|
Gort posted:Why can you read minds constantly? A level 6 Divination Wizard regains a spell slot every time they cast a 2nd level or higher divination spell, effectively letting you cast Detect Thoughts (and any other divination spell between 2nd and 5th level) repeatedly. e: Hrm, nvm because the slot recovered needs to be a lower level than the spell cast. Generic Octopus fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 17, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Not 'constantly' but 'several times a day', especially when you're not adventuring and don't need your higher level spell slots for other things, and that's enough to probe peoples' thoughts in any particular important interactions during the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
No see it's fine though because a rogue can do the same thing as many times as they want per day using skills to pass a sense motive check. I mean what's the DC to determine if someone's a lord of Waterdeep? Pretty low right? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Just the Arcane Recovery feature itself would be enough to give Wizards a bunch of "free" casts of Detect Thoughts
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:No see it's fine though because a rogue can do the same thing as many times as they want per day using skills to pass a sense motive check. I mean what's the DC to determine if someone's a lord of Waterdeep? Pretty low right? Your mysterious patron grins at you. "I see you have acquired the blackmail material. I am going to deeply enjoy lording this over them. Now, where is that waiter, with my water?" His eyes dart shiftily back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
so if you have proficiency with shields from another class, can you use a shield with the Sorcerer's Draconic Resilience feature (from the Draconic Bloodline)? Or is your AC just 13+DEX, and gently caress any shield you might have equipped?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
ask your dm
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Shields are always on top of AC, never a part of an AC calculation. The only time it matters is if you're a monk or something, where the Unarmored Defense feature specifies not using a shield.LGD posted:MAD builds. All a Bard-archer really needs is dexterity and charisma, everything else is minor. Get Swift Quiver at level 10 and spit out 4 Sharpshooter attacks a round if you pick up Extra Attack from valor or something. Three levels of Ranger can get you the Archery fighting style and Horde Breaker for another (situational) free attack. I can't think of anything else that can really compare to that damage. Vanguard Warden fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
So a few of my friends are suddenly excited about 5E and are running a campaign. They're pretty casual, so I'm swallowing my 4venger-ness, turning off my brain, and planning to blast stuff with magic powers. The DM had us roll stats (with an option to take standard point buy if our rolls were awful) because it's "fun" and I ended up legitimately rolling out of my mind (18, 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10). My original plan had been to go Fire Dragon Sorcerer 3->Warlock 2->Sorcerer X for maximum blasting power (abusing Eldrich Blast with Agonizing Blast and Hex for consistent high damage and nova potential with Quicken Spell), but I'm wondering if there is something else I should be doing with the ridiculous stats that normally isn't possible because its too MAD? It seems like I could make a crazy paladin (in relative terms), or archery-focused Bard or something, but honestly everything else I've looked at doesn't seem like it would be as strong/fun (the Bard might be more fun). Maybe going single-class caster so I'm not a full level of spells behind, but given that you get full progression of the slots it actually doesn't seem like a huge deal for a character focused on being a stupid blaster- nothing is ever beating out Scorching Ray in terms of single target output, and Fireball seems at least competitive with everything else from a "kill lots of weak dudes" perspective. Am I missing anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
LGD posted:So a few of my friends are suddenly excited about 5E and are running a campaign. They're pretty casual, so I'm swallowing my 4venger-ness, turning off my brain, and planning to blast stuff with magic powers. The DM had us roll stats (with an option to take standard point buy if our rolls were awful) because it's "fun" and I ended up legitimately rolling out of my mind (18, 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10). My original plan had been to go Fire Dragon Sorcerer 3->Warlock 2->Sorcerer X for maximum blasting power (abusing Eldrich Blast with Agonizing Blast and Hex for consistent high damage and nova potential with Quicken Spell), but I'm wondering if there is something else I should be doing with the ridiculous stats that normally isn't possible because its too MAD? It seems like I could make a crazy paladin (in relative terms), or archery-focused Bard or something, but honestly everything else I've looked at doesn't seem like it would be as strong/fun (the Bard might be more fun). Maybe going single-class caster so I'm not a full level of spells behind, but given that you get full progression of the slots it actually doesn't seem like a huge deal for a character focused on being a stupid blaster- nothing is ever beating out Scorching Ray in terms of single target output, and Fireball seems at least competitive with everything else from a "kill lots of weak dudes" perspective. Am I missing anything? Why do you have seven stats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Why do you have seven stats? Comeliness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Comeliness. That's what Charisma is for :grog:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
