|
This is why Healing Word and Aura of Vitality (and now Healing Spirit) are the only healing spells worth a drat.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
CJ posted:I don't understand the design of death saving throws either. Last week my group of 5 level 5s were fighting a green dragon. It was focusing on me after i did 50 damage to it with my first attack, so i ended up basically tanking it with my corpse. It would knock me down, the monk would heal me to 1 hp to get me back up, i would attack it then when it was the dragon's turn i'd get knocked down again. Why have that death saving throw thing which lets you do that when you could just have the player go into negative HP to disincentive using that tactic? Failed saving throws could deal damage to you and then you die when you reach your negative health total or something. It would put an end to this ridiculous situation you have now where healers don't want to heal you up to 20 because healing to 1 is just as good against strong enemies. This is a guess, but death saving throws are probably a book keeping concession. In first edition you died at 0, game over. A lot of people house ruled that you were unconscious until -10 then you died. That got baked into the rules with a loss of hit points every round and a chance to stabilize. Realistically death saves aren't that different, just a little less paper work. The numbers are more in the players favor but that's more about how hard the game is rather then a design choice. Most of the time it works the same as it used to. Something I realized recently about skill checks. In combat a failed attack roll is almost never that big a deal. Outside of combat a failed skill check is almost always one and done. You get one diplomacy check, or one deception check or one insight check. This can be particularly frustrating on social skills where a player is told to role play better, but they really aren't that good at it and are counting on there character being better at the action then they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Throwing Turtles posted:This is a guess, but death saving throws are probably a book keeping concession. In first edition you died at 0, game over. A lot of people house ruled that you were unconscious until -10 then you died. That got baked into the rules with a loss of hit points every round and a chance to stabilize. Realistically death saves aren't that different, just a little less paper work. The numbers are more in the players favor but that's more about how hard the game is rather then a design choice. Most of the time it works the same as it used to. No actually they were implemented as a part of the 4e rules where healing during combat was a legitimately useful and important tool to take advantage on (in essence, all healing was coupled with something else you do either being a buff or as part of your attack etc). They were designed to provide some tactical flexibility for players involved and was a big moment for the group to re-evaluate what they had gotten themselves into. 4e combat system was designed so that the GM never needed to pull their punches in a fight using the encounter math and the game system and world set up the assumption that raising the dead was a profoundly uncommon thing and there were no npc clerics with magic powers like the player characters. Taking someone down from to 0 health was a big deal for the most part and the system was flooded with really interesting mechanics to take advantage of that, things like the Warlords heroic 'charge through to the downed player and heal them based on how many attack of opportunities you triggered along the way' were super exciting and dramatic moments. In essence these death saves happened during big moments of crisis, when either healing had been neglected/exhausted or was unable to cope with whatever situation you were in. The GM was actively trying to take someone out AND there were mechanics to reward players with this new status effect and give certain classes a chance to react to and deal with it. It was a tool used to ramp up the tension. Unfortunately 5e didn't understand this and added nothing interesting to this but cargo cult'd it poorly anyway. Throwing Turtles posted:Something I realized recently about skill checks. In combat a failed attack roll is almost never that big a deal. Outside of combat a failed skill check is almost always one and done. You get one diplomacy check, or one deception check or one insight check. This can be particularly frustrating on social skills where a player is told to role play better, but they really aren't that good at it and are counting on there character being better at the action then they are. Yeah people worked out a solution for this issue, its called fail forward, the idea is that no matter what happens (be it the player failing or succeeding) the story and narrative is pushed forwards as a result of a player simply trying something. Their failure still advances the narrative just in a different way than the success. The goal is to reward a player with more story if they simply can come up with an idea and try to implement it. There are numerous different implementations and methods and systems you can use to take advantage of it but D&D includes none of them because its poorly designed lol. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Excuse me 5e is objectively a good game in every possible way
