|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I'm not really a watcher, I've seen a little but I think abandoning anything that disrupts the flow is the way to go. The creative/improv part is what's most interesting and, in my mind, the rules mostly serve to ground things a little bit. D&D as a computer game that happens to be manually implemented by a hardworking dude is much less interesting to me than the opportunity for engaging with the oft-neglected creative part of one's brain. I listened to last week's show today while I was working. I had the conversation from the recent pages in my mind and paid a lot more attention towards the things that I was enjoying more and less in an attempt to quantify them. What it boiled down to for me was that I really enjoyed the way the players all played off of each other. It really shone through when one of the actors was introducing his new character this game, so he had to RP a not-entirely new persona without obviously tapping any of the years worth of knowledge of the other characters. I found myself laughing out loud at a few of the jokes and situations and could pretty fairly state that I'm certain more than a few people who watch the game just wish for that level of camaraderie out of their game-mates. For Mercer's part, I observe how he DMs and his focus on keeping the flow and not getting caught up in "oh, ummm.. poo poo.. well.... okay.." moments. He's got the improv part down pat. When the players are drilling down on something irrelevant, he can ease them back towards more relevant topics, and when they miss something obvious, he doesn't prod them back, but lets them fail forward, as it were. I really respect that skill, much more so than having an encyclopedic knowledge of every spell and skill effect. If you watch him closely, he's constantly going to his phone and it's fairly obvious that when he's not swapping the soundtrack, he's looking up something in Fight Club 5e. It's not that a rules-light game would do any better or worse for them. Wizards has had Mercer up to Renton on more than a few occasions to brainstorm and collaborate, so he's vested because they're vested. I think D&D as a game, and 5th edition as a system is flexible enough to let people bend as-written rules and still maintain a level of cohesion that keeps things bound well. Mercer often over-inflates the HP of his creatures to account for the player characters being demi-gods. I think the berserker is up to a +8 modifier on his strength stat, but he's also level 17, 3+ years into playing a weekly character. They still use limited attunement rules and, for the most part, keep spells to rules-as-written, including numbers of spell slots. Their dragon fights really felt like they were coming down to the last desperate thrusts of what their characters could do before the baddies went down, and while some of that may have just been Mercer padding HP until it was desperation time, I'd count that as a part of his DMing skill keeping things exciting and close. Fudging rolls to keep a player alive at low levels vs. fudging HP to keep a fight going an extra round so it builds up a bit more tension achieves the same end for the players (and in Critical Role's case, the audience). Sure, it's not canonical D&D, but it's fun and it flows and the people have great rapport, and I think that's more important to any group than your literal adherence to written rules.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
Since the mass combat rules in the latest Unearthed Arcana are... actually kinda poo poo (see Jimbozig's post on the matter), how would you go about building a mass combat system for 5e? Besides the wonky math that Jimbozig pointed out, the main issue for me with the new mass combat system is that while it tries to be abstract, the moment you add PCs into the mix you're supposed to zoom in and play out the characters' actions round-by-round anyway (supposedly, because the rules don't exactly take into account the fact that mass combat rounds are one minute while player character rounds are 6 seconds or something). It's just extremely lazy. Besides obviously overhauling all the math, my first priority in making a mass combat system would be to make sure that PCs have some way of interacting with it, whether it's the spellcasters casting spells (buff spells might be too limited in range to be useful in a mass combat context, but stuff like fireball should have obvious uses) or Fighters doing fighting (since the assumption is that a single round of mass combat takes much more time than a single round of normal combat the Fighter taking part in battle should probably be abstracted in some way other than "roll ten rounds worth of attacks," even if it's just "the Fighter adds a bonus to their units' attack"). Were it me doing this I'd also take some ideas from Kevin Crawford's An Echo, Resounding, where at certain levels PCs gain abilities that are only of use in the mass combat and domain management parts of the game. These abilities would be based on the characters' class, so that Clerics could heal their units, Necromancers could replenish their units with skeletons, Fighters would have abilities based on inspiration and increasing the combat capabilities of their units, etc. I mean, that's a whole lot of nothing as far as actual mechanics go, but that's basically what I'd want a mass combat system in D&D to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
