|
As a reminder, 4E DID have a "replace the Timmy card when you realize it sucks" mechanic, Retraining. But since 5E was so hellbent on throwing the baby out with the bath water, so it went too. Plus I'm sure grogs would argue that it's "just like respeccing in WoW, fukken video game mechanics" anyway so  I think I just need to play some more 4E. Which unfortunately means giving WotC money so I can access the online character builder since I lost my copy of the offline one ages ago. Also gently caress feats in 4E. God, feat bloat. (To be fair, it was terrible in 3.X too, but I already hate those editions so I don't care)
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Harrow posted: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. This is sort of similar to what I did when I ran Basic D&D with a group of new players and didn't want to weigh them down with Vancian casting nor the big ol' spell list: Roll to attack (all classes have the same BAB at level 1 in Basic), add your INT to the attack roll just like the Fighters adds STR to theirs, tell me what the attack is like - if they threw a Frostbolt with the intent to slow then yeah, slowed, if they cast a Blizzard to hit multiple enemies at the same time then roll a d4 for damage across multiples instead of a d6 to a single, and so on and so forth. They were former WoW players so they took to the dynamic like a horse to water: they shot Fireballs to set zombies on fire, Frostbolts to slow Ghouls, and there was one instance with "hey I know Magic Missile in D&D never misses, can I use it on this 1 HP mook in my face so I'm guaranteed to hit him?" and I said yes Harrow posted: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. I had pretty much the exact same thought so many pages ago in this thread: spell slots are just "these many times I can take a skill check that I'm automatically proficient in and I can replace my INT modifier instead of the original attribute, describing what sort of spell I cast to try to pull it off"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:They combine. It's fantastic especially when you start using some of the attacks to parry/disarm/called shot with your excess to hit. I'd always played that they were separate. You either kicked rear end on the default table, or used the specialization table. Do you have a link to the combine them instruction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:As a reminder, 4E DID have a "replace the Timmy card when you realize it sucks" mechanic, Retraining. But since 5E was so hellbent on throwing the baby out with the bath water, so it went too. Plus I'm sure grogs would argue that it's "just like respeccing in WoW, fukken video game mechanics" anyway so I think I basically had my "come to Jesus" moment last night when I realized that my friends vastly preferred 5e to 4e and didn't want to look back. I've joked about being the grognard in my group, but it never really hit me the way it did after last session. Our DM asked for constructive criticism, and I started with some basic things (stop sending solo monsters after us, use more dynamic groups, start giving us those +1 magic items to start compensating for increasing monster accuracy, etc.). But before I go further, I think I should throw in some background for the actual session last night. We had three combat encounters, every single one of them against a single monster of CR rating higher than ours. The Horned Devil and the Storm Giant seemed fine, if boring, because again, we're sitting there beating on a single monster. The final fight was against a Young Red Dragon, however. In its first turn, it roasted our Monk outright. In its second turn it destroyed what was left of our Fighter/Wizard hybrid. We were only saved by DM fiat and an extremely powerful DM-created magic item (think Baby Power Word: Kill, for 50 HP instead of 150 HP). The DM should have known better than to send a monster whose damage expression rivaled our Hit Point Maximum, with 16d6 or 56 Damage on a fail, or half on a success on its fire breath (MM pg. 98). To put it in perspective, my Bard has a max HP of 66 but went into the fight with only 62 HP, and he probably has one of the highest HP values in the party. And he knew it was an issue afterwards, so I straight up told him this would not have happened in a system like 4e where damage expressions are actually based on player HP values. Then it devolved into a 4e vs. 5e argument where I had to hear the same old cliches ("5e is simpler/has less rules," "5e encourages roleplay," "I'm more worried about the story than the mechanics," etc. etc.). The only valid point that was brought up was that 4e combat is a slog, but I'd already argued that 5e went too far into the opposite direction, creating rocket tag. The DM kept asking me, though, "What would make the game more fun for you?" and I was at a loss. What could make the game more fun for me? I couldn't for the life of me come up with an answer because my issues with the game were so deeply entrenched into the system itself. Things like martials blowing rear end, utilities using the same resources and actions as attacks, poor balance in terms of players and monsters, etc. So my DM basically just straight up told me that I didn't have to play 5e. He's right; I don't. Unfortunately, since my circle of friends and extended circle of friends of friends who roleplay are completely enamored with what I feel to be a fundamentally broken