|
I spent a whole SKT campaign summoning puppers and turning into an octopus. We do mostly TOTM and I got good at rolling all their attacks with advantage quickly so it didn't drag things to a grinding halt. It could definitely do with some revision but there are worse things I'd rage at 5e for than conjure animals.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:Crap, my druid player is about to hit level five and I fully expect her to embrace Conjure Animal, probably mostly to summon platypi. What is it that makes it so awful, aside from the same thing that makes summoning awful in any version D&D? From the beginning they let you summon 8 things if they are low enough CR. For beasts, this is an annoyance and really strong - At player level 5, wolves gets you 8 attacks with advantage. 8 extra turns is always gonna gently caress up "balance" of encounters but unfortunately this also means one player gets way more turns than the others. Mostly they attacked the same thing so it wasn't that bad but it was kinda bleh. At player level 7, they can use summon woodland beings. Pixies are CR 1/4, so they can summon 8 of them. Each one is invisible and can cast polymorph among other things. This is completely broken if you just let them do it. According to sage advice, the solution is for the DM to pick the creatures. This is bad in multiple ways - the player still picks the quantity, and 8 extra turns is always gonna be spotlight-hogging and strong. Second, it forces work on me in that I have to come up with something that both isn't too strong, is appropriate for the encounter/environment, and isn't gonna just bum the player out because I gave them something lovely. I could instead roll on a table, and I did find one online, but they still sometimes get something bad for their slot. Outside of any balance concerns, come on the whole fun of such a spell is picking cool animals to summon. Conjure woodland beings is nearly unsalvageable. There are 1 or 2 options in the book for each CR slot. If they pick 1/4, it's 50% pixies and 50% blink dogs if I use a table. I think the only compromise here be like, "you get one thing that you choose". My "fix" was to cut the number of animals in half, my druid still picks them, and we talked OOG about why woodland beings sucks and he isn't gonna use it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
When the druid youre playing with hits level 5 and wants to summon a stupid amount of wolves, what do you do? I dont like to tell a player he cant do a thing just because its more work, but i dont want to add 8 wolves to a already packed table. Luckily, after the first fight, he restricted his summons to two bears only and I made them act on his turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
ReapersTouch posted:When the druid youre playing with hits level 5 and wants to summon a stupid amount of wolves, what do you do? I dont like to tell a player he cant do a thing just because its more work, but i dont want to add 8 wolves to a already packed table. Add all the wolf HP together and treat them as two packs that have four attacks each.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
"8 wolves? ok, I'll roll for them." "Weird, every round exactly (20 - (target AC - to-hit bonus))*5% of them hit for exactly average damage."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
The other thing is that the spell is super fun out of combat even with the full amount of creatures because they can do bizarre and cool things. I label the giant badgers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and let them loose in town to get the town guard to go down into the sewers looking for badger 3. PS you gotta give the wolves advantage on those attacks
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:One of my players loves critical role and it's probably why I'm playing, since he was the one pushing for us to start. It was satisfying to see mercer complain about the same mechanics that I really don't like! (conjure animals/woodland beings/elementals is some of the worst poo poo in the game) Yeah its part of why I went from 'oh this guy is just a charismatic dude who has never hit the real problems people constantly complain about with d&d' all the way to 'oh poo poo this guy might know what hes talking and straight recognises a lot of the big pain points'. He even describes D&D as the middle ground gateway game to figuring out what you prefer in rpgs and go find some other game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Add all the wolf HP together and treat them as two packs that have four attacks each. This, but two packs with at most two attacks, but a higher attack bonus and some extra damage. I like rolling piles of dice as much as the next guy (or, I'll admit, a fair bit more and perhaps too much), but that's still annoying to other players and gets way too much crit potential- statistically, a set of eight attacks has a 33% chance of at least one crit on every turn. If you're curious about that statistic, also note that it takes 13.5 attacks per round for a 50% chance for at least one crit and 45 attacks for a 90% chance. That's some serious diminishing returns. Statistics are weird and counterintuitive. e: grammar Zomborgon fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:This, but two packs with at most two attacks, but a higher attack bonus and some extra damage. I like rolling piles of dice as much as the next guy (or, I'll admit, a fair bit more and perhaps too much), but that's still annoying to other players and gets way too much crit potential- statistically, eight attacks has a 33% chance of at least one crit on every turn. Don't be hatin' on negative binominal distributions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Shortcuts to having a lovely time in D&D: Playing a sniper. Playing a Summoner. Picking only AoE spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
