|
The problem is the lack of superiority points or whatever it is they're called. They should be handing them out like candy but they limit it by the day.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Kitchner posted:I joked about this not being mechanically supported but it is. Unless you meant being human adds the Charisma, the feat itself won't. If adding 10 minutes to every rest is cool, this isn't bad at all, but in a game with 5 minute rests I wouldn't give it a second glance. I do find it odd that it is one of the few feats that do literally one thing only, instead of a trio or more like the rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
goatface posted:The problem is the lack of superiority points or whatever it is they're called. They should be handing them out like candy but they limit it by the day. You start with 4 and regain them all whenever you have a short or long rest. At level 7 (which no one plays to) you get 5. I don't think that's too bad really, you could argue they should have more but I wouldn't imagine much more, as the party bag just rest for an hour after any fight that is remotely taxing unless the DM contrives a way for them not to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
The five minute adventuring day really is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I joked about this not being mechanically supported but it is. I think this is all pretty solid advice, but I'd look at folk hero rather than noble. Getting free lodging as "holy poo poo that's THE GENERAL!!!!" can be more useful especially if your DM holds you to the "you gonna pay for that room and food?" Especially since the rules explicitly say your "Retainers" can't fight for you. In fact, since there's no leadership feat with cohorts, I'd really just talk to your DM about how to get your minions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:Unless you meant being human adds the Charisma, the feat itself won't. If adding 10 minutes to every rest is cool, this isn't bad at all, but in a game with 5 minute rests I wouldn't give it a second glance. Yeah my bad, I got my feats confused. It only does one thing but it's pretty rad. I mean at level 1 you can give say people in the party say +3 hit points each which for some of them will be like a 30% increase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think this is all pretty solid advice, but I'd look at folk hero rather than noble. Getting free lodging as "holy poo poo that's THE GENERAL!!!!" can be more useful especially if your DM holds you to the "you gonna pay for that room and food?" Especially since the rules explicitly say your "Retainers" can't fight for you. In fact, since there's no leadership feat with cohorts, I'd really just talk to your DM about how to get your minions. Folk hero doesn't let you take persuasion which means when you run into a group of soldiers who you want to convince to come fight with you you're pretty buggered. The retainers is an optional rule isn't it? I thought it replaces the one where everyone treats you well because you're nobility. Free lodgings and poo poo is useful but I'd rather take the persuasion skill as proficient over saving a minimal amount of gold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Folk hero doesn't let you take persuasion which means when you run into a group of soldiers who you want to convince to come fight with you you're pretty buggered. could you use intimidate instead? I mean, when you're talking military motivations, is there really that bright line a difference between the two when it's RAWWWWR MEN!!!!! TO BATTLE!!!!!!!! YES SIR!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:could you use intimidate instead? I mean, when you're talking military motivations, is there really that bright line a difference between the two when it's RAWWWWR MEN!!!!! TO BATTLE!!!!!!!! You could but I personally think persuasion is a better match to what was asked for (even if it was a troll) plus you can take intimidate anyway so you can use either depending on the situation. Like to me intimidate is implying or literally stating the use of force to make someone comply with something. Whereas persuade is presenting them with an argument that works to convince them. So if there are some guys who are currently in relative safety and you need to convince them to follow you through the swamp and charge into a giant lizard infested mine, unless you're going to threaten to kill them unless they do so, you can't intimidate them to go. On the other hand you could tell them there are probably going to be huge rewards and promotions for everyone who goes and you'll probably kick the living poo poo out of everything in there. Whereas say you were already in the mine and they didn't want to proceed any further you could tell them either the lizards will kill them or you will, which would be intimidate whereas to convince them to walk further into the mine of deadly fire breathing lizards when they are poo poo scared will probably be harder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So how did the rest of the internet take this? A triumphant return to D&D's roots? Yes sadly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I joked about this not being mechanically supported but it is. this is a pretty good example of what we discussed earlier; the absolute best way you can build a martial warlord in 5E is just total crap compared to what the warlord of 4E or White Raven Style crusader/warblade of 3.X were like and capable of its also pretty bad compared to what a cleric can do but its the best you can build within the constraints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Folk hero doesn't let you take persuasion which means when you run into a group of soldiers who you want to convince to come fight with you you're pretty buggered. CUSTOMIZE YO' BACKGROUNDS. Like, seriously, if you aren't using the prescribed rules for picking your skill profs and too profs/languages + just picking a background for the benefit (such as retainers) then you're not maximizing your use of 5e.