|
DoubleDonut posted:Can anyone recommend a good adventure for new players? I played a decent amount of 3.x, but I've never really DMed before, and my players have never play actual D&D at all (although they are familiar with D&D and D&D-like video games). Looking through the op I'm leaning towards starting with Lost Mines of Phandelver and then going into Storm King's Thunder; I think they'd be up for something like Curse of Strahd or Out of the Abyss, but I want to start them off with something a little more traditional, I guess. Princes of the Apocalypse also seems interesting but I'm a little worried about it being allegedly confusing. LMoP is traditional and well-written versus some of the other 5e adventures. PotA is a tire fire by comparison.
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
LMoP into SKT is decent, but you'd do well to start them at level 3 rather than level 1.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
I'm pretty down on SKT. I've been running it as a new GM and I've ranted about it here before but it's simultaneously constraining and sparse. I don't think the WotC adventures as a whole are very good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
I should mention that I'm open to 3rd party adventures, I just don't really have a good frame of reference to find out what's good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
One of the things I've noticed playing with so many groups: everything else being equal, the more mechanically sound characters tend to be pushed into the spotlight, whether or not it's a game that claims to downplay mechanical optimization. Characters that succeed at what they do are pushed to be leaders. If the Big Bad is going to have a singular rival, it's not likely he'll want to duel the guy who can't hit anything because a fighter pc put too many points into wisdom. More effective characters are given more roleplaying opportunities, which ties them more into the plot. It's obviously not 100% consistent, but I've seen this over and over and over, between internet games, real life games, roleplaying via computer (like Neverwinter Nights), etc.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
I've got a soft spot for OotA as long as you run it as a fairly linear plot instead of trying to use it as an Underdark sandbox. Tomb of Annihilation is probably the best written of the 5e hardcovers as long as you can lean away from the problematic parts.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
I am running Dragon Heist with my group and quite enjoying it as an introduction. Personally though, if you have Xanathars guide just make up some encounters that can be run. Have a note as to the difficulty levels for skill tests and go from there. Come up with your own stuff, talk with your players and see what they might want.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:One of the things I've noticed playing with so many groups: everything else being equal, the more mechanically sound characters tend to be pushed into the spotlight, whether or not it's a game that claims to downplay mechanical optimization. Conversely, incompetent characters more often than not end up becoming the butt monkeys, regardless of what intention the player might have had for them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
It's definitely important not to confuse people steering other players towards more effective options as always being about min-maxing, optimization, or "winning". People tell players not to play beastmaster ranger not because other options do more damage per round or something. They tell people not to play beastmaster ranger because it's so bad at doing what it claims it does that someone who comes into the game all bright eyed and excited to be a cool elf hiding in the leaves with your trusty wolf by their side is going to be extremely disappointed when their wolf can't do anything remotely effective or cool and ends up getting its rear end kicked constantly, only getting worse as they get higher in level. They don't get to be a cool hunter with a wolf, they get to be an incompetent who can't do anything right and actively drags their friends down. This doesn't mean that players should get whatever they want all the time every time and should never fail at everything and win constantly forever (this is a strawman argument that idiots trot out whenever someone has the gall to try to improve player experience to not be a constant death spiral of failure and disappointment), but this does mean that players want their characters to be baseline capable at doing the thing that the game rules told them they'd be doing and sometimes nice players want to warn other people who don't know yet what trap options are so they don't have a bad time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
And it's also worth pointing out that while, sure, a Good DM can fix these issues with some judicious applications of Rule 0, not all DMs are good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
And it's not reasonable for players to knowingly pick options that will hang their experience on the DM going to great lengths to fix things.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Sure, but this thread goes a bit far sometimes. Yeah, warn people away from going Beastmaster Ranger or Four Elements Monk or whatever, but people in this thread sometimes advocate for not using entire classes. I think if certain members had their way every party would consist of nothing but Bards and PAM Paladins.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:Sure, but this thread goes a bit far sometimes. Yeah, warn people away from going Beastmaster Ranger or Four Elements Monk or whatever, but people in this thread sometimes advocate for not using entire classes. I think if certain members had their way every party would consist of nothing but Bards and PAM Paladins. PAM? Not like the Final Pam right? Also, I think it might be cool to talk things through with your DM about thing to do with class. It's what me and one of my players have been doing to make Blood Hunters work better as a class.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:PAM? Not like the Final Pam right? Polearm Mastery, basically the optimal Paladin build is hitting things with a stick due to a weird intersection of mechanics.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
