|
*walks into tavern* "hail and well met! i'm the guy who sucks." *gets a splinter, starts making death saves*
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:My 2 cents on the sickly Paladin idea is that you can just as easily roleplay it while having not poo poo stats. Just chalk up the survivability to being used to getting hurt and sick all the time. You should probably play Dungeon Crawl Classics then, it's good for the wacky roll for everything and then die horribly method of play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
If a group of people who actually know what they're getting into decide to do a let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may randomly generated game then that's fine. It's just as fine as using point buys and arrays and everyone doing there best to make sure everything's as balanced and fair as possible, or a mish-mash where some players choose to go random and some don't but everyone understands what they're letting themselves in for. Neither of those things are what we're all taling about though. In case it's still not clear why "but what if you wanted to play like that?" isn't a good argument, I've highlighted the reasons. gandhichan posted:Since the discussion's on playing around low attributes, has anyone had to deal with low Con and low HP rolls? I'm brand new to the game, in a campaign where we're made to roll for both stats and HP, and I made the super uninformed decision of putting a 9 in con -- for my Paladin, in a party with no real front line fighters. (The closest thing we have is the rogue.) On top of that, he's rolled a natural 1 for both previous level ups, so he's sitting at 12 hp at level 3. If he makes it to the next level, I guess I'm looking at a few options. The DM, not the player, decided not to follow the rules for hit points. The player is brand new to the game. The 9 in Con was a choice they made, but not an informed choice. There is no advice about making sure you have high Consitituion in the Paladin rules. They are the party's only front-line character. They made the informed choice to be the tankiest tank (there is advice about that in the paladin rules), but it doesn't work very well because of the previous point. The character does not suit the style of play or the party role that the player chose. The player feels that the type of game they're in doesn't allow for them to switch characters. And I dunno, that sounds like it's a kinda lovely situation. Before anyone decides I'm telling them that they're a horrible awful person for playing the game wrong, consider the repetition of "a new player" in this post. Even in a game that values randomness and character continuity, there should be some leeway for the new person who's unintentionally made a mistake. At the very least, if I were DMing that game, I'd ask if the player wanted to swap Con and another score because they're new and they made a mistake, and that's not the same thing as deciding that you want to roleplay as the wizard with no spells or whatever other weird thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
CJ posted:Why are polearms better for paladins specifically? The Polearm Master feat offers a bonus action attack (which can happen every turn) and a fairly reliable reaction attack (will probably trigger once per fight on average). Whenever a Paladin hits, they can apply a smite, so anything to raise the chances of a Paladin hitting at least once on their turn is great for them. At 11, they also get a free +1d8 to every hit, so an extra attack gives them more mileage out of that. The reach offered by polearms gives the Paladin an easier time keeping allies in their aura while they fight as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
CJ posted:Why are polearms better for paladins specifically? PAM is the melee king feat in general because a Bonus Action attack is really strong. Sticking to core single-classed builds we've got six melee martials: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue. Monks have built in attack functions with their Bonus Action so it's not really worth talking about them here. Melee Rogues want to either dual-wield or preferably use the SCAG melee cantrips so they don't really enter the discussion, either. That leaves us with the other 4 guys: Fighters have the extra feat to take both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master, so that's their "damage build" optimal using a Halberd/Glaive, GWM synergizing with PAM's Bonus Action attack, their additional attack at 11th, and in the case of Battlemasters, with their Precision maneuver to offset the hit penalties. Barbarians don't get an extra feat, but they do get advantage on attacks so they have a naturally strong synergy with both GWMs extra damage and Bonus Action attack on crit. That said, they also get an on-hit damage buff while Raging and most definitely enjoy an at-will Bonus Action attack in case GWM doesn't trigger plus extra chances to use their reactions for attacks, so as in the case above their optimal build is a Halberd with both GWM+PAM. But what about Paladins and Rangers, then? Don't they also want PAM+GWM if they're building for damage? The answer is yeah! But their situation is a little bit different, as they lack both a) an additional feat and b) a built-in accuracy adder as strong as either Reckless Attack or Precision. On the other hand, they possess pretty strong damage boost mechanics conditional on getting hits in (Divine Smite, Preferred Enemy, Colossus Slayer, Improved Divine Smite), so the way the math works out for them, PAM is better than GWM, followed by maxing out their combat stat. By the time they have room for GWM they're already level 12 or 16. And in the specific case of Paladins, the combination of Smite and Imp. Divine Smite is strong enough that at that point it's a bit dubious to get GWM weighted against other things they want out of their ASIs, like Resilient or +CHA for better saves and spellcasting. So in conclusion, the humble Quarterstaff is the best melee weapon for Paladins and Rangers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
