D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

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

Father Wendigo: Sep 28, 2005; This is, sadly, more important to me than bettering myself.

alg posted:

Can't 5E Rogues deal sneak attack just when they have an ally within 5' of the enemy?

No.

They need Advantage to use their Sneak Attack ability. This usually means that they need to be hidden (which is now entirely up to your DM per errata), or provided assistance via the Help action (which is a standard action, meaning someone would burn their turn just to make you do the thing your class is supposed to do). Scratch that.

mastershakeman posted:

What was the design philosophy behind 3e? It seems like that was really where things broke. I don't know a lot about the shift from 2->3. What seems even weirder is the popular books/settings primarily featured martial classes as the main characters, so I'd think that WOTC would've wanted to keep those at the forefront.

Here's the head man hisself:

Monte Cooke posted:

When we designed 3rd Edition D&D, people around Wizards of the Coast joked about the "lessons" we could learn from Magic: The Gathering, like making the rulebooks -- or the rules themselves -- collectible. ("Darn, I got another Cleave, I'm still looking for the ultra-rare Great Cleave.")

But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic. For example, Magic uses templating to great effect, and now D&D does too. (To be clear, in this instance, I don't mean templates like "half-dragon," so much as I mean the templating categories such as "fire spells" and "cold-using creatures," then setting up rules for how they interact, so that ever contradictory rules for those things don't arise again, as they did in previous editions.)

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about.

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).
Ivory Tower Game Design requires a two-step process on the part of the reader. You read the rule, and then you think about how it fits in with the rest of the game. There's a moment of understanding, and then a moment of comprehension. That's not a terrible thing, but neither is just providing the reader with both steps, at least some of the time.

While there's something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there's just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach. Perhaps that's what the upcoming D&D for Dummies book will be. I hope so.

Of course, he deleted it after people called him out on his poo poo. Thankfully the Wayback Machine's always got your back!

Father Wendigo fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jun 24, 2015

# ? Jun 24, 2015 21:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 23:38

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

Father Wendigo posted:

No.

They need Advantage to use their Sneak Attack ability. This usually means that they need to be hidden (which is now entirely up to your DM per errata), or provided assistance via the Help action (which is a standard action, meaning someone would burn their turn just to make you do the thing your class is supposed to do).

Here's the head man hisself:

Of course, he deleted it after people called him out on his poo poo. Thankfully the Wayback Machine's always got your back!

I thought it was that they need to have advantage or have an ally that's also adjacent to the enemy. Which is why that swashbuckler archetype was basically "Permanent sneak attack damage"

# ? Jun 24, 2015 21:46

Solid Jake: Oct 18, 2012

Quoting the PHB,:

"You don�t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet o f it, that enemy isn�t incapacitated, and you don�t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

# ? Jun 24, 2015 21:50

Father Wendigo: Sep 28, 2005; This is, sadly, more important to me than bettering myself.

Kurieg posted:

I thought it was that they need to have advantage or have an ally that's also adjacent to the enemy. Which is why that swashbuckler archetype was basically "Permanent sneak attack damage"

Solid Jake posted:

Quoting the PHB,:

"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet o f it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

That's what I get for using the first copy of Basic. :downs:

I went ahead and [s]'d the post.

# ? Jun 24, 2015 21:55

Solid Jake: Oct 18, 2012

I'm keenly aware of the rule because as the Fighter, my primary contribution in combat has been to enable sneak attack damage for the Rogue--a role that is already more adequately fulfilled by the Wizard's quartet of undead retinue.

That's somewhat my fault for pointing out the value of a Skeleton Army to her and sending her on the path to Necromancy, but seeing the DM grimace every time she takes her 5 turns is worth it.

# ? Jun 24, 2015 22:08

Harrow: Jun 30, 2012

gradenko_2000 posted:

4E rationalized this by actually assigning the Fighter a role: he's wearing the plate, he defends everybody else. That way, you've got "dude who swords people in the face really well" represented by the Rogue, and then "dude who stops the bad dudes from swording others in the face" represented by the Fighter.

Because if the alternative is that they are distinct due to theme, then one of them still has to go: Barbarian is savage face-swording, Paladin is holy face-swording, Rogue is stealthy face-swording, and Fighter is ... what? It's a rather intractable problem if you're not willing to sacrifice any sacred cows.

The Fighter's niche, in that case, could be "tactical face-swording." It's the thing that the Battlemaster sort of half-tries at and that the 4e Fighter was built around. If Barbarians are all-out aggression, Paladins are about divine power, and Rogues are about being nimble and underhanded, then the Fighter can be your battlefield tactician.

Basically, Battlemaster stuff should be baseline (as should the Champion stuff, really), and the kits should expand from there, rather than being half-hearted gestures towards Fighters being able to do something other than basic attack.

# ? Jun 24, 2015 22:41

Vanguard Warden: Apr 5, 2009; I am holding a live frag grenade.

Solid Jake posted:

That's somewhat my fault for pointing out the value of a Skeleton Army to her and sending her on the path to Necromancy, but seeing the DM grimace every time she takes her 5 turns is worth it.

It could be worse, she could be using her spell slots to cast 3rd and higher level spells instead. It's always fun to make the DM roll a ton of saving throws in one turn.

How does your group handle the skeletons? Do they all share one initiative? It seems like it'd be a logistical nightmare otherwise.

# ? Jun 24, 2015 23:59

Solid Jake: Oct 18, 2012

Vanguard Warden posted:

How does your group handle the skeletons? Do they all share one initiative? It seems like it'd be a logistical nightmare otherwise.

Our DM's green, but luckily still smart enough to just have them share initiative with the Wizard. Better to give her one super-long turn instead of 5 different instances of "uhhh poo poo, is it my turn again?" per round.

