|
Has anyone around here successfully homebrewed monsters for 5e? Like, it was pretty easy to borrow stuff in 4e and use the formula, but 5e seems like a goddamn crapshoot.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Both myself and Sanglorian have tried to come up with better ways of homebrewing monsters. I threw out most of the guidelines entirely and tried to build something that made sense in the context of scaling properly with a player's stats, while he tried to make something that would still follow the DMG's guidelines without actually going to have to go through the entire 20-step process. There's also a bunch of people on the internet in general who have homebrewed monsters for 5e if you give it a quick google, although so much of it is based on fuzzy numbers and gut feel that I have no idea how it'll work out in practice. Monster creation is really only half of the problem, though - the whole thing is inextricably tied with class balance: the numbers I wrote for monster creation are based on the projected damage output of a "tabula rasa" Fighter, but if other classes are so much more capable than that, then the whole thing just falls apart. If you then recalibrate for the upper bound (and you have to find it first! which class is capable of the most damage?), then the worse classes get left in the dust. And that's only counting damage - even if we grant that my huge assumption of "a Wizard's spells scale at the same rate as a Fighter's attacks", the moment the Wizard decides to attack a monster's non-HP aspects (i.e. save-or-suck), the rest of it stops mattering.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
I have to play my first 5e character ever again on Tuesday and I fear that having made up a whole involved background and goal for her actually made it harder instead of easier to roleplay. I keep thinking about "how would my character do this?" or how to make things relevant to my backstory and other stupid poo poo like heavily customizing my background poo poo for it, and now I feel like I wrote myself into a corner before I even started.  It's not even all that hard, she's basically me. Which I think might be the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
I do find it's usually easier, and a lot more fun, if you don't go into too much detail with backgrounds and history and maybe even motivations until you have a few sessions to get a feel for your character and the game as a whole. Sometimes you find that a thing you thought seemed really interesting at the time of creation just doesn't come across well in the game, or isn't compatible with either the events or the other characters around you. Try experimenting with new things, be flexible. Some of the best and most enjoyable characters I've had started out as little more than a general archetype and a few basic traits, and I let the game fill out the rest of the details as we went. Try to let the character's choices and attitude be shaped just as much by all the weirdness surrounding them as anything that may have happened in their past. And if your character is meant to have history with some of the other people in the party, one of my favorite things to do is just kind of make up aspects of one another's background on the fly, just little anecdotes of past adventures or situations you may have shared, it's a good way to get some new ideas you may not have otherwise thought of. Playing a character that is basically you is also usually pretty weird anyway. It's hard to really think of how you would react to situations that could never actually happen in reality. Or maybe you just need to go and explore more dungeons irl to get a better point of reference, though the part where you wantonly murder orcs and depopulate the local animals might require more explanation than it's worth. VoidTek fucked around with this message at 07:46 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Has anyone around here successfully homebrewed monsters for 5e? Like, it was pretty easy to borrow stuff in 4e and use the formula, but 5e seems like a goddamn crapshoot. 5e is a goddamn crapshoot. HTH.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Has anyone around here successfully homebrewed monsters for 5e? Like, it was pretty easy to borrow stuff in 4e and use the formula, but 5e seems like a goddamn crapshoot.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I did this all the time in 2e. (Back when I had the coveted treasure of "free time".) Not-sarcastic: how is it harder in 5e? Relative to 2e: not all that hard if you go about things the 2e way, i.e. "gently caress it"" but 4e's crisp, flexible, and useful monster rules have spoiled many.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I did this all the time in 2e. (Back when I had the coveted treasure of "free time".) Not-sarcastic: how is it harder in 5e? The directives in the rules seem to imply that A) encounters can and should be based around a calculated rating that determines their difficulty B) the procedural rules support non-gridded/non-miniatures combat, and C) the procedural rules support interesting tactical combat The truth is that A exists, is tedious, and (as far as I'm aware) doesn't usually work, B does not exist, and C has remarkably poor support. Now if you ignore A, and make your own procedures for B and C as much as you desire, then you can 'successfully' homebrew monsters. So it is harder to homebrew monsters in 5e than in 2e because the game is lying to you about what steps you should be taking to make monsters.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
LFK posted:A ToEE retrospective that's just six short anecdotes in a thinly veiled ad for the classic module (buy now).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The directives in the rules seem to imply that
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
I'm sure this has been asked before in the thread, but how well does 5E play out if you ignore the grid and minis? I can still see it working and speeding up combat. What I'm honestly the most worried about is that my players might not be able to accept the change. Most of them have never played anything but 3.x, and so ungridded combat is unfamiliar to them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
5e is, at its core, a heavily houseruled 3.5. It claims to not need the grid and minis, but the rules don't actually support that kind of play. Whatever time you save from conducting trivial combats in Theater of the Mind is going to be earned back in interest when more critical fights try to be done in TOTM and you end up in arguments and whatnot over exactly where someone is. You could probably hack/houserule/narrate together a system for conducting combat without the grid and minis, but that means actually ignoring what rules 5e has.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I've only played one session so far, but the one combat encounter we've had was taken up by people asking "Okay so uh how far away am I now? Could I get there in one movement? Where is the enemy in relation to my position?" every turn. Which I guess could still be quicker than using minis, depending on just how amazingly slow people are at reading a grid and making slightly more tactical choices.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
