|
Doubling proficiency for non-casters might be a start. They begin with a little bonus over the magicians, and should finish with ~+20 (6*2+5+3) to hit, which is a good start in a "flat math" system. They're also better at using tools of all kinds, because they actually have to use things rather than loving with the fabric of the universe every time they need to wipe their arse.
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
New feat: BEST AT FIGHTING If you deal damage and somebody has done more damage than that in the fight so far, you do that amount of damage plus 1 because you are better at fighting than them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
I've toyed with that sort of thing when fiddling with AW hacks. A sort of "Strongest One There Is" ability, whereby anyone who would challenge your honour/leadership/skill loses by default, does seem to work in some settings. I did consider a Barbarian option where your AC and saves increase by one every time they're hit in the course of a day. At the start of the day you've got gently caress all armour but a fat HP pool, and by the end of it you're beaten the gently caress up but are a nigh-untouchable whirlwind of anger and death.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Look at all the proposed solutions here that end up being kneecapped by multiclassing. If you're going to fix fighters I think removing multiclassing while you're at it is a good idea. This means that you can afford to give out good, class-defining abilities at low level, which is what fighters need.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Well my houserules, are mostly for the Champion, but do require more levels to get the best stuff. A feat at each archetype feature for a Fighter. And extra abilities for a Champion each time they get an archetype feature. And would need 7 levels for double proficiency on attacks, and a bunch of other stuff, that use strength.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Something like how 4th had hybrid-ising where you only got certain class features? I'd be down with that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
xiw posted:Look at all the proposed solutions here that end up being kneecapped by multiclassing. I think there's some psychology to this: if MC was supposed to actually be optional, it shoulda been in the DMG and not the PHB. Like, it's only optional in the sense of not being mandatory; the next DM i see who says "you can't MC in my 5e game" will be the first.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Crossbow chat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peo...a-Warriors.html
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
It just hit me that a realm of Terracotta warriors waiting for some Badass Motherfucker to lead them to glory through combat is a thing that hasn't been written yet and that is a goddamned crime.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any reference to a Full-Round Action would be taken to mean consuming all your movement and your Normal Action F that noise. All things considered ain't nothing gonna break that bad if you just made them all Normal Actions.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I don't know that I'd give them spells, per se, but I'd give them fightery things, like various exploits performed by legendary mythical heroes. The reason i said give them spells was that spells are already a foundational building block of the game. there's no real reason not to give them spells as innate abilities and flavor them as mythical exploits maybe with a point system instead of spell slots or per day uses to represent physical fatigue or somthing. basically i want to merge the monk and fighter and make it not poo poo the more i think about it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
So I think I'm going to be DM'ing a game of this in the near future. I've got a basic story and a set of maps already, now I just need to figure out how to DM the game and how to place monster encounters, etc. Is there any sort of tutorial video that explains the basics that you guys would recommend? I have the basic free rulebooks from the OP, but a video would definitely help out with easing the learning curve a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:It just hit me that a realm of Terracotta warriors waiting for some Badass Motherfucker to lead them to glory through combat is a thing that hasn't been written yet and that is a goddamned crime. wrong
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Also, much less awesomely, the Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Sergeant_Crunch posted:So I think I'm going to be DM'ing a game of this in the near future. I've got a basic story and a set of maps already, now I just need to figure out how to DM the game and how to place monster encounters, etc. Is there any sort of tutorial video that explains the basics that you guys would recommend? I have the basic free rulebooks from the OP, but a video would definitely help out with easing the learning curve a bit. Read the free sample here, at the very least : http://www.slyflourish.com/lazydm/ Monster encounters are difficult in 5e to get the balance correct until you are experienced with the system. Monsters can either take too long to kill while proving no threat or can kill and be killed by players quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
