|
Kaal posted:RAW this isn't correct. "Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." If the goblins don't notice the Rogue, regardless of whether the Fighters succeed, then they are surprised. Think of it as the Rogue leading and orchestrating the ambush. The goblins might see the fighters coming at them, but they are still shook by the suddenness of the attack. quote:The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter. There are two sides, the party and the goblins. Clearly the party is trying to be stealthy, or surprise won't come up at all. So everyone in the party must make stealth checks, and if a goblin doesn't notice any threats, any of the party, then that goblin is surprised. Those are the Raw rules, and why it is so hard to get surprise. The rules are bad yes, but those are the rules and we should not be misleading people into thinking surprise actually works.
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted: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: The UA Brute Fighter is a monster, I'd put him up above Barbarian and LD Monk personally, though I know that's not "official" and all.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Soysaucebeast posted: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 he’s run it before it’ll be fine. I found it poorly laid out since the PCs are given a lot of freedom to explore but certain areas need to be telegraphed as content for later and specific places and encounters can be tough to locate on the fly. SKT suffers a bit from this as well. There are player created guides and flow charts that help. Clearing some required areas felt a bit repetitive, too. There are some cool fights and the story is decent but more guidance for the DM would make it way easier to run.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Lists, descriptions, and guidelines are all useful for people looking for information, but it's also possible to have fun and be adequately effective with a "bad" build and it's possible to have certain builds that work better in specific situations. A three-person game running L1 to L5 makes choosing Beast Master at L3 a less bad, in part because nobody is going to get the benefits of much of their archetypes and in part because the low CR companion can either be a dodging obstacle to draw enemy fire or get a few potentially effective attacks off. Something like Water Whip from the Five Elements archetype is not bad at L3, and better than that in a campaign where the party takes a lot of short rests over the course of an adventure. And if you're trying something off-beat like a Mastermind and a Champion with GWM/PM who always has advantage on attacks thanks to the Mastermind, you can end up being more effective than the "par" expectations. It's the difference between groups playing short mini-campaigns designed to play around with systems and mechanics and groups that settle down for 2-3 year epic campaigns going from L1 to L20 with relatively unforgiving encounter designs and the fate of nations resting on small margins of effectiveness. Most groups are landing solidly in-between those possibilities. Personally, I'm more interested in analysis of archetypes that focus on specific problems or advantages. Lore bards are obviously effective, but what's the expected damage difference between Sword and Valor bards who opt to do some fighting?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Arthil posted:A lot of people complained about Dyson's style in Dragon Heist and Mad Mage, it kinda looks like he tweaked it here. I really like how he has tweaked the style. Those maps look great.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:There are two sides, the party and the goblins. Clearly the party is trying to be stealthy, or surprise won't come up at all. So everyone in the party must make stealth checks, and if a goblin doesn't notice any threats, any of the party, then that goblin is surprised. The interpretation of the surprise rules that "a threat" means "all threats" certainly makes it difficult, but that's exactly why you shouldn't interpret them that way. I mean of course Assassin is terrible if you're fencing them in and declaring that the entire party has to surprise the goblin. But a much more reasonable reading is that if a monster or character fails to notice a threat, any threat, then they are surprised. The RAW reading that surprise is fairly easy to generate is definitely the way to go. Now you might say that Mearls intended it to be different, and that the RAI is something else, but considering that both you and I agree that restricting surprise to "effectively never happens" is stupid, I don't think that there should be any great concern paid to what he thinks. His take on Initiative broadly is pretty crap, his preferred system is extremely slow and granular, I'm not going to invite any of that into my table. The RAW text clearly states that if a monster fails to detect a threat, then they are surprised - that's plenty to go on. If your DM thinks that having a fighter should prempt your party from ever having a surprise round, then either convince them to find a middle ground or find a new class/DM. There's no point in playing with someone that is actively sabotaging a subclass, it just leads you into grumpy vet territory where you complain that the system only supports two builds and everything else is poo poo. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Personally, I'm more interested in analysis of archetypes that focus on specific problems or advantages. Lore bards are obviously effective, but what's the expected damage difference between Sword and Valor bards who opt to do some fighting? Both Swords and Valor are inherently bad at fighting because the Bard spell list quite simply doesn't support gishing; you can try the Swift Quiver gimmick with Valor at level 10, but that's as far as it goes. The Valor additional bardic inspiration options are... lackluster, so all it really offers is medium armor and shield proficiency. Swords has better options through the Fighting Style and Blade Flourish, but again, its weapon swinging is just subpar. They can gain some competence through multiclassing (namely with Paladin and Hexblade), but a Sorcerer or Bladesinger core will outperform it still. As I said earlier, the spell list just isn't there to back up the playstyle. The Help action only gives advantage to 1 attack roll, btw. Try using an Owl familiar for better results.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:As far as playing assholes and layabout characters such as the lazy Teamster Dwarf. I'm just gonna repeat the Baracus Clause.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:The UA Brute Fighter is a monster, I'd put him up above Barbarian and LD Monk personally, though I know that's not "official" and all. The Brute is cool and is how the fighter should feel imo, not really great at much outside of hitting things hard, but just really really good at hitting things to death
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Bogan Krkic posted:The Brute is cool and is how the fighter should feel imo, not really great at much outside of hitting things hard, but just really really good at hitting things to death Brute is what Champion should have been Battlemaster is pretty sweet too though for a giving fighter a bit more to do than just hit stuff
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Razorwired posted: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. It's a shame your Barblock isn't cool with being a tank, cause a Fiendlock mixed with Barbarian can get pretty dumb. Particularly if you're Bear Totem. Armor of Agathys, the worth of which effectively being doubled thanks to Rage. The temp HP dripping in from bringing enemies down keeping you going, and that effectively being doubled due to Rage too. Not a DPR powerhouse, but a barbarian sorta falls behind on that anyway. This is definitely something of a gimmick build, but it is a fun one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Barbalock can work but it needs to be built carefully. Definitely not for a beginner.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
My players are about to get the Blood Spear in Curse of Strahd. I thought the item itself was kind of bland, so I decided to make it a bit more interesting and give the player some more combat utility. I'm taking some direction from the Pathfinder 2 pdf with the use of keywords. What do y'all think? quote:Blood Spear Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 05:27 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Kinda like the Nycaloths claw quote:Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (2d6 + 5) slashing damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or take 5 (2d4) slashing damage at the start of each of its turns due to a fiendish wound. Each time the nycaloth hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (2d4). Any creature can take an action to stanch the wound with a successful DC 13 Wisdom (Medicine) check. The wound also closes if the target receives magical healing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:My players are about to get the Blood Spear in Curse of Strahd. I thought the item itself was kind of bland, so I decided to make it a bit more interesting and give the player some more combat utility. I'm taking some direction from the Pathfinder 2 pdf with the use of keywords. It's a +2 spear (best/2nd best weapon type) that gives you 2d6 tempHP on kill in an scenario where you fight lots of trash. It's already extremely good.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
Bogan Krkic posted:The Brute is cool and is how the fighter should feel imo, not really great at much outside of hitting things hard, but just really really good at hitting things to death Well, they are also really good at staying in the fight, so they can keep hitting things hard. Getting to add 1d6 to all your saves and then eventually heal a bit every turn automatically as well helps a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
Bogan Krkic posted:The Brute is cool and is how the fighter should feel imo, not really great at much outside of hitting things hard, but just really really good at hitting things to death This is a terrible approach, because in D&D every class is expected to be good at fighting stuff. Clerics? Good at fighting (with holy power). Rogues? Good at fighting (sneakily). Wizards? Good at fighting (with spells). But all of those guys are also good at other stuff beyond fighting. Meanwhile, your Fighter, who is only good at fighting, sucks at everything else, because your imagination has been corrupted by years of lovely fantasy media and you can't picture a strong dude being good at anything beyond violence... ...despite the fact that kick rear end warriors in every myth and legend and fantasy novel since forever have also excelled off the battlefield. Beowulf unlocks his word vault to win over Hrothgar's men, Arthur calls up all the greatest knights, Spartacus keeps the legions chasing his dust for three years, Conan excels at stealth and thievery, Musashi writes decent poetry.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a system that's classified monsters in a tier list according to their attributes and lethality? I'm looking for something more flavorful to present players beyond the CR system while they do some monster hunting for a contract. I was inspired by Brandon Sanderson's tier/class ranking of epics ("superheroes") in The Reckoners but it'd be nice to steal a framework from somewhere else. I just want something where I can have an NPC be like "Oh, the ulitharid's creature sense and magic resistance alone put it in Tier B, and the addition of a potent psionic blast and legendary resistance capabilities firmly place it in High B." I'll probably just end up fudging something like that and co-creating it with players on the fly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
