Basic or Holmes Basic or whatever. Why are there so many different names. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Inspirations are something I find my DM has totally overlooked. Inspiration is not really well defined, so it may be that your Dm is unclear on how to use it. (I certainly am.) It's also relegated to a tiny rules blurb in a non-rules section of the book, so they may have actually forgotten that it exists. Alternately, they could just not put a lot of emphasis on character development. D&D isn't a game series that has classically focused on that. So what does inspiration do? What is it for? Inspiration is the mechanic that makes traits go. I recommend discussing the role of inspiration in your game with your DM. Then attach this ritual that I just made up to inspiration: To gain inspiration when you are making a significant decision say, [Character name] is going to [Action] because of her/she is [character trait]. Then the DM gives you inspiration or allows you to make you decision again if they don't want to give you inspiration. If you missed calling out an opportunity to gain inspiration in the current scene, wait until the end of the scene and then say, So, because of [Character name's] [Character Trait], they chose to [Action]. Then you DM may choose to give you inspiration depending on the weightiness of that decision. When you spend a point of inspiration say, Because of/In spite of [Character name's] {Character Trait], they are inspired to [Action you are spending inspiration on]. You can only spend inspiration on a task that relates to the trait that generated it. Using this play ritual should help everyone understand and remember inspiration better. Obviously, a lot of individual negotiation will have to be done within your group to come to terms with how exactly inspiration 'works for you', because the rules offer next to no support for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
If it was me I think I would just give inspiration points to people who RP their character well. Like if their character is charitable and they actually give a sizeable money to orphans or something I'd say that's inspiration point worthy (unless they do it in every town and wink at the GM while doing it). Basically if just encourage people to actually come up with a background for their character and reasons they do what they do and act in accordance to that, and particularly cool in character poo poo will gain inspiration. Like in the current game I'm playing I find out a rumour about a kidnapped girl from the barman. However I'm told to speak to the watch captain to get more details. I tell the fighter to do it instead as I'm uneasy around the watch as I'm a conman. I'm not saying that necessarily worth a point right there, but the way I read it stuff like that should be rewarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:If it was me I think I would just give inspiration points to people who RP their character well. That's correct. All of that is correct. Why isn't you DM doing that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Azran posted:Am I the only one who gets really confused whenever people talk about Metzer Basic or Holmes Basic or whatever. Why are there so many different names. I might have some of the details wrong, but basically they are all just different versions of the same game with small rules revisions. Kitchner posted:If it was me I think I would just give inspiration points to people who RP their character well. And as for your specific DM, they are probably just forgetting. DM's have a lot to think about without constantly monitoring for "good roleplaying," which is something that should be going on all the time anyway. Which is one of the reasons I don't like the rule...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Different versions. The original Basic (aka "Blue Box")was Holmes, then the Basic part of B/X (Basic/eXpert) was Moldvay (aka "Magenta Box"), then BECMI (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal) was Mentzer (aka "Red Box" or later "Black Box").
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:14
|
|