|
Splicer posted:I may be misunderstanding you here, but that's the point. If your game has both "A strong guy" and "can rewrite reality" as character classes the strong guy level progression shouldn't go "strongish guy -> stronger guy -> maybe Olympic level I guess?", it should go "strong guy -> Batman -> Hercules von Beowulf" Not to just spruik my homebrew but, this is just exactly the path I'm trying to take mundanes / martials and especially fighters with Norts Universal Martial Maneuvers. The maneuver "True Mojo" in particular is intended to reflect a situation where a mundane has become so excellent that they attract the attention of the gods who question how a mortal can achieve so much. From this questioning the gods then compete to become the patron of the mundane martial and they assist the martial, hoping to win their favour. In this way, step by step, the martial proceeds from being a pawn to becoming a champion and then peer of the gods. That's the intention anyway. I actually think I'm asking that one maneuver to do a lot of conceptual legwork and when I have time I'll revise again to expand the range of "challenge the god" type Tier 5 maneuvers. In it's present state it's almost spitballing ideas and relies on the DM to make it fit their campaign. That might be unavoidable. Anyway I think for fighters in D&D Tier 4 should be about leading armies and Tier 5 is challenging the gods. I 100% agree with the general criticism that vanilla 5e lacks that epic god level progression.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Anyway I think for fighters in D&D Tier 4 should be about leading armies and Tier 5 is challenging the gods. I feel like leading armies is a goal for, like, bards and paladins, less so for other classes. My impression is most players want their characters to become, in themselves, more powerful as they level up. "Soft skills" like leading armies is definitely a thing that high-level characters will either be doing or be adjacent to doing (simply because their personal power is on the order of a small nation, they'd better get involved in martial politics eventually), but I don't think your average fighter PC has a long-term goal of being a general. If I were to imagine what a high-level "mundane" should be like, it'd be, like, Batman, Hawkeye, Goku (maybe Tienshinhan) or One Punch Man. They're supposedly nonmagical characters that are way outside the realm of what real-world humans could actually achieve, because for them, there's no diminishing returns on effort and training (or in OPM's case, who the gently caress knows?). All of their capabilities are derived from their incredible physiques and extensive combat experience, but that needs to mean more than just "you get a +10 on this roll, or can spend some resources to make it +15." That lack of diminishing returns does mean that they should be able to scale smoothly all the way from "talented soldier striking out on their own" up to "can go best of 3 against the God of War in personal combat". The problem is coming up with fun, inventive powers to provide that scaling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
I still see a lot of DMs who rail hard against martials being able to accomplish anything that, say, your average real life weightlifter would be able to do. I think granting abilities like "You can punch hard enough to break steel" or whatever will just have people shrieking about realism until it gets changed back to the way its always been. Fighters are supposed to be the "real life" dudes, which means that they are supposed to suck compared to all these guys shooting lasers made of pure logic at other people. There were a ton of ideas late in 3.5 (like the Tome of Battle) and 4e that gave martials some unique, fun flavorful stuff that brought them closer to the level of casters, and those things are still derided to this day. I mean if you google "Tome of Battle" the second result is "Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic". Anything that changes up the status quo is resisted pretty fiercely, and I don't think that's changed in 5e yet. Isaacs Alter Ego fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Jun 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Isaacs Alter Ego posted:I still see a lot of DMs who rail hard against martials being able to accomplish anything that, say, a your average real life weightlifter would be able to do. I think granting abilities like "You can punch hard enough to break steel" or whatever will just have people shrieking about realism until it gets changed back to the way its always been. Fighters are supposed to be the "real life" dudes, which means that they are supposed to suck compared to all these guys shooting lasers made of pure logic at other people. The first sentence is the funniest part. These outcries of balance are always built on the dumbest and flabbiest nerd's understanding of what the human body is capable of. It's the least realistic thing out there. I think it was 5e itself in it's testing period that had stuff like "climb a vertical rope" as a near-impossible skill check for a starting off character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