My current DM actually suggested I play with that UA Druid Summoner archetype because he wanted to see it in play and my previous character had to leave the party due to morality differences that were making roleplaying a bit too tense on everyone. It's been working out, but I suspect it's mostly because my DM is a massive workaholic and actually made tokens for every possible beast and woodland creature ahead of time. We also do the system where he decides what I get out of the spell, and since he also has Volos that gives more Woodland Being options to dilute the 1/4th and below category so I get stuff besides Pixies and Sprites. I basically get to ask for a general idea (such as "Ranged help" or "Distractions" or "Tough") and he summons what he thinks is appropriate. I'm pretty quick at rolling so it doesn't bog down the game much. It helps that we have a sorcerer with terminal decision paralysis so I'm not even the person who takes the longest turns, even including my summons! I've actually been kinda liking it due to the flavor we impose onto each group. When I summoned "Ranged Help" I got a Pixie and 7 Sprites who acted as a military unit and my character INSTANTLY got into it and barked orders at them like a sergeant. Edit: Another time I got a Pixie, a Satyr and I think some Darklings (they didn't get to do much) and basically concocted a stupid plan to have the Pixie Invis + Fly the Satyr so he could pretend to be a spooky music ghost distraction to a tribe of barbarians. It was great. Infinity Gaia fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
On the subject of Matt Mercer chat, he was in a video chat about 5e with Mike Mearls and two other internet people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjLO6YNKV0 Some interesting answers, especially from Mearls. Since I can't just dump two hours of dudes talking without context, here's my notes on some of the discussion: -10 minute mark, what is 5e: 5e was the first edition designed knowing it was D&D, just putting in D&D things. Also, fireball is by design "too powerful", and it was the first edition where they could get the view of people who didn't go online and complain and designed it for people who accepted it for what it was. -Further talk about how it was about "feeling" like D&D or "being" D&D. Then Mearls discusses how he treated D&Disms like alignment as "challenges" rather than "shackles" because users were asking for it -"D&D is not a game, it's a culture" -25 minute mark: What about 5e rules specifically enable closeness to the narrative. Mercer talks about how the draw of D&D to him was the feeling that you could do anything, which got undermined as mechanics became more defined, especially 4e's combat system which felt too distinct from the roleplaying section. Adam talks about rolling initiative being the signal for transitioning into combat mode across D&D, which leads to Mearls talking about how it's a call to pay attention and work together in your role. Then talks about removing layers and terms that stand between the character and the game world, which lead to using ability scores for everything. Adam then talks about how there's more of a cultural acceptance of switching between story and combat thanks to games like Final Fantasy. -Mearls talks about how fixed combat turns are a natural way of keeping the flow and providing moments for the DM to look things up -Mercer calls D&D the "comfort food of tabletop roleplaying games" -40 minute mark: Mearls talks about how there weren't as many new people coming into the game for 3e and 4e. He believes that every time you add in another rule to the game, it's another thing the DM has to keep track of, and wants the rules to be passive until they're needed. Talks about how you can have fun running the game completely wrong, but what do you do when people have to stop and look up the rules and figure out that it wasn't the way it was supposed to be played. -Matt Colville talks about how he thinks that vague rules are supposed to be using ambiguous natural language to force the DM to make decisions and become better DMs -What does 5e do to help alleviate the need to overprepare like in 3e with rules for everything? Mercer says everything can be condensed and streamlined into ability scores, and worked out from there, doesn't lean on floating modifiers and bonuses like other editions, with only advantage/disadvantage. Colville believes that it's good that 5e doesn't even pretend to have all the rules. -53 minute mark: Mearls- Things in D&D are considered "broken" when someone is not only doing something well, but doing well when it's something everyone wants to do to the point where there's no point in others doing it, which is why they're focused on having different roles so it's a team effort and everyone feels like the hero, compares it to Dragonlance where "each of the characters has this very important arc". This leads to a very interesting discussion, where he says "if I show up to play Raistlin, I'm not going to be content to be like 'oh I'm just the wizard, I'm just going to cast a spell and hang out in the background'", leading Adam to mention that he has played