|
gradenko_2000 posted:For that matter, does D&D even explicitly say that you could do this if you wanted to? Apart from the generic "they're your rules, change whatever" principle. Ask your DM  Real answer though: I don't think they've explicitly come out and done this, but I've definitely played a game of 5E where the DM gave out a specific free feat to all people at character creation as part of tying them into their story.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: No, that never happened to me except where the rules explicitly make it happen (e.g. Ravenloft corruption, psionic wild talents, etc.) I've done it a few times in 4e using boons though, the magic items that are not actual items.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Judgement posted:There are absolutely people who will laser focus on niche skills that will never see use under normal circumstances, usually as a way to prove to everyone else that they are a superior roleplayer, not rollplayer. To a certain subset of people, being near useless at the combat or adventuring parts of the game for the sake of character concept is a badge of honor. IME players like this will often piss and moan no end when they suck in combat and the combat is most of the game because, you know, D&D - but will resolutely refuse to change anything mechanical about their character, even if they can keep the flavour exactly the same. D&D causes loving brain damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: I've done this for a World of Darkness campaign before. It was sometimes even for meta-game stuff like writing up a session recap. I usually gave players a free two-dot merit of their choice. Merits in that system, especially two-dot ones, are not game-breaking and can give the players some fun new toys to play with. I also gave out the equivalent of hero points and other renewable resources. Or, if they do something suitably awesome, I let them buy whatever trait/merit/skill/etc. they want immediately. I let them buy it with "credit", meaning their next xp goes to paying off the cost. It allows them to get something that makes sense with their achievement at an appropriate time while also not permanently making their character ahead of everyone else's. Kibner fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Has anyone tried using spell points in a campaign that reaches around level 10 or 12? I'm considering using them in a game I'm going to run as something to mix things up but want to hear from someone who's used em how they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: A reasonable way to know if a 4e DM understands the system is that they give you a couple free feats fairly early on. Expertise feats are needed to keep up with monster defenses, improved defenses to keep up with their attacks, and usually melee training for non-strength classes who end up in melee a lot (especially with warlords). They're generally boring mechanical fixes to allow your character to not suck, as opposed to Be Cool. I've actually played a couple 4e games where they said "Level 1: take 4 bonus feats" and listed those feats as ones you should strongly consider. (For those of you who are in the realm of "Who in the heck wouldn't take those feats", there are cases. Like a fighter can get away with it initially, or an archer ranger can cross their fingers and not take melee training or improved defenses and place a lot of hope on the defender) Some 4e DMs will also give free feats at various times, specifically for completely non-combat feats. So, pick up a psychic power, ritual casting, a new language, or skill training, whatever. It's usually an awkward thing when combat and non-combat abilities share the same resource pool in a game where combat is frequently expected, while knowing esoteric languages MAY come up if you specifically ask the DM to make it an issue to justify your 3 language feats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:A reasonable way to know if a 4e DM understands the system is that they give you a couple free feats fairly early on. Expertise feats are needed to keep up with monster defenses, improved defenses to keep up with their attacks, and usually melee training for non-strength classes who end up in melee a lot (especially with warlords). They're generally boring mechanical fixes to allow your character to not suck, as opposed to Be Cool. I've actually played a couple 4e games where they said "Level 1: take 4 bonus feats" and listed those feats as ones you should strongly consider. (For those of you who are in the realm of "Who in the heck wouldn't take those feats", there are cases. Like a fighter can get away with it initially, or an archer ranger can cross their fingers and not take melee training or improved defenses and place a lot of hope on the defender) And then sometimes you get people like me who trade in some of those combat feats for more linguist feats. Help me I have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Spiteski posted:Has anyone tried using spell points in a campaign that reaches around level 10 or 12? I'm considering using them in a game I'm going to run as something to mix things up but want to hear from someone who's used em how they are. There is a YouTube series of a HotDQ roll20 campaign where they use them. I never watched the whole series, but remember one episode where the DM was explaining to the group's wiz/sorc how she could cast one more Fireball b/c they were using points and not slots. So I guess it'll make your casters more flexible/powerful? AFB right now, so I can't look more into the specifics of the system. I know it wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I'm curious as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:A reasonable way to know if a 4e DM understands the system is that they give you a couple free feats fairly early on. Expertise feats are needed to keep up with monster defenses, improved defenses to keep up with their attacks, and usually melee training for non-strength classes who end up in melee a lot (especially with warlords). They're generally boring mechanical fixes to allow your character to not suck, as opposed to Be Cool. I've actually played a couple 4e games where they said "Level 1: take 4 bonus feats" and listed those feats as ones you should strongly consider. (For those of you who are in the realm of "Who in the heck wouldn't take those feats", there are cases. Like a fighter can get away with it initially, or an archer ranger can cross their fingers and not take melee training or improved defenses and place a lot of hope on the defender)
