|
Boing posted:Current feedback from my group is "well sometimes I just want to play a gritty adventure with people that are close to real life, you know?" Then you probably don't want to play Dungeons and Dragons, where the entire game is balanced around people with supernatural powers.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Boing posted:The exploits are inspired by various posts in this thread (by AlphaDog, gradenko2000, etc.) as well as various other sources like myths & legends, 4e, dungeon world, and so on. People have slapped together a few loose ideas like this but I thought I'd try my hand at incorporating it fully into the 5e system. I know you can't fix it properly but I genuinely want to make the game better by letting martials have as much fun as spellcasters. Please give more ideas/feedback!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Boing posted:I've been arguing with my D&D group about class balance for a while and they really weren't getting it, so I decided to put my money where my mouth is and start houseruling up Fighter Spells: Tell them to play Torchbearer instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Boing posted:Current feedback from my group is "well sometimes I just want to play a gritty adventure with people that are close to real life, you know?". Nevermind that we're trying to stop the ascension of a god or anything Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is that way. Or The One Ring. Or Legend of the Five Rings. gently caress, or even Savage Worlds, Silhouette, or some Fate game or whatever. Why the gently caress would you ever want to play a gritty adventure with people close to real life with Dungeons & Dragons? This is the game where getting shot with a crossbow bolt is a negligible threat to all but the most newbie adventurers. This is the game that caps falling damage in such a way that you can just jump down from orbit and you'll be fine, sleeping off whatever discomfort that brought in a couple of hours. This is the game where men stab Godzilla to death with swords. Gritty adventure that's close to real life? D&D has got to be in the top 5 list of games least suitable for that, along with Exalted and Nobilis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:How often can you use an exploit if it isn't explicit in the description, and how does your Multi-attack interact with the built in extra attacks option? I guess I meant for it to replace the extra attacks, though I haven't thought about it too much. I was trying to balance the exploits internally - you can either Cleave if you're a big guy or do Multiattacks if you're a fast guy. I'd be happy with the extra attacks disappearing as a class feature altogether, since they're boring as hell to be a defining class thing that you get at 10th level. Do exploits whenever? Maybe there should be some 'exploit points' system but I really don't think it's necessary, and especially not for the tactical ones that are all just different actions you take in combat instead of saying "I attack the guy".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Boing, have you tried many of those martial exploits in actual play? My group has some interest in playing 5e at some point and if those "Fighter spellz" are working out well for you, I think I'll give them a try in my own game whenever we finish up this 13th Age campaign. My group is mostly made of newer players so they never had the chance to get into the "Fighters have to be realistic, weak humans" thing. They like doing cool things and having fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Gritty close to life = low level. Hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
I like it. I like it a lot. Simple and direct to the point.quote:You can steal the throne from under a king, the colour of someone’s eyes, or their love of their children. You can steal anything. When someone is completely at your mercy, you can take one thing from them. It is now yours, and is no longer theirs. I know this is from 13th Age, but it will never not get old  Angrymog posted:How often can you use an exploit if it isn't explicit in the description, and how does your Multi-attack interact with the built in extra attacks option? I had this impulse too, but then I remembered that the 4e Fighter pretty much never makes a Basic Attack unless it's an OA, and even then it's still boosted by Combat Superiority, so not having an explicit limit on Cleave should be possible. I felt another twinge of it thinking about unlimited uses of Breach, but there are role-playing reasons to not want to destroy doors all the time even if you could, on top of the whole "Rogues can pick locks and disarm traps" running against the reality that there really aren't all that many locked doors and trapped corridors in an adventure. Harrow posted:Tell them to play Torchbearer instead. Iron Heroes. I loving love recommending Iron Heroes to folks because its 3E, is supposed to be realistic, and was also written by Mearls. I'm even only being half-ironic!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
I haven't tried these in play yet. I doubt my group will use them. But if anyone gets a chance, please let me know how it goes!gradenko_2000 posted:I know this is from 13th Age, but it will never not get old I've never actually played 13th Age, but I did read the Thief of Legend thing from 4e! Would breaking down infinite doors ever be a problem? When would a door ever exist, if it were not interesting for the players to get through it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Boing posted:Would breaking down infinite doors ever be a problem? When would a door ever exist, if it were not interesting for the players to get through it? In my tabletop game, despite having a chime of unlocking, the party bought a mini battering ram and then proceeded to attempt to break down every door they could find. Even the unlocked ones. Given the oppurtunity and tool to break down a door, players will take it. It's only a problem if you want doors to present an obstacle to the party rather than being something for them to crash through in a dramatic entrance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