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
CJ posted:I don't understand the design of death saving throws either. Last week my group of 5 level 5s were fighting a green dragon. It was focusing on me after i did 50 damage to it with my first attack, so i ended up basically tanking it with my corpse. It would knock me down, the monk would heal me to 1 hp to get me back up, i would attack it then when it was the dragon's turn i'd get knocked down again. Why have that death saving throw thing which lets you do that when you could just have the player go into negative HP to disincentive using that tactic? Failed saving throws could deal damage to you and then you die when you reach your negative health total or something. It would put an end to this ridiculous situation you have now where healers don't want to heal you up to 20 because healing to 1 is just as good against strong enemies. It would have been in dragon's interest to try and knock-out the Monk instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It would have been in dragon's interest to try and knock-out the Monk instead. I assume he would have tried but he was using most of his actions to keep me down due to lucky rolls. I didn't mind because i had a dragonslayer, so after doing 50 damage with the first hit of my magical dragon killing sword it would make sense for the dragon to focus its attention on me. The Monk was still full HP so i assume it would have taken a couple of rounds to down him, in which time i could have probably done a lot of damage between vow of emnity advantage, the 5d6 from the dragonsalyer and however many dice got added on from thunderous and divine smites. I was just struck by the absurdity of us collectively deciding that the Monk shouldn't heal me more than 1hp because i was just going to get knocked back down anyway so might as well save the resources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Did you use Vow of Enmity before going down? I think it might fall off if you go unconscious. Did the dragon not have a breath weapon? Really the no counting negatives is supposed to make the characters more heroic, though it is still really easy to die if you keep taking damage while at 0 Back in the day I had a gnome paladin, back when that combo was real good, who died almost instantly because he tried to save everyone else from a purple worm. He got bit, then swallowed, knocking him unconscious and taking 2 failed death saves a round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Basically the thing to remember is that each additional roll is another chance of failure - you're essentially giving them disadvantage, then super disadvantage, then worse. If they have to make three checks, that means they're basically rolling 3d20, take lowest. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, as it's super easy for a DM to read that as being multiple ways to fail. But I think the choice of asking for multiple rolls across different skills as a narrative reason to figure out how you succeed is pretty cool. Like, you want to get up onto that roof? "Roll athletics and acrobatics. A 3 and a 19. Hmm. You try showing off by pulling yourself up one in a one handed chin-up, but gently caress it up. To save face, you do sweet sweet flips and parkour, and now you're on the roof, rad!" You want to seduce the King? Roll History and Persuasion. A 22 and a 12. Ok, so you remember this monarch recently was in the paper as attending a furry con, and you know what, you're just convincing enough to get your Druid to take your place. Three days pass, and you now have enough incriminating evidence to do with what you will. ... Ok, maybe I shouldn't DM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Maybe I should make this a declared rule so everyone knows my intentions but when someone tries something complex and interesting I want a whole bunch of rolls to see which aspect of suplexing a horse into a catapult and riding it in a screaming parabola to land on the king was your strong suit. I'm not fishing for a no. Oh you failed the animal handling? The horse is extremely not happy about any of this but it still happens because goddamn, good plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Did you use Vow of Enmity before going down? I think it might fall off if you go unconscious. Did the dragon not have a breath weapon? Does it? Is that a global rule written somewhere? I checked the Vengeance page when i went down the first time and it only said it ends after 1 minute or when the target drops to 0 hp. As for the breath attack, it used that to down me in the first place. It was attacking us through a hole it made in the wall of the tower we were in, and i happened to be stood on the extreme edge of the hole to hit it, so it missed most of the party to get me in the cone. It was a complete accident but it worked out well that only me and the raging barbarian got hit by it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Maybe I should make this a declared rule so everyone knows my intentions but when someone tries something complex