D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

P.d0t: Dec 27, 2007; I released my finger from the trigger, and then it was over...

Carteret posted:

I have no idea if anyone cares/if I missed the memo several pages ago, but my store just got the Princes of The Apocalypse and the benefits of being a manager is that I get to take poo poo home early.

Does anyone care or want to know about contents? Is it already easily available?

Do people give a poo poo about this adventure at all?

Having played a couple playtest-era modules as well as parts of the HotDQ, I'm interested to see what kind of progression has been made, yeah.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 04:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 04:33

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Stanley Goodspeed posted:

Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I've played a couple of sessions using these rules as a thief dude and other than very early game lethality I haven't noticed a whole lot, but I haven't run into any higher level stuff and don't have a firm basis to compare stuff to since the last D&D I actually played was like second edition or some cobbled together poo poo.

The absolute one thing I would change is to give everyone maybe an additional 10 max HP at level 1. Everything else can be adjusted to taste or even played as is.

I couldn't really pin any one element that needs fixing because it's all tied together: the monsters hitting too hard is tied with players having a very narrow range of HP at level 1, which means the expected minimum damage would have to go into fractions, which it can't, so monsters just end up hitting too hard period. There's no consistency on how hard players should be hitting at any given level. There's not really even any consistency on the abilities of classes across themselves or even across archetypes.

Ultimately the problem is that there's not enough design as a whole put into the combat, for a game that's focused on combat. It's possible to "fix" it, and it's also possible to play the game in such a manner that it never really becomes an issue (casually, more rules-disregarding raw roleplay, etc.), but either approach would require enough effort that I would suggest just looking for another system that works better out of the box if you can't shake it.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 04:58

ThEnema: Sep 27, 2013; Blitzball, yah?

Is it possible to gain more than one attack of opportunity in a single round?

# ? Apr 2, 2015 06:31

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Check the the Marking variant rule from the DMG:

quote:

When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target. Until the end of the attacker's next turn, any opportunity attack it makes against the marked target has advantage. The opportunity attack doesn't expend the attacker's reaction, but the attacker can't make the attack if anything, such as the incapacitated condition or the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn.

The bolded part is a little tricky. The first time I read it I thought it meant:
The OA from Marking doesn't use your Reaction, but you're still only limited to one OA from Marking, so you can get two OAs per turn: one that's triggered by the Marked target, and one using your Reaction.

However, now that I've reread it, it might mean that you're absolutely limited to one OA per turn period, whether from Marking, Reactions, or otherwise. The Marking rule then means you can probably do something like get one OA per turn from Marking, but then you can use your Reaction to do something else, such as a Fighter imposing Disadvantage on an enemy attack roll with their Protection fighting style.

Besides that, no, there is no way to gain more than one OA in a single round without using houserules.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 06:43

Zandar: Aug 22, 2008

gradenko_2000 posted:

Check the the Marking variant rule from the DMG:

The bolded part is a little tricky. The first time I read it I thought it meant:
The OA from Marking doesn't use your Reaction, but you're still only limited to one OA from Marking, so you can get two OAs per turn: one that's triggered by the Marked target, and one using your Reaction.

However, now that I've reread it, it might mean that you're absolutely limited to one OA per turn period, whether from Marking, Reactions, or otherwise. The Marking rule then means you can probably do something like get one OA per turn from Marking, but then you can use your Reaction to do something else, such as a Fighter imposing Disadvantage on an enemy attack roll with their Protection fighting style.

Besides that, no, there is no way to gain more than one OA in a single round without using houserules.

Aren't turns and rounds still different things? If so, you could absolutely make two (or more, if you attack multiple creatures on your turn) OAs per round unless there's another rule specifically prohibiting it, just not two against the same creature (barring out-of-turn movement, I guess).

# ? Apr 2, 2015 08:20

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

The PHB says "When you take a reaction, you can�t take another one until the start of your next turn.", and an Opportunity Attack is just one of the things you can spend a Reaction on.