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:but its the best you can build within the constraints. It also takes you three levels (committing every option along the way) to even look slightly like the 4e Warlord's starting package. Every class from every PHB!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
moths posted:It also takes you three levels (committing every option along the way) to even look slightly like the 4e Warlord's starting package. That doesn't leave a whole lot of design space for it to occupy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:To be real though, if Mearls made a Warlord class in 5e, it'd just be a Valor Bard crossed with a Battlemaster Fighter, minus any and all magic. The solution here is to fire Mike Mearls
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
It'll never happen, he's not woman enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Amaze as people get disappointed at what their converted characters can do! Thrill as Mike Krahulik gets bored and just starts drawing stuff! Listening to this is really frustrating. Mearls talks at length about how they wanted to reduce how long combat takes and how they wanted the game to not look like it was all about combat. Why are there not any more out-of-combat class features? Why did you print an entire book of combat stats for monsters? Why are 80% of spells combat-focused? Why are 80% of the feats combat-focused?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
moths posted:It also takes you three levels (committing every option along the way) to even look slightly like the 4e Warlord's starting package. Wasnt the point of 5e to make starting players weaker than they were in 4th ed though? I mean whether you think that's good or not aside, isn't that intentional?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Listening to this is really frustrating. Mearls talks at length about how they wanted to reduce how long combat takes and how they wanted the game to not look like it was all about combat. I guarantee it was worse the first time round. I think it was that podcast that basically killed any hope I had for 5e being a game I had any interest in playing. Choice parts being 'in 4e you get beat about then heal right back up and nothing's changed' - gently caress off you ill-educated cockmongler, that's demonstrably not what loving happened - and the bit where Omin's player is raving about how 'healing strike' is awesome and basically revolutionised clerics from being a booby prize to being enjoyable, and Mearls immediately turned round and proudly showed him how they'd taken that RIGHT loving OUT AGAIN. Healing is probably the most obviously stupid area of D&D rules generally, and one of the most frequently misunderstood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Wasnt the point of 5e to make starting players weaker than they were in 4th ed though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
And there's a difference between being weaker and dying to the first thing that hits you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Has someone done an analysis of how enemy HP scales with expected damage output from a party?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I guarantee it was worse the first time round. I think it was that podcast that basically killed any hope I had for 5e being a game I had any interest in playing. What really crystallised it for me was when Mearls was asking Darkmagic what his least favourite 4e thing was and I thought that, for me, it was dailies still retaining that vancian idea, since they really were the big contributers to the 5 minute adventuring day still being a thing. And them being balanced for daily use meant they helped to encourage alpha strike tactics. I'd much prefer if all powers were encounter or at will. And then they done the exact loving opposite you motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Generally speaking you can judge the worth of an RPG directly by how much stupid bullshit they put you through in order to be back to full health ready for the next bit of actual interesting content. Rolling dice to find out just how long you have to sit on your rear end doing nothing before you can go about your day again is not interesting content. It is boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
