|
Since we're talking about HP and casting, you could make magic powered by HP. Casting a spell costs (spell level)^2 worth of hitpoints. Cantrips would still be free (considered level 0).
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:I think the easiest way to cut down the number of spells is to get rid of leveled spells as a concept, but keep slot levels so casters can mostly be unchanged. Attack spells get more powerfull/more targets with higher level slots as usual. More complex/powerful spells like Raise Dead or Planar Ally can be treated like magic items so they can be more narrow of an effect. for everything else, just treat it like a new skill. You could reduce it to a fairly small number like that, but it's a major change. (Late edit, but I somehow deleted the line that went here before clicking post. The line was was: Last time I was thinking about it, I came up with something like this: ) Your damage spells are: Point-blank Single Target Ranged Single Target Point-blank AoE (burst, cone, line) Ranged AoE (burst, line) (List of damage types) Your other combat spells are: Single Target Buff (move/attack/defense) (self/other) Single Target Nerf (move/attack/defense) AoE Buff (move/attack/defense) AoE Nerf (move/attack/defense) Your utility spells are: (Add "by magic" suffix or "magic" prefix to each entry on skill list) edit again: I think you could make most D&D spells by combining those categories, although maybe you'd need to add "DoT". The point at the time I was thinking about it was not "this is exactly what you'd show the players" but more "if I were going to tear down D&D's magic and rebuild it with a framework in mind, what would that framework look like?" So not like the players are saying "I cast AoE Burst Poison Damage And Nerf Move 4", but more along the lines of "I want to make Higby's Horrific Hangover, a level 4 spell that does AoE Nerf Move + AoE Burst Poison Damage, what should the numbers for that look like?" nelson posted:Since we're talking about HP and casting, you could make magic powered by HP. Casting a spell costs (spell level)^2 worth of hitpoints. Cantrips would still be free (considered level 0). Using hit points directly for this has historically been terrible. I do think that this is where a healing-surge type mechanic might really really shine though. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Dameius posted:The joke was that grognards say it does. But I don't get how I demonstrated it? OmanyteJackson posted:I think the easiest way to cut down the number of spells is to get rid of leveled spells as a concept, but keep slot levels so casters can mostly be unchanged. Attack spells get more powerfull/more targets with higher level slots as usual. More complex/powerful spells like Raise Dead or Planar Ally can be treated like magic items so they can be more narrow of an effect. for everything else, just treat it like a new skill. I don't find Spells nearly complex enough to warrant creating a whole new magic system like this. Have you used the normal spell system yet? MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:But I don't get how I demonstrated it? No god lol, you  it. You stopped to explain why the sarcastic statement was false and therefore explained the joke lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
kingcom posted:No god lol, you I legitimately did not know it was a joke that way. I thought she was making a comment about 5e using hp as meat. Sarcasm is hard to detect over text. Her comment that I demonstrated grogs think that way, is really the part that confused me. Cause I don't think I did anything of the sort. AKA I don't get the joke, it's not very funny. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Ok crazy question but would it be possible to just rip out the spell system and just replace it with magic skill checks and magic attack rolls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Ok crazy question but would it be possible to just rip out the spell system and just replace it with magic skill checks and magic attack rolls? Yes but you would have to completely rewrite the monsterous manual because it is currently built on the assumption that spells are amazing and monsters at high level have to be able to tank them. I think you'd also lose a lot of flavor, as a huge part of D&D as a game is the flavor of the utility spells that do odd poo poo. It'd likely be better balanced, though. You'd probably have better luck just doing a high fantasy flavored BESM game, or just playing Dungeon World.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Well, what if we just give spells to everybody? ... not sure why you reacted this way. 4e was great, it improved a lot of things, wasn't perfect but what is? That said everybody DIDN'T have spells in 4e, and it was grognards who thought they did. Just like it was grognards who thought they all played the same, when they didn't. That said I didn't really like the way 4e did the Warlock, and the less said about the 4e Binder the better, but the 4e Warlock did work within the system. 5e is not 4e, most emphatically as they kind of overreacted to the 4e bashers and grognards. And I personally would have liked it if the 5e Warlock was closer to the 3.5 Warlock rather than what we got. More Invocation focused with Eldritch Blast not being a cantrip but an actual class feature that scaled by Warlock level. With invocations that let one change their style to melee, or aoe, with Invocations that were basically at will spells with some changes made to them, like in 3.5. In the playtest, during the very brief window when the Warlock was available, the Warlock didn't get spells, but instead had Invocations/Boons. Now most of these were sadly not at will, but they only revealed a small handful and the class only went up to level 5 at the time. That was potentially a lot more interesting than what we got, even if the final Warlock at least had the short rest recharge slots to differentiate from the other casters. Not that it works all that well in practice. EDIT: On a completely separate note, but I didn't want to double post, the new Unearthed Arcana is finally up. ... More stuff from Wayfinders Guide to Eberron. The magic items this time. So buying the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron is becoming more and more pointless as everything is just getting doled out as UA with no changes. Very, very slowly at that. So still no new Artificer stuff, which is a pity as it was supposed to be released months ago, and it would have made sense to put it out before the Eberron AL stuff started. Ryuujin fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That's already the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
Someone linked a guide to designing monsters earlier in the thread, can anyone relink that if possible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Daaamage onnnn a miiiiiissssss... *fades into the shadows* I never mentioned that. But I can live with or without it on things. I just don't really care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Guy below me found it.
MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Someone linked a guide to designing monsters earlier in the thread, can anyone relink that if possible? https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/improved-monster-stats-table-for-dd-5th-edition/ https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/designing-boss-monsters/ https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/building-an-average-encounter-in-5th-edition-dd/ https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/telegraph-your-monsters-attacks/ https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/encounter-design-have-ways-of-attacking-different-player-defenses/ https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/dd-5th-edition-monster-stats-on-a-business-card/
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I never mentioned that. I'm not picking on you I'm chatting with you in an irreverent manner, though I completely get why contextually that would not be how you took it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Liquid Cannibalism posted:I think you'd also lose a lot of flavor, as a huge part of D&D as a game is the flavor of the utility spells that do odd poo poo. You could shift that flavor onto magic items and lose practically nothing. I mean, yeah, ok, someone still has to make those things, but you don't get to play as that guy*. You wanna bust out Mordenkainen's Mum's Minivan to haul your asses out of trouble? Yeah, he doesn't teach people that poo poo, hope you paid for the scroll. *I mean, unless the rest of the party consists of the blacksmith, the fence, and the... uh... ecclesiastical supplier. Then you can pretend to be the brave heroic shopkeepers who keep the dungeon-going dragon-fighting NPCs supplied, it'll be so awesome, trust me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/improved-monster-stats-table-for-dd-5th-edition/ Thank you! Alongside that, I am thinking of using some of the Starspawn creatures from Tome of Foes for expanding off of my Evil Dragon Heist game. Does anyone have any history using them and if they are fun to play against?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
Here's what I always imagine damage on a miss coming from https://twitter.com/beneathdirt/status/1048924216177909760
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
question for multiclassing. how did the game designers find ways to make sure the mechanic isn't too broken? now that doesn't mean the games balanced, i mainly warying of dabbling in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
The only required response to that is a hearty lol There's a table for determining your casting level as a multiclass caster, you don't get all the skills and proficiencies from your second class, ASIs are based on class rather than character level, and mostly it's a shitshow. An absolute shitshow. The main things they did to vaguely attempt to prevent multiclassing from being broken was to gate all the vaguely good martial stuff several levels deep, or just remove it entirely. Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
Fruity20 posted:question for multiclassing. They deemed multiclassing an optional rule and thus avoided balancing for it. Mearls said the following in an AMA though: “The primary focus is on making sure you don't get too many cool things at levels 1 - 3, balanced against making sure a single class character is satisfying.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:They deemed multiclassing an optional rule and thus avoided balancing for it. Then again, 1 level dips in certain classes are super powerful. A level 1 dip in cleric (with the right domain) can get you access to heavy armor and shields. A level 1 dip in wizard gets you access to their spellbook to copy down all the level 1 wizard spells in there. You also get some cantrips A level 1 dip in bard gets you jack of all trades and cantrips For fighters, a 3 level dip into barbarian gets you access to the bear totem (resistance to nearly all damage while raging), rage, and the best unarmored defense in the game. (10 + DEX + Con) There are a few other slight dips that are really powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
The level 1 dip works because you still get everything if the "dip class" is the one you start with. The problem with multi-classing in 5e is that they made it an optional rule, but they still designed the classes with it in mind, so you still have a bunch of stuff that's backloaded into a class even when you're not using multi-classing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Then again, Like warlock! I agree it’s bullshit; I’m just quoting the big guy so we can tear him apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The level 1 dip works because you still get everything if the "dip class" is the one you start with. You actually get everything I mentioned there regardless of which order you take the class level in. Class abilities you get regardless of whether you take the class level later. It's only the proficiencies that are