|
Andrast posted:The thing about splatbooks/extra material is that you aren't forced to use them. I fail to see how getting almost nothing at all is an improvement. Had a look, the release schedule is... sparse. And largely built upon the worlds that D&D has used before, they're leaning heavily on their existing IP rather than writing new ones. People like Ravenloft and Athas and Ebberron. I can get that, Drizzt sells novels, he might be a bullshit special snowflake drow mary sue but he sells novels. It makes business sense to build 5e on a platform of nostalgia. Remember Modons, we have Modons again. Remember Elemental Evil, its back. I really didnt need 5 Monster Manuals.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Kommando posted:I, for one, would like less splatbooks and feature creep for once. 5e is the LNP of rpgs hth (i love this filter). EDIT: Actually more like the Country Liberals, a garbage arm of a powerful but evil group kingcom fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I missed it when you originally posted it, but having re-read it now, I think that's perfectly fine. Cheers. I bought an extra PHB because total newbs with 1 book and 1 tablet made things really slow. kingcom posted:5e is the LNP of rpgs hth (i love this filter). LNP in my vocab is Liberal National Party. What are you trying to say here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Kommando posted:Had a look, the release schedule is... sparse. If your monster system is well designed then yeah you don't need a bunch of MMs, but player and class options are an almost limitless moneywell to tap,
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Help me out here Shadeoses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
5e bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Kommando posted:Help me out here Shadeoses. kingcom posted:5e is the LNP of rpgs hth (i love this filter).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Kommando posted:Had a look, the release schedule is... sparse. where are you getting your information when do i get a book that adds new battlemaster maneuvers, they've already created dozens of new spells surely they can spend a modicum of the effort required on that to make some new maneuvers. maybe make some of them stronger and level-gated so i'll actually get excited when i get to pick new maneuvers
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
I would love it if there was like, a collection of house rules or gameplay quirks* people use to make the game better. *For example, our fighter can attack twice per standard action, and we used to have them roll once, see if it hit, then roll damage, then roll the second attack, and now we have them just roll 2d20 to speed things up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
FAT BATMAN posted:I would love it if there was like, a collection of house rules or gameplay quirks* people use to make the game better. Like this, but roll your attack die and damage dice at the same time for every attack; if you miss, just disregard the damage 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
All you need to know about 5E's product offering in comparison to any other edition can be summed up in one page, and it is a doozy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks The 3E splatbooks are pretty much beyond count, it's totally loving nuts. And almost everything counts as a player book in 3E because they dropped player options of some kind (almost always spells and feats, even if just a couple of pages but often much more) into almost every book, even if it was purportedly for DMs. Note also the Wikipedia editors have gone over each release in painstaking detail because One True Edition. 4E also has 20-30 splatbooks alone even with much less time as the edition of note. 5E has... Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and some modules, not even that many. And some web content that is not adventurer's league legal because fun is the enemy. It kinda breaks even since the web content is 95% wizard creep, but there you go. "This list does not include books designed for use as premade adventures," the article says at the top of the page, but if you excluded those from the 5E list, there'd pretty much be loving nothing. The offering is small-scale on a historic level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
More than that it includes the four adventures that were released before 5e came out that touted "Forwards compatibility", and the DM's screen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
I can't believe 5e came out two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I can't believe 5e came out two years ago. Jesus, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Decided to give 5e hombrew a try. The Survivor - Fighter Archetype is all about staying alive. The Commander - Fighter Archetype is my attempt at a Warlord in 5e. What y'all think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Well obviously, when it comes to questions about additional class/archtype/player options, D&D 5Es main design tenant really showcases itself ask your dm 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
I know "Ask your DM" is such a great riff on 5e's philosophy but come on.. The Survivor seems like a fun idea, but I'd give the Quick Healer ability sooner and the "advantage on death saving throws" later. Or maybe they should have advantage on death saving throws super early, or something so that they get 1HP back on more than just a 20. It seems like you're following the way 5e gaps out new abilities, but I'm not a big fan of the way abilities are spaced out in general, instead of gaining proficiency and advantage on all saving throws at 7 and 10, you could have them gain proficiency and then advantage in one type of saving throw per level? Something like what Fey Ancestry is for elves, I mean, per level. Advantage on charm spells, then poison attacks, then reflex saves, whatever, until eventually you have advantage on every save. FAT BATMAN fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