OutsideAngel posted:This is a terrible approach, because in D&D every class is expected to be good at fighting stuff. Clerics? Good at fighting (with holy power). Rogues? Good at fighting (sneakily). Wizards? Good at fighting (with spells). But all of those guys are also good at other stuff beyond fighting. Meanwhile, your Fighter, who is only good at fighting, sucks at everything else, because your imagination has been corrupted by years of lovely fantasy media and you can't picture a strong dude being good at anything beyond violence... Fighter is a class designed to be very straightforward and combat focused, it has been in every D&D edition. It's even named "fighter" illustrating that it is supposed to be a class that fights. Rangers and Barbarians were created for people who wanted to play a fighter-like character, but with more varied choices/gameplay. Even your examples, I'd say Beowulf and expecially Conan are more Barbarianesque, Arthur is more of a Paladin, Spartacus is represented by the Battlemaster version of the Fighter and Musashi is obviously represented by the Samurai version (which gives you extra skills, though there is no art or writing skill, but you can take perform which is about as close as you get in D&D)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
After 30 years spent sniffing its own farts, the only thing D&D emulates is itself. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:Fighter is a class designed to be very straightforward and combat focused, it has been in every D&D edition.* *starting with the numbers 3 or 5. deathbagel posted:It's even named "fighter" illustrating that it is supposed to be a class that fights. As opposed to classes not named fighter, illustrating that they are supposed to be classes that don't fight?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:Barbarians were created for people who wanted to play a fighter-like character, but with more varied choices/gameplay. This is an interesting position to take.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:*starting with the numbers 3 or 5. Please tell me what fighters did that was special in AD&D or 2nd ed? I played both and even with kits, fighters have always been the most basic, "hit things with weapons and wear fancy armor" class in the game. I didn't play 4th much at all, so maybe they were different there, I don't really know. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:As opposed to classes not named fighter, illustrating that they are supposed to be classes that don't fight? Illustrating that fighting is not their only focus despite some being pretty decent at fighting, unlike the fighter who focuses, almost entirely, on fighting.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:Please tell me what fighters did that was special in AD&D or 2nd ed? I played both and even with kits, fighters have always been the most basic, "hit things with weapons and wear fancy armor" class in the game. I didn't play 4th much at all, so maybe they were different there, I don't really know. Commanded an army of followers. deathbagel posted:Illustrating that fighting is not their only focus despite some being pretty decent at fighting, unlike the fighter who focuses, almost entirely, on fighting. Please list the classes that do not focus almost entirely on winning fights.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
So I can pick a class that is solely focused on fighting or I can pick a class that is both good at fighting and good at other things?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Mr. Humalong posted:So I can pick a class that is solely focused on fighting or I can pick a class that is both good at fighting and good at other things? You can pick a class that is better at fighting than the class focused solely on fighting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
quote:Please list the classes that do not focus almost entirely on winning fights. Wizards who take nothing but utility spells. quote:I didn't play 4th much at all, so maybe they were different there, I don't really know.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You can pick a class that is better at fighting than the class focused solely on fighting. This is true, Paladins are better at fighting than Fighters. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Commanded an army of followers. I do miss the follower system and having to build a stronghold to attract them. I didn't say they didn't focus on winning fights, I said they don't fight. There is actually a significant difference between the meaning of "fight" depending on whether it's a verb or a noun: verb 1. take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons. "the men were fighting" noun 1. a violent confrontation or struggle. "we'll get into a fight and wind up with bloody noses" You can get into a fight without fighting oddly enough. English is
