|
Trojan Kaiju posted:The Elder Evils book may be a good resource for GOO ideas. One of them, Atropus, is literally a dead god in the form of a planetoid. Atropus is mentioned as one of the Star Spawn patron's in Tome of Foes. I have always liked Atropus, plus it's title "The World Born Dead." is awesome. Also it looks cool.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:It’s an optional rule in the DM book. I think it balances better without. I give flanking the same bonus as cover a +2. As I think advantage is a bit too good from just circling someone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Flanking is more powerful for the GM than the players is the thing, unless the party has a vast majority of the players be melee. This is because most encounters out number your melees, which means the monsters benefits from extra advantage far more than players do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Our GM in my current game is playing without flanking rules for that exact reason, though the impetus given was just that our game is kinda large so he didn't want us to have flanking 100% of the time either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Flanking is pretty trivial when you can move through a creature's reach without provoking an opportunity attack. It makes more sense in pathfinder where it's harder to navigate your way to the other side of a creature once you're in combat with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
So I am working on a Brute class. Taking some of the ideas of the Brute Fighter archetype, and the idea of a unarmored and unarmed brawler character that is strength focused and not a Monk. I could use some feedback or suggestions. Here it is Some highlights are Proficiency, and eventually Expertise, in Strength checks. Eventual increases in Strength and Constitution like a 20th level Barbarian. Unarmed damage that scales by number of d4s rather than damage die size. That Brutish Durability thing where at 7th they add 1d6 to their saving throw rolls. Good jumping ability. Unarmored AC that is based off Strength and Constitution. And eventually the ability to reduce damage by Con modifier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
I've never been a fan of having few skills. I don't know how many is Correct, but strength +2 skills doesn't seem like a lot. That might be a 5e thing, though. If I'm reading Mighty Leap correctly, it effectively increases your speed, but you have to super jump first? That's pretty cool, always a fan of more move. I'm definitely on board with the Mountains "What if you just punted everyone into the wall". If all you can do is attack, make attacks fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Are flanking rules not normal for 5e? We've been playing with flanking advantage. It's an optional rule. Due to the lack of granularity in the advantage system, it results in a disproportionately powerful buff for something as just mentioned trivial to achieve when you have numbers, and without encouraging any sort of clever positioning (basically, just conga lines) given the small number of combatants involved in the typical d&d fight. Rather cancerous rule as suggested by the book with the way it skews melee combat. mango sentinel posted:Why are you booing him? He's right. "hurr durr you're the one responsible for all bad experiences you ever have" You can suck my dick too with your empty platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I've never been a fan of having few skills. I don't know how many is Correct, but strength +2 skills doesn't seem like a lot. That might be a 5e thing, though. This understandably throws a lot of people off because every single other DnD edition, background perks are just optional bonuses. I've had to remind one friend of this every single time they make a character. Section Z fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jul 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Section Z posted:with the understanding that everybody gets two more skills from their Background. That's what I was missing, yeah. I forgot about backgrounds, and I'm a general fan of "Two of your skills can basically be whatever".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:That's what I was missing, yeah. I forgot about backgrounds, and I'm a general fan of "Two of your skills can basically be whatever". Honestly the most notable part of backgrounds is the unique features. Now you can officially be a fan of "Two of your skills can be whatever" and then learn Dwarfish and woodcarving on top. For a mildly related but even more turbo nerd bit of trivia. In 5th edition Dwarvish is the most used written language. Common is only used twice, making rarer than elvish writing  Dwarves, Gnomes, giants, goblins, orcs, loving PRIMORDIAL. So my book nerds always grab Dwarven, even when they are elves. "I know the written tongue of ten civilizations  ... Well it's technically true."
