|
I knew that calling out lovely posts was going to get a backlash. That tends to happen.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
thefakenews posted: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. Yeah this is kinda why we shitpost about you koreban so hard and so many other people. The kind of stuff you say is like the textbook poo poo I hear from people who exclusively play or run their one system regardless of tone/style/setting/theme etc. I don't know the first thing about you but its almost like a markov bot when this particular topic comes up. System is really drat important for things. People like talking about running Curse of Strayd and horror style adventures but D&D has always been really bad at that. Sure you can put something together and have a lot of fun but at any moment you can have someone realize 'oh wait im a cleric this poo poo doesn't bother me cause I can just heal past it or I'm a paladin I dont give a gently caress'. Compared to a system that inherently provides you with that tone and theme and mechanics you can work into it and promote the idea that you're in way over your head and the things you're up against are far out of your league without giving you a combat rating. Looking at the agent's example about his horror game, I as a play in a D&D game would probably assume that if we encounter a vampire, we're supposed to trap it and kill it or charge in heroically to spoil its evil ritual cause thats what the mechanics imply to me. You put me in the shoes of a Dark Heresy character and tell me a demon is coming I look at what my lovely pistol would do to my health and realize I don't stand a chance in hell even if that thing is just as dangerous as me, or if I look at the fear rules and realize my best chance is to put as much distance between me and it as possible. Like yeah, I get not wanting to be told to go play something good but I also wouldn't come out and say system doesn't contribute much to how enjoyable the game is. If that were really true, why would you even need Dungeons and Dragons, just have a flat one stat game where if you roll under you pass, over you fail, stat is numbers 1-5. Clearly system must add something to the game or nobody would bother changing off of that. mastershakeman posted: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 EDIT: Holy poo poo i agree with mastershakeman. Thats basically the crux of what I'm going on about. I mean yeah you can totes do a light hearted just kinda fluff it game with DnD, people did that for years with pathfinder, 3.5e, AD&D2e etc. None of that actually means thats what the system is good for or even how it would instruct someone on what its for so its a pretty interesting disconnect if you go from a show you enjoy about that light hearted off the cuff kind of gameplay to a system they really gets you to dig into some numbers and plan out character builds. The most interesting thing to learn about D&D's history for me was just how huge a variance their was with how 3.5e worked on even the most basic of things. I really love just how many different interpretations of 'auto-failing on a 1' both fluff wise and mechanically there are in the world. Some people assumed any 1d20 roll of a 1 was an auto-failure, some used it only for combat, some assumed any 1 was some catastrophic bumble rather than just a fail. The important point to note is that everyone pretty much believed their rule was the official rule rather than the house rule they had just absorbed over time. I genuinely blew someones mind and stopped the game for a big rules lookup in a game of pathfinder when I told people a 1 on a skill check wasn't an auto fail. EDIT stuff for clarity cause god I ramble kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
kingcom posted: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. Why the +1 all attributes? I know I can abuse point by to end everything on odds for full benefits, but that seems like a lesser benefit than +1 to her main stat and +1 to a useful skill stat, and then four extra skills? I'm not sure the reason for it, though I'm open to having it explained why that's a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Yeah this is kinda why we shitpost about you koreban so hard and so many other people. The kind of stuff you say is like the textbook poo poo I hear from people who exclusively play or run their one system regardless of tone/style/setting/theme etc. I don't know the first thing about you but its almost like a markov bot when this particular topic comes up. System is really drat important for things. People like talking about running Curse of Strayd and horror style adventures but D&D has always been really bad at that. Sure you can put something together and have a lot of fun but at any moment you can have someone realize 'oh wait im a cleric this poo poo doesn't bother me cause I can just heal past it or I'm a paladin I dont give a gently caress'. Compared to a system that inherently provides you with that tone and theme and mechanics you can work into it and promote the idea that you're in way over your head and the things you're up against are far out of your league without giving you a combat rating. Sure, I don't disagree with any of that, and I'm of the belief that it's not just the system's responsibility to get the player's buy-in to the situations. You can use system features to encourage certain types of behavior, but they can also be constraining in ways that aren't fun. I get it. quote:Looking at the agent's example about his horror