|
Franchescanado posted:Any advice for playing mats? This one seems good, but if I can avoid spending $30, I will. Do you guys pre-draw maps? Print out ones from a map aggregate? My logic is the characters are new to this area, so they shouldn't be able to look at every corner and know where they are. I bought and have been very happy with these: http://role4initiative.com/search.php?pi=100&oos=oos&q=45003 Although it is at a similar price point to what you posted Franchescanado posted:Also, do you usually use figurines? I found a cheap bucket of a variety of monsters on Amazon which I could use for enemies, but I don't like the idea of spending $7-$12 per figure for a party of 4 when they may bail (two of the players in my campaign are expecting a child in September) or lose interest. But I still think the visual representation would help them instead of just relying on "theater of the mind". This actually came up earlier in thread: hangedman1984 posted:Our group made our own with little squares cut out of index cards, backed by a couple layers of duct tape, with the characters drawn on them.
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
There are plenty of places around online where you can get printable standees if you don't want to pay for plastic or metal minis. Like here: https://printableheroes.tumblr.com/post/88082225124/full-printable-set-of-monsters Glue them to carboard if they're too flimsy. The same thing as miniatures, pretty much. Except different. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:39 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Has anyone ITT played fighters to any meaningful level? I was thinking about it recently, and I think the problem is that they're basically expected to buy their class features with feats (ASIs), so after narrowing your build down via ability scores and Fighting Style, you have to lock yourself into one gimmick as you gain levels; thus, the "class feature" of being able to use any weapon becomes useless, because you can't use weapons outside of your niche effectively (due to spec'ing into a different ability score, for example) let alone with any sort of higher-level efficiency (i.e. from feats) The action economy around swapping weapons is another impediment, and I think handwaving that would probably go a ways to helping Fighters get more use out of different weapons.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Current DM's let us run hunter's mark/hex as an ability that's 'always on' so not using up limited slots. We had a fighter/barb join us during OOTA at about level 10-ish, they were munchkinned to hell and took literally hundreds of damage constantly.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Has anyone ITT played fighters to any meaningful level? Not trying to be glib, but the effect you're describing has been a problem since at least 3e: Fighter takes Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization, and maybe 1-2 combat maneuver feats, and then is screwed when they have to use another weapon or their combat maneuver isn't applicable (crits versus undead, trips versus oozes). My proposed solution would be somewhat more orthogonal, in that a Fighter should be able change their Fighting Style and feat selections freely after every Long, or even Short, Rest.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
When is the next ua supposed to come out?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
They're on a monthly basis now, so first or second Monday of each month.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:My proposed solution would be somewhat more orthogonal, in that a Fighter should be able change their Fighting Style and feat selections freely after every Long, or even Short, Rest. Yeah I don't disagree with that idea; i'd even go farther and say they need some partial feats as free class features (the likes of which you see in some of the Fighter UA, but even moreso in the Monk's design) but they need some cross-spec utility i.e. give them a two-handed weapon feature that works with melee as well as bows, for example. And I acknowledge the problem pre-dates 5e but LOL gently caress trying to fix that older poo poo, imho.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
The actual solution is to throw away the boring and useless combat styles that currently exist and make them more dynamic. Alternately, just add a new layer just for fighters. It's like: Jack of All Trades - early on, you can sheath and draw weapons freely. Later on, you can do that between attacks. Finally, give them a bonus whenever they hit an enemy that has vulnerability to their weapon (not just bashing or w/e, but if you wield a FIRE SWORD against something weak to fire) you get some kinda additional bonus. Master of One - as you level, your chosen weapon type ignores more and more resistances and such until the things that cannot be cut by your Roukanken, forged by youkai, are actually none. There you go. First fighter isn't gonna specialize like the second but has more access to their weapons and more reason to actually swap between them (as weapon type is almost entirely meaningless in D&D) whereas the second fighter doesn't have to swap away from the weapon they super specialized in. None of this will ever happen because 5e is always the stick with martial characters, and never the carrot.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
How do you guys deal with the one dude in a group who insists on playing the most annoying stereotypes possible? Our first campaign this guy was an ultra white knight e-bushido character, now he's playing a spoiled rotten rich kid with a bunch of servants that do everything for him, and I seriously want to punch him in the face multiple times per play session. It probably doesnt help he is also the sole member of our play group that takes everything super seriously, while the rest of us tend more toward TAZ style of play.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Talk to him about the group's expectations of the game?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Murder the servants in their sleep.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
"Friend, your stereotypical characters are annoying because of x, y, z. Please cut that out. Thanks."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Do they ever give us the results of their Unearthed Arcana surveys? I can find something for what race do yous most want to see brought back, back in 2016 but nothing for the ones I've paid attention to since this year.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Papal Mainframe posted:How do you guys deal with the one dude in a group who insists on playing the most annoying stereotypes possible? 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
The GM Advice Thread posted:Be grownups and talk.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Murder the servants in their sleep. I thoroughly enjoy this option. TIL that thread existed. Thank you. I'm really pretty new to DnD and I'm not even sure if his play annoys the other people in the group, but it sure grinds my gears 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The actual solution is to throw away the boring and useless combat styles that currently exist and make them more dynamic. Alternately, just add a new layer just for fighters. It's like: I come at it from the angle of "if being able to use ANY weapon is supposed to be considered a feature, then it should be made actually usable." Feel free to also give them "Beyond Damage Dice"-style weapon moves or what have you, but even then you should have access to a variety of weapons. In that same vein, why is it that Barbarians are the only class with d12 HD? Like, I can kinda understand Fighter only being d10 if there's an expectation that some of them will spec for range (which in turn justifies the Ranger also being d10) but why not make Paladins d12? Or even Monks, really.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I come at it from the angle of "if being able to use ANY weapon is supposed to be considered a feature, then it should be made actually usable."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
