|
Radio Talmudist posted:If a conflict is in progress, how do I add additional combatants? Do I wait till the beginning of the next round and ask them to roll initiative? That's how I would do it, at least. One additional wrinkle you might want to throw in is that you declare their presence at the start of round x, but they are inert, you play through to the end of round x, then you roll for initiative at the start of round x+1. This would prevent players from getting completely blindsided, especially if the initiative rolls would put a new character ahead of the current combatants.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's how I would do it, at least. I'd do this, but after making a check versus the group's passive perception. If they fail, the adds act on the same round as they show up. If they succeed, they are placed on the board the round before they act.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
On the topic of Fighting Styles, it seems that some are a lot better than others. I'm thinking you could probably bump up the less-popular/less-powerful ones by tacking a feat onto them, without breaking a whole lot (in addition to giving everyone Charger, Grappler, and Defensive Duelist across the board) Protection -> Shield Master or Sentinel Two-Weapon Fighting -> Dual Wielder or Mobile Defense -> Medium Armor Master or Heavy Armor Master I don't think the following styles need a ton of help, but here's some options anyway. Dueling -> Savage Attacker? Great Weapon Fighting -> Great Weapon Master? Archery -> replace the bonus with Sharpshooter
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:If a conflict is in progress, how do I add additional combatants? Do I wait till the beginning of the next round and ask them to roll initiative? Incidentally, this can be a fantastic way to split up a challenge if a group is wounded or otherwise short on resources. You can even put in environmental hazards or tools, like if they hear the sound of clanking armor running down a corridor towards a room they're fighting in, then they could use something to bar the door to delay the reinforcements for a couple of rounds, or set a trap (caltrops, grease spell, knock over a brazier, etc.). It also lets players feel clever if they can use some ingenuity to delay enemies by a round or three.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:If a conflict is in progress, how do I add additional combatants? Do I wait till the beginning of the next round and ask them to roll initiative? I usually roll their initiative at the top of a turn, and then have them act/join when it's their time to act.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:If a conflict is in progress, how do I add additional combatants? Do I wait till the beginning of the next round and ask them to roll initiative? The rules don't really say I think. Which is kind of strange because the DMG does include info on how to handle such encounters in terms of xp budgets (page 83) so it's not as if the idea never occurred to the writers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Another related question is if I should make then impossible to interact with till the beginning of the next round...seems more fair, but less realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Another related question is if I should make then impossible to interact with till the beginning of the next round...seems more fair, but less realistic. Nah, no need for that. Just do something like this: At the start of the round, a door opens or whatever and reinforcements arrive. Then you roll initiative for them and they're woven into the round order. Maybe they'll go first. Maybe they're last and the PCs nuke them down before they ever get to do anything. It's up to the dice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Is there anything redeeming or necessary in SCAG if I homebrew most of my setting elements anyway? I really just file the serial numbers off of most FR locations so far because I like a lot of the ideas but hate having shitloads of faux history tied to every little town or secret guild or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:Is there anything redeeming or necessary in SCAG if I homebrew most of my setting elements anyway? I really just file the serial numbers off of most FR locations so far because I like a lot of the ideas but hate having shitloads of faux history tied to every little town or secret guild or whatever. The only things in SCAG I've heard anyone mention as being worthwhile are the bladesinger and the new cantrips. Even ENWorld had a lot of people disliking the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't recommend you buy it unless you're really heavily invested in owning every book and gleaning every bit of lore and background. It doesn't offer a whole lot of terribly useful stuff. Pantheons were nice for me, and the backgrounds had some fun stuff, but probably not worth the pricetag if I had to go back and buy it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The only things in SCAG I've heard anyone mention as being worthwhile are the bladesinger and the new cantrips. Even ENWorld had a lot of people disliking the book. Speaking on ENWorld, does anyone have an opinion on their monthly patreon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:On the topic of Fighting Styles, it seems that some are a lot better than others. imo the problem with them isn't just that they're too weak, it's also that none of them add up to a "fighting style." They all amount to mundane increases in combat effectiveness, limited to a specific group of weapons to kind of gently push you towards using them. Like the choice between dueling and great weapon fighting is, do you want to do slightly more damage, or do you want to carry a shield for +2 AC? Not exactly a compelling difference, especially considering you're going to do exactly the same thing by standing in front of enemies and rolling to make their numbers go down. With the way the combat system works, if you want to have a real effect you want to be doing something that's imposing conditions on an enemy--giving them disadvantage on attack rolls, stunning them, restricting their movement, preventing them from attacking anybody but you, taking away their reaction, etc. i.e. stuff that spells do, or that battlemaster maneuvers do to a much more limited extent. So I would say you should chuck the fighting styles as they are now and make new ones that are actually oriented around a player's choice of... fighting style. Say that instead of having the protection and defense styles, you have a defensive style called, say, Bulwark.
