|
Arthil posted:Maybe the guy that's never ran a 5E game shouldn't be homebrewing it out the rear end his first time? Oh god. We've become the monsters.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Splicer posted:GMs that have never ran a 5e game homebrewing it out the rear end their first time was literally one of their stated design goals. I never asked for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Maybe the guy that's never ran a 5E game shouldn't be homebrewing it out the rear end his first time? I mean, I guess he could independently rediscover all the same problems and the same solutions for them, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:I mean, I guess he could independently rediscover all the same problems and the same solutions for them, yeah. There's just merit to understanding the rules and how the game plays with them before you begin twisting/bending/changing them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
Arthil posted:There's just merit to understanding the rules and how the game plays with them before you begin twisting/bending/changing them. Whats the point in spending a quite a bit of money on books and then having to do most of the work yourself. If I spent 60 bucks on a game and then had to mod it so it can actually function Id be pissed and demand my money back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
I think the issue is a lot of you guys think the game is something broken that needs to be fixed when it's just that the game is made to be simple. You take a much different point of view when changes you make are done to add complexity rather than believing you're fixing something that's broke. And just for your last point: Elder Scrolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Arthil posted:I think the issue is a lot of you guys think the game is something broken that needs to be fixed when it's just that the game is made to be simple. You take a much different point of view when changes you make are done to add complexity rather than believing you're fixing something that's broke. You have confused "simple" with "poo poo", my friend. I admire your faith in the designers, and their ability to create something that matches their stated intentions, but it is misplaced. The proposed changes to monster abilities actually reduce complexity in one notable area: spellcasting. Just listing "can cast Web 3/day requires referencing that specific spell, how it works, and how to use it, as opposed to the full ability being there in the statblock and therefore much easier for the GM to read and use when appropriate. The others are just quality of life changes that are generally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
I do think that the game could be improved by applying houserules to it (the exact number and nature will vary per group), and I do agree that a game that is merely mediocre out of the box is unsatisfying, and I do agree that the ease by which you can "mod" a game isn't an excuse, but I also agree with Arthil that one should really play the game as close to by-the-book as possible until they're comfortable with the very act of playing first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Arthil posted:There's just merit to understanding the rules and how the game plays with them before you begin twisting/bending/changing them. If you dont know how it plays to begin with, then adding functionally random (advice from strangers on the internet) math and subsystems is confusing and un-fun. Starting to play after getting a decent understanding of the rules, and then adjusting based on your game, and your players, and hopefully conversations with your players, is a better route.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Arthil posted:I think the issue is a lot of you guys think the game is something broken that needs to be fixed when it's just that the game is made to be simple. You take a much different point of view when changes you make are done to add complexity rather than believing you're fixing something that's broke. You seem a bit confused if you think DnD5e is a simple game. This is a simple game. DnD5e is several hundred times longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Arthil posted:the game is made to be simple. gradenko_2000 posted:I do think that the game could be improved by applying houserules to it (the exact number and nature will vary per group), and I do agree that a game that is merely mediocre out of the box is unsatisfying, and I do agree that the ease by which you can "mod" a game isn't an excuse, but I also agree with Arthil that one should really play the game as close to by-the-book as possible until they're comfortable with the very act of playing first. Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
So, wait, what are the thread-recommended houserules? I haven't run 5e before and would have preferred 4e, but my expectations were mostly "prepping encounters is more work and level 1 poo poo is back to being randomly deadly, but otherwise it'll be fine."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
tzirean posted:So, wait, what are the thread-recommended houserules? I haven't run 5e before and would have preferred 4e, but my expectations were mostly "prepping encounters is more work and level 1 poo poo is back to being randomly deadly, but otherwise it'll be fine." Use point-buy or standard array. Give players more HP at level 1. Common suggestions are a flat +10 HP, or add the CON score (not the mod, the score) to max HP. Consider being more liberal with feats, such as allowing a feat AND an ASI to be taken. Have some way of reminding people that Inspiration exists. Encounter design needs work. I'm going to toot my own horn here: use this to supplant 5e's rules entirely, or use this if you're picking monsters via the MM. Monster design needs work: always rejigger monsters so that between AC, Con saves, Dex saves, and Wis saves, you always have someone capable of attacking two of them, and possibly as many as three of them. Even a basic "four goblins" encounter should mean two of the Goblins will fling stones at you for 1d4 damage on a failed Dex save. Use this as a guide on how to set skill check DCs. Class-specific changes abound, but I wouldn't go into listing them all without knowing what people want to play. The most common ones are that martials need help relative to casters in general, Champion Fighters, Beastmaster Rangers, and Berserker Barbarians specifically are mediocre at best. EDIT: Mind you, this doesn't really fix deep-seated issues like caster supremacy, but at that point you're better off playing another game than throwing in another page+ of rules. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Any thoughts on reworking Arcane Archer to a ranger subtype?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:EDIT: Mind you, this doesn't really fix deep-seated issues like caster supremacy, but at that point you're better off playing another game than throwing in another page+ of rules. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Stray thought: Since advantage is equivalent to something like +4.5 to a roll to hit: For non-levelled generic monsters one way to tone down the super-swinginess of advantage would be to assign "monster advantage" as +2, and leave the normal advantage for the players. (Who, generally, will be excited at the extra chance for a critical hit. If you use crits for monsters this will also reduce their frequency, which is a probably a good thing, even though it still allows for the "normal" chance of a crit for players to fret over.) https://critical-hits.com/blog/2012/06/11/dd-advantage-vs-flat-bonuses/ http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Stray thought: Since advantage is equivalent to something like +4.5 to a roll to hit: This is good, and the broader point is that a bunch of poo poo can be "solved" if people would just get over the complete aversion to using flat bonuses that the designers are still trying to maintain a veneer of against all sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Someone has the shield master feat. When are they allowed shield bash someone? Give me an attack roll, just your proficiency bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Give me an attack roll, just your proficiency bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I meant the thingy where you can shove someone. The way it triggers is... not simple Is the issue you're referring to that you need to use the Attack action first then shove second as a bonus action? e: oops https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329 Kaysette fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Speaking of the BM Ranger, did they ever release anything approximating an actual fix that wasn't just a different, better archetype?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Speaking of the BM Ranger, did they ever release anything approximating an actual fix that wasn't just a different, better archetype? https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Is the issue you're referring to that you need to use the Attack action first then shove second as a bonus action? You can only move between attacks during your attack action, so you can't push a dude then follow them, but you can push, then whiff the air, then follow, then attack. Simple! Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
and if shoving the guy kills him, you must take your sword to the nearest other, so sayeth the rules Did they clarify that you couldn't move between them somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Use point-buy or standard array. This is awesome, thanks. I intended to use the standard array, but I like the additional HP and the feat+ability instead of one or the other. Looking through your blog entries now! Not sure what you mean by the rejiggering: should my players always be able to hit at least two monsters, or should the monsters always be able to hit two players? Classes chosen so far are Druid, Sorcerer and Archfey Warlock, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Not sure what you mean by the rejiggering: should my players always be able to hit at least two monsters, or should the monsters always be able to hit two players? The solution is to attack not-AC defenses, but because of the way D&D does magic and how it designs monsters, a lot of the time there is no "basic" way to attack a saving throw just to deal some damage. What I'm saying is, an encounter should always have the means to attack different defenses of the players. If you have four goblins, two of them can swing a sword to attack AC, then one of them can shoot a bow to attack Dex saves, and then one of them can do a psychic attack against Wisdom saves, or a Poison attack against Constitution saves. tzirean posted:Classes chosen so far are Druid, Sorcerer and Archfey Warlock, probably. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Classes chosen so far are Druid, Sorcerer and Archfey Warlock, probably. Always give Warlocks at least 2 short rests per long rest. If that doesn't fit the natural pacing of the game (ie you only run 1-2 combats per day), then give them an extra spell slot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You can only move between attacks during your attack action, so you can't push a dude then follow them, but you can push, then whiff the air, then follow, then attack. You can already split up movement before/after an action and between attacks. Basically move whenever. You can also use the shield bonus action during an attack, between the actual attacks. edit: And this is probably a useful thing for the 4e DM to realize about 5e: it relies heavily on "ask your DM" and the DM equivalent is "ask Jeremy Crawford". ritorix fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
