|
Hollandia posted:Dunno if this is dumb or missing the point, but could you pre roll a bunch of numbers and just use them in order to simulate a roll? That's doable but I don't know that players would appreciate hearing "I rolled stealth for you" any more than they would knowing we have passive stealth checks when they're unaware of threats.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:So the idea is like you're in the woods and you know there have been goblins here. You declare your intent to be quiet and we assume everyone is trying to do that. But we're not gonna bother rolling dice unless there's something that can spot you. So maybe you spot a small encampment with a little fire and you have to sort of edge past it. That's when we'd break out the dice. Sure that makes sense, and I think based off the way you have been doing it it would be obvious to your group. Do you have a specific scenario in mind that you were planning to do soon? Would it be feasible to talk with your group and let them know your concerns and see if they would mind switching it up to another way? Not even necessarily the way I have outlined, but it could open up some options/discussion for the ideal way to approach these scenarios. As long as it's not something you need for next session, because then you're getting into the meta of alerting your group to one of your plans, but if you're not planning it for another few sessions (or if it's just gonna come up organically) then they might forget/let their guard down and you'd have implemented a new method in the meantime (you could even mess with them for a session while they adjust to the new rule! or alternately employ it in a typical scenario so they understand it before switching it up)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Sure that makes sense, and I think based off the way you have been doing it it would be obvious to your group. Do you have a specific scenario in mind that you were planning to do soon? Would it be feasible to talk with your group and let them know your concerns and see if they would mind switching it up to another way? Not even necessarily the way I have outlined, but it could open up some options/discussion for the ideal way to approach these scenarios. As long as it's not something you need for next session, because then you're getting into the meta of alerting your group to one of your plans, but if you're not planning it for another few sessions (or if it's just gonna come up organically) then they might forget/let their guard down and you'd have implemented a new method in the meantime (you could even mess with them for a session while they adjust to the new rule! or alternately employ it in a typical scenario so they understand it before switching it up) Yeah no this is for an upcoming campaign. My plan is to cover the system in session 0 and be open to alternatives. Players have always been on board with my "roll stealth only when it matters" rule before. It just wasn't until recently that I realized I might need a solution for that mutual unawareness situation. Edit: Maybe run it as a passive group check. So if all 5 of a group are sneaking, we do a passive check and our rogues are getting like 20-25 and our plate-armored cleric with 8 dex has a passive of 4 (10-1DEX-5 for disadvantage) and we just clear them if 3 of the 5 make it. Then they'll sort of learn when they need to either force a confrontation or come up with something to give them a little more edge on a sneak attempt. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Mar 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:The situation I'm worried about is maybe there's a cold camp on the periphery and the party and the camp are mutually unaware. If I tell them to roll stealth and they didn't know there was someone out there, they do now. Just have them roll stealth anytime they "try to stay hidden", "try to be quiet", "try to sneak up on ...". That both lets you know their stealth status in case it matters, and doesnt auto-cue them that there is something definitely there. The players decide when they are being sneaky, instead of you telling them when they should try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:The situation I'm worried about is maybe there's a cold camp on the periphery and the party and the camp are mutually unaware. If I tell them to roll stealth and they didn't know there was someone out there, they do now. Just don't roll at all. If the camp isn't aware of them, and they're trying to be sneaky, there's no reason why they should be discovered unless they blunder directly into a guard or something. If they DO blunder into a guard, THEN you can roll to see if the guard heard them first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I wish I could have warned you off it. It's one of the less well regarded modules in terms of the nuts and bolts of running it and the complaints universally seem to be that they expect you to freeform way more than is reasonable for a pre-written adventure path, and that players feel obligated to continue only because they know that they'll level up until they can fight giants -- something that doesn't really make sense for the actual characters. You're jumping in at level 1 and expected to deal with a civil war between ancient, fabulously wealthy creatures who all have like 20+ STR and you're a pissant dirt-farmer. It really demands too much of the GM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Rogues are potentially unique enough of a niche to exist outside of Fighters. The real problem, I think, is the Barbarian. Kill that, and make fighters the ACTUAL best at "mundane actions," and allow them to surpass mundane and go into the supernatural. Super strong, super fast, super endurance, all that good stuff. Make fighters paragons of the physical. Rogues pick locks, but fighters just kick the door down, no matter what the door is made of. Wizards fly, but fighters "jump good." Wizards use Walk On Water - fighters just swim, because they never tire. You get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Rogues are potentially unique enough of a niche to exist outside of Fighters. The 4 "pure" martial classes in 5e (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue) are plenty distinct. It is a matter of reigning in the I cast "Solve the plot, kill the bad guys, collect the loot and summon cocktails and o'dourves for the after party" of casters and adjusting the combat numbers and adding some plot power for martial classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