with people who play like that, Mearls mentions that you need to be able to design for that player, because "that might be important; that might be your cleric or that might be your wizard", and Adam mentions that more importantly it might just be a person you want to play games with and it's a valid style of playing. -Mercer then talks about how the more bound the ruleset the more people might feel pressured that there's only one right way to play the game. Core base rulesets that can be expanded on by the group can be more open to more groups. -Adam then notes that the more complicated the rules get, the more involved and dedicated the fans can get to the point where they may be too invested to play anything else, so how does 5e find a sweet spot between complexity. Mercer then mentions how he loved playing Amber Diceless Roleplaying when he was younger, but other players could lose track/interest in the game, then talks about how it can vary from table to table with some players preferring full hardcore dungeon crawl and loving the idea of "a very tactical Diablo-esque gaming experience". -Colville then says he suspects Mearls would say that the balance is in the class you choose, and if you've got a problem with a Raistlin player who won't learn the rules of his character, maybe he'd be happier switching to a fighter or barbarian and no one would be angry at him. Adam then asks why is that never called out in the text, because if you're playing a MOBA it will explicitly tell you that a character is easy/difficult, so why is it obfuscated? Mearls explains that if you tell a player that they should play a class because they're new, they tend to take it as an insult to their intelligence/capabilities, and becomes a source of toxicity where people will denigrate players who play "no skill classes" (compares it to people who played Bastion in Overwatch because they like it, but get mocked because he's seen as easy). 5e was going to launch sellling Basic and Advanced 5e, but people just didn't buy Basic D&D in the past. Mearls didn't want to go in telling people "ok, you can be anything you want, so long as it's not a wizard because that class is tricky" which is why the free Basic pdf release contains simpler things like healer clerics and blaster wizards and spells that are as simple-but-satisfying as possible. -They stopped doing Player's Handbook 2/3/4 and recycling titles because they didn't want to confuse players. Adam then talks about how long-running games will have better designed books later on (like the 4e DMG 2), so Unearthed Arcana seems to move more into that space. Mearls then talks about how the playtest set the standard where they don't introduce new mechanics without running them by the community (when possible), which also makes the game feel shared. Before 5e it would just come down to a handful of game designers determining how the game went, but the playtest puts the voice of the user in the room to determine what the best way to deliver is. Believes it's the secret to success, being part of a community, and serves as a bullshit filter for stuff no one is interested in. -Adam talks about not using UA stuff in his games just due to the experimental nature of it. Mercer prefers to test it a bit himself because he's comfortable enough with the mechanics, but worries about player fun if it makes one character too powerful compared to others, but tries to go for player fun. Adam points out that changing and retracting things are easier for home groups than streamed groups with an audience. Mercer politely mentions that the 5e Beastmaster was basically garbage, and talks about how the 5e Paladin is extremely strong and it can depend on your group and how they feel about varying power levels. Colville regularly gets people asking him if he allows UA content and suspects it's because they were shut down by their DMs and want a second opinion, he will let people use whatever but finds that most players never see it because in many groups you might have only one person who goes online and looks for stuff. If a player is excited about something, he would let them use it and find out what happens in-game and solve it at the table, believes that players know they're getting away with something and many would be willing to work it out. -Mercer talks about how things are unwieldy at higher levels and believes it's by design, so you have to be able to accept that as a DM, and then figure out how to work with it. -1h20 min: Talk about how streaming has changed things. Mercer believes the audience identifies with the unknown aspect of the improvised story, and people are connecting with it either for the first time or reclaiming old experiences. Having the rules can get the audience invested, understanding and be on the edge of their seats with the players. Adam talks about how people want the traditional narrative arcs with things like climatic battles, but D&D can gently caress that up by ending things in two rounds, Colville talks about how there's the difference between what satisfies the players and what satisfies the audience, and having the dice fall where they may makes the difference. Adam wonders about how much of the audience actually cares about the D&D part compared to the story part. Mercer talks about how the audience can have their expectations about the story, but having it go sideways due to the dice is just part of the deal. -Mercer talks about how these liveplays help break down the barrier to entry and get more people into the game, and make sure it's clear