I was paying attention to the development of NEXT/5e during the playtesting process but got sad at what I saw and stopped. Now I'm out of the loop.Anyone have a link to a good review of the system - strengths, weaknesses, etc.?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:The reason i said give them spells was that spells are already a foundational building block of the game. there's no real reason not to give them spells as innate abilities and flavor them as mythical exploits maybe with a point system instead of spell slots or per day uses to represent physical fatigue or somthing. basically i want to merge the monk and fighter and make it not poo poo the more i think about it. That could work. If you insist on something like spells, give them a bunch of utility things, make them like a sorcerer where a given fighter knows a certain number of utility exploits, and can power them a certain number of times per day (there's only so many walls you can Kool-Aid-Man your way through before you get tired, after all). If different exploits have different levels, you can throttle access to them organically. The big thing though, is that fighters need utility. Give them access to cool and awesome plot powers, even if they break physics to do it. Is it realistic for a fighter to smash through a castle wall on his or her own? No, but it doesn't need to be; these are legendary heroes and around the time you're hitting 9th level or so, wizards are teleporting across the world in an instant, and the fighter really needs some utility in that ballpark. Other great utility things would be save rerolls/protection like the Bo9S maneuvers (if you include stuff like this, grant it for free), or things that let melee fighters stand toe to toe with flying or otherwise assholish enemies who won't get and stay in melee range (maybe a harpoon attack that disables flying on the impaled enemy, and/or an attack that can disable an opponent from teleporting). I'd also be a fan of giving fighters specialization in multiple weapon types by default, which would make it much easier to have them simply swap to a ranged weapon in the event that such a thing is necessary (maybe pair this with an exploit that increases throwing weapon range to bow range so that strength based fighters have a good ranged option).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Naga Warlord posted:I was paying attention to the development of NEXT/5e during the playtesting process but got sad at what I saw and stopped. Now I'm out of the loop.Anyone have a link to a good review of the system - strengths, weaknesses, etc.? I think this was discussed in the last 10 pages or so. Basically, the game is really good at being the next iteration of 3.5, with all the good and bad that entails.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I'd also be a fan of giving fighters specialization in multiple weapon types by default, which would make it much easier to have them simply swap to a ranged weapon in the event that such a thing is necessary (maybe pair this with an exploit that increases throwing weapon range to bow range so that strength based fighters have a good ranged option). e: along with thematic noncombat abilities, such as the above also giving you training in athletics and, at higher levels, the ability to punch through walls. Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Kibner posted:Read the free sample here, at the very least : http://www.slyflourish.com/lazydm/ This looks really good, but I think it's more for someone who has some experience with DM'ing a game. I was asking more for a "has literally never played any form of d&d, or any tabletop game for that matter" kind of tutorial video if such a thing exists.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Sergeant_Crunch posted:This looks really good, but I think it's more for someone who has some experience with DM'ing a game. I was asking more for a "has literally never played any form of d&d, or any tabletop game for that matter" kind of tutorial video if such a thing exists. There are not a lot of great beginner materials for D&D, ever, sorry.  I bet a lot of people here can give great piecemeal beginner advice for you, though. Here's mine: - Please communicate with your players. People are afraid to communicate their weaknesses from the DM's chair, either due to a perceived loss of authority or because you want to be a brilliant game creator who's taking your players on a magical journey. But the collaborative nature of a tabletop RPG is the most unique thing about it, so communicate with your players about what they want from the game, what they can expect. Some players like to disrupt the game and push you to get some numbers added to their dice or whatever the gently caress. Ideally, don't play with them. But if you have to, don't let them treat your communication as an indication that they can hijack the table. There are a lot of other players there who are depending on you to make the game work and adjudicate as well as you can. - If your player wants to roll something and it's not super simple and obvious, ask them what they are trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it. You as a DM have to know both of these things before you make any decisions at all. It also makes it easier to narrate results in a way that's satisfying. - Make failure interesting. D&D has a lot of fiddly poo poo like knowledge rolls so you can't always do that, but generally speaking, a roll for a player to try and do something should change the situation irreparably on a failure. They should not be able to try again and something totally unexpected should often happen. - This is not the "D&D" way of DMing so your players might balk if they're experienced, but it is better than the D&D way. Ask players what happens when it makes sense, especially on a success. Tease the players into contributing to the world. If a player rolls for knowledge and it's not plot important, ask them what they know, let them build out the world. It takes a huge load off you as a DM because you're not under constant pressure to perform, and it gets players more into it because you're not just talking at them. If you do it this way, don't be afraid to negotiate- if you ask a player what happens and they say soemthing that hurts the plot, you can haggle with them over the results. - Don't be a dick. The game rules themselves and like 45 years of D&D history has this idea that you're supposed to be a dick who crushes dreams. Your job is to let people escape into a cool fantasy world where they get to be the guy while having fun putting together neat adventures. Don't make it anything more than that. - Don't design D&D dungeons like video game dungeons. Players, especially at level 1, have a prodigiously low level of endurance. If your first dungeon is a small, stinky orc lair with a trapped chest and a sentry outside then that's a pretty good dungeon. Keep things brief and low-pressure (from a time/plot point of view) for the first few quests so you can get an idea of what the players can handle. 