|
Mendrian posted:In my experience, shallow characterization is basically the order of the day for everybody in D&D. If someone is content to write 'Drow' on their character sheet and stop there you probably would have had to twist their arm to explain how their dwarf is new and interesting too. Yeah, if it's someone who cares about writing backstory then they'll probably take some time to look into the culture of the race they wanna use to find elements to either blend or contrast into it instead of going with the purely superficial take.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
I really think you guys are leaning too hard on extremes there. Yes there are people who will never characterize anyone ever, but they're not the only players. There's totally people who pick Dwarf or Variant Human or something for its mechanics and then realize "okay how do I make this guy not boring" but would be content with a surface characterization for a kobold or goblin because even though it's shallow, it's weird enough that it's fun right out of the can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I really think you guys are leaning too hard on extremes there. Yes there are people who will never characterize anyone ever, but they're not the only players. There's totally people who pick Dwarf or Variant Human or something for its mechanics and then realize "okay how do I make this guy not boring" but would be content with a surface characterization for a kobold or goblin because even though it's shallow, it's weird enough that it's fun right out of the can. There are a couple MTG terms they use for design, that I can't remember. One is designing the mechanics and making the fluff fit, and the other is designing the fluff and making the mechanics fit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:There are a couple MTG terms they use for design, that I can't remember. One is designing the mechanics and making the fluff fit, and the other is designing the fluff and making the mechanics fit. Bottom-up vs top-down design. Bottom-up is: "we want a race with +2 str +1 int and gets advantage on con saves once per day, write the fluff." Top down is "this is a race of peaceful crab-people from the land of Clawtopia, figure out their stats." I dunno if that describes the above so much as getting into different player archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Unrelated, someone shared a link with me about how Find Familiar doesn't need a brass brazier and holy poo poo I'm done with ever listening to wotc staff for anything other than the barest description of how a confusing mechanic works, because they're clearly just making everything up on a whim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Yeah that's what I came up with too but people see d and d wiki dot com and say nopeeeee. Pretty sure the "can use weapons normally" bit means the author intended for them to deal normal damage with the shrunken weapons. They basically seem like elves that get a fly speed and once per short rest invisibility as their subrace abilities. I'd put a big fat nope on that if I was running a game, too. Bias against homebrew races is almost always justified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Homebrewing races seems hella easy in this version since it's basically +2 to one stat, +1 to another, and a couple minor abilities. Fly speed or a short rest invis aren't minor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Pretty sure the "can use weapons normally" bit means the author intended for them to deal normal damage with the shrunken weapons. They basically seem like elves that get a fly speed and once per short rest invisibility as their subrace abilities. I'd put a big fat nope on that if I was running a game, too. Say you had those DMG rules in front of you. And a (1d4 -1) hp pixie creature picks up a tiny little longsword and attacks with it even though the monster manual says they abhor physical violence. What's their damage roll? That's what i'm curious about. What are the rules for a tiny creature. Carrying capacity is gonna be like five pounds tops. I get that part. I hate d&d wiki for making GBS threads up my search results and every time I think I found something pertinent to show to the DM they read it and say "no this is homebrew' and after the fifth time of it happening I realized it was literally always d&d wiki. They hide that "this is fake homebrew' disclaimer inconsistently and it fucks me up every time. Krinkle fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Unrelated, someone shared a link with me about how Find Familiar doesn't need a brass brazier and holy poo poo I'm done with ever listening to wotc staff for anything other than the barest description of how a confusing mechanic works, because they're clearly just making everything up on a whim. Well, share the link. Or is it because a brazier has no cost and therefore your component pouch is full of them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Well, share the link. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/30/find-familiar-component/ There's no explanation at all. It's just "hi here's a direct contradiction to what's written for no reason whatsoever."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Unrelated, a great thing happened last night. We got into a situation where a back room had a Dwarven hostage we were looking for and.... another of the same. We'd dealt with doppelgangers enough to assume one of them was just that. Our Paladin had this idea about taking a long rest (which everyone rejected) so that the cleric could prepare Zone of Truth. I'm like "one of these dwarves is [cleric]'s cousin. We don't need to do all that. We can just talk to them and find out which one knows something only the real one would!" Paladin: "What, just sit down and have a beer with them like everything's fine?" Me: "Y- .... wait a minute. Do you still have that special Dwarven ale? The kind that poisons anyone without a hardy Dwarven constitution? Let's just wake them up one at a time and have them both drink!" I think the DM had completely forgotten about that random throwaway flavor item of the ale cask and took a moment before he'd sign off on it. But it meant not only was it easy to identify the real foe, but once we did, he had the Poisoned condition while we kicked the poo poo out of him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Unrelated, someone shared a link with me about how Find Familiar doesn't need a brass brazier and holy poo poo I'm done with ever listening to wotc staff for anything other than the barest description of how a confusing mechanic works, because they're clearly just making everything up on a whim. This is why I reject people who try to insist on playing 5e RAW. It's one thing to want to rigidly adhere to the rules as written for a well thought out, well designed, finely tuned game where even tiny adjustments can throw things off. 5e is not that game. 5e is being made up as it goes along even at the official level. Don't worry about messing up the game balance, it's all made up!