LGD posted:Am I missing anything? You want shield proficiency so you can get 13 (studded leather) + 5 (DEX) + 2 (shield) for walking around 20. I'd suggest the shield spell so you can just say "gently caress you' to being focused down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Why do you have seven stats? I assume it's 'roll 7 times drop lowest' situation? I will never understand why DMs have their players roll for stats. I have yet to meet a single one who did not undermine the very concept of random generation in some hilarious ham-fisted way. "Okay guys, do 4d6-drop-lowest a dozen times and pick whichever 6 stats you like the best. Then, if they total less than our combined shoe sizes add another 2d10 points distributed over all six scores in ascending order..." Like it seems at that point what you want to do is not have people roll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:But the Rogue can fail stealth rolls all day! Is there a system that lets rogues excel in exploration without resulting in a thieves guild being an unstoppable invisible silent assassination army? Rolling stealth checks is so very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Is there a system that lets rogues excel in exploration without resulting in a thieves guild being an unstoppable invisible silent assassination army? Rolling stealth checks is so very frustrating. Letting the PC have an auto success or special power in some situations doesn't mean all those crappy NPC thieves are that good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Letting the PC have an auto success or special power in some situations doesn't mean all those crappy NPC thieves are that good. I guess I should put in a caveat of "in a system where classed NPCs and PCs follow the same rules"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I guess I should put in a caveat of "in a system where classed NPCs and PCs follow the same rules" Well, if we assume that 1's and 20's(or the local equivalent for whatever dice/dice pool you're using) aren't instant failures and successes, you could accomplish it just by having level 0(or 1, whatever the average peasant/NPC dude is) characters have such terrible perception checks(or rogues such amazing stealth checks) that they literally cannot spot a sneaking rogue once he's a few levels up, unless he's doing it under some terribly penalizing circumstances(walking across a floor made of bells and shrieking birds, trying to sneak past someone while carrying a stereo at full volume and an active searchlight, etc.). At least, that would be the least invasive method I could think of. Alternately, you could always say that checks are only required when sneaking past particularly perceptive enemies(guard dogs, etc.), under penalizing situations like the aforementioned or if someone's actually looking for you. Then when infiltrating an unaware location there'd suddenly be a lot less pressure to pass a stealth check every five minutes if you can just think of clever ways not to do things noisily/blatantly. Like, just assume that the average rogue knows his stealth business well enough to not sound like a marching band when he's just crossing a carpeted floor or a cobblestone alley, but if corpses start being found or people start disappearing, guards are gonna be on their guard, which means that it starts being risky if you use it for more than exploration, so you can't just use it to harvest dozens of free kills on unsuspecting enemies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
In principle that's what the Passive Perception stuff is meant to be for, I guess. If you allowed the rogue to Take 10 on his stealth checks you might get something like that, but it still wouldn't be as fun or interesting as the exact same thing done by Dungeon World mechanics. "Uh oh, you failed your Defy Danger roll to get in through the window! Looks like you make it through, but you're not the first thief there that evening..." Failing forward is such a good concept and I'm amazed that D&D has lasted this long while having "you gently caress up" as something that happens half the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I guess I should put in a caveat of "in a system where classed NPCs and PCs follow the same rules"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I assume it's 'roll 7 times drop lowest' situation? Introducing randomisation into character creation can lead to more organic feeling characters, and in early D&D it was good for speedy character generation. However in early D&D you had to roll pretty drat shittily to roll an objectively unusable character, and the capabilities of a guy with cool stats and a guy with average stats were reasonably comparable. There was also the assumption that the lovely characters would probably die and a new, potentially better one rolled up. In modern D&D iterations character creation is very involved, rolling for stats actually makes it take longer, character death is a big deal, and the difference between good stats and bad stats is extremely noticeable. In D&D your class and class choices are going to be some of the biggest mechanical representations of you character concept. Due to the impact that choosing the "right" ability scores has on your class abilities in modern D&D, choosing the "right" ability scores has a direct impact on how well you can realise your character concept. If another part of your character concept involves an ability score that does not directly benefit your class, spending the points required to include this concept will result in all other aspects of your concept being less mechanically effective than someone who's class concepts are more synergistic. There will be an element of this in even the best designed game, but due to how ability scores function in D&D it gets pretty ridiculous pretty quickly. You can't just increase the amount of ability scores points available, since this will benefit the synergistic character as well. You can go with an array, but again you're going to be hitting third or fourth tier stats before you have one that doesn't