|
In a situation like that, someone should be grounding the flying target, potentially even the monk. At level 9 you can run up vertical walls, and probably convince a DM to let you long-jump off of it. Failing all of that in an open-air environment, there are a few low-rarity magic items that grant flight.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Speed doesn't help when fighting something that flies though. Which was more of my concern. Had an issue in HotDQ where dragon sat on ceiling 40 ft up. Monk futiley threw darts at disadvantage. Might I suggest that if the GM throws something flying at a party that cannot deal with something flying effectively, or if half the party cannot, then the GM has hosed up, not the game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Might I suggest that if the GM throws something flying at a party that cannot deal with something flying effectively, or if half the party cannot, then the GM has hosed up, not the game? HotDQ is an official WotC module though. Are you saying it's the DM's fault for running an official module as written?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
isndl posted:HotDQ is an official WotC module though. Are you saying it's the DM's fault for running an official module as written? Yes, yes I am. Similarly, if the GM uses a monster only looking at its CR, not thinking about it, and it TPK's the entire party, that's the GM's fault, too. Generally, any time the GM does something that's unfun for his players, it's his fault. If it turns out that the entire system is unfun for his players... then it's his fault for choosing to run it(unless his players refused to play anything else).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Are you really saying that when you run an official module as-written using the rules as-written and it doesn't work out very well, that's somehow not the fault of the people writing the module and the rules?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Are you really saying that when you run an official module as-written using the rules as-written and it doesn't work out very well, that's somehow not the fault of the people writing the module and the rules? On the one hand, the people writing the module are at fault for writing a poo poo module, but the GM is also at fault for using that module unthinkingly. And unless it's a REALLY common situation that'll crop up in almost any game using said rules, I don't think you can necessarily pin that one on the ruleset itself. Not saying 5E is flawless, but this one's down to user error in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Yeah, man, if you can't tell just by looking at a product that it is broken and doesn't work the way it's supposed to, it is your own fault. You should have known better than expect any level of quality from something you bought with your money. All joking aside, there is some merit to what PurpleXVI said. A Dungeon Master should understand the rules enough and have enough common sense to tweak some parts of any adventure if the PCs would have trouble with that. That's just what game mastering is for fiddly Dungeon and Dragons. Of course, some of these might not be immediately obvious, and the responsibility still falls on the shoulders of the designers to warn Dungeon Masters of such traps since not every would-be Dungeon Master will have the necessary experience to notice these incongruities. The CR System is still a joke, though. It really should be replaced by some sort of guidelines that actually help new Dungeon Masters pick out monsters, but maybe it is better for Next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
"A flying monster when the party is pretty bad at hitting flying monsters" is, I would imagine, an incredibly common encounter-balance problem, and the onus shouldn't be on the DM to detect that as a potential problem, but rather on the writers of the module to give the DM an out by officially stating, within the book, to modify the encounter if needed. I mean, we figured it out, why didn't the writers? Why would the writers assume that a newbie DM would know that he's allowed to go outside the boundaries of the written book, AND that the newbie DM is going to be able to modify the encounter "appropriately"? It's the whole "system mastery via 3rd-party sources of knowledge" thing that crops up with games so often: sure, the design (or in this case, the corrective action) might make sense, but will the player come across it just by reading the material as-is, or will he have to visit forums or a wiki or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"A flying monster when the party is pretty bad at hitting flying monsters" is, I would imagine, an incredibly common encounter-balance problem, and the onus shouldn't be on the DM to detect that as a potential problem, but rather on the writers of the module to give the DM an out by officially stating, within the book, to modify the encounter if needed. But that should go without saying! The DM is the mediator between the system and the players. It's going to be impossible to write a module that is suitable for every party composition. What if a party is really lovely at dealing with melee opponents? Should modules not include monsters with melee attacks, either? quote:I mean, we figured it out, why didn't the writers? Why would the writers assume that a newbie DM would know that he's allowed to go outside the boundaries of the written book, AND that the newbie DM is going to be able to modify the encounter "appropriately"? They would assume that a newbie DM would at least read the DM's guide, which explicitly states that the DM is in total control and should modify encounters so that they're appropriate for the players. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But that should go without saying! The DM is the mediator between the system and the players. It's going to be impossible to write a module that is suitable for every party composition. No, but they should give people advice on what to do when their party varies from the assumed default fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard setup. Something that tells newbies that having a bunch of harpies fly out of reach of their melee-heavy party and shoot them with bows all day would make for a really dull encounter, or that you need to give parties without a cleric a bunch more healing potions or they'll die horribly because they can't heal. Just give them advice that guides people towards being a good dungeon master, you know? That's all anyone can ask for, honestly. But seriously, if the DMG was better at teaching people how to use the ultimate power of being a DM we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
I'll be playing a starter game later this afternoon, but I can't find my old d20s. Any recommendations for an iOS dice app?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
I've always been kind of disappointed with all of the existing dice apps, so I've been working on my own. If you just need something that rolls d20s they pretty much all do that
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
My group of friends are at the very end of the Starter Set adventure (which was great, I enjoyed DMing it) and I'm going to trade places with a player so he gets to DM and I'll get to play a character. Currently the party looks like this (level 5, we have the PHB/MM/DMG): - Champion Fighter - Wild mage Sorcerer - Monk (rerolling from a Moon Druid, so I'm not sure what kind of monk he'll pick) - Me (replacing a Arcane Trickster Rogue) Looking at the current party setup it's lacking a "Leader"/support character, but since I played a Warlord in our previous 4e campaign I'm a bit weary of playing another support unless it's a fun one (I think I lucked out with my Kobold Warlord being hilarious to play). Any advice on a fun class to pick that suits the party?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Lamquin posted:My group of friends are at the very end of the Starter Set adventure (which was great, I enjoyed DMing it) and I'm going to trade places with a player so he gets to DM and I'll get to play a character. Why not a Bard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd say Bard
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Well, for "support class" you're pretty much limited to Bard or Cleric, anyway. Ranger might fit, if the campaign lends itself to one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
I wanted to quote this here because I found it to be a useful breakdown and others might too.gradenko_2000 posted:As I understand it, the spellcasting paradigm now seems to be:
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
So, I want to get in on some D&D. The starter set seemed like a good place to begin, but here's my problem: I know my group isn't going to want to play with completely pre-made characters. They'll probably want to put their own goofy spin on them and have some choice with their abilties. Does the starter kit give players the option to tweak the pre-made characters to any degree - mainly their abilities - or is that something I'd have to get the Player's Guide for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
monkeyboydc posted:So, I want to get in on some D&D. Unless it was changes recently the free player guide online is going to be missing classes and abilities (example the other cleric domains.) So if you want to be flexible with making your characters the full player handbook would be needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Trast posted:Unless it was changes recently the free player guide online is going to be missing classes and abilities (example the other cleric domains.) So if you want to be flexible with making your characters the full player handbook would be needed. Gotcha. Thanks for the help! I'll probably pick that up before we get started then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
monkeyboydc posted:Gotcha. Thanks for the help! I'll probably pick that up before we get started then. It's a nice looking book. There isn't as much art as say the DM guide or the Monster manual from what I understand but you should get the bulk of what you need from it. Some stuff isn't worded quite as well as it could be but that is where this thread comes in handy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I posted this in the other 5e thread, but it got drowned out by chat on how to effectively run a mystery/investigation; thought I'd try my luck over here in a slower thread. Red Hood posted:I got a two-part adventure coming up being run by one of my best buds who lives out of state. He won't be pulling any punches and definitely runs a balanced game (meaning not combat heavy).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