game, I as a play in a D&D game would probably assume that if we encounter a vampire, we're supposed to trap it and kill it or charge in heroically to spoil its evil ritual cause thats what the mechanics imply to me. You put me in the shoes of a Dark Heresy character and tell me a demon is coming I look at what my lovely pistol would do to my health and realize I don't stand a chance in hell even if that thing is just as dangerous as me, or if I look at the fear rules and realize my best chance is to put as much distance between me and it as possible. The Dark Heresy example is, perhaps, a bit out of sorts here since it draws upon another existing IP that has tone in spades. Like, the thing 40k has going for it is the grimdark, and just about everything in it derives *from* that or adds *to* it. quote:Like yeah, I get not wanting to be told to go play something good but I also wouldn't come out and say system doesn't contribute much to how enjoyable the game is. If that were really true, why would you even need Dungeons and Dragons, just have a flat one stat game where if you roll under you pass, over you fail, stat is numbers 1-5. Clearly system must add something to the game or nobody would bother changing off of that. I agree with this, 100%. The posts I was replying to were mainly one-liner shitposts that existed just to remind everyone here that the person making the post dislikes Dungeons and Dragons of the Fifth Edition. My "beef", as it were, was with the low-effort shitposting. I'm down with talking about how the system's shortcomings stack up and what people can do in situations where you come upon those shortcomings as a player and a DM. Hell, I took a lot of learning from this thread a year and a half ago when I started DMing for my friends. I attribute that we're still playing to a lot of goons making a lot of good posts about what could be otherwise seen as bad parts of the system. The difference between a year and a half ago, and now, is that you could go more than 10 posts before seeing a, 8 word "D&D 5 is bad" reply. I'm pointing at the bad posts and pointing out that they and the people making them are bad. I realize that it won't make me friends of those people. Maybe it'll help make some better posts, and maybe Ettin will PM or probate me to tell me to chill out. Last week was a shitshow in the thread and I, for one, would prefer that it not be a regular occurrence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
gently caress it one more thing to point about that princess class features. You can have a 24 in wisdom or charisma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:Why the +1 all attributes? I know I can abuse point by to end everything on odds for full benefits, but that seems like a lesser benefit than +1 to her main stat and +1 to a useful skill stat, and then four extra skills? I'm not sure the reason for it, though I'm open to having it explained why that's a good choice. Shes playing a lore bard so I'm not sure what you need the extra skills for anyway to be honest. By level 3 you'll have 6 (and jack of all trades for everything else AND expertise to boost those proficient skills). I mean yeah having 10 skill proficiencies might be useful but I'd much rather have 3 stats starting at 16 than worry about picking skills from the ones i've past over on the initial 6 i've planned out. Only reason I would pick the Stensia human for the Valor bard is because with a nice 14 con + 2 hp gives you a fat 1d8+4hp so it makes you somewhat viable to stand near the front provided you got some solid armour + shield on top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Barudak posted:gently caress it one more thing to point about that princess class features. You can have a 24 in wisdom or charisma. It's like groverhaus, every time you look at it you see something new and dumber. Load bearing charisma to AC. koreban posted:The Dark Heresy example is, perhaps, a bit out of sorts here since it draws upon another existing IP that has tone in spades. Like, the thing 40k has going for it is the grimdark, and just about everything in it derives *from* that or adds *to* it. I'll stop jumping on you then and try and talk about poo poo. So I think Dark Heresy is a good example here, its a system with a hilarious mountain of issues but its entire presmise is trying to make sure you as a player and your character are operating in this universe like the fluff explains it as. Everything is bigger, scarier and you're way over your head. You never reach the point where you aren't fragile. You can be legitimate murder death machines but a regular dude with a pistol taking a shot at you is just as dangerous at character creation as it is deep into the game (you've probably just put together a lot more ways to deal with it by then but if you strip out the buildup and context that never changes). Every single mechanic in that system is built around reminding you that the universe is a harsh and uncaring place, so the fluff informs the mechanics so that the mechanics can reinforce the fluff and tone of the game its running. It informs character behaviour you know to run from 'unholy monster' or 'an alien' its just inherently a big deal because you know they have scarier stuff than you do and the stuff you have is life threatening. D&D does this as well for its niche but its niche involves lots of book keeping and fiddly little things that make absolute sense in the context of how their game works. Take example the carry weight system. Everyone i've every played dnd with