system and are already involved with their own campaigns (some play two separate campaigns in a week every other week), when he says "I don't have to play 5e," what he ultimately says is, "I don't have to play D&D/TTRPG's in general." And that hurt. So, given the choice, I can play a system that I really dislike and think is as boring as it is mechanically and mathematically broken, or not play a game at all. But what's really sad is, well, I think I'd rather not play at all. So, yes, it's me. I'm the grognard now. And it sucks. I love my friends. I like hanging out with them and shooting the poo poo. But I can't make the actual game itself more fun for me, and it feels like I'm dragging the rest of the group down because I don't feel the same way they do about it. It's not like I don't see them on the weekends or at parties or whatever where we just hang out and get drunk without rolling dice. I'll probably let my DM know sometime this weekend that I'm out. I just hope he can revamp the story he's been working so hard on for our characters and find another player to take my spot. I don't want them to not have fun. But after playing four different characters, one of which for nine whole levels, I think I've got a feel for the game and it just isn't for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is sort of similar to what I did when I ran Basic D&D with a group of new players and didn't want to weigh them down with Vancian casting nor the big ol' spell list: Yeah, I really like the idea of a modular, improvisatory "Attack Spell" for a caster class. And the whole "Magic Missile never misses" thing, too. The Attack Spell on this hypothetical Variant Wizard could have a "can't miss" effect in its list, with the caveat that you can't apply "can't miss" and any crowd control effect to the same casting of Attack Spell. (Maybe throw in a feat that the Wizard can take later on that lets you apply "can't miss" to a single-target crowd control effect once per day or something, but probably not.) So right from first level, you could approximate Magic Missile by casting Attack Spell and picking the "deal XdY damage" and "can't miss" effects. There! Magic Missile. When the Wizard unlocks the third effect for Attack Spell, you can then add the "attack two separate targets" effect, just like when Magic Missile can shoot multiple missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:So, yes, it's me. I'm the grognard now. And it sucks. For what it's worth, "liking the edition that's older" doesn't make you a grognard. Your criticisms of the system seem to be legitimate and well-founded; not to take a dig at your friend, but "5e encourages roleplaying/4e does not" isn't one. I empathize - it's not cool when your dislike for a game's design stands in the way of hanging out with your friends, and is sort of the reason why I sometimes hesitate trying to start a regular TRPG group with mine: we already have way more than enough alcohol and things to talk about to shoot the poo poo without having to add dice and character sheets. EDIT: If it's any consolation, it's possible to use monster stats that are more tightly based around player stats and are expected to be fought at a 1 player:1 monster ratio, it's just that the DM can't lift stats straight off the book and this might add a bunch more work for them, and that's really only part 1 of the game's issues. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I think I basically had my "come to Jesus" moment last night when I realized that my friends vastly preferred 5e to 4e and didn't want to look back. I've joked about being the grognard in my group, but it never really hit me the way it did after last session. Our DM asked for constructive criticism, and I started with some basic things (stop sending solo monsters after us, use more dynamic groups, start giving us those +1 magic items to start compensating for increasing monster accuracy, etc.). But before I go further, I think I should throw in some background for the actual session last night. In your situation I'd just get spiteful. Either 1) Create a character that monopolizes table time on things that have nothing to do with the adventure. For instance, your character wants to be the world's first surgeon and is going to be dissecting things and building a library and learning and all this stuff. So yes, of course you want to spend 4 hours every week of the party's time talking to NPCs about what books they might have. 2) Minmax and abuse the rules. Absolutely don't play anything you need to ask DM-may-I, just do everything super explicitly within the rules. Insert necromancer here. 3) Dominate the whole party. Find any/all mind control and charm spells that don't have verbal components and start casting them on the other PCs while you're on watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:In your situation I'd just get spiteful. Excellent advice from Mr. "I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if an AoE can hit a fetus" right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Excellent advice from Mr. "I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if an AoE can hit a fetus" right there. I stand by my comments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I stand by my comments. Yeah, I know you do. That's why you're a lovely poster and probably not much better away from the computer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:In your situation I'd just get spiteful. Either If your goal is to troll the poo poo out of your former friends until they finally kick you out of the group or all get so pissed off whilst maintaining GSF that the group dissolves, this sounds like great advice. If your goal is to enjoy playing D&D, less helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
