|
Wait are we going over this again? Wasn't MonsterEnvy the one who didn't believe this stuff last time and so was going to link the discussion to Mearls until everyone, hopefully , convinced him that that was a bad idea?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2018 23:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 07:47 |
|
Ryuujin posted:Wait are we going over this again? Wasn't MonsterEnvy the one who didn't believe this stuff last time and so was going to link the discussion to Mearls until everyone, hopefully , convinced him that that was a bad idea? Yeah, he's a real idiot.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2018 23:44 |
|
ReapersTouch posted:A large glass construct that's in the shape of a giant bowl with arms and legs, that tries to grapple people and throw him in his head. Inside the head, is an ooze that's ready to engulf whatever is tossed in.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2018 23:58 |
|
I'm talking about a beloved mascot of a powdered drink mix-in being turned into a vicious dungeons and dragons monster.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 00:06 |
|
DalaranJ posted:You must do this. It's one of the things that has improved my DMing the most. If you're asking about actual systems for gridless combat in which position is still tracked more abstractly (including targeting by big attacks), off the top of my head 13th Age, The One Ring, and even Dungeon World do this. Really it's only a subset of D&D players who insist that D&D can be played gridless with no problems. Name Change fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 01:13 |
|
Man, I don't even know how to react to that tweet. Lots to unpack, but projection is the biggest vibe I'm getting from it.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 01:39 |
|
dont even fink about it posted:If you're asking about actual systems for gridless combat in which position is still tracked more abstractly (including targeting by big attacks), off the top of my head 13th Age, The One Ring, and even Dungeon World do this. Edge of the Empire too. Lots of games dont come from wargaming naval combat orgins like D&D, hence why so many don't use fixed movement and grid spaces.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 02:54 |
|
ReapersTouch posted:I'm talking about a beloved mascot of a powdered drink mix-in being turned into a vicious dungeons and dragons monster. It needs a power that allows it to break through walls. dont even fink about it posted:If you're asking about actual systems for gridless combat in which position is still tracked more abstractly (including targeting by big attacks), off the top of my head 13th Age, The One Ring, and even Dungeon World do this. I meant has anyone abstracted that for 5e. Since Theatre of The Mind was the bill of goods they originally sold, but never followed through with afaik.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:03 |
|
Structured gridless combat? AlphaDog posted:Combat is divided into notional areas that have nothing to do with the terrain. You can think of it as a track: PC ranged -- PC Support -- Frontline -- Monster Support -- Monster Ranged. e: For clarity, that wasn't written specifically for 5th ed D&D, but I think the post I was responding to was asking about some kind of D&D. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:08 |
|
dont even fink about it posted:Really it's only a subset of D&D players who insist that D&D can be played gridless with no problems. There have always been rules related to it, but it was very uncommon until somewhere along the 3e era.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:16 |
|
FRINGE posted:For most of its history "playing on a grid" was restricted to pointing to where you were on the parties graph paper map with a pencil for most people. WotC pushed a transition towards table maps when they decided to start selling them. Yeah, but that didn't exactly come with "no problems" - it's always made it harder to be melee and easier to be ranged/aoe than if you play on a grid (or use rulers and templates, holy poo poo AD&D is different when you try to use certain rules). e: Unless your DM realised and compensated, of course. If they did, you might not have noticed it was the usual thing that happened.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:19 |
|
Rulers are vastly superior to grids and I applaud roll20 for having a gridless but rulered setting
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:21 |
|
Rulers are a genuine pain in the arse in actual play, but they turn 1st ed AD&D into a good-for-the-time minis skirmish game (assuming someone writes some houserules about base-to-base contact, someone makes up some AoE templates, etc). That's what I meant by "different". The RAW call for miniatures and rulers. Hardly anyone ever did that. If you do do it, the game is weirdly different. If you do it to the extent that you're moving the minis through the whole dungeon and using the time rules (especially for searching, movement, and spell/light timers), it's really loving cool in a completely different way (and really loving complicated, and god help you getting everything back into place if someone nudges the table). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:24 |
|
I'd argue that AD&D Combat and Tactics was the first ruleset that had so many grid-related rules that you couldn't ignore them without throwing out most of the book altogether, but I also don't think it's a fair characterization to say that WOTC was a driver of maps and battlefield accouterments - TSR was very much into selling that kind of thing too.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:25 |
|
AlphaDog posted:Yeah, but that didn't exactly come with "no problems" - it's always made it harder to be melee and easier to be ranged/aoe than if you play on a grid (or use rulers and templates, holy poo poo AD&D is different when you try to use certain rules).
