|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is probably going to come off as elitist, but the dndnext subreddit is so pedestrian. It's just people making lots and lots of homebrew. Nah you're right, the D&D subreddit is pretty worthless and under-developed as a resource. But unlike 4E, power-building in 5E isn't really intellectually challenging (much fewer moving parts to track), so we haven't had a lot of guides or anything.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
I really don't understand how it makes sense to shut down the WotC forums. They're pretty active, it's not like they're sitting unused. And they can't cost more than a few hundred bucks a month, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
I get the feeling they cost more; maybe ask Lowtax what this place costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
gently caress reddit in general. that is all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
What would be a quick fix to make 5E melee rogues more attractive/more like how 4E handled it (more damage and more reliable sneak attack damage as opposed to ranged, which keeps you safe but requires a feat for you to get CA at range)? I'm thinking about just houseruling that Sneak Attacks done in melee do D8s instead of D6s. Would this throw off the numbers too much or too little at higher levels?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Let rogues try to trip or push enemies as a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Shake off "no sneak attack for you" conditions with a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
A bag of tricks that allows them to spend a bonus action to negate darkness or invisibility or flying or what have you for a couple of rounds on one enemy creature or swarm. e: once per short rest of you insist. Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to say Rogues shouldn't ever be denied their ability to Sneak Attack in the first place. It's just a matter of how you want that to mechanically happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Having flat passive additional damage on your attacks is only marginally less boring than not having it. Rogues need actually cool class features.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah I was going to say Rogues shouldn't ever be denied their ability to Sneak Attack in the first place. It's just a matter of how you want that to mechanically happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Power Player posted:What would be a quick fix to make 5E melee rogues more attractive/more like how 4E handled it (more damage and more reliable sneak attack damage as opposed to ranged, which keeps you safe but requires a feat for you to get CA at range)? The homebrew I play gives rogues instakill in surprise round. 60% chance at level 1, up to 95% at level 10. Works on any leveled creature and any monster at cr5 or less. So basically if your rogue hits someone that isn't expecting combat, he almost always dies outright, no save. We also don't use coup de Grace, if someone is held personed or asleep or whatever you just kill them without a roll if not in combat, kill them with a hit roll if in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:The homebrew I play gives rogues instakill in surprise round. 60% chance at level 1, up to 95% at level 10. Works on any leveled creature and any monster at cr5 or less. Have you ever considered alternatives to "massacring ever living being you come across"? Or do you have the shiniest meat bicycle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Full homebrew solutions: Just give them Extra Attack at 6 so they can use other attack actions to leverage their skills and get advantage without losing all their damage for the round or all their mobility. Or just have another chance to deal any damage at all without trading cunning action to TWF. I think there's a perception that rogue turns take too long because every turn Sneak Attack means they roll too many dice, and that rogues should need a team to be useful and not a "one man army." If you or your table seems to agree with the former, maybe make the Extra Attack only available for nondamaging Attack options: grapple, shove, using a net, splash item, or pocket sand, and the DMG options. If you/they might agree with the latter, blind or restrain the rogue for one round at some point so the characters see them become completely useless without their team to splash holy water on their eyes or slash through the net. Speaking of which, Less Homebrew: use the DMG combat options. At least Climbing on a bigger creature because Shadows of the Colossus owns, Cleaving (which is melee only) so sneak attack overkill damage isn't wasted*, and Marking, which helps melee rogues the most because they have the best OA in the game (OK, Wildshape/Polymorph might be better) and are the best class at dealing with enemy marks, emphasizing their top-tier mobility. Disarm is less important but also pretty cool. Non homebrew cultural, attitude changes: make it clear that running away from fights and not resting before fighting the same opponents again--skirmishing--is a good strategy for PCs and NPCs. Resetting fights a lot so the Rogue can start hidden in a good position and possibly with surprise and with a better initiative order is really strong. Surprised enemies cannot react, which means the Rogue can cunning Dash in, execute someone, and move back out. It's glorious. *Cleaving also should mean when the other melee dude slashes the rogue out of the net, they also get to hit an enemy and be cool too. Basically make it apply to objects and damaged creatures too otherwise it's literally just for kobolds and junk. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Have you ever considered alternatives to "massacring ever living being you come across"? Or do you have the shiniest meat bicycle? We had a big discussion about whether rogues could choose to knock out instead of kill and the dm/homebrew creator eventually decided no because he wanted thieves guilds across the world to basically have a nuclear card to play but no easy way to scale it down. Martials in our system are excellent, although spellcasters are still too good. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