I am pretty sure if you just swept everything under the table and went "you can use all your dailies 1/encounter and get unlimited superiority dice" 5E is suddenly a much more fun game to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I am pretty sure if you just swept everything under the table and went "you can use all your dailies 1/encounter and get unlimited superiority dice" 5E is suddenly a much more fun game to play. Cool, I would enjoy using my daily spells 1/encounter. That is a lot of skeletons/fireballs/meteor swarms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Every loving campaign that I played in 3.5 we bullshitted some way of full-healing into the game. Every single one. We did maybe one session in 2000 where we actually calculated the 1 + Con or whatever method of healing after an 8 hours rest. After that, it was full healing every time. If anything, 4e was more about HP scarcity, because we felt like the rules were fair so we actually loving used them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
3e full-healing was simple as poo poo. Buy a million cheapass wands of cure light wounds to use every time downtime came up, then post online about how 4e healing is so unrealistic and easy mode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I am pretty sure if you just swept everything under the table and went "you can use all your dailies 1/encounter and get unlimited superiority dice" 5E is suddenly a much more fun game to play. Funnily enough, that's pretty much how thngs worked in the early playtests, and they were not aggressively awful. E: the other thing that cast made me realise was that Mearls (or someone on the design team) JUST DIDN'T GET IT. You oculd spend an action to give someone advantage - i.e. give up your chance to roll and attack *that would deal damage itself if it hit* in order to give your ally two attack rolls for one attack. Which is really loving dumb. You give up 'roll twice deal damage twice' for 'roll twice, deal damage once'. Unless your ally is AMAZINGLY better than you at dealing damage, it's just stupid. And yet, it was touted as 'exactly like the warlord'. Wut? thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I especially liked in that podcast when Mearls was going on about giving the DM more freedom to do what he wants or whatever bullshit excuse for lazy design he was peddling, Darkmagic just says that he could just do that anytime he wanted anyway and Mearls was stunned speechless for a moment that he'd cracked the deep secret of DnD. "Why should I buy this?" indeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
The sooner the "adventuring day" dies a horrible death the better RPGs like this will be. Balance to the encounter, not the adventuring day, since an encounter is actually of a length you can reasonably predict. Otherwise you end up with parties nova-ing everything on the one fight they know they'll have today, or DMs having to come up with ever-more-convoluted reasons why you have to have three duels to the death before breakfast every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
"People look at their sheet and see 3 pages of combat abilities." As opposed to what? That's always been how D&D character sheets look. Just you have fewer pages of combat abilities if you aren't into the wizbiz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Rings of regeneration for everybody!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Not saying that 5E is an improvement over 4E in the area of healing, but "healer" as a combat role is pretty uniquely a sacred cow when it comes to D&D. It's not really there in fantasy or superhero fiction. Healing after a fight using magic and/or skills is definitely a part of a lot of stories, but not during a fight. If the game is tuned to not have healing during combat as an expected move, it does reduce combat length, just by making sure the combats have less rounds. I think it would be an improvement if healer wasn't considered a combat-pillar role, and was considered an exploration-pillar role. Making your limited resources (in this case, HP) go further over the course of an adventure is usually an exploration-type challenge, at least. Going into a fight at less than full HP is a pretty serious disadvantage, pretty comparable to being ambushed or triggering a trap that starts combat. It's a poo poo-ton easier to balance who gets healing powers and how effective they are when it's not part of the combat action economy, and it makes having not enough/too many healers less of an issue when the party will have an advantage on other exploration-pillar challenges, and preserve their resources more effectively that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:The sooner the "adventuring day" dies a horrible death the better RPGs like this will be. Balance to the encounter, not the adventuring day, since an encounter is actually of a length you can reasonably predict. Otherwise you end up with parties nova-ing everything on the one fight they know they'll have today, or DMs having to come up with ever-more-convoluted reasons why you have to have three duels to the death before breakfast every day. Even use 13th age's solution of "you only get all your dailies back after 4 fights, sleep or go whoring for as long as you like, it won't do jack poo poo!", though the language could be tidied up. But no, you don't want to remember you are playing a game when rolling a stupid looking dice to beat down the Dragon's life bar, gotta stay in your zenlike verisimilitudinous reverie of role-playing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Healer is a stupid role. Which is why 4e *DIDN'T HAVE