|
Grandicap posted:No, everyone is a planeswalker, as the spell plane shift. Gotta get some of that natural language in there.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Quorum posted:Personally I've really enjoyed 5e and vastly prefer it to both 3.5 and Pathfinder, though from what I can hear it's good that I've steered clear of organized play and stuck to playing with my friends. From a DM perspective I like being able to just hand out advantage and disadvantage when appropriate, and I've found that outside of a charop-heavy environment most of the character options (with the exception of the beast master ranger) have felt able to contribute well to combat. But then I tended to ignore particularly complex portions of the rules in older editions as well. I'm probably somewhat more on the casual side than the thread consensus, so that's probably why I have the bad and wrong opinion I do. A good DM can make any game fun by basically rewriting the game, but it's not my job and I'm not getting paid for it so I like the game designer to do the work I'm paying them for. Advantage is OK, but it is also highly portable and hero points are better. If the players can use their ~+5 whenever they want, it gives them more agency to do the cool things they want to do, advantage/disadvantage starts to feel like you're just picking what you want them to succeed or fail at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:MtG nerds have been pining for years for someone to create an RPG based around the old Arena series of novels where spells were something you could physically trade and acquire. WotC Brand can never allow it, especially now in a post-Planeswalker world, but demand has never waned. it would actually seem to be an easier setting to adapt into the sort of game most players think of when they hear "RPG" post-Mending though, because prior to that Planeswalkers were operating at such a high level that you'd probably need a fairly abstract/freeform system to make things workable
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:A good DM can make any game fun by basically rewriting the game, but it's not my job and I'm not getting paid for it so I like the game designer to do the work I'm paying them for. Advantage is OK, but it is also highly portable and hero points are better. If the players can use their ~+5 whenever they want, it gives them more agency to do the cool things they want to do, advantage/disadvantage starts to feel like you're just picking what you want them to succeed or fail at. In a way, Advantage/Disadvantage is a strong example of how underdesigned 5th Edition is. Compare it to 4th Edition's principal mechanics of forced movement subsequently leading towards Combat Advantage/flanking. Every class has a way to either trigger forced movement or cause Combat Advantage directly by level 3 at the latest. In 5th Edition though, the Champion Fighter and the Thief Rogue* have no way to trigger Advantage directly, nor do they have the ability to cause an effect that would cause Advantage such as knocking a target prone, and flanking isn't part of the default rules. This creates a situation where it really is up to the DM for how often they'll allow a player to have Advantage, up to and including going completely "by the book", or granting it only when an ability or a spell explicitly says so. And it's not even like this is some big thing they invented considering B/X has been telling the DM to apply a 1 to 4 penalty or bonus to rolls based on 'roleplaying circumstances' since B/X, and the roll-two-dice-take-better idea came from 4E's Avenger (if not earlier) * and if that applies to any other class I can't tell because it's tedious to go through each class' spell list. Of all the things they could have copied from 3rd Edition, they didn't copy the section with the one-liner spell descriptions, ordered by class and spell level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
LGD posted:it would actually seem to be an easier setting to adapt into the sort of game most players think of when they hear "RPG" post-Mending though, because prior to that Planeswalkers were operating at such a high level that you'd probably need a fairly abstract/freeform system to make things workable Afaict, Pre-mending, Walkers were closer to something out of Nobilis than D&D unless they were very new. Post-mending, they're basically mid to high-level D&D characters with the ability to go between planes. Unless I'm getting the lore of a trading card game wrong, that's how it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
I dunno if it's the DMs preference, but he uses a lot of weaker cultists/bandits/skeletons/etc, and it seems to be a lot more fun than having a smaller number of tougher enemies. It works out pretty fun because we can be cutting down masses of them and feel like we're contributing, the appearance of so many enemies on the map makes it feel threatening even if they're weak, the health and AC tends to be low enough that anyone can reliably hurt them instead of whiffing constantly, you can set up wicked cool AOEs and combos based on how they're moving around or who's getting clumped up on, stuff like that. Fighting a squad of skeleton warriors that swarm forward and get wrecked is a lot more fun than a pair of slightly larger skeletons which take forever to whittle down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Yeah, that's not a bad approach to encounter creation: because a character always fights at full effectiveness until they hit 0, breaking a single strong character down to multiple "component parts" feels better because it feels like you're accomplishing more and faster, and it's (usually) mechanically better because you get to remove "bits of damage" sooner, as in 9 kobolds dealing 1 damage each versus 3 kobolds dealing 3 damage each. That sort of granularity also works in the players' favor since death isn't so sudden, either. If their AC is also lower, then so much the better since you're hitting them oftener. You just have to keep an eye on the numbers because the potential downside is overwhelming the players due to the action economy, and especially if you're taking shortcuts to doing initiative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You just have to keep an eye on the numbers because the potential downside is overwhelming the players due to the action economy, and especially if you're taking shortcuts to doing initiative. It's only an issue if there are things of fixed value, such as a stun effect, as the monsters will be getting twice as many of this set effect and the players will be finding theirs half as effective due to the doubled number of targets. For the monsters, just ignore the ability for every other attack. If you're caster heavy (and as such have a lot interesting effects to apply) then they'll also probably be rolling in AoE attacks so eh. Martial boost, Caster nerf, Just Do It.