ignores it. Its just the easiest way to deal with it. If the goal is an action/adventure story, why not create a inventory/weight system that encourages that. To again steal a star wars example, they try to inform the game mechanics to be like the thing they are trying to recreate. In star wars people dont really loot weapons unless they arent currently carrying one themselves, so the 'encumbrance' system is more about having a very small cap on how much you can carry: An average person has like 7 encumbrance and a blaster rifle is 4 encumbrance alone so its very clear you tend to have your characters one or two things and thats about it. It means the age old question of 'why dont i pick up and carry like 30 blasters and sell them when we get out of here because holy poo poo are they valuable' is something you as a GM don't even need to consider as an issue because the mechanics have got you covered and established why you just dont really do that. D&D is a game originally about hauling treasure out of a dungeon, where leaving it was a big decision point because if you left the dungeon would repopulate with monsters but no new treasure was going to show up so you had a wall of worthless encounters to deal with. Therefore you had to carefully manage exactly how much you were carrying and what you decided to take or what you thought was valuable a critical part of the game. Additionally, raw goal was what you got xp from so deciding between a magic item or jewelry that may or may not be worth anything vs the heavier goal coins was a interesting decision that the group all argued and weighed in on. In the modern game, thats not really a thing, the answer to what you are taking out of a dungeon is 'everything' assuming you even go into a dungeon to begin with. It opens some interesting questions about what every individual GM does about it and what player who takes advantage of this (so much so that the golfbag fighter is a long standing 3.5e trope) limitless capacity does and how it makes things like a bag of holding now more of a novelty item than a real mechanic powerhouse as it once was. kingcom fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
kingcom posted:It's like groverhaus, every time you look at it you see something new and dumber. Load bearing charisma to AC . I personally enjoy the layout; 8 pages, including 5 with artwork, one of which is just art + stats for your sidekick character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
At level 3, have a free +2 AC. Alternately permanently blind anything that can see you. Oh laffo for all enemies to make a spell save against your wisdom stat where on failure all allies have advantage and the enemy has disadvantage. At level 9 you can instead turn this into half of every enemy not immune to charms HP in damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Anyway to get vaguely on channel did anything come out that really out do the wizard skeleton army thing? Additionally is 2 Fighter/18 Wizard or 1 Cleric/19 Wizard still the way to play if you want to play a solid combat wizard or did something new come out as the new standard?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Anyway to get vaguely on channel did anything come out that really out do the wizard skeleton army thing? IME warlocks pretty much do everything. Paladin2/Sorcerer18 is one I've seen mentioned as being super good, or outright rude depending on UA. Not sure that it outdoes skeleton army, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
kingcom posted:So I think Dark Heresy is a good example here, its a system with a hilarious mountain of issues but its entire presmise is trying to make sure you as a player and your character are operating in this universe like the fluff explains it as. Everything is bigger, scarier and you're way over your head. You never reach the point where you aren't fragile. You can be legitimate murder death machines but a regular dude with a pistol taking a shot at you is just as dangerous at character creation as it is deep into the game (you've probably just put together a lot more ways to deal with it by then but if you strip out the buildup and context that never changes). Every single mechanic in that system is built around reminding you that the universe is a harsh and uncaring place, so the fluff informs the mechanics so that the mechanics can reinforce the fluff and tone of the game its running. It informs character behaviour you know to run from 'unholy monster' or 'an alien' its just inherently a big deal because you know they have scarier stuff than you do and the stuff you have is life threatening. My background with the system is probably 20-25 sessions with a Dark Heresy/Only War game where I played an IG Operator/Tank driver and got pressed into inquisitorial service in the Dark Heresy game some friends were playing. I mainly drove vehicles and used a hot-shot laspistol when I wasn't in a vehicle. I was the squishiest guy in the game by a long shot, so I understand the point you're making about it's system really clearly. I'm recalling my time playing the game and I seem to recall that while the game had a decent list of weapons, the whole +1/+2/+3 D&D trope didn't apply at all within the system. You could go from a laspistol to lasrifle to hot shot las, which was akin to 1d6/1d8/1d10 damage scaling, but it didn't improve your accuracy or stats otherwise. As I recall, you had limited availability of points to be bought with EXP, and some that could be conferred by feats. If I'm wrong I'm sure you'll