- ignore me -
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:The unearthed arcana articles are barely compatible with D&D5e. The new ranger for example seems like she's from a different game. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: barely compatible with D&D5e
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Assassins need, NEED to have a way to bypass damage resistance/immunity. Something like a Instead we got poo poo like "TAKE A WEEK OFF AND YOU CAN COSPLAY A DUDE FOR ONLY 100+ GOLD!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Assassins need, NEED to have a way to bypass damage resistance/immunity. Something like a Hmm. How about instead we do... Monster Slayer's Kit (50 gp) This kit contains powdered silver, cold iron, and adamantine. It also contains some minor alchemical preparations, herbal preparations, sacred oils, and reference materials. Proficiency with this kit is required to take Monster Hunter actions. Monster Hunter (action which requires proficiency with the kit) Choose aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, or undead. You apply an appropriate treatment to one weapon or up to ten pieces of ammunition. Against the chosen type of creature, attacks with the weapon or ammunition add your proficiency bonus to their damage rolls and they can overcome any inherent resistance or immunity against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. These effects remain for 1 minute. At the DM's discretion certain other creatures may also be chosen as eligible monster types with the appropriate measures, such as applying silver against lycanthropes. To the Ranger's Favored Enemy, add: "You may take Monster Hunter actions against your favored enemy, even if you lack a Monster Slayer's Kit or proficiency with such." To the Assassin's Assassinate, add: "You may take the Monster Hunter action against beasts, giants, and humanoids, even if you lack a Monster Slayer's Kit or proficiency with such." Mind you, such an approach would come dangerously close to letting martial characters do things on their own power instead of relying on casters and caster-created welfare weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
I think that the slow release rates indicate D&D is at best entering a period of hibernation. Which is kind of absurd considering how much of the impetus for its creation was nominally "Nerd poo poo is super hip right now, gotta strike while the iron's hot and get newcomers hooked!" But that disconnect was there once it became clear they weren't interested in teaching good DM skills to anybody who hadn't played before. If you mean to grow a game like this, you can't just assume the strength of the brand will be sufficient; it's vital to consider the new player experience. If that experience is meant to begin from having somebody else run the game, somebody who has the steady hand and sober judgement to handle so much empowerment, then what they've created is a product whose adoption rates are dominated by social factors beyond their control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Don't make a new proficiency tax slash damage bonus power creep thing. Just roll it into the Poison kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Given how weak martials are, I don't consider spending one action for a fight-long damage buff to much of a creep. More of a balancing correction. The poison kit is fair enough though. It's not traditional "poison" but the principles are close enough I suppose. To be frank, even the poison kit sounds like it ought to be a part of the alchemy kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Given how weak martials are, I don't consider spending one action for a fight-long damage buff to much of a creep. More of a balancing correction. The poison kit is fair enough though. It's not traditional "poison" but the principles are close enough I suppose. To be frank, even the poison kit sounds like it ought to be a part of the alchemy kit. I dunno. I think that allowing martials to actually hit the bad guys is a great idea. Great enough that it'd probably be a default pick up for anyone expecting to encounter resistant monsters. At that point, why not just bake it into the classes? e: as spell, 1/day 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Alchemy kit training is a trade skill that a youngster can go and make something of themselves with. Poison kit training is what criminals and lowlife adventurers use to murder or exploit people. If you hand out a way to add proficiency to weapon damage at will, what's really gonna happen is you're gonna end up being a really overworked arrowhead polisher for the necromancer's skeleton army. Just constantly keeping up your 100 arrow cycle, repolishing the ones from a minute ago that are losing their potency. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I think that the slow release rates indicate D&D is at best entering a period of hibernation. Which is kind of absurd considering how much of the impetus for its creation was nominally "Nerd poo poo is super hip right now, gotta strike while the iron's hot and get newcomers hooked!" It's actually kind of amazing that D&D continues to do absolutely loving nothing to try and get more people to play. It does sorta cement my theory that the whole thing became a vanity project though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Speaking of vanity projects, does 5e have any sort of gaming license yet? Ive been wanting to make little 3rd party 5e books to sell to the people chomping at the bit for new content, like the lovely little RPG entrepreneur I am.