Neon Knight posted:

I am thinking about giving the Warlock in the game I am DMing a Dagger of Blood Magic. Kills made with this dagger recover slots totaling up to the CR value of the enemy slain. Have the dagger power up its damage dice when the Pact Magic is running on empty. Give him some sort of reason not to be afraid of using his two slots, as long as he is willing to risk getting into the fray and trying to finish something off to replenish them... or executing a subdued enemy with it. Just a risk/reward mechanic he can choose to play around with if he gets tired of Eldritch Blasting everything.

Conspiratiorist posted:

Warlocks get more uses of their higher level spells than other classes at equivalent levels and they recover on a short rest.

People who have a problem with this misunderstand the class as a different flavor of full caster. They're not. Warlocks operate on completely different principles than Wizards/Clerics/Bards - they're more akin to Ranged Battle Masters, with Eldritch Blast as their weapon and Pact Magic as their maneuvers.

Invocations offer utility but realistically you'll be spending most of them in combat benefits if you wish to be effective, because warlocks are not tool boxes.They are not wizards.



Book of Ancient Secrets is amazing though.

Ryuujin posted:

No.

Conspiratiorist posted:

Yes, they get few spells per day but they get the same or more spells of the higher available slot for full casters. If you only got one short rest bam you have more higher level slots. They lose out on low level slots. That's what it means to be a Warlock - you cast your big spell and the rest of the fight is spent Eldritch Blasting with push back, or advantage if you used Darkness.

I'm also not mentioning the Mystic Arcanum because full casters only get one slot of each level above 5 as well anyway.

Bards and Sorcerers end their level progression at 18. Warlocks aren't special in this regard either.

And nothing compares damage-wise to a Fighter or smiting Paladin so that's a non-argument, but if the martials are getting magic items that boost their effectiveness and you don't thats a DM issue. Same as not getting any short rests at all, which fucks other short-rest resource classes as well.

Nehru the Damaja posted:

Warlock is easily my favorite class in terms of flavor and RP hooks and all that but man I hope my current game lasts long enough that I can get into cool poo poo (and that I can bail out around 11)

Hidingo Kojimba posted:

I find the trick for having fun with the Warlock at low levels while you're still waiting for the best class features is to take the Invocation that gives you Disguise Self as an at-will power. That one has so much utility for something you can pick up so early that being able to cast other spells every now and then just feels like a bonus.

Hidingo Kojimba posted:

Eh, Warlocks get the same number of 6th-level-and-up spells as the other spellcasters, high level Warlock never seemed that bad to me. (Though admittedly I've never played one that high.)

I find the trick for having fun with the Warlock at low levels while you're still waiting for the best class features is to take the Invocation that gives you Disguise Self as an at-will power. That one has so much utility for something you can pick up so early that being able to cast other spells every now and then just feels like a bonus.

Hidingo Kojimba posted:

Eh, Warlocks get the same number of 6th-level-and-up spells as the other spellcasters, high level Warlock never seemed that bad to me. (Though admittedly I've never played one that high.)

I find the trick for having fun with the Warlock at low levels while you're still waiting for the best class features is to take the Invocation that gives you Disguise Self as an at-will power. That one has so much utility for something you can pick up so early that being able to cast other spells every now and then just feels like a bonus.

Reene posted:

Splashing Warlock is very valuable for various reasons for a few different classes but I gotta join the choir saying I don't see the utility in playing straight Warlock past a certain point.

Hell, I'm at 2 levels in Warlock and finding it hard to justify a third instead of just plowing ahead with Sorcerer. But I really want that familiar.

Krinkle posted:

Counter-point: my party has attacked our warlock literally every single time she disguises herself as someone important because it's hilarious

Spiteski posted:

So... kind of like a power?

kingcom posted:

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahhah ahhahahahhahahhahhhah. Goddamn mearls is the dumbest fucker holy poo poo.

