|
mastershakeman posted:I think you'll find that it is quite fun to have three rolled 18s on your level one character sheet That's what 5+ players of the game I mentioned being invited to thought, as well.
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
I'm sure it's quite fun to say you rolled for stats sometime in a room by yourself before the game and then just arbitrarily assign yourself what you want.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:How good you are at things was a lot less tied to your stats in AD&D and prior. Aside from ephemera like carry capacity and break doors/bend bars, an 8 strength fighter is basically the same as a 15 strength fighter. 16 strength gets you a whole +1 on a damage roll. Character power was way more a function of level and equipment. I'd say the bigger issue with the randomness of rolled stats is the power level of Player A contra Player B, rather than Party vs. Encounters. DM can set a higher or lower difficulty much easier than they can correct imbalances between characters. Feeling underpowered relative to others at the table really sucks the fun out of things
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Players feeling (or being) underpowered compared to the party is a different, broader problem not specific to 5e or even rolled stats. I was trying to identify why specifically it's a problem in 5e. As a counterexample from Adventure Zone: Travis is the best optimized and statted character of the three but frequently ends up feeling underpowered relative to the casters. mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Oh hey, the 5e group on facebook has a thread about randomization too!quote:Random ability scores, or point buy...why not both? All the number crunching of point buy, without any of the control! Love it. When I mentioned that randomizing to that degree takes away player agency and that I don't see the appeal: quote:If you don't understand the appeal of randomization, doubt it can be explained.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Indeed I do. Does not change that it brings up Array as an equally valid option and Point Buy as a variant. Under the vegetable posted:Actually, it presents rolling for stats and the standard array as completely equal (which is silly) and uses them both as acceptable and simultaneous defaults. It then presents point buy as an optional alternative. quote:You generate your character's six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice and record the total of the highest three dice on a piece of scratch paper. Do this five more times, so that you have six numbers. If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. MonsterEnvy posted:Though I don't get why some of you treat rolling like its the worst thing ever. When every other edition does it as well or has options for it. quote:Some players like the idea of generating ability scores randomly. The result of this method can be really good, or it can be really bad. On average, you’ll come out a little worse than if you had used the standard array. If you roll well, you can come out way ahead, but if you roll poorly, you might generate a character who’s virtually unplayable. Use this method with caution. Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:When I mentioned that randomizing to that degree takes away player agency and that I don't see the appeal: So what is the right level of randomization? I was pondering what could be done around making attack rolls and skill checks less random after my 20-Cha bard missed 3 Persuasion checks in a row against random peasants. What does the randomness represent? Is it "just" the gambling thrill? Unpredictable encounters seem like something that the DM can provide without dice.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Could you elaborate a bit more? What about <3e made rolling stats fine but 5e makes it bad? And it's less "would", more "is". esquilax posted:I'd say the bigger issue with the randomness of rolled stats is the power level of Player A contra Player B, rather than Party vs. Encounters. DM can set a higher or lower difficulty much easier than they can correct imbalances between characters. Feeling underpowered relative to others at the table really sucks the fun out of things
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:
 but when you properly understand the appeals of randomisation you're equipped to know when randomisation is actually the best way to satisfy them. Nobody who understands the appeal of randomisation and how 5E works mechanically would ever think this was a good idea.Subjunctive posted:So what is the right level of randomization? I was pondering what could be done around making attack rolls and skill checks less random after my 20-Cha bard missed 3 Persuasion checks in a row against random peasants. What does the randomness represent? Is it "just" the gambling thrill? Unpredictable encounters seem like something that the DM can provide without dice. If you want to make skills/attacks less swingy, roll 3d6 instead of a d20, crit success on a 16+, auto fail on a 5-, (dis)advantage is 4d6 choose highest (lowest). You'll also want to adjust down higher DCs.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Playing a band of incompetents can be fun. Playing a band of gods on earth can be fun. Playing a god among incompetents or an incompetent among gods in a game where narrative effectiveness is heavily tied to mechanical effectiveness requires a very specific mentality, and the odds of this matching up with whoever rolled the god/incompetent are not high. I was watching critical roll on youtube and the one guy cried, and everyone cheered, when he killed a thing because in years of playing together he had never gotten the last hit. Seemed like a really rewarding moment. It was the first episode, though, so maybe it was a podcast before a youtube show? I'm too lazy to find out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Rolling stats before making characters at all was/is kind of fun in even 3.5 and pathfinder. Multiple times I've rolled things like 18/18/16/16/14/12 or similar numbers, and that inspired me, every single time, to play a more MAD class, like a monk, or paladin, or soulknife. Classes that still wouldn't be overwhelmingly amazing compared to normal stats, that could finally be used to some extent via luck. Meanwhile when rolling super low with one good stat I could easily just play a wizard and still be the strongest most versatile one. 5e has much less MAD issues, and its standard array works fine for every single class. One 5e game I played had the weirdest stat rolling system though: non spellcasters got 5d6 drop two lowest, paladin, ranger got 4d6 drop lowest. All full casters got 3d6, no dropping. An attempt at balancing casters to martials... mixed with randomness.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is not actually true! The first reason given for wanting to use the standard array is "to save time" and the second one is "if you don't want to". it's almost like it's presenting it as an equal or even better option, considering it saves time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:I was watching critical roll on youtube and the one guy cried, and everyone cheered, when he killed a thing because in years of playing together he had never gotten the last hit. Seemed like a really rewarding moment. One day, a day like any other, the man sits down to lunch. He opens his lunchbox. He lifts the sandwich out. With trembling hands he brings it toward his mouth. Nothing happens. He opens his mouth and places the sandwich within. Nothing happens. Disbelievingly, bites down. His tongue explodes with the crisp deliciousness of lettuce, the rich flavour of the tomato, and the crumbling salty taste of the bacon. He looks up at his tormentor, a single tear rolling down his cheek. His tormentor nods to him. "You see why I did it? Do you think you could have appreciated this so much otherwise? Would you trade this moment for anything?" The first man savours this bite, this ambrosia, before swallowing to reply: "I'd probably trade it for five loving years of sandwiches you piece of poo poo"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Hope the Icewind dale pdf I linked is helpful as well for this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If you want to make skills/attacks less swingy, roll 3d6 instead of a d20, crit success on a 16+, auto fail on a 5-, (dis)advantage is 4d6 choose highest (lowest). You'll also want to adjust down higher DCs. Why not eliminate randomness entirely, I mean? How does it improve the game for my 5th level fighter man to have a 25% chance of missing some uppity peasant? I'm not arguing *against* randomness, exactly, I just wonder why it's so clearly dumb to roll for attributes but OK to roll on everything else derived from attributes. Why is that essential to D&D? I haven't quite figured it out.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I've been inspired to try running a 5e game after watching the first few episodes of Critical Role. To be honest, 4e always seemed like it would be right up my alley with its emphasis on movement and positioning, but I was never able to pull together a group. I've noticed that casters seem way better than melee characters in the CR game. It's not even that they deal more damage, but that they have an encyclopedia of potential solutions to each situation, as opposed to the index card carried by physical attackers. Would it be more fair/feasible to give the party better melee equipment as loot, or to design more encounters with enemies that can gently caress with magic users, or what? I know that in 3.5, a wizard with access to the Spell Compendium was  monsters.