|
nelson posted:After thinking about it a while, there are situations where a powerful single attack is better than multiple attacks: when you only are offered a single attack. This includes attacks of opportunity. Mostly it is super useful when you have teammates working together, such as the Battlemaster Fighter using Commander’s Strike or the Bard casting Dissonant Whispers. Commander's Strike is a bad ability and enemies will very rarely walk away from a melee Rogue (it'll be the other way around), but if you get Haste on a Rogue then that's up there with other optimized damage builds past around 11. But you could also just Haste a Fighter, and while the gains aren't as drastic, the baseline is higher. And then there's Barbarians and Paladins too...
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Madmarker posted:I still don't understand how they thought the 3e Druid/Cleric were balanced in any universe. Clerics were played as healers who hit things with their mace. Druids were played similarly, but with scimitars - remember that the vast majority of playtesting was done at low levels, where the druid didn't even have wild shape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Piell posted:Clerics were played as healers who hit things with their mace. Druids were played similarly, but with scimitars - remember that the vast majority of playtesting was done at low levels, where the druid didn't even have wild shape. Dang, I forgot that didn't happen until level 5 back then. I like that the 5e druid art still features an animal companion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I’ve been trying to make magic feel a little more wild and dangerous and uncontrolled in my world and have been considering a house rule for magical mishaps along the lines of the following: To keep things simple, instead of rolling a 2nd d20, I would have a critical fail always cause a mishap. But the effects would be proportional to the spell level. Cantrip failures would cause something random/funny to happen but nothing detrimental. Level 9 failures would result in something really bad/game changing for the party, such as being sent to an alternate dimension. nelson fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
nelson posted:To keep things simple, instead of rolling a 2nd d20, I would have a critical fail always cause a mishap. But the effects would be proportional to the spell level. Cantrip failures would cause something random/funny to happen but nothing detrimental. Level 9 failures would result in something really bad/game changing for the party, such as being sent to an alternate dimension.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
nelson posted:To keep things simple, instead of rolling a 2nd d20, I would have a critical fail always cause a mishap. But the effects would be proportional to the spell level. Cantrip failures would cause something random/funny to happen but nothing detrimental. Level 9 failures would result in something really bad/game changing for the party, such as being sent to an alternate dimension.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
AlsoSplicer posted:If, and I mean if, you're going to do a magical downsides houserule Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
i'm pretty sure wizards have no 8th or 9th level spells that roll to hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
The original post said that they'd roll a d20 for every spell, which means at high levels people are going to be dimension-shifted every fortnight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
I like how Spellbound Kingdoms handles it: Any magic users/magical monsters/magical items are spellbound. Magic hates magic, so if you cast aggressive magic on a spellbound creature and roll a 1 you cause a surge. Surges zap any spellbound people for a small amount of damage, you make an attack against each of them using the same dice/bonus as your spell. It's only if one of those attacks crit that you get crazy wild surge wackiness. So theres a high but constant threat of it going slightly wrong, and a smaller chance of it going very wrong indeed. I'm not sure how you'd port that into DnD, but I would definitely have it only apply to a subset of enemies. That way the wizard is magic a conscious choice when she chooses her target to take the risk of a malfunction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:i'm pretty sure wizards have no 8th or 9th level spells that roll to hit. Edited my post to include context quote. When I said critical fail I really meant rolling 1 on the “mishap” die roll that occurs with every spell cast in the given house rule system. Bhodi posted:wow it sounds amazing to derail a campaign or gently caress your party because you dared to use something that was given to you and had a bad roll Indeed. It’s the nature of using dangerous magic. I figured dimension shift was preferable to party wipe. nelson fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
nelson posted:Edited my post to include context quote. When I said critical fail I really meant rolling 1 on the “mishap” die roll that occurs with every spell cast in the given house rule system. Oh oops, got it. I like that list Splicer posted for requirements. Don't gently caress the party constantly, just the player making the higher risk choices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Commander's Strike is a bad ability and enemies will very rarely walk away from a melee Rogue (it'll be the other way around), but if you get Haste on a Rogue then that's up there with other optimized damage builds past around 11. How is Commander’s strike bad when you’re using it to give your rogue an attack with sneak attack dice? Assuming it hits it’s certainly going to be more damage than using an attack yourself. Also did you even read what dissonant whispers does? It forces the enemy to run away, thus provoking opportunity attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