Without the Marking rule, you couldn't make more than one OA per round.

With the Marking rule, you could probably make two OAs: one against the Marked target (that does not consume your Reaction), and another against any other target that triggers an OA (that uses your Reaction). It could even be against the same target.

I don't think you could make more than two OAs per turn though: non-Reaction-using OAs are only against the Marked target, and you can only Mark one target at a time, and inflicting forced movement on a target doesn't trigger OAs.

At this point I'm just more confused.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 08:40

ThEnema: Sep 27, 2013; Blitzball, yah?

OA's require you to use your reaction action.

It would be nice to gain more so you can be a defensive member of melee.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 08:53

goatface: Dec 5, 2007; I had a video of that when I was about 6.

I remember it being shit.; Grimey Drawer

Potentially, if you have multiple attacks you could mark multiple things. Then you can make opportunity attacks against them on each of their turns. You aren't spending your reaction, because they're marked, so you aren't limited to one per round.

Given that advantage makes hitting really likely, it's a pretty good sticky effect.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 11:32

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

goatface posted:

Potentially, if you have multiple attacks you could mark multiple things. Then you can make opportunity attacks against them on each of their turns. You aren't spending your reaction, because they're marked, so you aren't limited to one per round.

Given that advantage makes hitting really likely, it's a pretty good sticky effect.

Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way but that actually makes perfect sense! That variant rule looks a lot more powerful now, especially combined with Sentinel.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 11:57

Agent Boogeyman: Feb 17, 2005; "This cannot POSSIBLY be good. . ."

gradenko_2000 posted:

Check the the Marking variant rule from the DMG:

The bolded part is a little tricky. The first time I read it I thought it meant:
The OA from Marking doesn't use your Reaction, but you're still only limited to one OA from Marking, so you can get two OAs per turn: one that's triggered by the Marked target, and one using your Reaction.

However, now that I've reread it, it might mean that you're absolutely limited to one OA per turn period, whether from Marking, Reactions, or otherwise. The Marking rule then means you can probably do something like get one OA per turn from Marking, but then you can use your Reaction to do something else, such as a Fighter imposing Disadvantage on an enemy attack roll with their Protection fighting style.

Besides that, no, there is no way to gain more than one OA in a single round without using houserules.

Your re-reading of the rule would be the correct one. All Marking does in this instance is make it so your Opportunity Attack no longer eats up your Reaction. You can still only make one a turn, since it bothers to actually spell that out, but you now have the option to use your ONE Opportunity Attack against the Marked target at the cost of no action and still be able to use a Reaction that isn't an Opportunity Attack in the same round.

However, that said, I absolutely love how this variant rule completely misses the point of Marking just like the variant rule for healing surges. The point of Marking wasn't so you got an extra attack against an enemy, it was so you made it more difficult for the loving enemy to hit people who weren't you. This variant is pretty much the wacky world of opposites in function: If anything, it should impose disadvantage on the Marked target any time it makes an attack that does not include you as a target. The "Opportunity Attack" as punishment for ignoring the Mark was never intrinsically linked to the Marking process, but instead was different for each Defender class as a class feature. They have it all rear end-backwards.

Agent Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Apr 2, 2015

# ? Apr 2, 2015 12:06

Sage Genesis: Aug 14, 2014; OG Murderhobo

Agent Boogeyman posted:

Your re-reading of the rule would be the correct one. All Marking does in this instance is make it so your Opportunity Attack no longer eats up your Reaction. You can still only make one a turn, since it bothers to actually spell that out, but you now have the option to use your ONE Opportunity Attack against the Marked target at the cost of no action and still be able to use a Reaction that isn't an Opportunity Attack in the same round.

