|
DJ Dizzy posted:Just give it to mestraight man, I can handle it. From what I understand, Monks are better than Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Damning with faint praise. You should really just give it to him straight: Monks are just lovely spellcasters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Monks are fine, they'll hold up if compared to a Barb or Pally. The real problem is that there's not much reason to play things that aren't Bard or Wizard in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Just give it to mestraight man, I can handle it. From what happened to our Monk player, it consists of: move really fast, walk into a trap, have to walk with the rest of the party because you can't do anything about them, get into a fight, move really fast, weave past the enemy defenders, punch the guy they were defending lightly on the nose, get torn apart by the defenders moving back into you. The earlier posts, though, show the worst thing about 5e.. that just because it's D&D 5e, groups will insist on playing it and that any problems are merely tradeoffs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
FIFTH EDITION EMPHASIZES ROLEPLAYING OKAY GUYS
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You should convert to D&D Next, the combat's supposed to be much faster. Boing posted: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. Levitate can be applied to baddies? That opens up so many possibilities! Right now my cutting edge arsenal is mostly web, sleep, and thunderwave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
The monk in the party I've been playing with usually gets his poo poo kicked in. Like, to the point that I wonder how he has any hit dice left by the end of the day. We've all been knocked unconscious at least once in the nine levels we've played, but he's usually going down every other fight. He doesn't complain, though, but if I had it happen to me as often as it has to him, I'd probably not only quit the game but probably thrown the PHB into the garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
I tried persuading my D&D group that spells were too strong, that martial classes needed something in order to have interesting abilities and narrative power on par with wizards and bards, talked a lot about balance and campaign design and our DM just chips in with "Think this is a debate thats ruled by subjective opinions on a system thats highly objective" Sometimes I wonder if we're the weird ones
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
We are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Boing posted:I tried persuading my D&D group that spells were too strong, that martial classes needed something in order to have interesting abilities and narrative power on par with wizards and bards, talked a lot about balance and campaign design and our DM just chips in with "Think this is a debate thats ruled by subjective opinions on a system thats highly objective" What does that even mean? And what does it matter that people bring subjective opinions into it? We're talking about the entertainment value of a game people play for fun, of course that's a subjective matter. Subjective doesn't mean bad or invalid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Boing posted:" this is a debate thats ruled by subjective opinions on a system thats highly objective" What does this even mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
So for the purposes of coming up with some sort of feat-chain progression to tack onto the Fighter, I've been working on categorizing feats. Here's what I've come up with: *Denotes feat that could reasonably be houseruled to allow for being taken more than once, and would grant a benefit other than an ASI. Bonus Actions Crossbow Expert Charger Great Weapon Master Reactions Defensive Duelist Sentinel War Caster Mage Slayer Both Polearm Master Shield Master
ASI feats Heavy Armor Master (STR) Athlete (STR or DEX) Tavern Brawler (STR or CON) Durable (CON) Keen Mind (INT) *Linguist (INT) Observant (INT or WIS) Actor (CHA) *Resilient (any) (Not actually useful for Fighters, because they already get all these equipment profs) - Heavily Armored (STR) - Lightly Armored (STR or DEX) - Moderately Armored (STR or DEX) - *Weapon Master (STR or DEX) Ability Reqs (always a 13) Grappler (STR) Defensive Duelist (DEX) Skulker (DEX) Ritual Caster (INT or WIS) Inspiring Leader (CHA) Spellcasting Reqs aka Eldritch Knight-only *Elemental Adept (can be taken more than once, RAW) Spell Sniper War Caster Hybrid-classing *Magic Initiate *Martial Adept General *Alert Dungeon Delver Healer *Lucky *Skilled *Tough Combat Dual Wielder Mobile Mounted Combat Savage Attacker Sharpshooter Medium Armor Master Then you can further break this down by ability score utilization. Like, for example, Medium Armor Master works well on a DEX-based character (Archery or Finesse weapons), Ritual Caster leans towards Eldritch Knight, and etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:What does this even mean. "Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:"Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man." "I know you're right, but I don't like it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Boing posted:I tried persuading my D&D group that spells were too strong, that martial classes needed something in order to have interesting abilities and narrative power on par with wizards and bards, talked a lot about balance and campaign design and our DM just chips in with "Think this is a debate thats ruled by subjective opinions on a system thats highly objective" What is a "highly objective" system, even? quote:Sometimes I wonder if we're the weird ones It's certainly odd to be caught in a position where you don't want to alienate newcomers to the hobby, but you have to reconcile it with having to play 5e. I make no excuses though for those that choose 5e despite familiarity with other, better games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