Of course, he also thinks any of us are actually keeping track of rations instead of just pretending to write/erase poo poo when he says we've used up another day's worth, but, y'know. Green DM.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 00:17

wallawallawingwang: Mar 8, 2007

I'm not sure the only way to 'fix' D&D is by reinventing 4e. If the problem is balancing a Linear Fighter with a Quadratic Wizard, you can go 4e's route and make everything linear. Alternatively, you can try and make everything quadratic. Which, roughly speaking, was what I was trying to do (I'm not sure how successfully) with my fighter brainstorming. It also seems to be the path taken by Exemplars and Eidolons, though that's a pretty niche product. I feel like there are a lot of possible ways to approach the issue. But none of them will be explored until the D&D design team understands the what the problem actually is. If you really break it down into the most basic, most practical terms, D&D and most other GMed systems are closer to complicated verbosely written games of mother-may-I than anything else.

In this version of the game, however, players are much more likely, but not guaranteed, to get a yes if there are specific rules which say they can do something. The DM's ability to say yes and no is only mitigated by largely unwritten social conventions. When a player says "Mother, may I make this scene about how everything is on fire now (because I cast fireball)," the DM can actually say no. "Whoops! There is an anti-magic field here suddenly," or, " Nope. Nothing in this room is flammable, just like the last 87 rooms." But the unwritten conventions say that a DM only gets to deny a spell caster those sorts of ways a little bit before players call bullshit and leave. Or subvert the game. Or just hunch miserably at the table passively sucking the joy out of the room.

Now if a player instead says "Mother, may I make this scene about how everything is on fire now (because my tactical genius fighter obviously would have told the town militia to bring a shitload of flaming arrows that they, just now, are shooting down at us)," social convention gives the DM a lot more leeway to say no. EG: "Well, you didn't SAY that you were bringing the town militia, so no." Or even: "Sure. You give the order to fire, but its really windy. Go ahead and roll perception for the militia to see if they hear you." Even though the effect (eveything is now on fire) is identical. This remains true even in a system like 4e, where the page 42 guidelines would let you say yes in consistent and balanced way.

In this model, maintaining intra-party balance, that is stuff like everyone doing a useful amount of damage, isn't exactly the issue. The issue is making sure every player get the same number and strength of 'becauses" and then explicitly setting those unwritten social expectations that determine when the DM can get away with saying no to a cool idea.

To make all that theory a little more concrete, someone mentioned that if the level 20 capstone for a fighter was do infinite damage and have infinite HP, they'd still be weaker than a level 20 wizard. After all, the level 20 wizard can just say "I cast planar bullshit and slip between dimensions," and have it work 99% of the time. Whereas if the infinite fighter tried to slice the fabric of space time the DM would tell Jeff to knock it off with his animeforbabieswowtalk.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 00:27

Selachian: Oct 9, 2012

Father Wendigo posted:

Here's the head man hisself:

(snip)

Of course, Cook also completely misunderstood the Timmy/Johnny/Spike terminology. Timmy players like big flashy stuff and don't care if it's not the most mechanically effective. The Magic team knows that they have to include Timmy-type cards to make that segment of their player base happy.

Cook, on the other hand, thinks it means Timmy is a dope who needs to lrn2play.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 00:57

Dick Burglar: Mar 6, 2006

So Timmy would actually be more like a blaster caster instead of a save-or-die caster.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 00:59

TheBlandName: Feb 5, 2012

Or a polymorph himself into a T-Rex caster. Or a summon Death itself, riding a bone covered motorcycle, to force all enemies to save-or-die caster. Or an Implosion caster. Timmy gets excited about the aesthetics of an ability rather than the effects.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 01:26

Kai Tave: Jul 2, 2012; Fallen Rib

wallawallawingwang posted:

To make all that theory a little more concrete, someone mentioned that if the level 20 capstone for a fighter was do infinite damage and have infinite HP, they'd still be weaker than a level 20 wizard. After all, the level 20 wizard can just say "I cast planar bullshit and slip between dimensions," and have it work 99% of the time. Whereas if the infinite fighter tried to slice the fabric of space time the DM would tell Jeff to knock it off with his animeforbabieswowtalk.

That was me, and frankly if you gave a level 10 Fighter infinite damage and infinite hitpoints they'd still probably be less useful than an equivalent level spellcaster. Hitpoints and damage dealt/taken are extremely shallow avenues of engagement to build an entire character class around.

In a much, much, much earlier discussion concerning the role of Fighters back when Next was still in its "open playtest" phase I pointed out that in virtually any other RPG if you showed up to the table with a character that was all about fighting...poor skills, mental and social stats dumped, nothing but a big sack of "can't do poo poo" except for their ability to smash face as hard as possible...that you would be mocked, accused of munchkinism, or just plain told to tone it down some buddy, but for some reason this is considered the ideal D&D Fighter to many, a moronic meatbot with a sword attached to it.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 01:28

Ryuujin: Sep 26, 2007; Dragon God

wallawallawingwang posted:

To me, the best source to mine for the kernels of mechanics is the fictional world(s) the rules system is supposed to represent. Good class based systems ensure classes match-up to the fictional archetypes they are supposed to represent and I think that's where D&D, in general, has the most issues. In 2nd ed. they provided a list of historical, mythical, and fictional characters you'd use a D&D fighter to represent: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, Sinbad, El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. A class that could model all these guys would need to be supernaturally strong and tough, count on divine guidance and support, and not only be a leader of men, but a great leader of men able to reshape the course of history. That's on top of the obvious highly skilled at fighting bit.

Spit balling here, (in a mostly edition neutral way) but a Fighter's core features should be something like:

Combat Prowess: In addition to being the best all-around warriors, fighters inspire others to fight at their best.

A Fighter's leadership prowess should create a large aura that grants bonuses to hit and damage, or lets the fighter trade their attack to give all their allies a free attack, or gives allies within the aura a big bonus to defense and temp HP / strait-up healing.

Whenever a fighter rolls more than, say, a 6 on a damage die, they should get a free disarm/trip/shove/whatever, on their target.

Heroics: Fighters are larger than life figures capable of incredible feats of strength, stamina, and skill.

Add 1/2 your level to your strength, dexterity, and constitution scores.

At level 2 and above whenever you perform mundane tasks like digging a tunnel, laying a road, or building structures, you count as a number of workers equal to your level squared.

At level 3 you can hold you breath for 10 minutes per point of constitution, increase this to 1 hour per point at level 5, and one day per point at level 13.

