|
mormonpartyboat posted:i think one chance out of twenty is roughly 1/20 Yeah, but doing probability for how many charges you will get by assuming that you will get 20 rolls before the downgrade is plainly wrong. You can't reasonably assume you will roll a 1 on only the last roll of the set of 20.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
MTV Crib Death posted:Anyone have any simple battery/charging mechanics for technology? Or something I can easily rip from another system? My players want to play in a world where it's most fantasy, but where they can also discover items and weapons from an ancient hi-tech civilization. Should I just treat them like wands and give them limited uses? Maybe rare charging stations that can only recharge one or two items? And then only halfway? Maybe there's a dice roll to see if the artifact breaks? If you're as lazy of a DM as me, the recharge mechanics on several magic items in the DMG should work just fine for this and give you a couple options. Charges can either be depleted forever, or they can recover after long rests at whatever rate you deem balanced, and if they use the final charge, there can be a 1/X chance for the item to break. If you're looking for flavor for the recharge, just say that its batteries need to be recharged by some kind of built-in system: fantasy plutonium, solar panels, whatever. Personally, I simply use existing magic items in the DMG as a template, tweak as needed, and reskin. The wands of magic missiles my party found in a crashed spaceship are, in their mind, Needlers from the Halo series. The circlet of blasting got turned into a phaser rifle, and I tweaked it to allow the user to use their ranged weapon attack bonus instead of the +5 the stock item provides to better fit the flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Yeah, but doing probability for how many charges you will get by assuming that you will get 20 rolls before the downgrade is plainly wrong. You can't reasonably assume you will roll a 1 on only the last roll of the set of 20. You can't assume you will roll a 1 at all in a set of 20. What you can know, however, is that on average you will have 20 rolls from your magic item. You may have more, you may have fewer, but that's how averages work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
wisdomHNOX posted:You can't assume you will roll a 1 at all in a set of 20. What you can know, however, is that on average you will have 20 rolls from your magic item. You may have more, you may have fewer, but that's how averages work. The mean (expected value) will be 20. The median will be less, and represents N where half the time it will take fewer than N rolls and half the time it will take more. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1119872/on-average-how-many-times-must-i-roll-a-dice-until-i-get-a-6 I apologize for my unclear language.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The mean (expected value) will be 20. The median will be less, and represents N where half the time it will take fewer than N rolls and half the time it will take more. Even if you take the method that guy used in the link no you're still getting 12-13 rolls before you can expect a 50% chance of a 1. And also, my bad for not using a specific form of average in a conversation about probability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
There's three kinds of "average" There's the mode, which is "If you did this a billion times what would be the most common?"* Since we're rolling until you get a 1 and then stopping, the mode will actually be rolling a 1 first time. Then there's the median, which is "If you did this a billion times and put all the results in order, what would be in the middle?"* which my quick back of the envelope calculations say is 14. This means that slightly more than half of people will have rolled a 1 by their 14th roll. If you were just rolling until you hit a 1 and then it died straight away this is the one you'd care about. Then there's the mean, which is what most people mean when they say "average", which is "If you did this a billion times and added up all the rolls needed to hit your first one and the divided by a billion, what would you get?"* which is 20. Given that we're actually looking for the average of multiple sequential "first to 1"s triggered by each other this is the one we want . So "about 60" is the right "average" for the whole d20 + d12 etc thing. *this is a convenient lie Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
behind door number one is a d20 being downgraded and behind doors numbered two and three are nothing
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:behind door number one is a d20 being downgraded and behind doors numbered two and three are nothing Always swap the door
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:I wasn't suggestting it as "gently caress your players, they have a trap for that," I was going more for "find creative ways to mess with your players using surprisingly intelligent weak enemies." Big things with big HP quickly become boring- the first fight being meant to demonstrate how the characters feel about adventuring at that height of power. Then they experience a challenge that they would never expect. For this type of inspiration I'd also look at "The Trickster" enemy from Grimrock 2 (the greatest game of all time): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yW9a3KpCw&t=955s (should start at 15:55) The Trickster is a tiny, cackling leprechaun and the hardest enemy in the entire game - he just sprints around, pulls levers that release enemies and open traps, and pelts you with molotovs from a distance any time you stand still. He's such a little fucker!! And because of that he's also one of the most memorable enemies from any game I've ever played.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