So a character with this fighting style actually has mechanics that strongly encourage him to fight in a specific way--get face to face with monsters and lock them down. I would also say, fighting styles should get better as you gain levels in whatever martial class you're playing, so they're not totally front-loaded. Say you get the advantage on checks against getting pushed as soon as you take the fighting style at level one, but then at level 9 or something you also get advantage against stuff that would charm, stun, frighten, etc. Or the ability to subtract your CON mod from damage changes to double your CON mod at level 13. But in terms of a quick patch-job, just attaching feats isn't a bad idea. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
I thought this was relevant to the thread: Sword Coast Legends is going to have a play-for-free period from Dec 17 to 22.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Huh? Elves in BG games didn't get any kind of bonus to Intelligence, just a +1 maximum to Dexterity. Gnomes got a bonus to Intelligence, but they were restricted to being Illusionists, no other kind of Magic-User. Ah yeah, must have mixed that up with some other game. Half Elves and Humans don't get any bonus, it turns out. Must have used every single stat up item I could find on her, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:imo the problem with them isn't just that they're too weak, it's also that none of them add up to a "fighting style." They all amount to mundane increases in combat effectiveness, limited to a specific group of weapons to kind of gently push you towards using them. Like the choice between dueling and great weapon fighting is, do you want to do slightly more damage, or do you want to carry a shield for +2 AC? Not exactly a compelling difference, especially considering you're going to do exactly the same thing by standing in front of enemies and rolling to make their numbers go down. With the way the combat system works, if you want to have a real effect you want to be doing something that's imposing conditions on an enemy--giving them disadvantage on attack rolls, stunning them, restricting their movement, preventing them from attacking anybody but you, taking away their reaction, etc. i.e. stuff that spells do, or that battlemaster maneuvers do to a much more limited extent. Yeah, I know I posted upthread a homebrew that improved some of the fighting styles' passives and added an active that only that fighting style could spend dice on. The problem is that since fighting style is an early get, it can't be particularly good since that increases its value as a level 1 dip. So the better a fighter's level 1 is, the less likely to be a unique power it is and the more you have to think about what it would do when added to, say, ranger or bard. This downside is more or less limited to martials because the Big Deal you get for spellcasters is spellcasting, and that already scales entirely with your level in said class. Meanwhile martials have flat bonuses and proficiency bonuses, which scale with character level. So L1's have to give you lovely non-scaling flat bonuses to make sure that the value as a dip isn't very high. The result is that every class is supposed to have a "whole point of taking this class" ability at L1- spellcasters get that ability tucked into their spell mechanic (so they're more similar than is probably advisable) and martials get jack poo poo. IMO you should be forced to "specialize" in a single class. Then every class can have a L1 scaling power you only get via specialization and lock out archetypes unless you've specialized (since the L3 archetype power has many of the same issues since a L3 dip is right at the edge of possibility). You could then still have a decent L1, L2, and L4 in addition to add some multiclassing value to every class, but without making the class's signature ability prime fodder for a multiclass dip. You can also scale back on the amount of spells given out for some classes in favor of improving the non-spell offerings, where appropriate (bard and sorceror come to mind).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
"Fighting Style" is really more of what an Archetype should have been. Going sword-and-board and playing defender is a fighting style. Swinging a big gently caress-off hammer is a fighting style. Sniping enemies from 40 yards out with a crossbow is a fighting style. Fighting barehanded is a fighting style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"Fighting Style" is really more of what an Archetype should have been. Going sword-and-board and playing defender is a fighting style. Swinging a big gently caress-off hammer is a fighting style. Sniping enemies from 40 yards out with a crossbow is a fighting style. Fighting barehanded is a fighting style. Yeah but then you get loving nothing until level 3, and you end up with the same issue where there's 80 ways to be a guy with a beard and a staff but only 1 way to be a guy with a big sword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"Fighting Style" is really more of what an Archetype should have been. Or the martial classes themselves. Make the barbarian your hardest-hitting class, the fighter your toughest class, the monk your most mobile melee, the ranger your best ranged, the rogue your sneaky ninja. It's been said a million times but so many elements of 5E are unsatisfying and poorly conceived because it's not actually designed to give the players functional or interesting choices, it's designed to "feel" like D&D, whatever that's supposed to mean. A house that needs to be rebuilt, not remodeled, which is why 4E gets a certain amount of love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Too bad there's nothing to differentiate fighters at a base level like there is for wizards and schools of magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Differentiating fighting styles based on small bonuses and penalties under specific circumstances is so boring. It would be so easy to give Fighters (and Rogues, and Rangers) substantially more power and agency just by not being so chicken poo poo about the benefits those things provide. God forbid a Fighter have a declarative class feature as opposed to +numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