At level 5 you can stay awake, alert, and perform non-strenuous tasks like walking or reading, without need or sleep, rest, food or water, for 1 day per 3 points of Constitution. At level 9, you can also perform strenuous tasks like mining, building, carousing, or military drills. At level 13 increase the duration to 1 day per point of constitution, and at level 18 you can perform these tasks indefinitely.

At level 7 you count as a large creature whenever it would benefit you. At level 11, and every 4 levels after, increase the size you may count as by one step.

Patron: Fighter's often begin their careers serving the interests of a powerful patron. Depending on your character's alignment and background this patron might be a local duke that hired you as a mercenary, the exiled true king, or your divine parent. As you grow in strength and experience you can count on greater aid from your patron. Eventually you'll become powerful enough to serve as your own patron and even sponsor other fighters. In game terms this means you can count on:

The automatic and free (to you) service of loyal men-at-arms. The number of soldiers begins at a "enough to man a keep on the borderlands" and at the highest levels grows to "enough to challenge the setting's largest empire." While these soldiers are loyal, brave and true, they do not typically accompany you on adventures into dungeons; instead they serve you by securing territory, building castles, roads, and so forth, and battling other armies. In addition to these military units, around level 9 you gain a Warrior Cadre that DO accompany you into dungeons and grow in power along with you. These soldiers are provided by your patron either being hired soldiers or soldiers flocking to your growing legend depending on the nature of your patron.

The divine insight and aid afforded by your patron, or your ever growing network of spies, merchants, and hired mages provide you with: a spell list of mostly divination type magic, and limited access to magical items armor and weapons, and unlimited access to the highest quality mundane gear.

At levels 6 you gain lordship over a keep and nearby village, at level 12 you gain lordship over a city with a castle, and at level 18 you gain lordship over a metropolis and a palace.

I do like a lot of those options, especially the Heroics one. Though it does bring up a question, what does counting as large, huge, etc actually get you?

As pd0t mentioned I have some houserules I am using in my current game, though they mostly focus on improving the Champion.

Also I have harped about an incomplete talent system that I got from RPGnet and posted here a few times, and even tried to get some feedback on GITP here with less than useful responses. I really liked what that talent system was opening up and would have liked to see what would have come of it had it been finished. That said I also like what the Heroics above grants, which can be about as much strength as the Talent System would have granted by 19th level, but also increasing Dex and Con at the same time. Though increasing Dex that much might make heavy armor less than appealing.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 01:29

Successful Businessmanga: Mar 28, 2010

Solid Jake posted:

Our DM's green, but luckily still smart enough to just have them share initiative with the Wizard. Better to give her one super-long turn instead of 5 different instances of "uhhh poo poo, is it my turn again?" per round.

Of course, he also thinks any of us are actually keeping track of rations instead of just pretending to write/erase poo poo when he says we've used up another day's worth, but, y'know. Green DM.

Just wait until level 17 rolls around :allears:

, cast wish for simulacrum and use all her and the simulacrum's slots to cast animate dead/create undead. She'll be rocking out with 144 skeletons and 4 wights which in turn can create 48 zombies between them.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 01:42

wallawallawingwang: Mar 8, 2007

Ryuujin posted:

I do like a lot of those options, especially the Heroics one. Though it does bring up a question, what does counting as large, huge, etc actually get you?

As pd0t mentioned I have some houserules I am using in my current game, though they mostly focus on improving the Champion.

Also I have harped about an incomplete talent system that I got from RPGnet and posted here a few times, and even tried to get some feedback on GITP here with less than useful responses. I really liked what that talent system was opening up and would have liked to see what would have come of it had it been finished. That said I also like what the Heroics above grants, which can be about as much strength as the Talent System would have granted by 19th level, but also increasing Dex and Con at the same time. Though increasing Dex that much might make heavy armor less than appealing.

I'll have to take a look at the Talent system after diner here. Usually large+ size decides what sort of things you can grapple or can swallow you whole. But also the size of the weapons you can use, how much gear you can lug around, your reach, and the size of the area you control on the battle field. But I think it would also come into play if you say, decided the best way to stop the rampaging river flood would be to just drink the river up. Impossible for a mere mortal, but a level 20 hero could eat/drink as much as 400 something tarrasques.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 03:45

Tyrannosaurus: Apr 12, 2006

I was thinking about rolling a necromancer. However, another player is going to be a death cleric. Who is going to overshadow who? Or are they pretty different character types?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 04:36

Ryuujin: Sep 26, 2007; Dragon God

wallawallawingwang posted:

I'll have to take a look at the Talent system after diner here. Usually large+ size decides what sort of things you can grapple or can swallow you whole. But also the size of the weapons you can use, how much gear you can lug around, your reach, and the size of the area you control on the battle field. But I think it would also come into play if you say, decided the best way to stop the rampaging river flood would be to just drink the river up. Impossible for a mere mortal, but a level 20 hero could eat/drink as much as 400 something tarrasques.

Drinking a river/ocean dry is definitely something an epic hero should be able to do. The thing is as far as I can tell there are no rules for what a size category actually gives you in 5e. The enlarge spell adds like +1d4 damage I believe, same as some other concentration spells. Some large monsters/npcs wield weapons that do an extra die of damage, though this is kind of a dangerous thing as my own houserule for Champion has shown with 2d6 weapons going up to 4d6. Not sure I have seen many large things actually have a greater reach, and then it begs the question of how does that interact with the current Opprotunity Attack rules which kind of make it so a great reach just means that they have free reign within your reach. Honestly a lot of what the Combat Prowess, Heroic, Patron stuff does fits the things I had been looking for back when I had been homebrewing a Fighter Archetype all around being a mythical/legendary hero. At the time I had been looking at giving the character permanent buffs that were often reminiscent of things spells granted. Like resistance to all damage like stoneskin, or jumping 3 times normal distance like Jump, or things like permanent Haste or Expeditious Retreat.

wallawallawingwang for that "fighter" you posted would you just make that an archetype? And then once you take it you get all the stuff from 3rd level or before retroactively and gain all the other benefits at the levels you specified? Or would you gut the current fighter and replace the actual fighter features with it? Or what?

