|
Spiteski posted:How come? 5th ed doesn't have surprise rounds. If you surprise someone, you don't get an extra round to act, instead they don't get to act in the first round of combat. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Feb 3, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Please nobody ask how stealth works again. I cant handle it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:5th ed doesn't have surprise rounds. Simple, really. If you pass the check you get to pick an enemy to not act in the second round too. Doesn't stack so no surpriselocking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
If the group passes the check overall, or the Main Stealth Guy can pass the check, surprise round. If a PC personally passes a stealth check, they get to act fully in the surprise round. If a PC personally fails a stealth check, they can take one action in the surprise round.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Please nobody ask how stealth works again. I cant handle it. Stealth rules in any edition, of any system, primarily exist to make it harder for Players to sneak, while NPCs gleefully ignore stealth mechanics as the GM and Module Writers desire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Credit to Sage Genesis for explaining how it works: The whole party makes Stealth rolls. The results are compared to the passive perception rolls of the defenders. If at least one party member rolls lower than the passive perception of the defenders, then the defenders are not surprised. If the whole party rolls higher than the passive perception of the defenders, then the defenders are surprised. Surprised means that the defenders cannot take any actions nor reactions during the first round of combat. On an individual basis, any single party member that rolls higher than the passive perception of the defenders is hidden. Hidden means that any attack against you automatically misses (or intuitively that you cannot be attacked at all since your enemies are unaware of your presence), and also that you have Advantage on the first attack roll coming out of being hidden. So, it's possible to be in a situation where the Fighter clink-clanks around loudly as a consequence of rolling really low on their Stealth check, which means that the enemies are not Surprised, but the Rogue, who did roll well on their Stealth check, is Hidden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
^^^^^ That system also has the benefit of causing all the enemies to turn and attack the heavily armored fighter until the rogue and shadow monk attack from their hiding place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Simple, really. If you pass the check you get to pick an enemy to not act in the second round too. Doesn't stack so no surpriselocking. I guess that works. The problem I mentioned was specifically because of "determine who acts in surprise rounds", not in the general idea being put forward. gradenko_2000 posted:On an individual basis, any single party member that rolls higher than the passive perception of the defenders is hidden. Hidden means that any attack against you automatically misses (or intuitively that you cannot be attacked at all since your enemies are unaware of your presence), and also that you have Advantage on the first attack roll coming out of being hidden. I don't recall reading this part before. It does a lot to remove my general objections to the stealth/surprise rules. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
I still think my favorite version of surprise is from 3.5, where a wizard with the right preparation could set it up so that he or she could always act in the surprise round, and could use an immediate action even if they lost initiative to take their turn before anyone else could. You could surprise a wizard and be killed on your surprise round before you could act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Mendrian posted: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. So if an enemy party of 3 goblin assassins and two minotaurs in full plate approach it's cool for them to get surprise attacks because the goblins were sneaky?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I still think my favorite version of surprise is from 3.5, where a wizard with the right preparation could set it up so that he or she could always act in the surprise round, and could use an immediate action even if they lost initiative to take their turn before anyone else could. You could surprise a wizard and be killed on your surprise round before you could act. Taking actions? What do you think contingency is for? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So if an enemy party of 3 goblin assassins and two minotaurs in full plate approach it's cool for them to get surprise attacks because the goblins were sneaky? If the group would have fun with that, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I guess that works. The problem I mentioned was specifically because of "determine who acts in surprise rounds", not in the general idea being put forward. It came up in one of the Sage Advice columns: quote:In short, activity in a combat is always ordered by initiative, whether or not someone is surprised, and after the first found of combat has passed, surprise is no longer a factor. You can still try to hide from your foes and gain the benefits conferred by being hidden, but you don’t deprive your foes of their turns when you do so. Of course, you can still end up in a rules lawyering argument over whether "You can still try to hide from your foes" means that you need to take the Hide action as a separate second roll from the initial Stealth check, but there you go. EDIT: I'd like to note though that this means the second Assassinate clause (any hit against a Surprised creature is a critical hit) and the Death Strike ability for Assassin Rogues will be of very limited use if the entire party attempts to stealth through, because the heavily armored Fighter will almost always caused Surprise to be spoiled. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It came up in one of the Sage Advice columns: I thought the sage advice quote was pretty clear in saying that failing to surprise doesn't prevent you from trying to hide on the first turn or on later turns. Nothing in the quote suggests to me that you should be auto-hidden at the start of the combat. I like your interpretation much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