To some degree, I am locked in to 5e's advancement schedule since I can only plug-in an archetype to where the class allows it. Well, technically. I could maybe dish out the benefits of those archetypes more evenly instead of it being a lump sum, yeah. Fighters get so little that it'd hardly seem like bloat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Covok posted:Decided to give 5e hombrew a try. The survivor has the same problem as the Champion: you can dump all the combat math on the Fighter and it won't make them overpowered. They don't get any buttons to push (all passive stuff) and they don't get any more narrative agency. As for the Commander: In some places where you use the clause "Expend a command die and roll it. The result of that roll is how many allies who are affected by this command." maybe consider using an ability mod in place of the die roll. This would give you a range of +3 to +5, assuming you're using your highest mod, and it'll improve if/when you bump that stat. Similarly, with "Hit their weak spot!" and; I'd consider tying the crit-range bonus to an ability mod, and the rounds to a d4 roll. Tying anything to Charisma is kinda eh, because very few feats use it and Fighters don't use it for spellcasting (and they're already M.A.D. enough, IMHO) "Not today!" and "Try again!" are too similar, keeping them separate just seems like a tax to your Command pool. "Get Away From Them!" is too situational; I'd drop the fluff and just make it a bonus to any Ability Check. "you can do it if you try" probably needs to get merged into "get away from them" and/or rewritten similarly to what I've suggested for "hit their weak spot" "You're stronger than that" is pretty weak for a single attack, but could be potent on something like Fireball. Maybe add it to all damage rolls on a given turn, so it would apply to Extra Attacks and TWF? Level 3 - Used to Yelling and Lying: again falls into the problem of Fighters not needing a high CHA, and it only granting 1 Prof is weak; look at something like Knowledge Domain for comparison. Honestly, I'd do something like "add half your proficiency bonus to any CHA checks that don't include it, or double the bonus for checks that do include it." Kind of a mashup of Jack of All Trades and Expertise. Level 7 - Not-So-Lazy-Lord: you can't take bonus actions on off-turns, so the mechanics of this are kind of wonky. Also LOL at commands using your Action (assuming it's one that has to be used on your turn). You're basically trying to use workarounds so that Commands don't invalidate the Fighter's Extra Attack; a better way would probably be to make Commands a Bonus Action. Which basically should be baseline, so then you can add an actual feature at level 7. Level 10 - Improved Commanding: again, if you use a number that already would scale up, instead of a die roll, you could put an actual new/good feature here instead of a boring math fix Level 15 - A Throat that Never Dries: same as above, this is bullshit. It doesn't seem good at a level 15 feature, it should be right at level 3 (and you could even make it "you have CHA mod # of dice if you start with 0 when initiative is rolled" if you want.) This basically takes a Short Rest ability and adds on "at-will, once per encounter" to it, which is wholly underwhelming. tl;dr All the way down the line, you end up just removing barriers that shouldn't exist in the first place. Contrast that to the fact that spellcasters are getting more spells AND slots as they level, and you're just a linear Fighter whose features keep doubling-down on that. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Alright, how about this? I think this avoids MAD with the new level 3 power and gives it an overall power boost. For the commander.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Covok posted:Alright, how about this? I think this avoids MAD with the new level 3 power and gives it an overall power boost. For the commander. Yes. Much better. Really like the guaranteed minimums feature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
I decided to completely remove Charisma and just link it to an archetype specific stat known as presence. Advances at the same rate and use the higher of it and your cha mod for cha skills. Here is the link to the new draft. I felt keeping it tied to Charisma could trick newbies to pumping Cha instead of more important stats. Edited: Fixed the wording on the level 3 power. Covok fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Kommando posted:Mothballing? We're just getting started. Speculation based on the release date, and the sudden and unexpected ramping up of their D&D RPG staff. This has historically only happened in the ramp-up to a new edition release. But who knows - maybe they're growing to actually produce supplemental material? Kommando posted:I really didnt need 5 Monster Manuals.  I can never have too many monster manuals. That's the only book that they can make more of, and I'll eat it up. It's added content, without added overhead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I would like monster manuals more if they didnt have so much loving filler. Great, a buzzsaw headed gopher... really can't wait to work this in
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:I would like monster manuals more if they didnt have so much loving filler. Great, a buzzsaw headed gopher... really can't wait to work this in That's cool with me as long as it has a mechanically interesting gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's cool with me as long as it has a mechanically interesting gimmick. Thoon Thoon Thoon Thoon
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's cool with me as long as it has a mechanically interesting gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Additional monster manuals work when it's a) easy to adapt and change monsters with some slight tweaking, and b) they have interesting mechanical concepts. This is why each 4e monster manual was better then the last - they got better and better at a and b, b especially. It's why the 13th Age monster manual is so good - they again stick the landing with both. 5e has the same problem 3e had, which in turn is the same problem most of D&D has had: neither of these are true. Pretty much every monster is a list of stats that don't really match up to any formulas at all, and the most interesting they get is a small list of spells they can cast. Monsters are entirely interchangeable because almost none of the mare mechanically unique, except they also aren't because there's no real way of knowing what a monster's stats SHOULD be at any given level. I can see 5e not needing more monster manuals, because, well, they won't actually add anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