That trickster reminds me of the Nilbog. I just read about him the other day too. Sneaky bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Without spoilers, has anyone been through the Maze of the Blue Medusa? My group just jumped into it and I am hoping it's not awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:That trickster reminds me of the Nilbog. I just read about him the other day too. Sneaky bastard. Nilbogs are fun. I am glad that 5e made them less of a screw you monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Without spoilers, has anyone been through the Maze of the Blue Medusa? My group just jumped into it and I am hoping it's not awful. It's a Zak S product. Run way the gently caress away from Gamer Manchild's poo poo. For bonus points, Maze is designed for OSR systems, not 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Is this game still broken in the same ways as like a year ago or have they fixed anything? I just remember playing an unfun mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:Is this game still broken in the same ways as like a year ago or have they fixed anything? I just remember playing an unfun mess. There are versions of the ranger that don't suck compared to other martials now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
So it's still worthless compared to the casters, and is there a reason to pick a non caster class in this edition?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:So it's still worthless compared to the casters, and is there a reason to pick a non caster class in this edition? 1) "Worthless" in the sense that it lacks the ability to control the narrative like casters can, yes. 2) There is indeed a reason. That being, "I want to play a non-caster class." (You never said it had to be a good reason.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:So it's still worthless compared to the casters, and is there a reason to pick a non caster class in this edition? Depends on the DM. If you're playing murder hobos with one battle a day, then non-casters are very sub optimal once you hit middle levels. If you have three battles a day along with exploration and social encounters, then casters will be playing very conservatively with their spell slots, and won't dominate the game till much higher levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Ah. Is early campaign play still the same as before or did they release something like 4e where a couple formulas were tweaked in later books?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:Ah. Is early campaign play still the same as before or did they release something like 4e where a couple formulas were tweaked in later books? 5e hasn't had any major official (non-UA) releases, content-wise, except for Volo's Guide To Monsters, which only adds a few monster race options (with Kobolds and Orcs being the only races with stat penalties). And the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide also adds a couple of things I think? But yeah it hasn't had any math changes or anything that I know of. Intellect Devourers are still CR2, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:But yeah it hasn't had any math changes or anything that I know of. Intellect Devourers are still CR2, etc. Let's be honest about that. They're specifically mentioned for being minions in Illithid areas of the Underdark. They're meant to be minion-type foes for Mind Flayers (CR7), and under Mind Flayers' entry it suggests that lone Mind Flayers are outcasts and they generally congregate in hive-like lairs with lots of other Illithids and their minions. Just because the book doesn't specifically call out that monster *only* for use as minions in level 14+ encounters in Mind Flayer lairs doesn't mean that wasn't the clear and obvious intent. You can hit WotC for doing a lot of half-assed and dumb things, but that one's just lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
They haven't released anything in the last year but adventures, I think. EDIT: I should refresh more often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Volo's Guide to Monsters does have some non-monster PC races as well, like the Asimar who have some fairly good stat lines. Sword Coast Adventurers Guide has some class options that are okay to middling, others have some bizarre race restrictions that you're heavily encouraged to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
They are probably gearing up for a new book soon, all these new UA articles are going to lead to something. Q2 maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
koreban posted:Let's be honest about that. They're specifically mentioned for being minions in Illithid areas of the Underdark. They're meant to be minion-type foes for Mind Flayers (CR7), and under Mind Flayers' entry it suggests that lone Mind Flayers are outcasts and they generally congregate in hive-like lairs with lots of other Illithids and their minions. Even if that was true this CR 2 thing can easily kill a level 20 character. If that character is not a Wizard, you know the thing they should theoretically be most interested in eating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Even if that was true this CR 2 thing can easily kill a level 20 character. If that character is not a Wizard, you know the thing they should theoretically be most interested in eating. Very much so. Again, this seems clear to me since it specifically mentions that you need a Wish spell to restore a brain to a devoured character. The CR2 is more reflective of the design to have them at 21hp, which is the balance point for having such potent abilities. Hit on WotC for not putting a sidebar on the page saying "These are minions for Mind Flayers and not meant to be used against a low level party", but it really should have been obvious. Same with CR2 Gelatinous Cube, since it only has to get to a character and have them fail a DC12 dex save or they're going to be in serious trouble as well (3d6 acid damage plus 6d6 acid damage, blinded, restrained, suffocating). CR isn't a hard-and-fast rule for appropriately challenging creatures based on the party level. They just do a poo poo job at explaining the swarm/minion encounter design vs. challenge rating aggregate when dealing with things like oozes, intellect devourers, yuan-ti and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