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:31 |
|
DalaranJ posted:It needs a power that allows it to break through walls. AlphaDog posted:Structured gridless combat? AlphaDog posted:Structured gridless combat? I like this idea. Abstracting combat formations could come from looking st games like Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy, which are designed to support both really involved and really quick fighting scenarios. To add on to Alphadog's idea, you could allow melee fighters to run past the other melee line to attack a support, but they take opportunity attacks from the entire line to do so. If they want to avoid taking OAs, they can spend two turns running the long way to the enemy back line and they no longer count as part of the front line of the current party. Alternatively, they can move and dash to make it to the enemy support line in one turn but not be able to attack unless they have a bonus action. If the flanking character has a lot of movement, say 10 more than default (ala monks or rogues using cunning action to dash), they can move to the back line by going around the other side's melee people because that's what extra movement would be for in this instance. In this case they only take a single opportunity attack. When you get to 15 or more movement speed you can let them avoid OAs altogether. If you remain on the enemy support line, you're not part of your party's melee or support lines anymore and now you're in range of every enemy on the opposing team. This sounds complicated but I think the general idea is you could just write "here is who is in what line" on a white board and it shouldn't take long. Fireball or Lightning Bolt hit a whole line OR two or three enemies in either line. Cone effects hit the back line more than the front line. Really specific movement effects won't work, but tell your players they can use those to force enemies into environmental hazards you've described. That's my quick five minute hack up a rough system, but I'm pretty sure anyone could come up with something more elegant. I would also recommend checking out Shadow of the Demon Lord's Forbidden Rules supplement because it has a simple way of doing gridless combat by establishing "zones" and it even provides conversions for its ranges into zone effects.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:42 |
|
Early in 5e's lifecycle, Sly Flourish wrote an article about using "Fate-style zones" to hash out combats. That said, AlphaDog's post is still more fleshed-out than this is.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 03:49 |
|
I see where you're going, and it'd be a decent way to approach it, but by the time you tack all that on to D&D, you might as well just use the grid. My purpose in using an abstracted, structured system is to get past the "grids slow things waaaay dooooooooown" complaint without going full "eh, just use your imagination". What I didn't stress in that post but might have said in the original conversation is that the goal is not to replace the grid with an equally detailed set of gridless rules, it's to have a framework for descriptive/narrative combat. For example: Someone tries to run through the line by saying "I run through the line"? No. gently caress no. That's the same as "just make it up". You can't run through the front line. Not even with taking OAs. You need to do something to get there. Someone wants to Shield Push or Trip an engaged enemy and move past them? Yes! You made a gap! You can go through! You don't eat an OA! You expended a resource (ie, an attack or a bonus action), and now you can do the thing! You killed an opponent and want to move through the line? Not without taking an OA from one enemy frontliner! Your action (not the technical 5e "Action", but the thing you did) means there's an opportunity to get through! The resource cost is potential hit points. The difference between this and the above is that by default you are trying to kill your opponents. A push or trip or something means either you've given up an attempt to kill someone in order to make your gap, or you've given up the opportunity to do a different bonus action in order to make a gap. Waldo The Wizard just blew orc #3 into a fine red mist, and narrated it as "I'm making a gap!" The next turn is yours and you want to move through the line. Same as above. Move through, but take an OA from one enemy frontliner. Narratively, there's a gap. You didn't expend a resource though - getting a free disengage and then your full action/bonus/move thing would be bullshit. Waldo etc, Hold Monster to make a gap for you... yeah, move on through, no OA. You want to utilise one of the above three things next round? No! Opportunities not taken immediately are lost! It's an abstracted, imagined version of a violent chaotic sword fight , not two lines of people standing there taking turns hitting each other. It's an aid to imagination and creative play, not a set of step-by-step rules that cover all the bases. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 04:12 |
|
AlphaDog posted:I see where you're going, and it'd be a decent way to approach it, but by the time you tack all that on to D&D, you might as well just use the grid. My purpose in using an abstracted, structured system is to get past the "grids slow things waaaay dooooooooown" complaint without going full "eh, just use your imagination". I see where you're coming from; you want to have a system there without losing aspects of the fiction, too. I think Shadow of the Demon Lord's zones thing might better line up with this thinking. And I actually like the idea of the line holding because, really, why should the Fighter have to expend a once-a-turn resources to accomplish holding someone off from moving past you?