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Nah, they don't seem eager to get more books out there, and they're happily contracting the work out anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Dire Human posted:Speaking of vanity projects, does 5e have any sort of gaming license yet? Ive been wanting to make little 3rd party 5e books to sell to the people chomping at the bit for new content, like the lovely little RPG entrepreneur I am. goatface posted:Nah, they don't seem eager to get more books out there, and they're happily contracting the work out anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Don't know why you all are bagging on rogues...mine is usually last man standing in our big fights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Don't know why you all are bagging on rogues...mine is usually last man standing in our big fights. Well, general targeting strategies tend to be "target the fighter so they can soak damage like they're good at" if the GM wants to have kid gloves and "target the squishes because they're the real threats". Last Man Standing can easily mean Lowest Priority Target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:We were of course eclipsed by Reddit many years ago, but I find myself coming back to this forum because crowdsourced content is brutally repetitive and often dumb on any subject. That and most of the worst shitheads departed for Reddit. Jack the Lad posted:I really don't understand how it makes sense to shut down the WotC forums.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Roadie posted:What I really don't get is dumping the MtG forums. People passing around deck lists and experimenting with drafting and whatever has to provide at least some indirect benefit to sales by way of people hunting for specific cards or deck lists, and it seems crazy to leave that in the hands of third parties. As I understand it's the opposite; the MtG forums are dead as hell, and that's most likely why they're ditching the forums. D&D is just caught on the crossfire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
as of level 5 in the campaign I am running, the rogue by far does the most damage. Unless he cant sneak attack of course but, I feel like that is the trade off for massacring everything when he does have it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Smash it Smash hit posted:as of level 5 in the campaign I am running, the rogue by far does the most damage. Unless he cant sneak attack of course but, I feel like that is the trade off for massacring everything when he does have it. If true, this sounds pretty bad. He's either by far the best, or useless? Neither of those outcomes sound desirable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Gort posted:If true, this sounds pretty bad. He's either by far the best, or useless? Neither of those outcomes sound desirable. This has been a problem with Sneak Attack forever. Another problem is how binary it is even when you do qualify for SA; your 1 attack either hits and does good damage or misses and does 0. Classes with multiple attacks have a much better chance of hitting at least once and doing at least some damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
He just hit level 5, everyone has just 1 attack til then. The rogue isn't bad because of how it performs in early levels; it's bad because how it performs compared to a bunch of other things at levels higher than that. Sometimes you can see the gulf start forming at ~3, sometimes levels 5-7, depending on the table and what you can get away with. At which point, you're better serviced having taken a 2, maybe 3, level dip in it and then going with something that can cast spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
i mean its not ideal but, to me, it offers variance. The rogue is good at getting the drop on someone and doing damage, thats his objective. If he cant do it, then he is less useful. I mean I would rather have that swing than everyone doing equal amount of damage in every circumstance - then what would be the point of the different classes if a fighter and rogue similar damage at each stage or situation of combat. I feel like its my duty as the DM to set up encounters where each character can shine at different times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
A Rogue that hits with their main-hand, plus their off-hand, plus their Sneak Attack is roughly equivalent to a Fighter with a two-hander that hits with all their attacks. There are certain points where the Rogue is dealing significantly more damage, such as at every level right before the Fighter earns the next attack since the Rogue's Sneak Attack scaling is more fine-grained, or if the Fighter is using a one-hander, but in general it's their mechanic to keep up, and denying them Sneak Attack ends up being a penalty rather than accessing Sneak Attack as a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:This has been a problem with Sneak Attack forever. To me it's OK if the rogue literally always has sneak attack because rogues are not tanky, especially in 5E. If it's the one thing he does he should do it well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:The homebrew I play gives rogues instakill in surprise round. 60% chance at level 1, up to 95% at level 10. Works on any leveled creature and any monster at cr5 or less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:36
|
|