|
neonchameleon posted:OK. Fighter and Barbarian are dull Barbarian is also so shittily designed. Like, they tried to take the 4e conceit of a Barbarian strong-o-man and then shoehorn in far more MAD while completely missing the point of secondary/tertiary stats. Like, gently caress. 
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Crasical posted:I'm gonna end up in a 5e game, probably. There's a guy that plays a Sorcerer As support at one of my games. Twinned Spell lets you somewhat sidestep the Concentration limit and if you have two Fighty types double Enlarge is hilarious. MC bard for inspiration dice/cutting words and be a 5e Lazylord? I like being the support caster so I don't know if that counts as boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:...and the rogue is a bit better (it's the edition with the second best rogue, but that's faint praise). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I think he was referring more to the phenomena of every pick up table and Roll20 group trying to stream to Twitch because they think it something was fun to play it'll be fun to watch. They checked out Critical Role or the Acquisitions Inc. podcasts and didn't get that one is literally all voice actors who make a living being funny elves and the other throws the rules out as soon as Chris Perkins thinks they're impeding the show. I was just musing about this earlier today, because Mike Rugnetta (Idea Channel dude) was asking about RPG gameplay broadcasts on Twitter, and there's really two kinds: super loving boring ones where they play by the rules, and entertaining ones where the focus is on being performative for an audience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:There's a guy that plays a Sorcerer As support at one of my games. Twinned Spell lets you somewhat sidestep the Concentration limit and if you have two Fighty types double Enlarge is hilarious. MC bard for inspiration dice/cutting words and be a 5e Lazylord? The most fun character I've ever played was a lore bard with three levels of sorcerer for the metamagic. That kind of character can just break the narrative over its knee if it wants to with Dimension Door and Detect Thoughts alone, but Heighten Spell is absurdly powerful on a character than can get any spell it wants to with Magical Secrets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Crasical posted:I'm gonna end up in a 5e game, probably. Warlocks are spellcasters, so by nature they have a lot options, but their somewhat-limited number of spells known (especially 6th level and above) and small spell list keeps them more sane than, say, a wizard or bard. The invocations and different pacts you can take make playing one feel like you're building your own class as you level. Their primary stat is Cha, so you can enjoy success in the social pillar of the game if that's something you're into. The invisible chainlock familiar is borderline-OP since it can take basically all of the risk out of exploration, so be mindful of that if you go that route and want to avoid being That Guy. Paladins offer a bunch of options to spend their bonus action, concentration, and limited number of spell slots on. One of those options is to deal lots of single target damage, though, which is fun. Positioning is also more important for them than most if you want to keep allies in your aura. Critical hits double smite dice as well, so they pair really well with anyone who can confer advantage to your attacks. Or just do it yourself with Mounted Combatant and Find Steed. Monks seem a bit one-dimensional because of how good stunning strike is, but they also get 3 or 4 ways to use their bonus action each round, a few ways to spend their reaction other than opportunity attacks, and gain a bunch of built-in abilities over time that are equivalent to level 1 and 2 spells. At high levels, Empty Body gives you the benefits of Greater Invisibility plus Rage. And about stunning strike, very few things in the MM are outright immune to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Yeah, Old One illusionist warlock owns. Do all the illusions, all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:Paladins offer a bunch of options to spend their bonus action, concentration, and limited number of spell slots on. One of those options is to deal lots of single target damage, though, which is fun. Positioning is also more important for them than most if you want to keep allies in your aura. Critical hits double smite dice as well, so they pair really well with anyone who can confer advantage to your attacks. Or just do it yourself with Mounted Combatant and Find Steed. Paladins are cool, as long as you can get into melee... and someone else in the party is casting Bless, so you don't have to 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
One of the players at my table is a charlatan mastermind rogue with the actor feat and just enough Great Old One warlock multiclass to get telepathy and disguise self at will. He's thoroughly mediocre in combat but is already hilariously gamebreaking at social interactions even though this player lacks the sense to take advantage of how easily he can mimic anyone complete with forged identification papers. Instead he mostly uses disguise self to wear different color kilts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Barbarian is also so shittily designed. Like, they tried to take the 4e conceit of a Barbarian strong-o-man and then shoehorn in far more MAD while completely missing the point of secondary/tertiary stats. At least Bearbarian is about as tough as you would think a barbarian should be. Not in any way fun to play, but tough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Unless someone decides to use spells on you, then you're poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Is this game fun if you're playing a caster at least? Because it sounds like every non-caster class has issues. I'd like to know because it's the only game people even play these days and I'd like to know if I should bother joining a game.