All systems are "objective". That's what makes them systems. In fact any room for subjectivity in a system is the degree of interpretation it allows. You should ask your DM about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:The monk in the party I've been playing with usually gets his poo poo kicked in. Like, to the point that I wonder how he has any hit dice left by the end of the day. We've all been knocked unconscious at least once in the nine levels we've played, but he's usually going down every other fight. Monks are odd in that they're supposed to be glass cannon multi-hitters, but have very little healing or damage protection. I've taken Mobile and find it improves their ability greatly since they can multi-attack everything and then dart away to safety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:I think the more I learn about D&D and gaming systems, the less I want to actually play D&D. DJ Dizzy posted:Is the monk still terrible. Please tell me the monk isn't terrible. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:What pissed me off is Monte is using Timmy wrong. Timmy cards aren't bad. They are giant neato monsters that you can get into as "your dude" and be psyched about beefing him up. Sure, that's not usually a good strategy, but a Timmy card isn't designed to suck it's designed to get players excited about the game. +1 to loving off is not "timmy" it's just crap. You made a poo poo Monte. To be fair, the main thrust of that article is Monte admitting that they really misunderstood the Timmy/Johnny/Spike terminology when they were making 3.5, so it's not like any of that would be news to him. I mean, he didn't learn from those mistakes, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
I can imagine, in a purely theoretical sense, having fun while playing Monopoly by virtue of playing it with the world's most amazing and incredibly enjoyable gaming group in the world, as a concept that exists within the finite realms of possibility I acknowledge that it exists, but in the hojillion realities in which I can't simply win the lottery by wishing it then I think I'd rather choose an actual good game to spend my game-playing time with than relying solely on the other people around the table to make it all worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I can imagine, in a purely theoretical sense, having fun while playing Monopoly by virtue of playing it with the world's most amazing and incredibly enjoyable gaming group in the world, as a concept that exists within the finite realms of possibility I acknowledge that it exists, but in the hojillion realities in which I can't simply win the lottery by wishing it then I think I'd rather choose an actual good game to spend my game-playing time with than relying solely on the other people around the table to make it all worthwhile. If your friends play Monopoly, you will have more fun hanging out with them and playing a lovely boardgame, than you will by posting about how superior you are on the internet*. "I can imagine, in a purely theoretical sense, having fun while playing the Platonic Perfect Game with the world's most obnoxious and abrasive gaming group in the world, as a concept that exists within the finite realms of possibility I acknowledge that it exists ..." * For normal people. I know this is SA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If your friends play Monopoly, you will have more fun hanging out with them and playing a lovely boardgame, than you will by posting about how superior you are on the internet*. I'm supremely lucky then that "play lovely games" and "post on the internet" aren't the only two options around for spending my fun-time. Seriously, "it's the group the matters, the game doesn't!" is patently untrue bullshit, of course the game matters. If all the fun you're deriving from spending time with your game group is due entirely to your awesome buds then guess what, you'd probably have just as much fun with them (if not more) playing some pickup basketball or watching a movie. I'm legitimately baffled by people who insist that all the flaws in a game are magically washed away simply by having some cool dudes to play it with, like you can't simultaneously have fun with cool people while also playing a game that isn't lovely. Because if my cool friends only ever wanted to play Monopoly or 3.X or Next or Rifts then yeah, I probably would start skipping game day, because lovely pastimes don't become magically unshitty solely because I like some of the people doing them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I probably would start skipping game day, because lovely pastimes don't become magically unshitty solely because I like some of the people doing them. I had a blast playing Rifts with some friends that were fun and funny. I would never say that Rifts was "well designed", nor would I ever imagine it would pass the sperg test for Sufficiently Ordered Structure and Well Crafted Patternicity. If theoretically more perfect games are more important than having fun, then ... thats cool for you I guess. In the meanwhile more people will be playing DnD than open source RPG #496 or Print Your Own Game For Only Twenty Dollars #292. The discussion is more fun when people are talking about adjusting it to work better for different groups than fantasizing about moral superiority based on not playing a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
You're the one bringing up moral superiority and slinging "sperg" around like it's supposed to mean something here. I've played plenty of games that I didn't precisely like and I wasn't consumed with the urge to lecture everyone involved on the proper choice of games, but there's a difference between "I played some Next (or whatever, insert your lovely game of choice here) with some friends because they wanted to give it a shot" and "my gaming group will only play Next, 3E D&D, or derivatives thereof and shoot down every other suggestion," and if you aren't having fun with a game then forcing yourself to keep playing it out of a sense of social obligation and "well you're just not trying hard enough to have fun" is a great way to turn something that should be an enjoyable pastime into something you come to resent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Sometimes I do things that are "fun" but not "the most fun ever." It's not too bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The discussion is more fun when people are talking about adjusting it to work better for different groups than fantasizing about moral superiority based on not playing a thing. The problem is that such adjustments are so broad and sweeping and fundamentally altering, that the end result is something so far from the original that it's not even the same game anymore. At which point, it isn't even the original game any more, but something entirely different that should've been chosen in the first place (or something more similar) as opposed to going through all of the rigmarole of such sweeping changes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