It might be better to have a high natural intelligence rather than a high natural strength. If you find yourself without your equipment, I'd rather be a wizard with low strength than a wizard with low intelligence. Keep in mind the various rules of spellcasting. Cloud of Daggers requires Concentration, so it can be dropped due to damage; shouldn't be much of a problem with your Con score. And you also can't have two Concentration spells up at once, meaning that you can't have Haste and Cloud of Daggers up at the same time; this is particularly bad if you used Haste to move into position, since you lose a turn once Haste ends. As far as spells go, it seems like you're unsure of whether you want to be a sword-wielding wizard or a wizard who happens to have a high strength value. If you want to basically be an awesome Fighter Wizard then you should probably grab Longstrider and Mirror Image
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It might be better to have a high natural intelligence rather than a high natural strength. If you find yourself without your equipment, I'd rather be a wizard with low strength than a wizard with low intelligence. Thanks for the reply. I'm not worried about not having a native Intelligence, only because one of my best bids is running the game and I know he wouldn't create a no equipment captive situation. (he'll just kill us) Though I general your point stands and I agree. Longstrider and Mirror Image are great suggestions, I'll take a look at them. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Mirror Image is one of those spells that is just deceptively, incredibly good for its spell level. Back when I played a sorcerer in 3.5 it was one of the first things that I'd cast if it looked like combat was going to be serious
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Getting Potions of Growth from level 1 slots is really good. Using a level 3 slot for a +1 weapon seems less so. However, you could grab Tavern Brawler at 4 and then use a piece of magic ammunition as an improvised weapon if you wanted to hurt people in melee. This way doesn't use up your badass 3rd level slots, just less impressive 2nd level slots, and lets you be able to grapple as a bonus action after regular attacking the guy you want to hold inside the Cloud of Daggers. Then of course you could also give the 19 other +1 arrows or whatever to someone else in the party. All you'd lose is 1 str or 1 con and a little damage on opportunity attacks if you get any.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Getting Potions of Growth from level 1 slots is really good. Using a level 3 slot for a +1 weapon seems less so. You know, a Level 3 spell for a +1 weapon seems less awesome, I agree. But I think I'll trade off the level 3 spell for a non-concentration 8 hour duration. This way, if I want it, I can have the +1 weapon AND one of those nifty concentration spells, like Haste. I'd thought about Tavern Brawler before, but you suggesting it too might tip me over the edge. I'd have to decide if Bonus Action grapple is worth -6HP, -1 Con save. I play tomorrow and next week; I'll let you guys know how he fares!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Ok, am I crazy or are a ton of Oath of Devotion paladin spells redundant with the base paladin spell list? Spell level 1, protection from good and evil are base spells. 2, both lesser restoration AND zone of truth are base spells. 3, dispel magic is a base spell. 4 and 5 are fine. There's also one redundancy for Oath of Vengeance: spell level 4's banishment. How do you get away with this poo poo? How lazy is your "team" that they never bothered to cross-check the oath spells with the base ones once the lists were finalized? And with some cursory searching I'm not finding anything mentioning these redundancies which is making me question my sanity. Help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Your oath spells are always "prepared" and don't count against the number of spells you could otherwise prepare. So, yeah, not all of them are gonna give you non-paladin spells, but oath spells just guarantee you will always have those spells at your disposal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Yeah I finally found that in the rules. That makes sense I guess. Too bad most of Devotion's redundant oath spells are crap ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
They aren't even bad spells. Prot:evil, sanc, lesser restoration and zone of truth are all useful in specific situations. Sanc is really good if a bunch of monsters are about to attack, maybe they have you or an ally surrounded. Sanc goes away if the target attacks, but if they dodge, the enemy has to get through a wisdom save and still has disadvantage on the swing. It's a bonus action to cast, so you can both use it and dodge all at once, maybe while moving up to all the enemies. Having them prepared by default frees up your other slots for more generic spells like smites or cure wounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
ritorix posted:They aren't even bad spells. Prot:evil, sanc, lesser restoration and zone of truth are all useful in specific situations. Sanc is really good if a bunch of monsters are about to attack, maybe they have you or an ally surrounded. Sanc goes away if the target attacks, but if they dodge, the enemy has to get through a wisdom save and still has disadvantage on the swing. It's a bonus action to cast, so you can both use it and dodge all at once, maybe while moving up to all the enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