inherrent to the base class that are limited by multiclassing into it. Cleric domains are specifically class abilities and not not part of the basic class, so any bonus proficiencies that come with the domain you get regardless. So the war domain will give you: Light armor, medium armor, shields (from the basic proficiencies from the multiclassing table) martial weapons and heavy armor, 3 cantrips, 2 first level spell slots, access to the ENTIRE list of first level cleric spells, and at least 2 spells prepared (because of the miniumum wisdom of 13 needed to MC into cleric you get the 1 prepared slot plus AT LEAST 1 one other slot, depending on your wisdom) That's a much bigger boost to your ability set than taking an ASI or a feat, and you don't even have to completely forgo them, you just delay them (and your other main class abilities one level. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
I always thought that starting off with a level in rogue to get the 4 profficiencies and then going CoL bard might be a good way to stat up a kenku.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Okay so you know how there are 18 general skills, 30 something listed weapons and 362 named spells in the PH? I'm trying to think of ways to close that gap. The Mage playbook for Dungeon World does away with explicit spells entirely and just attaches domains/specialties to a caster (e.g. Time, Winter, Star, Mask) and gives bonuses and penalties to proposed actions based on aptitude. In theory, it’s really nice to get casters as capable as martials. In practice, it becomes quote:GM: You’re standing in the Sullen Fields clutching your soulmate’s body as the Dread Emperor’s army bears down on you. The horns of war blare all around you - suddenly, the Aggronauts of the Black Parade break from the ranks and rush right towards the party. What do you do? It makes casters way too powerful if they can Do Literally Anything and just have to roll above a certain number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I always thought that starting off with a level in rogue to get the 4 profficiencies and then going CoL bard might be a good way to stat up a kenku. 2 extra skills and expertise isn't really worth delaying Bard progression, particularly with going Kenku + College of Lore already giving you 8 skills total and Jack of all Trades on the rest. If your gimmick is to be good at all skills what you actually do is go Rogue 11 then dip Bard 2 so that your d20 roll on all ability checks (all skills, non-skill ability checks, and initiative) never drops below 10.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know I'm using the damage on a miss debacle to illustrate that much of the playerbase think HP is meat points and that no matter what lip service or may say fluffwise in the books, the developers' caving cemented that definition in the mechanics. Ok Thanks for clarifying that for me. Though I don't get how damage on a miss makes people not think that HP is meat. Like the rulebook says HP is not meat. PHB posted:Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile. Is it because you are of the opinion that Damage on a Miss represents stuff like their luck still slowly running out and stuff? Josef bugman posted:Thank you! The Starspawn are pretty cool, they have a lot of synergy together, and can make for very interesting and tough encounters. They are pretty strong though, if you are low level in Dragon Heist only like the Grues and maybe Manglers will be usable without risking party death. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:The Mage playbook for Dungeon World does away with explicit spells entirely and just attaches domains/specialties to a caster (e.g. Time, Winter, Star, Mask) and gives bonuses and penalties to proposed actions based on aptitude. I had the exact opposite read of that playbook. Specifically, I noticed that the basic effect of casting a spell is that "your spell helps to solve the problem," not "solves the problem" and definitely not, like, concretely damages or repairs or transforms or moves or otherwise affects any specific thing. So you summon the entire loving sun.. great, okay, the sun's in their eyes! Now the rest of your party members can actually beat the enemy army, because, says right there, all you're doing is helping. So the DM soothingly reassures you that yes, definitely, you're helping, no for sure, no your magic's REAL important just absolutely crucial, when in fact there's little reason to believe that things would've unfolded differently if you'd just stayed home that day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I had the exact opposite read of that playbook. Specifically, I noticed that the basic effect of casting a spell is that "your spell helps to solve the problem," not "solves the problem" and definitely not, like, concretely damages or repairs or transforms or moves or otherwise affects any specific thing. So you summon the entire loving sun.. great, okay, the sun's in their eyes! Now the rest of your party members can actually beat the enemy