nelson posted:How is Commander’s strike bad when you’re using it to give your rogue an attack with sneak attack dice? Assuming it hits it’s certainly going to be more damage than using an attack yourself. You're giving up an attack, your bonus action, and your rogue's reaction, to let the rogue get one extra attack. Even assuming you don't have any use for your bonus action, the rogue would almost certainly rather use their reaction to halve damage or turn invisible or something. Also, rogues can only sneak attack once per turn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Also, rogues can only sneak attack once per turn. Once per turn. The fighter’s turn is separate from the rogue’s turn so this is one of the few ways rogues can get a 2nd sneak attack in the same round. TooMuchAbstraction posted:Even assuming you don't have any use for your bonus action, the rogue would almost certainly rather use their reaction to halve damage or turn invisible or something. Not many rogues would give up the chance to do a sneak attack with their reaction. nelson fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Dungeon Crawl Classics was an AD&D game I played recently that had some neat components to the magic system. Every spell had a roll chart (kind of annoying) with scaling effects but the main thing was that rolling misfires had a chance to gently caress up the caster. A lot of the effects weren't mechanical, but would add flavour to your character. By the end of our campaign, the wizard had a waxy face that looked like it was constantly dripping and his fingertips had turned ghostly. This was a boon and a curse depending on who we dealt with. Generally he wore a mask and gloves in civilized places. There's a lot I didn't like about the magic system in that game overall, but I've definitely considered cribbing those charts for players who felt like incorporating that into their character concept. I could see it as a good fit for some sorcerer or warlock concepts. If I did, I'd just have them roll a d20 and activate on a 1, even for spells that don't involve rolls. I wouldn't have the spell fail in that case, but I'd definitely flavour it as "whatever patron feeds you your power is annoyed" or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
nelson posted:Once per turn. The fighter’s turn is separate from the rogue’s turn so this is one of the few ways rogues can get a 2nd sneak attack in the same round. Wow, badly-written explanation as usual. I wouldn't have expected that, since the gloss on D&D combat is that everyones' turns are happening simultaneously, and the one-at-a-time thing is just because it's really hard to represent simultaneous action in a tabletop setting. This feels like a super-weird edge case, but Sage Advice says you can so 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Wow, badly-written explanation as usual. I wouldn't have expected that, since the gloss on D&D combat is that everyones' turns are happening simultaneously, and the one-at-a-time thing is just because it's really hard to represent simultaneous action in a tabletop setting. This feels like a super-weird edge case, but Sage Advice says you can so Not sure what you mean by gloss but there's nothing in the rules indicating that turns are happening simultaneously. Turns are just the order things happen in during 6 seconds of combat. This becomes important for things like surprised creatures that can make reactions after their turn in the first round of combat. The turn vs round thing usually comes up because of reaction shenanigans related to sneak attack and the case being discussed ITT is the canonical example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
I'm thinking of playing a Circle of Dreams Druid for a Level 10 one shot. Party will be 3 other players, one a Barbarian, one leaning Sorcerer and one debating between Fighter and Bard. I have never ever played a Druid so I have some questions: 1) Are there any feats I should consider or should I just use bump my ability scores up? Thinking Eladrin so I won't be able to hit 20 with WIS, but can do 18 and make Dex and Con 16 & 14. 2) I will likely be the primary healer, is it worth taking a level in Cleric? I saw some discussion about that. I would lose the Dreams 10th level ability to teleport 60ft as a bonus action, but I can see Cleric stuff being more useful than that ability is cool. 3) What are some good spells I should make sure to have? I think I want to be a buffer/healer more than anything else. 4) What are some good Wild Shape forms I should have in my pocket?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Not sure what you mean by gloss but there's nothing in the rules indicating that turns are happening simultaneously. Turns are just the order things happen in during 6 seconds of combat. This becomes important for things like surprised creatures that can make reactions after their turn in the first round of combat. By "gloss" I meant more or less the explanation for how things are happening in-universe. Like, in an actual combat you don't have 10 combatants standing around while the 11th takes their turn, especially since everyones' actions each take the same six seconds. Everyone is fighting continuously, which means that in-universe, as soon as I finish my actions (standard, movement, bonus, and reaction) in one round I'm starting my actions in the next round. But yeah, clearly as far as the rules are concerned here I'm in the wrong. I think perhaps it might be clearer to say something like "You may make at most one sneak attack per round using standard actions. Attacks granted through bonus actions or reactions may always be sneak attacks." ...except that would allow bonus action sneak attacks on your turn. drat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