The game incorporates elements such as forced movement, opportunity attacks, all ranges and movement speeds expressed in 5 feet chunks, and effects which trigger by proximity (e.g. if the Rogue stabs an orc, and that orc is also next to one of the Rogue's allies who can act and is aware of the orc, then the Rogue's attack is a Sneak Attack). All in all it's not quite as reliant on a grid as 4e was but that's not saying much. It's like... imagine a spectrum. A rainbow, if you will, which goes from red to violet. If 4e is "red" then 5e is "orange" in terms of how much it needs the grid. Or maybe it's "yellow" if you really play fast and loose with distances. But it sure as hell isn't violet. (I suck at similes.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
You could try to adapt something like 13th Age's totm set-up to 5e, but at that point you might as well play 13th Age.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Judgement posted:I've only played one session so far, but the one combat encounter we've had was taken up by people asking "Okay so uh how far away am I now? Could I get there in one movement? Where is the enemy in relation to my position?" every turn. Which I guess could still be quicker than using minis, depending on just how amazingly slow people are at reading a grid and making slightly more tactical choices. Coincidentally, this is how my group played 3.5. Minis weren't ever strictly necessary if you just kept the players aware of what's going on
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Coincidentally, this is how my group played 3.5. Minis weren't ever strictly necessary if you just kept the players aware of what's going on Playing without a grid in this fashion does mean stuff like flanking and sneak attacks become more or less rare depending on how the GM feels that afternoon, though. I wouldn't recommend playing a class that relies heavily on such things gridless unless you know your GM will allow you to flank/sneak attack roughly as often as a grid would allow you to. Even then, a lot of the "I could flank him, but it would open me up to being attacked by his buddies, should I go for it" tactical decisions that come with using a grid are lost if you go gridless.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Some classes are also going to be experience different levels of frustration when it comes to positioning and movement. Wizards, I've noticed, usually seem to be immune to a lot of the really specific poo poo and can often get away with "Okay I cast my fireball so that it lands on the goblins but not any of my allies." Funny how that works out.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Is there a comprehensive list of all the problems with 5E somewhere? I've been trying to convince my friends (and some other folks online, because of the old "People are wrong on the internet" problem) but I guess I'm not that good at convincing people.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Not one that will work for that purpose, because a lot of 5e's problems are on purpose, and intended to appeal to precisely the people you're most likely arguing with.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Gort posted:Even then, a lot of the "I could flank him, but it would open me up to being attacked by his buddies, should I go for it" tactical decisions that come with using a grid are lost if you go gridless.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:Playing without a grid in this fashion does mean stuff like flanking and sneak attacks become more or less rare depending on how the GM feels that afternoon, though. I wouldn't recommend playing a class that relies heavily on such things gridless unless you know your GM will allow you to flank/sneak attack roughly as often as a grid would allow you to. We didn't have anyone who could do sneak attacks, but we used flanking all the time. It's really not that hard. "Oh, character A is attacking monster B? I'll get behind monster B. Hmm, monster B has a friend next to him, but I'll take the chance"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We didn't have anyone who could do sneak attacks, but we used flanking all the time. It's really not that hard. I've always had a lot of difficulty with that kind of thing because I have very poor spatial sense and memory. I can't memorize maps worth a drat and have a very hard time visualizing them, so a grid has always been necessary for me to run tactically interesting fights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Not one that will work for that purpose, because a lot of 5e's problems are on purpose, and intended to appeal to precisely the people you're most likely arguing with. It might not help with Internet Grognards, but it would go a long way when talking to my friends, who seem to simply not have noticed the issues and keep asking me for specific examples which is when I have memory blanks. Even if it doesn't convince, it should help them better see where I'm coming from anyway. The Skeleton Zone didn't convince because they think I'm really stretching the rules, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I've always had a lot of difficulty with that kind of thing because I have very poor spatial sense and memory. I can't memorize maps worth a drat and have a very hard time visualizing them, so a grid has always been necessary for me to run tactically interesting fights. We sometimes used quick scribble-maps if something was complicated (especially if there were elevation changes that might matter in a set of caves). Its just the formalized chess-game movement that turns me off.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:It might not help with Internet Grognards, but it would go a long way when talking to my friends, who seem to simply not have noticed the issues and keep asking me for specific examples which is when I have memory blanks. Even if it doesn't convince, it should help them better see where I'm coming from anyway. The fundamental issues are, then, IMO: MAJOR imbalance between classes, particularly at later levels, in terms of narrative impact that they can have. At root, the old LFQW problem. Rules that assume a grid, but not properly, and wind up falling squarely between two stools. No real logic to resource management, particularly regarding health. Godawful monster and encounter maths, monster writing and layout and monsters using PC spells, which join together to make it horrible to DM after the joy that 4e was to run. Dull, dull martial characters with very little customisability. Assumed rolled stats. Generally, being regressive as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We didn't have anyone who could do sneak attacks, but we used flanking all the time. It's really not that hard. "Mother, may I get behind monster B without drawing AoOs from his friend?"