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I dunno, man. I give out free Expertise and Melee Training, but as for the rest I mostly thank god there's something obvious to spend a feat on this level, because feats in 4e are terrible. It's helpful for builds that are extremely feat heavy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did anyone ever actually put points into Perform or Craft: Bread for "role-playing" purposes? And wouldn't that make 3rd Edition just "tabletop Ultima Online"? It was basically diplomacy for him. We decided that cooking was an important part of half-orc culture and bear stew was the traditional food of courtship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I play a bard in Pathfinder who's highest skill is Profession: Cook. I'm pretty bad at combat, but that doesn't matter because the Magus in the party one-shots all encounters anyways. I'm one of those trash humans that really, really enjoys the character creation minigame in 3.5/Pathfinder. When my old group cajoled me into coming back, I basically had a look around, saw that almost literally anything combat-oriented I made was going to turn me into 'that guy with the OP character that one-shots encounters' just because nobody else enjoyed the minigame and had made fairly basic characters. I ended up making a 'dungeon survival' character with minimal combat ability but trapfinding and an adamantine pickaxe to knock walls over with. And, yes, I dumped a bunch of skill points into Craft: Cooking, even investing in some masterwork cooking utensils, because I'd been reading Dungeon Meshi before the game. The party gets kind of annoyed with how I don't contribute much to fights, now. The irony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
This is meant non-judgemenally and honest curiosity: what do those who like playing 5e like about it? Why do you choose to play it over other titles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:It's helpful for builds that are extremely feat heavy. Yeah, it sucks for defenders who don't get improved defenses and strikers who don't get a focus. Feats suck in 4e because of bloat and lack of interesting options outside of +X to y, but that doesn't mean there aren't great, build-defining feats having to compete with the scaling bonus taxes. I really hate 5e's feat system, though. While most are garbage, there are some interesting options in there, but now your Goddamned ability score increases are competing with them. The only reliable way to get a feat is going human, pushing most of the other races out of competitiveness as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: 3e had a bunch of 'legendary locations' which were basically taht 'oh you got mentally scarred in a filthy prison. Free iron will!' type stuff. Also rituals and poo poo to let you shoot fire or teleport or poo poo. All of these had a GP value, naturally, because wealth is 3e's chargen pointbuy subsystem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:3e had a bunch of 'legendary locations' which were basically taht
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
In games where I've mastered the character creation process, I find it easy and rewarding to make something distinctive and fun that's still mostly in line with the rest of the group.ImpactVector posted:4e had pretty much the same thing in the Boon system. It's honestly a decent way to handle this kind of thing within the system. I really like the idea of a system like Boons where you gain abilities/upgrades in a thematic way. Like, if you fight a fire themed guy, you get some fire related abilities/upgrades at the end of the quest. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Covok posted:This is meant non-judgemenally and honest curiosity: what do those who like playing 5e like about it? Why do you choose to play it over other titles? From the people running the current game I'm in, the answer is "it has modules with nice maps, while being not very mechanically complex compared to other editions". One of the players seems to have some kind of memory issue that means they've only just now gotten used to easily knowing how much damage they do, so 4e or 3e would probably fry their brain. I've run 13th Age for a few of them and they enjoyed it, although it led to the discovery that I actually don't much like GMing fantasy combats. I like being a player in them, I'm just not the best GM for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Covok posted:This is meant non-judgemenally and honest curiosity: what do those who like playing 5e like about it? Why do you choose to play it over other titles? It's fun, and lets you kill orcs as an elf. I'm sure that it could be better, and if we take a break I'll probably jump in with some one shots of strike or Dungeon World, but while 5e definitely had issues, none of them make the game terrible or impossible to play. And since our DM is willing to put in the extra work on his end to make the game run smooth, I'm willing to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I really like the idea of a system like Boons where you gain abilities/upgrades in a thematic way. Like, if you fight a fire themed guy, you get some fire related abilities/upgrades at the end of the quest. But in a game where equipment has a value and gives you extra abilities, giving them to characters as innate abilities instead works fine as an alternative to the Christmas tree effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:I mean, ideally stuff like this might be baked into your class so you don't have to go hunting through piles of options to find something interesting. It's the second thing I was talking about. "You can make your weapon catch on fire" is so much better than "you have a weapon that can catch on fire". I dunno why, but it's cooler to me to be or learn something rather than to have something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:A reasonable way to know if a 4e DM understands the system is that they give you a couple free feats fairly early on. Expertise feats are needed to keep up with monster defenses, improved defenses to keep up with their attacks, and usually melee training for non-strength classes who end up in melee a lot (especially