koreban posted:Hit on WotC for not putting a sidebar on the page saying "These are minions for Mind Flayers and not meant to be used against a low level party", but it really should have been obvious. 5e was my first system both playing and GMing. This was not obvious at all for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
koreban posted:CR isn't a hard-and-fast rule for appropriately challenging creatures based on the party level. They just do a poo poo job at explaining the swarm/minion encounter design vs. challenge rating aggregate when dealing with things like oozes, intellect devourers, yuan-ti and poo poo. Then what the gently caress is it for? Because that is what they sell it as.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Kibner posted:Then what the gently caress is it for? Because that is what they sell it as. It's a guideline to assist with encounter building, which is wholly different from single monster challenges. MM pp.4 "guidelines for creating encounters with monsters can be found in the Dungeon Masters Guide." DMG pp.82 sidebar "When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose challenge rating is higher than the party's average level... In addition, some monsters have features that might be difficult or impossible for lower-level characters to overcome. For example, a rakshasa has a challenge rating of 13 and is immune to spells of 6th level and lower. Spellcasters of 12th level or lower have no spells higher than 6th level, meaning that they won't be able to affect the rakshasa with their magic, putting the adventurers at a serious disadvantage. Such an encounter would be significantly tougher for the party than the monster's challenge rating might suggest."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
It's not really feasible to put a warning on every page for a monster that might be intended as a lair minion and be balanced for higher level encounters vs low level solo monster fights. There's probably a challenge metavalue that could have been used instead of straight CR, but they didn't go that route, so you/your GM would just have to understand this and not be a dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
koreban posted:Let's be honest about that. They're specifically mentioned for being minions in Illithid areas of the Underdark. They're meant to be minion-type foes for Mind Flayers (CR7), and under Mind Flayers' entry it suggests that lone Mind Flayers are outcasts and they generally congregate in hive-like lairs with lots of other Illithids and their minions. Doesn't the Starter Kit adventure toss a couple of these into the basement of some gangster's house?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
LFK posted:Doesn't the Starter Kit adventure toss a couple of these into the basement of some gangster's house? The Nothic? It has a rotting gaze that does 3d6 damage if you fail a DC12 Con save. Depending on how much poo poo the party does before going into the lair they might be level 3 by that point. But, the adventure makes clear that it would rather negotiate than fight the adventurers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
koreban posted:It's a guideline to assist with encounter building, which is wholly different from single monster challenges. I understand what you mean, but a CR13 monster no-selling a Wizard below its level is way different from a CR2 monster that can punch hugely above its weight class. Times like this I really miss the Minion rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Question for anyone who has Curse of Strahd. My rogue chose investigation and stealth as expertise skills. But so far (Death House) the DM has never let me roll investigation for anything, even when I say "I want to investigate this (something we see in the room)" the response is always "Sure! Roll perception." My DM runs things basically by the book and I'm wondering if I made a serious mistake by taking investigation as an expertise skill (or even a trained skill period) for this adventure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
nelson posted:Question for anyone who has Curse of Strahd. My rogue chose investigation and stealth as expertise skills. But so far (Death House) the DM has never let me roll investigation for anything, even when I say "I want to investigate this (something we see in the room)" the response is always "Sure! Roll perception." My DM runs things basically by the book and I'm wondering if I made a serious mistake by taking investigation as an expertise skill (or even a trained skill period) for this adventure. Ask him if you can use investigation instead of perception. He may not be comfortable with the differences between the two. Use terms like "look for clues" or "deduce the meaning of" and if he says "roll perception" just politely ask to use investigation instead. Page 178 of the PHB describes them, for reference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