and interesting I want a whole bunch of rolls to see which aspect of suplexing a horse into a catapult and riding it in a screaming parabola to land on the king was your strong suit. I'm not fishing for a no. Oh you failed the animal handling? The horse is extremely not happy about any of this but it still happens because goddamn, good plan. So you're having them make skill checks to generate flavour text? Noxin of Shame posted:Not that I'm disagreeing with you, as it's super easy for a DM to read that as being multiple ways to fail. But I think the choice of asking for multiple rolls across different skills as a narrative reason to figure out how you succeed is pretty cool. The problem being is that then the player doesn't do that after he fails a couple of times when they are trying something. You as a GM, are conditioning your players to play and behave in a certain way. If you show them its more difficult to do something unique and interesting, then they will stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Maybe I should make this a declared rule so everyone knows my intentions but when someone tries something complex and interesting I want a whole bunch of rolls to see which aspect of suplexing a horse into a catapult and riding it in a screaming parabola to land on the king was your strong suit. I'm not fishing for a no. Oh you failed the animal handling? The horse is extremely not happy about any of this but it still happens because goddamn, good plan. I'd recommend against this, it just means more time and makes things more uncertain for the player for no benefit. Just don't roll if you're going to give it to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
I like the general concept of being able to stack up skill checks. It sounds like it'd produce interesting results as long as you didn't require multiple successes or have failures cancel successes or some poo poo and instead went with "yeah, roll those skills and take the highest result, which indicates how you succeeded". I think that could be tacked on to D&D unchanged - going broad with your skills will sometimes give you (effectively) Advantage, and that doesn't sound like it'd break anything. If I were going to set the game up to handle all skill checks like that, I'd do it the same (ie, success on any roll means you get what you wanted) and then provide guidelines for the player and GM about using the results of the rolls (ie, which rolls succeeded and which failed) to inform their narration of what happened in the fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
kingcom posted:So you're having them make skill checks to generate flavour text? In a way, yes? Using a character's (often vastly under-utilised) skills to dictate the narrative. rumble in the bunghole posted:I'd recommend against this, it just means more time and makes things more uncertain for the player for no benefit. Just don't roll if you're going to give it to them. If you're just going to give it to them, sure, don't ask for a roll. But if you see variance and options, and want to decide how you're going to give it to them, what's the harm in rolling? kingcom posted:The problem being is that then the player doesn't do that after he fails a couple of times when they are trying something. You as a GM, are conditioning your players to play and behave in a certain way. If you show them its more difficult to do something unique and interesting, then they will stop doing that. How is it making something more difficult when in essence you're giving them advantage on the check? I realise that that sounds more argumentative than I intend — I'm just trying to defend a seemingly neat viewpoint that I haven't seen before, have never used (have not DM'd), but seems sensible, fun (at least to me as a player), and easy to implement. Before it gets hand-waived as a stupid idea, I want it to be critiqued a little further. Multiple skill checks in sequence, bad. Multiple skill checks in parallel, good (or also bad depending on your GM).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:How is it making something more difficult when in essence you're giving them advantage on the check? I think your idea is good, mostly because of the advantage thing. I still had to read what you wrote twice before I understood that you weren't saying "...and you need more successes than failures" or something like it. I also think that letting the player say "I'm using my ability at X, Y (and maybe Z) to do this thing" and then using that to inform the narrative is going to produce better results than trying one and pass/failing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Would it be worth it to multiclass Rogue(Assassin) 3/Pact of the Blade Hexblade? I think it would be cool to play a mobility and assassination-based Warlock who can also tank once the battle starts. I'd have to take the War Caster feat so I can also wear a shield and cast. And eventually Mobile... And I'm spending time thinking about this instead of preparing for the next session of the campaign I'm currently DMing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:How is it making something more difficult when in essence you're giving them advantage on the check? Okay so if a GM tells me I'm making 2 checks to try something neat, I'll instead say ah actually ill just swing my sword at them. Thats the first problem. The second is, whats the problem with the player saying how it happens and dictate how things play out if they pass?