So the numbers don't creep up so much in fifth right? But hp still goes up. And monster damage goes up. So does concentration dc scale well? I'm seeing thirty damage hits at level six, I don't think dc 15-20 con checks are far away. Now, mostly i just don't get hit. However, starting next level I'm going to polymorph 1 hp heroes into monsters and the gm is going to go nuts after me. Edit.. I could go for resilience or war caster but improved invisibly and positioning Is probably the plan I'll go with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Has anyone had a chance to check out Tome of Beasts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Additional monster manuals work when it's a) easy to adapt and change monsters with some slight tweaking, and b) they have interesting mechanical concepts. This is why each 4e monster manual was better then the last - they got better and better at a and b, b especially. It's why the 13th Age monster manual is so good - they again stick the landing with both. Even with the throwback bullshit they could have used the stuff from 3.5's MM5, where they put mode changes and unique abilities and whatever into a bunch of the monsters. But then didn't, because that would be
Roadie fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I never really played 4e, but it had some great monsters at the end - I loved the Cataclysm Dragons (the ones that embodied natural disasters) and the star spawn stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Even with the throwback bullshit they could have used the stuff from 3.5's MM5, where they put mode changes and unique abilities and whatever into a bunch of the monsters. I was about to say this - MM5 (and to a lesser extent 4) was good and they should have kept doing those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Is the online virtual tabletop as messed up as I think it is? I was looking for a way to play some casual 5e online for a Tues or Weds nights since my wife works, and I have the place to myself. I look around at the options and I see there is: Fantasy Grounds, which looks really pretty and functional. Then you notice you need to pay $40 for the engine which basically does nothing on its own, then you need to buy the module to allow you to create/use 5e classes for $50 unless the DM buys an ultimate license for a huge pile of money that allows everyone to use everything he owns. Seems completely ridiculous. Roll20, looks to be mostly free unless you want to buy pregenned stuff for a minimal cost which is on the DM. You can get a subscription to hold your generated characters to import into other games easier. Looks like the best option so far. d20pro - Looks like they are going the same way of Fantasy Grounds. Buy it for $40, then buy the modules after that. They don't support 5e yet without hacking 4e. Looks like it may be a money sink again. Okay, so maybe you have a solid group of friends who are into it and are willing to play and split the cost. It works out, but generally you end up playing all of this in person if that's the case. Some exceptions like people who moved away etc. It might work. I would imagine this is a niche amount of people overall. Now to the crux of it all. There seems to be no real time LFG / LFP front end on any of these systems. A DM can't just create his own one shot/campaign, set the amount of seats to 7, then set it to on and it fills up as people have the client open and they see his game pop up. If it's a weekly game it can be set to private until they need an extra player while the game is actually being played. Why doesn't this exist? To get into games, it's all really poor forums, and half baked game search systems. I looked at a game someone wanted to run today, and he wanted 6 players. Over 20 people posted they wanted to play. It seems the matchmaking for these systems is the achilles heel right now. They need to effectively implement real time server browsers so people can jump in, join, create, and play. Am I off base in thinking that trying to play a casual one shot game every once in a while is just not going to happen with these online systems? I'm patiently waiting for the local shops to start season 5 of AL to begin in a few weeks, so I'm out in limbo just wanting to play here and there until then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Roll20 is far and away the best option right now, and offers the kind of support for online gaming that should have been there 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
I killed a Ghast, solo, in three combat rounds from 90 feet out. Sure I'm level 4 but it felt really good singlehandedly killing the thing in charge of an undead attack on the town without the creature even being able to see me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
roll20 is your best bet. I'm a subscriber and I don't even use all the bells and whistles - I just use it to have an online dice roller in the chat, integrated VOIP, and a whiteboard to scribble on. Most of the time I just have people keep and maintain their characters sheets somewhere else, like a Google Docs. There is no good centralized solution for finding players. We're not yet at the level of "open up an L4D server with 5 slots and wait for people to fill it up"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Additional monster manuals work when it's a) easy to adapt and change monsters with some slight tweaking, and b) they have interesting mechanical concepts. Like knowing that a creature [THING] eats X to fuel its ability Y and has its mating season in the [SEASON] pre-loads me for stories about it without me randomly shoe-horning the thing in. If the players happen to be near a source of X they might run into a feeding [THING]. I care about continuity a lot and the more of that stuff the better. I agree that the mechanical stuff should be tweakable, but it basically always is..? This is also easier when there is some narrative continuity to use in the story though. For anyone that came in after the 2e era, take a look at The Illithiad. That one book did more to make that race usable than almost anything, and it did it by filling in the missing lore. (This is the same thing that happened to the Drow. The original Drow entry in the 1e EDIT FRINGE fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:I care way more about story/setting/ecology/customs/feeding/breeding stuff than mechanics. Adding abilities is easy compared to cranking out all the stuff that makes a new entity "fit" in the world. I'm of the opposite mind; I find it much easier to pull all the fluff out of the air rather than try to hack up a stat/ability block on-the-fly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 04:20
|
|