that things are the choices of the group -Adam thinks that players engaging deeply in the mechanics can be just as valuable as being attached to the characters, Mercer and Adam talk about how it's a point of pride when the players manage to thwart a challenge and get the better of the DM -Adam doesn't think D&D is structured to be entertaining, but it's not D&D's fault because it wasn't designed that way. Asks Mearls how has watching games changed things? Mearls thinks streaming is the tech RPGs had been waiting for. If you wanted to know if someone was good at Magic the Gathering you could just play a game with them, but D&D never had a way to check out how other people were playing or running D&D and understand what it means to be a good player/DM and how the game could improve. Thinks there's a big difference in attitude between people who started within the last 3 years and those who have been playing longer. Talks about how you don't need many rules, mentions that people try to create social mechanics the way they'd create fighting mechanics, where they might be better off focusing on using the rules more as table management to ensure everyone has a chance to participate. Talks about how watching is the best way to make people fall in love with D&D, compared to making them read the rules and RPGs could be closer to sports than traditional tabletop games. -Talk about watching games and how the perception of streaming and e-sports has changed, and how you can watch to learn about the game or because you just like the people playing -Adam talks about D&D the not-game, where people use the setting and tend to throw out whatever rules they don't like. Mearls talks about the revelation that D&D is a culture, not a product supported every month- "We are like Harleys"- Harley Davidson doesn't sell you a new motorcycle every month, you buy into the culture, it sets you apart and forms a connection with others who value the same thing. Wouldn't be surprised if Harley makes more off of the merchandise than the motorcycles -Adam talks about how the space around D&D is being developed and expanded with people who can love it without playing. -1h43 min: Adam points out the homogeneous nature of the group (white dudes) and how things are changing in a good way, with 5e doing more for diversity in gender, sexuality, and race. Leads to discussion of gatekeeping and the fact that streaming/social media have been breaking down barriers and changing the face of RPGs by introducing it to new people other than the default bearded white guys of old, with the fading resistance from the gatekeepers and their loud anger. -Mearls talks about how it was intentional, and felt divorced from geek culture due to geek gatekeeping. Very consciously sat down to make the game as accessible as possible, both mechanically and otherwise (especially worked out talks with Jeremy Crawford). Wanted to avoid both mechanical and culture gatekeeping, describes how toxic masculinity can be just as much nerd hierarchy as anything else. -Colville talks about how things are changing fast thanks to Critical Role and other streamers. Mearls talks about how streaming bypasses gatekeepers and changes things dramatically- Groups who started within the last 3 years may be similar to older generations but have vastly different attitudes towards the game. Wonders what designers that came in after 5e will look like -Adam talks about how things like the paragraph and art might not be mechanics, but it's still part of growing the game -Colville talks about how there's still a lot of European fantasy baggage, whereas it could be broader and more inclusive fantasy than the default Europe knights and white guys -Talk about how ultimately sharing the game is the goal, and it should be more welcoming to others, and it's about sharing the experience. -Matt talks about how there's a responsibility to build D&D and RPGs as a safe space for sharing stories and forging understanding, a cultural movement on a small scale that helps people improve themselves and their connections
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
...So uh, I can't help but notice "x element is bad, but it's on purpose, so DMs can learn to manage those problems!" is a phrase that pops up a lot in your summary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:...So uh, I can't help but notice "x element is bad, but it's on purpose, so DMs can learn to manage those problems!" is a phrase that pops up a lot in your summary. Yeah I watched a bit of that and it is very 'Up to your GM' because then your GM can make rulings and learn to do things for themselves. So....yep. Honestly watching that was a bit depressing as I liked a couple of those people and it made me realise that I'm probably never going to convince someone to give 4e a try ever again. Not getting to play one of my favourite rpg again is kind of depressing. kingcom fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
I appreciate all the notes you took, LightWarden, but I had to stop reading about halfway through because it was excruciating to read Mearls alternate from lying between his teeth and consciously making bad design decisions and passing them off as good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:-Matt Colville talks about how he thinks that vague rules are supposed to be using ambiguous natural language to force the DM to make decisions and become better DMs Ah, yes, the reason why they sell THREE, very EXPENSIVE books as the system core- to let us figure it out on our own. Sure, I did figure it out well enough, and doing that helped me learn some principles of game design, but not so much DMing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