This may be more of a "differ to DM" thing but I keep forgetting about it and it's been like a month since everyone was able to get together. I've got a maul-wielding paladin using the great weapon fighting style and I was wondering if it is alright to reroll both damage die if they both get a 1 or 2? The actual text as I recall doesn't seem to address it, just that I have to keep the reroll. I'm assuming that's the extent to which I could theoretically scam more damage and great weapon smites don't trigger rerolls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I was going to pick it because i modelled my paladin off Imperius from Diablo but i need to get stats at 4 to even out my odd stats, then i was planning on getting Sentinel at 8 to stop enemies from disengaging out of Radiant Consumption. Coming online at 12 seems kind of bad since i'll only be playing the character until the end of the school year.Trojan Kaiju posted:This may be more of a "differ to DM" thing but I keep forgetting about it and it's been like a month since everyone was able to get together. I've got a maul-wielding paladin using the great weapon fighting style and I was wondering if it is alright to reroll both damage die if they both get a 1 or 2? The actual text as I recall doesn't seem to address it, just that I have to keep the reroll. You can reroll once per weapon die and must keep the second roll. My experience last week was rolling 2 2s then rerolling a 2 and 1 more often than not. CJ fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Huh. Everyone in our campaign rolled 4d6 drop the lowest six times. They could do it as often as they liked but had to keep one of the sets they rolled and arrange to class. No problems with it. Thing is, why not just use an array or point buy instead? You're effectively eliminating the random aspect and taking extra time not playing the game. The only benefit is for people like that guy from the 3.5 builder story who rolled like 9677 times to get 4 18s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Trojan Kaiju posted:This may be more of a "differ to DM" thing but I keep forgetting about it and it's been like a month since everyone was able to get together. I've got a maul-wielding paladin using the great weapon fighting style and I was wondering if it is alright to reroll both damage die if they both get a 1 or 2? The actual text as I recall doesn't seem to address it, just that I have to keep the reroll. You can reroll both damage die. GWF also applies to extra weapon damage die from critical hits or features like Barbarian's Brutal Critical or Half-Orc's Savage Attacks, but as you said not to smites or any other spells/abilities that add extra damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Thing is, why not just use an array or point buy instead? You're effectively eliminating the random aspect and taking extra time not playing the game. The only benefit is for people like that guy from the 3.5 builder story who rolled like 9677 times to get 4 18s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Let me clarify the irony here for you: I'm really not. Dude said "Hey, here's what I got, what can I do?" Other people gave mechanical suggestions ranging from "Improve your Con at 4th" to "suicide the character". I simply said, "Hey, you could role play a sickly paladin." You're the one who freaked the gently caress out at the idea that anyone could dare play it that way. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
If you aren't having fun, tell the GM. If they refuse to fix it after you state outright that it's not fun, decide if the game is fun enough to continue being worth your time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I'm really not. Dude said "Hey, here's what I got, what can I do?" Other people gave mechanical suggestions ranging from "Improve your Con at 4th" to "suicide the character". I simply said, "Hey, you could role play a sickly paladin." You're the one who freaked the gently caress out at the idea that anyone could dare play it that way. 5e isnt a game that supports the kind of play where your character is bad at their core conceits. And if the CON and piddly HP scores arent going to matter in the first place, then why play 5e in the first place and not a system where that deficiency doesn't lead to long tracts of time where you are patently useless in game and more importantly relegated to twiddling your thumbs IRL. It's intentionally gimping yourself for interactions that make up most of this game for some nebulous RP opportunities that may not even arise depending on the campaign. It's terrible loving advice for a new player. tldr: ProfessorCirno posted:If you aren't having fun, tell the GM. If they refuse to fix it after you state outright that it's not fun, decide if the game is fun enough to continue being worth your time. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I'm really not. Dude said "Hey, here's what I got, what can I do?" Other people gave mechanical suggestions ranging from "Improve your Con at 4th" to "suicide the character". I simply said, "Hey, you could role play a sickly paladin." You're the one who freaked the gently caress out at the idea that anyone could dare play it that way. Calm down, re-read, and stop defending what nobody is attacking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:You're the one who freaked the gently caress out at the idea that anyone could dare play it that way. Lol uhhh where did I freak out? That was my first post on the topic. I don't care if he plays it that way, I would just rather it be something he chose to do organically rather than "welp life handed you rotten lemons, gotta make rancid lemonade"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:And I dunno, that sounds like it's a kinda lovely situation. Before anyone decides I'm telling them that they're a horrible awful person for playing the game wrong, consider the repetition of "a new player" in this post. Even in a game that values randomness and character continuity, there should be some leeway for the new person who's unintentionally made a mistake. This is almost entirely on the GM* IMO - they let the player make a lovely choice without knowing the consequences, and originally doubled down on options to make that choice even worse. (Does sound like they've relented following discussions, so that's a good thing) I've been making a bunch of 2e characters for a Fatal and Friends project, and for the most part low scores really didn't matter there unless they were really low**. I wonder if the move towards tighter bonus ranges came from a desire to make attribute scores less 'boring'? There are all sorts of changes that happened in the 2nd to 3rd switch over that I'd really like to know why they happened. * And on the game for not spelling out that if you want to play a front line character you should at the least not have a penalty in Con. Combining that with random HP and really bad dice rolls... ** Oddly enough, casters were most penalised for having low scores in their prime attribute, but otherwise an average to low score wouldn't slow a character down too much. Angrymog fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
It is very interesting and noteworthy that, for many big time D&D-fans, roleplaying is defined as "what you do outside of the mechanics." Fights aren't roleplaying. And in fact, the more you actually use the mechanics, the less you're roleplaying. I've said it before but I legitimately believe that large, large swathes of D&D players absolutely want to just freeform roleplay, but have been taught they can't, that they need extra structures and bullshit to layer on top of it, that "freeform" is somehow a dirty word. Of course, this belief in roleplaying being outside of the mechanics absolutely effects how spellcasters and martials are seen, and helps contribute to spellcaster power. EDIT: "In our best games, we don't even pick up the die!" is so common, and so, so loving telling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:This is almost entirely on the GM* IMO - they let the player make a lovely choice without knowing the consequences, and originally doubled down on options to make that choice even worse. (Does sound like they've relented following discussions, so that's a good thing) Yep. To be clear, I've enjoyed playing weird and obviously mechancially sub-optimal characters in many different systems, but that's either because of choices I consciously made and understood (I know this game inside out, hold my beer and watch this...) or because "everything's random, deal with it" was a key concept in the system (eg, Hackmaster, where most of the character creation minigame is about making choices to alleviate the terrible things the RNG did to you).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It is very interesting and noteworthy that, for many big time D&D-fans, roleplaying is defined as "what you do outside of the mechanics." Fights aren't roleplaying. And in fact, the more you actually use the mechanics, the less you're roleplaying. Personally, I like RPGs rather than freeform RPing, because if I the player, gently caress up a RP interaction or don't know what to say, my character can probably save things with a good roll. When I run I don't let people just blag their way past a RP encounter - we don't give the person who does fencing or medieval re-enactment a free pass in fight scenes, why do we give the more socially adept* people a free pass in RP situations? * Or the people who can just bully their way around a gaming group, I've seen both over the years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yep. Same - there's a big difference between making choices you know are bad, and not understanding that the choices you're making are bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The problem is that rolling stats randomly doesn't make for interesting flaws, because in D&D, every flaw is defined as and only as "makes you die faster." There is literally never a point in the game where a lower stat gives you more to work with - it always just subtracts. A low constitution does not make your character interesting - it just means they'll die faster. There's a reason why even non-narrative games are increasingly giving players access to a meta-currency that they gain from suffering narrative setbacks. And why a well designed game like Fragged Empire actually locks certain traits behind maximum stat requirements; only a character with low Move can take the Slow But Steady trait that lets them move every time they do any action. But D&D doesn't do that, because it was originally designed as a dungeon crawler and never truly left it behind. Constitution is the best show of this - constitution is literally nothing other then your in-combat survivability. Nothing more. If that's high, you survive longer. If it's low, you don't survive longer. That's it. There's no cool roleplaying connected to the stat at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Personally, I like RPGs rather than freeform RPing, because if I the player, gently caress up a RP interaction or don't know what to say, my character can probably save things with a good roll. When I run I don't let people just blag their way past a RP encounter - we don't give the person