let me know. Bringing it back around to your point, yes, the game did make clear that anything you encountered was potentially super deadly and everything within the system reinforced that idea. If anything, though, the challenge system of that game seemed much harder to discern to me. With everything being so deadly, and single hits being potentially catastrophic to a character, building encounters that weren't easily winnable or totally overbearing was something we encountered a lot. The DM of the game used a lot of "suddenly Drop Pods!" on us when things got bad. Maybe it was just a bad DM, this was a few years back, well before I started playing D&D. quote:D&D does this as well for its niche but its niche involves lots of book keeping and fiddly little things that make absolute sense in the context of how their game works. Take example the carry weight system. Everyone i've every played dnd with ignores it. Its just the easiest way to deal with it. If the goal is an action/adventure story, why not create a inventory/weight system that encourages that. To again steal a star wars example, they try to inform the game mechanics to be like the thing they are trying to recreate. In star wars people dont really loot weapons unless they arent currently carrying one themselves, so the 'encumbrance' system is more about having a very small cap on how much you can carry: An average person has like 7 encumbrance and a blaster rifle is 4 encumbrance alone so its very clear you tend to have your characters one or two things and thats about it. It means the age old question of 'why dont i pick up and carry like 30 blasters and sell them when we get out of here because holy poo poo are they valuable' is something you as a GM don't even need to consider as an issue because the mechanics have got you covered and established why you just dont really do that. Yeah, this point is, I think much better for what you're trying to convey. I don't have experience with the Star Wars RPG you're referring to, so I'm at a disadvantage here, but I can picture what you're pointing out about the encumbrance rules. One of the things that really put me off on the weight rules in 5th is that, say you're a cleric. Say you're a race that doesn't bonus Str and you're using Standard Array. You put your Str at 10 or 12. However, you took War domain and got Heavy Armor proficiency, so in your starting stat you took Chain Mail, a Mace and a Shield. You've got your whatever pack and a couple trinkets from your background on you, and you're over 30 pounds over-encumbered before your DM says "we begin at the inn...". I saw that system the same way as I viewed the rations/water/foraging or ammo counting or starting pack accounting: Nice tables and fluffy details that are there for those who want to use them, but would be more of a hassle than I cared to use for my funtimes games with friends. I had to use them in AL games with my son, and they certainly do work. But when I thumbed through the Phandelver booklet, I noticed that the "treasures" sections were handing out 100g+ rewards for side quests in Part 2. So tracking 4sp/night costs at the Inn is literally a rounding error. Take 10gp off a session if you want to refresh arrows, rations, water, whatever and move on. The system supports auditing and forensic accounting practices (feature), but I don't want to mess with it as it bogs down the funtimes stuff (house rule). I don't think D&D is bad because I decided to not strictly adhere to those rules, and I don't think it's bad because it included them. On a sidenote, I used to play Everquest and weight/slot management was a big deal in that game early on. Weight reduction bags were highly sought and for a long time there was a max limit of like 10 or 12 slots per bag, with 8 inventory slots per character. I can remember bag management being important, but also bogging down gameplay as we had to wait for the looter to run to a vendor, sell everything and get back, split plat/gold and get back to doing what we wanted to be doing in the first place. I can see the appeal of the older version's approach to a dungeon crawler where those decisions had real weight and impact. It could be fun to explore that in a one-off dungeon delve sort of game. I happen to be playing in, and enjoying more of a narrative campaign where those rules wouldn't apply as much. My players have been doing a lot of wilderness travel, not as many *dungeon delves* as *sewer infiltration*, and probably haven't received more than 1500gp in gold piece rewards. They're not murderhoboing or running through lootable dungeons filled with the usual kobolds and goblins (though they're coming up against a dragon and kobolds shortly, and will face an encumbrance conundrum at that time). Point being: I don't think that the inclusion of the weight and encumbrance system is bad, and I don't think casually disregarding, or at the very least, not micromanaging it is bad either. Fun can be had using either. I fully believe that fun can be had with the Star Wars or Dark Heresy system where you generally take your starting weapon and stick with it for a long while, because it's the same as all the other [whatevers] out there, and I can't carry a ton of these. I'm going to fall back on a previous point and suggest that player buy-in to the system and a good DM can have just as much an effect on the amount of fun you can have within the context of encumbrance systems between the 3 examples as can be had by the simplistic or granular nature of each system's precise accounting. Caveat: I'm just going to put out there, the number of people I see at game shops or in the facebook groups that have average stat levels of 14-15+ who "fairly rolled in front of the DM" also completely undermines the system. When your character is a Terminator, weight is so negligible an issue that you might as well ignore it. If anything, I really dislike the wording on character creation that doesn't label the 4d6-lowest as an optional or less desirable system for stat generation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