However, that said, I absolutely love how this variant rule completely misses the point of Marking just like the variant rule for healing surges. The point of Marking wasn't so you got an extra attack against an enemy, it was so you made it more difficult for the loving enemy to hit people who weren't you. This variant is pretty much the wacky world of opposites in function: If anything, it should impose disadvantage on the Marked target any time it makes an attack that does not include you as a target. The "Opportunity Attack" as punishment for ignoring the Mark was never intrinsically linked to the Marking process, but instead was different for each Defender class as a class feature. They have it all rear end-backwards.

I'm not so sure. Being able to make an OA once per turn is not the same as once per round. You can see as much on page 189 in the sidebar, where a round only passes once everybody's had their individual turns.

But yes, they do have it completely backwards. What 5e calls "marking" is actually more like a watered down version of the 4e Fighter's Combat Superiority feature. It's about discouraging movement. But marking is not about discouraged movement, it's about discouraged targeting. It really is kind of amazing how they try to put in some "recognizably D&D" elements from 4e and managed to keep missing the points again and again.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 14:05

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Sage Genesis posted:

I'm not so sure. Being able to make an OA once per turn is not the same as once per round. You can see as much on page 189 in the sidebar, where a round only passes once everybody's had their individual turns.

But yes, they do have it completely backwards. What 5e calls "marking" is actually more like a watered down version of the 4e Fighter's Combat Superiority feature. It's about discouraging movement. But marking is not about discouraged movement, it's about discouraged targeting. It really is kind of amazing how they try to put in some "recognizably D&D" elements from 4e and managed to keep missing the points again and again.

5e was designed by and for people who consider "it is distracting to have a trained warrior wave six feet of steel in your face" a controversial statement.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 14:14

Agent Boogeyman: Feb 17, 2005; "This cannot POSSIBLY be good. . ."

Sage Genesis posted:

I'm not so sure. Being able to make an OA once per turn is not the same as once per round. You can see as much on page 189 in the sidebar, where a round only passes once everybody's had their individual turns.

But yes, they do have it completely backwards. What 5e calls "marking" is actually more like a watered down version of the 4e Fighter's Combat Superiority feature. It's about discouraging movement. But marking is not about discouraged movement, it's about discouraged targeting. It really is kind of amazing how they try to put in some "recognizably D&D" elements from 4e and managed to keep missing the points again and again.

That is a good point and now I'm second guessing myself. I'm pretty sure you're right, mainly because it says "per turn" and not specifically "your turn". That's where I made the mistake. This raises a question though: in what instances would a Marked target provoke more than once a round? Though yeah, with this interpretation, if you make multiple melee attacks against multiple targets you can mark each. Then, if each one provokes on their turn, you get to make an Opportunity Attack against each of them, all without eating up your own Reaction. That makes a lot more sense.

Still wrong for properly representing Marking mechanics in 5E though.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 16:03

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

Presumably, it could provoke more than once if it had the ability to use a Reaction to do something. The same way Knights in 4e can often get multiple punishments on creatures with more than one action or which take OAs themselves.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 16:11

goatface: Dec 5, 2007; I had a video of that when I was about 6.

I remember it being shit.; Grimey Drawer

If you have sentinel and they target someone else you can react attack them, then if they move away you can mark attack them.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 16:16

Sage Genesis: Aug 14, 2014; OG Murderhobo

Agent Boogeyman posted:

That is a good point and now I'm second guessing myself. I'm pretty sure you're right, mainly because it says "per turn" and not specifically "your turn". That's where I made the mistake. This raises a question though: in what instances would a Marked target provoke more than once a round? Though yeah, with this interpretation, if you make multiple melee attacks against multiple targets you can mark each. Then, if each one provokes on their turn, you get to make an Opportunity Attack against each of them, all without eating up your own Reaction. That makes a lot more sense.

Still wrong for properly representing Marking mechanics in 5E though.

It's mostly to prevent silly abuses. Because of this rule, you can't make an infinite amount of OA on a leaving target. Usually this kind of scenario is prevented by the fact that you have only one reaction to spend. But if it doesn't cost a reaction... well, where does it say you can make only one single OA? The answer is right there, the final sentence which says you only get one per turn.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 16:40

bio347: Oct 29, 2012

Isn't this the sort of problem that 4E's split of Opportunity and Immediate actions more or less fixed?