While I think a good measure of 5e martials being boring comes down to "we want it to FEEL like D&D," I think just as much comes down to 5e being pathetically lazy. Making actual fighting styles would require effort, and in a game where parts of the book are literally copy+pasted from previous editions (unless they ended up editing it so they weren't literally copy+pasting from 3e) that's simply too much effort to expect. This becomes increasingly obvious when you look at the other game rules. Everything just grants advantage. Everything just takes up the "bonus action." There hasn't been anything interesting in their Unearthed Arcana articles since the psionics stuff a year ago. The WotC team isn't even WRITING anything - all their poo poo is being made by hired out third parties. Remember when jury duty for one person meant they couldn't work on anything, at all, period? At this point I'm starting to think their whole "make it FEEL like D&D" was just an excuse to not put in any actual work. Mearls I supposed deserves at least credit for finding the easiest way to drag out a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:The result is that every class is supposed to have a "whole point of taking this class" ability at L1- spellcasters get that ability tucked into their spell mechanic (so they're more similar than is probably advisable) and martials get jack poo poo. For fun and profit, stack together 2 or more full casting classes (particularly if they use the same spellcasting stat) and notice how you suddenly have tons of cantrips and know/"always have prepared" a wide variety of spells, for every occasion. 30.5 Days posted:IMO you should be forced to "specialize" in a single class. You mean like 4e?  It's amazing how many problems that solves/allows you to start fixing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Yeah I was really hoping they would have put out an update on those psionic rules by now. Waiting a year, or more, to get any updates on that is kind of ridiculous. But yeah the only thing that might have been WotC since the DMG is maybe the Swordcoast Adventure Guide. And even that may not have been WotC. So in the meantime, since I would have like official rules for the Immortal or something so I could actually try it out in an Adventure League game, I found an interesting homebrew "Monster Class" recently. The Balor Monster Class on the Giant in the Playground forums Homebrew section. The class is interesting because it has the base race built in, starts with a d6 hit die and small size but gains size at certain class levels and increases the hit die size with each size increase. Eventually it gets to be Huge and d12 hit die. It gets one attack, a magical longsword that is sized to it and could eventually get up to a 3d8(3d10 in two hands), though by 18th level it has a fire aura that adds a bit more. It also has a feat option to get the iconic fire whip, which it could then two-weapon fighting with a bonus action. It ends up being fairly comparable to a Barbarian, seems pretty tough and does nice damage with its one hit but nothing compared to say an actual spellcaster. And now I really wish I could play one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:The Balor Monster Class on the Giant in the Playground forums Homebrew section. The class is interesting because it has the base race built in, starts with a d6 hit die and small size but gains size at certain class levels and increases the hit die size with each size increase. Eventually it gets to be Huge and d12 hit die. It gets one attack, a magical longsword that is sized to it and could eventually get up to a 3d8(3d10 in two hands), though by 18th level it has a fire aura that adds a bit more. It also has a feat option to get the iconic fire whip, which it could then two-weapon fighting with a bonus action. It ends up being fairly comparable to a Barbarian, seems pretty tough and does nice damage with its one hit but nothing compared to say an actual spellcaster. There was one guy (maybe the same guy as this one?) who did a ton of these for 3.5 They were all super cool, and I kinda always wanted to run a game based on them
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:There was one guy (maybe the same guy as this one?) who did a ton of these for 3.5 Do it. Dooooo iiiiiiiit. So long as it is PbP. I assume you mean Oscelamo and his? Improved Monster Classes which tried to turn each monster into a class with as many levels as its CR, give or take. These were, usually, not as powerful as the actual monster but were an attempt to balance them with actual classes. There were a lot I wanted to try. Including the Umbral Blot, Awakened Gelatinous Cube, Hyrda, or Tarrasque. Though there are a number of other interesting options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Someone up thread mentioned giving starter PCs an astral diamond and having it be a sort of macguffin as they travel around looking to make change. I'm laying out my basic campaign hooks now and stealing the everloving poo poo out of that idea. It owns and there's so many ways it can go, all of which lead to conflict and adventure beyond "kill X Y and Z". I'm not even planning on giving it to the PCs outright, just making them aware of it tangentially and having it be the centerpiece for a few villain plots until they inevitably get greedy and try to acquire it for themselves, painting giant targets on their backs in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