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:It might not help with Internet Grognards, but it would go a long way when talking to my friends, who seem to simply not have noticed the issues and keep asking me for specific examples which is when I have memory blanks. Even if it doesn't convince, it should help them better see where I'm coming from anyway. The Bone Zone thing is just a caster using Animate Dead. Like, that's it, it's just the spell, there's no trickery. In general the major offenders that I'm aware of are the bad monster building guidelines/CRs (as I understand it, you assess the creature's Offensive CR and their Defensive CR, and average them to get its true CR, which in practice makes it possible to have glass cannons and relatively nonthreatening meat walls treated as equal by the system), comically awful classes/archetypes (Fighter & Rogue mainly, though it's much more obvious in the former's case), and the fact that Spells/Magic is Just Plain Better at getting poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
A lot of NEXT's problems could be alleviated with the fabled Good DM, but like, not all of us have (or are) good DMs. I want a system that can cover my rear end when I'm having a bad day, or one where I can know that following a formula will result in a mostly-balanced monster, or that I don't need to look at each player's character with a loving microscope to make sure that they aren't going to steal narrative and combat power from each other.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
I tried using legos once. It was a hell of a lot of fun, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:It might not help with Internet Grognards, but it would go a long way when talking to my friends, who seem to simply not have noticed the issues and keep asking me for specific examples which is when I have memory blanks. Even if it doesn't convince, it should help them better see where I'm coming from anyway. Yeah as Octopus said the bone zone as fun as it is to talk about 1 rounding a dragon with your skeleton army just point out how much damage and tankiness 2 castings of animate dead a day give you, it takes 3 spell slots (about 12 spell levels of it) to do more damage and have more HP than a same level fighter
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Yeah, the bone zone really isn't about some complex rule-bending exploit, it's about noticing a broken spell and casting it a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
See, I don't buy the "you have a crap DM" argument for a lot of stuff though. It's basically a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in disguise. Consider the Bone Zone example. When confronted with the Bone Zone many 5e apologists claim that a good DM would never let a Wizard 'get away' with that despite it being a pretty simple interpretation of the rules. Maybe, they would argue, the undead go out of control and kill some locals, or an order of undead-hunting Paladins takes up arms against the Wizard and his horde, or whatever. First that's stupid because it means you're trying to patch the rules with story, which is stupid, because it means your story is being dictated or at least heavily influenced by how lovely the rules are. Second it's stupid because while it means the DM is now directly trying to counteract the narrative influence of the party Necromancer he is indirectly reinforcing it by making the whole story (or a portion of it large enough to counteract an army of skeletons) about the Wizard. The other possibility is that the DM will throw on his Viking Hat and just tell the Wizard politely to gently caress off but that's not really much better. That means that the DM is put in a position of trying to see the repercussions of the game's basic rules all the way to their logical conclusion - he is, in effect, being both designer and playtester. That's not really helpful either. Even the best DM is going to be hampered by that poo poo. I would argue that a good DM is unfairly saddled by a bad system. Why would anyone argue for that?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
I've always found it interesting that so many people who'll happily tell you how they have no problems playing gridless in 3.X but then go on to explain how doing so in 4E is impossible because
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The fundamental issues are, then, IMO: Also it really doesn't have very robust rules for dealing with noncombat situations.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've always found it interesting that so many people who'll happily tell you how they have no problems playing gridless in 3.X but then go on to explain how doing so in 4E is impossible because Because it's a lot harder, borderline impossible, to TOTM defenders, and slides measured in a discrete amount of squares?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:See, I don't buy the "you have a crap DM" argument for a lot of stuff though. It's basically a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in disguise. Still, there's a big chance you have a poo poo DM.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Because it's a lot harder, borderline impossible, to TOTM defenders, and slides measured in a discrete amount of squares? Why is this impossible? I mean I'd never run a complex 4E fight as TOTM but a simple fight (1 large enemy or several minions) can be done easily enough. Defenders can mark pretty much anything as long as they get in melee range of the target and squares are equivalent to 5' so I have no idea how discrete squares are any different from 3.5 or 5's measurements.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Commissar Kip posted:Still, there's a big chance you have a poo poo DM. Or, for that matter, a new or average DM.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Kurieg posted:Because it's a lot harder, borderline impossible, to TOTM defenders, and slides measured in a discrete amount of squares? Abstract Defending seems no less plausible than abstract 30' cone spells and moving someone three squares is literally the same thing as moving someone 15'. It's like something about 4E shut off the "just handwave it" part of peoples' brains that let them pretend that 3.X wasn't also intended to be played on a grid from the outset.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:10
|
|