koreban posted:Critical Roll Thoughts Cool, good to hear peoples opinions on it. Is that last part directed at me or just a general comment? Ratpick posted:I mean, that's a whole lot of nothing as far as actual mechanics go, but that's basically what I'd want a mass combat system in D&D to do. Okay so heres a basic primer but just handwave the entire fight and just have it be a looming piece of terrain rather than an actual threat youre players are encountering. Figure out what you want your players to need to do to turn the tide of battle or if you're got more created players just have a brief description of whats going on and let them determine targets/objectives themselves be it targeting a leader, spellcaster, siege equipment, supplies or anything else they can think of. Have it be an encounter where the 'battle' is a fading terrain element that shifts into the battle and the 'tactical' people can see where its going impact next thank to skill check passes or just have everyone know. This fading terrain can be 'everything in this area is going hit by arrows' so its a bad idea to be nearby or maybe a 'cavalary charge incoming here', 'retreating group of soldiers', 'enemy reinforcements' etc. Apply penalties/debuffs/damage/movement issues etc to the affected areas and describe it as your characters taking the attack and killing anything that hit them by the time the round is over. Let the players make a skill check or do something creative to avoid it, mitigate it or take advantage of it. Be it a fighter leaping on a rogue horse thats passing through or have someone dive under a cart or be able to avoid the damage cause they have a shield to hide behind etc. Primarily make sure that 'success' is as a result of the player thinking. You can ramp up the type of events to show how the battle is going. Lots of retreating soldiers cause one side is winning or losing etc. Don't run it as an actual war or battle or anything, the 'battle' is just a looming threat the players need to avoid before they can achieve their goal in the battle. kingcom fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
koreban posted:Sure, it's not canonical D&D, but it's fun and it flows and the people have great rapport, and I think that's more important to any group than your literal adherence to written rules. yeah it's not like you could ever have both 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Since the mass combat rules in the latest Unearthed Arcana are... actually kinda poo poo (see Jimbozig's post on the matter), how would you go about building a mass combat system for 5e? Perhaps not directed at 5e specifically, but I think a quick-and-easy (okay maybe not so much) hackjob would be to just roll piles of d6 dice. Assign a scale of what a single d6 will represent, whether it's 50 peasants, 10 pikemen, or 2 dice to a single ogre, and then roll all of them. A 6 means a hit, and your opponent will have to lose that many dice. But the rolls and the dice-casualties are done simultaneously, so if you roll 10d6 and you get 3 hits, your opponent, who had 9d6 to begin with, still rolls 9d6. He gets 2 hits, and then you both process your respective casualties - him going down to 6d6 and you going down to 8d6. From there, it would be a matter of influencing things like some dice can't take casualties because they're in reach/in range, some dice have lower hit thresholds, and some effects can happen before the simultaneous casualty resolution. You could either represent the player-characters as part of the dice-pile directly, as in the Fighter is worth a d6 per level, or perhaps you could keep them outside of the resolution, but still influencing it, such as the Fighter rolling to attack with a d20, and that still counts as far as how many d6's get killed on the mass combat battlefield. And then the PCs could still take damage from the mass combat, such as losing 1 hit die per mass combat hit. This is probably a lot messier than it sounds like in my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is probably a lot messier than it sounds like in my head. It actually doesn't sound all that bad, since most gamers are going to have more six-sided dice lying around so rolling buckets of d6 would be very simple. The main problem I can see with it is that it wouldn't pass the obvious purity test of "everything must be d20+modifiers" that modern D&D is really hung up on. The way it was done in An Echo, Resounding, by the way, was to simply abstract a unit of 100 creatures into a single creature with the exact same statistics as the type of creature the unit was composed of, but it was assumed that a fully rested and reinforced unit would have maximum hit points per hit dice. So, a unit of your bog standard goblins with 1-1 HD would be treated as a single creature with 7 hp in mass combat. Player characters attached to units work as "support" units, which are single creatures that can be attached to a unit to give it bonuses, and player characters could gain new support abilities as they gained enough XP. At a high enough XP level PCs could advance to heroes, meaning that they would become capable of taking on entire units on their own (non-hero player characters who got swamped by an entire unit of creatures were basically dead). It's a simple enough system, but it's a bit too abstract, really: since units are still only making one attack each turn it's really swingy, with a really high chance of a unit not dealing a single casualty on an enemy unit, which stretches credulity in the context of mass combat where each round is supposed to represent a longer period of time. Related to that, it doesn't account for casualties in a unit in any way: the above goblins at 7 hp are fighting just as well at 1 hp, even though they've supposedly suffered multiple casualties. I kind of want something like that system, where I can simply eyeball a creature's statistics and through a simple formula convert it to a unit of