Xae posted:It is a matter of reigning in the I cast "Solve the plot, kill the bad guys, collect the loot and summon cocktails and o'dourves for the after party" of casters and adjusting the combat numbers and adding some plot power for martial classes. It made spells "miss" to a variable degree based on spell level and caster level, and also required casters to plan for contingencies like everyone else. Sometimes being as good as possible at throwing daggers (and remembering to carry a few) was a good plan for a wizard. They didnt "lose their turn", but had to deal with variable potency based on the situation. It did suffer from the "you have to do a lot of math on the fly" issue that is not popular now, but it presents a mechanism that changes the balance a bit. For that matter the old method of handling "Special Abilities" made a difference. When a planar entity was able to use Dispel Magic some number of times (separate from whatever spells/psionics/items it had), it made sure shot fly/invisible/stoneskin mixes less appealing as a strategy to avoid working with and relying on your teammates. I get tempted to try and outline a full hybrid between 2e and 5e, then I remember I have a job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 03:48
|
|
I think Barbarian and Fighter are distinct enough. Barbarians can theoretically use armor and shields but their whole thing is... not doing that. Their berserking and sacrificing defense for reckless offense that draws on their brute force is their gimmick. On the other hand, while the fighter is a (theoretically) flexible class and allows for a lot of builds over various editions, typically it's the only class that lets you play as an armored juggernaut with a huge shield or giant weapon. It'll always fill that niche. Paladin sorta comes close but no one ever sees this: or this  and thinks "that's gotta be a paladin". Now that's not all a fighter can or should be, but that tanked up mass of steel archetype alone justifies the class's existence in my mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:One thing that is overlooked (for both good and bad reasons) is TSR era Magic Resistance. I think if your goal is to reign in casters you start copying Warlock a bit. All casters use method of high level (6+) spells. Limit the choice of spells, limit the number they can pick and limit the casting. Maybe Sorcs only get 1 spell per level above 6th. Maybe Wizards get one of their school and one other per level. Clerics get one chosen by their domain and can pick one. Druids get one based on subclass and one free choice. They no longer would have this immense arsenal of high level magic, then follow up with couple of targeted nerfs here and there to specific spells (Hello Hypnotic Pattern). I think the real hard part will be adding useful plot power to martial classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:One thing that is overlooked (for both good and bad reasons) is TSR era Magic Resistance. I mean, 3e also had Spell Resistance, it's just that they converted it into a system that was "proportional", so it never ended up stymieing casters nearly as much as it used to. And for that matter, another important property was saving throws: a level 9 ("name level") Fighter would pass all their saving throws versus spells half the time, period. It didn't matter what the Fighter's stats were or what the Magic-User's stats were (maybe some spells would cause a penalty to the save), they just passed if they rolled an 11 or higher on the d20. 3e converting the system into being based on stats, and then creating a "poor" saving throw niche, and then making higher-level spells more difficult to save against, all compounded these problems on top of one another. Not only did Fighters become way more vulnerable to spells from NPC spellcasters, but player spellcasters would always be able to target something against an NPC that was very likely to pass. Wizards no longer had to deal with the potential problem of assuming that everything they cast might well be resisted, or saved against for half or no effect. And yet another knock-on effect of this, is that while it's true that spellcasters can "buff the Fighter" to greatly increase their effectiveness, they would do that of their own volition as a response to how difficult it is to hit a target with a direct-damage or debilitating effect. If you change the game such that it's now much easier for the Wizard to operate offensively, then the only reason you'd Haste the Fighter would be as a gentleman's agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think Barbarian and Fighter are distinct enough. Barbarians can theoretically use armor and shields but their whole thing is... not doing that. Their berserking and sacrificing defense for reckless offense that draws on their brute force is their gimmick. On the other hand, while the fighter is a (theoretically) flexible class and allows for a lot of builds over various editions, typically it's the only class that lets you play as an armored juggernaut with a huge shield or giant weapon. It'll always fill that niche. Paladin sorta comes close but no one ever sees this: This has never been true in the history of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Just have them roll stealth anytime they "try to stay hidden", "try to be quiet", "try to sneak up on ...". That both lets you know their stealth status in case it matters, and doesnt auto-cue them that there is something definitely there. This was the entire issue I was trying to avoid in the first place -- the one where everybody knows what they rolled on stealth and second-guesses everything. Tendales posted:Just don't roll at all. If the camp isn't aware of them, and they're trying to be sneaky, there's no reason why they should be discovered unless they blunder directly into a guard or something. If they DO blunder into a guard, THEN you can roll to see if the guard heard them first. Yeah this is probably just the way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 05:00