koreban posted:Ask him if you can use investigation instead of perception. He may not be comfortable with the differences between the two. Use terms like "look for clues" or "deduce the meaning of" and if he says "roll perception" just politely ask to use investigation instead. And if he says no, talk to him after game/during a break, describe exactly the issue you're having and ask if he doesn't mind you changing investigation to perception, as that is the theme you were going for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
koreban posted:It's not really feasible to put a warning on every page for a monster that might be intended as a lair minion and be balanced for higher level encounters vs low level solo monster fights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:this is bullshit. It absolutely is feasible to give a warning, all you need to do is give it a [pet] tag, and explain that tag somewhere easily accesible. Or, if you don't want someone to fight the dog without its master, make the dog a function of its master instead of giving it its own page. what video game world of warcraft mmo online elder scrolls game board game game bullshit is this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Yeah, you totally didn't get what I was saying, so I'll try it again: I don't think it's feasible in the way that the monster manual is organized (alphabetically) to put a sidebar or descriptor that explains precisely how WotC envisioned each and every one of the monsters to be used. Not only is that somewhat arbitrarily restrictive, but it pigeonholes creativity. If your intellect devourer is supposed to be a mind flayer pet or minion by description, it sort of nullifies by specificity any sort of lone devourer or independent packs of devourers (say, as survivors of an adventuring party's attack on it's master's lair). The players would have a documented entry to point at and say "you're DMing wrong! See!?! It's bullshit to throw one of these at us outside of a Mind Flayer encounter!" When it may be totally thematic and appropriate otherwise. Now, I *did* say that they could have used some sort of metavalue, which you caught on to with your [pet] tag (though I disagree with the word choice, you got the idea). But they didn't. Probably opting for the freedom to allow the DM to choose his encounters with the caveat from the DMG that some monsters are not CR/Level appropriate for all parties. As pervasive as "ask your DM" is to rules questions or unclear wording choices in the PHB, "Don't be a dick DM" and "Read the monster entries before throwing them at your players" should be equally ubiquitous for DMs looking to integrate this sort of monster into his game. It's not advanced DMing or integral calculus to build encounters. A CR2 monster is not the exact same as another CR2 monster because CR isn't a measure of an individual creature's difficulty, but rather it's contribution to an encounter's overall challenge. You're not going to throw an intellect devourer at a party of level 2 characters if you're being a not-a-dick DM. You're going to stack a couple of CR2 Intellect Devourers with a couple CR7 Mind Flayers when designing an encounter for level 15-18 characters. Watch, I'll show you how: CR2= 450exp CR7= 2900exp Encounter: 2 Mind Flayers and 2 Intellect Devourers (450 + 450 + 2900 + 2900) = 6700exp. That puts it solidly in the 15th-16th level party's Deadly encounter range, or right about the Medium to Hard encounter range for an average 19th level party. That's before you calculate the encounter multiplier of (x2) for having between 3 and 6 creatures. So If you're doing this legitimately, you're probably staggering the initiatives that the monsters appear slightly so the party isn't facing off against 4 active, powerful monsters at once. Otherwise you're looking at a 13,400exp encounter, which is about 700exp over the level 20 Deadly difficulty value. That's with just 4 creatures. 184 total encounter HP. Page 82 of the DMG if you want to read up on how to design encounters and incorporate monsters. I mean, that's the rules part, the figuring out what's appropriate to put in front of the party sort of assumes common sense. You're free to get mad that they assumed common sense, but your idea of Challenge Rating = Creature Power wasn't right and that's what I was trying to point out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
What muddies the waters is that once upon a time, CR actually was directly proportional to a character's level That is, a single CR 4 creature was an "average" difficulty fight for a group of four, level 4 PCs. And four CR 1 creatures were an "average" difficulty fight for a group for four, level 4 PCs. And four CR 2 creatures were an "average" difficulty fight for a group for four, level 5 PCs. And four CR 3 creatures were an "average" difficulty fight for a group for four, level 6 PCs. And so on and so forth ... Because 5e uses the same terminology, you almost think that it's still true. But it's really not. Allow me to present this analysis again: Part 1 Part 2 The Intellect Devourer is CR 2, but even if we assume that all CR 2 creatures are built equally, per the DMG's encounter building rules, a party isn't even really meant to fight CR 2 creatures (on the regular) until at least level 7-8 Per the revised encounter building rules in a later Unearthed Arcane, a party isn't supposed to face them until at least level 5. Any time earlier and they'd absolutely be "boss" type characters. A single CR 2 creature has an XP value of 450. Four level 2 PCs have a combined total Medium difficulty threshold of 400 XP. That means four level 2's facing off against a single Intellect Devourer is supposed to regard it as a Hard fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 11:09
|
|
