|
CaptCommy posted:This has to be one of the best examples of 5e rules writing. The "Use an Item" action isn't used to use an item. Why the gently caress would you think otherwise? God, it's a work of loving art. ritorix posted:The trick is quickening a fireball and using your action on a wand of fireballs. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 14, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
captain innocuous posted:So the rule for that is hidden one hundred pages away in a tiny section about bonus actions. That seems like an important rule, and shouldn't be so hidden. I can understand why that rule exists, as casting bonus action spells is supposed to be The Thing™ you do that turn, while your action is used for something basic. They implemented it in the most absurd way, though. According to RAW, you can't even cast reaction spells on the same turn that you cast a bonus action spell. You can quicken out a bonus action fireball spell and cast a firebolt cantrip with your action, but you can't quicken out a bonus action firebolt cantrip and cast a normal fireball spell with your action. It's a bit of a mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I can understand why that rule exists, as casting bonus action spells is supposed to be The Thing™ you do that turn, while your action is used for something basic. They implemented it in the most absurd way, though. According to RAW, you can't even cast reaction spells on the same turn that you cast a bonus action spell. You can quicken out a bonus action fireball spell and cast a firebolt cantrip with your action, but you can't quicken out a bonus action firebolt cantrip and cast a normal fireball spell with your action. Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: It's a bit of a mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
At least you'd only ever need to cast a reaction spell on the same turn as a bonus action spell if you were reacting to someone else's reaction afterwards on your turn. Just provoke the opp attack or whatever before you cast the bonus action spell and you're fine. Sorta like the Net attack workaround. It says after you attack with the net you can't make extra attacks, so you just do your regular attacks first and end with the Net attack. System mastery!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I can understand why that rule exists, as casting bonus action spells is supposed to be The Thing™ you do that turn, while your action is used for something basic. They implemented it in the most absurd way, though. According to RAW, you can't even cast reaction spells on the same turn that you cast a bonus action spell. You can quicken out a bonus action fireball spell and cast a firebolt cantrip with your action, but you can't quicken out a bonus action firebolt cantrip and cast a normal fireball spell with your action. slydingdoor posted:Sorta like the Net attack workaround. It says after you attack with the net you can't make extra attacks, so you just do your regular attacks first and end with the Net attack. System mastery! I really don't like this aspect of 5e where natural language means you need to contort your actions in all sorts of ways to make certain sequences 'work', such as how using Crossbow Expert with a one-handed melee weapon requires a particular process for it to work RAW. It's really just offloading the rules crunch from one aspect of the game to another because you're sweating the verisimilitude rather than the gameplay. I'm glad I've never encountered it in an actual game so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Casting a spell from a magic item is probably still casting a spell and restricted to cantrips only on the same turn as casting a bonus action spell. Just like how throwing an oil pot at someone isn't Using and Object anymore it's Attack. If casting from an item is the same as casting a spell yourself, that has a whole new set of implications. Sorcerers could metamagic something out of a wand. We could always try to delve into dev comments: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/525298668446822401 According to that, using a wand is neither 'casting a spell' nor 'using an item', but its own unique action. So it probably doesn't run into the bonus action spell casting limitation (you aren't casting a spell), and you can't metamagic it. Amusingly, the least controversial way to cast two fireballs in a turn or whatever is to multiclass into fighter for Action Surge.  thespaceinvader posted:I'm pretty sure it's way less popular than the previous living campaign because it's not available for home play which kills it for lots of groups. One thing they have done for Adventurer's League is make the published campaigns legal when used for home play. So a home-grown character that played through HODQ can be used in convention or store games too, as long as you tracked everything by their AL method.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:I hosed up it's actually called the "Use an Object" action. You're not the only one who hosed up then. The PHB (and the rules in general) talks about the "Use an Object" action. The DMG talks about : If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item. While it's obvious what they mean (they even specifically mention the Rogue) it's kind of telling that the writers aren't even sure what the action is called. Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