who does fencing or medieval re-enactment a free pass in fight scenes, why do we give the more socially adept* people a free pass in RP situations? So much the bolded bit. You're not gonna exclude the skinny unfit guy from pretending to be a mighty-thewed barbarian who impresses the town by doing squats with a carthorse on each shoulder, and neither should you exclude the awkward shy girl from pretending to be a glib-tounged bard who can always wow a crowd with their songs and stories. I like the format of roll and then roleplay the result, which is the same thing most people do in combat - "I run at the orc swinging my axe and yelling a battle cry! <roll, it's a 4> But my strike is too slow! He raises his shield and my axe glances off". edit because that was kinda unclear: Should be roll and (collectively) describe the result. That is, you don't get to "roleplay" past your terrible CHA and lack of persuasion skill, but you do still get to the the improv/acting component of "how exactly did you fail to do this" with the DM if you want. You don't get to win by just talking any more than would if you were trying to get past your low STR and lack of proficiency with the longsword by describing exactly how you parry, bind, and riposte. edit 2: Admittedly, none of my groups always play like this. It's a format I'm a big fan of though. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:So much the bolded bit. You're not gonna exclude the skinny unfit guy from pretending to be a mighty-thewed barbarian who impresses the town by doing squats with a carthorse on each shoulder, and neither should you exclude the awkward shy girl from pretending to be a glib-tounged bard who can always wow a crowd with their songs and stories. If it's going to be a big major setpiece, I like to have them roleplay it out first then roll. I say it's because "the difficulty will be based on your roleplaying," and then unless they roll cataclysmically low, they always just succeed. But then, I always view those big set pieces as a chance for the players to basically brag. It's time to do the Real Cool Thing; gently caress punishing effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:There's a reason why even non-narrative games are increasingly giving players access to a meta-currency that they gain from suffering narrative setbacks. And why a well designed game like Fragged Empire actually locks certain traits behind maximum stat requirements; only a character with low Move can take the Slow But Steady trait that lets them move every time they do any action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:If it's going to be a big major setpiece, I like to have them roleplay it out first then roll. I say it's because "the difficulty will be based on your roleplaying," and then unless they roll cataclysmically low, they always just succeed. But then, I always view those big set pieces as a chance for the players to basically brag. It's time to do the Real Cool Thing; gently caress punishing effort. If I gave the impression that I'd like to always roll for everything then sorry about that, it's certainly not what I meant. There's definitely a place in GMing for "what's the coolest possible result of what they're trying, because that's what happens, no roll". "Describe what you're doing, roll, then (collectively) describe what happened" means that the GM should participate, either at the roll by adjusting the difficulty, or during the description/roleplay about what happened, or both. Splicer posted:Man I need to buy that RPG. Me too. Every time I read about it, it sounds better. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Looking to fill the arcane magic guy roll in a curse of strahd game, don't want to be a standard staff using old white wizard guy. What are my options?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Looking to fill the arcane magic guy roll in a curse of strahd game, don't want to be a standard staff using old white wizard guy. What are my options? Warlock has you hurling magic bolts, occasionally casting spells, and if you go Pact of the Tome you get rituals (always very nice to have someone with ritual Detect Magic and Identify). Sorcerer has you hurling fire bolts, occasionally casting spells with stronger effects, and if you go Draconic (you should) you're tougher than a Wizard. You don't get rituals, though, and your spellcasting in general isn't meaningfully better than a Wizard's until around 6th level. Bard has you hurling magic insults, occasionally debuffing with spells, and on the side you can give Bardic Inspiration dice and be better at skill checks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:At the very least, if I were DMing that game, I'd ask if the player wanted to swap Con and another score because they're new and they made a mistake, and that's not the same thing as deciding that you want to roleplay as the wizard with no spells or whatever other weird thing. Angrymog posted:I've been making a bunch of 2e characters for a Fatal and Friends project, and for the most part low scores really didn't matter there unless they were really low**. I wonder if the move towards tighter bonus ranges came from a desire to make attribute scores less 'boring'? There are all sorts of changes that happened in the 2nd to 3rd switch over that I'd really like to know why they happened. I also assume that 3e was influenced a lot by people that had no idea why and how DnD worked in BECMI->2e. They probably just wanted to make it "sensible" and stacking attribute bonuses in an easy "every even point after 10" sounded so nice. (Im sure other people here know all the names of the people involved and can confirm or deny this.