While the big ol' list for all classes is... okay. I'm not super big on cherry picking 2-3 sub-classes and calling all the others dumpster fires. Especially when some of them being lumped into the 'bad' pile really aren't. There's only really a couple of sub-classes which are just bad in the game. Beast Master Ranger being one of them, Assassin might be the other. But both of these are going to be highly dependent on your DM, unless of course you are playing in AL where the chance of running into a hard-rear end who doesn't bend the rules at all skyrockets. What I'm saying is only play in AL long enough to get some friends, then go do a home game.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:Polearm Mastery, basically the optimal Paladin build is hitting things with a stick due to a weird intersection of mechanics. I mean that does sound kind of cool, but there are lots of other sorts of cool too.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:Polearm Mastery, basically the optimal Paladin build is hitting things with a stick due to a weird intersection of mechanics. It's the optimal build for melee Barbarians, Fighters, and Rangers too. The most mechanically engaging as well, at least for Fighters and (Vengeance) Paladins.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's the optimal build for melee Barbarians, Fighters, and Rangers too. Idk. Hand xbow expert starts looking real good for fighters.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Polearm Mastery is a pretty clear example of going for optimization over concept. Yeah, you can wring out some more damage every turn, but is it really worth it being the amazing stick adventurer? I dunno about you guys, but my heroic fantasy involves things like swords and axes, not quarterstaves.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:Re: Surprise chat, tattoo caster, and dwarf teamster wizard - It seems like a lot of feedback that's been getting passed out is focused on 'optimal play' so I thought I'd offer a different perspective. I appreciate you addressing it past snarky "lol, you're a druid" answers. I wound up perusing Reddit and the DnD Beyond forums and found some helpful people and good info.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
All of the responses are fair - I'd never advocate for detrimentally affecting the group's fun for the sake of one player, nor would I discourage discussion of more effective options from a purely mechanical perspective - as I said, I may have been spoiled by my table and my experiences both as a player and DM in the past, as we've always been really all about the story and everyone having a good time. I think this sums up my general thought pretty well: Infinity Gaia posted:Sure, but this thread goes a bit far sometimes. Yeah, warn people away from going Beastmaster Ranger or Four Elements Monk or whatever, but people in this thread sometimes advocate for not using entire classes. I think if certain members had their way every party would consist of nothing but Bards and PAM Paladins. For some reason, it just really irks me when some possibilities (Beast Ranger, or Wild Sorc, for instance), get shot down entirely or called trash because they're mechanically not as good as others (Paladin and Bard seem to be the ones that get advocated for a lot). I never want to stand in the way of a player's creativity and will usually bend over backwards to try to accommodate an interesting concept in a way that will keep them on par with the rest of the party (if I'm DMing), or when playing, will work with my DM to try to work out a way to make a substandard concept I have workable and on par with everything else, to assure that both the DM and the rest of the party can have a good time. For instance, in the campaign I just started playing in, we've just achieved level 3. We have a Wild Sorc (a first time player who liked the concept of a chaos based caster), an Abjurer, a Vengeance Paladin who intends to dual into Sorc at some point, a Halfling Rogue/Fighter who is also going to delve into Diviner at some point for portent (the player is looking for all the sorts of 'luck' type abilities he can get), a custom chassis Fighter who is a pugilist, and me, a Divine Soul Sorc/Fighter. Some of these characters are assuredly mechanically weaker than others, but so far (and admittedly, it's only been 2 adventures), we seem to be getting by just fine. Already, there's been some adaptations made with the fighter's homebrew specialty, and with calling for wild surges. It may be that as was noted, I'm just more accustomed to judicious use of Rule 0 than are many other folks. As an example of why I tend to put concept ahead of mechanical options, I played a CoS campaign a couple years ago where I made what a lot of people consider to be one of the best classes, a Lore Bard, and I absolutely hated it. I had chosen it because of the general consensus that it is the best caster. I read plenty of guides, optimized my spell picks, skills, etc. I was built to succeed. But I didn't really love the concept, and I also rolled like hot garbage for that entire campaign (horrible statline, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, etc..). I was constantly outdamaged in combat (when I would rarely try to do damage in combat), unable to get control/debuff spells to stick, and consistently rolled extremely poorly in social situations (to the extent of getting us run out of both Vallaki and Krezsk by rolling critical failures on diplomacy checks). The only thing I seemed to be able to do well was buff other folks, which is what I ended up doing, but once you're running one concentration buff and have the few other buffs that are non concentration up, it was back to failing at life. The experience put me off Bard for years (I have yet to play one since), and probably could have been solved if I had either made something I know I would have enjoyed thematically (failing doesn't seem so bad when you really like the character), or communicated more effectively with the DM that I just wasn't having fun (which I may have done when I was rooting for myself to fail my final death save - alas, I auto-stabilized).