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. Disagreeing with you about what is acceptable criticism of 5E isn't poo poo posting (my post was short, but it clearly posited a meaningful position). One the other hand, posting petulant and irrelevant rants about edition warriors because someone disagrees with you about what is valid criticism actually is poo poo posting. On a different topic: is anyone else backing Kobold's Midgard Kickstarter stuff for 5E? I really liked their 5E Midgard bestiary (and their 13th Age one too), so I'm hoping there might be some cool stuff. Unsurprisingly there are a ton more wizard schools and cleric domains than there are martial archetypes—but there are multiple fighter archetypes, so I hope there will be something worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
koreban posted:Fun can be had using either. I fully believe that fun can be had with the Star Wars or Dark Heresy system where you generally take your starting weapon and stick with it for a long while, because it's the same as all the other [whatevers] out there, and I can't carry a ton of these. I'm going to fall back on a previous point and suggest that player buy-in to the system and a good DM can have just as much an effect on the amount of fun you can have within the context of encumbrance systems between the 3 examples as can be had by the simplistic or granular nature of each system's precise accounting. It's not about how D&D is worse or better because you house-ruled away most of the accounting, but about how much your version of D&D changed when you removed those rules. To add in an analogy, you're arguing about how adding in a grindy weapon upgrade system with a large variety of overcompensators into Resident Evil 4 and 5 does not make them bad games. I'm trying to tell you that adding in a grindy weapon upgrade system with a large variety of overcompensators into Resident Evil 4 and 5 prevent them from being horror games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
koreban posted:Caveat: I'm just going to put out there, the number of people I see at game shops or in the facebook groups that have average stat levels of 14-15+ who "fairly rolled in front of the DM" also completely undermines the system. When your character is a Terminator, weight is so negligible an issue that you might as well ignore it. If anything, I really dislike the wording on character creation that doesn't label the 4d6-lowest as an optional or less desirable system for stat generation. I want to point out this about all else, rolled stats is the loving worst.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:It's not about how D&D is worse or better because you house-ruled away most of the accounting, but about how much your version of D&D changed when you removed those rules. To add in an analogy, you're arguing about how adding in a grindy weapon upgrade system with a large variety of overcompensators into Resident Evil 4 and 5 does not make them bad games. I'm trying to tell you that adding in a grindy weapon upgrade system with a large variety of overcompensators into Resident Evil 4 and 5 prevent them from being horror games. I haven't played RE4 in something like a decade, which I think is worth mentioning here because when I think back to it, I'm remembering the beginning forested farm area with the spaniard zombies, the little prissy zombie/vampire child in the castle and the big hulking mutant zombie arena/running battle near the end. I would classify all of those things as being staple horror tropes, and my general memory of the game is Zombie RPG. Less jump scares than RE1. More horrory and less cartoony than Castlevania. Point being: That there was a grindy weapon upgrade system in the game is irrelevant in my recollection of it from this amount of time. It wasn't such a game-breaking feature that I even remember features of it, nor did it tarnish my memory of the game as being a particularly bad game because it was included. I'm assuming I would have had to have used the feature to complete the game, but I don't recall what was involved or how bad it was. So I would challenge the assertion that the inclusion of a grindy weapon upgrade system made it a not-horror game, or a bad game, because that's not my recollection of it. I remember it fondly *as* a horror game. Maybe it's not what would pass for a modern horror game in the vein of Amnesia or whatever the hot example is now (it's not really my preferred genre), but it's not *not* a horror game because of a weapon upgrade feature, bad or good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Re4 is both a horror game and one of the best video games ever released.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
D&D is vast. It contains multitudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
koreban posted:The difference between a year and a half ago, and now, is that you could go more than 10 posts before seeing a, 8 word "D&D 5 is bad" reply. I'm pointing at the bad posts and pointing out that they and the people making them are bad. And seriously, what spell should my kenku pig ranger take?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