Again like the talent system if it gets fleshed out well enough I might try and convince someone on the forums to let me try it out.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 05:12

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

gradenko_2000 posted:

Feats were another big deal with the 3rd Edition. The idea was that they were going to emulate things like Smash, or Set Spear, or any of the other Weapon Specialization abilities from the RC so that the Fighter would have something to do besides making basic attacks all the time. Except it didn't really work because the design was never focused enough: some feats denied actions that you used to be able to do when it was still unspecified, some feats were small incremental bonuses, and lots of feats were entirely passive effects that could never really compare to a "spell"

I wouldn't be surprised if at one point feats were fighter-only thing, then they later became universal (but with feats only fighters could take), but then even those immediately dried up.

I think the big thing that kills the 3e fighter was the complete mathematical overhaul that the devs somehow didn't notice at all. Like, many of the fighter abilities ARE fairly 1:1 to AD&D. Taking those weapon focus and weapon specialization feats work somewhat similar to how they do in AD&D (except weaker for no reason because 3e is all about loving over the fighter). But even then, it ignores the fairly dramatic alterations that changing to the d20 system made to the core math.

THAC0 is a rather simple 0-20 system. The worst AC you can have is AC10, stark naked with no dex bonus. The best you could theoretically have is AC -10, full plate and dex bonus and +x items of protection. Likewise, the worst THAC0 you can have is 20; level 1 non-fighter with no strength/dex bonus at all. The best you can get is 1, which is a level 20 warrior class. There are modifiers that can be added to THAC0, but they tend to be few and far between; in general, everything fits in the 0-20 system.

d20 on the other hand has no cap at all and even before level 10 hurls itself into the stratosphere. The number of bonuses you can get to your attacks are hilariously cheap and plentiful. On the other hand, the number of bonuses you can get to your AC is far more starkly limited. This is why AC is ultimately a losing game in 3e, especially as you advance in levels. You'll almost never have high enough AC to shrug off a monster's attacks. Which in turn means the vaunted Fighter ability of "wears armor" is now way more useless. d20 also changed how modifiers work; in AD&D, none of your modifiers are situational. Your dex -> AC bonus always exists. Wearing plate doesn't somehow destroy your reflexes.

Then you look at how HP changed and jesus loving christ. AD&D was super simple about monster HP; monsters had a hit die, and that was how many d8's of health they got. The end. That's it. No more. Monsters didn't even have Constitution. Their attack bonus was...their hit die! Again, no stats to muddle around with! Lastly, monsters get AC, and I should note that, again, it's just "AC#." No natural armor bonus, no luck bonus, no coincidence bonus, etc, etc; that weird fetish was a 3e creation. With 3e, monsters suddenly get stats and items, and here's where problems come up. 3e monsters largely have just their AD&D general statline...except now +stats. So monsters were uniformly buffed, and the higher level, suddenly the more absurdedly strong they were. The Constitution thing is the sickest joke, because that was a warrior-only bonus in AD&D. Constitution as a bonus to health capped at like 14 for non-warriors in AD&D, now they're uncapped for everyone.

So lets make a comparison. We'll even do it at a low level, where fighters are supposed to be super badass! Let's go with a simple bruiser - the ogre. Challenge rating 3 according to 3e's SRD, so it'll be a level 3 human fighter, vanilla as can be. I literally rolled random stats just now using the most popular 3e method; 4d6 drop 1. 13/14/15/11/13/9, which is pretty average; close to the elite array. The 3e fighter exchanges Con and Strength, giving him 15/14/13/11/13/9. Because charisma is always the dump stat. Why that statline for AD&D? Because 15 strength doesn't actually benefit your attack or damage, whereas it DOES benefit your HP. They've got +1 plate (half-plate in 3e to match), a +1 sword, and a shield. For ease of use I'm converting THAC0 into a d20 style system.

The AD&D Fighter isn't doing too shabby. At level 3 they have Weapon Specialization. They have the equivalent of AC19, attack bonus +5, and he's gonna be doing 1d12+2 damage against that ogre, and attacks twice every other turn. Average HP is put at ~19. The 3e Fighter isn't bad either; the changes to the attribute system shine here. Their feats are Weapon Focus, Combat Expertise, and Improved initiative. They're looking at AC19 as well, attack bonus +7, and they do 1d8+3 damage against that ogre - the different weapon damage against large enemies doesn't exist here! Average HP is put at ~19. So, you know, a bit beefier, thanks to the increased importance of stats at lower levels.

Now let's look at the ogres. The AD&D ogre has HD4+4 (so 4d8+4, an average of 19), the equivalent of +4 1d10 attack, and the equivalent of AC15. The 3e Ogre has HD4d8+11(+10 over AD&D on average for 29), it's greatclub attack is +8 for 2d8+7. It has AC16 and takes great pains to tell us the exact divide of how much of that is due to dexterity, how much is due to "thick skin," and how much is due to wearing animal hides.

Do you see how similar those two ogres are until you add in 3e's math changes? Because the devs sure as gently caress didn't! The 3e Ogre has natural AC of 15 (hmmm), a natural attack bonus of +3 (hmmm), and HD4 (hmmmm). But then you add in it's other stats and poo poo gets real different, real fast. Again, it becomes increasingly obvious that they just copied the AD&D stats and stapled the attribute system on top without actually caring what that would change. A simple eyeball comparison shows the huge difference; the AD&D ogre hits when it rolls a a 15 and will need roughly 4 hits to kill the Fighter, whereas the 3e ogre hits on an 11 and does needs two hits - or just one lucky hit! On the offensive side, the 2e fighter hits on a 10 and does ~9 damage per attack (remember, they get two on the second round), most likely killing the ogre by the third round and thus surviving the affair. The 3e fighter hits on a 9, but is only going to be doing ~7 damage each attack - they require a minimum of four rounds, whereas the ogre only needs two - if not ONE - to splatten the fighter.

Now, the 3e fighter can lose a bit of offense to raise it's defense to equal the AD&D fighter's odds vs the ogre attacks, putting it at +4 attack (lower then the AD&D fighter) but making the ogre require a 15 to hit as well. Of course, now the fighter needs to roll a 12 to hit, which draws out the fight even longer!