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:got invited to a D&D group the other day and ran into the always welcome "we rolled for stats, no we didnt do it in roll20, no there's no evidence of any randomization ever being used, also my stats involve 3 scores over 18 at level 1." from basically every other player. I legit no poo poo watched someone with my own eyes roll stats like these at a table last weekend and I just about hollered in outraged jealousy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Would it be more fair/feasible to give the party better melee equipment as loot, or to design more encounters with enemies that can gently caress with magic users, or what? You might take a look at things like https://koboldpress.com/category/beyond-damage-dice/ to add some versatility to martials. I haven't played with them, but I will ask to in my next game if I'm not running it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:I've been inspired to try running a 5e game after watching the first few episodes of Critical Role. To be honest, 4e always seemed like it would be right up my alley with its emphasis on movement and positioning, but I was never able to pull together a group. It's not as bad as 3.5 was but you're on the right track. Don't be stingy with the martial equipment and feel free to target the bathrobe wearers. Don't go full-on antimagic fields everywhere but an intelligent enemy will probably know to try and take out a caster first instead of the armored sack of HP.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why not eliminate randomness entirely, I mean? How does it improve the game for my 5th level fighter man to have a 25% chance of missing some uppity peasant? Your options are you can either auto succeed at everything you're good enough at (I'm sure there are systems that do this) or the GM decides every articulation point, which is a FUCKTON of extra headache for the GM. Kaysette posted:It's not as bad as 3.5 was but you're on the right track. Don't be stingy with the martial equipment and feel free to target the bathrobe wearers. Don't go full-on antimagic fields everywhere but an intelligent enemy will probably know to try and take out a caster first instead of the armored sack of HP. mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 00:35 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:I've been inspired to try running a 5e game after watching the first few episodes of Critical Role. To be honest, 4e always seemed like it would be right up my alley with its emphasis on movement and positioning, but I was never able to pull together a group. Give martial people more magic items (consider giving them more attunement slots) and -- imo this is an important one that even CR misses way too often -- design encounters so your melee people aren't sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Mercer loves setting up these huge setpiece battles that are big and dramatic but they so often reduce their barbarian to running around the map getting outmaneuvered all day. Enemies that love to keep their distance are still taking the full brunt of thrown daggers, arrows, gunshots, and spells, and the most Grog can do a lot is hurl his weapon tied to a chain so he can retrieve it, so he's not even getting in his extra attacks. It's really lovely when his low INT already sort of excludes his character from a large part of the non-combat game and then he doesn't get full participation in combat sometimes. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why not eliminate randomness entirely, I mean? How does it improve the game for my 5th level fighter man to have a 25% chance of missing some uppity peasant? e: to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that rolling to succeed is required for an rpg. We've actually had a bunch of neat discussions around not rolling to hit in this very thread. Splicer fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Reene posted:I legit no poo poo watched someone with my own eyes roll stats like these at a table last weekend and I just about hollered in outraged jealousy. I've made like eight characters since January for various games that ended or fell apart or I'm still in and I rolled for every character's stats and most of them let me roll two sets and choose but I've never had a stat higher than 16. That's fine I like the journey, but wow whatta streak. Quixzlizx posted:Would it be more fair/feasible to give the party better melee equipment as loot, or to design more encounters with enemies that can gently caress with magic users, or what? Yeah give martials magic items. Not magic swords, give them hulk amulets that let them throw wagons at dragons. Everyone loves it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:I've made like eight characters since January for various games that ended or fell apart or I'm still in and I rolled for every character's stats and most of them let me roll two sets and choose but I've never had a stat higher than 16. That's fine I like the journey, but wow whatta streak. I'm up next on the magic item shortlist right? Hope I get something awesome. Also: The result of throwing the wagon in question. 