multiple such creatures. That would also add a layer of tactical choices onto army composition as well, since elves are different from dwarves are different from orcs etc. Although that could be achieved through using something like your proposed d6 system and simply giving different types of units different special rules, as you said already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Does anyone have a good collection of 5e/NEXT playtest stories? I got into a discussion earlier and couldn't find the actual posts with the info. Since this kind of got lost in the UA talk, and I don't want to spam this thread, would the Industry thread be appropriate for this? I remember reading about people being dismissed because they brought up balance, and the entire thing being shut down at some point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Since this kind of got lost in the UA talk, and I don't want to spam this thread, would the Industry thread be appropriate for this? I remember reading about people being dismissed because they brought up balance, and the entire thing being shut down at some point? There was never any blanket shutdown of the playtest, but some goons playtested the game and ran it RAW. One of the first encounters was with like 18 rats, which had a pack tactics ability which gave them advantage on all attacks against enemies whenever there was another rat next to it, and because there were no swarm rules that meant having to roll 2d20 for all 18 rats one at a time, and on the players' side it meant taking out 18 rats one at a time. After the transcript was posted on WotC's forums they instated a "no online playtesting" rule which was frankly dumb. I don't think anyone involved in the playtest was dismissed outright for bringing up balance, but that the feedback of people with actual balance concerns was drowned out by the chorus of people going "the balance is just fine, it's a role-playing game not a roll-playing game." Even though someone might have crunched the numbers and made a big effortpost about it, it probably got ignored by the devs simply because of the general culture on the WotC forums. It's not that people were openly hostile to people with balance concerns or who had actually done the math, it's just that a lot of posters were very dismissive of those concerns; I already mentioned the "role-playing not roll-playing" argument, but others were "the DM can make sure that the game remains balanced," "it's not a problem in my games," and "hopefully this will be addressed with modules." It's actually very similar to what happened with Paizo's playtest for Pathfinder, except that with Pathfinder someone who crunched the numbers and argued for balance actually did get banned... but that was more about his confrontational posting style than the actual merit of his arguments. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Perhaps not directed at 5e specifically, but I think a quick-and-easy (okay maybe not so much) hackjob would be to just roll piles of d6 dice. You've pretty much reverse-engineered the combat system from Axis&Allies, which I've been saying 5e should steal for mass combat since forever. Conveniently, it also falls under the banner of WOTC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:gently caress yeah! Planescape! My favourite keys from Planescape games: the knowledge of a simple tune, a piece of art (any size) that is consumed upon passing through, a coin that has come up heads ten times consecutively, a piece of something long dead, and answering a maths puzzle. Also just walking through the portal backwards for that one xaos one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Is there any reason except DM fiat that I couldn't have a small character ride a Swarm beast through Find Steed? (I don't really see a mechanical benefit to it since the rider wouldn't take on the Swarm stat. It's just cool as hell -- edit: I guess the mount prone immunity)
Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:You could do what my players do with 5e, put it on their character sheet to see if I, uh I mean your DM, notices. Apparently, silence implies consent on rule breaking. One of my players, an Eldritch Knight figher, kept casting Thunderous Smite. I though it was weird, but didn't bother looking it up that night. By about the 6th time he used it I knew he had to be out of spell slots but gently caress it, he's an Eldritch Knight fighter. The next day I looked it up and we had a brief discussion about it. He realized he misread something. He seemed to be enjoying himself so his shiny new magic sword will probably let him cast smite spells for the hell of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Is the Gunsmith any good? I can"t tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Majkol posted:Is the Gunsmith any good? I can"t tell. From my glance it's pretty cool. On the Mass Combat rules. Large or bigger creatures need some sort of bonus. Calvery needs a bonus. And their needs to be some sort of attrition thing. As a unit of vets can't loose to an unlimited number of hill giants. As none of the hill giant units can damage the Vet one. Lots of refinement needs to be done on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
D&D Next: Lots of refinement needs to be done on it. What's a good new spell for a level 5 UA beastmaster ranger? I have goodberry for feeding my big, cure light wounds for healing my pig, and Hunter's Mark for shooting the people standing near my pig.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