have a "right" class place. If you roll for stats you allow for the possibility of these "impossible" character concepts, since all they need to do is roll good enough. Also, people just like gambling. The chance to win big at character creation seems like a fun idea in some part because of the high stakes involved. The actual solution to all of these (bar the gambling one) is to de-emphasise ability scores or remove them entirely (or to play some manner of point buy), but ability scores intertwining with every possible aspect of your character wouldn't be true to the spirit of (3.x+) D&D. So we're going to roll. However, only the most hardcore of grogs won't admit that rolling bad stats is a bad thing. So given this, people start trying to modify their random roll system so that it only ever rolls "good" or "average" results while accounting for "good" and "average" being relative terms determined by how well other party members' character concepts are mechanically supported by entirely different, potentially much better or worse results. Since this is impossible, the solutions are to either join the hardcore grogs and claim that lovely stats are character building, keep tying yourself up in greater and greater mathematical knots trying to make it work damnit, stick with point buy/arrays and pretend the problem doesn't exist, or admit that one of the cornerstones of D&D has been actively hindering the game for three editions now. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Rolling for stats a pretty good microcosm of D&D's legacy as a whole. It gets in the way of having fun. It's dumb and everybody knows it's dumb, but God forbid you voice that in the wrong circles. The best you can hope for is to minimize its impact, because for some (most?) players no other solution is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I will never understand why DMs have their players roll for stats. I have yet to meet a single one who did not undermine the very concept of random generation in some hilarious ham-fisted way. "Okay guys, do 4d6-drop-lowest a dozen times and pick whichever 6 stats you like the best. Then, if they total less than our combined shoe sizes add another 2d10 points distributed over all six scores in ascending order..." 1. More dice rolling = better than 2. It's always been done this way 3. Specific to 5e, a presentation of the character generation rules such that players are deliberately misinformed as to the viability of different stat generation approaches 4. Not understanding the design space that pairs random stat generation to the style of the game There are rulesets and campaign styles that go well with random stat generation, but groups that end up going with random stat generation in a game that doesn't fit usually do so because of the above reasons. "Any sufficiently averaged random stat generation procedure is indistinguishable from point-buy" - Arthur C Clarke, maybe mastershakeman posted:Is there a system that lets rogues excel in exploration without resulting in a thieves guild being an unstoppable invisible silent assassination army? Rolling stealth checks is so very frustrating. The simplest approach would be for the results of a failed Stealth check not be "you are spotted, period" Boing posted:Failing forward is such a good concept and I'm amazed that D&D has lasted this long while having "you gently caress up" as something that happens half the time. 5e gets sooooooo close to suggesting fail forward: The DMG posted:Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. Such complications can run along any of the following lines:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I assume it's 'roll 7 times drop lowest' situation? It adds a lot of social time to the intro game/day, and people sit and chatter and ooh and aah at each other while they craft their characters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ive done both, and the entire rolling process (even when I rig the 'roll extra dice' and 'trade this for that' stuff) makes people way happier with their characters, each others characters, and the sitting-at-the-table creation process than the robotic pre-determined min-maxing does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Random roll creation when you have no pre-existing character concept can be fun. Something like Reign's random chargen can be an entertaining diversion in itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
I find the main advantage to random rolls and/or arrays is that it actually makes people choose some weaknesses, in general, most players will avoid having any actual penalties, but weaknesses can be as interesting to roleplay as strengths. So I always feel like that's missing out on some opportunities. I prefer arrays to fully randomized rolling, though, limits the potential power imbalances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
goatface posted:Random roll creation when you have no pre-existing character concept can be fun. Something like Reign's random chargen can be an entertaining diversion in itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Someone should make a game where all the gameplay revolves around creating characters. Besides Traveler. Edit: gradenko_2000 posted:3. Specific to 5e, a presentation of the character generation rules such that players are deliberately misinformed as to the viability of different stat generation approaches Ha ha ha, what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Good random rolling: "Look at this fun, interesting, character I wouldn't have come up with otherwise!" Bad random rolling: "Welcome to [Game]. Roll to determine--permanently--how good your character is at [Game]." One guess which one D&D falls under. Also hilarious is the idea that, unlike array/point buy, random rolling prevents min-maxing. Yeah, in one you put your highest number into your most important stat and your lowest into charisma, but in the other you put your highest number into your most important stat and your lowest into charisma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Way back when I started 3.0, I already hated random point rolling, but my players all insisted on it. As a compromise, I came up with a transparent trick for fooling babbies: 1)Roll 3d6 straight down the line. No rearranging. 