My site now has all the content from the SRD, plus a couple of third-party items, like the magic items and monsters from the Scarred Lands 5e adventure that was released. Also, I'd appreciate any input y'all have on a thing somebody suggested regarding Section 15 stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So if an enemy party of 3 goblin assassins and two minotaurs in full plate approach it's cool for them to get surprise attacks because the goblins were sneaky? or or get this use 1 rule for player and another for enemies. like why even have the enemies roll stealth anyway have the players roll to notice or listen or whatever if they beat an easy DC they notice the Minotaur if they beat a harder dc they notice everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:or or get this use 1 rule for player and another for enemies. like why even have the enemies roll stealth anyway have the players roll to notice or listen or whatever if they beat an easy DC they notice the Minotaur if they beat a harder dc they notice everyone. Monsters don't roll stealth to hide from the party. The party rolls awareness to notice the monsters. If the monsters sneak up on them it's because the party did or didn't do something, or the narrative of the story requires it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Monsters don't roll stealth to hide from the party. The party rolls awareness to notice the monsters. If the monsters sneak up on them it's because the party did or didn't do something, or the narrative of the story requires it. Yes, because I don't want to stat up a monster's stealth skill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If the whole party rolls higher than the passive perception of the defenders, then the defenders are surprised. Surprised means that the defenders cannot take any actions nor reactions during the first round of combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Friend of mine is prepping his next DnD adventure and was wondering if there are good guidelines for adding class levels to monsters (specifically a hag) and adjusting the challenge rating, or are the DMG guidlines really the best you available?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Friend of mine is prepping his next DnD adventure and was wondering if there are good guidelines for adding class levels to monsters (specifically a hag) and adjusting the challenge rating, or are the DMG guidlines really the best you available? IMO 5e only pretends it's made to be able to handle that, and you'd be better off winging it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I remember I was looking at how an orc warchief lined up against the DMG guidelines and they were wildly all over the place, and seemed to more fall in line with a high CR in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Friend of mine is prepping his next DnD adventure and was wondering if there are good guidelines for adding class levels to monsters (specifically a hag) and adjusting the challenge rating, or are the DMG guidlines really the best you available? Add whatever stuff to the hag you need to, and then refigure CR based on the DMG's arcane guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Take the 4e route. Seconding this. Please don't go the 3.5 route of "yeah you can totally just add class levels" and "holy poo poo I just wanted to add some feats why does this thing have +89 grapple and 32 attacks now". Make the monster you want to make and figure out approximately what CR it is afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
So, how viable is an all-caster party in 5th Edition for being viable for the common types of adventures as well as for filling the typical class roles of "melee bruiser" and "scout" typically covered by Fighters and Rogues? For adventures I'm talking things like dungeon crawls, open-ended wilderness exploration, urban investigation mixed with combat, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Very, between Bards, Warlocks and Druids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:So, how viable is an all-caster party in 5th Edition for being viable for the common types of adventures as well as for filling the typical class roles of "melee bruiser" and "scout" typically covered by Fighters and Rogues? For adventures I'm talking things like dungeon crawls, open-ended wilderness exploration, urban investigation mixed with combat, etc. Paladin/War Cleric/Moon Druid is a better fighter than any of the non-caster fighter. Bard is a better skill monkey than the other skill classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Moon Druid is the fightiest class I've seen in actual play, and I'd be surprised if it turned out anything else had a better combination of melee damage and survivability. I can maybe see Paladin getting there, but I haven't seen a War Pally actually played yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:So, how viable is an all-caster party in 5th Edition for being viable for the common types of adventures as well as for filling the typical class roles of "melee bruiser" and "scout" typically covered by Fighters and Rogues? For adventures I'm talking things like dungeon crawls, open-ended wilderness exploration, urban investigation mixed with combat, etc. The right summoning spell can fill the roles of "melee bruiser" and "scout" better than Fighters and Rogues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I can maybe see Paladin getting there, but I haven't seen a War Pally actually played yet. I've played one. They're super burst but can do a lot of damage pretty quickly. Lay on Hands and +cha to saves makes them reasonably tanky too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Moon Druid is the fightiest class I've seen in actual play, and I'd be surprised if it turned out anything else had a better combination of melee damage and survivability. Yeah, I'm playing a Moon Druid in a Rage of Demons game, and man, talk about the return of the CoDzilla! Cast Faerie Fire or Barkskin on round 1, go Bear and start eating people on round 2, burn your uncast spell slots for self-healing if you somehow get too badly dinged up, and worse comes to worse, if you get knocked out of bear form, shrug and do it again!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