with warlords). They're generally boring mechanical fixes to allow your character to not suck, as opposed to Be Cool. I've actually played a couple 4e games where they said "Level 1: take 4 bonus feats" and listed those feats as ones you should strongly consider. (For those of you who are in the realm of "Who in the heck wouldn't take those feats", there are cases. Like a fighter can get away with it initially, or an archer ranger can cross their fingers and not take melee training or improved defenses and place a lot of hope on the defender) My understanding of those 4e math fixes is you dont really need them (except for stat change up ones) until level 5 or so? I've always felt like adding just a bunch of random feats up front kills a lot of peoples interest in 4e anyway. Seems like the better option is to throw them out when they are actually needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's the second thing I was talking about. "You can make your weapon catch on fire" is so much better than "you have a weapon that can catch on fire". I dunno why, but it's cooler to me to be or learn something rather than to have something. I think that really depends on the character, the player, and the Thing in question and how it's presented. Excalibur is a magic sword and scabbard, and while King Arthur is also exceptional, the sword is a focal point in and of itself. The One Ring is the entire point of the LotR books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
The Gate posted:I think that really depends on the character, the player, and the Thing in question and how it's presented. Excalibur is a magic sword and scabbard, and while King Arthur is also exceptional, the sword is a focal point in and of itself. The One Ring is the entire point of the LotR books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I'll give you some versions of Excalibur, but not the Ring. That thing is so far from a cool magic item that the smartest, most powerful beings in the world are scared shitless of touching it. If you're even thinking well maybe I could use it for good you're irrevocably hosed just from being near it for a while. e: But sure, yes, it'd be fun and interesting to play the guy that has to carry it. I'm talking in terms of "I'd rather be able to turn invisible than to have a ring of invisibility", not saying that it's not cool to have earth-shatteringly important items that mark you as the one true king or whatever. e2: Which is my original point. Being the Ring Bearer - the one guy who might be able to get this poo poo done - is something I'd find more fun and more interesting than having a Ring of Invisibility (cursed). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'll give you some versions of Excalibur, but not the Ring. That thing is so far from a cool magic item that the smartest, most powerful beings in the world are scared shitless of touching it. If you're even thinking well maybe I could use it for good you're irrevocably hosed just from being near it for a while. Not in The Hobbit, where it's Bilbo's OP item.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Yeah, it sucks for defenders who don't get improved defenses and strikers who don't get a focus. Feats suck in 4e because of bloat and lack of interesting options outside of +X to y, but that doesn't mean there aren't great, build-defining feats having to compete with the scaling bonus taxes. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Not in The Hobbit, where it's Bilbo's OP item. but it would still be more fun to learn how to turn invisible than to find an invisibility ring
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
^^^ damnit! Tunicate posted:Not in The Hobbit, where it's Bilbo's OP item. In The Hobbit it's literally just a Ring Of Invisibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
kingcom posted:My understanding of those 4e math fixes is you dont really need them (except for stat change up ones) until level 5 or so? I've always felt like adding just a bunch of random feats up front kills a lot of peoples interest in 4e anyway. Seems like the better option is to throw them out when they are actually needed. Well, what happens then is you'll have someone who wants Staff Expertise or something at level 1, instead of waiting until level 5. So, if you gave them staff expertise, they'd take, like, that feat that lets you pick locks with your tiefling tail, but instead they're nabbing Staff Expertise because +1 to hit is literally one of the best things you can do in 4e. And then they don't get the cool little flavorful thing until level 5. Like, yeah, it's just +1 initially, there's no huge reason to give it to them at level 1. But, like, I can't really say there's a strong reason NOT to give it at level 1, and you're going to have at least one player who understands how powerful +1 to attacks is, and feel compelled to take it. 4e character building is complex enough that, if a person is going to make a 4e character, giving them those three feats or so isn't going to make them suddenly burn out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
For the old offline character builder I made a feat for people I was playing with that gave you the +1s at the appropriate levels (same type as the base feats so no stacking) + a bonus feat. Get all your crap and stay builder legal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, guys! I wasn't quite thinking about giving away "feat taxes" for free, and that I'm well aware of, but rather letting players gain feats as an organic part of adventuring the same way a Wizard builds up their spellbook over time, or how a Fighter might find a spiffy new item that gives them a cool new ability. I was coming at it from the perspective that (a martial's) feats and a spellcaster's spells are, in a way, similar if not exactly equivalent, and further that handing out feats in this manner will defray some of the opportunity cost of the "Power Attack vs Linguist" problem. Or, with regards to skills, just letting someone have the Profession: Baker skill points if they really care that much will let them invest the saved points in more "relevant" skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Covok posted:This is meant non-judgemenally and honest curiosity: what do those who like playing 5e like about it? Why do you choose to play it over other titles? I like that every d20 roll is some combination of Prof and Ability