|
What is this opposite day? Those things quoted from Mearls actually sound like they would be relatively good things to change.
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Huh interesting some stuff that Mearls himself does not like about 5e. mastershakeman posted:ask him directly about all the poo poo he's helped encourage.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:ask him directly about all the poo poo he's helped encourage. Why the gently caress would I ever talk to Mike Mearls?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
One interesting note I found in there is that there's currently 10 people working on design/development/creative for 5e. I know there's been a lot of speculation on team size, so it's cool to see an actual answer
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Why the gently caress would I ever talk to Mike Mearls? I would imagine so we could watch everything blow up or watch the meltdown here when you were ignored?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Huh interesting some stuff that Mearls himself does not like about 5e. Wait are there druids out there that actually use spells instead of shapeshifting 100% of the time as soon as their animal attacks turn magical?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
The party Rogue just found a pair of Eyes of Minute Seeing, and I just realized I have no idea how long it takes to search a room with Perception or Investigate. 3.x had Search take (something like) 1 round per five feet searched or some kind of nonsense, but does 5e have a rule beyond the ability checks being an Action?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
The pacing rules define three speeds: fast (-5 passive perception and no stealthing), normal (normal pp but no stealth), and slow (normal pp and can stealth too). Use that and passives for crawling around the dungeon instead of constant checks every 5 feet. Describe what they sense with their passive perception in mind. Since perception doesn't have a defined range like 'one room' or '5 foot blocks', give them whatever is in the limits of their senses. They might spot a ship on the horizon or a voice in the wind. Eyes of Minute Seeing wont help there, they only go out to 1 foot and only on investigation checks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Huh interesting some stuff that Mearls himself does not like about 5e. Why would he implement all those things if he doesn't like them??? Or is this a case of the thing hes bothered about it will actually make it worse in every way, exhibit a) the Wizard who was religious was a better cleric than a cleric.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Why would he implement all those things if he doesn't like them??? Or is this a case of the thing hes bothered about it will actually make it worse in every way, exhibit a) the Wizard who was religious was a better cleric than a cleric. Presumably its a case of a not realizing he did not like that stuff until after it was implemented. And or the others on the D&D team disagreeing with him. Those are the two most likely scenarios. The DMG adventure was probably just a page space thing however.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Mike Mearls posted:Fighter subclasses - so bland! No poo poo, Mike! Remember when people were complaining about each revision of the fighter being blander than the last one, and you kept claiming that this was a good thing because it felt more like D&D? MonsterEnvy posted:The DMG adventure was probably just a page space thing however. Maybe using nearly a third of the pages on magic items wasn't the best idea, huh? Or maybe the sample adventure could have been placed in the PHB instead, so that everyone can see what the game's supposed to be like? But what could you cut out to make room for it? Certainly not the 8 pages that duplicate monster manual entries. Coincidentally, that's the exact same number of pages that Mentzer Basic spends on the starter adventure + advice on how to run it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:No poo poo, Mike! He can't hear you maybe you should have brought that to AMA instead.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:He can't hear you maybe you should have brought that to AMA instead. He demonstrably doesn't listen when these exact issues are pointed out, so why bother?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:He can't hear you maybe you should have brought that to AMA instead. We did lol, repeatedly. Like loving Krag Hack, the running joke and/or mascot of the D&D NEXT playtest on SA existed because I love playing fighters and martials but playing a cleric was the correct way to play one that wasn't bland and boring. EDIT: People even filled in detailed reports about it, despite the fields being garbage poo poo like 'How does the spell Acid Arrow make you feel?' kingcom fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Mearls posted:I'm pretty bad at it. I am the anti-handy man. If you want something broken ask me to fix it. Heh Noxin of Shame fucked around with this message at 02:01 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Conjure animals is frustrating. I can't really think of a way to make that spell fun and not make my player give me big sad eyes. Not looking forward to conjure woodland beings.