The way I handle custom monsters is to start with a generic creature with appropriate amounts of HP and DPR (gradenko has a table for this, but you could also use the DMG table if you're going for a particular CR) and start slapping the features I want onto it. If a feature is significant enough to affect its level of danger or survivability, I adjust its stats to compensate for it. It can sometimes be difficult to put a value on things (how much damage is hold person supposed to be worth?), but usually you can eyeball it well enough. I can understand wanting to use the same rules for both monsters and players. If I had an enemy spellcaster cast something new, it would be reasonable for the players to want access to it as well. Our group deals with a lot of homebrew though, so it tends to not be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:The way I handle custom monsters is to start with a generic creature with appropriate amounts of HP and DPR (gradenko has a table for this, but you could also use the DMG table if you're going for a particular CR) and start slapping the features I want onto it. If a feature is significant enough to affect its level of danger or survivability, I adjust its stats to compensate for it. It can sometimes be difficult to put a value on things (how much damage is hold person supposed to be worth?), but usually you can eyeball it well enough. There's any number of ways to have the bad guy do something that the players won't get (or maybe even won't want) to do without saying "there are different rules". Making pacts with evil powers, having innate or hereditary abilities, and a simple willingness to do things that permanently gently caress you up are three bad-guy things that immediately come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:There's any number of ways to have the bad guy do something that the players won't get (or maybe even won't want) to do without saying "there are different rules". Making pacts with evil powers, having innate or hereditary abilities, and a simple willingness to do things that permanently gently caress you up are three bad-guy things that immediately come to mind. Putting thought into that at all is more than you usually get when it comes to "Enemy has X ability/Weapon, and no it won't work for YOU" being the standard mindset of the official writers  It's even worse when it comes to consumables or the like, but people seem more willing to give"Oh look, another batch of Drow who's poison lasted EXACTLY as long as the encounter, and none of them thought to bring spares." a pass than "I would like to learn that spell I've seen used against us the last five fights." If you want your players to have a shot at using the enemy toys, that's good on you. If you don't want it to be a thing, that's also fine and reasonable. Though if you don't want them to have it, you'll get a lot more mileage telling your players in the first place after the first few times they ask. Because if you tell them "Oh, you have to sacrifice your left nut to learn that spell" or any other requirements you set to give an In Character justification to keep it out of player's hands, your players still might try it. Sometimes telling your players that NPCs follow different rules than them works. But your outlook can also work great, as long as you keep in mind setting a hurdle instead of outright telling them no (and WHY no), means somebody is probably going to try and jump said hurdle if you put it in front of them enough times. You are so not wrong, I've just see so many blurring together over the years cases of GM's bending over backwards to avoid admitting they arn't "following the same rules as you" lead to more frustration for all involved than outright antagonistic GMs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I am having a weird problem with my campaign. We did it a few months and now we are in a section where the world has opened up to them and no body has anything particular they want to do. And anything I can think of seems kinda forced. Maybe I just don't have enough of a grasp on the art form. What do I do after they have defeated the boss and are finally safe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Reznor posted:I am having a weird problem with my campaign. We did it a few months and now we are in a section where the world has opened up to them and no body has anything particular they want to do. And anything I can think of seems kinda forced. Maybe I just don't have enough of a grasp on the art form. What do I do after they have defeated the boss and are finally safe? Sigil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Power struggle in the fallout. Some town/city/nation will have been massively weakened somewhere along the way, someone else will be eager to take control of it. People will want the party to fix it, or insist it's their fault, or kill them so they don't get involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
First, I would say that there's no need to have every campaign run to 20. If you're at a natural endpoint in the story, end it. We have plot hooks and character concepts enough that every game not need to be paced like The Simpsons. In fact, the reason people always say "there's this concept that I'm going to try eventually" but never get to do it is because there's never enough time when all your campaigns have to end when the rulebook runs out of material (and sometimes not even then!) That said, the next natural enemy after the defeat of the external interloper, is internal stability. Things that you were willing to handwave or disregard or forgive when the world was about to end might not be acceptable anymore once the dust clears and you know there's going to be a tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That said, the next natural enemy after the defeat of the external interloper, is internal stability. Things that you were willing to handwave or disregard or forgive when the world was about to end might not be acceptable anymore once the dust clears and you know there's going to be a tomorrow. Put your players on trial for all the fantasy murderhobo atrocities they've committed. e: More serious answer, one game I played in had a similar lull after we escaped a BBEG and the DM had us do a ~*2 Months Pass*~ montage where we settle back down and do something appropriate with our downtime. In this meantime, political shifts occured and fallout from our last adventure reached the ears of a king who summoned us to help deal with it. It was kind of nice as an intermission and a chance to take care of some odds and ends for our characters with the downtime. Kaysette fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Have you actually asked them if they really don't want to do anything, or are you assuming as such because nobody is taking the lead? Sometimes it's just that nobody wants to make the decision for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:48
|
|