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Afaict, Pre-mending, Walkers were closer to something out of Nobilis than D&D unless they were very new. Post-mending, they're basically mid to high-level D&D characters with the ability to go between planes. Unless I'm getting the lore of a trading card game wrong, that's how it is. Pre-Mending, planeswalkers were basically miniature gods. Post-mending they're just people who can planeswalk, usually they're powerful mages but sometimes they're *Ridiculously* powerful. E.G. Nicol Bolas, elder dragon legend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:I dunno if it's the DMs preference, but he uses a lot of weaker cultists/bandits/skeletons/etc, and it seems to be a lot more fun than having a smaller number of tougher enemies. You mean like minions?  It's sorta smugly satisfying that we're already into the lifespan of 5e where we're re-inventing 4e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Here's a question for anyone with actual playing experience: Where does the Archer Fighter stack up in comparison to:
b) archer Rangers c) other Fighter builds As posted earlier in the thread, I'm tinkering with some bonus feats for Fighters, but I'm sorta squinting as to how hard I should bother to support Archery. Like, there are a few feats that are narrowly applicable to archery, a few that are applicable to specific melee loadouts, and a few that work for all kinds of melee. I think it might be easier to just gear Fighter fixes towards melee. On that note, does anyone have experience with the Eldritch Knight? If so, how much time do you spend using weapons, anyway? Is it "all spells, all the time?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:On that note, does anyone have experience with the Eldritch Knight? If so, how much time do you spend using weapons, anyway? Is it "all spells, all the time?" You spend 100% of your time wishing you hadn't picked a 1/3 of a spellcaster. Your spell levels are so low compared to your character level. The archetype really just needs to be rewritten with more thought put into it. But to more directly answer the question, yea, you swing your sword a lot mostly because you don't have as many spells as other casters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
In my experience, fighters make the best archers (and archers make the best fighters) because of the Precision Attack battle master maneuver. Sharpshooter is a must-have feat that lets you do +10 damage on an attack for a -5 penalty to hit. This is an unmatched boost to your damage output, you just need to make sure you hit with it. The Archery fighting style helps to mitigate the accuracy penalty in a way that melee fighters with the Great Weapon Master feat can't obtain, and Precision Attack grants you additional accuracy fixing tied to a limited resource that you don't need to spend unless you know you need it. As for the Eldritch Knight, it's designed in a misleading way. You don't want to be spending most of your time casting spells, as you'd be better off playing a Fighter 1 / Wizard X in that case. Taking damage spells at all is a bit of a mistake outside of Fireball, as that's what your 1-4 attacks per action are for. You're better off thinking of the Eldritch Knight as a fighter that can cast spells like Shield, Counterspell, Misty Step and Haste to support their attacks. Spells that take an action to cast which aren't buffs aren't a good use of your abilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Charger feat So, it says "if you choose to shove and you succeed" you push the target up to 10 feet away from you. Since shove is normally either "push 5 feet" or "knock prone" is this feat benefit supposed to add onto either one of those, or replace them? VVV saw that coming 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Charger feat It's up to the DM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Another one: If you're on a mount, can you basically attack from any space the mount occupies? Otherwise, it's kinda like "reach weapons or bust" for mounted combat, no? Also, Lances would make kinda no sense:
I mean, Mounted Combatant would cancel out the disadvantage, but hooray for feat taxes 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I quit playing a long time ago. What the hell is "mending"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
A low level spell that fixes things?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I quit playing a long time ago. What the hell is "mending"? They wrapped up every primary storyline in 1 major event and then stripped all planeswalkers down to a baseline power level that was more "Strong wizard who can also planeswalk" and less "Roaming diety limited by author fiat". The term " Mending" itself refers to the closing of the time rifts that were the core plot device of the story in question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
I just had an idea for something to make Fighters more interesting (if not necessarily fix them) Say, you can "cast" a number of feats on yourself, equal to your Fighter level. You regain this ability whenever you finish a short rest or long rest. You know all the feats from a list provided by your For Example: Archery would give you Crossbow Expert and Skulker at level 1; Sharpshooter at level X Battle Master would give you Martial Adept and Inspiring Leader at level 3; etc. It gets around the problem of "gating stuff to higher levels so MC can't poach it" by tying it to fighter levels; it also would give you the chance to utilize feats that are situationally useful/not the most optimal for a build (like +2 DEX vs. Medium Armor Master is a no brainer, but if you get MAM for free, it suddenly becomes a LOT better) edit: You could even be like "if your Fighting Style and Archetype both list the same feat, you just HAVE that feat, period." P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Crossbows are for scrubs not Archers. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