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Throwing Turtles posted:In first edition you died at 0, game over. A lot of people house ruled that you were unconscious until -10 then you died. The 1E DMG has the -10 countdown rule. What people house rule away is the week of recovery time after being negative. No popping back up with a dinky cure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:The 1E DMG has the -10 countdown rule. What people house rule away is the week of recovery time after being negative. No popping back up with a dinky cure. So it does. I started on the box set D&D game which didn't have the -10 rule I just assumed that AD&D went the same way. But I keep forgetting advanced doesn't mean harder, just more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Would it be worth it to multiclass Rogue(Assassin) 3/Pact of the Blade Hexblade? I think it would be cool to play a mobility and assassination-based Warlock who can also tank once the battle starts. Well, first, Assassin is a crap archetype, a crapchetype if you will, so if you wish to do something like this just pick Arcane Trickster for the extra cantrips and spells/spell slots. Or Swashbuckler so you can skip taking Mobile. As for how it'd work overall, hmm... it's better the other way around? Take Hexblade 5 for Thirsting Blade, then continue onto Rogue the rest of the way. Or even just 3 and use Shadow Blade, that works too; 2 uses per short rest, Devil's Sight to see perfectly in any kind of darkness, hit with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade, kickass. Regarding War Caster, ignoring the hand economy is a nice perk but its main benefit is advantage on concentration checks and reaction spells, so don't put the cart before the horse here. The thing with Warlock is their class progression is all kinds of hosed, where they get the meat of the class in the first 2-3 levels which makes it really popular for dipping, and after that it's basically dead until 11-12 when it gets a huge power spike. So if you want to be majorly Warlock it's in your interest to take as few levels of other classes as possible. You know, 1 or 2. But that doesn't really mesh well with Rogue since their progression is great levels 1 through 7 Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Okay so if a GM tells me I'm making 2 checks to try something neat, I'll instead say ah actually ill just swing my sword at them. Thats the first problem. So, if you were swinging your sword at advantage, you would prefer not to do that also? I'm not saying make two separate skill checks, I'm suggesting using multiple skills to pass the one check, rolled at the same time. Which goes some way to avoid that whole "Uh, yeah, I too will make an arcana check..." after someone rolls bad, which isn't everyone's problem, but just some bullshittery that occasionally irks me. To be honest, I'm not really thinking about this in terms of combat, but when interacting with the world. Using the classic "I want to jump off the balcony onto the chandelier" example that usually results in a chaining of checks, you'd pick the highest successful check rolled, and emphasize that — "Your acrobatics check was meh so you don't land on the chandelier like the dashing scoundrel you envisaged; But with your athletics you grip the edge of it as you fall, bringing it down onto the head of the Pureblood in a hail of wrought iron and flames. He is now prone and takes 7 chaos dunk damage, doubled to 14 because if you can't slam with the best, then jam with the rest." Absolutely nothing wrong with having the player dictate things either. "I search the cavern for a secret exit" "Sure, roll History, Nature, Investigation and Athletics... Both your History and Athletics pass the DC. Ok, using those skills, how do you find the hidden passage?" AlphaDog posted:I think your idea is good, mostly because of the advantage thing. I still had to read what you wrote twice before I understood that you weren't saying "...and you need more successes than failures" or something like it. I believe it was Krinkle's idea, I just like it and am making more noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:I believe it was Krinkle's idea, I just like it and am making more noise. Sorry, Krinkle! Noxin of Shame posted:Absolutely nothing wrong with having the player dictate things either. "I search the cavern for a secret exit" "Sure, roll History, Nature, Investigation and Athletics... Both your History and Athletics pass the DC. Ok, using those skills, how do you find the hidden passage?" Yes, this. It'd be a very cool way to do skills in a D&D-alike game. I'm not sure the narrow-ish list of skills in 5th ed is a great match for it and it's kinda outside the general vibe of the rules, but I think you could still bolt it straight on and have it work. -- Coincidentally, one of my DMs emailed the group this afternoon, said she's not happy with the skill system in general, and pitched the idea of "rolling your Background", as in "Roll <Stat> (<background>)". For example, you're trying to pull on a rope. Roll Strength (Sailor). You're trying to navigate by the stars. Roll Int (Sailor). You're trying to balance on a moving object. Roll Dex (Sailor). Her idea is that the player would describe how the background applied to the check. Each player would take 2 "backgrounds", being medieval-ish+fantasy jobs/occupations/etc, and then you'd have those instead of a skill list. She thinks this will encourage descriptive/narrative skill use instead of "Use athletics". I kinda like the idea but it seems half-finished somehow. Anyone got feedback?