So, as part of the same campaign above, I'm helping someone who has never played D&D before make a character to play. She wants to make a rogue or a bard, so I'm erring towards bard because I know Rogue is kinda a trap choice. Now, the custom races for this setting are: Gavony/Thraben human - +1 to all attributes Kessing Human - +1 Dexterity/Wisdom, Survival Prof, 40 foot move speed, Dash ignores difficult terrain, Spring Attack Nephalia Human - +1 Wisdom/Charisma, +4 proficiencies of choice. Stensia Human - +1 Strength/Constitution, Intimidate Prof, +2 hp every level My first thought is Nephalia human, to combine with Lore Bard and have her have, pre-background, 10 proficiency. On the other hand, that means Jack of All Trades is basically gonna be worthless. Kessing Human + Valor Bard also seems neat, but I'm not sure if Valor bard is easy to deal with. Lore Bard seems easier since it'd let her mostly sit back. Is ranged valor bard a possibility? If so, Kessing still seems bad for that, because all its bonuses seem to be closing distances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Cool, good to hear peoples opinions on it. Is that last part directed at me or just a general comment? General comment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:yeah it's not like you could ever have both Read your post again and realize how petty you sound when talking about make-believe elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Majkol posted:Is the Gunsmith any good? I can"t tell. Gunsmith is cool because it scales well for damage and has excellent flavor. Artificer in general is cool as hell. If the DM will give you good magic items then it could be super cool attuning hella magic. The pocket spells are cool too although early on they are not that useful. Also, the magic things you can make from artificer potentially give you at 10th level access to a one-time use magical tactical nuke in the form of a 2nd level bag of holding and a 10th level handy haversack. Putting one inside the other creates an astral gate that sucks everything in a 10 foot radius into it and closing with both items destroyed on the other side. Never know when you might need to sacrifice your mechanical beast heroically delivering a magical dirty bomb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Majkol posted:Is the Gunsmith any good? I can"t tell. Disclaimer: Most of this was written under the mindset of having the Gunsmith be mechanically useful and have a basic set of combat options to keep it interesting and fun to play as long as possible. As a straight 1-20 class it's pretty okay. Nothing incredible, basically does what it sets out to do - an int-based ranged rogue with 4 levels of built-in casting. Get bigger damage on your attacks, but only attacking for big damage once per round. Detect Magic/Identify as rituals is handy enough early on, it's got lots of utility spells and it's fairly self-sufficient, and the pet and free magic items every couple levels are all perfectly fine features. The pet itself is way better than the ranger's pet, and it can be any large beast. Which includes Rhinos, and Giant Octopuses, and Giant Elk, all of which are pretty great options. Like the rogue, it gets better the more traditionally dungeon-crawly your group is. It's also got a decent spell list, but only having 4 levels of casting hurts. In combat, the single-target/cone/line/blast gun attacks options it gets later on can make it feel an awful lot like a 3.5 Warlock, in a good way. You get just enough options that you probably won't end up doing the traditional martial class Move -> Attack -> Repeat combat loop. Out of combat, you're also fine, the Artificer spell list is mostly support and utility options. Disclaimer 2: before multiclass discussion, an important part of the Gunsmith is the noted lack of the Loading property on the Thunder Cannon. The Thunder Cannon does not actually have the Loading property, despite requiring a bonus action to reload. Which is what the Loading property does. It just doesn't call it the Loading property. This was likely intentional to prevent players from finding ways to circumvent the Loading property. Even the Crossbow Expert feat only includes crossbows with which you are proficient, so even if you said that the Thunder Cannon had Loading, it wouldn't be ignored by that feat. So, the options for multiclassing with the Gunsmith Artificer need to be weighed by what you need bonus actions to do - you're not likely to get anywhere building around using your bonus actions for anything but reloading. Still, if you've got a GM that's on board for some gunnery shenanigans, you can make way different builds happen by being able to attack more than once per bonus action. You won't break the game by being able to shoot twice in a round, it'll just be noticeably more flexible for multiclassing. It's probably better as a multiclass option. Either taking 1 level or 6 levels at first would probably be best. If you're just interested in Have Gun, 1 level will get you Gun, plus some basic utility spells. 