They call this poo poo natural language but it's more loving arcane than the spells in the book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
This is actually making me upset at how shoddy it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
So at this point is there anything we can say that 5E actually does well from a mechanical aspect?(I won't deny that the books themselves are very good looking and well crafted, that's still one area that WOTC is really good at, and is one of the few reasons I still have my copies of the 5E Core books, along with a desire to figure out how to fix it that won't go away cause 5E has some good ideas but the execution is meh at best and downright awful at worst)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:This is actually making me upset at how shoddy it is. So yeah the next time someone goes "5e isn't that bad" or wonders why everyone is down on this edition, just link them back to pages 518-519. drrockso20 posted:So at this point is there anything we can say that 5E actually does well from a mechanical aspect?(I won't deny that the books themselves are very good looking and well crafted, that's still one area that WOTC is really good at, and is one of the few reasons I still have my copies of the 5E Core books, along with a desire to figure out how to fix it that won't go away cause 5E has some good ideas but the execution is meh at best and downright awful at worst) It's not mechanically dense. But that's only as positive a feature as gaming groups that are willing and capable of making up their own rules on the fly, and is still done better by other rules-light games. Shoot, get the Expert set for 5 bucks on DTRPG, print out its hefty 88-pages and you'll have a game that'll last you years. Yeah, you'll have to do some houseruling to update it to modern standards, but it's certainly not any more than what you'd need to do with Next.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Advantage/disadvantage is not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
You all should have seen the argument about whether a thrown spear is a ranged attack, a melee attack and/or an attack with a melee weapon, for purposes of using Smites and whatnot. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Advantage/disadvantage works really well as a thing to sum up how combat is, and as a player it is pretty fun to roll 2 dice and take the better, and stressful to roll 2 and take the worse. Concentration for spell casters to only maintain 1 spell at a time goes a long way to keep a spell caster in check defensively, however if you're playing 5e there are several spells that should require concentration that don't for no realistic reason. Apart from that, the books artistically look pretty great, but honestly I've liked d&d books for a long time. How well the rules in there actually support what the book invokes in my head as I read and look at it is disparate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
5e is mechinally dense though, in that you have to be an expert linguist to determine what is being explained as well as an expert interpreter to examine what is meant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
My issue with Advantage/Disadvantage is that it's such a strong cudgel. You can't use it twice besides cancelling out one with the other, and getting it swings things so hard towards one extreme compared the old "DM's secret weapon" of a 1-4 bonus or penalty. It's true that post-3e D&D had way too many little bonuses to keep track of, but Ad/Disad feels like it went too far in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
I think bonuses where you don't have to do arithmetic is a good thing and it's hard to think of another system that'd provide that. I'd pay almost any price to have what advantage/disadvantage adds to the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
This is as good a place as any: I've been reading up on the old west in preparation for a game (also because it's super interesting), and I realized that while most other cultures get fantasy representation in D&D at some point or another, Native Americans pretty much get nothing. You can't really play a Ranger or Druid/Shaman inspired by Crazy Horse and Geronimo and all those guys. Well, you can, but there's no official thing for them. Even in D&D 4, there'S no Theme or Background that relates to that. But there's a poo poo-ton of stuff on Not-Europe and Not-Asia though. Wanna play a Gnome Yakuza? You totally can!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:So at this point is there anything we can say that 5E actually does well from a mechanical aspect?(I won't deny that the books themselves are very good looking and well crafted, that's still one area that WOTC is really good at, and is one of the few reasons I still have my copies of the 5E Core books, along with a desire to figure out how to fix it that won't go away cause 5E has some good ideas but the execution is meh at best and downright awful at worst) Haven't used them in play yet but it seems to be the first edition to do feats well - they actually look like cool things I want to stick onto my character rather than migraine-inducing minutiae for rules lawyers to wank over. Also I think it's funny that you don't like the rules of 5e but like the presentation, I'm the exact opposite. The artwork is so bland and static, it looks like it came from upper tier deviantart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Feats come at the cost of ability score increases, and some are still much better than others. While we're on the subject — gently caress 3e/3.5 Toughness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Also feats are confusingly worded and in almost every case where the wording has favoured a martial class, it's been But crossbow expert is still one of the best feats for a rta caster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