I love the idea of a balor as a monster class: not only is the idea of a tiny halfling-sized balor adorable but it's also an idea with a manner of pedigree in D&D (one of Gygax's players played a balor by starting as a minor demon at level 1 and gaining the more powerful abilities as they leveled) so it passes the tradition test as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Remember that literally all effects are viewed as spells. The spell index isn't intendedhings - be they PCs or for easy of use on classes. It's literally a giant list of different effects that multiple things - PCs or NPCs - draw from. I was going through a review of an old BECMI module called Earthshaker, where the party has to stop a villain from hijacking a 500,000 ton giant robot from its gnome operators. It has elaborate rules for what happens if this larger-than-four-football-fields-stacked-on-top-of-each-other monstrosity tips over: quote:Fourth, the shockwave sent through ground will be tremendous. The fall of Earthshaker is roughly equivalent to a force of 6 on the Richter scale. Everything within 500 feet of Earthshaker will be reduced to rubble. Cliffs will fall, riverbanks split and crack, and hillslides slide away. Characters of the ground will be hurled 10-60 feet with tremendous force, suffering 1 point of damage per foot. There is no saving throw for this. Again, this damage is in addition to any suffered from the explosion of the boilers. Between a radius of 501 feet and 1 mile, the entire area will suffer the effects of an earthquake spell. Everything beyond this out to a 5 mile radius will suffer the effects of a half-strength earthquake spell You weren't kidding. This sort of thing has been pervasive in the game from all the way back to 1985. Earthquakes in D&D don't happen, instead you suffer the effects of an earthquake spell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Super basic rules question, but spellcasters who wear armor they are not proficient in are outright not able to cast anything, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:I assume you mean Oscelamo and his? Improved Monster Classes which tried to turn each monster into a class with as many levels as its CR, give or take. These were, usually, not as powerful as the actual monster but were an attempt to balance them with actual classes. Yeah, that's the guy! I really suggest anyone who likes 3.5 at all take a look at those; a lot are pretty inspired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Super basic rules question, but spellcasters who wear armor they are not proficient in are outright not able to cast anything, right? Correct. quote:Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells. PHB page 144
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure the Next design strategy was intentionally lazy so much as it was dictated from on high to focus on generating revenue from the IP rather than the RPG itself. My guess is Mearls was given close to carte blanche as long as deadlines were met and budgets were followed. Everything WotC is doing makes total sense if you think that D&D the brand is more valuable than the actual game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:For fun and profit, stack together 2 or more full casting classes (particularly if they use the same spellcasting stat) and notice how you suddenly have tons of cantrips and know/"always have prepared" a wide variety of spells, for every occasion. Multiclassing is an optional rule, and IMO bad in 5e for exactly the reasons cited (front-loading of abilities which scale with Character Level, for starters). Amusingly, consider this weirdness: you can take levels in disparate classes, but you cannot gain levels in sub-types of the same class (Battlemaster and Eldrich Knight, for example). If I were to run a campaign, I'd say No Multiclassing, but aggressively add feats that mimic a weakened version of class traits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
The only way to stop a wizard from casting spells with 100% certainty is to put them in a suit of armor and then bind their hands so they can't take it off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I'm not sure the Next design strategy was intentionally lazy so much as it was dictated from on high to focus on generating revenue from the IP rather than the RPG itself. My guess is Mearls was given close to carte blanche as long as deadlines were met and budgets were followed. Doesn't that prove the point though, If you have total freedom and your book is 90% copy and paste then you are lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Yea I'm not sure 'no no they weren't LAZY they just had total freedom to work as long as they made a book on time and chose to do nearly nothing' is as strong a counter as you may think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I'm not sure the Next design strategy was intentionally lazy so much as it was dictated from on high to focus on generating revenue from the IP rather than the RPG itself. My guess is Mearls was given close to carte blanche as long as deadlines were met and budgets were followed. Can you clarify how you think 5E advanced D&D as an IP? Like was it literally just "make sure we have a product that's out on time and is generally in the public eye"? Or possibly they thought the fans of previous editions would - even if they didn't actually return to D&D from Pathfinder or whatever - still generate more revenue by buying novelizations etc (that could tie into them "fixing" forgotten realms). This is all anecdotal of course, but I felt more "aware" of D&D around 4E's release due to advertising it in more general areas of the internet (video game and comic and whatever other nerdy activity sites) and most of my awareness of 5E comes entirely from posts on these forums. Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand what you mean by the D&D brand being what's most important here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
A new edition usually does drum up a new wave of interest and there's a D&D movie in the works so refreshing the name in the mind of the public isn't a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Elfgames posted:A new edition usually does drum up a new wave of interest and there's a D&D movie in the works so refreshing the name in the mind of the public isn't a bad idea. That's sorta the catch though - I've trawled through the internet and I've never seen fewer people talking about D&D. The catastrophically slow publishing rate means there's just not much to talk about. 5e certainly had a big wave of interest at first, and it's public playtest thing worked great for it's PR (as was planned), but it's squandered it extremely hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:08
|
|