# ? Apr 2, 2015 18:29

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Yes, also because they put the limiter for number of opportunity attacks on the action itself rather than the attacker. E.G. each provoking action can only provoke one attack from each person who threatens them. Rather than you needing to spend your opportunity actions like a precious resource.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 18:39

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

bio347 posted:

Isn't this the sort of problem that 4E's split of Opportunity and Immediate actions more or less fixed?

I mean off-turn actions can become a mess in 4E. Especially around mid-Paragon tier when like off-turn actions start triggering off other off-turn actions. It's kind of annoying when you're just trying to attack and you spend 15 minutes waiting for the DM and two other players to resolve a ton of stuff that went off because you provoked an opportunity attack, the fighter had the target marked so a bunch of his poo poo goes off, then the shaman decides to give the fighter something, and it just spirals from there.

Part of me wonders if off-turn actions are even necessary. There has to be other ways for fighters and others to be sticky or to punish people who move away from them.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 18:41

My Lovely Horse: Aug 21, 2010

There's nothing wrong with off-turn actions per se, just as you say when off-turn actions trigger more off-turn actions it becomes a huge mess. I think if everyone had a maximum of one of them, that'd be alright. Could be at-will like a Fighter's mark punishment or per encounter, but you only ever get the one so you only have to watch out for one trigger.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 19:11

goatface: Dec 5, 2007; I had a video of that when I was about 6.

I remember it being shit.; Grimey Drawer

Fighter-man spends bonus action to enter the Wall of Meat stance!
Until the start of their next turn, all enemies within reach of the player have their movement reduced to 5ft and cannot take the disengage action unless they are fleeing in a direction the player approves of. Any enemy within reach that makes an attack not including the player counts their target as being in 3/4 cover. The PC cannot spend movement after entering this stance

goatface fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 2, 2015

# ? Apr 2, 2015 19:25

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

goatface posted:

Fighter-man spends bonus action to enter the Wall of Meat stance!
Until the start of their next turn, all enemies within reach of the player have their movement reduced to 5ft and cannot take the disengage action unless they are fleeing in a direction the player approves of. Any enemy within reach that makes an attack not including the player counts their target as being in 3/4 cover. The PC cannot spend movement after entering this stance

Yes but fighter is cool because it hits things for damage numbers, and this doesn't do that.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 19:33

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

lol if you wanted to do battlefield control stuff then you should have rolled a caster *holds up replica Harry Potter wand and jizzes all over himself*

# ? Apr 2, 2015 19:57

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Rosalind posted:

Part of me wonders if off-turn actions are even necessary. There has to be other ways for fighters and others to be sticky or to punish people who move away from them.

A genuine mark (-2 to attack targets that are not the fighter still would work in 5e) and instant flat damage or status effects for moving away from the fighter would do it.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 20:06

MonsterEnvy: Feb 4, 2012; Shocked I tell you

Carteret posted:

I have no idea if anyone cares/if I missed the memo several pages ago, but my store just got the Princes of The Apocalypse and the benefits of being a manager is that I get to take poo poo home early.

Does anyone care or want to know about contents? Is it already easily available?

Do people give a poo poo about this adventure at all?

I have it as well and I think it's pretty great. Lots of people do care about it. Just not on this site.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 20:50

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

MonsterEnvy posted:

I have it as well and I think it's pretty great. Lots of people do care about it. Just not on this site.

What do you like about it?

# ? Apr 2, 2015 21:24

Littlefinger: Oct 13, 2012

MonsterEnvy posted:

I have it as well and I think it's pretty great. Lots of people do care about it. Just not on this site.