Lawman 0 fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
The wagon was rigged up with alchemist fire all to hell on a hair trigger.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
I'm playing with a good dude who rolled up absolute garbage for his Dwarf Cleric. He's got 18 wis, but everything else is under 12. His character is an old wandering dwarf who is a doddering old chook, so it's actually really fun playing social scenarios where he starts blustering away, or rolls to sneak with us and ends up loudly telling a story about the time he found a nest of common speaking ducks that requested his assistance with some unruly children. I think he has -3 to dex...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
I'm about (probably) to start playing in a game that had you assign a 15 and an 8 to two attributes, then roll for the rest. No swapping rolls around either – you had to declare which attribute you were rolling for beforehand and stick with it. As a warlock I suppose an 11 DEX isn't the biggest deal, but having gently caress all AC for the foreseeable future still isn't the most encouraging thought. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Could you elaborate a bit more? What about <3e made rolling stats fine but 5e makes it bad? What would be better, today, just flat array stats? In Original D&D, Strength didn't influence your attack rolls nor your damage rolls at all. A level 1 Fighter had a 45% chance to hit an AC 7 goblin whether they had 10 Strength or 18 Strength. All the high Strength did was to give you more experience gain. With the Greyhawk supplement, Strength finally started adding to attack rolls and damage rolls, but the to-hit math didn't change, so having a high Strength was literally a "bonus". Same goes for the Basic/Expert line of D&D. With AD&D, you lost maybe a 5% chance to hit because of the conversion from base 9 AC to base 10 AC, but then that was also the start of the game having you roll 4d6-drop-lowest-assign-as-desired, so your average Strength would be higher anyway. By the time you get to 3rd edition, not only is the range of the bonus much higher, since an 18 now gives you a +4 to attack and damage compared to AD&D's ~~ +1 hit/+3 damage (getting an 18/00 for +3 hit/+6 damage was exceedingly rare), but that goblin now has AC 15. If you have a flat 10 Strength and you're swinging at it with your +1 BAB and nothing else, you have a 35% chance to hit that goblin. That's a full 10% less than what an OD&D Fighter would be hitting for. You could maybe boost it with Weapon Focus for a +1 attack, and maybe be a Half-Orc for +2 Strength in exchange for -2 Intelligence and -2 Charisma, but that only brings you parity with a 45% chance to hit. High Strength is no longer a "bonus", it's now an obligation. Further, you have a lot more riding on your stats now. There's a skill system in 3e that's partially based on your ability modifiers, and your saving throws are also based on your ability modifiers, whereas in pre-3e D&D saving throws were just a flat number that you always rolled and always improved with levels regardless of your ability scores. Finally, 3e actually attempted to rationalize and codify monster balance and encounter balance: a party is THIS strong, so a monster of any given level needs to be THAT strong to compete ... and the monsters have a flat statblock ... but the players won't if you roll for stats. That throws out even the spectre of balance completely out the window because all of the assumptions don't hold up if the players don't consistently have the same stats to compete with the monsters anyway. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:16 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:I was watching critical roll on youtube and the one guy cried, and everyone cheered, when he killed a thing because in years of playing together he had never gotten the last hit. Seemed like a really rewarding moment. Critical Role started as their home game about a year before it got onto Geek and Sundry's twitch. Since they are all voice actors and it is a tight nit community the story goes that the home game became kind of a legend. So one day Felecia Day approached them all and asked them to try airing their game on the Geek and Sundry twitch channel. They decided to try it even though it meant exposing something personal to the internet. They had been playing Pathfinder and made the switch to D&D 5e either right before the show or as of I can't recall which. Mercer runs it as a sort of hybrid 5e with Pathfinder hold overs like Taleisin's gunfighter class. They gave the whole project about three or four episodes before people lost interest. Fast forward to now where they are closing in on one hundred episodes, have direct relationships with D&D and Pathfinder, and spawned a huge fan community and a lot of mainstream press. As for that one player getting the kill it was probably Sam Rigel's bard Scanlan. He does a lot of control spells and very, very little melee. He's only half joking that he doesn't know how to make a melee attack he does it so seldom. Quixzlizx posted:I've been inspired to try running a 5e game after watching the first few episodes of Critical Role. To be honest, 4e always seemed like it would be right up my alley with its emphasis on movement and positioning, but I was never able to pull together a group. Nehru the Damaja posted:Give martial people more magic items (consider giving them more attunement slots) and -- imo this is an important one that even CR misses way too often -- design encounters so your melee people aren't sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Mercer loves setting up these huge setpiece battles that are big and dramatic but they so often reduce their barbarian to running around the map getting outmaneuvered all day. Enemies that love to keep their distance are still taking the full brunt of thrown daggers, arrows, gunshots, and spells, and the most Grog can do a lot is hurl his weapon tied to a chain so he can retrieve it, so he's not even getting in his extra attacks. It's really lovely when his low INT already sort of excludes his character from a large part of the non-combat game and then he doesn't get full participation in combat sometimes. Casters in general are more powerful in situations than martials. it's just more noticeable sometimes with Critical Role due to narrative and the players experience in table top games. But a lot of times it's the melees doing a bulk of the damage while the casters cap things off. Grog's a good example of what happens when you plan encounters specifically to one type. Granting that it could make a lot of sense tactically you can still see it frustrating Grog's player to chase around something that flies. Still he gets to even it out a bit when he finally gets in range and rips off a 100 damage combat round. So you can't really blame Mercer's dragon npcs not wanting anything to do with getting close to the barbarian. Mercer using skill challenges to solve problems helps the melee get involved more as opposed to someone just casting a spell. Incidentally Grog is a great example of stats helping to dictate roleplaying opportunities. Travis Willingham is consistently one of the most in character and hilarious parts of Critical Role.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
My PotA group just made their first forray into the Temple of Elemental Evil. Exploring the fire temple first. Honestly being level 6 and the fire temple expected for level 9s they did very well and left the temple with a lot of xp and gold. But they only ever really explored one dangerous area and one area I expected to be dangerous was not due to the Efreeti there tending to ignore the characters at the start. Still I was impressed with my group doing as well as they did despite me having really good roles and not really taking it easy on them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Trast posted:Critical Role I only watched the first episode of Critical Role, and it was... okay? The massive size of the party was sortof a turnoff for me, but I really did like the flavor that voice actors brought to it. I dunno though, something about it just rubs me the wrong way, like it's not as genuine as any other actual play? Maybe I'm weird. I also heard that the dragonborn sorcerer dude left fairly quickly amid some kind of drama -- what happened with that?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Drone posted:I also heard that the dragonborn sorcerer dude left fairly quickly amid some kind of drama -- what happened with that? He was there for like half a year before leaving, and was part of the home group for the year before the show existed. There's no one specific thing to point to because CR doesn't talk about it and Orion's descriptions are plausible but not all that specific. He was fighting cancer at the time and says between that and depression he needed to step out for his own sake and wasn't being the kind of person he wanted to be. Fans of the show point to how he was getting on peoples' nerves with extensive metagaming and making stuff about him toward the end, but I suspect that was just part of a catalyst and the bigger deal is he wasn't getting along with people. When Mercer narrates the character's send-off later there's a pretty clear divide between the people who seem touched by it and the ones who couldn't give less of a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:He was there for like half a year before leaving, and was part of the home group for the year before the show existed. There's no one specific thing to point to because CR doesn't talk about it and Orion's descriptions are plausible but not all that specific. He was fighting cancer at the time and says between that and depression he needed to step out for his own sake and wasn't being the kind of person he wanted to be. Fans of the show point to how he was getting on peoples' nerves with extensive metagaming and making stuff about him toward the end, but I suspect that was just part of a catalyst and the bigger deal is he wasn't getting along with people. When Mercer narrates the character's send-off later there's a pretty clear divide between the people who seem touched by it and the ones who couldn't give less of a gently caress. I re-started watching CR with that episode where Mercer does that send off after conferring with a friend about how much Orion's character rubbed me the wrong way in the first couple episodes I tried to watxh. (No offense meant to anyone who enjoyed him, it's totally a personal thing) I've enjoyed what I've watched so far (6 or 7 episodes) but as a fairly new player whose been playing DnD less than a year, it can get pretty intense and almost intimidating with how intensely they get into character and their individual play.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Rolling stats is dumb given the rest of the game but the rolling method they provide result in characters with roughly similar stats to the array. It's only similar if at least two of your rolls are 15+, which is what really matters. 14 in every stat has a higher average than array yet is inferior.