|
Conspiratiorist posted:there is a comma there Thanks. thefakenews posted:Actually, no. He is Senior Manager of R&D, which I understand to be more of a management role than a design role. Jeremy Crawford is The Lead Rules Designer. One of his tweets about rule clarifications was even "these are just my personal rulings if Crawford contradicts me, take his word over mine as he is the rules guy." MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Mar 9, 2018 |
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:One of his tweets about rule clarifications was even "these are just my personal rulings if Crawford contradicts me, take his word over mine as he is the rules guy." Maybe he shouldn't made rules clarifications then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Actually, no. He is Senior Manager of R&D, which I understand to be more of a management role than a design role. Jeremy Crawford is The Lead Rules Designer. Mike Mearls doesn't do much actual design regardless
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Actually, no. He is Senior Manager of R&D, which I understand to be more of a management role than a design role. Jeremy Crawford is The Lead Rules Designer. My PHB is on loan to a friend, but the very first non-title words in both the Monster Manual and DMG are quote:CREDITS Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
all i can take from the evidence is that jermy is the rules guy but mike is the ideas guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:all i can take from the evidence is that jermy is the rules guy but mike is the ideas guy He's not even really that, because all of his ideas were all rehashes of poo poo he wrote back in the 2000s while doing d20 shovelware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
jeremy crawford should call up kevin crawford and ask how to design rules good
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
escalator dropdown posted:I’m assuming that in part this was an issue because CR’s first campaign started as a Pathfinder game that they converted to 5e when they started to stream, but I don’t know poo poo about Pathfinder. Does anyone know whether PF’s Ranger/Beastmaster analogue is more viable? I just want to cut in and say the PF Ranger is like, a 4th or 5th iteration of the 3e Ranger. There's the 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger, and the monte cook "ranger revisited". I think there was another revised Ranger floating around as one of those WotC "web enchancements" back when that was a thing. IMO the PF ranger is probably the best out of those, but I only recall reading it and thinking it definitely looked more powerful, but not sure it had that "ranger flavor". tbh, I was hoping Ranger was going to be one of the things they finally got right in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Gridlocked posted:Hey are there "good"/socially accepted goblins in Faerun? Like not always brain-dead monsters but accepted into cities and treated normally? Good yes, socially accepted no (not that I can remember anyway). Like I have a vague (possibly false?) memory that there is a goblin NPC in a book somewhere, but nowhere that is like "elves and goblins and humans all living together!". On the other hand FR is loving vast and just make it happen if you want. They do have semi-civilized less evil orc tribes and other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:My PHB is on loan to a friend, but the very first non-title words in both the Monster Manual and DMG are I know it says that but, given his actual job title and the fact that he doesn't seem to know poo poo about gently caress regarding the rules of the game, I don't think actual rules design was his main role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:I know it says that but, given his actual job title and the fact that he doesn't seem to know poo poo about gently caress regarding the rules of the game, I don't think actual rules design was his main role. given basically everything about 5e’s rules and how they’ve evolved from the beginnning of the playtests I don’t think that follows at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:I just want to cut in and say the PF Ranger is like, a 4th or 5th iteration of the 3e Ranger. There's the 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger, and the monte cook "ranger revisited". I think there was another revised Ranger floating around as one of those WotC "web enchancements" back when that was a thing. IMO the PF ranger is probably the best out of those, but I only recall reading it and thinking it definitely looked more powerful, but not sure it had that "ranger flavor". This probably gets said way to often on this forum, but I think 4e did get it right. Well, unless your married to the idea that the ranger must have druid spells but worse. But focusing in on the wilderness skills, hunting, and multi attack made for a thematically focused and effective character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:This probably gets said way to often on this forum, but I think 4e did get it right. Well, unless your married to the idea that the ranger must have druid spells but worse. But focusing in on the wilderness skills, hunting, and multi attack made for a thematically focused and effective character. I would ditch the spells give them "Not Eldritch Invocations" instead. I think they should move past the "half caster" hybridization from 2e completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:I know it says that but, given his actual job title and the fact that he doesn't seem to know poo poo about gently caress regarding the rules of the game, I don't think actual rules design was his main role. He just changed to that job title pretty recently. Maybe a few months back now? I think he was a designer for everything except maybe XGTE. mango sentinel posted:I got to go out on a limb and say all pet and summoning classes in D&D adjacent pen and paper are just a bad idea. I understand people really liking that archetype and wanting to fill that niche, but breaking up one characters power into two or more entities that act independently is a huge burden on gameplay, even before trying to balance that. The revised BM is actually pretty good. It gets it's own move and attack, separate from the player, gets to add your prof to a bunch of stats to keep it relevant attack and damage wise, gets more HP, and gets ASI's when you do. The Ranger itself doesn't get a second attack to compensate but instead has a thing where the beast can attack as a reaction when the player does (I think, might have that backwards), which is pretty solid. On top of the other buffs the Revised Ranger got it's pretty good. It's got some strengths with being able to be in two places and having a second body (that actually has pretty good HP and stats), but loses out a little by not being able to abuse things like Sharpshooter or GWM as much as a Ranger with 2 attacks itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