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Conjure animals is frustrating. I can't really think of a way to make that spell fun and not make my player give me big sad eyes. Not looking forward to conjure woodland beings. OK, so this isn't edition specific and does nothing to address the issues with summon spells in 5th ed, but... Way back in either 1st or 2nd ed, I changed those kinds of spells so that they didn't summon up local real animals or whatever, but instead called "spirit" animals briefly into material forms. I decided that they were intelligent, communicative, and importantly were always the same animal. Didn't fix the various poo poo summoning's nearly always caused because it didn't change any of the mechanics, but it made it more fun for the group interacting with the same animal dude again and again. For example: the wolf (human name "Brian", nobody knows why he chose it) would constantly bitch about being interrupted from his super important spirit wolf business by assholes who wanted him to maul goblins. Later, Brian shows up again as the constant companion of a kindly shaman NPC, and everyone realises that they really have been interrupting Important Wolf Stuff every time they summon him. They also find out that shamans etc take spirit animal names ("Runs By Moonlight" etc), and that's why Brian thought he needed to take a human name. Like I said, doesn't fix poo poo, but it was more entertaining than playing it straight from the book.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Conjure animals is frustrating. I can't really think of a way to make that spell fun and not make my player give me big sad eyes. Not looking forward to conjure woodland beings. Make a specific and customized list of summonable animals that you can both live with.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Make a specific and customized list of summonable animals that you can both live with. I already divided the amounts in half - I don't want 8 of anything. I considered having him roll from a table. He really likes the giant octopus which is funny and thematic and stuff but also really strong. (He also turns in to a giant octopus himself.) Making it the same animals is cool as hell. Really wish I could convince him to just summon one thing at a time and pick strong things- cutting the quantity in half already incentivizes that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Conjure animals is frustrating. I can't really think of a way to make that spell fun and not make my player give me big sad eyes. Not looking forward to conjure woodland beings. Make the caster need a part of the animal they wish to summon. A tooth, a tuft of hair, etc. If they want cool and crazy creatures, they are going to need to seek them out (dinosaur adventures ahoy!)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Two Headed Calf posted:Make the caster need a part of the animal they wish to summon. A tooth, a tuft of hair, etc. If they want cool and crazy creatures, they are going to need to seek them out (dinosaur adventures ahoy!)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
I didn't mean anything about the amount of animals, all I'm saying is that you should try to strictly define what the spell is capable of, so that when the player casts the spell he knows what he's getting (which informs when he'll cast it and how he'll use it), and so that you can't ever be caught off-guard by him summoning a bunch of poo poo that you don't know how to deal with or integrate well. It's like, when you cast a Fireball, you know it's going to deal roughly this amount of damage, at this exact range, in this exact area, so you know precisely how to use it. Summoning spells should be just as intuitive. The by-the-book interpretation sucks because the DM gets to gently caress-over the player if they want, and a rolled result might suck because it's unpredictable on both ends of the table.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:An attack roll followed by an opposed Strength check? The problem with this comes around when you actually think about "hmmm so does this attack roll add your proficiency bonus? Is it a weapon attack?" etc.  Having grapple be an Athletics check means it plainly adds your proficiency bonus if you have proficiency in Athletics, boom, done. Reverse engineering it into an attack roll against either AC or an opposed check causes it to lose all of its succinctness in favour of the uniformity of "every type of attack is an attack roll" which IMHO is of no benefit to anyone. Or if you're saying that it should be STR+prof vs. STR+prof, then that's actually what the status quo is, more or less. If you're saying it should be STR vs. STR (no prof on either) then that's slightly different, but like... why? Then it's not really working the same as an attack, so it's still existing outside of the established mechanics. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
obviously it should be a maneuver that prompts a reflex or strength save dc: whatever the gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I already divided the amounts in half - I don't want 8 of anything. I considered having him roll from a table. He really likes the giant octopus which is funny and thematic and stuff but also really strong. (He also turns in to a giant octopus himself.) Yeah the summoning of 8 Giant Owls is kind of annoying to deal with. But I don't feel right saying he can't.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Narratively/it's loving awesome-wise? Sure. I never want to say no. But going, "Todd, the rules are clearly loving clownshoes here, no you don't get 800% more turns than everyone else god why did they make that an option. " is just being able to read and think basic thoughts. That is so loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Narratively/it's loving awesome-wise? Sure. I never want to say no. Right. Xiahou Dun posted:no you don't get 800% more turns than everyone else god why did they make that an option. Also right. What are some ways we could make summoning spells just as cool as pulling multiple giant octopodes out of nowhere without being dumb as gently caress? I'm kinda lost here because every D&D game I've played in the last however long that feels like forever has had everyone tacitly or explicitly agreeing not to summon anything because it fucks the game up. The problem's existed since way back, has anyone ever had a crack at solving it?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