Never forget weapon cords/mouse cords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I feel like leading armies is a goal for, like, bards and paladins, less so for other classes. My impression is most players want their characters to become, in themselves, more powerful as they level up. "Soft skills" like leading armies is definitely a thing that high-level characters will either be doing or be adjacent to doing (simply because their personal power is on the order of a small nation, they'd better get involved in martial politics eventually), but I don't think your average fighter PC has a long-term goal of being a general. Fighters are more relatable to the common soldiery than those charisma based classes. The power increasing in the fighter is their influence on others. I'm extending the logic behind rolling intimidate based on strength instead of charisma to the mojo required for leadership and gravitas influencing commoners, then soldiery and armies, then gods. That said there are plenty of other maneuvers for martial not interested in the influence power arc. The influence power arc is there to address the demand for more narrative power for martials. Isaacs Alter Ego posted:I still see a lot of DMs who rail hard against martials being able to accomplish anything that, say, your average real life weightlifter would be able to do. I think granting abilities like "You can punch hard enough to break steel" or whatever will just have people shrieking about realism until it gets changed back to the way its always been. Gods are real in this game. Tell me about realism again? If the problem is how to give martials more narrative power at high levels, then influence bestowed by gods impressed with the accomplishments of a mortal works well enough for me. clusterfuck fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Jun 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Gods are real in this game. Tell me about realism again? I mean I agree, but grognards will riot if their wizards are no longer king poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Yeah I guess the martial empowerment movement is a bit niche. I mean I guess you're right but I don't really care. e: but then I'm a massive 1e grognard too who thinks cantrips should be abolished so don't listen to me. clusterfuck fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jun 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 10:36
|
|
|
Isaacs Alter Ego posted:I still see a lot of DMs who rail hard against martials being able to accomplish anything that, say, your average real life weightlifter would be able to do. I think granting abilities like "You can punch hard enough to break steel" or whatever will just have people shrieking about realism until it gets changed back to the way its always been. Fighters are supposed to be the "real life" dudes, which means that they are supposed to suck compared to all these guys shooting lasers made of pure logic at other people. If you want swordmans adventuring with reality rewriters you need to either cap magic at maximum swordman level, let swordmans progress to reality rewriter level, cap the point where characters progress purely as punchmans, or some combination of the above. D&D refuses to do any of these.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
The thing also is from all the modules I've seen released, it's like basically everything is made for the 1-11 level range. In that range the punchman is still okay (though ten times worse than the punchman caster aka. pally). I think they are aware of the problem, but leave higher levels for 'theoretical' play so grogs get to eat their cake and you don't get the 4e outrage e; then again maybe I'm giving too much credit to the clowns in wotc lol dex_sda fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jun 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
The campaign I'm running is coming to an end and I'm designing my character for the next campaign. Came up with a story I liked and a vague level 1 build but it got my thinking. If I am a birdman and can fly 40 feet, when I end my turn I presume I stay up in the air. If I have a crossbow I figure I can ping away at things and if all they can do is melee or if they can't jump high enough then I'm presumably able to stay out of harms way. What if I'm using a pole-arm? Can I hit them with my reach without entering their range? If they jump up to hit me in return on their turn, do I get an attach of opportunity as they fall back down and leave my range? If I have the feat that lets you stop anything entering your range (sentinel?) does that mean they cannot get close enough to hit me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:The campaign I'm running is coming to an end and I'm designing my character for the next campaign. Came up with a story I liked and a vague level 1 build but it got my thinking. Honestly... You can do all of these apart from OAs against things falling past you, I believe; involuntary movement doesn't provoke. But. Don't. Or at least, don't without the full buy-in of everyone in the game, because one person playing by radically different rules (and 'untargetable by melee' is radically different rules) is asking for OOC trouble. It's not a good look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Yes, you can use a bow. And yes, you get an opportunity attack because they leave your reach (other than forced movement - is gravity forced movement or just the rest of normal movement? Not sure). And also, yes, Sentinel prevents them from getting close to you. A more important question: do you want the DM to hate you? Or to introduce loads of flying/ranged enemies who can easily deal with you, but are in turn hard to deal with by your melee-oriented party members? In the finest of D&D traditions, there are options provided to the players which they're not supposed to