And this is level 3! This is when the fighter is SUPPOSED to be reigning supreme! An ogre is a challenging fight for a fighter, no doubt - the AD&D fighter will likely feel rather victorious in their win. The 3e Fighter? Rerolls.

And what's maddening is how similar so many of the numbers are...until you add all this 3e poo poo. At their base level the two fighters are drat close in stats, because the actual PC mechanics weren't changed as much. The ogres on the other hand are radically different - a difference that only grows as you go up in levels. Consider: the AD&D ogre has 19 health. At level 3 a wizard can shoot out 2d4+2 as an auto-hit magic missile, and an average of ~6 is a pretty healthy chunk of damage; it'll turn that fight with the Fighter into something that lasts only two rounds, one round if he rolls a 12 on that weapon dice. The 3e magic missile...still does 2d4+2. Is it any wonder wizards stopped being the artillery in 3e? Everything got WAY beefier. Their damage stayed the same.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 06:04

odinson: Mar 17, 2009

How would you guys rule mage armor and/or mirror image stacking with a polymorph yourself?

What is a creative use of Phantasmal Force against a white dragon?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 06:08

Vanguard Warden: Apr 5, 2009; I am holding a live frag grenade.

Tyrannosaurus posted:

I was thinking about rolling a necromancer. However, another player is going to be a death cleric. Who is going to overshadow who? Or are they pretty different character types?

Necromancy Wizards summon and maintain undead armies, Death Clerics spew necrotic damage everywhere. Death Clerics get Animate Dead, but it's not what they're all about. Totally different characters.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 06:09

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

odinson posted:

How would you guys rule mage armor and/or mirror image stacking with a polymorph yourself?

Polymorph: "The target's game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast".

Mage Armor: "The target's base AC becomes 13 + its dexterity modifier".

Since these both set AC to a number, they can't stack and whichever was cast most recently takes precedence.

I'm not sure what you're asking about Mirror Image. It doesn't change your AC at all.

e: Ah gently caress, I didn't go where I meant to go after the above bit. The actual wording of the spells implies that Poly then MA stacks but MA then Poly doesn't. It doesn't matter because my ruling is "yeah, whatever, they stack".

Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 06:44

Dick Burglar: Mar 6, 2006

So what game systems best emulate pre-3E D&D without having to learn all of the weird, nitpicky rules crap that came out of AD&D? Because honestly that's sounding pretty good right now.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 07:02

Vanguard Warden: Apr 5, 2009; I am holding a live frag grenade.

Mage Armor would work on a polymorphed form, unless the group is ruling that polymorph suspends any spell effects on the target until it returns to its original form. Polymorph doesn't set your AC as a calculation like Unarmored Defense or Mage Armor, it changes all of your other statistics to the chosen creature's which then causes you to have whatever AC it has.

Natural armor wouldn't stack with Mage Armor though, as that is an armor calculation. Your AC while polymorphed with Mage Armor on you would either be the creature's listed AC, or 13 + the creature's Dexterity modifier.

As to whether effects are suspended during the duration of polymorph, I have no idea, nothing says either way. If you polymorph a stunned party member into a tyrannosaurus, do they become a stunned tyrannosaurus? If they're petrified, do they become a statue of a tyrannosaurus?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 07:04

Xelkelvos: Dec 19, 2012

wallawallawingwang posted:

I'm not sure the only way to 'fix' D&D is by reinventing 4e. If the problem is balancing a Linear Fighter with a Quadratic Wizard, you can go 4e's route and make everything linear. Alternatively, you can try and make everything quadratic. Which, roughly speaking, was what I was trying to do (I'm not sure how successfully) with my fighter brainstorming. It also seems to be the path taken by Exemplars and Eidolons, though that's a pretty niche product. I feel like there are a lot of possible ways to approach the issue. But none of them will be explored until the D&D design team understands the what the problem actually is. If you really break it down into the most basic, most practical terms, D&D and most other GMed systems are closer to complicated verbosely written games of mother-may-I than anything else.

In this version of the game, however, players are much more likely, but not guaranteed, to get a yes if there are specific rules which say they can do something. The DM's ability to say yes and no is only mitigated by largely unwritten social conventions. When a player says "Mother, may I make this scene about how everything is on fire now (because I cast fireball)," the DM can actually say no. "Whoops! There is an anti-magic field here suddenly," or, " Nope. Nothing in this room is flammable, just like the last 87 rooms." But the unwritten conventions say that a DM only gets to deny a spell caster those sorts of ways a little bit before players call bullshit and leave. Or subvert the game. Or just hunch miserably at the table passively sucking the joy out of the room.

Now if a player instead says "Mother, may I make this scene about how everything is on fire now (because my tactical genius fighter obviously would have told the town militia to bring a shitload of flaming arrows that they, just now, are shooting down at us)," social convention gives the DM a lot more leeway to say no. EG: "Well, you didn't SAY that you were bringing the town militia, so no." Or even: "Sure. You give the order to fire, but its really windy. Go ahead and roll perception for the militia to see if they hear you." Even though the effect (eveything is now on fire) is identical. This remains true even in a system like 4e, where the page 42 guidelines would let you say yes in consistent and balanced way.

In this model, maintaining intra-party balance, that is stuff like everyone doing a useful amount of damage, isn't exactly the issue. The issue is making sure every player get the same number and strength of 'becauses" and then explicitly setting those unwritten social expectations that determine when the DM can get away with saying no to a cool idea.

To make all that theory a little more concrete, someone mentioned that if the level 20 capstone for a fighter was do infinite damage and have infinite HP, they'd still be weaker than a level 20 wizard. After all, the level 20 wizard can just say "I cast planar bullshit and slip between dimensions," and have it work 99% of the time. Whereas if the infinite fighter tried to slice the fabric of space time the DM would tell Jeff to knock it off with his animeforbabieswowtalk.