I also just noticed that the book "alphabetizes" Feats thusly: Alert Athlete Actor Charger 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Well, the Alert feat does get +5 to initiative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I just had an idea for something to make Fighters more interesting (if not necessarily fix them) I like it. It's similar to PF's Martial Master/Martial Flexibility, or 3.5's Action Points where "you gain the effect of a feat you don't already have" Activating "Defender" would give you the Sentinel feat and the Marking variant rule. Activating "Slayer" would give you Great Weapon Fighter and Savage Attacker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I like it. It's similar to PF's Martial Master/Martial Flexibility, or 3.5's Action Points where "you gain the effect of a feat you don't already have" Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what "Fighter Feat Domains" would look like. Using the categories found here, I'm trying to limit the Fighting Style domain feats to Reactions/Bonus Actions/(Both)/Combat/Ability Reqs (maybe) and then for Archetype domain feats, use Spellcasting/Hybrid Classing/ASIs. Does that seem reasonable, or is there a better way they should be split up? Edit: I guess part of the problem is that the Fighter Archetypes have no real direction to them, mechanical/fluff/otherwise. Mearls was right  I mean like, which Archetype/Fighting Style does "Sentinel" go with best? gently caress I dunno, besides "not Archery."  Ditto, "Savage Attacker" in most cases. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Another one: The part with lances sounds like it's intentional. I mean, it "makes sense" if you think of lances purely in terms of medieval jousting as portrayed in movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Do lances deal bonus damage while you're mounted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Do lances deal bonus damage while you're mounted? They're 1d12 and you can use them one-handed when mounted, so... kinda?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Haschel Cedricson posted:Well, the Alert feat does get +5 to initiative. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:They're 1d12 and you can use them one-handed when mounted, so... kinda? OH poo poo does this mean that you can dual wield lances when you're mounted and have the Dual Wielder feat?  
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:OH poo poo That would be completely unrealistic. Furthermore, the wizard...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
The hilarious thing is I'm pretty sure it actually works, because the lance doesn't have the "two-handed property" which in 5e means it's one-handed
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
That would be a sight to see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Pft that's nothing, halfling fighter mounted on a giant spider dual-wielding lances from the roof now that's a sight! Lances aren't a heavy weapon either so the halfling can use them without penalties .
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
A Darker Porpoise posted:Pft that's nothing, halfling fighter mounted on a giant spider dual-wielding lances from the roof now that's a sight! Lances aren't a heavy weapon either so the halfling can use them without penalties Unironically gonna do this next character
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
A Darker Porpoise posted:Pft that's nothing, halfling fighter mounted on a giant spider dual-wielding lances from the roof now that's a sight! Lances aren't a heavy weapon either so the halfling can use them without penalties No no, you're not going far enough. Halfling with at least 3 levels in beastmaster ranger for the animal companion, riding around on a flying pteranodon dual-wielding lances with the Dual Wielder feat. Your mount has flyby, so you get to use a 60' flying speed while not provoking opportunity attacks. Take the Mounted Combatant feat and you don't have to worry about the pteranodon getting hit. A sharpshooter archer will still easily beat you in damage per round, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Haschel Cedricson posted:Well, the Alert feat does get +5 to initiative. Vanguard Warden posted:No no, you're not going far enough. Halfling with at least 3 levels in beastmaster ranger for the animal companion, riding around on a flying pteranodon dual-wielding lances with the Dual Wielder feat. Your mount has flyby, so you get to use a 60' flying speed while not provoking opportunity attacks. Take the Mounted Combatant feat and you don't have to worry about the pteranodon getting hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Splicer posted:But you can't harvest poison for your lances from a pteranodon, or have it weave a web between the two for an impromptu net. Please rephrase this in terms of wizard spells so I can imagine it properly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Splicer posted:But you can't harvest poison for your lances from a pteranodon (DC 25 or suffer effects as per the spell "horrible poison" cast by a druid of level equal to your mount's CR or your character level, whichever is higher), or have it weave a web between the two for an impromptu net (as per the spell "entangle" cast by a druid of level equal to your mount's CR or your character level, whichever is lower). @Splicer The spider mount entry details what happens if you fail the check, but what happens if you succeed? @4rryRollPlayer Ask your GM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:I just had an idea for something to make Fighters more interesting (if not necessarily fix them) One feat per Fighter level would get a bit crazy at higher levels. I don't think 5e even has enough feats for this to really work. But besides that, it's ok. A lot like the Man-at-Arms class from Iron Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 09:47
|
|