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You can pick a class that is better at fighting than the class focused solely on fighting. Oh I know.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
To be fair to Fighters, they're better at being archers than Rangers and Rogues, and just better in general since what those gain in utility for trading in some combat performance is minute.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:To be fair to Fighters, they're better at being archers than Rangers and Rogues, and just better in general since what those gain in utility for trading in some combat performance is minute. Yea, I think I'm going to try out a crossbow expert archer warrior in the next game I play in. I'm a bard in my current one and was a bard in the one before that. I need to break the cycle. The people I play with aren't brand new anymore, so they don't need all the safety and security me being a bard brings to the team!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:I didn't say they didn't focus on winning fights, I said they don't fight. There is actually a significant difference between the meaning of "fight" depending on whether it's a verb or a noun: Yes, that's definitely what you meant all along  
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:Please tell me what fighters did that was special in AD&D or 2nd ed? I played both and even with kits, fighters have always been the most basic, "hit things with weapons and wear fancy armor" class in the game. I didn't play 4th much at all, so maybe they were different there, I don't really know. That's exactly what I meant all along.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Are you pretending that you obviously didn't mean "Dungeons & Dragons combat" when you said "fights" and "fighting" in the context of talking about Dungeons & Dragons? Because you can be in a fight without fighting, even if you're fighting in the fight, which means you're not someone who fights? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:07 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Oh man, the art of fighting without fighting, where's Bruce Lee?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Oh man, the art of fighting without fighting, where's Bruce Lee? That's called playing a ranger
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
If one were to want to make the most 4e style MMO breed of tank, how would one go about it? Just been playing with builds, and a blend of Fighter (Cavalier) 12 and Paladin (Crown) 8 seems like it would be effective. Cavalier has primo tank abilities, and fits the paradigm well, but I feel like some Paladin or Cleric mixed in for Warding Bond and some healing would be better than going straight Cavalier to 20. I know Crown isn't the best Paladin archetype, but its abilities fit the guardian/tank role (it gets access to the Warding Bond Spell, and its lvl 7 ability lets it take allied damage itself), plus it provides some spot healing as well. Pump Str and Con, build for a 13 Cha and let it rot (it sucks that the Paladin saving throw aura wouldn't be very good with a low Cha, but most of the other PLD abilities I'm looking at don't rely on Cha in any way). 2 fighting styles lets you take both Defense and either Protection (which seems kinda lame given the Cav abilities) or Dueling (more damage is always good). For a cleric archetype, none of them outwardly lend themselves to a tanking role if I'm already considering 12 levels in Cav. Life is clearly a good choice here, as might be forge for the extra AC (up to +2 with no assumed magic armor). Here I'd probably again just keep minimum Wis and pump Con and Str. Tough feat seems like a great idea. Sentinel isn't needed given Cav gets essentially the same thing at level 10 (if I could talk a DM into letting me refund it at 10, then I would consider taking it earlier, because 10 is a ways from where most campaigns start). Heavy Armor Mastery seems like a trap. Blade mastery (from UA) seems like it might be a good choice both for the + to hit and for the advantage on op attacks (would be great for a character that took Cav to 18+), but the reaction for +1 AC would go to waste. I'm just spitballing here. Any other clever ideas out there?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Do you just want access to defender mechanics, or do you want to be effective while having defender-style mechanics?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Warding Barb PAM battlemaster Any PAM paladin If you want to be like Beowulf, why not just role play that way? It's been said, but most classes don't actually have class abilities useful outside of combat outside of dump picks like Inquisitive rogue. Your DM would probably be happy to let you be the "face" and/or solve puzzles and won't say "take a WIS check or your character doesn't get the insights you just explained" (as long as you didn't metagame your way to them)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Do you just want access to defender mechanics, or do you want to be effective while having defender-style mechanics? Preferably both, but I'd lean more towards getting punched in the face than punching things in the face. That said, though I may not always agree with your viewpoint, you always have interesting things to say and are quite knowledgeable and insightful (especially into ways that I don't often play), so I'll take any input you have either way.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 02:17
|
|