One of the things that separates a spell caster from a martial is how hard coded the ways they can affect everything via spells. If a Wizard was written as basically as a Martial, they'd have a basic spell (ala a cantrip) that did some sort of damage effect each time its cast with no limits on how its cast as a basic attack and have to pick up new "spells" just like Feats and have them be on par with the others. Other spells would be achieved as part of class features and so forth since a single spell is frequently, at minimum, the worth of an entire feat or class ability if not more. To make Martials quadratic, they'd need to obtain as many tricks and abilities as a Wizard or other caster got spells with a similar amount of efficacy.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 07:14

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

Dick Burglar posted:

So what game systems best emulate pre-3E D&D without having to learn all of the weird, nitpicky rules crap that came out of AD&D? Because honestly that's sounding pretty good right now.

What "weird, nitpicky rules crap" are you referring to? The basic gist of pre-3E D&D is:

1. Roll d20 and get equal to or greater than your to-hit number against the target's AC to score a hit
2. Roll d20 and get equal to or greater than your saving throw number to avoid a bad effect
3. Roll d20 or 3d6 and get equal to or less than your ability score to succeed at a non-combat skill check
4. Roll d100 and get equal to or less than your percentage score to succeed at one of the Thief skills

If #1 is throwing you off, you can go with Basic Fantasy as an emulation of Basic/Expert D&D but with ascending AC so you can forget all of the THAC0/descending AC wonkiness. Roll d20 and get equal to or higher than your target's AC to hit. There's supplements for emulating the Fighter's AD&D attacks-per-round and weapon specialization system, and conversions of all the AD&D classes beyond just Fighter / Cleric / Magic-User / Thief

OSRIC is a direct clone of AD&D 1e, For Gold and Glory is a direct clone of AD&D 2e. They're both significantly more readable and better formatted than the original texts, although descending AC is still a thing so there's that.

Finally, Labyrinth Lord plus the Advanced Edition Companion converts what's supposed to be a Basic/Expert D&D clone into AD&D 1e without all of the extra rules like Non-Weapon Proficiency and AC-adjustment-by-weapon-and-armor-type and the arcane initiative rules, and is generally clearer to read and understand than even OSRIC, but also still uses descending AC.

EDIT: For thieves, I run with a houserule to set all their thief skills to 50% at level 1, which increases by 4% per level.

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 07:26

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Dick Burglar posted:

So what game systems best emulate pre-3E D&D without having to learn all of the weird, nitpicky rules crap that came out of AD&D? Because honestly that's sounding pretty good right now.

Box sets basic. To me, it plays like OD&D polished to a high sheen and the books are in a easy to learn easy to use format. The nitpicky rules are just cool things fighters can do, like throw a bastard sword at a dude to make him roll surprise. The basic hobbit is the only thief-like character I will let people use because it doesn't suck at life.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 07:38

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Father Wendigo posted:

Monte Cooke posted:

...

But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic. For example, Magic uses templating to great effect, and now D&D does too. (To be clear, in this instance, I don't mean templates like "half-dragon," so much as I mean the templating categories such as "fire spells" and "cold-using creatures," then setting up rules for how they interact, so that ever contradictory rules for those things don't arise again, as they did in previous editions.)

Thats something I dislike. I like having "not all fire is equal" (etc) in that the Elementalist, Warlock, Invoker and (theoretical) Psionicist are all doing different things to get the same effect, and countering/resisting/whatever each of them is a different thing. Narrative games are not strategy card games. (I am also aware that I like tracking tons of disparate things more than some people do, so I think having a simple version is also good.)

Solid Jake posted:

Of course, he also thinks any of us are actually keeping track of rations instead of just pretending to write/erase poo poo when he says we've used up another day's worth, but, y'know. Green DM.

Time for them to learn the secrets of The Starvation Clock.

ProfessorCirno posted:

d20 on the other hand has no cap at all and even before level 10 hurls itself into the stratosphere. The number of bonuses you can get to your attacks are hilariously cheap and plentiful.

This may not be the worst thing about 3e, but it is one of the first things that made me toss it aside when it came out. 3e was fine for NWN where a computer was running all the ridiculous numbers, but was tedious in a non-fun way on paper. If I am going to track fiddly things I want them to be more interesting. (As above: "this fire is like this, that fire is like that" where there will be some actual interesting effect for the game/players.)

Dick Burglar posted:

So what game systems best emulate pre-3E D&D without having to learn all of the weird, nitpicky rules crap that came out of AD&D? Because honestly that's sounding pretty good right now.

2e is not too bad when you start with the basic two books. Even in there many things (that most of us used) are clearly marked as OPTIONAL, like non-weapon proficiencies. If you can get past the WotC marketing BS from way back about "THAC0 is wacko" and realize counting to 10 is pretty easy (especially with the charts all pre-provided) theres not much to fear. The upside to 2e is if you get rolling there is a ton of material that was created, and the preceding 1e stuff is essentially compatible (As is B/E stuff with some tweaks).

There are some add-on rules you will want though, and some things Ill add just based on my preferences:

- Fighters need access to the style specializations, group proficiencies, and expanded weapon specializations. Most of this is in "The Complete Book of Fighters".
- In general the "Complete Book of" stuff is worth letting playing fish through for things that will make them happy (thats a Ranger joke :v:

). They run from mostly-flavor, to dumb (fish ranger), to broken (elven archer).
- If you have players that like punching/grappling do what every sane person did and make up your own thing. (For punching you can just use old-timey subdual damage rules, for grappling (with special outcomes) I would just mix size rules with to-hit/stat checks on the fly.
- I would apply the same rules to spell lists that every version of DnD needs: if theres a thief then the Knock spell doesnt exist (etc, etc...).
- Give a lv1 mage some kind of graduation/mentor gift that lets them store an extra Magic Missile/Shield at a time. This will let them have an extra "shot" and also encourage them to memorize something else to be creative with. In the long run an extra Magic Missile wont mean anything.
- I give rogues/thieves some boosts to make them more in line with the overall capability of fighters/mages/clerics.
- I use the FR style "Specialty Priests" in place of "generic cleric" because its pretty much always more fun for whoever is playing the thing.