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Arthil posted:While the big ol' list for all classes is... okay. I'm not super big on cherry picking 2-3 sub-classes and calling all the others dumpster fires. Especially when some of them being lumped into the 'bad' pile really aren't. Beast Master Assassin Scout Inquisitive Berserker Battlerager Storm Herald Way of the 4 Elements Champion Purple Dragon Knight Wild Sorc Storm Sorc All of these Archetypes either provide benefits so small as to be inconsequential, or actively make the class worse by either forcing or encouraging you to engage with the bad mechanics they add.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
This is wild: Bethesda shared a promotional RPG that was plagiarized from one of the most popular DMs Guild adventures. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/bethesdas-latest-elder-scrolls-adventure-taken-down-amid-cries-of-plagiarism/
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
I feel like every class is going to be bad and unfun if you roll for stats and get a poo poo statblock though. What does that have to do with bard at all?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:Polearm Mastery is a pretty clear example of going for optimization over concept. Yeah, you can wring out some more damage every turn, but is it really worth it being the amazing stick adventurer? I dunno about you guys, but my heroic fantasy involves things like swords and axes, not quarterstaves. Well, they did errata PAM to finally include spears, so at least it looks a little more plausible. There's also the great weapon approach, if you don't care for a shield. The systematic issue, though, is not giving certain classes a way to actually put their bonus action to use, which makes PAM and CBE extremely enticing. I know they've done weapon master feats for other weapon types, but most of those are hot garbage and not worth an ASI, but it'd be interesting to consider what a PAM equivalent for heavy blades or axes would look like.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
This obviously doesn't apply to all cases and relies on the player with the poo poo statblock being okay with it, but when the person with the lovely statblock succeeds in a critical moment it's a lot loving cooler than if the optimized person had done so. Purely subjective, of course, but pretty consistent in my experience.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Beast Master I’d disagree about some of these because the mechanics seem fun, but yeah Champion seems flat out bad AND boring
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:For some reason, it just really irks me when some possibilities (Beast Ranger, or Wild Sorc, for instance), get shot down entirely or called trash because they're mechanically not as good as others (Paladin and Bard seem to be the ones that get advocated for a lot). I never want to stand in the way of a player's creativity and will usually bend over backwards to try to accommodate an interesting concept in a way that will keep them on par with the rest of the party (if I'm DMing), or when playing, will work with my DM to try to work out a way to make a substandard concept I have workable and on par with everything else, to assure that both the DM and the rest of the party can have a good time. I mean, that's cool if you're willing and able to go the extra mile for your players by ironing the kinks in the mechanics, but again, there's a game that exists in a reality outside the bubble of the Good DM, a game with many problems, and I firmly believe there is worth in pointing out these troubles to people who might be ignorant of them. What they do once they've received this info is their prerogative (case in point, I advise people against playing Warlock, but I'm confident in my ability to feel accomplished playing one), but whether it dissuades them from pursuing a character concept in a particular fashion, or encourages them to pre-emptively discuss things with their DMs to make sure everything will be in working order, or leads them to honestly affirm that they actually don't really care for the possible consequences of going down this path, I think either is a good outcome.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
I like the idea of Shadow of the Demon Lord being a "fixed" version of D&D 5E but it's not super likely I'll be able to rope anyone into playing it. I primarily DM for one-shot nights with randos who show up. Part of the reason why it's fun is why I'll never get people to play other things: because instead of groggy assholes, the players are mostly well-mannered semi-nerds who got into D&D because of the Youtubers, streamers, and generally because it's a bit trendy. This suits me just fine because it makes for a pleasant experience, but they probably won't show up for anything without "Dungeons & Dragons" in the name. So I'm holding out faint hope for the possibility of a 5.5E player's manual that has all the player options fixed and rebalanced. I mostly create pregens for people to grab so I guess I could ignore the crappy options, but are there any recommendations for altering the crappier archetypes o be more useful if I like the theme?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I like the idea of Shadow of the Demon Lord being a "fixed" version of D&D 5E but it's not super likely I'll be able to rope anyone into playing it. Then run Basic/Expert or Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Battlehardened, withstood the test of time editions that new players can get right into. If anyone asks why it's different, it's the version of D&D they play on Stranger Things.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Just *call* it D&D then and brush off any comments dismissively  "oh it's basically the same, here's your pregen"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