IT*. It had leader, whose role was 'buff, enable, debuff defences with your standard actions, also heal with your minor actions' And I'd question the implied assertion that healing in fights doesn't happen - no, it doesn't, if your hit points are meat. It does, if your hit points are valour, courage, luck, etc etc etc - good writing is FULL of fights where Good Guy whales on Bad Guy, then Bad Guy whales back, putting Good Guy on his back, then the power of love/heart/friendship/money/pissiness causes Good Guy to rally, come back to his senses, and impale Bad Guy on a steam pipe or whatever. That's what healing in fights does - it lets you have a fight go against you, and turn in your favour. It makes the fight more cinematic, rather than just being 'do Good Guys run out of HP before Bad Guys y/n'? In the bad old days, you had a choice between 'do your job as healer' and 'engage with the game' - the 'cast had the 'druid on a raid' analogy, where 4e was a revolution from 'concentrate on our green bars to the exclusion of all else' to 'attack their red bars AND focus on our green bars'. I'm not sure to what extent that is still the case in 5e, but certainly when the 'cast came out the implication was that the paradigm was back to 'clerics do green bars, nothing else'. The cast read like it was supposed to be 'don't worry 4e fans, here are some 4e fans being reassured that the things they like are staying' but actually wound up being 'hey 4e fans, you know those things you like? We cut them and you suck for liking them'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Healer is a stupid role. Which is why 4e *DIDN'T HAVE IT*. It had leader, whose role was 'buff, enable, debuff defences with your standard actions, also heal with your minor actions' And I'd question the implied assertion that healing in fights doesn't happen - no, it doesn't, if your hit points are meat. It does, if your hit points are valour, courage, luck, etc etc etc - good writing is FULL of fights where Good Guy whales on Bad Guy, then Bad Guy whales back, putting Good Guy on his back, then the power of love/heart/friendship/money/pissiness causes Good Guy to rally, come back to his senses, and impale Bad Guy on a steam pipe or whatever. That's what healing in fights does - it lets you have a fight go against you, and turn in your favour. It makes the fight more cinematic, rather than just being 'do Good Guys run out of HP before Bad Guys y/n'? As a war domain cleric I'm able to swing my weapon or cast a spell with my main attack and then heal with my bonus action heal in the same term. And I am having fun doing it. Your post just seems like something for the edition versus edition discussions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Healer is a stupid role. Which is why 4e *DIDN'T HAVE IT*. It had leader, whose role was 'buff, enable, debuff defences with your standard actions, also heal with your minor actions' And I'd question the implied assertion that healing in fights doesn't happen - no, it doesn't, if your hit points are meat. It does, if your hit points are valour, courage, luck, etc etc etc - good writing is FULL of fights where Good Guy whales on Bad Guy, then Bad Guy whales back, putting Good Guy on his back, then the power of love/heart/friendship/money/pissiness causes Good Guy to rally, come back to his senses, and impale Bad Guy on a steam pipe or whatever. That's what healing in fights does - it lets you have a fight go against you, and turn in your favour. It makes the fight more cinematic, rather than just being 'do Good Guys run out of HP before Bad Guys y/n'? That's a little bit disingenuous. Leaders all have a healing power. Strikers all have a damage boosting power. Defenders all have a marking power. Even if leaders aren't just healing (and healing is a minor action to keep things snappy), that was their role-defining ability. If you're going to the trouble of talking about green bars, you have abstractions like AC and DR and healing, and resistance and advantage/disadvantage, and save-or-suck statuses to keep your green bars going longer. The HP abstraction is no more representative of the green bar than the rest of those things. But green bars are a combat mechanic - they only really matter if they reach 0 before the red bars reach 0. HP is the only one of those things managed as a resource once an encounter is over. It makes sense to manage refilling it next to other out-of-combat resources, and treat being unable to replenish it as an unusual complication, like running out of arrows. Mainly because it's usually not fun to keep charging into danger when you know you aren't prepared for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Managing healing and hps is pretty much the entire metagame of d&d. If your dm allows the plot to completely stop while waiting on the party to heal up, that's gotta perogative, but it results in a vastly different game than playing with a dm who pays attention to time passing. And going into fights half depleted is actually a blast and significantly more interesting than the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Wow. It's pretty hilariously sad listening to these podcasts. "I really loved X mechanic!" "Um...yeah...we sorta still have that mechanic except it doesn't work any more and uh...roleplay more!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:01
|
|