N/m, just saw Beast Sense and it's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Splicer posted:D&D Next: Lots of refinement needs to be done on it. That you're still calling it Cure Light Wounds is telling  I would take Pass Without Trace so you can do Mirana's Moonlight Shadow plays That said, Animal Messenger, Beast Sense, Find Traps, Darkvision, Lesser Restoration, Locate Animals or Plants, Locate Object, Protection from Poison, and Silence are all potentially good picks depending on what you're doing, what the rest of the party is capable of, and how the DM runs the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That you're still calling it Cure Light Wounds is telling
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Hey guys. I'm working on a 5th Edition character concept for an upcoming campaign and being relatively new to 5th (haven't played since the end of 3.5) I am looking for some help to see if it is even possible. The concept is a Bard multiclassed with a caster class. I was originally going to go Warlock, but it might not have the spells I need. Rather than being a traditional musical Bard, he is going to be a medium who uses his ability to talk to dead spirits to entertain. His four starting "instruments" will be a spectral choir. The twist to the character is that while he can talk to the dead, his main goal is to get his "customers" to inadvertently agree to a deal that results in them signing away their soul in order to satisfy his Infernal patron. (Hence why I was originally thinking Warlock) Anyway, the issue I am having is that I'm having a hard time finding spells that would let me summon spectral allies or be themed around spirits and ghosts. I mean, there are some things like mage hand, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of spells like raise dead but with spectres rather than zombies/skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Lore Bard can take spells from other classes, and the Great Old One warlock gets some weird spells. Alternatively take levels in Death Cleric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Death Cleric looks like it might work as a base and just use feats and multiclassing to get more spells once I reach level 6 and get raise undead. And it definitely fits the whole voodoo priest aesthetic I am going for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
I would not use mass combat dice rolling in an RPG. Handle the mass combat narratively while the PCs focus on certain key objectives that influence the battle. Examples: Sneak or fight their way into the fortress to lower the drawbridge. Defeat the wizards who are magically shielding the opposing forces. Defeat the necromancers who are raising skeletons. Scout ahead to determine enemy numbers and locations, return quickly enough to do something about it. Sabotage enemy artillery. Defeat the enemy giant that is decimating your foot soldiers. How quickly each task is accomplished should usually impact how many soldiers each side loses. nelson fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Hi new to the thread, building my first 5e character. Campaign starts 10th level. building a high elf DEX EK. If I take 2 levels of Wizard and go the bladesinger route, is there any real need for War Caster feat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I don't have the SCAG in front of me, but if Bladesinger doesn't give you advantage on concentration checks then War Caster is very good. The other two benefits of War Caster are kinda sort of nice but making it harder to lose your buffs/debuffs is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Bladesinger gives you Int. bonus to Concentration checks. But I just read what advantage means, and yeah, that's worth not taking an ASI. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Is there a summary somewhere of the confusing, contradictory, or massively unbalanced/unfun things in 5e? Looking for stuff like the playtest encounter which had the GM rolling 40d20 every round, or how "melee attack", "weapon attack", and "attack with a melee weapon" are all different things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Speaking of making characters. If I wanted to make a brokenly overpowered character, any ideas? Besides, like, straight wizard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Duct Tape posted:Is there a summary somewhere of the confusing, contradictory, or massively unbalanced/unfun things in 5e? Looking for stuff like the playtest encounter which had the GM rolling 40d20 every round, or how "melee attack", "weapon attack", and "attack with a melee weapon" are all different things. Well the 40d20 thing is gone. As Regular rats are far too weak to be real enemies now. (If you want Non Giant Rats to be a threat you use the swarm version) Also those things are the same thing. User0015 posted:Speaking of making characters. If I wanted to make a brokenly overpowered character, any ideas? Besides, like, straight wizard. If your DM lets you get away with it. You can do some stupidly broken Multi Classing. I can't remember any particular combos as a result of being fairly uninterested in doing that stuff. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