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:This has never been true in the history of D&D. Oh. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:This was the entire issue I was trying to avoid in the first place -- the one where everybody knows what they rolled on stealth and second-guesses everything. Yeah, don't have them roll until they've already declared what they're doing. No second guessing if they're already doing the thing when they roll badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Oh. No offense but i see the big warforged in all blue and gold and my first thought is 'this is a cool paladin robot'
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Honestly none of the archetypes in D&D are that well distinguished internally; unless you know the system well most casting classes look nearly the same in play, and even what would be distinguishing features can be poached or imitated by other classes. But that's 'classic' (read 3E) D&D so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Honestly none of the archetypes in D&D are that well distinguished internally; unless you know the system well most casting classes look nearly the same in play, and even what would be distinguishing features can be poached or imitated by other classes. But that's 'classic' (read 3E) D&D so... This is due to the poor definition of what a class even is. Does a class describe what a character does or how a character does it? For instance: the wizard. If you ask what a wizard does, you'd be tempted to say "Magic!" except that in D&D, 'magic' just describes the pseudo-Vancian system the wizard uses. What the wizard does can be defined fairly narrowly by how D&D tends to look at wizards aesthetically; or very broadly by looking at capabilities, e.g, can disable enemies, can bypass obstacles, can deal damage, etc. So wizard really only describes the method that the obstacle-crusher crushes obstacles. Realistically, a wizard 'does' everything within the somewhat limited scope of 'via Vancian casting'. Fighter on the other hand, 'Deals damage' and is narrowly defined by, 'with weapons.' So 'fighter' describes both how and what in a meaningful way. Albeit bland. 4e tried to do this with roles and power sources but the system was never fully developed; the Arcane power source for instance didn't hang together very cleanly and some power sources were just boring, like Psionics. I would have liked to see this idea elaborated on and refined but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Anyone got a hot tip on a good source for interesting beasts, especially for the Feywild, and double-especially some of the 1/4 CR variety so I have some interesting poo poo for rangers? Tome of Beasts has some good stuff to augment Druid Wild Shape but nothing I'm seeing that would be a good ranger pet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Anyone got a hot tip on a good source for interesting beasts, especially for the Feywild, and double-especially some of the 1/4 CR variety so I have some interesting poo poo for rangers? Tome of Beasts has some good stuff to augment Druid Wild Shape but nothing I'm seeing that would be a good ranger pet. Honestly I can't really think of any that are not in volo's or the Monster Manual already. Beasts are just a really simple subtype that has mostly been covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I mean, 3e also had Spell Resistance, it's just that they converted it into a system that was "proportional", so it never ended up stymieing casters nearly as much as it used to. It may make me sound naive, but the last time I ran a game that included a couple of first time players I was (silently, secretly) shocked at how much the addition/subtraction tripped them up. That was easily fixed by writing up some quick cheatsheets, but I was not expecting that to be a thing. For everyones context, old (1e) Magic Resistance worked like this:  (and I have a memory of an optional rule that added spell level in as another shift in the %. So the initial number would be "a first level spell cast at 11th level", but maybe that was just a houserule that stuck around for a long time.) And going back to a thing I occasionally harp on, it was expected that the party would work together, especially if they were a fragile wizard. If they were hit, bumped, bound, running, etc, they could not cast spells depending on the required components (V, S, M):  And of course that relied on the more detailed initiative system to begin with. DnD is much simpler now, but a lot of the built in balance was in the less simple stuff from way back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Most of the wizard stuff really only applied to lower level wizards though. As you got to higher levels you got stuff like stoneskin and mirror image that just let you ignore attacks. Really, splitting wizard and cleric up into pyromancer/necromancer/illusionist/etc wouldn't be a bad idea either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:Most of the wizard stuff really only applied to lower level wizards though. As you got to higher levels you got stuff like stoneskin and mirror image that just let you ignore attacks. Mirror image would work I think, but stoneskin didn't - getting hit meant interruption regardless of whether you took damage. They were still gods at high level and I think combining all the dozens of tsr restrictions on wizards with concentration would go a long ways