That seems a bit bad. Maybe say "hey, I do DnD but also do other ones, if you want to learn sign up" but if you can't get folks to do it, just enjoy the stories.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Then run Basic/Expert or Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Battlehardened, withstood the test of time editions that new players can get right into. If anyone asks why it's different, it's the version of D&D they play on Stranger Things.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Playing ToA as a paladin and loving the spell resistence oath of the ancients gives. Our monk just got (spoilers for the actual tomb portion) The God that gives 23 Dex and a +3 staff of force and drat and I a bit jelly. I'm at 18 str and a plus one flaming longsword, but a plus four difference between me and her is huge. And someone else already got the God that gives 23 str. OK whine over
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:LMoP is traditional and well-written versus some of the other 5e adventures. PotA is a tire fire by comparison. What's so bad about PotA? My boyfriend and I are planning on running a two person campaign, with him as a first-time DM (but he's played 5e for a few years now) and me having not played since 3.5. He figured he'd get his DMing legs under him by running LMoP first and then he said he was planning on transitioning into PotA. I'm a little familiar with LMoP through The Adventure Zone (and by skimming through the book when the boyfriend wasn't looking), but aside from a few ranking lists of campaigns I have zero knowledge of PotA. He's run it before and I trust his judgement, but I'd like to know what other people are thinking. If it makes a difference, I'm going to be playing a centaur druid (moon circle), and he's doing to have a DMPC fallen aasimar sorcerer (shadow).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
change my name posted:I’d disagree about some of these because the mechanics seem fun, but yeah Champion seems flat out bad AND boring The thing is. I've seen an absolutely brutal Champion Fighter first hand. 18 Champion Fighter, 2 Barbarian almost purely for Reckless Attack. And this person absolutely loves it for the simplicity of it all, while at the same time out-damaging everyone and everything. A lot of people here never seem to get to experience anything above, well... 10? Maybe? Which is fair enough and I'm probably in a more unique position in that case. Edit: I'm unfamiliar with the original material this stuff is based from, but the Saltmarsh book is actually looking kinda swank: https://twitter.com/newbiedm/status/1125965994470539264/photo/1
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Those old style looking maps look good! I enjoy the simplicity of it all in comparsion to the still good, but kinda busy actual room drawings in all the other books.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
A lot of people complained about Dyson's style in Dragon Heist and Mad Mage, it kinda looks like he tweaked it here.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Wrt min maxing character builds I don't think people curve newbies away from things like Beastmaster because Goons only want to play with certain people. It's because 5e is written in an obtuse manner that newbies don't always get. The Beastmaster not being a cool hunter with a wolf bro is one example. Another is my current table. We have a Barb5/Warlock 5 that struggles to keep up with my Battlemaster and the party's Lore Bard at the most basic things. Things like Bladelock Extra Attack and Barb Extra Attack not stacking were genuinely surprising and I'm constantly outdamaging all his weird build ideas with Sharpshooter and a +1 Longbow. You can see him getting more worked up by the round because he can't AoE and buff like the Bard and he can't focus fire like me. It's genuinely frustrating him to be "the tank" and constantly dead because the system isn't laid out in a way for him to learn without a bunch of coaching. As far as playing assholes and layabout characters such as the lazy Teamster Dwarf. I'm just gonna repeat the Baracus Clause. It's fine to play a character that doesn't want to adventure. Just remember it's on you as a player to make that fun and engaging rather than a complete hindrance. B.A Baracus always gets on the helicopter somehow.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Arthil posted:The thing is. I've seen an absolutely brutal Champion Fighter first hand. 18 Champion Fighter, 2 Barbarian almost purely for Reckless Attack. And this person absolutely loves it for the simplicity of it all, while at the same time out-damaging everyone and everything. A lot of people here never seem to get to experience anything above, well... 10? Maybe? Which is fair enough and I'm probably in a more unique position in that case. If we're assessing how martials look like at level 20 (and completely tossing aside how lackluster the Champion's 3-14 performance is) then things would look something like: Paladin (most oaths) Sorlock Long Death Monk Barbarian (Totem and Zealot) Moon Druid Champion Other Fighters
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:12
|
|