I was saying this at my local game store, how more varied defences would improve the game and one of the staff chimed in with "they tried that with dungeons and Azeroths and it ended up being terrible." You know that feeling where you know the thing that just made you mad isn't at all a big deal and you're an adult and it's fine it's fine it's loving fine just relax pay for your card sleeves and go home, go home to your children. It's fine. Why doesn't everyone just think and believe exactly what I do. It's frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's retarded but I love it I really wanted to give 5e a chance, but this is painfully accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:I was saying this at my local game store, how more varied defences would improve the game and one of the staff chimed in with "they tried that with dungeons and Azeroths and it ended up being terrible." I was talking with some random person at my FLGS while I was waiting for the guy to price the Magic cards I was selling, and he mentioned refluffing. And I off handedly mentioned that it was easier to Refluff in 4e. And he reacted like I just suggested he eat dogshit before elaborating that he had not actually started playing until 5e, but his entire playgroup has constructed the Idea in his head that 4e is just a nebulous sphere of bad ideas from which no good games can escape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I mean if you have four goblins, and all of them either swing a sword against AC, or shoot a bow against AC, then it's possible to trivialize encounters by going all-in on high AC. That makes a lot of sense and I probably wouldn't have figured it out this early. Thanks! gradenko_2000 posted:I wouldn't change a thing. Those classes are rock stars. OK, cool. We'll see what the other players want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
tzirean posted:OK, cool. We'll see what the other players want. General rule of thumb is that classes that can cast 9th level spells (full spellcaster) are generally more effective than those capped at 5th level spells (partial spellcaster) and those are generally more effective than classes without any (martials).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I was talking with some random person at my FLGS while I was waiting for the guy to price the Magic cards I was selling, and he mentioned refluffing. And I off handedly mentioned that it was easier to Refluff in 4e. And he reacted like I just suggested he eat dogshit before elaborating that he had not actually started playing until 5e, but his entire playgroup has constructed the Idea in his head that 4e is just a nebulous sphere of bad ideas from which no good games can escape. My friend, who I guarantee has never played a second of 4e or 5e (we formerly played 3e/3.5 extensively) moved to WI about two years back and then shortly after was telling us about how he had met a dude who plays D&D who explained to him (apropos of seemingly nothing since, again, my friend has no experience with or inclination to play 4e) that 4e was a WoW clone that made everything really dumb and bad. I also similarly had my wife's cousin drop some random insults on 4e in the course of hinting that I should DM for his group because the guy who usually DMed for them had been flaking. And again, this isn't something we've discussed, he has literally zero idea what editions that I've played outside of my wife casually mentioning that I've played in the past. So yeah, the anti-4e memes are still going strong and random people will absolutely make sure you know how they feel about what a dumb, lovely game it is, regardless of if you or they have ever played it or are ever even considering playing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
"Dungeons and Azeroth" is so amazingly petty holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:My friend, who I guarantee has never played a second of 4e or 5e (we formerly played 3e/3.5 extensively) moved to WI about two years back and then shortly after was telling us about how he had met a dude who plays D&D who explained to him (apropos of seemingly nothing since, again, my friend has no experience with or inclination to play 4e) that 4e was a WoW clone that made everything really dumb and bad. Thankfully he seemed pretty open to the idea that he might be wrong about a thing that he never played, and his friend's argument that "5e is better than 4e because if 4e was good they wouldn't have made 5e" Falls apart because they also say that 5e is like 3.5 again, even though 4e should be better than 3.5. gradenko_2000 posted:"Dungeons and Azeroth" is so amazingly petty holy poo poo Also this, the only thing MMOs are guilty of is scraping away the veneer of versimilitude that people classified classes as anything other than healer, tank, and dps. And 4e was a better game for going "yes, they're right." The only thing that was less well supported was the "Controller" Specialization which swung wildly between "Worse striker" and "Thing that actively ruins the DM's day."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The only thing that was less well supported was the "Controller" Specialization which swung wildly between "Worse striker" and "Thing that actively ruins the DM's day." I used my day ruining Wizard player as an excuse to make things look awesome. I'd regularly throw 20+ minions at them when I wanted to keep him busy for a turn. Or a trapdoor on the ceiling that would drop in 10 minions every turn until it was closed. All while there's a real big bad for the rest of the party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
I was referring more towards the Psions that can give elites -6 to all attack rolls all day long but can't deal with Minions to save their souls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:the only thing MMOs are guilty of is scraping away the veneer of versimilitude that people classified classes as anything other than healer, tank, and dps. And 4e 3e was bad for building up the "dungeons and spreadsheets" charop fetishism. "Scraping away the veneer" of playing a game that isnt just optimized numbers shuffling around a grid is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
As it turns out, reducing a game to numbers shuffling around on a grid also makes it really easy to write predictable design. And besides, no matter how "boardgamey" your combat is, if you can still make narrative decisions as to who, what, how, where, and when to fight, is that not still roleplaying regardless?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:49
|
|