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:Most of the wizard stuff really only applied to lower level wizards though. As you got to higher levels you got stuff like stoneskin and mirror image that just let you ignore attacks. I agree that creating specialized caster classes is a good idea, but as far as some of the protection spells, PnP DnD did not play like Baldurs Gate. The myth that "stoneskin makes you invulnerable" was never true. All you had to do was throw a rock at a wizard, survive the round, and then carve them up. Or use a spell or item that attacked with something that wasnt a physical attack. This is the original Stoneskin from 1e Unearthed Arcana:  The short casting time let the wizard have a good chance to use their turn to fire this off before they got hit, and then it was gone. There was no "stand around being immune to damage while casting spells". Wizards needed friends if they wanted to adventure and survive. The 2e version was stronger, but still circumventable.  This was a debated topic, but based on the "four magic missiles counts as four attacks" this can be interpreted to mean the main strength of stoneskin lies in people not realizing that it is there to begin with. If an intelligent magic-aware enemy knows about it, they could throw a handful of rocks or caltrops or whatever they had available and wear that down very quickly. (Or the bad-old 2e dart throwing routine.) As far as fully distinct caster types, I made a few on the fly for people, but to do a published set that was fully fleshed out would be a shitload of text.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Give wizards a bunch more school powers, lock them to fewer spell choices from that school with high level spells and other school spells working like warlock high level spells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Being able to make more focused, thematic casters easily (and similarly it being not quite as easy to do everything as one character, though Incanters can go pretty broad if they want) is one of the reasons I like Spheres of Power for Pathfinder. It not being quite as absurd power-wise and also not being Vancian casting are good points too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I mostly do because this game is a broken mess. This is two pages late but: if you hate it stop playing it. Also stop posting about why youbhatebit. We get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
No, keep posting about why 5e is bad. Can't let people be fooled into thinking that because it's serviceable (compared to the better-known alternatives) and popular it means it's good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
I mean we tried a be nice to 5e thread and nobody came. Love it or hate it TG runs on the seething anger of Elder Nerds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
It's inevitable that someone is really mad about any given system and feels the need to petulantly whine about how bad it lest other people have fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I mean we tried a be nice to 5e thread and nobody came. Love it or hate it TG runs on the seething anger of Elder Nerds. Not really. We have been pretty nice in the thread as of late. Generally with just a few whiners once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:It's inevitable that someone is really mad about any given system and feels the need to petulantly whine about how bad it lest other people have fun. And thinking a system has flaws is pretty different from running around foaming at the mouth screaming "You're having fun WRONG".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Xae posted:And thinking a system has flaws is pretty different from running around foaming at the mouth screaming "You're having fun WRONG". Which was pretty much Xiahou Dun in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Anyone got a hot tip on a good source for interesting beasts, especially for the Feywild, and double-especially some of the 1/4 CR variety so I have some interesting poo poo for rangers? Tome of Beasts has some good stuff to augment Druid Wild Shape but nothing I'm seeing that would be a good ranger pet. Update: Volo's has a cow variant with innate spellcasting, heck yes. Still need more. MonsterEnvy posted:Honestly I can't really think of any that are not in volo's or the Monster Manual already. Beasts are just a really simple subtype that has mostly been covered. I'm talking like third-party stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Is it considered  to post a Kickstarter update? The latest Faerie Fire included a preview of the Living Light Warlock and I was wondering what this thread thought with regards to it being the Illusionist version of the ideal DND specialist caster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Xae posted:And thinking a system has flaws is pretty different from running around foaming at the mouth screaming "You're having fun WRONG". This. I personally dislike 4e's emphasis on combat and The Grid over more freeform options. I'd still play it though. Also it has improved in my eyes thanks to things like roll20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Update: Volo's has a cow variant with innate spellcasting, heck yes. I know that. But Beasts are just animals. So I can't really think of any that third parties would think to come up with that have not been covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I know that. But Beasts are just animals. So I can't really think of any that third parties would think to come up with that have not been covered. There is always more detail to 'sperg out over. Or are you saying an African Swallow has the same move speed as a European Swallow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Gridlocked posted:This. ok but like if you dislike grid based combat games why not play a game like torchbearer that isn't those things
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 04:03
|
|
