|
He's saying that we can't judge the quality of 5E's feats, because they haven't put out multiple books full of
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
If 5E feats are pretty garbo but there is an actual alternative to taking them, at least that's a step up? Maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:He's saying that we can't judge the quality of 5E's feats, because they haven't put out multiple books full of
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:He's saying that we can't judge the quality of 5E's feats, because they haven't put out multiple books full of Yeah, the 3E feats in the core book were pretty representative of the overall utility of them, which makes sense since most feat designers probably used them as a guideline for power/functionality. The ideal feat, in my mind, is one that has as little "passive" effect as possible. It should always be one that lets you do something new, not just let you do something old better, though modifying the effect of something you can already do is also viable(like, say, I don't know, if you can already disarm, then a feat to upgrade disarming to breaking weapons/armor would be pretty cool).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Yeah, the 3E feats in the core book were pretty representative of the overall utility of them, which makes sense since most feat designers probably used them as a guideline for power/functionality. The problem with that is when feats actively curtail action, like the pathfinder feat that implicitly means you can't do the old "Act like your cuffs are too tight to get the guard to come closer"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:The problem with that is when feats actively curtail action, like the pathfinder feat that implicitly means you can't do the old "Act like your cuffs are too tight to get the guard to come closer" That's a thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:The problem with that is when feats actively curtail action, like the pathfinder feat that implicitly means you can't do the old "Act like your cuffs are too tight to get the guard to come closer" Well yeah, obviously that's retarded. Which feat is that, though? I don't play Pathfinder, but that sounds like a hilarious fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
He's probably referring to Helpless Prisoner, which has the sole effect of letting you make bluff checks while restrained or imprisoned to convince someone you are helpless and in pain. The mechanical effect is a +5 to escape as they try to help you or at least shut you up. If I can do that without the feat, then what is the feat for? If it's the mechanical bonus, then what smaller bonus would you possibly give?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Gambor posted:He's probably referring to Helpless Prisoner, which has the sole effect of letting you make bluff checks while restrained or imprisoned to convince someone you are helpless and in pain. The mechanical effect is a +5 to escape as they try to help you or at least shut you up.  That's a really blatant form of "let's turn it into a rule so that the players can't roleplay it"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Yeah that's the feat, Gnome only If I remember correctly too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
The feat is even worse than you think. It includes the following text: "At the GM’s discretion, an especially evil or cruel creature may gain a +2 bonus to its Sense Motive check to resist this ability. If it succeeds, it does something to make your bindings even more secure and less comfortable, giving you a –5 penalty on all Escape Artist checks made in those particular bonds."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:The problem with that is when feats actively curtail action, like the pathfinder feat that implicitly means you can't do the old "Act like your cuffs are too tight to get the guard to come closer"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Even apart from the actual mechanics, how often does that sort of thing possibly come up that you have to build a feat around it, unless you're specifically playing Sweet Gwendoline's Dungeon Adventures?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Even apart from the actual mechanics, how often does that sort of thing possibly come up that you have to build a feat around it, unless you're specifically playing Sweet Gwendoline's Dungeon Adventures? I think it's a useful tool for DMs with players who like to make lots of stupid decisions (like me). My swordmage tends to get tied up a ton because she charges into every situation often without the party so she gets knocked out and used as a hostage. I think the alternative is the DM killing me pretty much every other session so I'm ok with it. I've played her for about 30 sessions and I think she's been tied up or at least taken hostage in 6-7 or sessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:I think it's a useful tool for DMs with players who like to make lots of stupid decisions (like me). My swordmage tends to get tied up a ton because she charges into every situation often without the party so she gets knocked out and used as a hostage. I think the alternative is the DM killing me pretty much every other session so I'm ok with it. I've played her for about 30 sessions and I think she's been tied up or at least taken hostage in 6-7 or sessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's a feat to allow you tense your muscles and hold your breath. Having this feat doesn't grant you superhuman powers, it just takes mundane abilities away from everyone who didn't. Oh I was talking about the mechanical idea of taking PCs hostage. Not the feat. The feat is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:The ideal feat, in my mind, is one that has as little "passive" effect as possible. It should always be one that lets you do something new, not just let you do something old better, though modifying the effect of something you can already do is also viable(like, say, I don't know, if you can already disarm, then a feat to upgrade disarming to breaking weapons/armor would be pretty cool). 4E called things like this powers, and it should have killed feats when it had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Oh I was talking about the mechanical idea of taking PCs hostage. Not the feat. The feat is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
TheAwfulWaffle posted:4E called things like this powers, and it should have killed feats when it had the chance. You won't find me arguing with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