I am probably a bad source for you though, because I liked the piles of nitpicky and would make rule sets on the fly when I wanted to keep the pace of a game moving.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:09

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

The templating thing is actually kinda interesting because you can see how it grew into 4e's keywords system which WAS similar to how Magic uses it. It's interesting because, well, to be blunt, I don't remember 3e ever actually using it. There were no "all fire effects do this," there were no "this effects all fire effects," etc, etc. I don't remember effect templating being used anywhere.

In comparison the 4e keyword system is mostly an organization tool. There's no rule that says "all fire does this." Instead, you might have abilities or feats or items or what have you that say "all your fire effects now gain x." An Executioner/Assassin can make all their poison effects ignore all resistances and immunities. A warlock who pledges themselves to the star Caiphan can crit more easily with radiance and fear keyworded powers. A scion of the Hells themselves gets an attack bonus on fire effects. A dutiful worshiper of the Morninglord makes enemies weak to radiant effects. A warrior with Intimidation penalizes enemies he attacks with exploits that are Rattling. Etc, etc.

5e has, naturally, thrown all of this away. It didn't fit NATURAL LANGUAGE.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:24

Kai Tave: Jul 2, 2012; Fallen Rib

Yeah, a big mental hurdle is people relentlessly confusing clarity of organization and standardization of terminology for "ugh now everything is the same and dumbed down." I mean, if you like tracking a dozen fiddly pieces of stuff it's not like you can't get that out of 4E D&D, it's all over the place.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:31

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

Father Wendigo posted:

Here's the head man hisself:

Oh man, I completely missed this, but Christ, what an rear end in a top hat

EDIT: It's essentially the randomly rolled stats argument all over again: Putting the D&D equivalent of Murk Dwellers in your feat list isn't the same thing as when you're playing Magic the Gathering because there is enforced permanence to these choices.

"What's that Bob? You picked Prone Shooter? Well gently caress you then you gotta live with it until we finish our campaign a year from now"

That whole post misses the point so badly it's infuriating. If I put a card in my deck because I thought it was shiny and it turns out it was crap, I just take it out of my deck and replace it with a better one. I can't do that in D&D unless the DM is super-permissive. I mean, he probably should be, but the lack of rules support means he's going to assume that he shouldn't.

FRINGE posted:

- I give rogues/thieves some boosts to make them more in line with the overall capability of fighters/mages/clerics.

The way I run this apart from the thief skills percentage boost is that the Thief/Rogue's BAB/THAC0 should be as high a Fighter's if they're sneak attacking, and then be liberal with what can trigger sneak attacking (something that technically 5e got right, even if it was only because you can't claim gridless combat and demand flanking at the same time)

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:44

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

ProfessorCirno posted:

But even then, it ignores the fairly dramatic alterations that changing to the d20 system made to the core math.

THAC0 is a rather simple 0-20 system. The worst AC you can have is AC10, stark naked with no dex bonus. The best you could theoretically have is AC -10, full plate and dex bonus and +x items of protection. Likewise, the worst THAC0 you can have is 20; level 1 non-fighter with no strength/dex bonus at all. The best you can get is 1, which is a level 20 warrior class. There are modifiers that can be added to THAC0, but they tend to be few and far between; in general, everything fits in the 0-20 system.

d20 on the other hand has no cap at all and even before level 10 hurls itself into the stratosphere.

Worth mentioning is that a cap or lack thereof is not inherent to d20 or THAC0, it's just an implementation thing. There's nothing about a rollover system that requires a million fiddly bonuses or prevents capping AC and to-hit at suitable numbers.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:58

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

gradenko_2000 posted:

The way I run this apart from the thief skills percentage boost is that the Thief/Rogue's BAB/THAC0 should be as high a Fighter's if they're sneak attacking, and then be liberal with what can trigger sneak attacking (something that technically 5e got right, even if it was only because you can't claim gridless combat and demand flanking at the same time)

The last thing I did (only 1 group, so not a lot of anecdote/data) was to put the Rogue onto the Fighter xp/to-hit tables.

They retained their rogue abilities, still did not get Fighter Str/Con/Specialization/number-of-attack bonuses, but were able to hit things with the rest of the group. I also had relaxed "Backstab" rules that were more in line with Sneak Attack, but added some finicky stuff about what kind of creature it was. So a sneak attacking rogue was potentially more dangerous than a fighter against a human/elf/etc, but the fighter could wade into the serious monster-threats without fear while the rogue had to be careful. The fact that they could actually hit things mitigated the loss of the backstab damage against fungus people or whatever.

(Side note: I like the idea of the roguey/assassin-themed person actually studying monster lore/anatomy etc... Witcher-style. Someday Id like to mix in some bonuses from taking lore NWPs to specific types of bonuses for characters that wanted to play that way.)

Moving the Rogue to the fighter xp table did slow down their thieves abilities though, so that would probably need adjustment if I tried it again. As it was the player mostly wanted to be a "sneaky fighter" and not a cat burglar so it worked out pretty well.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 09:59

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

gradenko_2000 posted:

The way I run this apart from the thief skills percentage boost

The most reasonable sounding interpretation/fix for skills I've heard was from someone here. If a fighting man or magic user want to pick a lock or hide there's nothing stopping either of them from rolling for it, with the difficulty adjusted based on circumstance. A thief using their pick lock skill first rolls their pick lock chance regardless of the difficulty of the lock, ward, or arcane clockwork of pure thought, and on a failure revert to the regular person method as part of the same action. So they're not exclusionary, since anyone can attempt these actions, nor are the default values unreasonable, since they're effectively a (non-linear) bonus to these existing actions rather than a uselessly low raw check.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Jun 25, 2015

# ? Jun 25, 2015 12:28

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

The way I've done oldschool thief abilities in the past is similar.

Anyone can try thief stuff if conditions aren't too bad. They resolve it with the usual roll-under thing they'd use for anything else. So, climb a regular wall, try to open a simple lock by twiddling wires in it, hide in a cluttered dark room, etc is something everyone can attempt. Thieves automatically succeed at these things. So if you're Hidey McMurderstab and there's shadowy alcoves all over the place, your chance to hide in such a way that you can leap out and backstab a dude is 100%.

