|
It depends a lot on your party makeup, but if you give your players max HP, and maybe extra they can probably survive that. I gave my level 1 newbies their level 2 HP at level 1, and also maxed that. Be prepared to fudge things a bit if the dragon starts just completely destroying them.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Hm. Would a single CR2 be too much at 1st level, along side a deadly-looking (but failures are basically only story failures, NPC deaths and plot setbacks, not PC death) skill challenge? I found stats for a Brown Dragon Wyrmling listed at CR2... AC16, 39 HP, +5 to hit, 1d10+3 damage... only thing that scares me would be the 4d8 breath weapon, but I could always drop that down to something more reasonable. Maybe even set the dragon's bite to 1d6+3, make the breath weapon do 1d10+3 and create a persisting zone of obscuring dust (blocks all line of sight but can be moved through freely). AC 16 means anyone without archery fighting style will be missing 50% of the time, which could be a pretty frustrating fight. Handing out Inspiration or having NPCs provide Aid Another will help a lot. As per most single target fights it'd come down to whether the spellcasters are damage specced (everyone dies) or SoS specced (wyvern's getting punked). Adding their raw con score to starting HP as per 4E will vastly up their odds and let you play a bit less conservatively. Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Also, take a look at this article to have standardized monster stats: https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/improved-monster-stats-table-for-dd-5th-edition/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Speaking of the improved monster stats article, I'm writing some homebrew and giving a few of them summon abilities, providing the stats and rules in-line because I'm not a horrendous rear end in a top hat. Should I be giving the summons stats using the improved monster math stats, or using original flavour monster tables? Most of them follow Conjure Elemental for parity with casters, summoning a CR=1/2 level creature. This leaves them huge damage beatsticks, so should I use improved math to tone them down?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:38
|
|
Iunnrais posted:I have 1 D&D vet with extensive 5th edition experience, 1 Call of Cthulhu player who has never touched D&D before, and 2 role playing newbies. A big reason for the players asking for 5th over 4th edition was for the new players not to get overwhelmed with lots of abilities and choices. So level 1 is kinda assumed. Have you actually looked at a level 1 5E character sheet? A level 1 fighter will be lucky to have 15 HP. This Wyrmling will loving destroy a level 1 party. We're talking about a game where a three goblin ambush in Lost Mine of Phandelver is famous for TPKing parties of five. Either start at a higher level or save your pre-planned combat for later.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Yeah, later on when players have more HP and more options in how to handle encounters it's not so bad, but levels 1-2 are swingy as all gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Splicer posted:5E is incredibly swingy compared to 4E. Keep in mind that RAW many of your starting characters will have single digit HP. Average wyvern claw/bite damage will KO most starting characters, and the tail will instantly kill them on a successful save. At +7 to hit on each that's at least a character down a round. Meanwhile at 110hp and AC 13 your wyvern is going to take about 15 optimised ranged character attacks to kill. Or it gets Tasha'd in the first round and drowns. I think this is really my issue with what's going on right now. Either we absolutely destroy the enemies we're fighting or we're all dead and there's no inbetween. And what makes that difference is "Do the enemies get to hit us?". My DM hasn't cut the volume of enemies down because until now it's been fine but when we hit 10 it felt like it suddenly changed and now one hit means death unless it's on the Barbarian. I'm not sure how much difference healing would make, I guess if we had a dedicated healer JUST healing us and never getting hit it'd be okay. And my biggest problem with the bladelock (apart from AC) is that it's kinda boring. You don't get to cast many spells so while I've got a huge list of things I can do in practice I can't actually do any of them because I need to be casting Hex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
