|
Both edition's rituals are an acknowledgement of some spells being not combat-useful enough that they don't want the spellcaster to have to reserve spell slots for them, which is a totally acceptable stance to take in a vacuum, but without the rest of 4e's class and ability design it's just more wizard power.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Yeah, but 4e's gold-per-level was tight enough that spending any real amount on rituals instead of magic items would weaken you in future combats too. It's just a much more opaque kind of weakened compared to a healing surge. yeah but inherent bonuses give a lot more leeway on gold than normal
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Would also be cool to add in some non-magical rituals, like better skill uses, feats of strength, etc. tied to the same resource system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
So I can release Homebrew Rituals, or an alternative ritual system to give magic back to everyone for 5e yeah? Do I have to have a final version, or can I keep updating as I go along?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The two big problems with it were the gold cost (which made it prohibitive to use early and pointlessly inexpensive late), and that non-casters had to burn a feat to access it. I'm not sure how much I like it running off of healing surges, though I struggle to think of a good non-combat resource to tie them to. Would also be cool to add in some non-magical rituals, like better skill uses, feats of strength, etc. tied to the same resource system. They made some martial versions of rituals that ran off surges. As I recall not many of them are very good, but it's a thing that happened. It's difficult to actually even find these, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
When I ran 4e I just gave everyone ritual caster for free and let everybody reflavor the rituals so they made sense for their class. I also gave the party an extra gold pool that could only be used for rituals to encourage their use. Otherwise they would have never used them since players tend to be really stingy with non-permanent gold sinks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
I like the renewable resource pool as well, and also let them use it to make consumables such as potions and magic ammo and stuff like that. If they made an item from it, it doesn't get refunded until they use the item or disenchant it and put it back in the pool. Consumables have no business being linked to a fixed wealth-by-level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:yeah but inherent bonuses give a lot more leeway on gold than normal Actually yeah this is on-point. Enhancement bonuses will let you have some +1's earlier than when you'd get them from inherents, but looking at the math, as long as you also have the feat taxes taken care of you technically don't need the magic items to stay on-par with monster stats. Andrast posted:When I ran 4e I just gave everyone ritual caster for free and let everybody reflavor the rituals so they made sense for their class. This is also a good idea. More games (I can think of two off-hand) should formalize some amount of consumables as the loot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Actually yeah this is on-point. Enhancement bonuses will let you have some +1's earlier than when you'd get them from inherents, but looking at the math, as long as you also have the feat taxes taken care of you technically don't need the magic items to stay on-par with monster stats. 13th Age and Numenera, and I guess other cypher-system games by extension? Any others?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Andrast posted:When I ran 4e I just gave everyone ritual caster for free and let everybody reflavor the rituals so they made sense for their class. Maybe a low grade 'works on rituals only' version of Residuum? 4th in general, Residuum was nice for your magic Item budget in general, if you remember it's the most expensive fine powder in existence on top of being a universal spell component. "You ever see an inn keeper try to make change for Residuum? Do you even WANT to give them the chance, when several thousand gold worth will accidentally end up under their finger nails?" I think per weight it's the same value as Astral Diamonds. weight/mass of one coin = 10,000 Gold, 1 pound/belt pouch =500k. Obviously RAW, residuum is just another currency that doubles as a component. But when breathing too heavily will scatter thousands of gold, it's a good justification for "Why this is only used for magical poo poo and not because you feel like buying a yacht". Section Z fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:13th Age and Numenera, and I guess other cypher-system games by extension? The treasure generation tables in Hackmaster are configured such that roughly half of all your loot is going to be the single-use/consumable kind, and the game goes on to say that this is entirely deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Maybe a low grade 'works on rituals only' version of Residuum? 4th in general, Residuum was nice for your magic Item budget in general, if you remember it's the most expensive fine powder in existence on top of being a universal spell component. also it's mostly made by grinding down priceless magical treasures
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Obviously RAW, residuum is just another currency that doubles as a component. But when breathing too heavily will scatter thousands of gold, it's a good justification for "Why this is only used for magical poo poo and not because you feel like buying a yacht". Gold-pressed
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
3e had a table for consumables each level, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
In something rather cool. Some people may know that a chapter was cut from Rise of Tiamat with art and maps still having been done for it. The DMguild just released the cut chapter involving the giants and the crashed flying castle. http://www.dmsguild.com/product/172527/Frozen-Castle--Expanding-Tyranny-of-Dragons
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:In something rather cool. Some people may know that a chapter was cut from Rise of Tiamat with art and maps still having been done for it. The DMguild just released the cut chapter involving the giants and the crashed flying castle. Am I a terrible person because I don't want to pay for this? I bought both books in the Tyranny of dragons line and DMed it - I have no idea why they cut this content but the books themselves were pretty expensive anyway. I'm in mainland Europe so this poo poo is more expensive for us. EDIT: Rise of Tiamat is on amazon.com for $18.81 (which is 17,33 Euro), and it's priced for 27,10 Euro (which is $29.40) on amazon.de and at my local games store.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
DLC for a D&D adventure, hooray!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Gold-pressed This is literally what I did in my last 4e campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:DLC for a D&D adventure, hooray! Funny thing, 3.5 had web enhancements for books and adventures too, the stuff that wasn't quite polished or playtested enough to make it into the final product, or stuff that they came up with after it went to press. But they never had the gall to actually charge people for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