5E encounters are off the wall random in terms of deadliness but at least you can get an idea of what things look like when they're running well. - Don't make players roll for simple poo poo anyone can accomplish. Don't be a dick about realism, just assume every martial-powered character in your party is gilgamesh and can run up walls and do movie poo poo. Other than that, DMing is just a lot of: 1) Situation 2) What do you do, and what are you trying to accomplish? 3) Unless the player is being a twerp, say yes or roll dice. 4) Whether success or failure, the situation changes, so return to 1 or roll initiative. 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 22:20 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
I'll try and keep all that in mind. My first dungeon should be pretty simple since it's just a short little dungeon overrun by a few goblins. I doubt anyone will be a jerk about anything since I know most of them pretty well. I also don't really plan on being a dick about anything since none of them have ever played either. If they can provide a suitable explanation on how they solve a problem, I'll just roll with it. Hopefully it wont be a complete clusterfuck, but with 5 people who have 0 experience between them, that's probably inevitable.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Don't obsess about looking up a rule if you can't remember it. Flow is better than accuracy if you're not playing with shitlords.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Cheat in combat to make poo poo dramatic, but don't let the players know.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
If you're starting fresh man I'd really recommend Strike! but that's just my opinion. I think it has a lot of really good advice for getting started, has a pretty balanced tactical combat that doesn't require you to put a lot of thought in if you want to balance encounters, and you don't have to think up DC's for skill rolls. It might be harder to learn at this late hour, and there's not a lot of support for "generic fantasy" since all the backgrounds and origins that come with the book are kind of oriented around the author's own campaign setting. It's just a suggestion because it has a lot better play advice for new DM's and doesn't have a lot of "intractable math fuckery" stuff going on in the rules & encounter design. It also has less level 1 shitfarmer stuff going on- D&D 5E doesn't really get fully online until level 3. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3656713&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 http://www.strikerpg.com/start-playing-now.html
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Honestly the people I'm playing with are pretty enamored with the idea of D&D and it's always been a game I wanted to play growing up but never had any friends who were interested in it. We can tough it out through obtuse poo poo and get some decent characters rolling. Thanks for the suggestion though, I might check it out in the future!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
The original red box is still the gold standard for learning D&D. Even if that isn't the edition you end up playing, it is a better learning tool than any other release. You can get it on drive thru RPG, but I think they make you buy the two books separately.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Sergeant_Crunch posted:Honestly the people I'm playing with are pretty enamored with the idea of D&D and it's always been a game I wanted to play growing up but never had any friends who were interested in it. We can tough it out through obtuse poo poo and get some decent characters rolling. Thanks for the suggestion though, I might check it out in the future! From the player side of things, I'd advocate steering folks away from Rogues & Fighters and instead suggest Bard, Barbarian, Monk, or Paladin/Cleric in their place. It might not matter if the game never gets much farther than level 3-5, but eventually they'll be way outpaced by the rest of the classes to the point of uselessness/redundancy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Sergeant_Crunch posted:This looks really good, but I think it's more for someone who has some experience with DM'ing a game. I was asking more for a "has literally never played any form of d&d, or any tabletop game for that matter" kind of tutorial video if such a thing exists. The best advice I can give (okay, not the best, just the advice I feel like writing up) is "gently caress it, let's see what happens!" Did the players cook up some kooky poo poo that derails the entire plot, like figuring out how to assassinate the King? Joined forces with the bad guy? Kill everyone they meet? "gently caress it, let's see what happens." Your first few adventures are probably going to be a total wash in one way or another, so it's best if they're so-bad-they're-hilarious rather than so-bad-they're-frustrating. Things are getting kinda dumb and out of hand? Retire the conquering heroes and start over. The big thing, though, and the root of "gently caress it, let's see what happens" is don't get upset and throw a fit because the players talked their way around a fight or even an entire dungeon. Roll with it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Argh for the first time ever I fought a rust monster. The funny thing? It screwed over the party mage more than anyone else by far (elven chain).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