If you're really not enjoying it, don't play it. It unfortunately sounds like your DM might be a bit of a bad. Single enemy fights are a poor idea most of the time, especially if it's something beefy that the players know nothing about and haven't prepared for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If your goal is to troll the poo poo out of your former friends until they finally kick you out of the group or all get so pissed off whilst maintaining GSF that the group dissolves, this sounds like great advice. Yeah, basically this. I don't want to stand in the way of my friends' fun, and they are legitimately having fun with the system. I'm the odd man out so I think the best option is to just to drop out. It's not fair to me to not have fun and it's not fair to them to ruin theirs. Plus I always feel bad when I make optimized characters in this system because it feels like I outshine other players or completely ruin the DM's session because I dropped a spell. According to my DM I've totally negated 3 encounters in the last two sessions. I feel really bad about yesterday because I did say something dickish and troll-y to our monk. He was so excited his Four Elements picked up Hold Person, but I rained on his parade by telling I had just picked up the fifth level Hold Monster version. I backed up and tried to go, "if I use my fifth slot for that," but I still feel like an rear end. I wanted it to be a snipe about class balance, but in the end I came out of it looking and feeling like a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Yeah, basically this. I don't want to stand in the way of my friends' fun, and they are legitimately having fun with the system. I'm the odd man out so I think the best option is to just to drop out. It's not fair to me to not have fun and it's not fair to them to ruin theirs. To be fair to you, your DM is running 5e. He should be prepared for spells to neutralize encounters--it's part of the system when full casters are in play. If a system only works when everyone plays suboptimally (either intentionally or unintentionally), then it's the system's fault, not the players'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
goatface posted:It unfortunately sounds like your DM might be a bit of a bad. Single enemy fights are a poor idea most of the time, especially if it's something beefy that the players know nothing about and haven't prepared for. It bugs me because this a rookie mistake that the DMG never teaches you about : According to the 5e DMG, a single level 9 player has a Medium encounter budget of 1 100 XP. Four players bumps that up to 4 400 XP total. If I use a CR 8 Hezrou demon, that's 3 900 XP, so it's not even Medium yet, but this thing has 37 DPR multi-attack and is Magic Resistant. If I use a CR 9 Bone Devil, that's 5 000 XP, so just above Medium, with a 46 DPR multi-attack, damage resistance to cold and all non-magical weapon attacks, magical resistance, and immunity to fire and poison. I mean, I know and you know that using a single "boss" monster is often a bad idea because of the action economy and one-hit-KO effects, but the DMG never says anything about that. Whoever wrote this loving thing had to have been familiar with lessons learned from 3.PF encounter building, but the only thing the DMG warns you about is using monster CRs that are higher than the party's average level, but turn right around and suggest a single Owlbear or Manticore for a group of level 3s in the example. It's so stupid because 4E's encounter building guidelines don't work out like this: Four level 9 characters have a total encounter budget of 1 600 XP, and the hardest monsters prescribed are 4 levels higher than the PCs. A level 13 monster is worth 800 XP, so even if you were pushing it as hard as you wanted, you'd still have a 4-on-2 fight. Meanwhile a level 9 Elite is also worth 800 XP each, and a level 9 Solo is actually overbudget, so you literally cannot go wrong with the action economy just following the guidelines! gently caress, even the 3rd Edition DMG says this: quote:Many adventures reach their climax when the party encounters the mastermind behind the plot, or when they track a big monster, such as a dragon or beholder, to its lair. Unfortunately, encounters with single monsters can be very “swingy.” [...] If the party wins initiative, they can gang up on the monster and severely weaken it before it can act.