2)Add points wherever you want until the stats all add up to 75. That's a flat 75, not 75 points in the sliding point-buy scale. No subtracting points. That's it. The only real randomness is that you can't control what your dump stat is, but the players got to roll a bunch of dice and feel like FATE HAS SPOKEN, while I didn't have to deal with the hosed up unbalanced characters that actually random rolling makes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I think the game would be way better if you didn't roll for stats but instead picked 1 excellent, 1 good and 1 bad from the following list: Stregnth (I'm very strong/I am strong/I am weak) Dexterity (I am very nimble/I am nimble/I am a klutz) Constitution (I am very hearty/I am hearty/I am frail) Intelligence (I am a genius/I am smart/I'm p. dumb) Wisdom (I am very observant/I am observant/My skull is like a brick) Charisma (I am very sociable/I am approachable/I am a clod) It's a stupid cludge of a system but you'd get the benefit of a.) not minmaxing actual numbers, b.) attaching character to the actual character generation process and c.) force weaknesses into the mix. Everybody has one thing they excel at, one thing they're good at, and one thing they suck at, guaranteed. Stat arrays aren't about min-maxing, it's about assuring one character doesn't get to participate 50% less than everybody else. Stat generation is fun if you win, like gambling. A particularly social or gracious person can usually suffer poor stats in good spirits. That is, until they've been playing the game for six months and realize how much of a difference it makes to suck. I made a fighter way back in 2e, and improbably, we had a second fighter, a rogue, and a cleric. The other fighter had 18/80+ strength (I forget the exact number) and some absurd Con bonus too compared to my very average stats. Yeah, you can have fun in that environment but it's just sort of annoying to have to put up with another character with much more declarative/narrative power than you if that's not the concept you wanted to play. In modern games where character death is rare and you're sort of 'stuck' with your character or at least expected not to make a new one every two weeks it's particularly sticky. Playing Iolaus to your friend's Hercules can be fun but it's not fun when that's not the character you thought you were playing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Rolling stats is fine because you can end up with characters that are just across the board excellent and vice versa. Arrays are boring and if you use them you might as well just set each characters bonus at creation and do away with choice altogether. Heck in my last big campaign three people rolled incredibly well and ended up with at least three 17s each, so they all took great charisma and it was very memorable mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Rolling stats is fine because you can end up with characters that are just across the board excellent and vice versa
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
A random chance for everything to suck makes it all the better when things manage to not suck. This is the true genius of D&D NEXT. When nothing about the game system commands merit, the skills of the DM can come to the fore and shine through as they were meant to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Rolling stats is fine because you can end up with characters that are just across the board excellent and vice versa. Arrays are boring and if you use them you might as well just set each characters bonus at creation and do away with choice altogether. You're happy that you can end up with characters that are across the board lovely? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Rolling stats is fine because you can end up with characters that are just across the board excellent and vice versa. Arrays are boring and if you use them you might as well just set each characters bonus at creation and do away with choice altogether. Thanks for making the DTAS argument, by the way. In a class based game where you're expected to hold onto your character for a while, why would you risk sucking because your stats came out low? Especially if you are trying to achieve some semblance of balanced Math. Just make class features or options to differentiate characters since all stats are just confusing and unintuitive modifiers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:Bad random rolling: "Welcome to [Game]. Roll to determine--permanently--how good your character is at [Game]."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
The game is only truly balanced when you roll straight down the line, and thus you earned the right to be a wizard by rolling high on int.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Thanks for making the DTAS argument, by the way. In a class based game where you're expected to hold onto your character for a while, why would you risk sucking because your stats came out low? Especially if you are trying to achieve some semblance of balanced Math. Just make class features or options to differentiate characters since all stats are just confusing and unintuitive modifiers. That's assuming you're trying for balanced math, which honestly doesn't work if people make suboptimal choices on their characters like fighters with best number in charisma. If you have some sort of fixation on only playing good characters that can't be worse than the guy across the table's then fine, don't even let people choose their stats at all And of course it can be frustrating to play a suboptimal guy but it's made up for with exceptional characters showing up now and then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:02
|
|