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Warlock has you hurling magic bolts, occasionally casting spells, and if you go Pact of the Tome you get rituals (always very nice to have someone with ritual Detect Magic and Identify). Sorcerer also has top tier damage and unmatched spell buff/debuff ability thanks to metamagic. Bards, specifically lore, fill their niche by being just the best casters and major skillmonkeys. Theyre invariably going to be the face of the party. Warlocks are more specialized on combat, and they can work on the front lines just as well as they can blade from the back. The atchetypes available are almost polar opposites (tome/blade) and very much define your warlock more than the core class features.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I also assume that 3e was influenced a lot by people that had no idea why and how DnD worked in BECMI->2e. They probably just wanted to make it "sensible" and stacking attribute bonuses in an easy "every even point after 10" sounded so nice. This is and isn't correct. You are right that they had no idea why and how D&D worked the way it did, and wanted to make what they saw as "sensible" attribute bonuses - remember, 3e was simultaniously both just D&D, and yet also the d20 engine in of itself. They wanted to try to make D&D "generic;" something adaptable, which in this case meant trying to make everything more "regular." On the other hand, most the people who worked on it were in fact former TSR employees with typically nothing but D&D experience. Who uh, still didn't actually know how their game worked. You know, the one they made. It's ok - they'd go on to make another game they didn't actually understand with 3e. This is a...regular occurrence in this hobby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I'm really not. Dude said "Hey, here's what I got, what can I do?" Other people gave mechanical suggestions ranging from "Improve your Con at 4th" to "suicide the character". I simply said, "Hey, you could role play a sickly paladin." You're the one who freaked the gently caress out at the idea that anyone could dare play it that way. Good job on reading comprehension there, champ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Looking to fill the arcane magic guy roll in a curse of strahd game, don't want to be a standard staff using old white wizard guy. What are my options? Best Ravenloft game I ever played I rolled in with a Bard who was basically Ronnie James Dio who thought he was there to film a music video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Thing is, why not just use an array or point buy instead? You're effectively eliminating the random aspect and taking extra time not playing the game. The only benefit is for people like that guy from the 3.5 builder story who rolled like 9677 times to get 4 18s. I'm fine with players doing that and suggested they could do that if they liked. I first used this 4d6 array approach as a way to talk about the characters and how the abilities worked with new players. My reasoning was I would rather offer them choices from several sets of random options rather than guiding them through a point buy process. The intention was again to provoke imagination and consideration of what each different ability set would play like as a whole rather than work through each ability towards an optimal set for their class, in the end they only get one outcome to consider, an outcome which I have guided them towards. I think that's removing a choice from the player. You've assumed I was after a fully random outcome and that isn't the case. You are correct that repeating the sets eventually gives an outcome comparable to point buy. Again, I do this approach as a way to open conversation about how the abilities work for different characters, mostly to benefit new players. For me it feels like we are seeing the forest rather than the trees, ymmv. The process became interesting when you get a couple of really high stats with a really low one. So we had a cleric who had 18+1 for Wisdom and took the 4 and put it in Charisma. So, this we figured this character is essentially autistic or so obnoxious that he cannot share his insights and so he takes to the adventuring / murderhobo life. This appealed to the player although there was a more average set available. It's not for everyone, also we haven't rolled every character in front of the DM - I've just explained over text how to approach it and I'm lucky or diplomatic enough to have not had an rear end in a top hat roll up with 6 18s. Every player is writing about a page of backstory which all helps bring everyone onto the same page. I don't agree the only benefit is for the player rolling until they get loadsa 18's. Our table is maybe aiming for narrative outcomes rather than winning the game. e: also, if that paladin with the 9 Con was at my table we'd have picked that up in the process and if not they could swap it with another ability score. Why be such a nazi to force them to keep something that doesn't work? Low Con and low hp is more trouble than it's worth for a melee fighter. clusterfuck fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