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 04:33 |
|
Nickoten posted:I see where you're coming from; you want to have a system there without losing aspects of the fiction, too. I think Shadow of the Demon Lord's zones thing might better line up with this thinking. And I actually like the idea of the line holding because, really, why should the Fighter have to expend a once-a-turn resources to accomplish holding someone off from moving past you? Yeah - it doesn't make melee classes sticky, it makes "the melee" sticky. I think that's a net benefit. It's not just about the fiction - it's also about speed of play, consistency, and not loving melee characters over - "You have to take 4-5 OAs to do that" really might as well be "you can't do that, try something else". On a grid, that's obvious and sometimes it will happen, and it's 100% transparent and fair. In the kind of weird shared mental map "theater of the mind" that D&D tries to do, it's bullshit that ends up just being "ask the DM if they'll let you" because no group is holding the same grid of 5' squares in their collective minds, with everything in the right position, because that's impossible. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 04:42 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'd argue that AD&D Combat and Tactics was the first ruleset that had so many grid-related rules that you couldn't ignore them without throwing out most of the book altogether, but I also don't think it's a fair characterization to say that WOTC was a driver of maps and battlefield accouterments - TSR was very much into selling that kind of thing too. Yeah, I think people also underestimate the influence of Pool of Radiance and the like - every AD&D 2e game we played through the 1990-1995 period used a grid for combat based on the Gold Box approach.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 08:19 |
|
xiw posted:Yeah, I think people also underestimate the influence of Pool of Radiance and the like - every AD&D 2e game we played through the 1990-1995 period used a grid for combat based on the Gold Box approach.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 09:16 |
|
FRINGE posted:For most of its history "playing on a grid" was restricted to pointing to where you were on the parties graph paper map with a pencil for most people. WotC pushed a transition towards table maps when they decided to start selling them. But I think generally when people in this thread say "playing on the grid" they mean paying strict attention to movement distances etc, which has always been a big facet of d&d RAW. These days that usually means a grid because that's easier than rulers. You can ignore it, but the game is still obviously designed with that assumption in mind since dwarves having 5 foot less movement or longstrider giving you 10 foot more are still considered worth spending ink on. Splicer fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 09:31 |
|
So, uh, weird question here but I'm writing a few short homebrew Battlemaster manoeuvres since there's some obvious gaps and all. Some of 'em are definitely pretty dang strong and so need level gating, but I was just curious what the general thoughts are on using the Superiority Die to determine not-so-much added damage or anything immediate but rather determining the duration of effects. Like, something as simple as hitting a dude really hard to give disadvantage on attacks for a couple rounds or whatever. Or maybe half the roll. or something.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 13:54 |
|
That's... possible, but remember that fights don't usually go longer than half a dozen turns if that, and at some point you're either inflicting a duration that's so long it won't matter to track it, or you roll a 1 and welp. The real conceptual breakthrough is to accept that the number on the Superiority Dice doesn't always have to matter in any way.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 14:04 |
|
Dragonatrix posted:So, uh, weird question here but I'm writing a few short homebrew Battlemaster manoeuvres since there's some obvious gaps and all. Some of 'em are definitely pretty dang strong and so need level gating, but I was just curious what the general thoughts are on using the Superiority Die to determine not-so-much added damage or anything immediate but rather determining the duration of effects. Like, something as simple as hitting a dude really hard to give disadvantage on attacks for a couple rounds or whatever. Or maybe half the roll. or something. loving someone legs should reduce their speed by half for a few rounds. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 14:13 |
|
Dragonatrix posted:So, uh, weird question here but I'm writing a few short homebrew Battlemaster manoeuvres since there's some obvious gaps and all. Some of 'em are definitely pretty dang strong and so need level gating, but I was just curious what the general thoughts are on using the Superiority Die to determine not-so-much added damage or anything immediate but rather determining the duration of effects. Like, something as simple as hitting a dude really hard to give disadvantage on attacks for a couple rounds or whatever. Or maybe half the roll. or something.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 14:17 |
|
A couple of sugestions for an effect’s duration could be “until the end of your next turn” and “the effected target may roll to save against the effect at the end of each of their turns. A successful save ends the effect.” but let the effect (assuming the Battlemaster hits and then expends a die to activate the debuff) last for at least one round.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 14:39 |
|
if you're going to guarantee a minimum duration for it so that rolling a 1 on the d12 doesn't screw you over, you might as well disregard the die roll and just give it a set duration.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 15:02 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if you're going to guarantee a minimum duration for it so that rolling a 1 on the d12 doesn't screw you over, you might as well disregard the die roll and just give it a set duration. Just like complex stat roll generation methods vs just using pointbuy!