http://www.dndclassics.com/product/145542/Elemental-Evil-Players-Companion-5e All the new stuff for the Elemental Evil campaign is now available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
So, I made some tentative houserules for 5E, trying to be as unintrusive as possible while also giving martial classes a few more options in combat, and Gradenko suggested I post them in here when I brought them up. It's very much a first-pass thing, hasn't seen much in the way of testing yet, likely unbalanced, but I think it's a good start, at least conceptually. Pastebinned for the sake of not making a huge loving lump of a post: http://pastebin.com/Rp6KZ0ti The short version is that I took as many of the Battlemaster maneuvers as possible and made them something that everyone could do in a fight, in exchange for taking a penalty to their attack roll(and in a few cases, taking a penalty to their next attack rolls), as well as adding in a few new ones(largely options for grapplers, to make that something someone might plausibly use, ever). I tried to focus on things that would let people do new stuff, while avoiding as far as possible maneuvers that just involved shuffling numbers around or getting straight bonuses. On top of it, I also packed a bit of a generic attack bonus for classes, based on how central physical combat is to them, so that it's easier for, say, a pure fighter or barbarian, to have these maneuvers' attack penalties offset, than it is for a wizard if he tries it. Additionally, I'd suggest letting players come up with personalized maneuvers, specific to them, dependant on props and abilities. For instance, an Eldritch Knight might have a special variant of a shield bash that involves enchanting his shield with something before slamming into an enemy's face and unleashing the spell. A Ranger might have some form of trick/magical arrows. In general, I'd make them more powerful than the base maneuvers everyone can use, but balance this out by having the penalty they provide last for the remainder of the fight(or until the next short rest) to indicate that the maneuvers are more complicated/exhausting/consume resources that need to be rebuilt/regathered. And of course the base maneuvers would also be available to any reasonably tough enemy fighters the players come up against, making them a bit more complicated to do battle with, too. The downside to these houserules is that, of course, they're basically incompatible with the Battlemaster archetype, but I think that's a small loss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Quick saving throw question. Lets say a monster has a 14 wisdom (+2), but in their stat block under saving throws it says Wis +6. Do they add a 6 or an 8 on their d20 to meet or beat my spell DC? I'm pretty sure it is 8, but it is late and I'm having second thoughts. odinson fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Stat blocks are designed to minimize the amount of math you need to do during a session. Just use the numbers it gives, since it should already have any applicable bonuses included.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:Why not a Bard? QuarkJets posted:Yeah, I'd say Bard P.d0t posted:Well, for "support class" you're pretty much limited to Bard or Cleric, anyway. Ranger might fit, if the campaign lends itself to one. Hah, a bard it is! I tried my hand at creating a bard using a pre-made Bard (Collage of Lore) for the groundwork and reading up on class in the Players Handbook. When it came to choosing spells I probably could have spent more time, but frankly I got tired of browsing that section in the PHB back and forth to compare alternatives. Kinda made me miss the simplicity of the 4e digital character creator. I'm worried that I might've taken to many Concentration spells, but hopefully they'll all be handy.  Behold, Miri Evenwood - the bard who reaches for the sky attempting to be a hero from the old tales, no matter the cost. If anyone can just do a quick pass through the character sheet and see if I did something horribly wrong, missed something or have some plain advice regarding spells I'd really appreciate it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
At a glance, everything seems right and your spell picks are solid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the other thread because I haven't seen this one. I'll be joining a DnD 5e group about to start the Hoard of the Dragon Queen module. Currently the party consists of a bard, a cleric, a monk and a paladin. I'll be adding a human fighter to this group, despite warlock looking somewhat tempting initially. Going for Polearm Master, Great Weapon Fighting style, and eventually Battlemaster. Am I hamstringing my group in any way picking this? Is there anything I should watch out for in the module, or in general (without spoiling it?). Is there anything in the general group combat dynamic I should look at? I know that it's a hard question to answer before I know any of the specifics of the other players' characters. Really the thing I'm most worried about is nobody ending up with an intelligence above 12. Or even 10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Polearm Battlemaster is perfectly fine as a choice, although your effectiveness will be greatly affected by how well the DM will stick to the Short Rest "schedule"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:34
|
|