poo poo I didn't even consider bard. Bard thoughts/builds/concepts/do's and dont's?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Bards really like Charisma and tend to be dex-based. There’s a lot of leeway with races, the classic being Half-Elf. Lore Bard is better imo since magical secrets is obscene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Last time I asked it got lost in the general complaining about how nobody was discussing the game. With the adventure approaching in the next few weeks... Help me build a rogue or other sneaky mcstabby kind of character for an upcoming game. Start at level 6, probably finish at level 8 or 9. Magic is ok, especially if it's weird, but I'd prefer to keep it fairly mundane. In this group, we're allowed and encouraged to push the rules a bit, but nothing beyond what could understood from the text, so no outright cheating or making things up, but somewhat creative interpretations will be fine. We can use UA stuff if we like. I'd prefer not to but will if it's something cool. We'll be using standard arrays, average hit points per level, and feats+ASIs instead of either/or. Not sure about other specific houserules, but probably I'll be able to get away with sneak attacking in the dark, since the DM's reaction that whole thing was "fuuuuuuuuuuuck, you've gotta be kidding!" Judging from past games with this DM, I won't have to fish hard for sneak attack in general (or for an opportunity to use any other class ability). We're going to get 1 magic weapon or armour +1, and 1 misc item, restrictions on that being the group's general philosophy of "pick something interesting, don't go crazy", so subject to general agreement that it's not too crazy. I could probably swing a better weapon or armour than a straight +1 if I give up my misc item pick. If anyone thinks of something a bit out-there, in terms of items or builds that'd be great. Rogue-ish characters in general have never been my thing, and I've never done a 5th ed sneaky dude at all, so it's not something I've looked at super hard. So: sneaky guy, preferably mundane-ish, edge-cases are fine, gimmicks relying on an item are fine, cheating or intentionally misinterpreting stuff is not ok. What's the coolest, weirdest, or brokenest thing you've got?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
In my most recent 5E session, as a consequence of bad skill design, my high-dex low-str Drow Fighter ended up doing sick flips and wall jumps across several trap-filled hallways instead of the sensible "climb up the masonry like a normal goddamn person" thing because the former is Acrobatics (which she has +10 to) and the latter would have been Athletics (which she has -1 to). At one point we were faced with a fog-filled chasm. Our Warlock, convinced he knew the solution to the puzzle, stepped right out into the abyss...completely missing the invisible platform (which he didn't even bother checking for) and fell in after failing a Dexterity save. But never fear, because a minute later he came plunging out of the open ceiling, as the bottomless pit in front of us was actually a loop. My character, Lawful Evil but recognizing this dude is useful, decides to do a trick shot with her bow to pin a rope to his clothing with an arrow and yank him out of the abyss as he falls past, specifying that if he's too heavy she'll just cut her losses and let go. The roll to make the shot was a 30, a rousing success!... and the subsequent Strength check was a 1. So she doesn't let go in time and goes flying into the abyss, now entangled with this other guy and having a howling slap-fight in midair as our party members try to figure out what to do. The walls where we came in are mortared so I figure surely another trick shot into a crack will work. And it did. Except after we collide with the side of the pit, the arrow breaks, and we're left clinging to masonry and still tangled up in a rope together. But hey! Clearly it's very acrobatic to swing his heavy rear end up and over the side, then kick away from the wall and flip over the side myself while he functions as an anchor. It worked, but none of us felt very proud of ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
It did however sound very funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Last time I asked it got lost in the general complaining about how nobody was discussing the game. With the adventure approaching in the next few weeks... Assassin rogue with a weapon of wounding, maybe a fighter 2 / rogue 4 for action surge and survivability if poo poo goes south. Wood elf / drow / half elf? Pick up sharpshooter or xbox expert if you're going to shoot stuff but you say you want backstabby. It certainly won't be the "brokenest" or too weird but it'll do the job you describe without magic. I don't follow UA stuff closely so idk if anything there will help. e: i obviously meant xbow not xbox but i'm leaving it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:So: sneaky guy, preferably mundane-ish, edge-cases are fine, gimmicks relying on an item are fine, cheating or intentionally misinterpreting stuff is not ok. What's the coolest, weirdest, or brokenest thing you've got? Wood Elf racial lets you attempt to hide when you're lightly obscured by natural phenomena like, you know, dim light. Get an owl familiar, either from Arcane Trickster, or Magic Initiate, or from a spell scroll (first two preferable in case you lose it and need to recast). Have a buddy Haste you. So your trusty owl flies in, uses Help on you against the baddie, then flies off because owls literally don't give a flying gently caress about opportunity attacks. Now you have advantage against said baddie, easy sneak attack, so you shoot with the Attack that Haste gives you. And you're in dim light or darkness, because you're in a loving dungeon or some poo poo, aren't you? So you use Hide with your Cunning Action. Next attack is getting advantage, too! And you've still got your normal action, so you use Ready, condition being whatever the gently caress you want, enemy moving or ally moving or whatever. It triggers with your reaction on a following turn - BAM another sneak attack. Easy every time. How do we make this better? Sharpshooter, +10 damage to your attacks. -5 penalty you say? It's cool you've got UA is allowed? Elven loving Accuracy. Now your advantage attacks are 3d20. But wait, what was that sound I heard? It was the sound of 14.26% chance to crit baby. You've got a magic item pick, right? Get a Vicious Longbow. Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:28
|
|