actually use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Fighters are more relatable to the common soldiery than those charisma based classes. The power increasing in the fighter is their influence on others. I'm extending the logic behind rolling intimidate based on strength instead of charisma to the mojo required for leadership and gravitas influencing commoners, then soldiery and armies, then gods. Yeah, I'm not arguing with there being a soldier progression option / set of powers, just feeling like the kind of player that chooses a class based on "I want to be the absolute best at physical combat" is gonna be more interested in pushing that angle as far as possible and less so in saying "and now that I'm high-level I get to kick back and let my minions do the work". Some people will be, I'm sure. Going to Greek and Norse mythology for more fighter ideas could be worthwhile. There's a lot of heroes running around that are basically human power fantasies, whether or not they're explicitly god-empowered. Having your L10+ fighter be able to grab a giant by the shin and throw them to the ground (or into another giant), be so strong they can wreck fortifications with their bare hands, hell, let them win a staring contest with Medusa because they're so badass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Honestly... It also means your melee team members are way more likely to get killed, because you're not there to soak your share of the hits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
A flying archer is no different from a wizard or a sorcerer. The DM will come up with reasons to bring you to the ground when they want to, and otherwise will have plenty of ranged weapons around. Feel free to play one without concern for unbalancing the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Yeah, I'm not arguing with there being a soldier progression option / set of powers, just feeling like the kind of player that chooses a class based on "I want to be the absolute best at physical combat" is gonna be more interested in pushing that angle as far as possible and less so in saying "and now that I'm high-level I get to kick back and let my minions do the work". Some people will be, I'm sure. The maneuvers for leading armies / mass warfare are optional. The martial could instead choose personal physical combat maneuvers. The only point of influence as a scalable metric is using gods to account for superhuman feats in a fantasy elfgame universe. Along the way you could use influence to affect locals or mass armies but it's not a skill tree where you need A to unlock B and so on. TooMuchAbstraction posted:Going to Greek and Norse mythology for more fighter ideas could be worthwhile. There's a lot of heroes running around that are basically human power fantasies, whether or not they're explicitly god-empowered. Having your L10+ fighter be able to grab a giant by the shin and throw them to the ground (or into another giant), be so strong they can wreck fortifications with their bare hands, hell, let them win a staring contest with Medusa because they're so badass. Yeah that's a good source and that's right it doesn't have to be god-empowered. I'm just teasing out a system where it is because it gives the DM some mechanic to work with. For example you could have some plot hook table which offers up consequences for a martial invoking divine favour to punch a mountain out of the way like upsetting a local god of the now diverted river who is now vengeful and wants x, y or z. For those specific examples though there is a maneuver letting you grapple higher size categories. The staring contest with Medusa could be an intimidate check plus superiority dice to deny a nominated monster effect, though personally I'd prefer that be involving some divine intervention whether the character knows it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:The campaign I'm running is coming to an end and I'm designing my character for the next campaign. Came up with a story I liked and a vague level 1 build but it got my thinking. the shorter answer is that 5e, much like every other edition of DnD or heck most tabletop games in general, does not do the z-axis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:So Mearls is still doing things. Also maybe they're gonna graft on some Ranger improvements. Fwiw, Crawford tweeted that they aren't really gonna do any of this and that Mearls was basically shooting his mouth off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Fwiw, Crawford tweeted that they aren't really gonna do any of this and that Mearls was basically shooting his mouth off. Crawford tweeted a while back that he is largely against the Revised Ranger and was not regretful about killing it initially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Fwiw, Crawford tweeted that they aren't really gonna do any of this and that Mearls was basically shooting his mouth off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:The campaign I'm running is coming to an end and I'm designing my character for the next campaign. Came up with a story I liked and a vague level 1 build but it got my thinking. You've got some wise people in this thread warning you about this, but here's the simplest answer: Talk to your DM. See if flight at level 1 that you're looking to abuse is something they're cool with. Because you know what? I DM'ed an Aaracokra for one campaign and I loved that dude, he was great. He wasn't totally a munchkin but he did want his money's worth from his racial abilities. And