No one... bought... basic D&D? ????? Basic sold more than any other edition by, like, an order of magnitudem
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
I read all of that, then watched it to verify, Mike Mearls is straight up lying or is misinformed, admits to purposefully making poor decisions, and gets his rear end eaten out by the other four dudes. Why do they think 4e was so bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:...Very consciously sat down to make the game as accessible as possible, both mechanically and otherwise (especially worked out talks with Jeremy Crawford).... Which is why he consulted RPGPundit and Zak S, and, upon being presented with evidence that both men were toxic garbage piles, straight up denied seeing anything of the sort. LightWarden posted:-53 minute mark: Mearls- Things in D&D are considered "broken" when someone is not only doing something well, but doing well when it's something everyone wants to do to the point where there's no point in others doing it, which is why LightWarden posted:-Colville then says he suspects Mearls would say that the balance is in the class you choose, and if you've got a problem with a Raistlin player who won't learn the rules of his character, maybe he'd be happier switching to a fighter or barbarian and no one would be angry at him. Adam then asks why is that never called out in the text, because if you're playing a MOBA it will explicitly tell you that a character is easy/difficult, so why is it obfuscated? Mearls explains that if you tell a player that they should play a class because they're new, they tend to take it as an insult to their intelligence/capabilities, and becomes a source of toxicity where people will denigrate players who play "no skill classes" (compares it to people who played Bastion in Overwatch because they like it, but get mocked because he's seen as easy). Then maybe don't create a system so complex it needs a 'babby's first class' or better yet, make it so every class is capable of contributing and doesn't belong to the class because it's viable you hypocritical piece-of-poo poo hack artist. Instead, not only have you done nothing to stop the toxicity of baby classes beyond obfuscate it to make it easier to denigrate new players ('Bobby's new, give him the fighter, he's not ready for wizard'/'What, did you think you were going to play wizard straight away, Bobby? Nice try, chump') but you've gatekept the entire drat thing, which as I recall you were trying to avoid. Turtlicious posted:I read all of that, then watched it to verify, Mike Mearls is straight up lying or is misinformed, admits to purposefully making poor decisions, and gets his rear end eaten out by the other four dudes. Why do they think 4e was so bad? Cause it doesn't 'feel like D&D'. Because letting anyone but the wizard affect anything without the DM saying so is 'unD&D'. Because 'if everyone's special...' *farts* EDIT: like for streaming, there's actually good reasons why 4e isn't the best. The fact that it is rule heavy makes it kind of unsuitable for table play that's being broadcast, cause the interplay of rules and decisions requires a little knowledge. Freeforming things and improv are the name of livestreaming and 4e's too tight mechanically to be as easily adapted as 5e. Not that 5e doesn't have to be adapted to hell and back to get a good livegame out of it, but you fudge the combat of 5e anyway, and the lovely CR rules means that half the fights are trash fights or don't require much decision making that matters, which leaves more time for the meat of livegames, improv. Dungeon World or another storygame would still be better, but brand recognition, am I right? Torchlighter fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:-Mearls talks about how it was intentional, and felt divorced from geek culture due to geek gatekeeping. Very consciously sat down to make the game as accessible as possible, both mechanically and otherwise (especially worked out talks with Jeremy Crawford). Wanted to avoid both mechanical and culture gatekeeping, describes how toxic masculinity can be just as much nerd hierarchy as anything else. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
I kind of get the logic about bad rules leading to better DMing - it's stupid at first glance, but everything about high level play I've ever seen breaks down pretty badly and it seems the solution to fixing that was just to tell the DM to git gud via having to pull rulings out of his rear end from the get go I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I understand why they did it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I kind of get the logic about bad rules leading to better DMing - it's stupid at first glance, but everything about high level play I've ever seen breaks down pretty badly and it seems the solution to fixing that was just to tell the DM to git gud via having to pull rulings out of his rear end from the get go We purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Serf posted:We purposely trained him wrong, as a joke. where you're going, there are no rules-the DMG speaking of no rules, in my homebrew campaign I got absolutely completely owned by a hydra that bit my arm off. how does that interact with somatic components of spells , has any edition ever had rules for this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:where you're going, there are no rules-the DMG Bhodi fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Somatic gestures only require 1 free hand (p103, PHB), so you're good. You just can't hold that shield in your other hand anymore! That seems too easy, especially since the missing arm was the dominant one (with my best ring, which thankfully didn't get eaten)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