User0015 posted:Speaking of making characters. If I wanted to make a brokenly overpowered character, any ideas? Besides, like, straight wizard. Apart from the skeleton army necromancer thing, I've had lots of "success" with a shapeshifting druid. Not blatantly "lol wins everything", but pretty close to unkillable in melee. You don't really need to do anything special, just pick Moon Druid. Circle Forms gives you better than usual animal forms. Pick the toughest creature you can, which is likely to be some kind of bear. Twice per short rest, you can use an action to shapeshift into your animal form. You get your animal form's hit points, and when your animal form dies, you just pop back into your regular form at whatever hit points you had* before you shifted. Because of Circle Forms, you'll be able to be a brown bear at level 2. This is effectively the same as getting ~35 bonus hp twice per short rest. By the At level 6, you can pop back into animal form as a bonus action, which lets you maul dudes, die, turn back into a bear again without stopping the mauling, die again, and then instead of being dead, just be a druid instead now. But it probably won't get to that stage because Combat Wild Shape lets you burn your spell slots for 1d8 self healing / slot-level while your'e shapeshifted as a bonus action, which means you can heal yourself without stopping the mauling. Like I said, it's not some omg op autowin button, but you're gonna be very loving hard to kill and still output good damage numbers. It starts getting silly at level 6 when you get to turn into CR 3 beasts and your beastmode attacks count as magical weapons. *excess damage carries over though. e: To be clear, I've never done the skeleton army necromancer thing, but if you're looking for broken OP stuff, that's the big one. Duct Tape posted:how "melee attack", "weapon attack", and "attack with a melee weapon" are all different things. MonsterEnvy posted:Also those things are the same thing. A melee attack: a non-ranged attack. A weapon attack: any attack with a weapon or with an unarmed strike. An attack with a melee weapon: Any attack with a weapon on the melee weapons list, even if you try throwing it. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/ Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also those things are the same thing. I'm pretty out of the loop but im pretty sure those aren't the same thing and the distinctions were super important when it came to attacking with throw weapons and unarmed attacks and what applied to what. "melee attack" Any attack made in melee (i.e. you must be less than 1 square away from the target unless the weapon has the reach quality). "weapon attack" Any attack made with a weapon (i believe unarmed also counts as a weapon) "attack with a melee weapon" Any attack made with a melee weapon where a melee weapon is defined as one that makes exclusively melee attacks. This is a distinction from thrown weapons which are ranged weapons you can make melee attacks with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
User0015 posted:Speaking of making characters. If I wanted to make a brokenly overpowered character, any ideas? Besides, like, straight wizard. Straight wiz...oh. Bards are probably the best straight class in 5e. A few others excel at one or two things but the lore bard gets to do almost everything well. Expertise skills, heals, inspiration dice, crowd control, spells stolen from other classes before they can get them. They are super-effective and pretty fun to play. Subtle spell-abusing sorcs can also do some ridiculous things, like drop offensive spells in the middle of a room without being known as the culprit. They are a plot-breaker that can get away with anything. The perma-invisible, intelligent, thought-linked imp familiar for warlocks is also really good. The three I mentioned are all Charisma casters. To reach broken levels you can combine paladin with any one of them for full armor + full caster spell slots that can smite more often than a straight paladin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
User0015 posted:Speaking of making characters. If I wanted to make a brokenly overpowered character, any ideas? Besides, like, straight wizard. 2 Fighter then all wizard so you can be in full plate up in melee combat while hitting people in the face with your wizard axe and wizard shield.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
Yes but they still would be the same thing as they are going to overlap as least once in all cases. A weapon attack is still the same thing with the 3rd thing. And a Melee attack is the same thing if you attack in Melee with the weapon. An attack with a longsword is all three. So long as you don't throw it like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes but they still would be the same thing as they are going to overlap as least once in all cases. Well, that's the thing. It literally came up in a rules discussion that a "melee attack with a weapon" was different from "an attack with a melee weapon". Throwing a longsword is weird, but what about throwing a spear? At that point, the difference actually matters. For example, a Paladin's Smite ability is a melee weapon attack, and so you can't throw a spear and smite. However, with improved smite, it's now an attack with a melee weapon, and so you can throw a spear and smite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
If you have Conjure Animals, why not just summon 8 cows in spaces you can see above your enemies
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
Because technically you don't get to pick what you summon, the DM does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:33
|
|