The Gate posted:The revised BM is actually pretty good. It gets it's own move and attack, separate from the player, gets to add your prof to a bunch of stats to keep it relevant attack and damage wise, gets more HP, and gets ASI's when you do. The Ranger itself doesn't get a second attack to compensate but instead has a thing where the beast can attack as a reaction when the player does (I think, might have that backwards), which is pretty solid. On top of the other buffs the Revised Ranger got it's pretty good. It's got some strengths with being able to be in two places and having a second body (that actually has pretty good HP and stats), but loses out a little by not being able to abuse things like Sharpshooter or GWM as much as a Ranger with 2 attacks itself. Revised BM is serviceable except it can't overcome damage resistance. My post is more about how it's hosed up in D&D for a player to be managing 2 or more entities in combat, even before factoring if the class is mechanically good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
I've been playing through Tomb of Annihilation with a pretty regular group at a game store, and I am pretty bummed out at the lack of magic items so far. We're at about level 6 a d have been circling the city of ohmu hitting the shrines. I'm hoping that magic items get more frequent because I can't imagine going too much longer without running into non magic damage resistant enemies. We have one more cube to go before getting all 9
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:I've been playing through Tomb of Annihilation with a pretty regular group at a game store, and I am pretty bummed out at the lack of magic items so far. We're at about level 6 a d have been circling the city of ohmu hitting the shrines. I'm hoping that magic items get more frequent because I can't imagine going too much longer without running into non magic damage resistant enemies. We have one more cube to go before getting all 9 If they're going by the book I have some bad news for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:I've been playing through Tomb of Annihilation with a pretty regular group at a game store, and I am pretty bummed out at the lack of magic items so far. We're at about level 6 a d have been circling the city of ohmu hitting the shrines. I'm hoping that magic items get more frequent because I can't imagine going too much longer without running into non magic damage resistant enemies. We have one more cube to go before getting all 9 The most magical thing we've found so far is a magic item that makes it so we don't spend an hour figuring out how to haul 1300 lbs of water around for two months. edit - Right now I'm trying to save up 1500g for plate armor. Meanwhile, our wizard got handed an entire book of spells for free. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
User0015 posted:The most magical thing we've found so far is a magic item that makes it so we don't spend an hour figuring out how to haul 1300 lbs of water around for two months. quote:Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level which you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:You can't prepare spells from someone else's spellbook and it costs time and money to scribe spells into your spellbook. Copying a handful of mid-level spells takes days and costs a couple thousand gold. They DM made it sound like the spellbook would simply be used as the wizard's own. But I might have misunderstood, which makes the cost a lot more reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Hey can someone tell me about Matt Colville's latest kingdom building book and what's in it? Asking for an internet rando I share a Discord server with. Also, suggestions for kingdom building rules would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:I've been playing through Tomb of Annihilation with a pretty regular group at a game store, and I am pretty bummed out at the lack of magic items so far. We're at about level 6 a d have been circling the city of ohmu hitting the shrines. I'm hoping that magic items get more frequent because I can't imagine going too much longer without running into non magic damage resistant enemies. We have one more cube to go before getting all 9 Did you meet Artus Cimber yet? You should ask to borrow his ring. There are some decent magic items in the tomb itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
poo poo, your responses are making me consider taking 6th level in Kensai monk so I can get magic monk weapons instead of a level in fighter for the +2 archery bonus. I wanted the +2 to bring my ranged to hit to +8 to take full advantage of sharpshooter. What do ya'll think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