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Yeah, basically this. I don't want to stand in the way of my friends' fun, and they are legitimately having fun with the system. I'm the odd man out so I think the best option is to just to drop out. It's not fair to me to not have fun and it's not fair to them to ruin theirs. Luckily one of my 5e games switched to 4e, and I run a Fate game alternating weekly with the other one. But I've had the same thought that maybe it'd be better for all involved if I quit 5e altogether. I'm still in it for now, but we'll see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:We had three combat encounters, every single one of them against a single monster of CR rating higher than ours. Eh... that's not supposed to happen. DMG page 82, in the sidebar makes it pretty clear that that's a potential death sentence. What level were you guys? Because if you're lower than level 10 then your DM really needs to rethink the way he's using 5e. And you know, I don't mind ragging on 5e for being an unbalanced mess sometimes, but this isn't really the game's fault. When even the DMG itself says "Oh poo poo don't do it dawg!" and your DM does it anyway then the game isn't your real problem here. (And to the genius who said "I'm more worried about the story than the mechanics": yeah you just wait until the next overpowered encounter rips your character in half. It's kind of hard to have much of a story going on when you've been iced. Good mechanics enable the story.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Yeah, basically this. I don't want to stand in the way of my friends' fun, and they are legitimately having fun with the system. I'm the odd man out so I think the best option is to just to drop out. It's not fair to me to not have fun and it's not fair to them to ruin theirs. And thus the cycle begins anew. I suffered through a decade of "Play the system you hate, or don't play at all" so I feel your pain. Everything you said has rang true with me, down to realizing that nothing COULD be done with the system to actually MAKE it fun for me. I eventually had to bite the bullet and realize that I was absolutely miserable when playing with the groups I was in, and not a single one of them would play anything other than 3E/3.5 or Pathfinder. The problem was, after I had left, I couldn't find any other groups that actually WOULD play any other edition of D&D, especially 4E. I've been struggling ever since to actually find groups to play with because I simply flat out refuse to play 3E, 3.5 or PF, and everywhere I turn, that's what groups play almost exclusively. I'm at least open to playing 5E right now, but I'm afraid if I get too much exposure to it that it'll be the d20 era all over again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If your goal is to troll the poo poo out of your former friends until they finally kick you out of the group or all get so pissed off whilst maintaining GSF that the group dissolves, this sounds like great advice. It's unclear what he even wants besides 4e style balance across classes. He apparently doesn't want to shine or end encounters but he'd also not like being useless. So other than rolling up identical classes with his friends what could he even do in 5e?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's unclear what he even wants besides 4e style balance across classes. He apparently doesn't want to shine or end encounters but he'd also not like being useless. So other than rolling up identical classes with his friends what could he even do in 5e? I think the more I learn about D&D and gaming systems, the less I want to actually play D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:I think the more I learn about D&D and gaming systems, the less I want to actually play D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's unclear what he even wants besides 4e style balance across classes. He apparently doesn't want to shine or end encounters but he'd also not like being useless. So other than rolling up identical classes with his friends what could he even do in 5e? I would prefer 4e style balance across classes, or at least a semblance of balance. Definitely something better than encounter destroying spellcasters versus I attack... And I attack again noncasters. I think most of all I miss 4e's tactical combat, where positioning mattered and where things like zones, terrain, and forced movement were really important. I think 5e's telling our DM it can be played "theater of the mind" actually killed some of his creativity because he no longer really thinks about the battlefield as part of the combat. Then again, I think 5e in general killed some of his brain cells because he used to not make these basic rookie mistakes like sending overpowered solo monsters against us or actually created Dungeons and battles where traps, firewalls, sliding staircases, and acid pits were common features. Or maybe it just made him lazy since he's the one who thinks 5e is simpler to run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
I've already retired a character in a 5e campaign because it was too effective. I made an Evocation Wizard with two levels of Fighter and every encounter started (and sometimes ended) with spending my Action Surge and my two highest spell slots to insta-gib everything. It was nowhere near as fun as I thought it would be. I think my DM might let me get away with anything now if I just don't play a Wizard again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's unclear what he even wants besides 4e style balance across classes. He apparently doesn't want to shine or end encounters but he'd also not like being useless. So other than rolling up identical classes with his friends what could he even do in 5e? Wanting to shine is not, by itself, an issue. It's an issue when you can always shine, and it's brighter than everyone else, and they know that they're only shining themselves because you're allowing them to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's unclear what he even wants besides 4e style balance across classes. He apparently doesn't want to shine or end encounters