The fact that they're charging for it AND it was a really jarring cut (as written, you crash the flying castle then a talking bird tells you you're in the wrong city and teleports you there instantly with no fanfare) is just insane. Anyways, I need to thank the thread - sometimes I get sort of paranoid that I'm a lovely DM and my players are just pretending to like the game, then I read about assgoblin DMs that actively work to limit sweet flavor powers like permanent Comprehend Languages and feel a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
New psionics rules are up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:DLC for a D&D adventure, hooray! I guess we know what ideas WotC has chosen to take from video games this time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:The fact that they're charging for it AND it was a really jarring cut (as written, you crash the flying castle then a talking bird tells you you're in the wrong city and teleports you there instantly with no fanfare) is just insane. Our game ground to a halt somewhere around the castle so I didn't know that's what happened. That's completely mental. Also talking birds are gold dragons in the service of Bahamut so a gold dragon just ferried the party around without stopping to help Still only 2 orders, they still require you to choose between "doing damage" and "having a neat fun extra thing", and they appear to have stolen Paizo's Kineticist's burn mechanic without actually adding the thing that makes burn not the absolute worst decision every time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Am I reading this wrong or does the Immortal get the ability to give up any focus benefits for the rest of the day just to halve the damage from one attack?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Am I reading this wrong or does the Immortal get the ability to give up any focus benefits for the rest of the day just to halve the damage from one attack? It's short or long rest. It's also the Immortal class so what you're giving up is "+1 AC or +1 to hit and damage"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Oh, "long rest" is right on the line break. The single thing that makes me maddest about 5e is that they write "you regain your uses of this ability after completing a (short or) long rest" every single time instead of just writing "3/day."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Or, you know, using a keyword, like $ability (short rest) description of ability. There's a shitton of needless cruft and lack of clarity in the name of natural language, and repeating the various phrases which could be defined with keywords endlessly is just annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Oh, "long rest" is right on the line break. Again, the problem is that they kept 4e's "once per encounter" Mechanic but wanted to keep the veneer of it not being a "combat focused" game like 4e was. So now it requires an hour long short rest and fighters are suddenly a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
By the way, does anyone have a link to whatever post where Mearls explained the change to rest length? I want to be able to cite it. I'll search it up sometime if not, but if someone's got it saved, that'd be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
What is a good rule of thumb for a group skill check? I'm running a module where I expect the group to attempt to stealth as much as they can. So I need to have a way to determine their success as a group against the monsters passive and active perception rolls. I've seen Matt Mercer do group stealth checks and have some people roll low but the rest of the group is able to carry them. Unfortunately I don't think he ever explained the mechanic in game while it happened. Is anyone familiar with that method?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
The simplest way would probably be "if a majority of PCs succeed, then the group passes the check."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:The simplest way would probably be "if a majority of PCs succeed, then the group passes the check." That's the way my AL group does it, speeds things up and the paladin doesn't gently caress up every chance we have for a surprise round.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
If you do a group check like that, it's also nice to toss a small reward to the PCs that succeed, like some kind of bonus in the first round. It helps those players feel like they're individually useful, instead of just a number cog in the party machine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Trast posted:What is a good rule of thumb for a group skill check? I'm running a module where I expect the group to attempt to stealth as much as they can. So I need to have a way to determine their success as a group against the monsters passive and active perception rolls. Let the player with the highest stealth skill make a check to determine group stealth. If they succeed they can pick out hiding places/approach paths for everyone. Roll stealth individually only to determine who acts in surprise rounds. You only need one character to succeed at lockpicking, knowledge checks, and other skill check plot doors; stealth as infiltration might as well work the same way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
What they said. Either put it all on the shoulders of a single party representative, or have everyone roll and the party passes if at least half of them do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
TheBlandName posted:Let the player with the highest stealth skill make a check to determine group stealth. If they succeed they can pick out hiding places/approach paths for everyone. Roll stealth individually only to determine who acts in surprise rounds. You only need one character to succeed at lockpicking, knowledge checks, and other skill check plot doors; stealth as infiltration might as well work the same way. This is a good way to do it, but the bolded part won't work in 5th ed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Oh right. Good catch. For 5E specifically, if I'm correctly remembering that it's the edition that formalized group checks, I would call plot-based stealth checks for the stealthiest member of the party. Failure on these doesn't mean detection but instead means the player discovers the location is too well guarded to sneak in without a distraction of some kind. Then for combat I would call a group stealth check to determine surprise. That should result in a skill that works the same as knowledge type skills for plot (success = proceed, failure = try something else) but still works as designed and intended for combat balance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
TheBlandName posted:Let the player with the highest stealth skill make a check to determine group stealth. If they succeed they can pick out hiding places/approach paths for everyone. Roll stealth individually only to determine who acts in surprise rounds. You only need one character to succeed at lockpicking, knowledge checks, and other skill check plot doors; stealth as infiltration might as well work the same way. This is how we've always done it. Yes it's not "realistic" to have the heavily armored knight clanking around alongside the thief but it's more fun. I guess if you really had to you could apply the fighter's penalties to the theif's roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is a good way to do it, but the bolded part won't work in 5th ed. How come?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:I guess if you really had to you could apply the fighter's penalties to the theif's roll. This is not going to work well with 5e's skill system and "armor check penalty", because the Rogue isn't so much better than the Fighter that they can deal with Disadvantage on the roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:42
|
|