I read a little further, and I also really like the specialist spellcasters thing. I might say that I'd allow a full caster a Major School and two Minor Schools or something. They'd get all the spell of their Major School, and then their two Minor Schools would always be a couple of spell levels behind. Like, an Evocation major/Enchantment and Divination minor would be able to cast all Evocation spells no problem, but would have to use a spell slot two levels higher to cast any Enchantment or Divination spell. In practice, this means you're a pure Evoker until you have 3rd-level spells (at which point you can start using 3rd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level Enchantment and Divination spells), and you can only ever get up to 7th-level spells in your Minor Schools (which would cost you your 9th-level slot to cast). That might be too versatile in practice, though--maybe having one Major and one Minor school would be better, but I'd be interested to try it out in play. gradenko_2000 posted:I know this is from 13th Age, but it will never not get old My girlfriend is playing a Rogue in our 13th Age campaign and can't wait until she can take that feat. I'm excited to see what kind of hilarious shenanigans she pulls with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:In my tabletop game, despite having a chime of unlocking, the party bought a mini battering ram and then proceeded to attempt to break down every door they could find. Even the unlocked ones. Given the oppurtunity and tool to break down a door, players will take it. It's only a problem if you want doors to present an obstacle to the party rather than being something for them to crash through in a dramatic entrance. I'm not sure what obstacle a door should serve as other than "you need a way through this door". Having a super strong guy who can kick through doors is a good way through doors (and a refreshing change from "everyone looks to the wizard"). The door to the archmage's ritual chamber is 100ft tall, made of stone and requires the magical passphrase before it will budge? gently caress you, I'm a Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Boing posted:Would breaking down infinite doors ever be a problem? When would a door ever exist, if it were not interesting for the players to get through it? As I said, I hesitated at first, but after a moment's reflection, no I don't think there's any significant issue with just letting the Fighter break down as many doors as there are in their way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
langurmonkey posted:I am enjoying playing a Tome pact warlock with eldritch spear and agonising blast. We are doing a lot of cruising around outside so the ability to waste people 300 feet away is pretty cool. Pick up the Spell Sniper feat, increase your effective range to 600 ft. Are there rules for how far a character can even see? No-scope blasting people from that far out seems nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I am super down with all these "thing automatically happens" powers for the fighter in your exploits doc. Don't want to wholly invalidate magical plot points, so maybe make them roll a check to auto-break magical stuff? If they succeed, it's instant, if not, it takes a second? This makes it interlock with the skill system, which can be bad, but gives an interesting failure condition of "it takes you TWO earth-shattering charges to break the Archmage's stone door, so they have a moment to respond!" Also, does anyone see anything in this whole system that'd break if you shortened short rests to 10 minutes? I cannot find anything and this is a real boon to several classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Pick up the Spell Sniper feat, increase your effective range to 600 ft. Grab a Totem Barbarian with Eagle vision as a spotter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
JonBolds posted:Also, does anyone see anything in this whole system that'd break if you shortened short rests to 10 minutes? I cannot find anything and this is a real boon to several classes. Not really. There are some spells and effects that last for an hour that could carry over as a result, and some features list specific periods of time (a Monk's Ki replenishes after 30 minutes of meditation) instead of just citing a short rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Not really. There are some spells and effects that last for an hour that could carry over as a result, and some features list specific periods of time (a Monk's Ki replenishes after 30 minutes of meditation) instead of just citing a short rest. Would there be anything wrong with just porting in a 13th Age-style rest system? Just define a short rest as "every two encounters" (and similarly change spell effects that last for an hour, which I assume are designed so that they wear off after a short rest, to explicitly "wear off after a short rest"). Would that break anything in particular?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Would that break anything in particular?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
All the rules dealing with time are there to make it less of a game and more of a ~simulation~. Everything has very uniform durations, though. Anything that lasts 1 minute is meant to end after the current encounter. Anything lasting 10 minutes is meant to end after two or so encounters. Anything lasting 1 hour is meant to end after you take a short rest. Everything else effectively persists until the 'day' ends. Note that casting a spell as a ritual adds 10 minutes to the casting time, so in addition to not being something you can pull off during a fight, it is designed to run out the clock on everything but effects that last for an hour or more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Pick up the Spell Sniper feat, increase your effective range to 600 ft. Unfortunately the DM has opted not to use feats. I don't think that the 600 feet range would help in that many situations, but I miss the +2 to hit  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
200 yards is a long way, but the Sharpshooter feat lets you do the same with a longbow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Boing posted:Current feedback from my group is "well sometimes I just want to play a gritty adventure with people that are close to real life, you know?". Nevermind that we're trying to stop the ascension of a god or anything There really needs to be a section in every DMG ever that says "Gritty adventures with people what are close to real life is represented by never going past level 3." This needs to be written in 48 pt bold font. The only D&D game that did this ok was epic6 and those were house rules!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:There really needs to be a section in every DMG ever that says "Gritty adventures with people what are close to real life is represented by never going past level 3." This needs to be written in 48 pt bold font. The only D&D game that did this ok was epic6 and those were house rules! What I entirely fail to get through my head is why people who want these "gritty adventures with people who are close to real life" also seem to insist that magic, especially arcane magic, must be nearly unlimited in potential scope. Boing's concept of "specialist casters" would fit in just fine for these "gritty adventures," but that's not what they want, and you can bet there'd be rebellion if a hypothetical 5.5e limited the scope of what magic could do. They want mundanes to have gritty adventures that casters can float above like a distant god.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Harrow posted:What I entirely fail to get through my head is why people who want these "gritty adventures with people who are close to real life" also seem to insist that magic, especially arcane magic, must be nearly unlimited in potential scope. Boing's concept of "specialist casters" would fit in just fine for these "gritty adventures," but that's not what they want, and you can bet there'd be rebellion if a hypothetical 5.5e limited the scope of what magic could do. They want mundanes to have gritty adventures that casters can float above like a distant god. "Realistically" magic can do anything! is a thing people actually believe. If you want to get all deconstruction-y and/or grognard.txt-y about it those particular D&D preferences imply some really regressive political views.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