but he'd also not like being useless. So other than rolling up identical classes with his friends what could he even do in 5e? Well whatever he wants I'm sure your suggestion that he throw the biggest pass-agg shitfit he can was super helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted: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. Let me re-emphasize that I was just faffing about while work was slow and I didn't write any of that with a particular edition in mind, so at least some of the stuff was only tossed in there so players could say, "Of course, I can pile driver the storm giant! I count as gargantuan." even if being gargantuan doesn't do much else in a particular edition. In addition, any numbers or levels were just based on pure tummy feels, so keep all that in mind if you want to use any of it. If you were going to use this in 5E, I'd probably ratchet it down a bit, at the very least strip out or tone down the army/landowning stuff since 5e isn't really about that, skelemancer aside. From there, well, this is where I always get hung up when I homebrew stuff. In a perfect world, I'd do a ton of stuff that makes me think I should just write my own drat game, but that's pretty daunting and then I end up doing nothing. In this perfect world, I'd start by scrapping all the martials and partial casters. Then I'd start over with a "Hero" class using those features as a rough the starting point. Classes like rogue or paladin would become archetypes. If its important for people to write fighter on their character sheets, use a beefed up battle master as a "Fighter" archetype. I'd use the full caster classes as a baseline for when to give out utility powers. When a caster gets the ability, to say, breath under water, the Hero should gain a similar I-can-have-underwater-adventures-now ability, either at the same level if the power is limited, or a level or two afterwards if its unlimited. I'd finish off by using the cleaned up math (or something similar) that gets posted here from time to time and then normalize damage output/HP reserves based around it. In a less perfect world, I'd just slap a cleaned up set of those legendary hero powers over any existing martial/underpowered partial caster character that looks like it could use 'em. Or maybe come up with 3 or 4 versions: a warlord/leader-of-men guy, a heroically strong/tough guy, a heroically quick/clever/smart guy, and then let the same set of anemic classes pick one. Looked at the talents fighter. 100x isn't realistic. That sure was some feedback. Those talents are cool and should be used with whatever system you go with. However you slice up the talents, I'd use the same 0 level/at-will and 1-9 level set up that wizards, clerics, druids, and bards use if only so you have an easier time eye balling balance. A level 7 talent, that you get at character level 13, should be as useful as a level 7 spell that you get at character level 13. Even if its an always on/doesn't use concentration/spell slots/whatever. EDIT: What is the most fun character I can build in 5e without having to actually buy anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:EDIT: What is the most fun character I can build in 5e without having to actually buy anything? Dwarf fighter. Take the tavern brawler feat and start bar fights at the end of the day when the magics are out of spell slots and looking forward to a long rest. Scream in a Scottish accent the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Hahaha. What the hell? I'm going through the basic rules PDF and perception checks are now the combination of the worst of both previous methods? The example given is that not only do you have to specify you're going to search the drawers of a cabinet, but you have to be that specific just to qualify for your dice roll check. Combining abstract rolled searching and player guided searching has neither the advantage of moving the game along nor of allowing players to feel like they're the ones who actually spotted the object.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
TheBlandName posted:Hahaha. What the hell? I'm going through the basic rules PDF and perception checks are now the combination of the worst of both previous methods? The example given is that not only do you have to specify you're going to search the drawers of a cabinet, but you have to be that specific just to qualify for your dice roll check. Combining abstract rolled searching and player guided searching has neither the advantage of moving the game along nor of allowing players to feel like they're the ones who actually spotted the object. Have there been any rumblings of a second PHB/Vault/Monster Manual/paperback digest yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
From the PHB's Spell List:quote:Scorching Ray One of the Sorceror's Abilities: quote:Elemental Affinity From the description of damage rolls in the Combat section: quote:If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast. From the PHB Errata quote:Elemental Affinity (p. 102). The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls. From Twitter: quote:@JeremyECrawford Elemental Affinity says one damage roll of a spell, not multiple. So scorching ray doesn't add Cha to each ray that hits? Ok now I'm just confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Well you see if you read the errata you will have noticed there's a clear distinction between RAI and RAW, and