Section Z fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jul 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
I added in Con checks at 10th level and Expertise in Strength checks at 13th level. Not that there are any actual Con skills, but sometimes you have to make a Con check instead of a Save. Also I have mostly added a second archetype. Strength of the Elements is less about hitting multiple enemies and knocking them back and around, and more about dealing more damage on each individual hit, as well as being more accurate. And dealing damage when hit, and eventually even damage for just being near them. I am still trying to figure out what else to add at 17th level though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Section Z posted:For a mildly related but even more turbo nerd bit of trivia. In 5th edition Dwarvish is the most used written language. Common is only used twice, making it as rare as elvish writing What do you mean by “in 5th edition?” All the published adventures have tons of stuff in Common.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:What do you mean by “in 5th edition?” All the published adventures have tons of stuff in Common. I'm sure this isn't treated with any consistency, because the only time modules or GMs make a big deal about written language in any edition is for stuff like "It's written in Orc, does any of you speak Orc? I think not" out of habit. Which has made all the "You found stuff the fire giants wrote, it's in giant." and our GM honestly saying "Good thing half the party can read it then" so great  Meanwhile, I can't think of the last time a GM or module made a big deal about what language something a gnome or halfling wrote something in was. Every single thing written by goblins will make a big deal it's not written in common. But Incriminating evidence found on gnomes of course, will turn out to be written in common even when nobody in the party speaks elvish/gnomeish. Which could just be long term confirmation bias I guess. Section Z fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jul 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Okay I have made more updates to my Brute class, gave them a way to deal with flying enemies beyond just trying to jump up to them. I have more or less finished 4 archetypes, though I feel like I need a little something more for Zephyr, particularly at 17th level. The class is focused on pretty good, d4 based, unarmed/improvised damage, being beefy and strong and resistant to damage. The Mountain archetype focuses on spreading damage around, being even more resistant to damage, knocking enemies back and messing up objects and constructs. The Elements archetype focuses on dealing more damage with each hit, being resistant to elemental damage, and dealing damage when nearby enemies hit them or stand around them. The Sun archetype focuses on dealing radiant damage, and a little extra radiant damage, resistant or immune to a number of conditions and providing bonuses in a 30ft aura, literally giving off Daylight. Dealing extra damage to undead. And potentially blinding enemies. The Zephyr archetype focuses on speed bonuses and extra bonus action attacks rather than doing more damage in individual attacks or doing aoe damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Are flanking rules not normal for 5e? We've been playing with flanking advantage. Flanking is optional because 5th Edition is allegedly playable without a grid and minis. You can't accurately track if a target is flanked without using a grid and minis, so it's not a default rule. It's the same reason why triggered an AOO is based on "leaving reach". You can't accurately track "an AOO is triggered if a character moves out of a threatened square" without using a grid and minis, but theoretically you should be able to track "an AOO is triggered if a character is adjacent to a character, then becomes not-adjacent" in your head. It's also the same reason why Sneak Attacks are based on simple adjacency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:And with the jump rules, you probably leap like 9 feet high or something. That's cool to do. Haha had to look it up and yep!  I can dunk from the 3 point line, although I have to dash to make use of that max jump distance http://fexlabs.com/5ejump/ is the calculator I got that from if anyone else wanted to play with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
If you jump 10 ft high do you take fall damage when you land?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
Really if you want them ups you just gotta make a custom Grung character. Those boys come with a 25 foot vertical leap!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
Saki posted:Yep, I'm in the UK. I've read the combat rules in the Player's Handbook twice, so I'm basically an expert now. sent you a friend request on Discord cause you don't have plat for PMs, my username is slide
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:"hurr durr you're the one responsible for all bad experiences you ever have" ayup, no thin-skinned  here, definitely can't fathom why you invariably have lovely group experiences
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
So a friend of mine is starting a new game and recently ran a sort of session 0/char gen session since half the party are new to d&d. As a prize for beating the little tutorial dungeon he is giving each of us the choice between two healing potions or a scroll of spiderclimb. Is one or the one particularly better or is it a pretty even choice? note: not a wizard so don't have the option of adding the scroll to a spellbook.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Healing sucks, be a spider every time