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's only similar if at least two of your rolls are 15+, which is what really matters. 14 in every stat has a higher average than array yet is inferior. http://anydice.com/program/2483 They didn't make those numbers up, they derived them from the average 4d6 drop 1 array.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Drone posted:I only watched the first episode of Critical Role, and it was... okay? The massive size of the party was sortof a turnoff for me, but I really did like the flavor that voice actors brought to it. I dunno though, something about it just rubs me the wrong way, like it's not as genuine as any other actual play? Maybe I'm weird. Yeah something about the whole thing rubbed me the wrong way from the one episode I watched so no idea if it just that thing or the whole tone. I finally watch harmonquest for a rpg play and that seems to do the whole concept a lot better and be genuinely entertaining for the most part but then again you put Mr. Show actors in anything and I'll check it out. Quixzlizx posted:I've been inspired to try running a 5e game after watching the first few episodes of Critical Role. To be honest, 4e always seemed like it would be right up my alley with its emphasis on movement and positioning, but I was never able to pull together a group. Also as a heads up, the casters seem to be holding back (or genuinely dont know how much more powerful they can be) to give everyone else. The long standing joke of martials is that they only get to participate late game in DnD if the wizard is 'generous' enough to let them fly. Trast posted:Mercer using skill challenges to solve problems helps the melee get involved more as opposed to someone just casting a spell. Thats a real rough stab at a balancing mechanic, especially if you're a new GM btw the Quixzlizx if you are thinking this helps solve the issue. The danger to look out for with 'give them skill challenges to solve problems' is that its pretty easy to set up multiple checks or give 'vague' results of a skill check compared to a spell having a clear and hard yes or no result and almost always a 1 check difficulty. Hold Person, person saves or they are frozen in place. Clear, definitive and ends the fight for the most part. Compare that to say 'I want to jump on the dragons back when it comes in for a pass'. Thats an athletics check (figure out what the dragon's strength save would be or dex or whatever) and if they pass they leap on. End of skill challenge. Anything more and it just makes the whole process worse than 'be a wizard'.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
I totally see the appeal of random ability scores if you are playing like a string of one-shots. Playing an octogenarian with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's one week and then playing supergenius Brock Lesnar the next week sounds fun. Rolling stats and then playing a long campaign with whatever you get? That's the stupidest idea.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Also as a heads up, the casters seem to be holding back (or genuinely dont know how much more powerful they can be) to give everyone else. The long standing joke of martials is that they only get to participate late game in DnD if the wizard is 'generous' enough to let them fly. Martials in my 3.5 group are RPing their low INT by charging into battle before buffs. Even though I've made them wrecking balls of death and destruction by buffing in the past, they'll still run off and out of range whenever they beat my initiative.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Also as a heads up, the casters seem to be holding back (or genuinely dont know how much more powerful they can be) to give everyone else. The long standing joke of martials is that they only get to participate late game in DnD if the wizard is 'generous' enough to let them fly. With as much as they mess up simple mechanics after all this time, I'm gonna go with "don't know." I think one of Mercer's flaws is he doesn't really do anything to communicate how stuff works on a level that they understand. Like he doesn't necessarily notice or comprehend when players are lacking the knowledge that he has. They've had the guest star warlock on a few times and she did a pretty good job for someone new to the game but it's plain as day that she has no idea what separates invocations from spells and so she doesn't have any concept of just how much damage she can be doing with Eldritch Blast. In the first couple appearances, it's a problem that "solves" itself by way of equally inaccurate application of Witch Bolt. That's all well and good the first time but it's nuts that between then and when she returns Mercer never sat down with her long enough to be like "okay, so your invocations are things that are always on unless they say otherwise. You don't have to 'spend' Agonizing Blast. It makes EB better all the time and makes it your bread-and-butter damage source." And I think it's just that he genuinely has not picked up on that knowledge gap existing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Holy poo poo this looks fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2OCwSqVN8c More info: https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/9/15589492/divinity-original-sin-2-game-master-mode-gameplay-video-dungeons-and-dragons Edit: This video includes a more thorough demo of the DM tools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9cPK2_qKU klockwerk fucked around with this message at 17:04 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:55
|
|