it all comes down to pinching your cheeks to cut off a particularly long turd having had more design put into it than 5e. hardly anything in the game has been thought of besides whatever it can inherit before, and, surprise surprise, that results in a jumble of bullshit that doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:Ah, I take it that's big enough a deal, then? What are the other reasons bladelocks are bad? Bladelocks aren't "very, very bad" but they're not good. The lack of substantive ways to soak or avoid melee damage is the big thing. Their damage track isn't awful but lackluster compared to Eldrich Blast with the added insult of being in melee to do it. Then you further slow your damage progress to take something like 1st level fighter or rogue 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Bladelocks aren't "very, very bad" but they're not good. The lack of substantive ways to soak or avoid melee damage is the big thing. Their damage track isn't awful but lackluster compared to Eldrich Blast with the added insult of being in melee to do it. Then you further slow your damage progress to take something like 1st level fighter or rogue 2. I never multiclass and would say if a class requires it then the class is broken. I liked the idea of being a blade sorcerer just because I was a Dragonborn with decent strength but in reality all I should be doing is casting eldrich blast constantly and being extremely boring to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
If you want to be a blade sorcerer you play sorcerer with a 2 level paladin dip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I multiclassed exactly one time. I made a level 1 wizard, level 4 barbarian, his only spells were tenser's floating disc and magic hand, and if you called him a lovely wizard he'd beat your face in with his spellbook. He died first, exhausted, because to get back multiattack I had to make him a berserker, but, you know, sometimes things just feel right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Taear posted:I never multiclass and would say if a class requires it then the class is broken. In that case a lot of 5E classes are broken I mean, nothing strictly requires multiclassing to actually function, but basically everything that exists in melee can be improved drastically in its core function by judicious multiclassing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:In that case a lot of 5E classes are broken Eh... You don't want to multiclass Fighter before 11, and Paladin likewise has an excellent case for staying the course until 11 for Improved Divine Smite, with MCing being sidegrades rather than a core function improvement. Monks don't really want to multiclass at all (except Shadow Monk, but that's more because of the utility). Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue are all cool with dips or otherwise, tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Hm, alright. So, I don't really have any design background, but would something like an eldritch invocation requiring pact of the blade that lets you apply your CHA mod to your AC (in addition to your DEX mod), but the max DEX bonus from your armor is also the max CHA bonus be terribly unbalanced?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Eh... True, in just straight combat a competently built Fighter is very good at dishing out damage. I gotta disagree with the Paladin idea, though, because just about all you get from it is nova potential. Monk I have no idea about
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:Hm, alright. So, I don't really have any design background, but would something like an eldritch invocation requiring pact of the blade that lets you apply your CHA mod to your AC (in addition to your DEX mod), but the max DEX bonus from your armor is also the max CHA bonus be terribly unbalanced? Thst would be more powerful than any other similar ability in game, but not to the point where it would break things. If you required them to be unarmored to use it, it is mostly comparable to several abilities from other classes and fairly balanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:True, in just straight combat a competently built Fighter is very good at dishing out damage. I gotta disagree with the Paladin idea, though, because just about all you get from it is nova potential. Monk I have no idea about What? Improved Divine Smite is an excellent lvl 11 power spike, hands down. It's a free 1d8 extra on all your attacks, plus an additional 1d8 when you smite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I got the idea from monks adding WIS. My thought was that if you started as a fighter and had heavy armor you'd get at most one or two extra AC, via the armor related max bonus cap, but if you start as a fighter your CHA is probably gonna be a bit lower than if you'd started as pure warlock anyway. Would using CHA instead of DEX but letting CHA ignore the max bonus from armor be more or less powerful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:Yeah, I got the idea from monks adding WIS. My thought was that if you started as a fighter and had heavy armor you'd get at most one or two extra AC, via the armor related max bonus cap, but if you start as a fighter your CHA is probably gonna be a bit lower than if you'd started as pure warlock anyway. This isn't 3.5e. The Dex max on heavy armor is 0 and on medium armor is 2. It would be brokenly powerful if you allowed them to wear ac18 full plate plus 3-5 bonus AC from CHA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
The problem is less the AC thing, more the damage thing. You could make a dexterity based bladelock, you just would never have much reason to actually use your blade. I dunno if there is a "solution" to the bladelock, as the problem is the entire warlock chassis is built around one and only one thing: blasting from afar. The warlock is an intensely one-dimensional class there, and without solving that, you can't really solve the bladelock, but that means redoing the entire warlock class, which obviously isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