I'm playing a rouge and I have a question about lock picking. Do I get a bonus for having proficiency in thieves tools? I assume rogues have this proficiency to begin with and I also am proficient with sleight of hand. For instance I have Dex 18 (+4) and proficiency bonus (+2). So my sleight of hand is +6, but then on top of this do I get a bonus of +2 for thieves tools?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Popete posted:I'm playing a rouge and I have a question about lock picking. Do I get a bonus for having proficiency in thieves tools? I assume rogues have this proficiency to begin with and I also am proficient with sleight of hand. Picking locks isn't a Sleight of Hand check. A normal character would just make the check with their Dex, with Thieves Tools proficiency you can now add your proficiency bonus. So it's +6 with Thieves Tools, +4 without, for your rogue. Or if you chose to double your bonus with thieves tools via Expertise, +8.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Picking locks isn't a Sleight of Hand check. A normal character would just make the check with their Dex, with Thieves Tools proficiency you can now add your proficiency bonus. Ahhh gotcha, that makes more sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
LFK posted:The big thing, though, and the root of "gently caress it, let's see what happens" is don't get upset and throw a fit because the players talked their way around a fight or even an entire dungeon. Roll with it. To help with this, try not to predict what players will do, especially if you are all new. You're going to be wrong, anyways. Also, don't make the players have to be mind readers to figure out how to proceed. One of the better DM's I played with never came up with solutions to puzzles/traps. He figured the players would come up with something, no matter the situation, and generally rolled with it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
gninjagnome posted:To help with this, try not to predict what players will do, especially if you are all new. You're going to be wrong, anyways. Also, don't make the players have to be mind readers to figure out how to proceed. One of the better DM's I played with never came up with solutions to puzzles/traps. He figured the players would come up with something, no matter the situation, and generally rolled with it. I'd suggest having a potential solution in mind, just so that if people are stuck and looking for hints you have something you can put forward.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Remember the Raymond Chandler technique. If you aren't sure what to do, orcish ninjas kick down the door and attack.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
The Basics: Whenever someone wants to try to do something and the outcome is uncertain, whether due to time pressure or the inherent difficulty of the task or generally because something is at stake, roll for it. [d20 + the corresponding attribute modifier + proficiency if the character has a corresponding proficiency]. If the result is higher than the Difficulty that you set as the DM, they succeed. The DC should generally be somewhere between 10 to 20, with 10 being a Medium difficulty that a person specializing in that task will have a better than 50% chance of doing. You probably shouldn't use anything much higher than 15, and anything you think might need a DC lower than 10 you should probably just award automatically. The other key thing is that if someone fails, the result of the failure shouldn't be "nothing happens, try again". It should be something along the lines of: "you only get something of what you want" "you get what you want, but at a cost" "you don't get what you want, and something happens that makes it impossible to try the exact same action over again" If you can't think of anything that would fall under these three, you should probably just award the success automatically. Finally, try to keep any action down to an individual roll. If an activity looks like it consists of several steps, it's tempting to roll for step 1, roll for step 2 and roll for step 3, but the odds of succeeding multiple d20 rolls quickly become very difficult, so keep it to individual rolls as much as possible. Combat: Check the OP, I covered the basics there. It's actually rather procedural and straightforward. If someone wants to do something not covered by the rules, refer back to using (a single) ability check to check for success, and most successful combat-related actions would probably result in gaining Advantage. Creating monsters: Against level 1 characters, a monster should have something like: 15 HP, 13 AC, adds +3 to their attack rolls, deals 2 damage per round (roll a 1d4), and add +5 / +3 / +1 to their saving throws depending on whether you think their resistance to that particular spell should be Good, Bad or Worse. and then throw an equivalent number of them at the players. Depending on how the difficult that first fight felt, you can adjust the number of monsters and their stats. HP can go as high as 30 HP and as low as 7 HP, you can increase or decrease their AC 1, add or subtract 1 from the 1d4 damage roll, use ranged attackers, and play their "AI" dumber or smarter
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The Basics: On that note, do not follow the DMG's guides for monster creation or encounter planning. Its deceptive. And boring. Okay I might be biased coming from 4e and homebrewing literally every single fight I ran. I cannot imagine trying to run 5e as-is, even with cleaner health, defenses, damage, etc. math. Every monster is a dull as dirt beatstick. 'I full attack every round' is something that should have died with 3e but here we are again. To be fair to 3.x, lots of other RPGs also insist 'I attack' is a valid method of proscribing combat engagement, with the only variables and interests being modifiers and equipment, preferably spamming the best option every time your/the GM's turn comes up. Its a shame we can't move past this.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
D&D NEXT: something that should have died with 3e
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Argh for the first time ever I fought a rust monster. The funny thing? It screwed over the party mage more than anyone else by far (elven chain). Wait, a 5e Rust Monster? Because they can only damage non-magical items. So not only was your DM a dick for even thinking sending a rust monster after y'all was cool, he was a double dick for dicking someone's magic item over. code:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 15:50
|
|