It doesn't say dominant hand, it says at least one free hand.quote:Somatic (S) e: and before you ask, this paragraph in "material" has got you covered for that too, they definitely considered a one-armed spell-slinger quote:A character can use a component pouch or a e: deleted wrong off-hand rules Bhodi fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Gotcha. Those rules are pretty clear. I might just explicitly have the character become ambidextrous, even once his arm gets regenerated down the road. Also in the near time I might just go a bit slower in initiative but it's not like I have any concept of what a somatic component in magic actually is besides watching the magicians Tv show
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:If your DM wanted to be a dick, they could impose the -4 off-handedness penalty to attack roles similar to dual-wielding but I'm not really convinced it's applicable. Are you sure this is from 5e? I remember something like this from the bad old days of 3.5 but I'm pretty sure now dual-wielding just involves making a second attack with a bonus action and not applying any ability modifier to the damage roll at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Ah yeah you're right, I was thinking of 3e. There's no handedness at all in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
blastron posted:Are you sure this is from 5e? I remember something like this from the bad old days of 3.5 but I'm pretty sure now dual-wielding just involves making a second attack with a bonus action and not applying any ability modifier to the damage roll at all. Indeed; the two-weapon fighting styles just allow you to apply your attribute bonus to damage on both strikes. Honestly, you'd probably be better off with a different fighting style even if you want to do TWF. Up to five more damage per turn, still dependent on hitting and attributes, isn't that useful. So yeah, ambidexterity seems to be the default; the bonus action attack just has to be a different hand from the standard action attack, but you can switch the order each turn. Thus, the loss of damage is simply due to the difficulty of TWF, not handedness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Just bought a triceratops mount. New book is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Xanthar's Guidespell preview for the wizard class is out. http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/DnDXL2017_Spells.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
odinson posted:Xanthar's Guidespell preview for the wizard class is out. Oh cool they have the EE spells in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
kirtar posted:Oh cool they have the EE spells in there. Yeah they said they are putting some of the Sword Coast Adventure guide stuff and EE stuff in the book so you don't have to look in three different places for some stuff. Anyway I love anything that is named Danse Macabe. I wonder what it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
So played our first session of Storm Kings Thunder last night, it went very well. My party looks like a poster for diversity. We have a Dragonborn, Aassimeer, Gnome, Firbolg, Dwarf and Human. And the closest thing to a party spellcaster is a single Bard (Edit: Oh yeah. Forgot the Paladin), so that ought to be interesting. So what I was wondering was can anyone recommend low-level modules that can slot neatly into the SKT campaign. The initial level gain is far to fast for my tastes so I want to spin out those first few levels till they hit level 5 and are ready to move into the main plot and I'm too busy at the moment to write new stuff myself. N.b. They're already in the Sword Coast as I moved Nightstone to being up in the Icewind Dale region and am skipping the whole Zephyros encounter which I didn't like. Deptfordx fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yeah they said they are putting some of the Sword Coast Adventure guide stuff and EE stuff in the book so you don't have to look in three different places for some stuff. But they didn't include the SCAG cantrips. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
So you can wear as many rings as you have hands in d&d , right? Can a hydra wear as many magic hats as it has heads?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Why not? But a PC can only attune to 3 magic items at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Yeah it's technically limited by attunement (up to 3 items) and not all magic items require such attunement, so as long as the items are attunement free, you should be fine with 15 non attunement rings and 5 hats that doesn't require attunement over each other? Also you would look glorious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
The DMG says that as long as the ring is on a digit, it works. So stick em on your toes for 20 rings. Why stop there? You have two knuckles on your fingers. 30 rings! But if you stick to what it's in the DMG there are only 4 rings that don't require attunement, and 2 of them are limited by charges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:38
|
|