A 14 Dex fighter in scale mail and a shield has 18 AC. a 14 Dex Warlock in studded leather has 14 AC. If you give him his Cha bonus to ac, he'll have 17 AC (assuming 16 Cha). If the +Cha only works while unarmored, the same 14 Dex 16 Cha Warlock has 15 AC. If the +Dex and +Cha are both capped at +2 because he's wearing scale mail and a shield, he'll have 20 AC. Personally I lean toward letting my players be more resilient than not. Combined with the fact that he's going to need an Invocation to do it and that he's got to deal with needing at least three ability scores to survive in melee, I'd probably let the Cha bonus work as long as he's wearing light or no armor. I'd probably also let Blade Pact warlocks swap their Wis save proficiency for Con save proficiency. EDIT: Mage Armor and a shield would give him 20 AC. I might add a "no shields" clause to the Invocation. Cool Dad fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the insights, y'all--our DM is away for a while so it's kind of moot, practically speaking, but this is a fascinating topic to me. The last time I played D&D warlock didn't exist (at least not without splatbooks) so I was excited to try something new, and after reading up on pacts and backgrounds and such I came up with a human folk hero feypact guy, who saved village kids from an unseelie plot involving changelings and was rewarded by seelie fey with power. Now he wanders as a sort of knight-errant representing the interests of the seelie court in the mortal realm. I only dumped all that info because there's been a fascinating discussion in the Pillars of Eternity thread about balance in single player CRPGs and how some of the issues stem from, for example, 2nd edition balance flaws, with examples from Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate mentioned and how some encounters were designed around the assumption the player had significant system mastery and wouldn't have fallen for trap builds/concepts (like the swashbuckler kit) or the like. 5e it seems like this is, while still a problem, less so than in previous editions? I really like how 5e's setup in such a way that really makes it easy to conceptualize a character. While the DM's away we're gonna do a couple workshop sessions just using back-of-PHB monsters as rules practice and a chance for the newbies to get acquainted with how things work before the DM is actually trying to murder them. Should be fun!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:What? Man, I totally misread that, I thought it was just an extra d8 on Smites
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:I only dumped all that info because there's been a fascinating discussion in the Pillars of Eternity thread about balance in single player CRPGs and how some of the issues stem from, for example, 2nd edition balance flaws, with examples from Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate mentioned and how some encounters were designed around the assumption the player had significant system mastery and wouldn't have fallen for trap builds/concepts (like the swashbuckler kit) or the like. 5e it seems like this is, while still a problem, less so than in previous editions? I really like how 5e's setup in such a way that really makes it easy to conceptualize a character. 5e is better than 3e for trap options and overall balance but still worse than 4e (with the notable exception of feats because 4e had so many and some were basically required to keep up with the monster math).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Kibner posted:5e is better than 3e for trap options and overall balance but still worse than 4e (with the notable exception of feats because 4e had so many and some were basically required to keep up with the monster math). I've said this before in the thread but the issue with 4E is that it requires a huge amount of buy-in from every single player. You need everyone to be the kind of person who owns the books, sits and builds their classes and remembers exactly what their classes do at all times. For me unfortunately that just isn't possible. 5E is simpler and easier for everyone to remember what they have to do. And I'm definitely not saying that's good. It's just easier to administer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Taear posted:I've said this before in the thread but the issue with 4E is that it requires a huge amount of buy-in from every single player. You need everyone to be the kind of person who owns the books, sits and builds their classes and remembers exactly what their classes do at all times. I don't think that's true. I dm'd two separate groups for over two years with nothing more than the rules compendium, monster vault, and a DDI sub that let us all use the builder. Never had any problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I missed 4e completely but I'd heard it characterized as kind of MMO-ified? Like in terms of mechanics and such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:I