|
Edit is dead - Quote Ironic edit: The worst page topper. Dungeon and Dragon were the worst source of 4e feat and power bloat due to their lovely article requirements, I will not miss that aspect. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 2, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:
Kurieg posted:Dungeon and Dragon magazine in their most recent incarnations were strictly online ventures with absolutely no advertisements whatsoever so I don't think that applies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I guess in my attempt to quote Ghostbusters I was unclear. Without the sale of ad space to drive the publication, there's no reason to bring back the magazines in either the dead-tree or 4e online format. WotC seems fine with their current content release schedule which doesn't include the bite-size mechanics releases in Dragon or the adventure content in Dungeon. The product ecosystem of 5e is too different for the magazines to come back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
What would they put in it, and who would write it? Writers cost money, as do editors to fix open submissions into publishable content. Getting free, fan-submitted work into a publishable state would be hellish. Easier to just leave the brands dormant than risk looking even more amateur.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Yeah, I meant in any form. There's already barebone updates on the site as is, but there were usually three or four free updates a week back in 4E, not including the paid-only Dungeon/Dragon articles. Just looking over the past month there's nothing but advertisements for their miniatures game, advertisements for Neverwinter, and a bunch of articles about how being a DM is hard, and you should give your DM gifts for shouldering that burden. The only article they've put out since 5e's release that was theoretically aimed at players was the Eberron update.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
They are being really weird in that regard. They should be pushing out loads of ideas for stuff to do with the system, and instead they've basically said "refer to some 15 year old books" and then clammed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
The other major theme of Dragon content (in the 4e era at least) was shoring up weakly supported classes, and with 5e's attitude about class balance I don't see that happening any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Siivola posted:The first jRPG was The Dragon and Princess released for the PC-8001 in 1982, a year before Colour of Magic! That's a personal computer, not a console! It's in the name 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Follow-up to my long effortpost about my group's first 5e session, where we started the Lost Mines of Phandelver: After being flooded out of the cave, we went back in there and absolutely crushed everything. Encounter breakdown: First encounter: one-shot a goblin, then skill checks to free wolves/convince them to leave. Second encounter: sleep 3 goblins, one-shot a fourth goblin, two-shot a fifth goblin, heal an NPC (1 of 2 cleric heals used). Third encounter: absolutely crush a lone goblin though he does some damage (2 of 2 cleric heals used). Fourth encounter: faerie fire = party doesn't miss, everything dies. Fifth encounter: druid goes down in the first round (no more magical healing, spends entire fight rolling death saves), everyone else is mostly fine and all the monsters die quickly. Grease spell means boss is easy to hit and barely does any damage to the party. We got to level up after 2 sessions (only about 4 hours of actual playing), which is good. For me at least. Here's a decision tree I made for my character (the druid) versus our party's barbarian and rogue, bold parts are things we gained at level 2: Level 2 Druid Options: Out of Combat: -Want to do minor magical druid poo poo? Druidcraft (cantrip). -Want to speak with animals? Speak with animals (ritual). -Sneaky situation? Turn into a wolf or spider (2/day). -Need to climb something? Turn into a spider (2/day). -Need to heal a friend? Cast Goodberry, force feed them to friend (+10 HP divided however you want, 4 spells/day). -Is anyone doing a skill check in a non-stealthy situation where you can touch them? Guidance (cantrip). -Anything else? Skill check. In Combat: -Need a nice HP buffer going into a fight? Turn into an elk, boar, horse or whatever (2/day). Had I chosen Moon Druid this option would have been "Feel like being better than a level 2 fighter or barbarian and having more hp than the party combined? Turn into brown bear (2/day)." -Is there an enemy or group of enemies that need to be absolutely murdered with advantage? Faerie Fire (4 spells/day). -Is there an enemy or group of enemies that need to be held in place? Entangle (4 spells/day). -Is a friend at 0 HP? Healing Word (4 spells/day). Then also do something else, since this is a bonus action. -Is something running away? Thorn Whip (cantrip). -Anything else? Shoot them (1d20+5 vs. AC for 1d4+3 / 1d6+3 / 1d8+3 depending on weapon used). Level 2 Wizard and Cleric are fairly similar, except remove the "turn into animal" bits. And the Cleric has to save his spells for healing. Level 2 Barbarian Options: Out of Combat: -Skill check. In Combat: -Does this combat look dangerous? If yes, rage (2/day) for ½ physical damage taken and +2 damage bonus given. -Anything else? Hit them (1d20+5 vs. AC for 2d6+3 melee or 1d6+3 ranged). If you’re suicidal, you can gain advantage on the attack but give advantage on all attacks against you. Other: Advantage on Dex saves