Mod. Not that I count on the designers to have done the math to make these equations work properly, but the concept is there. I like Adv/Disadv. I like that other bonuses are done using dice, rather than +numbers. I like the spellcasting over 3.X because I can actually parse the 5e poo poo. I also like how they implemented upcasting spells, and were able to condense the list and remove cruft that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Payndz posted:It's all down to 3e's boringly mechanistic approach of "the monsters must be able to do anything the players can do, and vice versa", isn't it? Pre-3e, if a DM wanted to have a mini-encounter with, say, a painting of a figure that could come to life and grab a PC to pull them into the picture, then they could just say it happens and be done. gradenko_2000 posted:Did anyone ever actually put points into Perform or Craft: Bread for "role-playing" purposes? And wouldn't that make 3rd Edition just "tabletop Ultima Online"? gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: If a player meets someone and there some downtime maybe they learn a skill/trade. During character creation (I would run kind of co-created mini-adventures so people had hooks to use for whatever about who they knew/ where they were from) it might make sense that they know how to do various things and if they wanted some extra NWPs that was fine. Sometimes things in a game made sense for someone to get a special perk based on [whatever], so why not. Thats one aspect of the role/roll argument. If the narrative lets something fun/interesting happen (that doesnt ruin the game/ make other players upset) then go for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Well, what happens then is you'll have someone who wants Staff Expertise or something at level 1, instead of waiting until level 5. So, if you gave them staff expertise, they'd take, like, that feat that lets you pick locks with your tiefling tail, but instead they're nabbing Staff Expertise because +1 to hit is literally one of the best things you can do in 4e. And then they don't get the cool little flavorful thing until level 5. I dunno, I find that most players aren't taking "flavourful" feats as their second feat, they'll just take something equally boring to Staff Expertise that isn't quite as good as Staff Expertise, like a +damage feat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I like that every d20 roll is some combination of Prof and Ability Mod. Not that I count on the designers to have done the math to make these equations work properly, but the concept is there. All of these things, and just in general I find 5e to be much cleaner than 3.5. It's got it's problems, but it's also a much easier to digest version of 3.5 that avoids, so far, all of its pitfalls with bloat that make it so off-putting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
The problem with feats is something that's haunted D&D for a long time now. It's the same problem that lives in utility powers. The same problem that haunted most 3e classes. In a game built around combat rules, where combat is almost consistently "win or die," where the entire point of the game is to kill the baddies...you have to choose between something that makes you better at all of that, and something cool and flavorful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem with feats is something that's haunted D&D for a long time now. It's the same problem that lives in utility powers. The same problem that haunted most 3e classes. In a game built around combat rules, where combat is almost consistently "win or die," where the entire point of the game is to kill the baddies...you have to choose between something that makes you better at all of that, and something cool and flavorful. Most of the combat encounters have something before or during them that using their other feats, proficiency and knowledge would allow them a major advantage or to circumvent them altogether. Not really sure how other people play the game but if D&D was a combat slog where it was one after another RNG number tests or die I don't honestly think we'd be playing very long in our group. I know people that would enjoy that, and I'm not making GBS threads on it, but I think the reason feats have worked well for us is maybe the way we approach the experience. The whole point isn't to "kill the baddies", there just are baddies sometimes. Edit: I fully acknowledge that a lovely GM, or a GM that is completely combat focused by preference would make this all impossible and all that's left would be the slog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Most of the combat encounters have something before or during them that using their other feats, proficiency and knowledge would allow them a major advantage or to circumvent them altogether. Not really sure how other people play the game but if D&D was a combat slog where it was one after another RNG number tests or die I don't honestly think we'd be playing very long in our group. I know people that would enjoy that, and I'm not making GBS threads on it, but I think the reason feats have worked well for us is maybe the way we approach the experience. The whole point isn't to "kill the baddies", there just are baddies sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Splicer posted:It's not entirely about focus, it's also about consequences. The consequences of failing to diplomacy good is vague at best. It will usually be a combat encounter or some kind of stealth mission or some cash loss or what have you. The consequence of failing to combat good is well defined: you and your friends lose more hp than you could have, resulting in either not getting to adventure any more today and/or dying horribly. Why? Not captured? Not robbed of their possessions and thrown from the whatever? Not saved at the last moment by the bugbear they let live two rooms ago (who dies in the process, ending that potentially positive arc)? You have more choices than that. Taking feats that affect things besides direct damage numbers have consequences that aren't immediate death, not sure why combat should be immediate death either. I know not everyone plays like this, and it would depend on the group, but we don't kill characters unless the players agree (though we're all story tellers and usually try to one-up each other and amazing deaths)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 15:25
|
|