because I 1) wasn't running a pre-made and 2) am not a goober, it was actually very easy to account for perma-flight. Sometimes there were more archers! Sometimes we went indoors! Sometimes it was a cramped environment and his flight let the group get in more actions! Sometimes I was counting on him scouting ahead to give the group proper warning! One time he shapeshifted into a bear mid-flight and dropped on a dude from 100ft in the air and it was amazing! In my mind it's not very different from a character playing a Changeling. Some challenges will be easier. Some will be more difficult. It's not awful, in fact it's quite cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I generally treat flight like I would a non-gridded chase or combat - it's all about the distance between characters rather than their specific coordinates - so it's really more like 2.5D than 3D. As long as players understand that the enemies aren't always going to blunder into easy combats where you can just plink at them from the sky, I think it's very doable. When you're fighting players that can call down fireballs, teleport, or control minds, a little bit of flight is practically domestic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
One of my quiet pet peeves is when dms start talking trigonometry for combat at different heights. Like, chill, diagonals are five feet in every other dimension aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Cool, yeah I should have clarified that this was more hypothetical 'is this what the rules say?' thought than something I was actually interested in doing. My core concept was polearm aarakocra and I'm kind of trying to avoid him becoming this unhittable thing for the exact reason someone hinted at : if things aren't hitting me then they're hitting the wizard. Thanks for the advice goons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Get the wizard to enlarge you and then you can carry them with you, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:Cool, yeah I should have clarified that this was more hypothetical 'is this what the rules say?' thought than something I was actually interested in doing. My core concept was polearm aarakocra and I'm kind of trying to avoid him becoming this unhittable thing for the exact reason someone hinted at : if things aren't hitting me then they're hitting the wizard. Thanks for the advice goons. For what it's worth, a polearm sentinel aarakocra is a fun idea but mechanically it'd be little different from any other race. To make a reach melee attack you'd need to be within 10 ft of the enemy, which broadly interpreted might mean 15 ft above the ground. A character can reach 3+StrMod+1.5*Height when jumping, before factoring in weapon reach. That's definitely in the range of 15 ft (particularly if you generally are using gridded combat where you just need to get within the 5x5 grid - effectively adding 4 ft to all forms of range). To my mind, most creatures are going to be able to jump up and take a swipe barring special circumstances (I.e. they are tiny, slowed, or have zero reach). So like any other sentinel, you'll likely be able to prevent one melee attacker from getting to you, but the others will provoke opportunity attacks that you won't have a reaction to actually perform. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jun 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
About to DM the second half of Sunless Citadel. I am nervous as hell. It is really weird how, even after like 25 years of being hardstuck DM, I still get the jitters before the session starts. It always goes away. I feel like Johnny Rico before a jump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
The Dregs posted:About to DM the second half of Sunless Citadel. I am nervous as hell. It is really weird how, even after like 25 years of being hardstuck DM, I still get the jitters before the session starts. It always goes away. I feel like Johnny Rico before a jump. https://youtu.be/Z7QCjwhtCBA Actually though I totally know what you mean. Find some good epic fantasy music videos to get yourself in the mindset prior to a session and it'll help calm your nerves. https://youtu.be/Z7QCjwhtCBA https://youtu.be/P8ymgFyzbDo
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Horizon Walker in a 5-man group. Everyone else is a full caster, but one is a Life Cleric and another is Valor Bard. Between that and knowing the group is pretty new, would you take Defense fighting style or Dueling? I'm thinking maybe Defense wins out just for holding on to Hunter's Mark longer, since it otherwise has to weave awkwardly into my rotation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Count me in the "Target had Essentials early" club. I don't own nor have read LMoP but this thing seems pretty neat, more or less just setpieces so it looks easy to run. I might switch over to this if my group doesn't mind restarting. Unrelated, does anyone have a good resource for thematic music? I want to play some stuff for the higher-stakes locations but don't really know where to look outside of video game stuff(which is fine but I know there's more out there).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Baller Ina posted:Count me in the "Target had Essentials early" club. I don't own nor have read LMoP but this thing seems pretty neat, more or less just setpieces so it looks easy to run. I might switch over to this if my group doesn't mind restarting. I use the Pyre soundtrack for music. Particularly Will of the Scribes for big like, magical events and Sky Dance makes good fight music. Granted this is video game stuff, you might want to look at the scores for some adventure movies or TV shows. Probably avoid Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings, because they're easily identifiable and might distract your players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