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:So, if you were swinging your sword at advantage, you would prefer not to do that also? I'm not saying make two separate skill checks, I'm suggesting using multiple skills to pass the one check, rolled at the same time. Which goes some way to avoid that whole "Uh, yeah, I too will make an arcana check..." after someone rolls bad, which isn't everyone's problem, but just some bullshittery that occasionally irks me. Right thats a bit clearer as to what you're aiming for. Ironically you're looking to just play the Edge of the Empire dice system but split up into multiple checks rather than all piled into the one roll. You're trying to get a degrees of success mechanic combined with unexpected boons and banes alongside the effect. Not the worst idea but I would definitely be a bit weirdly standoffish about it as a player until it was explained what your goal was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Not the worst idea but I would definitely be a bit weirdly standoffish about it as a player until it was explained what your goal was. That's what I was originally trying to say when I said I had to re-read it a couple times. I guess years of various DMs calling for multiple checks without thinking it through has given me a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who says to make more than one skill roll to accomplish something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Sorry, Krinkle! Well it's basically 13th age's system but a little bit narrowed, and that works pretty well. I'd say go for it
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Coincidentally, one of my DMs emailed the group this afternoon, said she's not happy with the skill system in general, and pitched the idea of "rolling your Background", as in "Roll <Stat> (<background>)". For example, you're trying to pull on a rope. Roll Strength (Sailor). You're trying to navigate by the stars. Roll Int (Sailor). You're trying to balance on a moving object. Roll Dex (Sailor). Her idea is that the player would describe how the background applied to the check. Each player would take 2 "backgrounds", being medieval-ish+fantasy jobs/occupations/etc, and then you'd have those instead of a skill list. She thinks this will encourage descriptive/narrative skill use instead of "I use athletics". I kinda like the idea but it seems half-finished somehow. Anyone got feedback? There's already a variant rule proposed in the DMG where your "Background" is a word or phrase or brief description, and skill checks are [d20 + stat + proficiency bonus] if the background applies, and [d20 + stat] otherwise. It's a good idea, with all the usual caveats of a 13th Age-style background with regards to how broad or narrow it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's already a variant rule proposed in the DMG where your "Background" is a word or phrase or brief description, and skill checks are [d20 + stat + proficiency bonus] if the background applies, and [d20 + stat] otherwise. Yep, I already regretted starting a game before seeing this rule. kingcom fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:When I make a bunch of checks I'm not trying to make it statistically improbable I'm just lookin' for narrative direction like I made a guy roll animal handling and then acrobatics when jumping from a horse onto a runaway wagon so he did bad on the animal handling and the horse is too spooked to get close but the good as hell leap made up for it. I basically gave him advantage without just saying you have advantage on this jump. kingcom posted:Okay so if a GM tells me I'm making 2 checks to try something neat, I'll instead say ah actually ill just swing my sword at them. Thats the first problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
I think it'd avoid the 13th Age broad/narrow thing because you get to take 2, and also because I don't think we're sticking to the listed backgrounds. I think the gist of it would be that you're supposed to choose something more mundane and something more fantastic. I reckon I'm gonna play a warlock who was a sailor and a cultist, and do a cthulhu vibe. Splicer posted:This is the first time I've seen multiple skill rolls spelled out as multiple chances to succeed, which is a depressing indictment of the hobby. This is good stuff, krinkle. Yeah, it's the first time I've seen it too, and that's a bit worrying. I'm not 100% sure I would ever get this idea to sink in with the people I regularly DM for, because the other way (if you fail once, you fail everything) is so very annoyingly common. Next time I do any kind of D&D for them I'm gonna give it a shot though. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yeah, it's the first time I've seen it too, and that's a bit worrying. I'm not 100% sure I would ever get this idea to sink in with the people I regularly DM for, because the other way (if you fail once, you fail everything) is so very annoyingly common. You'd have to be clear about what the multiple rolls represent. You might even want to do a "demo" of it where it's all imaginary and nothing "in-game" happens just to illustrate your point. (having well-defined stakes before any roll is good DM praxis anyway)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think they'd have trouble grasping the mechanics involved so much as I think they'd have trouble internalising this as part of D&D now. I'd want the players to put forward the skills they're going to be using and I can just see myself reapeating "...you can use more than one skill if you want, remember that it's the highest roll that counts" basically forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yeah, it's the first time I've seen it too, and that's a bit worrying. I'm not 100% sure I would ever get this idea to sink in with the people I regularly DM for, because the other way (if you fail once, you fail everything) is so very annoyingly common. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
I'm all for players getting to Do Cool Stuff, but I'd rather just cap it at two skills, and rather than acting as advantage, let one skill be the "supporting" one, and have success on that roll confer a bonus to the "main" roll. The other way feels too much like an incentive to find contrived ways to engineer a situation where you can stack multiple skills to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I'm all for players getting to Do Cool Stuff, but I'd rather just cap it at two skills, and rather than acting as advantage, let one skill be the "supporting" one, and have success on that roll confer a bonus to the "main" roll. The other way feels too much like an incentive to find contrived ways to engineer a situation where you can stack multiple skills to me. There's still the "I climb it sneakily" problem, but a "does not directly address the existing scene" clause to add additional complications would mitigate that. "What do you get? OK one success and one failure takes you up, but it takes twice as long as everyone else because you're sneaking from nothing. On the other hand if you'd been moving less cautiously you might have fallen". Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Hi thread. I'm a new DM about to run through Sunless Citadel with 5 people of varying skill level (3 brand new, 2 with experience) and i was wondering if yall had tips for me in running this module?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Critical Role just finshed their campaign which went 1-20, ~9-20 was on their stream. Some nerd compiled all their dice roll stats that you'd want which showcases skill utilizations and dice advantage vs disadvantage efficacy and what not. I figure you guys would enjoy the raw data whether you liked the show or not. All the normal cautions about the data reflecting only a single campaign that had a homebrew class in the PC party and a few house rules being able to tell you only so much. Also their game started in Pathfinder and was imported as is into 5e when they brought it on stream so that'll effect things too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Critical Role just finshed their campaign which went 1-20, ~9-20 was on their stream. Some nerd compiled all their dice roll stats that you'd want which showcases skill utilizations and dice advantage vs disadvantage efficacy and what not. I figure you guys would enjoy the raw data whether you liked the show or not. How does one get around Perception and Wisdom being like, the most overused by a lot? It's not just his DM style either, I see it a lot in my own campaigns
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Hi thread. I'm a new DM about to run through Sunless Citadel with 5 people of varying skill level (3 brand new, 2 with experience) and i was wondering if yall had tips for me in running this module? It's pretty simple honestly as it was pretty much made as a starter adventure. My best piece of advice is to get a good read through so you mostly understand the dungeon and the relations between rooms. And to try and make sure the party does not murder Meepo upon seeing him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
No idea. But as a follow up for people who aren't familiar with which PC is what class, a reference is: Grog: Goliath Barb Keyleith: Half-Elf Druid Percy: Human Gunsmith (Mercer's homebrew class) Pike: Gnome Cleric Scanlan: Gnome Bard Tiberius: Dragonborn Sorcerer Trinket: Bear pet of Ranger Vax: Half-Elf Rogue/Paladin/Druid Vex: Half-Elf Ranger/Rogue Tiberius left show within first six months so doesn't have a lot of data, and Vax took one level of Druid at the last episode for narrative fluff only.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:How does one get around Perception and Wisdom being like, the most overused by a lot? It's not just his DM style either, I see it a lot in my own campaigns
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:00
|
|