I hate to be That Guy but 4e did make you spend your actions to make summons do things unless I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What are some ways we could make summoning spells just as cool as pulling multiple giant octopodes out of nowhere without being dumb as gently caress? I'm kinda lost here because every D&D game I've played in the last however long that feels like forever has had everyone tacitly or explicitly agreeing not to summon anything because it fucks the game up. The problem's existed since way back, has anyone ever had a crack at solving it? The Trailblazer third-party supplement for 3e tried to do it by breaking down summoned monsters into building-blocks of stats and abilities that you could pick-and-choose from, and then left the narrative look of the creature up to the player:    It both solved the issue of the player dumpster-diving for a monster that would blindside the GM, and the issue of the player needing a copy of the Monster Manual just to be able to summon creatures.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I never want to say no. Just say no, goons. Learn to say no.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
I think the summoning rules are my least favorite part of the 5e ruleset. Its like it was hand-crafted by artisans to be simultaneously utterly game breaking and completely worthless at the same time. I wonder if the guy who came up with the idea of letting the dm pick the creature summoned got a raise.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Yeah if you want the player to be able to summon eight owls maybe make up a single statblock for those eight owls I know I'd be pumped to cast 'Summon Owl Swarm' and you'll be pumped to not have to deal with one more initiative instead of eight
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
One of my players, during a one shot, used that magical horn that summons barbarians. He was all set to track their stats and roll everything, a person that already took too long on turns. I just had him roll whatever size dice was closest to the amount of barbarians he had. That many hit, and each did a d8 of damage, all on his turn. If you have a lot of thing, abstract and combine as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I hate to be That Guy but 4e did make you spend your actions to make summons do things unless I'm forgetting. yeah but then they had to add instinctive actions to make summons not terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I hate to be That Guy but 4e did make you spend your actions to make summons do things unless I'm forgetting. Outside of being pedantic I can only think of the fact that Druids were the best 4e Summoners because the Instinctive Action thing meant that your beasts would just keep wholloping on things while you turned into a swarm of bees.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Right.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
So one of the things Mearls talked about in his AMA was that he felt that initiative as 5e (and 4e, and 3e) has done it is too cyclical. He tweeted a summarized version of his own houserule for initiative: quote:Roll each round. D4 = ranged, d8 = melee, d12 = spell, d6 = anything else, +d8 to swap gear, +d8 for bonus action, low goes 1st #wotcstaff quote:Oh, and +d6 to move and do something #wotcstaff quote:what's the general philosophy behind this? This probably isn't faster than RAW initiative because you have to keep doing it every round, AND you'd need to pre-declare your intended action so that you know what to roll. This looks similar to the "Speed Factor" initiative variant in the DMG, where you roll a d20 + mods, but you roll every round and have a modifier to the roll depending on intended action - heavy melee weapon attack is a -2, light/finesse melee weapon attach is a +2, spellcasting is +spellLevel, and so on. But this one by Mearls is probably faster than that, since you're using different die depending on action, rather than trying to remember to apply a modifier according to a table.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So one of the things Mearls talked about in his AMA was that he felt that initiative as 5e (and 4e, and 3e) has done it is too cyclical. Yeah, OK, but... why? What does "too cyclical" mean here? What's that houserule trying to solve? And how does it speed up play to be rolling initiative every round? Also I don't get how it "adds tenstion". Is it because you're not sure what the order's going to be each round?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yeah, OK, but... why? What does "too cyclical" mean here? What's that houserule trying to solve? And how does it speed up play to be rolling initiative every round? I'm obviously not him, but for the sake of discussion: * he probably means "too predictable", or perhaps "too rote" * as I said, it's probably not faster than RAW initiative * yes, because you would presumably declare your action, then find out when it goes off I suppose this also adds some level of additional depth as far as your initiative being influenced by your action, specifically with spells being slower than attacks, which was a thing that was arguably lost from AD&D (assuming you ever tried to play initiative in those games as intended)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
I kind of like that idea actually. Rolling every round seems a bit much but I want to give this a try now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 13:25
|
|