I had a look at these unearthed arcana ship rules and I have to say that giving boats ability scores is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
The Dregs posted:About to DM the second half of Sunless Citadel. I am nervous as hell. It is really weird how, even after like 25 years of being hardstuck DM, I still get the jitters before the session starts. It always goes away. I feel like Johnny Rico before a jump. It's both normal and fine. Also, there are no tubes for you to get stuck in, so you're fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Or instead of going all Tucker's Kobolds to render one spell worthless, you could just tell your players you don't like the spell and it won't be in the game. Same end result! It's kind of hardly making the spell worthless, it is going with the intent of the spell. "An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth." Although the people talking about the person being questioned asking questions in turn, I guess if that person doesn't know a thing about the spell since it doesn't affect the caster. Though it may affect the other party members if they enter it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
Arthil posted:It's kind of hardly making the spell worthless, it is going with the intent of the spell. The Zone of Truth can affect the caster if they start their turn in the effect or step into it. But yeah, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to simply say, "Hey what the gently caress, your magical mind compulsion is creepy and offensive, I'm definitely not telling you anything." Though to be honest I often use Zone of Truths or Divination spells as opportunities to make plot dumps as a DM. Players often get confused about what is going on, so having an NPC clarify the scenario as much as possible is typically worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
"I hate this spell because it ruins my carefully crafted mystery!" is valid but I'm not sure D&D holds up to carefully crafted mysteries anyway. Can somebody give me some examples of how, in play, spells have ruined your plot? Maybe I'm just cynical because after years of running Mage: the Awakening I have become completely numb to players circumventing my plot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"I hate this spell because it ruins my carefully crafted mystery!" is valid but I'm not sure D&D holds up to carefully crafted mysteries anyway. In the very first adventure of my campaign, which *was* a murder mystery, the party just charmed the vampire's accomplice and asked who the real killer was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Arthil posted:It's kind of hardly making the spell worthless, it is going with the intent of the spell. Yeah, this is the problem with natural language. People see "can" and read "will and should." You should be able to use this spell on local yokels and kobolds and stuff without a problem, not everyone they meet is going to have the quick thinking drive to respond with deceptive truth-esques when instantly faced with a magic spell they've never seen before. But basically I also think the spell is stupid, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
But again, a dude brandishes a cross-equivalent at you while asking questions, you have a ray of light slam down from the sky on you or whatever, you feel funny and oops didn't mean to say that part out loud what the gently caress? I'd personally be pissed off, even if -perhaps especially if- I had no reason to lie. Realizing that they could potentially back me into a corner on any number of tawdry personal issues would make me hostile pretty quickly. I think that's really the key, rather than removing the spell entirely, offhand subverting the spell by having whatever randos be mastermind weasel word artists, or by cold clocking player with "that was the Truth but fundamentally part of an eeeevvviiiil plaaaan": just make some of the potential liers sympathetic. Make it such that players can only solve the mystery if they don't alienate the townsfolk by blasting around ZoT. One or two, when it's clear someone is lying? Sure. Got some villain cornered and want to put on a spectacle in the town square? Cool. Interrogating the proverbial butler? Ehhhh. Too many and a rumor sets up that you're doing it and people, even ones innocent in connection to the mystery, just flat out start avoiding the party. Just like if the party was murderhoboing and gets a reputation as bloody mercenaries, such that they roll into a town for provisions and rumors only to meet a single nervous barkeep who is unhappy their normal customers have been driven off. To be clear, of course talk to your players about it. It may well be that they're leaning on it because they're lacking tools to engage with the mystery. ZoT could remain as one tool, if you add the requisits tension to its overuse. Perhaps then also write out a few other general-but-concrete actions they can do to pursue the mystery. Like "Snoop: spend a scene digging around in folk's stuff. Chance that you get caught and gain a reputation for b&e, but you may uncover evidence props".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 16:05
|
|