There is a new D&D survey out right now. One of the questions is as follows: Which of the following character types from prior editions would you like to see updated to fifth edition D&D rules? (Please choose all that apply.) *This question is required. * Alchemist * Artificer * Cavalier * Hexblade * Martial Adept (warblade, swordsage, crusader) * Runepriest * Samurai * Scout * Seeker * Shaman * Warden * Warmage * None of the above Now, can you spot a certain 4e class that's not even provided as an option here? It's tricky but I think you can figure it out! (And they can't even bullshit about it being absorbed into other classes because the Warden, currently part of the Paladin, does receive an option.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:"Realistically" magic can do anything! is a thing people actually believe. If you want to get all deconstruction-y and/or grognard.txt-y about it those particular D&D preferences imply some really regressive political views. There is also the self identity issue where wizards are nerds but fighters are the dumb jocks. Thus magic supremacy is a vicarious way to live out power fantasies and assuage their own insecurities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
But the Battlemaster already exists so there is no need for the Warlord. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
They already tried the artificer though, and failed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:But the Battlemaster already exists so there is no need for the Warlord. *ahem*! Sage Genesis posted:(And they can't even bullshit about it being absorbed into other classes because the Warden, currently part of the Paladin, does receive an option.) I just can't understand why it's not even an option. If they get a ton of responses and nobody selects the Warlord, well ok then. I guess I'm in the minority. But to not even allow people to select it is just so biased that it's almost funny. Almost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Mearls (emphasis mine) posted:Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success. Who the hell did they ask about that one? The design team?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Was there an Alchemist class in AD&D? Because there wasn't in 4e, and only a couple of prestige classes in 3e. e: oh wait it says character type not character class Is Alchemist even a meaningful character "type" in D&D? Was there ever a point you could be "an alchemist" without being something else (probably a spellcaster)? Red Metal fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Was there an Alchemist class in AD&D? Because there wasn't in 4e, and only a couple of prestige classes in 3e. If I had to guess, they're trying to compete with Paizo cause it is one in PF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:*ahem*! Because they don't want to be told stuff they don't already know. These surveys aren't remotely designed to collect feedback, they''re designed to backpat the designers and write marketing copy. This has been the case since survey one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Now, can you spot a certain 4e class that's not even provided as an option here? It's tricky but I think you can figure it out! Swordmage. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Was there an Alchemist class in AD&D? Because there wasn't in 4e, and only a couple of prestige classes in 3e. There were a bunch of homebrew / 3rd-party alchemist classes back in TSR days, including a couple that got printed in the Dragon. But I agree that Paizo's Alchemist is probably the inspiration here, since that's been the most successful D&D implementation of the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Then you probably don't want to play Dungeons and Dragons, where the entire game is balanced around people with supernatural powers. If youve never had someone run one well youre missing out. (Unless you actively dislike that style of game.) One of the biggest things is maintaining a feeling of scarcity (that includes magic) so that people feel like they are constantly scheming to come out ahead instead of blasting through things. Harrow posted:What I entirely fail to get through my head is why people who want these "gritty adventures with people who are close to real life" also seem to insist that magic, especially arcane magic, must be nearly unlimited in potential scope. Boing's concept of "specialist casters" would fit in just fine for these "gritty adventures," but that's not what they want
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Some people would be perfectly happy with a more constrained magical system. I like his idea (and even had notes on something like it I never tried). I also think it forces people to get more creative with spells because they get closer to "all you have is a hammer" land. I like that having specialized casters helps each individual caster have more of an identity. A Wizard is a Wizard is a Wizard, when it comes down to it, but specializations mean when you say you're an Evoker, you're really an Evoker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Boing posted:Current feedback from my group is "well sometimes I just want to play a gritty adventure with people that are close to real life, you know?". Nevermind that we're trying to stop the ascension of a god or anything MEARLS! posted:NO WARLORD FOR YOU EVER! MUHAHAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Harrow posted:I like that having specialized casters helps each individual caster have more of an identity. A Wizard is a Wizard is a Wizard, when it comes down to it, but specializations mean when you say you're an Evoker, you're really an Evoker. I find it funny that giving martial characters anime powers is considered unrealistic, but Bob the 20th level Evocation Wizard and Steve the 20th level Illusionist Wizard can both learn and cast Meteor Swarm, and Bob just gets to do it a few hours earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 03:20
|
|