Thumbtacks posted:

I don't know if this is how thaumaturgy is supposed to work but we put a wildfire out by using two tieflings to make fire patches smaller and then a Druid to snuff out campfire-sized fires

It was hilarious either way but I'm not sure it was legal

Garl_Grimm posted:

Between this and his recent thoughts on Initiative during his AMA I wonder if Mearls is testing the waters on a 5.5e or 6e.

Spiteski posted:

Garl_Grimm posted:

Which one of these chuckle-fucks "invented" Passive Perception for 5e?

gradenko_2000 posted:

What in the hell is this - he's just gargling out words. An action that has another action as its triggering prerequisite is already how Bonus Actions are described in 5e to begin with.

(or at least, began that way, because now Bonus Actions are also just things you can do by themselves with just the "Bonus Action" action because the design is garbagetown)

P.S. of loving course it's Alexander goddamn Macris that Mearls is having a conversation with.


That would be Monte Cook, and that was in 2011, so he was like "I've never read 4e, but it seems like this following blog post would be a good way to run Perception"

Which was still super out-of-touch because the reason 4e had the Passive Perception concept to begin with was that it was already being officially written about as early as 3e Dungeonscape.

Spiteski posted:

So... kind of like a power?

Ferrinus posted:

It's like watching every silicon valley driverless car disruptivator independently reinvent buses and trains.

quote:

A trap's description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing. If the adventurers detect a trap before triggering it, they might be able to disarm it, either permanently or long enough to move past it. You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage.

Any character can attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to detect or disarm a magic trap, in addition to any other checks noted in the trap's description. The DCs are the same regardless of the check used.

quote:

In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic.

quote:

In most cases, a trap's description is clear enough that you can adjudicate whether a character's actions locate or foil the trap. As with many situations, you shouldn't allow die rolling to override clever play and good planning. Use your common sense, drawing on the trap's description to determine what happens. No trap's design can anticipate every possible action that the characters might attempt.

You should allow a character to discover a trap without making an ability check if an action would clearly reveal the trap's presence. For example, if a character lifts a rug that conceals a pressure plate, the character has found the trigger and no check is required.

Foiling traps can be a little more complicated. Consider a trapped treasure chest. If the chest is opened without first pulling on the two handles set in its sides, a mechanism inside fires a hail of poison needles toward anyone in front of it. After inspecting the chest and making a few checks , the characters are still unsure if it 's trapped. Rather than simply open the chest, they prop a shield in front of it and push the chest open at a distance with an iron rod. In this case, the trap still triggers, but the hail of needles fires harmlessly into the shield.

Razorwired posted:

Does anyone still have that post where Cook "invented" Passive Perception? Because 5e designers accidentally praising their hated edition is never not funny.

quote:

Sep 27, 2011

Very Perceptive

Legends and Lore
Monte Cook

Hello!

As my good friend Mike Mearls mentioned last week, there are some changes here with the column. The biggest being that I'm writing it. Who am I? Monte Cook. I was one of the co-designers of 3rd edition D&D. I have worked full time as a game designer since the late 80s, including a long stint with TSR and then Wizards of the Coast when the latter bought the former. I did a lot of work with 2nd edition D&D, helped transition to 3rd edition, and then ran my own d20 company, Malhavoc Press, to continue to explore the possibilities of that rules set on my own.

Now I'm back working alongside the other great designers at Wizards of the Coast. I can't tell you how good it feels to be back, working with the game I love. It's amazing.

And it gets even better. My job is primarily to explore options. It's the "research" part of "Research & Development." The goal I've been given is to make D&D the best game it can possibly be. It is and always has been the premier roleplaying game in the world, and I want to make sure it continues to be.

Of course, that's a very special challenge, if you think about it. A game like D&D has to move forward, but it also has to stay true to its roots. If you've got a game that's been adored for almost four decades, while you do what you can to bring in new players, you try to please those who have loved and supported the game for so long.

Like me. I started in 1978 or so with the three little booklets, usually called Original D&D or OD&D now. I moved from there to AD&D, and have played every other version and edition of the game at one time or another. I can't even begin to calculate the thousands of hours I have spent playing or preparing for the game, let alone talking about it, thinking about it, and of course working professionally with it.