6 levels will get you the spell infusion, a 2nd "free" magic item, an extra attunement slot, and most importantly, the excellent mechanical companion. You could theoretically go to 7 right away since that bumps up your Thunder Monger special attack bonus damage from 2d6 to 3d6 and gets you access to some fairly useful 2nd-level spells like Invisibility, but you're going to get better returns by leaving it there and switching to another class at least for a few levels, then coming back for the rest. Or just going Wizard forever, but, wizards. Grabbing 2 levels of Fighter just for Action Surge and the Archery fighting style could get you some decent nova damage, and a 3rd level will get you an archetype. While none of the archetypes are incredible, they can provide some additional flavor and some useful mechanical benefits. Battlemaster lets you do some neat long-range support with your maneuvers if you're looking to take the class in the direction of a more traditional support sniper type while still giving plenty of personal benefits, and gets you even more tool proficiencies if you're into that. The maneuver list does have plenty of options that don't specify melee weapon attacks and that don't require using a bonus action, which plays nice with the Gunsmith. Eldritch Knight is more straightforward. Weapon bond with your gun and gets you some more spells and spell slots. Nice to have if more diverse casting is higher on your priority list. We don't talk about Champion. Rogue is also a nice option if you're interested in doubling down on the expert self-sufficient scout sniper type. 3 levels would get you 2d6 of Sneak Attack, the rogue expertises, and an archetype. Cunning Action is flavorful as a slippery, constantly repositioning gunner. As for Archetypes, Arcane Trickster is about as useful as Eldritch Knight, except instead of a weapon bond you get a fancier Mage Hand. Also, since you need advantage for your sneak attacks and you really want your one attack per round to hit, the often-useless spell True Strike is marginally less useless. Not a great option, just finally has an application. Thief could be a flavorful for a stealthier, acrobatic gunsmith but it's really not worth it mechanically. Assassin, though, is usually better than the other two. Right away, getting advantage basically for free as long as your initiative is very very useful. You really want advantage on your first attack per round against an enemy, because it's probably going to be your only attack that round. You're planning to get a surprise round on people, and you're going to do a lot of damage to whoever you shoot. Also, the auto-crit on a surprised person is self-evidently great. Dealing HP damage with attacks vs AC isn't the foreverbest option later in levels, but you'll be pretty good at it. Ranger, despite seeming like it could maybe be useful for once, remains as Not Good as ever. The Archery fighting style is still handy, sure, but you can get that from Fighter. The ranger's spellcasting being Wisdom-based means you're getting stretched pretty thin re: ability scores. Hunter's Mark could seem nice, but since you're not making multiple attacks per turn, it doesn't make that much of a difference. Lightning Arrow would be cool too but it requires taking 9 levels of Ranger, which, ugh. You also can't get much out of the later class features because things like Horde Breaker or Volley are locked behind being able to attack more than once per bonus action (reload). Gunsmith probably wouldn't mix too well with Cleric or Druid, since their casting is keyed off a third ability and you need Dex/Int as high as you can get them. I haven't done too much digging into possibilities there though. Wizard is as always a good class, especially since you share a spellcasting modifier. It doesn't bring many benefits besides being Wizard, But Gun. Bard seems like it'd be a good pairing, but again, a lot of Bard stuff is also locked behind bonus actions. Don't mix with: Barbarian, Paladin, Warlock, Monk, Sorcerer. 3 Rogue/3 Fighter/14 Gunsmith is a perfectly serviceable build. I'm sure there's ways to make a more technically powerful version using Wizard shenanigans, but that's boring. This will get you all the special gun attacks except the fireball one, which for a 17th-level ability is pretty underwhelming anyways. It does get you 3rd level casting, which includes such fun spells as Fly and Haste, so that's nice. Assassin Rogue and Battlemaster Fighter is probably the cleanest route, but any combination of Assassin/Arcane Trickster and Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight is a fine combination. Pick a combination of damage, support abilities, utility, and spellcasting that you like. You're going to be able to do plenty of damage from really, really far away, and you'll be plenty good at sneaking, you've got a backup plan of skill expertises, and you have a scary robot deer to back you up. You won't be able to cast Wish or anything but that's not the Artificer's thing in the first place. Note about feats: The Sharpshooter feat is pretty drat important for the Gunsmith. Lucky is always good. Skulker is neat, if not the most immediately powerful. The one main problem with the Gunsmith is that it's only okay at a bunch of things other classes are better at. It's set up to do a bunch of damage in one shot from far away, but it's not really all that great at it. It's pretty good at it, yeah, but even just a decent Warlock EB build does more damage, can do it from further away, only uses a cantrip to do so. Admittedly the flavor of using a gun instead of a spell is appealing, but nevertheless the Gunsmith is just not the best at anything. Moreover, single attacks are generally worse than multiple attacks since d20 systems are so swingy. It's somewhere between Rogue and Bard and Ranger, and that triangle of classes is composed of two bad classes and one good class. Then, the two best paired classes for multiclassing are Rogue and Fighter, which are notoriously underpowered. Mind, it's not as generically undirected as the Ranger but it's still a bit mushy in places. All that said, while it's not the most effective class, it's perfectly serviceable if you're not too concerned with having the biggest numbers. Even just taking all your levels in Gunsmith, you've got a nice set of combat options, some neat class features, and enough magic and skills to be able to have plenty of noncombat narrative influence. It's not ever going to be better