BetterWeirdthanDead posted:Feats come at the cost of ability score increases, and some are still much better than others. Don't worry, the designers made that one suck on purpose 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
As always, it's one step forward (feats actually do cool things instead of just being +numbers), two steps back (come at the cost of your +numbers, completely batshit implementations)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:But crossbow expert is still one of the best feats for a rta caster. I keep hearing this. What, exactly, makes CE so powerful for casters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
The wording allows you to cast ranged spells in melee combat without disadvantage. e: to clarify it says "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." They neglect to include the crucial word weapon in that combo so it's open to all ranged attacks spell or weapon. Successful Businessmanga fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:This is as good a place as any: I've been reading up on the old west in preparation for a game (also because it's super interesting), and I realized that while most other cultures get fantasy representation in D&D at some point or another, Native Americans pretty much get nothing. You can't really play a Ranger or Druid/Shaman inspired by Crazy Horse and Geronimo and all those guys. Well, you can, but there's no official thing for them. Even in D&D 4, there'S no Theme or Background that relates to that. Maztica
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Werewhale posted:I keep hearing this. What, exactly, makes CE so powerful for casters? A Darker Porpoise posted:The wording allows you to cast ranged spells in melee combat without disadvantage. Here's the official ruling for it. You can take comfort in knowing that they made sure people actually using crossbows didn't get too OP! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
quote:When designing a feat with a narrow use, we consider adding at least one element that can benefit a character more broadly—a bit of mastery that your character brings from one situation to another. The second benefit of Crossbow Expert is such an element, as is the first benefit of Great Weapon Master. That element in Crossbow Expert shows that some of the character’s expertise with one type of thing—crossbows, in this case—transfers to other things. That line is still amazing to me. I can't think of any other feat that works like that, particularly since, with this feat, there is no reason for a caster to ever use a crossbow. It's like War Caster and it's stupid "2h weapon, good. 1h weapon, good. 1h weapon and shield? Nope, get hosed cleric." rulings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:That line is still amazing to me. I can't think of any other feat that works like that, particularly since, with this feat, there is no reason for a caster to ever use a crossbow. It's like War Caster and it's stupid "2h weapon, good. 1h weapon, good. 1h weapon and shield? Nope, get hosed cleric." rulings. War Caster let's you cast spells with a somatic component while wielding a 1h weapon and shield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Werewhale posted:War Caster let's you cast spells with a somatic component while wielding a 1h weapon and shield. There was a ruling Mike Mearls made about holding your weapon in your shield hand for a second to cast spells, making that feat kind of worthless as well. Well except for Cure Wounds. Because reasons I guess? Game bad. Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
ritorix posted:You all should have seen the argument about whether a thrown spear is a ranged attack, a melee attack and/or an attack with a melee weapon, for purposes of using Smites and whatnot. Ugh. If, on the other hand, you tried to stab someone with a dart, which would be making an melee weapon attack with a ranged weapon, then it seems that Improved Divine Smite would not work but Divine Smite could. Or maybe both would work, if in fact the attack was no longer "with a ranged weapon" but instead "with an improvised melee weapon whose ranged weapon-ness doesn't matter due to its misuse as one." Who knows! I don't. Kurieg posted:That line is still amazing to me. I can't think of any other feat that works like that, particularly since, with this feat, there is no reason for a caster to ever use a crossbow. It's like War Caster and it's stupid "2h weapon, good. 1h weapon, good. 1h weapon and shield? Nope, get hosed cleric." rulings. Hey now, sometimes you're in an antimagic field or next to a dominated melee PC with Mage Slayer and Sentinel or are on an stealth mission and can't well shout out ORTANO FORDIGYAMA to kill some mook guard. Also as for other feats with broadly applicable hidden power, I just realized that if you knock out someone and they're dying, and you want them to be unconscious (they're mind controlled or evil or something), a PC with the Healer feat cannot just stabilize them with a healkit anymore, they have to wake them up too. Normal PC: "well this guy's been horribly burned but at least now he'll live and be unconscious for a few hours so we can prepare some spells or whatever in the meantime to heal him and put him in restraints and stuff." Healer: "I couldn't help but wake up the guy with the horrible burns but I saved his life so he should be thankful through all the pain he's now experiencing. Nah he's mad guess I gotta try to beat him back unconscious." Basically the Healer feat turns you into Dr House.