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Yeah RAW is good for being a common authority to which we can go and resolve something and agree to work under the same rules, but when it is unclear or inadequate, it's better to just go with something that's fair and if possible adds to the story, rather than try to get all Founding Fathers on the empty whims of some nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Last night: Paladin: "I go up and Gallagher the corpse's head with my hammer." DM: "What's your alignment?" Paladin: "Lawful Good?" DM: "Not anymore it isn't." Paladin: "What? The cave is full of undead. I'm taking precautions to make sure he doesn't become one too." DM: "Okay, I need you to roll a persuasion check." Warlock (me): "What, against the DM!?" DM: "Yes. I need him to roll persuasion against God."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Last night: That's either awesome or awful, I'm not sure which. Probably both?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
The roll itself ended up not mattering because they talked it out some more and came to an understanding. He legitimately was thinking about all the undead we came across while to the DM and myself set against the context of him being a bit of a loose cannon lately, it really looked like he flew off at the handle. It was a perspective thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
I would allow your Pixie in a game I ran, Krinkle. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:I would allow your Pixie in a game I ran, Krinkle. The concept is fun and neat, just that custom race is hilariously more powerful than it should be - which is a bad homebrew standard, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
I don't think it's so powerful that it'd ruin a game tbh I have a pretty lenient style, however
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
I love how "an elf but black" is just too far out there for some D&D tables.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I love how "an elf but black" is just too far out there for some D&D tables. You don't understand, it's too zany for my serious table of make-believe!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:I don't think it's so powerful that it'd ruin a game tbh The problem isn't entirely that flight and invisibility are super OP or whatever, it's that other races get nothing similar and that's not fair to other players. If I were gonna accept a race like that, I'd want to give other races suitably buffed abilities, too. People notice discrepancies like that in play, and speaking as a player it's not a great feeling when you see someone else do a really cool thing that they just get as a bonus when what you get as a bonus is sort of cool sometimes I guess kinda but not really that great. So, as a DM, I'd want to go after that proactively. Or just devise a couple lower-powered options for the Pixie that still fit the theme, it's actually pretty fun to engage with a player and figure out what's nifty and thematic but's not going to make other players feel like they got cheated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I love how "an elf but black" is just too far out there for some D&D tables. The marketing of 5E is basically a love letter to the kind of people that want Drow to always and forever be discriminated against, because it's the accumulated fluff (that is pretty strongly influenced by real-world racist [and let's be honest misogynist too, because naturally the most evil in Drow-ness comes from WOMEN WHO WANT TOO MUCH HOW DARE THEY] ideas).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Re: pixies – maybe just use the 4E pixie rules as far as possible? They could fly but had an altitude limit of 1 square/5 feet, and their only noteworthy other features were Speak with Beasts as a passive ability and an encounter power that let a nearby ally fly up to 6 squares. (And shrinking an item made for Small/Medium creatures down to their size, again as an encounter power.) It'd be a starting point at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Also saying that no other race gets anything like it is rather wrong. There are races, not many but some, that get Flight. They are generally not allowed in Adventure League, because that does not want you to have Flight before 5th level, but that is the only reason. The Invisibility is just another 1/short rest spell. Now generally the races that get spells get like a cantrip and a few other spells 1/day depending on their level, so the fact it is a short rest recharge might be a little faster but not really out of the bounds of actual races. The shrinking thing really only lets them use items without needing a special item for their size. Now maybe since they are Tiny you can limit them to the same weapons as Small races? Which would mean not certain things like greatswords, greataxes, and probably longbows. But still allow Rapiers or Longswords. Honestly it isn't that different from the 4e Pixie. Except actual Flight instead of just hover limited, but again 5e has at least 2 official races that have Flight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Also saying that no other race gets anything like it is rather wrong. There are races, not many but some, that get Flight. They are generally not allowed in Adventure League, because that does not want you to have Flight before 5th level, but that is the only reason. The Invisibility is just another 1/short rest spell. Now generally the races that get spells get like a cantrip and a few other spells 1/day depending on their level, so the fact it is a short rest recharge might be a little faster but not really out of the bounds of actual races. "Some races get a 0-level spell once a day" and "this race gets a 2nd level spell every short rest" is... not even similar at all. Combined with natural flight it is, yes, very overpowered in the context of other races as the system presents them. That's my point. It's not that the race is a god-race that dominates all that stand before it, it's that it's distinctly better than other races, and that's not a great thing to go for. edit: Honestly the 4E pixie is a solid example, and it seems to have been the inspiration - only the author, as homebrews stereotypically do, wanted it to be more and better. double edit: Even in the context of granted spells, Invisibility is really powerful; it's not something like Suggestion that Yuan-ti might get, it's got much more narrative weight especially when taken as a whole with other racial abilities Darwinism fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:The Invisibility is just another 1/short rest spell. So is Nystul's Magical Aura, it's even the same level. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to think that having the ability to cast either that or Invisibility 1/SR are at all comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:The problem isn't entirely that flight and invisibility are super OP or whatever, it's that other races get nothing similar and that's not fair to other players. If I were gonna accept a race like that, I'd want to give other races suitably buffed abilities, too. People notice discrepancies like that in play, and speaking as a player it's not a great feeling when you see someone else do a really cool thing that they just get as a bonus when what you get as a bonus is sort of cool sometimes I guess kinda but not really that great. So, as a DM, I'd want to go after that proactively. All of these arguments apply to class balance which makes it pretty funny how in one case (race) it's totally unacceptable and in the other (class) it's expected. hm, race vs class, perhaps wotc is on to something... edit: if you want to play a homebrew pixie just bring back the 2e one where it fly and turned visible at will, resulting in a dispel against it turn it back to invis mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
The important thing here is I'd only ever be a pixie vengeance paladin, whose armor would probably limit flight to jugular height in short bursts, or a pixie barbarian, who would never go invisible, ever. Those homebrew skills are bad and I agree but I wasn't looking at them I was looking at a tiny playable race and nothing further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:All of these arguments apply to class balance which makes it pretty funny how in one case (race) it's totally unacceptable and in the other (class) it's expected. class imbalances affect the entire campaign, while flying and turning invisible become less upsetting when flying and turning invisible are level-appropriate class abilities
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:class imbalances affect the entire campaign, while flying and turning invisible become less upsetting when flying and turning invisible are level-appropriate class abilities so you agree playing a pixie is less worse than using a party composition like an original ranger and a wizard together?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:so you agree playing a pixie is less worse than using a party composition like an original ranger and a wizard together? bad along different axes of progression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:bad along different axes of progression. ha, fair enough. The intersectionality of 5e
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:class imbalances affect the entire campaign, while flying and turning invisible become less upsetting when flying and turning invisible are level-appropriate class abilities This is pretty much the same reason that Variant Human can swing from "very best race, period" all the way to garbage/meh, depending on who's at the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
I house rule heavily to make character concepts come to life and play a little fast and loose with the rules of combat to make sure my players are having fun (high damage rolls on enemies that leave them with less than 3 hp do something special, cursed items with benefits, etc). One of my players wanted to play a Protection-style eldritch knight with a shield as his "bonded weapon". I invented this thing:quote:Tower Shield. This tall, rectangular metal shield grants a +4 bonus to AC and allows its wielder to set the shield on the ground as an action and take shelter behind it, gaining half cover. Other creatures may also take shelter behind you while you do this, gaining half cover themselves. It hasn't really caused many balance issues that our group has been able to detect; the player mostly gets to live out his immovable wall fantasy while not dealing too much damage and being especially tripped up by fast enemies or area of effect spells, but is there anything obvious that I'm not seeing that will crop up later? The party is currently level 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
I know this thread occasionally appreciates session stories so here is mine from Saturday, as told to a friend of mine. https://twitter.com/thayelf/status/876526442426769408
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Reene posted:I know this thread occasionally appreciates session stories so here is mine from Saturday, as told to a friend of mine. This is fantastic, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Reclaimer posted:This is fantastic, thank you. Waiting for the follow up explanation to the fighters when they get back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
They're used to things being on fire whenever they miss a game. Things are actually significantly less on fire than they usually are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Darwinism posted:The marketing of 5E is basically a love letter to the kind of people that want Drow to always and forever be discriminated against, because it's the accumulated fluff (that is pretty strongly influenced by real-world racist [and let's be honest misogynist too, because naturally the most evil in Drow-ness comes from WOMEN WHO WANT TOO MUCH HOW DARE THEY] ideas). Agreed. It's pretty absurd to think women are capable of being evil in any way, or even more ridiculous, capable of running a civilization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:41
|
|