than a full caster at high levels, but that's not the Gunsmith's fault, really. It's a fine class. Not amazing, not terrible. Play a gunsmith, shoot some mans, you'll probably have a great time. Plus you can get a really gnarly mechanical rhino, so, that's cool. Rip_Van_Winkle fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:So, as part of the same campaign above, I'm helping someone who has never played D&D before make a character to play. She wants to make a rogue or a bard, so I'm erring towards bard because I know Rogue is kinda a trap choice. Now, the custom races for this setting are: Rolled Stats or Point buy? If you're going point buy with a bard i'd go for the +1 all attributes human. Stensia could be really good if they go for a Valor bard though purely because the flat bonus hp is going to make them a surprisingly solid stack of hp. Take 1 level in a heavy armour class and you are concerned and have the full plate bard getting stuck into melee combat. kingcom fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
koreban posted:Sure, it's not canonical D&D, but it's fun and it flows and the people have great rapport, and I think that's more important to any group than your literal adherence to written rules. P.d0t posted:yeah it's not like you could ever have both koreban posted:Read your post again and realize how petty you sound when talking about make-believe elfgames. So make-believe elfgames could never possibly be well-designed enough that "literal adherence to written rules" could also facilitate a game that is "fun and flows," is your argument? Because my argument is simply that if 5e were better designed, it could hit all those marks without needing to change or ignore the RAW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
I know we're not allowed to compare 5e to other games, but can we provide games where literal adherence to the rules creates fun and flow?! Because it's not impossible, and there are many examples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
At this point no one is arguing those assertions. Yes, there are games with tight rule sets. Yes, there are games with make believe elves. Yes, there are games where people have fun while playing. You can have 1 or 2 or 3 of these and still have a great time. What is not a great time is the broken record of petty edition warriors who take every opportunity to remind the people that post in this thread that it's an imperfect system. Thanks for the post pettyman.dot. Got it. Your concise 140-characters-or-less burn got me to reexamine my life and give up my RPG system for your preferred choice, because I am a single-issue player and if I can't have a specific rule for each interaction in my role playing elfmans game, well, my rights as a consumer are being infringed and I will not abide by that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
koreban posted:At this point no one is arguing those assertions. The point is, having all three lets you have the greatest time of all. There are games that have all three. Many people feel that 5E does not have all three, and would benefit if the designers found a way to ensure it does. That is a perfectly valid criticism to make of the game, and a perfectly valid one to make in the thread about the game. Edit: I play and run 5E, am I allowed to talk about its obvious problems in this, the 5E thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
koreban posted:At this point no one is arguing those assertions. I play and run 5e, am I not allowed to talk about it? Also nice meltdown. e: If your argument can be torn down by a tweet, it's probably a bad argument lmao.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:The point is, having all three lets you have the greatest time of all. There are games that have all three. Want to count how many times that perfect valid point has been made over the last 20 pages? And I would assert that you can have just as good a time with a game if you had a good group of friends and a DM who's halfway decent at improvisation, even with a less-than-perfect system. Maybe shift the crusade into getting people to do the game playing and world building for a month, then as they start to complain about a bad rule or unclear description you can start the system warrioring up for a bit. Might even change a mind or two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I think the point is that if players come to the table wanting to play a game like the critical role people do, they need to make sure the dm is on the same page or be ready for disappointment
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
koreban posted:Want to count how many times that perfect valid point has been made over the last 20 pages? I play and run 5E because one of my game groups likes it, and like gaming with them. I also play and run it to help out my friend who owns a game store, because it is the most popular game. I also run it because some friends who are curious about gaming are curious about D&D specifically. The criticisms that come up in this thread are always on my.mind when I play and run the game. They are on my mind when I plan sessions, and think about the game. They are on my mind when I read this thread. Is there unreasonable that I, and others might want to discuss them, talk about how they could be fixed or consider alternatives? You have an very narrow view about what is appropriate discussions about a game. quote:And I would assert that you can have just as good a time with a game if you had a good group of friends and a DM who's halfway decent at improvisation, even with a less-than-perfect system. And I would assert that you are categorically wrong. System matters. A system that better supports the game you want results on a better game. A good group can have fun with a bad game; they can have more fun with a great game. quote:Maybe shift the crusade into getting people to do the game playing and world building for a month, then as they start to complain about a bad rule or unclear description you can start the system warrioring up for a bit. Might even change a mind or two. What does this even mean. I've posted more positive content in this thread than I have negative. When I play the game I don't spend time criticising the rules unless rules anlysis comes up. I dont understand what you are accusing me of?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