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:This is as good a place as any: I've been reading up on the old west in preparation for a game (also because it's super interesting), and I realized that while most other cultures get fantasy representation in D&D at some point or another, Native Americans pretty much get nothing. You can't really play a Ranger or Druid/Shaman inspired by Crazy Horse and Geronimo and all those guys. Well, you can, but there's no official thing for them. Even in D&D 4, there'S no Theme or Background that relates to that. Have I got the game for you. It is made by talented Clinton Nixon of The Shadow of Yesterday fame. It is a cool thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Werewhale posted:War Caster let's you cast spells with a somatic component while wielding a 1h weapon and shield. Yes, the point was that if the spell had a material component, and your shield was a spell focus. You didn't need the War Caster feat to cast with a 1h weapon and shield. But if it did not have a Material Component, then suddenly your spell focus no longer works and you need to put it away to make the hand motions. 2h weapon paladins can just lean their weapon on their shoulder and use their other hand to cast, but you can't use your braced hand in a shield without the War Caster feat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Yes, the point was that if the spell had a material component, and your shield was a spell focus. You didn't need the War Caster feat to cast with a 1h weapon and shield. But if it did not have a Material Component, then suddenly your spell focus no longer works and you need to put it away to make the hand motions. 2h weapon paladins can just lean their weapon on their shoulder and use their other hand to cast, but you can't use your braced hand in a shield without the War Caster feat. From the horse's mouth. There are like five people who work on this game, none of whom appear to communicate with one another nor understand the system they published.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Oh that one's obvious. A spear (or javelin) is a melee weapon that can be thrown to make a ranged weapon attack without becoming an improvised, low damage attack that requires Tavern Brawler to gain the proficiency bonus to the attack roll. It doesn't work with Divine Smite (specifies melee weapon attacks) but does work with Improved Divine Smite (which swerves away from the dreaded term of art MWA with "your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes 1d8 radiant damage.") which doesn't specify what kind of weapon attack qualifies. How hard is it to just say your attacks deal an extra like D6 dammage that goes up to like d8 when you hit level 10 give it some sort of resource cost and boom who cares if you use a bow or throw a spear or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:How hard is it to just say your attacks deal an extra like D6 dammage that goes up to like d8 when you hit level 10 give it some sort of resource cost and boom who cares if you use a bow or throw a spear or whatever? Because you have to maintain the illusion that this game has a complex codified structure that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
I don't get it all i wanted out of a new D&D was a simpler game than 4e that still had decent class balance (i don't even need balance as good as 4e just decent.) and for every class to have a few interesting things to do. Edit:oh and rules that are readable because this poo poo is gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:From the horse's mouth. Because things like this aren't important enough to put in their errata documents or even making it onto their website. Elfgames posted:How hard is it to just say your attacks deal an extra like D6 dammage that goes up to like d8 when you hit level 10 give it some sort of resource cost and boom who cares if you use a bow or throw a spear or whatever? Because paladins are melee, Rangers and Casters are the only ones allowed to do damage from range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I don't get it all i wanted out of a new D&D was a simpler game than 4e that still had decent class balance (i don't even need balance as good as 4e just decent.) and for every class to have a few interesting things to do. It's called 13th Age. It's not for everyone and it's not the best game, but it's a better 5e than 5e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Elfgames posted:I don't get it all i wanted out of a new D&D was a simpler game than 4e that still had decent class balance (i don't even need balance as good as 4e just decent.) and for every class to have a few interesting things to do. Yes, but that's not what grognards wanted - they wanted and got a system that is rigidly caged by extremely poor rules, and where the only people who get options that matter are spellcasters, and the most powerful options martial characters are "like the spell but worse."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