TheAwfulWaffle posted:4E called things like this powers, and it should have killed feats when it had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
Yeah, this is something I've been careful about when writing Strike's kits. I had to cut some powers because they were too far in that direction. Every power that let's you make a roll should be strictly better in some way than making the same roll just using skills, or else the power is useless. In D&D a feat that said "When you try to fool a guard into loosening your restraints or opening your cell for a minute, you automatically succeed" would be a) not overpowered. Possibly underpowered. b) still leave room for others to roleplay and c)more fun than just getting a plus numbers
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
I would probably condense that down even further to something like "+x to attempts to escape the restrained condition" (assuming it's a defined condition). You're in prison with guards who tied you up, you get the bonus to bluffing the guards. You're in prison and the guards tied you up and left, because your DM got wise to your bluffing trick, you get the bonus to Endurance because you held your breath or Athletics because you straight up snap the ropes, or whatever. You're in combat and a big spider just webbed you, you get the bonus to (what would in 4E be) your saving throw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Seriously, if 4E had called martial powers Feats so many grog arguments would never have happened. You have more faith in grogs than I do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Seriously, if 4E had called martial powers Feats so many grog arguments would never have happened. There's a mirror universe where martial powers were called feats and warlords bards. I want to go there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
TheAwfulWaffle posted:You have more faith in grogs than I do. Technically, martial powers were called exploits, even if no one ever used that name. Didn't slow the grogs down for a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Seriously, if 4E had called martial powers Feats so many grog arguments would never have happened. 3.x already had Extraordinary abilities as "though they may break the laws of physics, are nonmagical"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Technically, martial powers were called exploits, even if no one ever used that name. Didn't slow the grogs down for a second. Yes it's bullshit but bullshit fuels the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
4E even had plenty of that bullshit already, like the entire setup with half level, ability scores, enhancement bonuses etc. all obfuscating the fact that there was a very linear "+1 to attacks per level" going on. Or supposed to be going on, at least. We'd still have gotten complaints that fighters could do Whirlwind Attacks only once per day, or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
There is no amount of wordplay that would've solved the problem of grogs wanting only two classes: Spellcasters and Non-spellcasters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:There is no amount of wordplay that would've solved the problem of grogs wanting only two classes: Spellcasters and Worthless Peons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Since we're on this tack anyway: has there been any long-winded grogsplanation for why the 5e Battlemaster Fighter's Superiority Dice are a fine mechanic that doesn't break verisimilitude, despite the fact that any martial ability you can't do All Day was Magic back when 4e Fighters had powers? I know the real reason (Superiority dice aren't nearly as fun, interesting, or effective as spells, and are therefore acceptable for muggles), but I'm honestly curious what their rationalization was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
How would you guys use Phantasmal Force to gently caress up a Troll (MM pg. 291)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Feed it some chilli peppers, then convince it that the bucket of actively burning alchemist's fire it's drinking is actually cool, refreshing water. Actually, acid would probably work better and be cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:Since we're on this tack anyway: has there been any long-winded grogsplanation for why the 5e Battlemaster Fighter's Superiority Dice are a fine mechanic that doesn't break verisimilitude, despite the fact that any martial ability you can't do All Day was Magic back when 4e Fighters had powers? Since it feels like D&D again, there's no need to rationalize anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
odinson posted:How would you guys use Phantasmal Force to gently caress up a Troll (MM pg. 291)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
So, here's some information about how Great Weapon Fighting Style and Savage Attacker interact with 1d12, 2d6, or dual-wielding 1d6 weapons. I can't really make heads or tails of the TWF stuff, exactly, but it gives you a rough idea nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
The idea is that you can only use Savage Attacker once per turn, but TWF swings twice, so you have to decide whether to use it on the first attack or save it for the off-hand, based on how much damage you rolled. It seems really weak. Under the best of circumstances (swinging a d12 greataxe around only once per turn) it increases your average damage by ~2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
In my last session my Wizard was able to gradually over time find out the secret identity of one of the Lords of Waterdeep using Detect Thoughts, invisibly stalk him and learn his routine, impersonate his carriage driver with Disguise Self, take him captive and learn all his memories, then murder him and assume his identity, his estate and all of his financial assets. DM: "Ok, but his captain of the guard notices something's up and is gradually gonna work to find out what you did." Me: "No, because I can read minds constantly. I quickly discover his suspicions, have him quietly killed and replaced with someone more loyal." DM: "Oh, so you can. I guess he's dead." In the same session, our Rogue failed a stealth roll to steal from a potion merchant and was captured by the guards and jailed. I had to use my influence as a Lord of Waterdeep to have him released. ROLEplaying not ROLLplaying
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Boing posted:ROLEplaying not ROLLplaying But the Rogue can fail stealth rolls all day!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Why can you read minds constantly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:08
|
|