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 17:21 |
|
Sorry, I ended up being pretty busy this weekend but I still want to work on these Travelogues so let’s try this again: Our players: Rang of Dipkin - Human Wizard, Loremaster, PoV for the Travelogues Starke Whislwerd - Half-Elf Druid, Circle of the Land Saionji Mikano - Human Fighter, Samurai/Battle Master (I gave him some bonus samurai Maneuvers) Trundle - Human Barbarian While completing some small jobs together (clearing out goblin dens, defeating local bandits) our adventurers discovered a small, seemingly powerful artifact. The local wizards were of no help identifying it and suggested that they take it to a larger city to find a more powerful wizard to help. The adventurer’s decided to travel to the new city of Eranmor, a city rumored to have gleaned it’s success by exploiting a portal to the Feywild. Travelogue posted:Travelogue 14 Mirtul 1493 Travelogue posted:Travelogue 15 Mirtul 1493 Travelogue posted:Travelogue 2 - 15 Mirtul 1493 CubeTheory fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 18:19 |
|
Had my first session as a dm. Just rolling characters so far. I have one friend who we convinced to play because we thought he would enjoy it. He has told his brother who is also playing that he intends to “torpedo the campaign” He specifically chose an evil alignment even though we all advised for playing our first campaign it would be a bad idea. Do I just uninvite him at this point or try a session or two to see how it will go? I think the other players are fired up about playing and I don’t want this one player to kill the fun. Is there a good DM way to handle it in game?
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 19:43 |
|
If he has specifically said he wants to ruin the campaign, kick him out. There is nothing to gain there. If you're not sure, take him aside and explain how you'd like him to not play an evil character as you are new to all this and it is really hard to deal with opposing alignments in a party. If he won't budge, tell him that this game probably isn't right for him then and invite him to come to a game in the future when you're more experienced.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 19:48 |
|
Don't try to handle that I'm game. Handle it before you start playing. Say it's a team game and "torpedoing" will get you booted out.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 19:49 |
|
Can you just let the rest of the party kill him the first time he tries to do something evil so that he learns a valuable lesson about the power of teamwork for if he wants to roll a second character?
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 19:53 |
|
I really don't understand why people, when invited to play a game with their friends, immediately go "wow I sure want to ruin this for everyone else."
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 19:55 |
|
Malpais Legate posted:I really don't understand why people, when invited to play a game with their friends, immediately go "wow I sure want to ruin this for everyone else." Same reason people troll people on the internet. They're assholes who get off on causing other people frustration. "It's just a prank!"
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 20:05 |
|
Nash posted:Had my first session as a dm. Just rolling characters so far. I have one friend who we convinced to play because we thought he would enjoy it. He has told his brother who is also playing that he intends to “torpedo the campaign” I think you know the answer to this. What would you do if the same scenario happened in literally anything except a game of Dungeons & Dragons? "Hi internet, me and my friends have put together a team to play 5-on-5 basketball. One of the guys has announced that he will only try to score goals for the opposing team, and intends to trip team-mates whenever possible. What kind of strategy should we use to minimise this problem?" Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 22, 2018 |
# ? Jan 22, 2018 20:05 |
|
ritorix posted:Adding to that, it's fine, but I would bump the dex to 16, less str/int. You can already use a longbow (elf supremacy) and that would be your go-to attack for a long time, better than ranged cantrips and safer than shillelagh. You can also get 1 point higher AC using studded, +3 dex and a shield, over hide, +2 dex and a shield. I like the idea of Bow Druid, does the concept have legs beyond level 4/5? I know most of the actual bow spells are locked behind Ranger, but how much mileage can I get with exclusively druid and reflavoring? Nash posted:Had my first session as a dm. Just rolling characters so far. I have one friend who we convinced to play because we thought he would enjoy it. He has told his brother who is also playing that he intends to “torpedo the campaign” I'd normally suggest explaining why that's a lovely thing to do and let him make a good faith effort to correct but anyone setting out from go with "I'm going to torpedo the campaign" doesn't deserve a first shot.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 20:23 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 07:47 |
|
It’s super weird, but this is incredibly out of left field for him. He is usually a super chill guy and up for whatever. I guess that’s why I’m not immediately just tossing him. I’m probably going to have his brother talk to him if he really actually wants to play, or just playing because we asked him.
|
# ? Jan 22, 2018 20:33 |