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Is this game fun if you're playing a caster at least? Because it sounds like every non-caster class has issues. I'd like to know because it's the only game people even play these days and I'd like to know if I should bother joining a game. Depends on how much you care about balanced and engaging tactical combat. If you're okay with knocking out or avoiding fights all together, casters are great. Just cast your best spell through the highest slot you can. Otherwise, it's pretty underwhelming. Roleplay and out of combat is still roughly the same as usual (ie woefully undersupported), so it's really about your combat play style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Is this game fun if you're playing a caster at least? Because it sounds like every non-caster class has issues. I'd like to know because it's the only game people even play these days and I'd like to know if I should bother joining a game. I mean, how much to you love bog-standard D&D-style gameplay? Because that's what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
NovaLion posted:What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues? The typical responses are either Dungeon World, or 13th Age, or 4th Edition, or any of the TSR-era D&D's, or a retroclone of a TSR-era D&D that converts the game to ascending AC. Depending on what you want out of the game. EDIT: Oh yeah, and Strike too
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Dungeon World and Strike seem to be common answers to that question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
NovaLion posted:What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues? For fantasy gaming? BECMI and Dungeon World, but only because nobody wants to play Strike. e: That was really unclear. I'm happy with both BECMI and DW, but I really want to have a decent go at Strike. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
NovaLion posted:What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues? For fantasy gaming my group plays DCC. Super streamlined, great art, and tons of content
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Is this game fun if you're playing a caster at least? Because it sounds like every non-caster class has issues. I'd like to know because it's the only game people even play these days and I'd like to know if I should bother joining a game. If you have a good group, 5e is fine. This holds true for most games (but yes, do play a caster.) I'm definitely of the belief that people are more important than the platform. Sure other systems have better rules, but it's not like 5e is so bad it's not worth playing at all. Try it and see what you think. Adventurers League is where play close to me happens so we play by-the-bookish 5e and have a good time. After a few bad experiences with pickup games of 40k I thought I'd never find a good group of randos for D&D after moving but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:For fantasy gaming? BECMI and Dungeon World, but only because nobody wants to play Strike. Strike is remarkably dense in terms of writing style for a game that's supposed to be simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Is this game fun if you're playing a caster at least? Because it sounds like every non-caster class has issues. I'd like to know because it's the only game people even play these days and I'd like to know if I should bother joining a game. 5e is a game I don't think I'd even casually recommend but if some cool buddies invited you to play a game you'd probably have an alright go of it. It's not both offensive and complex the way a lot of 'bad' games are. It's more just underwhelming than egregiously bad, doing virtually everything worse that it sets out to do than other, similar games. If you can stomach Pathfinder/3.5 than you can stomach 5e. It's got less support than 3.XX but it's also less bloated, so that could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective. There are games I won't play even if the coolest friends I have invited me to play them. 5e is not one of those games. It's perfectly serviceable if that's what's being offered. It's the Diet Pepsi of games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Diet anything just has such an awful after taste. This may or may not be part of this analogy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Diet anything just has such an awful after taste. This may or may not be part of this analogy? Sort of yes. Virtually anyone would rather have something besides Diet Pepsi - regular Pepsi, Diet Coke, plain ol' water, whatever, but most people will accept a Diet Pepsi if that's all that's being offered, even if it's not like, a personal favorite. A small group of people hate Diet Pepsi and would rather die than drink it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Sort of yes. Having given both diet products and 5e a decent shot and coming out with a really bitter aftertaste, I mostly agree with this analogy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The typical responses are either Dungeon World, or 13th Age, or 4th Edition, or any of the TSR-era D&D's, or a retroclone of a TSR-era D&D that converts the game to ascending AC. Or Pathfinder, which has its own issues but is still better than 5e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Strike is remarkably dense in terms of writing style for a game that's supposed to be simple. I'm not sure Strike is "supposed to be simple." I've always thought it was "supposed to be 4e" but with less/none of the superfluous number-scaling, and better out-of-combat stuff. I'm not sure that billing would imply that it'd end up as anything but dense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Or Pathfinder, which has its own issues but is still better than 5e. That's pretty subjective; I've played more 3.5 than PF or 5e, and I'd take 5e over either of those. But in the context of the original question: NovaLion posted:What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues? I don't