Please never stop posting.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 21:25

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

QuarkJets posted:

lol if you wanted to do battlefield control stuff then you should have rolled a caster *holds up replica Harry Potter wand and jizzes all over himself*

Haha. You think grogs want anything to do with Harry Potter.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 21:38

TheCosmicMuffet: Jun 21, 2009; by Shine

PeterWeller posted:

Haha. You think grogs want anything to do with Harry Potter.

That's not the right wand for a slithereen in 1911.

# ? Apr 2, 2015 21:41

Xelkelvos: Dec 19, 2012

Littlefinger posted:

Please never stop posting.

He might if ADTRW kicks him out, but when have they ever kicked anyone out?

# ? Apr 2, 2015 22:00

odinson: Mar 17, 2009

Xelkelvos posted:

He might if ADTRW kicks him out, but when have they ever kicked anyone out?

The dude that made 4chan?

# ? Apr 2, 2015 23:11

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

If 5e had kept movement the same as 2e everything would be fine with martials and all this complicated marking wouldn't be needed.

mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Apr 2, 2015

# ? Apr 2, 2015 23:24

LongDarkNight: Oct 25, 2010; It's like watching the collapse of Western civilization in fast forward.; Oven Wrangler

Hope you guys like Forgotten Realms, just got a 20 page doc of race descriptions and language bullshit. It has a blurb for Duergar stats and variant half elfs, otherwise no mechanics. Not sure why this needs to go to playtesters.

# ? Apr 3, 2015 02:23

Ryuujin: Sep 26, 2007; Dragon God

So are the Duergar and Variant Half-Elves the only races? The variants kind of like the variant human? Or actual variants for representing half-elves with different elf parents?

# ? Apr 3, 2015 02:43

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Carteret posted:

I have no idea if anyone cares/if I missed the memo several pages ago, but my store just got the Princes of The Apocalypse and the benefits of being a manager is that I get to take poo poo home early.

Does anyone care or want to know about contents? Is it already easily available?

Do people give a poo poo about this adventure at all?

Is this the one with the new class archetypes? I'd be interested in hearing about those, especially if the rumors of a Warlord-esque archetype are true.

homullus posted:

A genuine mark (-2 to attack targets that are not the fighter still would work in 5e) and instant flat damage or status effects for moving away from the fighter would do it.

Right on. I thought it was clever that Strike! did away with the attack roll for OAs completely.

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 3, 2015

# ? Apr 3, 2015 05:43

Carteret: Nov 10, 2012

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is this the one with the new class archetypes? I'd be interested in hearing about those, especially if the rumors of a Warlord-esque archetype are true.

Unless I'm missing something, no. Everything crunchy like races and spells is available in that free .pdf download from wizards. As a matter of fact, the book only has the Genasi and spell list. There is a chunk of good baddies (bonded, water breathing shark riders anyone?), 20 pages or so of background on the area, and side quests you can do as well as the bulk of the book, the actual adventure.

# ? Apr 3, 2015 05:52

Power Player: Oct 2, 2006; GOD SPEED YOU! HUNGRY MEXICAN

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/583389546512941058

Good news, we're getting more magic backgrounds in the future!

# ? Apr 3, 2015 16:00

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

mastershakeman posted:

Yeah, I fail to see how 2e (especially if you 'fix' it as well) is inferior to 5e, and 2e's decades old at this point. I still can't get over how insane those crit tables are after using them last weekend.

Well 2e does have all those old race/class/level max restrictions which kinda made sense in their original context (demihumans are rare!) but not when they were publishing 10 different settings.

# ? Apr 3, 2015 21:46

P.d0t: Dec 27, 2007; I released my finger from the trigger, and then it was over...

Power Player posted:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/583389546512941058

Good news, we're getting more magic backgrounds in the future!

More accurately, we're getting more Sorcerer Archetypes in the future; backgrounds are A Thing of their own.

# ? Apr 4, 2015 03:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 04:33

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Of course. If fighters wanted options they would have picked the classes with spells.

# ? Apr 4, 2015 04:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

«‹›1608 »