army, because, says right there, all you're doing is helping. So the DM soothingly reassures you that yes, definitely, you're helping, no for sure, no your magic's REAL important just absolutely crucial, when in fact there's little reason to believe that things would've unfolded differently if you'd just stayed home that day. That’s the other interpretation of the book, which I expected to result in arguing at the table and players feeling cheated. I think the gap between “what the player wants to do” and “what the GM will let that player do” is what explicit spells are supposed to bridge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Is it because you are of the opinion that Damage on a Miss represents stuff like their luck still slowly running out and stuff? In context, what else could it possibly mean? Now ask yourself why anyone would object to the concept that sometimes you still do damage without literally hitting your opponent, given that in game terms "damage" means only "reducing hit points", and hit points don't represent only how many physical wounds you can withstand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Double post
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Anyone got any tips on killing liches? Party is about to hit level 11 and I'm trying to optimize for this in the very likely event that Acererak tries to gank us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:Anyone got any tips on killing liches? Party is about to hit level 11 and I'm trying to optimize for this in the very likely event that Acererak tries to gank us. Well, what's your party? The easiest way is to burst them down, and have a few counterspells ready for the PWK. Having real good saves also helps. Paladins unsurprisingly have two of these nailed down. ED: Death Ward and Revivify can also help deal with the PWK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, what's your party? I'm a human diviner cleric, we also have an aasimar cleric of Kelemvor, a lizardman UA Ranger (dual weird) and a Tiefling Divine soul sorcerer. It's... a party of contrasts. punishedkissinger fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Monster of the Week addresses this pretty well. Anybody can use magic. Even the most mundane folk. But they have to explain in fiction how, and it has a limited list of effects. Bonuses to these effects are class based. Anyone can attempt big ritual magic that can do anything. But the DM adds additional costs/requirements based on what they ask. No upper limit. So a level 1 dude with no magical background can cast Wish. Assuming he spends a year and sacrifices 13 virgins and a diamond the size of a fist. Which if your player really wants to do makes it a very special campaign or that dude doesn't get invited back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:I'm a human diviner cleric, we also have an aasimar cleric of Kelemvor, a lizardman UA Ranger (dual weird) and a Tiefling Divine soul sorcerer. What's a diviner cleric?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:In context, what else could it possibly mean? So take an orc you would hit on a 13 but he has a shield so you need a 15 to hit. You roll a 14. He blocks it with his shield. He takes Str modifier damage of 3 representing his sore arm. The rogue attacks him with a short bow and rolls a 10. He matrix dodges it. He takes Dex modifier damage of 4 representing that he's slowing down. Neither "hit" but they did have an effect. I could see for realism having a roll under 10 but still missing not do any damage but that's just fiddley and serves no purpose other than to be asinine and gently caress over martials even more. If you really want to get fancy with it, no miss damage on natural 1s and you can't bring anyone to 0 with miss damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:That’s the other interpretation of the book, which I expected to result in arguing at the table and players feeling cheated. I think the gap between “what the player wants to do” and “what the GM will let that player do” is what explicit spells are supposed to bridge. Explicit spells aren't great about that either. Google "can minor illusion" if you'd like an example. I'm confident in my at-table adjudication so The Mage was pretty cool for me, and if somebody wanted to stop an evil army with the power of the sun (and we were sufficiently high-up that was feasible) I'd be all gently caress yes, radiance pours from the heavens and for the moment they stand transfixed, everybody else gimme three of your damages or do a trick for free, but after that Dark Stobolous realizes what the gently caress is up, points at you and starts incanting screechily, and in addition to that you're holding onto the sun, DD+con to keep it going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Glazius posted:Explicit spells aren't great about that either. Google "can minor illusion" if you'd like an example. You most certainly are allowed to create the image of a small can with that spell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:56
|
|