That would be cool if non-elemental damage types mattered more than occasionally, or if different weapons had different moves like Beyond Damage Dice. As it stands being able to use different types of weapon seems like fluff.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:In that same vein, why is it that Barbarians are the only class with d12 HD? Because that's the die size that Gygax used when he originally created the Barbarian for AD&D, and it's been like that ever since. I have a possible false memory suggesting that they may have gotten the d12 so that it'd be used for more than just greataxe weapon damage. And finally, it makes some kind of sense that a Barbarian would have more HP, but less armor, than a Fighter, as a thematic juxtaposition.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:You straight up will never have enough spell slots While this is true, I've always played warlock with the view of getting 2 spell slots per fight - mostly because my DMs tend to run more towards fewer-but-harder fights since none of us have the time for 8 combat encounters a day, and also because after the first day of 3 challenging encounters without short rests I threatened to poo poo in their pillow unless they let me and the Fighter actually refresh our class features. Or in the other instance they came from 3e/4e and kept short rests as 5 minutes because "a tea break isn't an hour, gently caress that".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Because that's the die size that Gygax used when he originally created the Barbarian for AD&D, and it's been like that ever since. Weird how the Ranger's special hit point thing didn't carry over though. gradenko_2000 posted:I have a possible false memory suggesting that they may have gotten the d12 so that it'd be used for more than just greataxe weapon damage. No Greataxes in AD&D, but the Awl Pike and Longsword both did 1d12 against Large creatures, so it's not like the d12 never got a workout. gradenko_2000 posted:And finally, it makes some kind of sense that a Barbarian would have more HP, but less armor, than a Fighter, as a thematic juxtaposition. ...maybe? The AD&D Barbarian (1st ed, from Unearthed Arcana) got +2 AC per point of dex over 14, or +1 if they wore Fairly Bulky or Bulky armor (all other classes get +1 per point over 15 based on the Dex table in the PHB, the barbarian feature explicitly replaces that progression with its own). Without getting super into details, it's still almost always gonna be better for them to be wearing the heaviest armor they can afford. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:31 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
PHB posted:Spell Slots. Vou determine your available spell slots by adding together all your leveIs in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table. Does this really mean that Monk levels don't count at all?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Does this really mean that Monk levels don't count at all? Looks like that's exactly what it means. I assume it's because despite that they can cast spells, monks aren't capital S Spellcasters with spell slots etc.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Looks like that's exactly what it means. I assume it's because despite that they can cast spells, monks aren't capital S Spellcasters with spell slots etc. Sure, but neither are rogues.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Weird how the Ranger's special hit point thing didn't carry over though. It looks like it got "lost" when the Ranger was "folded-in" with the AD&D 2e Warriors. AD&D 2e Barbarians weren't part of the PHB, so when they got their separate Complete Handbook published, they still had the d12 hit die separate from Warriors. Subjunctive posted:Sure, but neither are rogues. Arcane Trickster Rogues have capital-S Spellcasters with real spell slots.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
If Rogues take Arcane Trickster, they get spell slots. Same with Fighters and Eldritch Knight. Monks never get spell slots, they do that Ki based thing instead. e: Beaten. Also, while it seems kinda dumb, it is internally consistent. Barbarians never get spell slots either, and also don't appear on the spellcaster multiclassing table/list/whatever. From memory, there's something up with Warlocks in this context, too - and their class description never says "Spellcasting", it says "Pact Magic" or something. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
OK, that makes sense, though it's sad for my Monk/Druid!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Any advice for playing mats? This one seems good, but if I can avoid spending $30, I will. Do you guys pre-draw maps? Print out ones from a map aggregate? My logic is the characters are new to this area, so they shouldn't be able to look at every corner and know where they are. I'm a page late, but could you link the bucket of minis, please?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
blastron posted:I'm a page late, but could you link the bucket of minis, please? Bucket of Monsters
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Just an FYI that bucket of monsters smells pretty bad because of the plastic they use, and some of the minis are a little too big to fit in a single 1" square.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
is there an official 5e SRD?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:is there an official 5e SRD? It's this: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd But it's a bunch of documents, which is why you need to go to websites that unpack it for easy viewing. http://5e.d20srd.org/
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:is there an official 5e SRD? There are the basic rules, which has parred down options for the classes. They are available for free, but anything else people try to do has been shut down from what I've read.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:There are the basic rules, which has parred down options for the classes. They are available for free, but anything else people try to do has been shut down from what I've read. The SRD has all the classes but only one archetype per class, and all PHB races but only one subtype per race. SRD also includes feats and multiclassing iirc. e: lmao it only includes one feat but has the optional rules for using them Kaysette fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
google is the srd, you google the thing you want to look up and there it is It also only had one background last I checked.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
the 5e SRD is intentionally not usable for actually playing, because they wanted to avoid another Pathfinder situation
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:the 5e SRD is intentionally not usable for actually playing, because they wanted to avoid another Pathfinder situation Yeah, thats the main difference between them. The SRD is meant as a rules framework to build new content off of while the Basic Rules are meant for players who want to try out 5e before buying an PHB.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
esquilax posted:Just an FYI that bucket of monsters smells pretty bad because of the plastic they use, and some of the minis are a little too big to fit in a single 1" square. That's fine. I don't think either will matter much and that's still a good price for that caveat
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 17:10
|
|