I think, then, it comes as no surprise for me to say, I love Dungeons & Dragons.

Diving Right In

If you really roll up your sleeves and dig down to the basics of D&D-—the basics of almost any RPG, really-—what you find is either a unique way to create a narrative or a unique way to play a game. (We can debate storytelling vs. game playing some other day.) Either way you want to look at it, you have one person who has information and others who want information. The players (through their characters) are moving through the fictional world and need to know what it's like and what the consequences of their decisions and actions are. The DM is managing the fictional world. But how is that information conveyed? How does he know what to tell and what not to tell?

Simple, really. The DM is the eyes and ears of the players. If they can see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, he should tell them about it. We all know, of course, that it's a bit trickier than that, because sometimes things are hidden.

It's the classic dungeon scenario. You can see it right there on the cover of the first edition Player's Handbook. The PCs have slain the monsters, and now they're searching for treasure. Some of the characters look around, while others busy themselves with the map or something. A couple of guys specifically check out the huge statue. Ideally, it doesn't all come down to just a roll of the dice. Ideally, the players actually interact with the room. They tell the DM that they search the statue, look in the massive brazier that it's holding, and check out the two smaller ones as well. Maybe one of those big teeth on the statue is a lever that opens a secret panel. Maybe one is hollow and holds a secret treasure.

That kind of discussion around the table is dynamic. It's interesting. It should be rewarded. It encourages the skill and imagination of players more than characters. And it would be horrible if a poor die roll wrecked it all.

Imagine, then, if the rules of the game allowed each character to have a ""rank" " that indicated how perceptive they were, and if all the hidden things had a rank as well. You could quickly and easily compare the ranks. If the character's rank was equal to or higher than the rank of the secret door or other hidden thing, he could find it if he took the time, because it was easy for him. No die roll needed. He can just do it because he's very perceptive. If the rank of the hidden thing was higher, though, he could still try to succeed at a die roll. It's challenging, but not impossible (the sweet spot, if you will). And if the difficulty rank was a lot higher, it would just be impossible, and again there's no need for the die roll. The DM just says "you don't find anything." Quick and easy. And best of all, if the player told the DM that his character was doing exactly the right thing-—checking the statue's teeth to see if one moved-—the DM could easily grant him a bonus to his rank and make what was impossible to find, possible. Player ingenuity rewarded.

That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?" You know: when the PCs aren't actually looking for something, but it stands to reason that some one or more of them might just have a chance of noticing the hidden thing. Remember, for example, how in first 1st edition elves had a chance to notice secret doors just by walking by them? Or what about the rogue who always has a wary eye out for traps? You don't want these guys constantly making die rolls every 5 feet. The game will bog down quickly. Again, if we look to the rank idea, the DM can just make a note that the elf has an Expert rank, and thus he knows that if, in the course of exploration, she walks by any secret doors of Expert rank or lower, she spots them. Higher, and she doesn't (no die rolls at all-—because the die roll itself tells the metagaming player that there's something to find, and the DM having to make rolls for the player behind the screen is awkward). Likewise, the rogue can always be on the lookout for traps without routine walking around the dungeon becoming a chore. It's only when he's being really cautious that he can state that he searches the door or the chest or whatever. And then we handle things as described above, thus rewarding smart play.

This is all a way to handle the flow of information-—particularly secret information-—quickly and easily, with die rolls involved only when it really matters. So that we can keep the game moving at a lively pace without sacrificing the fun of exploring the environment with dynamic play and creative ideas. So that the rules don't get in the way of the fun.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the matter. This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot more ideas to talk about. Some crazy, some hopefully not so crazy. It'll be up to you to tell me which is which.

Conspiratiorist posted:

And nothing compares damage-wise to a Fighter

P.d0t posted:

lemme guess, Champion Fighter with Savage Attacker feat?

Nehru the Damaja posted:

I really don't mind passive perception except for the massive fuckup they've had in communicating what things are perceived vs. investigated, leading to infinite goddamn perception checks and people reasonably assuming "surely I'm not handwaving away ALL of this"