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Healing potions are stupid in 5e. They're weak as hell and force you to roll d4s, the worst of all worlds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Healing Potions are essential pick me ups when you don't have readily available Healing Word and Lay on Hands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Take the spider climb as a group, and then use them to completely avoid a fight, negating the need for potions. This will not hurt you in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Saki posted:Yep, I'm in the UK. I've read the combat rules in the Player's Handbook twice, so I'm basically an expert now. Unfortunate, I'm a solid six hours behind you and my groups play in the middle of the night for you. Hope you find a game, though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NathanBStewart/status/1014936203823476736?s=19 Apparently all core rulebooks are getting a facelift for new runs? I dig that look. Might be willing to get slip covers for them if they offered them, as silly as that may sound.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
That's a very 3.5 aesthetic, I dig it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Pretty sure those are just going to be special editions, the style is much the same as what they did for Xanathar's/Mordenkainen's. A shame they won't actually take a risk and change things in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
When my hyper-religious parents ask about the book with giant skull on it, I'll just say it's a book about the Grateful Dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
What do y'all think about magic equipment that have "once per session" effects? My party is going to be level 2 and I want them to have some fun magic equipment that feels cool and impactful, but I don't want them to be so powerful that they'd keep using them forever. I'm thinking that these would be kind of starter magic weapons that they'd grow out of. Do these power levels seem about right, or do they sound like they'd be too strong? -A silver "bastard sword" that deals 1d8 slashing damage, versatile 1d12. Once per session, the sword's wielder can use their reaction on a damage roll made against them to cast Blade Ward (Until the end of your next turn, you have resistance against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage dealt by weapons). -A silver "bastard sword" that deals 1d8 slashing damage, versatile 1d12. Once per session, when you make an attack with this weapon, you can cast Sword Burst as a bonus action (Each creature within 5ft. besides you must pass a Dexterity save or take 1d6 force damage). -A shield of Yondalla that grants +2 AC. Once per session, when an attack causes you to drop to a quarter of your health or below, gain the effects of the Sanctuary spell (Any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell). Cephas fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Make that once per day not once per session. Or just give them spell scrolls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
I understand the idea of once per session, but that's a hard thing to reconcile in-game. A session can be minute, a day, a month, depending on what the narrative demands. I'll second making them once per day effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
And frankly someone that's significant enough to be per session might as well be a one use object/a plot related object with the issues of session time as mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
I like tying things to specific situations which come up only during difficult combats - receiving a large blow, hitting a HP threshold, fighting/being in melee with more than X creatures, killing a creature in one hit, being hit with a mind-affecting spell, stuff like that. When you make it once per combat but make the trigger rare but consistent with when the player would want to use it, it becomes flexible enough to suit whatever encounter pace the campaign requires. Adding plusses to dice is a lot less enjoyable from a gameplay perspective than items that give abilities. Like, for example, a stone that, after being in the sun for 8 hours, can be triggered to expend the absorbed light in a single narrow burst, dazing and blinding a single creature (DC12 Fort to resist the blind) within 30 feet for 1d4 rounds. And don't forget out of combat stuff! Fun utility items that are cool and impactful are much easier to do outside of combat, like expendable jars full of goo that give spell-like abilities such as camouflage, spider climb, stuff like that. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jul 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Once per session is fine. If anyone gives you crap for it, just say "it's magic, I dunno how it works like this" and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Makes it easy to keep track of for your players too. Could also lead to amusing shoehorning of abilities into completely inappropriate sitiations. I like your style.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I want players to have fun with their stuff every session, but I don’t necessarily want them using it every fight if they’re doing overland travel. Nor do I want them to use it only once in 3 sessions because they’re slowly sneaking through a dungeon and we only got 2 hours each time. If someone complains that it’s unrealistic, make their stuff recharge monthly via an expensive ritual and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
"The magic in this game is unrealistic" is a massive red flag. "I can only imagine magic spells working in one specific way" is a slightly smaller red flag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 23:32
|
|