versus stuff you can see (generally traps/spells). Level 2 Rogue Options: Out of Combat: -Thieves Cant (lol). -Skill check (with small extra bonuses to 2 skills). If you’re trying to be sneaky, you’re doing it alone because someone in the party will almost always fail their stealth check. In Combat: -Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action (this will actually be really neat). -Hit them (1d20+5 vs. AC, times two attacks in melee, one in ranged, for 1d6+3 for the first that hits, 1d6 for the second that hits, and +1d6 if one of them hits and you have advantage). On the plus side, I made some suggestions for house-ruling the barbarian to be less terrible (ex: if he goes primal at level 3, he gets to pick 1 totem per rage, not 1 permanently), and for the rogue I think I made it clear to the DM that we need to get him some magic items ASAP. With DM permission the casters can start making him things at level 3, so we'll probably do that for stuff like darkvision (definitely), spider climb (probably?), and elf cloak/boots (likely) if the adventure doesn't deliver them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
I was thinking about D&D yesterday and wondered if the game would be better if characters stopped having to roll to hit with weapon attacks (checking only for crits) at levels inversely proportional to the amount of spellcasting in their classes. So, like, at level 4, fighters no longer need to roll to hit ANYTHING with a weapon. Even wizards would eventually be able to reliably bonk somebody with their staves. Would that make it more fun to be a martial character, I wondered? Not much, I think. I might just need to stop playing D&D 5hit, because it's really just not very good, and it's kinda bumming me out. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
homullus posted:I was thinking about D&D yesterday and wondered if the game would be better if characters stopped having to roll to hit with weapon attacks (checking only for crits) at levels inversely proportional to the amount of spellcasting in their classes. So, like, at level 4, fighters no longer need to roll to hit ANYTHING with a weapon. Even wizards would eventually be able to reliably bonk somebody with their staves. Would that make it more fun to be a martial character, I wondered? I think the system could be improved by allowing them to still contribute something on a miss. In a disadvantageous situation a wizard can choose to just bypass the question entirely, only using attack roll spells when he's assured that he'll hit, and using save-for-half spells when he can't. A miss on a martial is a wasted turn, a miss for a wizard still means they're doing something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
homullus posted:I was thinking about D&D yesterday and wondered if the game would be better if characters stopped having to roll to hit with weapon attacks (checking only for crits) at levels inversely proportional to the amount of spellcasting in their classes. So, like, at level 4, fighters no longer need to roll to hit ANYTHING with a weapon. Even wizards would eventually be able to reliably bonk somebody with their staves. Would that make it more fun to be a martial character, I wondered?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Mass Combat Unearthed Arcana. I have not read it yet so no idea how good or bad it is. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
I think I would much rather play Risk or Stratego than whatever this is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Edit is dead - Quote Some of the additions were really cool, the rest you could just as easily ignore as all the other stuff you were already ignoring from the books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
That appears to have almost nothing to do with D&D at all. He has just published a barebones wargame model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Edit is dead - Quote I can agree with that. Wasn't that thing that was basically in every powergamer manual ever from a Dragon magazine? White Lotus something or other. goatface posted:That appears to have almost nothing to do with D&D at all. He has just published a barebones wargame model. Barebones is what they do best!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I can agree with that. Wasn't that thing that was basically in every powergamer manual ever from a Dragon magazine? White Lotus something or other. White Lotus Riposte/Master Riposte were good for some defender builds. That's about it for that line. Idk, I liked the content updates from Dragon mag. The actually powerful stuff mostly came from the books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Mike Mearls posted:Cube, Cylinder, Spehere. The size of a cube or the radius of a cylinder or a sphere on the battlefield is 1 square for every 20 feet. Any square in the area beyond the one that contains the point of origin must be within 1 square of the origin square. If the area extends beyond those squares, each additional square must be within 2 squares of the origin square. What the gently caress, Mike?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
I think it's an attempt to cut down on "I position my spell just there, so it hits X squares instead of the Y you'd expect", but his wording is awful. What do we think, has it been edited? He's the only credit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
I thought it was a really obscure way to attempt to clarify that spells weren't included in the "can't move diagonally" thing (since the wording is "within one square", not "adjacent").