missed 4e completely but I'd heard it characterized as kind of MMO-ified? Like in terms of mechanics and such. In that it introduced balance and mechanical definition that ensured that every party member had an equal contribution, sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:I missed 4e completely but I'd heard it characterized as kind of MMO-ified? Like in terms of mechanics and such. Not really, it was just a common insult thrown at it by people who hated it without actually reading it, similar to how 3e was "Diablo on paper" when it first came out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Before y'all start going around again about edition wars... Would it be worthwhile to pick up an old Monster Manual (from AD&D or something like that) to homebrew funky retro monsters into 5e, or do the current MM and VGM cover most of them? I like the oddball monsters imported from that era of the game, and I'm curious to know if any classics haven't been brought into 5e yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Time Cowboy posted:Before y'all start going around again about edition wars... Combined with Gradenko's rules for making monsters, sure. Old books ought to be quite inexpensive!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Ah, gotcha. Now that I've played 5th and used cantrips I had just assumed the "mmo-ification" comment meant like spells you just cast over and over. I hadn't really been able to figure out what they'd meant. The diablo-on-paper thing kinda cracks me up; what were the big changes from 2nd to 3rd? I remember switching over from THAC0 and making AC work from low to high values, standardizing exp/level across classes, and ditching dual classing in favor of letting humans multi-class too. I'm sure there were plenty of more minute changes but those seemed like the most dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Re: bladelocks, if you're going to start Fighter (which you should) you should go ahead and grab a second level of Fighter at some point as well for Action Surge. Frankly, most classes can benefit from having Action Surge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:The diablo-on-paper thing kinda cracks me up; what were the big changes from 2nd to 3rd? I remember switching over from THAC0 and making AC work from low to high values, standardizing exp/level across classes, and ditching dual classing in favor of letting humans multi-class too. I'm sure there were plenty of more minute changes but those seemed like the most dramatic. 1) Multiclassing on a per-level basis 2) Feats 3) Elimination of many 2e restrictions on casting (e.g. picking your own spells, automatically getting spells per level, etc)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:Ah, gotcha. Now that I've played 5th and used cantrips I had just assumed the "mmo-ification" comment meant like spells you just cast over and over. I hadn't really been able to figure out what they'd meant. Too much to go into, legit. 2e -> 3e was one of the few times - in fact, maybe the ONLY time - D&D actually had a full engine change. AD&D wasn't a singular system; you used the d20 a lot, but sometimes you did percentage rolls, and HOW the d20 was used wasn't regular at all. Sometimes high rolls are good, sometimes low rolls are good. The 3e d20 engine was an entirely different beast in just about every way it COULD be. Also, the Diablo on paper thing, much like the WoW on paper thing for 4e, isn't rooted in any of the mechanics. It's rooted in 3e's big advertisement campaign being "BACK TO THE DUNGEON" as a backhanded comment that 2e was a bad system because it was too focused on "story," while also maligning what was at the time its biggest competitor, Vampire. It's a cheap dumb comparison meant to be insulting with no actual thought put into it. So, you know, edition war rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
What should a regular rear end salt of the earth druid know about the fey wild? I just read the DMG about it, and it's a lot less "plane of elemental nature" than I assumed. Are fey things that, like, hang out in nature, but don't really care for it the way a druid would?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Taear posted:I've said this before in the thread but the issue with 4E is that it requires a huge amount of buy-in from every single player. You need everyone to be the kind of person who owns the books, sits and builds their classes (Well, unless you wanted to play a starlock). That said, we all chipped in on a DDI subscription and used the character builder like normal people. Taear posted:and remembers exactly what their classes do at all times. Also has the charger feat but doesn't quite get bonus actions. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
I am dumb, never mind.
MMAgCh fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Time Cowboy posted:Before y'all start going around again about edition wars... Most of the odd monsters are in the game now due to the Current Monster Manual and VGM. Stuff like the Froghemoth, Flailsnail and Flumph. Can't think of any oddballs that are missing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 22:29
|
|