at what point does brand loyalty qualify as Stockholm syndromeFRINGE posted:The discussion is more fun when people are talking about adjusting it to work better for different groups than fantasizing about moral superiority based on not playing a thing. If only Mike Mearls had remembered this. Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Yesterday I told my DM that I was dropping out of the game. Again, I was playing with good friends whom I enjoy hanging out with in general, but still didn't really enjoy playing the game itself. So I know where Kai Tave is coming from. If all you want to do is shoot poo poo and throw dice, I guess 5e will be fine. But a good group of friends and role players wasn't enough for me to see past the flaws of the game. I played DnD 4e because I enjoyed it as a game. I hated playing 5e as a game. It's okay, though, I'm going to meet up with half of my former DnD group at a bar and we'll have fun together with an activity that one of us doesn't loathe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
So was the "Know Your Enemy" ability the Battlemaster Fighter gets at level 7 a joke they forgot to remove before it went to print?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Eh, I don't see any problem with it. DM I did it with basically played it like a Final Fantasy-Scan ability. You're so good at fightering you can measure someone's strength, AC, etc. Prob what the fighter needs more of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Eh, I don't see any problem with it. Yeah but Scan works in combat, right? The KYE ability requires at least a minute of non-combat interaction. Like, you can study a guy drinking tea for a minute and you know his AC compared to yours, but watch him actually fight someone in a duel and you don't learn a loving thing. They also don't really cover multiple "scans" of the same creature. Do you get two pieces of info per minute? Because if so, it's rather pointless to limit it to two pieces of info because what kind of interaction with an important figure is so brief? If you can only ever learn two things about someone... well what the gently caress how does that even work? It's not that the idea of figuring out a being's strengths and weaknesses itself is bad, it's just clumsily handled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Like everyone else said: it requires a full minute of out of combat observation against ONE opponent, and you only learn two meta-game numbers for it--no, actually you don't even learn the loving numbers! You only learn if they're higher or lower compared to yours, which is something you almost certainly could have guessed in the first loving place. It's so, so comically terrible. It's the kind of thing you'd see from somebody's poorly-made 3.x custom class. Even if you could do it in combat as a bonus action against any creature and it gave you the exact numbers, it still wouldn't be as good as level 4 spellcasting, which is what the non-muggles get at level 7.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Eh, I don't see any problem with it. I don't have the PH, but that power sounds familiar. Does it read anything like this? Monte's Cook's Arcana Unearthed posted:At 4th level all witches gain the Sight, which is the ability to see personal auras. They can determine the class and level (if any) of any creature the observe for at least one minute. Creatures that are disguised or attempting to avoid the witch's Sight can make a will saving throw to negate the effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Eh, I don't see any problem with it. It's totally a great power if you don't use it the way the book says and just do something different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
theironjef posted:It's totally a great power if you don't use it the way the book says and just do something different. D&D Next: It's totally a great power if you don't use it the way the book says and just do something different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
That's what makes it such a great system, you're allowed to do your own thing and it will work even better!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I don't have the PH, but that power sounds familiar. Does it read anything like this? Yes, except you choose two things from a list, and you can only know if they're equal, superior or inferior to you. Also you can't get their class and only know about their total level and any fighter class levels. Whether this means you can actively search for the armour class of a creature by switching around pieces of armour, is something you would have to talk to your DM about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I make no excuses though for those that choose 5e despite familiarity with other, better games. I dunno I think "I like this game" is good enough reason to play it. Kai Tave posted:I can imagine, in a purely theoretical sense, having fun while playing Monopoly by virtue of playing it with the world's most amazing and incredibly enjoyable gaming group in the world, as a concept that exists within the finite realms of possibility I acknowledge that it exists, but in the hojillion realities in which I can't simply win the lottery by wishing it then I think I'd rather choose an actual good game to spend my game-playing time with than relying solely on the other people around the table to make it all worthwhile. I hear the sirens of the fun police approaching. FRINGE's posts are honestly wonderful and a fresh blast of air in this terrible thread about a bad game I don't even play but is full of posts about how using a sub-optimally designed game is some sort of torturous, horrifying experience. Also awhile back, someone suggested that if your players are new to RPGs and just want to try Next you should lie to them and use Dungeon World. I still can't get over that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
"I like this game" is good enough reason to play it. "It has the name" and "It doesn't matter if it's bad" are not good reasons to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:25
|
|