The % based thief abilities are the thief's chance to succeed where another class wouldn't even get to try. So things like: pick a lock while in combat, scale a smooth icy wall, hide in a dimly lit uncluttered room, silently cross a hall with broken glass on the floor, etc require you to roll your thief skills.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 13:21

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

gradenko_2000 posted:

I can't do that in D&D unless the DM is super-permissive. I mean, he probably should be, but the lack of rules support means he's going to assume that he shouldn't.

There should probably be something in the DM guide about when it's appropriate to let a player tweak or respec their character. When I rolled my variant human rogue for the campaign I'm playing, I took the observant feat to start and I wound up with something like 21 passive perception and investigation at first level. The DM could let me run with that, which basically meant that I automatically detected all traps, hidden entrances, attempts to sneak up on or hide from the party, etc. without even trying. This would limit her options to use those mechanics in storytelling. Or she could push for game balance and demand that I make active checks for all that stuff, which would mean my very important level one feat choice--the main reason to roll a variant human at all--was wasted.

Instead, we just discussed it and she let me swap it for sharpshooter. She gets to do more stuff with surprise, traps, and so on. The party was rather short on combat power, so my character having the option to hit for massive damage is really helpful to our survival.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 16:09

Harrow: Jun 30, 2012

Xelkelvos posted:

One of the things that separates a spell caster from a martial is how hard coded the ways they can affect everything via spells. If a Wizard was written as basically as a Martial, they'd have a basic spell (ala a cantrip) that did some sort of damage effect each time its cast with no limits on how its cast as a basic attack and have to pick up new "spells" just like Feats and have them be on par with the others. Other spells would be achieved as part of class features and so forth since a single spell is frequently, at minimum, the worth of an entire feat or class ability if not more. To make Martials quadratic, they'd need to obtain as many tricks and abilities as a Wizard or other caster got spells with a similar amount of efficacy.

I think my ideal D&D Wizard would look something like a mixture between gnome7's Mage playbook from Dungeon World and the Wizard from 13th Age.

Have a generic "Attack Spell" the Wizard can use at will and let the Wizard choose two effects from a list of effects. The Wizard can learn new effects as she levels, and eventually choose three effects per Attack Spell at high levels. Effects are things like "deal XdY damage," "affect a group (if spell deals damage, it deals one die category lower)," "immobilize," "ongoing damage," etc. It's up to the player what it looks like each time, what it's called, and what elemental damage it does (maybe the Wizard starts with a couple of available elements and can learn more, depending on how much damage types matter in this hypothetical game). Crowd control effects tend to be short-lived, one or two rounds, no save-or-suck or save-or-die things.

Then, have a list of Utility Spells. The Wizard can cast a number of Utility Spells per day equal to her INT mod plus half her level or something like that. Utility Spells are mostly fairly low-key and do things like allowing the Wizard to roll plus INT modifier for a skill check she'd normally have to use a different stat for. For example, Knock could be a Utility Spell that lets the Wizard roll plus INT mod to pick a lock instead of plus DEX mod. (Maybe, like in 13th Age, the downside is that Knock can't avoid traps; but at the same time, it can be used from X number of feet away. Trade-offs like that.) Levitate lets the Wizard roll plus INT mod to jump a far distance instead of rolling a more athletics-focused STR mod thing. Or spells like Light, Mage Hand, minor illusions, things that are cool and Wizardy but not all that combat-applicable.

Finally, the Wizard gets a list of Greater Spells. She learns a new Greater Spell every level and can cast a number of Greater Spells per day equal to her INT mod or something like that--a small-ish amount, because they're the good poo poo. Greater Spells are you cool "this is something only the Wizard can do" spells (because, ideally, every class should have a few things only they can do). Flight, for example. Teleport. Scrying. Invisibility. Charm, or maybe that's a Bard thing. One rule: Greater Spells don't deal damage. That's what the Attack Spell effects are for. (Maybe there could be Greater Effects you can choose for the Attack Spell that require you to spend a Greater Spell casting to use and count as two effects or something, but that's more detailed that I need to get here.)

Maybe I should write up a Variant Wizard just to play around with this kind of thing. Other full casters could work similarly. Clerics might have a decent melee attack (to go with their armor) and replace the generic Attack Spell with a generic Support Prayer, or something.

I dunno. I'm ranting at this point.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 16:55

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

ProfessorCirno posted:

Snip Words

So how does weapon specialization interact with Warrior Attacks per Round in 2e? So at level 7 you get 1 attack per round, then 2 on the other turn. Then, in Fighter Weapon Specialization, you get 2/1 a round. Does the 2/1 override the 1/2/1, or are they combined?

Or does the Fighter Weapon Specialization chart already take into account the Warrior Attacks?

# ? Jun 25, 2015 16:56

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

Power Player posted:

So how does weapon specialization interact with Warrior Attacks per Round in 2e? So at level 7 you get 1 attack per round, then 2 on the other turn. Then, in Fighter Weapon Specialization, you get 2/1 a round. Does the 2/1 override the 1/2/1, or are they combined?

Or does the Fighter Weapon Specialization chart already take into account the Warrior Attacks?

You simply enter a completely different attacks-per-round progression

pre:

                w/o Specialization     w/ Specialization
Level 1-6       1 per 1 round          3 every 2 rounds
Level 7-12      3 every 2 rounds       2 every 1 round
Level 13+       2 every 1 round        5 every 2 rounds

EDIT: That's for melee weapons. Specialization with a ranged weapon also grants you extra attacks, which you wouldn't otherwise have at all as a non-Specialized Fighter

# ? Jun 25, 2015 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 23:38

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

Power Player posted:

So how does weapon specialization interact with Warrior Attacks per Round in 2e? So at level 7 you get 1 attack per round, then 2 on the other turn. Then, in Fighter Weapon Specialization, you get 2/1 a round. Does the 2/1 override the 1/2/1, or are they combined?

Or does the Fighter Weapon Specialization chart already take into account the Warrior Attacks?

They combine. It's fantastic especially when you start using some of the attacks to parry/disarm/called shot with your excess to hit.

# ? Jun 25, 2015 17:05

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

«‹›1608 »