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What the gently caress, Mike? I'm trying to parse this but it makes no loving sense.  It almost kinda sorta makes sense for a Sphere, but that 20 feet = 1 square increment throws everything way off with the 2 squares from origin clause (did they change the 1 square = 5ft when I wasn't looking?). Cube effects (4e style Close Blast) are now cones because of the 2 squares clause? What the gently caress happens when your point of origin is the intersection of squares rather than a square itself? How does any of this even work with a cylinder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
isndl posted:makes no loving sense If you're trying to apply it to the D&D rules, it makes no sense at all. It sorta kinda somewhat makes sense in context though - it's from the mass combat rules Mearls just posted. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash Although it also says... quote:If an area has a range of "self", its point of origin is the midpoint of one of the sides of the caster's space. If the spell has any other range, the distance to its point of origin is measured starting at the midpoint of one of the sides of the caster's space ...and I can't put that and the previous quote together in such a way that I could draw you a diagram of how, say, fireball works. Also "Any square in the area beyond the one that contains the point of origin must be..." and "...point of origin is the midpoint of one of the sides of the caster's space..." don't work together. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
quote:A dying solo makes up to ten death saves at the end of the round, one at a time, to determine its fate Elegance!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
I think the wording of something like "every 20ft of spell radius extends the area of effect another square beyond the target, diagonals not allowed as usual", and then a little diagram would have been nice. poo poo's all grid based as gently caress though, so much for theatre of the mind. goatface fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
goatface posted:I think the wording of something like "every 20ft of spell radius extends the area of effect another square beyond the target, diagonals not allowed as usual', and then a little diagram would have been nice. On the first page, the section about diagonals says "Diagonal(s)... are not considered adjacent, each is 1 square away from the other". So the wording of the cube/sphere/cylinder AoE - "within one square" - implies that they can go diagonally, while the wording of the line AoE - "adjacent" - implies that they can't. It's just written in the most confusing possible way. I tripped myself up while writing that because "adjacent" and "within one square/hex" are equivalent in every other game I've ever played. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If you're trying to apply it to the D&D rules, it makes no sense at all. It sorta kinda somewhat makes sense in context though - it's from the mass combat rules Mearls just posted. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash Yeah, I went digging and found that PDF. The 20 foot square makes more sense, except they've already hosed it up by being inconsistent with it: speed is calculated by dividing by 5 (which isn't that big of a deal with the 1 minute rounds), then they reuse the divide-by-five for converting monster abilities. So the example Minotaurs with a 10 foot push on charging turns into 2 squares push, or 40 feet. Meanwhile for ranged attacks you're expected to "determine range as normal (and remember that each square is 20 feet on a side)".  They're kind enough to explain that you use the midpoint of a side of your square to determine your spell range, but still nothing about what happens when your spell targets an intersection (or even midpoint of a side, which they've effectively verified as a legal point of origin).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
No pictures. Not one loving diagram in an attempt to illustrate a point. Does he think it's all obvious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
In case people missed it, there's a second survey on the WotC website now. Also some info on what they learned from their first one. (Haven't read yet, will do that now.) http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/fifth-edition-feedback-survey
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Also some info on what they learned from their first one. 5e is the greatest, most successful version of D&D ever dreamed of by mortal man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:5e is the greatest, most successful version of D&D ever dreamed of by mortal man. Except for rangers. Rangers weren't great. We're going to try to fix them. Ask your DM if you're allowed to use the fixed ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Except for rangers. Rangers weren't great. How is my ranger going to have generations of offspring to use in future campaigns if he's been fixed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
I wrote them 499 words. I expect them to be ignored. edit - I mean, loving hell, it was the same "how satisfied are you with every single feature of this class" with nowhere to actually say why until the ending comments box. There's no way to pull any meaning out of that poo poo. gently caress. Angry about surveys about elfgames. goatface fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Wait wait. The resounding answer was that the ranger was an issue? Not the fighter or the rogue or even the barbarian? I mean all martials get hosed but ranger was the biggest issue out of all of those? Really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Wait wait. The resounding answer was that the ranger was an issue? Not the fighter or the rogue or even the barbarian? I mean all martials get hosed but ranger was the biggest issue out of all of those? Really? Everyone gets native TWF in 5th Edition, so yes, they made a bad ranger. The stuff you get at level one is fluffy exploration garbage with a huge greenlight on it for the DM to give you the finger at any time, because MAGIC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:In case people missed it, there's a second survey on the WotC website now. Also some info on what they learned from their first one. (Haven't read yet, will do that now.) Oh, the surveys became a lot more positive after they weeded out the people who don't like the game? I'm shocked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Everyone gets native TWF in 5th Edition, so yes, they made a bad ranger. I'm not arguing the ranger is good. I'm just saying, Yeah, but fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
I started filling a survey out and then I realized that because two people can enter "not satisfied" to any question for completely loving opposite reasons, the whole god drat thing is meaningless. Does it actually get more meaningful as you get deeper into it? And rangers are garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm not arguing the ranger is good. I'm just saying, Yeah, but fighter. The fighter gets 3 archetypes: 1 is hot garbage, 1 is alright, 1 is interesting but MC does it better. The ranger gets 2 archetypes: 1 is an utter joke, and the other exists. Look, no one is playing a ranger for the reasons you would typically expect of them (archery, TWF), because Fighters do it just as good or better. They don't get Paladin Smites, and by virtue of not being a full spellcaster, their spell list is basically a nerfed Druid list. In my PbP experience alongside a Ranger, their spells never come up much/at all, unless it's "oh hey I can heal if/when the cleric dies/is out of slots." That might not all add up to "worse than a fighter" but it's damning that a Fighter is a better 1- or even 2-level dip than a Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm not arguing the ranger is good. I'm just saying, Yeah, but fighter. I'm sure Fighters as-are received amazing scores from people who do not play them and are overjoyed that they are back in their proper place. Also bit of a swerve here but am I reading the Wizard right in that it learns 44 goddamn spells by level 20, not even counting cantrips or free spells from scrolls?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:32
|
|