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Ok now I'm just confused. I think I might actually understand what's going on here maybe. I can't be sure because it's D&D Next and clarity is anathema, but in 4E there was a distinction between something like a burst or blast, some sort of area-effect attack that could hit multiple enemies at once, and an ability that gave you multiple individual attacks. I'm familiar with this because I've played a lot of the 4E Monk class which has abilities that do things like "shift your speed and make an attack against anybody you wind up adjacent to at any point" where you make individual damage rolls per target instead of making one single damage roll and taking it for everybody. So if this is the same sort of intent at play here then that could be how this is supposedly working, with Scorching Ray giving three distinct attacks instead of a single multi-target attack. Again, clarity is an issue because of naturalistic language so I can't be 100% certain that's what's going on here, but I'm betting that's the interpretation they're going with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Is the monk still terrible. Please tell me the monk isn't terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Ok now I'm just confused. When they say "more than one target at the same time" what they mean is "area of effect". Scorching Ray is not an area of effect spell but rather shoots three dudes at once, so you're supposed to handle them as separate effects - even though it's still more than one target at the same time. Yeah don't think too hard about this. If you had fully internalized 3e then this would go without saying because that game does actually explain in great detail how things work. And 5e loyally copies over a lot of what 3e did but not all that 3e wrote, because natural language makes everything better. But 5e is written by and for people to whom 3e is second nature and so this kind of "obvious" RAI issue completely escaped everybody's attention because of course they already know how things work and what they meant. The natural language writing is like a Rorschach test: people who know 3e instantly recognize 3e's rules within it. Everybody else just sees a vague blob that doesn't really depict anything. I'm not even being glib here. The writing of 5e is really bad but still works quite well if you already have prior knowledge of D&D. If you lack that knowledge or just take the game in isolation on its own then you start noticing these issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:When they say "more than one target at the same time" what they mean is "area of effect". Scorching Ray is not an area of effect spell but rather shoots three dudes at once, so you're supposed to handle them as separate effects - even though it's still more than one target at the same time. Yeah don't think too hard about this. Okay, that helped. 3E's book has a description of what a Ray is as a keyword, something that's missing from 5E.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
My necromancer just hit 4th level in a friend's 5e campaign. We've wrapping up the mine of Pha-whatever. Our last fight took the entirety of our three hour session, and it's technically still not over (the big bad escaped combat and is running away from us). What are some good, fight-ending spells to pick up at levels 4 and 5, so I can do my part in ensuring that our group never has to spend that much time in a single combat ever again? P.S. One of my 5th level spells obviously has to be animate dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Is the monk still terrible. Please tell me the monk isn't terrible. Don't ask us to lie to you, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Pfox posted:Our last fight took the entirety of our three hour session, and it's technically still not over You should convert to D&D Next, the combat's supposed to be much faster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Pfox posted:My necromancer just hit 4th level in a friend's 5e campaign. We've wrapping up the mine of Pha-whatever. Our last fight took the entirety of our three hour session, and it's technically still not over (the big bad escaped combat and is running away from us). At level 4 I'm partial to Levitate, since an enemy that fails a Con save is pretty much taken out of the fight entirely and can be safely plugged away at by arrows or fire bolts or whatever. Suggestion is a bit more dependent on your DM but can also bypass encounters entirely if the enemy fails a single Wisdom save. I also really like Phantasmal Force - the enemy gets a save every round, but it's Intelligence based and there are probably a lot of dumb enemies around like ogres or trolls or whatever that you might have to fight. At level 5 when you get it, Fireball is extremely good and will probably end encounters with large numbers of enemies by itself. Your party members will be jealous of your ability to make them all redundant with a single spell. Animate Dead is, of course, mandatory. But also consider Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual that lets your entire party have a long rest whenever the hell you want and you don't even need to spend a preparation or spell slot on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Really Pants posted:Don't ask us to lie to you, friend. Just give it to mestraight man, I can handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:14
|
|