think anyone is "switching to" PF after sampling 5e, per se. Edit: VVVV it's this for me, too P.d0t fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Or Pathfinder, which has its own issues but is still better than 5e. One of the things I hate about Pathfinder, and one of the things that I think gives a few points in favor of 5e for me personally, is that I can't stand the bloat of 3.XX. Like in 5e at least you don't really need to sit down and plan your character 20 levels out to hit all your prestige classes and optimize your bonuses. While playing a martial is marginally more plausible in 3.XX it requires a dedication to gimmick and build that can set the bar way higher than your average 5e game. The culture that seems to surround that style of play is off-putting in its own right, too - theorycrafting a bunch of builds as a sub-game within the game is pretty common and, if you're like me, pretty annoying. And sadly required. Of course the only reason 5e doesn't have all that is because Wizards keeps failing to produce new content, so I'm not sure I'd confidently list that as a feature so much as a lazy, lazy bug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
That, and they've repeatedly moved to make their game integrated with itself as little as possible. You can't do as many wicked gimmicks both because there is less material overall and because the material is mutually exclusive half the time. Even when they trip up on the natural language and it sounds like you should be able to do things. EDIT: You see, we have magic and magic. Casting Dispel Magic dispels magic, but doesn't dispel magic. It depends on if the magic you're trying to dispel is magic or if it's magic. That other kind of magic that isn't magic for the purposes of Dispel Magic. I'm glad I was able to clarify that for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Or Pathfinder, which has its own issues but is still better than 5e. Lol this is not true in the slightest. Run far away from Pathfinder
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Yeah, what the hell, 5e is by a wide margin the lesser of two evils in that matchup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
I'd probably rather play 3.5/PF than 5e but that's only because I kind of enjoy the character building/optimization aspect of 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
If I'm going to play a game where I've resigned myself going in that I will need to modify the rules and ad hoc my way through play, I'd far rather be selectively removing/limiting/modifying existing core rules content than creating core/essential rules content out of thin air on my own. Especially if I'm paying cash for the rules either way - I'd have more rules than I care to use than fewer rules than I need to use. The same goes for playing: I'd far rather play a system where the baseline provides solid expectations for how play will run, with DM vetos and patches as needed than a system where the baseline does not cover all the bases and the DM needs to build up. In each scenario, you have the potential for each gaming group to run totally different play. However, in the first you have a reasonable expectation (one way or another) of what that is going in. In the second, it's all up in the air. And the lazy thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Bloat is a blessing and a curse depending on how you look at it. PF/3E has bloat. 4E has bloat. If you throw a newbie at everything those games have to offer then you might as well be prepared for them to say "what the gently caress is this poo poo" and go find something else to do, I've seen this happen with a buddy of mine trying to make a Summoner for Pathfinder Society night and getting incredibly frustrated/overwhelmed by his inability to take the simple idea in his head and carve it out of the giant block of marble that is the Accumulated Body of Pathfinder Stuff. Otoh, there's enough stuff for Pathfinder that by sheer virtue of brute force you can actually curate a selection of classes where you have martial options that, if they aren't Tier 1 grade, are at least not "Next Ranger" level garbage and casters that don't completely throw balance out the window by sneezing if you're knowledgeable enough and feel like putting in the work to do it. It's not that this is an ideal situation in the slightest but at least some of the work is done unlike with Next where if you want Rangers and Fighters that don't stink on ice then it basically boils down to "how well can you homebrew?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
NovaLion posted:What system are you all switching to, if 5e has so many issues?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
My friends and I are playing 5e and we're having plenty of fun. I've never played a D&D or anything like that but it seems okay. We're all baby level 2 players and my wizard appears to suck terribly at this point. When am I supposed to come alive and actually help the barbarian and monk in fights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:or try to fill in the gaps of my lovely homebrew through campaign-based playtesting. I'm leaning this direction, too. What sort of "heavy house-rules" do you have in mind for 4e?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
I play 4e for my fantasy RPGing these days. I've tried a few other systems (pretty much all the usual suspects) but eventually just went back to 4e. I haven't had a chance to try Strike though, I feel like I'd probably like that. There is still a friends 5e game I play in occasionally, but that game ended up being pretty heavily house ruled and only looks like 5e if you stare at it kind of funny at this point, so I barely know if I should count it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Scyther posted:Yeah, what the hell, 5e is by a wide margin the lesser of two evils in that matchup. Pathfinder has its flaws but at least it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't like 5e does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:26
|
|