People arguing that 5e is a rules-light storygame unsuprisingly ignore things that get in the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
koreban posted:Want to count how many times that perfect valid point has been made over the last 20 pages? What positive thing did you want to talk about? Like you spent the last week just bitching about bitching, did you have anything worthwhile to say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
When I talk about the stuff in D&D that I didn't like and handwaved away, it's because I'm trying to faciliate everyone having a good time with the best ruleset in the world, and everyone should stop complaining about it. When you about the stuff in D&D you didn't like and made changes to, it's because you're a petty edition warrior who hates D&D, and I will complain endlessly about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
koreban posted:Want to count how many times that perfect valid point has been made over the last 20 pages? Hey, I'm bad at reading tone in a text format but your initial response came off as a smug as gently caress 'look at those rules lawyers smugggo smug smug' kinda of statement and why I was asking if that was a specific thing you were trying to call someone out on. As someone who intentionally runs off the cuff, dismiss rules as need to make a fun and enjoyable time, I was very confused as to why it felt like you were taking some kind of pot shot. I mean I'm all for calling someone a loving idiot if they are wrong just dont passive aggressive it if thats the intent and if its not, maybe try and phrase it a big cleaner next time? kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
http://dnd-5e-homebrew.tumblr.com/post/147716547969/princess-class-by-by-impersonater This is loving amazing in how absurd it is. I absolutely must find a game that will let me run it and then do the most ridiculous things possible with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:http://dnd-5e-homebrew.tumblr.com/post/147716547969/princess-class-by-by-impersonater There is so much flexibility in this class and effort here. I also sort of stopped reading skills when I saw one of the classes at fifth level becomes a walking spell slot recovery mechanism as a bonus action which, wowzers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:http://dnd-5e-homebrew.tumblr.com/post/147716547969/princess-class-by-by-impersonater This is some classic rear end homebrew here, shove everything all over into it with minimal regard for how it might interact with eachother or other aspects of the system. EDIT: I'm the no save minimal cost suggestion cast lol. kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
I'm the choice between "can't lie" and "can be ended by a Sleep spell"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I'm the choice between "can't lie" and "can be ended by a Sleep spell" No I'm actually the choice between 'all your features add up to basically a fighter' or 'gets two extra characters who are buffed by your inherent stats and get better over time as just the opening archetype feature' kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Hey, I'm bad at reading tone in a text format but your initial response came off as a smug as gently caress 'look at those rules lawyers smugggo smug smug' kinda of statement and why I was asking if that was a specific thing you were trying to call someone out on. As someone who intentionally runs off the cuff, dismiss rules as need to make a fun and enjoyable time, I was very confused as to why it felt like you were taking some kind of pot shot. I mean I'm all for calling someone a loving idiot if they are wrong just dont passive aggressive it if thats the intent and if its not, maybe try and phrase it a big cleaner next time? Those specific replies were to thefakenews and p.dot's posts. I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I wasn't trying to call you out and was making a general statement instead. I apologize that you felt that I might have been taking shots at you, that wasn't my intent. The shots at thefakenews and p.dot were intentional. thefakenews posted:Is there unreasonable that I, and others might want to discuss them, talk about how they could be fixed or consider alternatives? You have an very narrow view about what is appropriate discussions about a game. Nope, that would be great. Your posts from a couple days ago talking about Streetwise skills was a fine example of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
koreban posted:Those specific replies were to thefakenews and p.dot's posts. I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I wasn't trying to call you out and was making a general statement instead. I apologize that you felt that I might have been taking shots at you, that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying I was offended just giving you a heads up as to the reason people started firing back on you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:30
|
|