LGD posted:given basically everything about 5e’s rules and how they’ve evolved from the beginnning of the playtests I don’t think that follows at all To be clear, I think he is responsible for the direction the rules have taken. I just don't think he actually wrote many of them (other than the ones he copied from his old homework). Which is why he doesn't seem to know what they say. Edit: Mearls is credited in the core three books as D&D Lead Designer, along with Jeremy Crawford. Unlike Crawford, Mearls is not credited as the Lead of any of the three books, and is not otherwise credited as a designer, writer or contributor that I can see. That suggests to me that rules writing wasn't his main job. Also, he is now Franchise Creative Director apparently. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Did you meet Artus Cimber yet? You should ask to borrow his ring. Isn't this the guy with the literally apocalyptically powerful ring?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Whoa hey wait a second. Sleet Storm gives "heavily obscured" status to an area. The errata on heavily obscured reads "A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it." Am I to understand that if I cast Sleet Storm on enemies, while they're stuck slipping and falling, I literally can't see them, but they can see me? Yes it's a stupid backward result, but am I missing something in the rules that makes it not the case? Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
My group has sleet storm and yeah, the way its worded is weird and I made an uncertain judgement call at the time. Thankfully they were (as usual) fighting giants and their heads were poking out of the top and I just considered it cover. (They would jump shot to throw rocks....lol.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the way it's written you either trade off making enemies slip and in return they effectively get ranged advantage against you, or you put it on yourself to get ranged advantage as the world's shittiest fog cloud that tries to make you lose concentration on itself. I think it needs a homebrew fix. edit: That's the other thing. The change seems like it means Fog Cloud is effectively "cast on self to give your whole squad advantage/enemies disadvantage in ranged combat" Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Sleet Storm gives "heavily obscured" status to an area. The errata on heavily obscured reads "A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it." Why would things outside the storm not be obscured by it? If you're inside the storm you can see things that are also inside it, but the storm is obscuring things outside of it. Makes sense to me.  The obstruction would be working both ways, so neither party can properly see the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Will people get Mad if I pronounce Sigil "si-juhl" in my Planescape setting game? Seagull is a stupid name for a city.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Will people get Mad if I pronounce Sigil "si-juhl" in my Planescape setting game? Seagull is a stupid name for a city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Why would things outside the storm not be obscured by it? If you're inside the storm you can see things that are also inside it, but the storm is obscuring things outside of it. Makes sense to me. It's a reasonable expectation (and probably the most sensible fix) but it's not what it says. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:It's a reasonable expectation (and probably the most sensible fix) but it's not what it says. If you're in an area that is heavily obscured, you'd take the same penalty. Darkness works the same way. So you get advantage for being an unseen attacker, and disadvantage for being unable to see your target. Washes out, unless someone can see through the storm/darkness/fog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:It's a reasonable expectation but it's not what it says. It... is literally what it says. It is what the words you just posted say and mean. I know natural language is dumb and bad, but this is looking for a problem where one doesn't exist for once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
There's literally nothing about "heavily obscured" that says "hey this is a mutual debuff that cares about one's position vs. the border of the obscurement vs. the thing on the other side of the effect." It says "a creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition."
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:It... is literally what it says. It is what the words you just posted say and mean. I know natural language is dumb and bad, but this is looking for a problem where one doesn't exist for once. You could make a "wall of heavily obscured area" spell that mutually obscures people on either side of it despite neither of them being in a heavily obscured area themselves. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Applying common sense, I think if two people are blind you'd only bother with the disadvantage on their respective attack rolls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Will people get Mad if I pronounce Sigil "si-juhl" in my Planescape setting game? Seagull is a stupid name for a city. The inhabitants will according to books Sigil and Beyond posted:We can excuse the fact that you slaughtered two yugoloths before you realized where you were, Outsider, but you pronounced the name of our fair city "Sijil," not "Sigil," and there can be no excuse for that! -- Her Honor Rastina Tollin of the Guvners So you pronounce it si-gull. And the Si is not pronounced like Sea. cargohills posted:Applying common sense, I think if two people are blind you'd only bother with the disadvantage on their respective attack rolls. I would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
The man outside the obscured area is not in the obscured area. Like yeah, I agree it's the most sensible fix but writing the exact opposite of that fix in the rules and errata is not a good way to get there. Obnoxious consequence: ranged weapon attacks will work exactly as normal because of advantage canceling, while targeted spells stop working entirely. cargohills posted:Applying common sense, I think if two people are blind you'd only bother with the disadvantage on their respective attack rolls. The way it's written, two blind people fight the same as two not-blind people. The blind target doesn't see the blind attacker's sword coming at him. Advantage and disadvantage cancel. It's dumb. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:36
|
|