nelson posted:How is Commander’s strike bad when you’re using it to give your rogue an attack with sneak attack dice? Assuming it hits it’s certainly going to be more damage than using an attack yourself. Also did you even read what dissonant whispers does? It forces the enemy to run away, thus provoking opportunity attacks. Commander's Strike gives up one of the Fighter's attacks and their Bonus Action (which on a properly built BM could be another attack or ability) and a Superiority Dice (making it compete with Precision, an ability that turns zero damage into a hit) for, effectively, the Sneak Attack contribution to damage (1d6 per every 2 party levels) minus the damage difference between the Fighter and Rogue weapon attack (considering the Rogue is at best 1d8 while Fighter can be 1d8+2, or 1d10, or 2d6). While there are certainly situations where CS is a good call, such as when the Fighter can't get a good attack in anyway, as with most Maneuvers it simply doesn't fare favorably when you analyze its opportunity cost beyond cursory observation. And I know what Dissonant Whispers does, and abstained from mentioning it because it is indeed a good ability and I'm phoneposting, but please take a moment to consider how many uses of DW a Bard gets per adventuring day plus whatever else they might choose to do instead with their slots and actions, particularly as they get past level 4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If, and I mean if, you're going to do a magical downsides houserule It seems like a “yes, and...” approach might be best for the effects. They do what they intended to do, but also something bad happens to the caster-again in proportion to the spell being cast. The effect would probably just be DM fiat in the moment (obviously with the necessary precondition of good faith and trust between DM and players). I’m definitely not making up effects for every spell, and that keeps it unpredictable and wild, but not random. Do you or others have any thoughts on what/how it triggers? I did add the d20 for every spell because a lot of spells don’t have an attack roll (just use the attack roll if they do), but I agree it’s an extra hassle. The confirmation roll is there to give some sense of “more powerful magic is more dangerous” but that could make it only trigger on high level spells. On the other hand, every 1 on the first d20 is probably more frequently than I’d like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
At a higher level, Commander's Strike to give the rogue another Sneak Attack chance is more damage than what the Fighter will dish out with a single attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Mr. Humalong posted:If it was possible for me to be part of this, I would very much want to be. If it ever happens. Regardless of system. Lol you want the full fire and fury of Arivia's Forgotten Realms? Note that I run 3e-era with some 4e stuff sprinkled in, which is a bit different from what you might be used to in 5e. e: also it may very well be possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Arthil posted:At a higher level, Commander's Strike to give the rogue another Sneak Attack chance is more damage than what the Fighter will dish out with a single attack. If you want to get deep into it, at higher levels it's comparing Rogue+SA+SD roll avg damage (factoring hit and crit chance) vs two Fighter attacks (action and bonus action, with BA having a proc chance if GWM applies) plus chance of Precision turning a near miss into a hit (and thus adding an attacks worth, or consider it a flat accuracy modifier if you wish to simplify), and each attack having a GWM or Sharpshooter rider plus magical bonuses. I can't crunch it rn but feel free to verify and share with b the class; it's easy napkin math. Also, to preempt the argument "well, what if the Fighter isn't optimized?", I'll highlight the subtopic here is the comparative merits of character building to support a Rogue's damage dealing vs just investing options in other party members (inc. oneself).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I guess we could start with how 5e, as a project led by Mearls, was meant to move away from 4e and appeal to the 3e grogs that fled to Pathfinder. And D&D Next wasn't that system? Mearls spent a long time designing a product that didn't appeal to grogs and then changed it at the last second to... a system that still doesn't appeal to grogs? Yes, that's obviously true and the idea that an 11th hour change in a system from what was being playtested to something much simpler might have involved corporate meddling is equivalent to saying President Trump is a liberal. (I know you didn't say that part, you barely wrote anything at all.) Sodomy Hussein posted:5E is more accessible than 4E for sure, but unfortunately this also does not mean it is good at being accessible, as that was one of 4E's worst problems. The brand's unhealthy in part because the corporate owners don't care much about it. WotC's current CEO is Chris Cocks (yes, really): https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Chris_Cocks This is not somebody interested in anything TSR-related. As someone else mentioned here, there's a gap in context between y'all who were part of Next, followed development closely, and are unhappy with the results, and someone like me and my groups who ignored 5E completely for years, kept playing 4E or Pathfinder, and eventually tried 5E out and discovered we almost all liked it better than 4E or Pathfinder. (The guy who didn't? Our local toxic grognard.) My conversations with the folks who run the local Adventurer's League for 5E also provide a contrast to some of the opinions expressed here. It's almost as if people have different experiences of things and our perceptions can be shaped by things like context. I like 5E because it is easy and because I can design adventures in the amount of time I actually have to do so these days. I don't want a system where I have to house rule everything, or with a unique mechanic that will take us all six months to figure out. I don't want the best. I want a system that's adequate because the people I play with will make any system fun if it will just get out of our way, and this system happens to be the one we're having the most fun with right now. (For one of the groups, it was Fate and before that a hybrid system using the WoD rules in a Cthulhu-style setting. That group will probably move on at some point.) At least people angry about someone liking McDonalds hamburgers can point to the damage their beef-raising does to the environment. We're enjoying 5E and hurting nobody and yet there's people in the thread who would be angry at us for that. Are we the "toxic players" in this whole equation for some reason? FRINGE posted:But this is not true. It comes up every 6-12 months from someone that never played TSR era DnD (*ahem* real DnD) and gets repeated until someone with energy comes in and gradenko2000s the topic with an education post. I don't do the laughter counter-posts. I'll just say I played AD&D from 1980 onward, and I think the last 1E campaign I ran wrapped sometime in 1989 with the highest-level PC being 53rd level. I missed the Chainmail rules at the time because I wasn't old enough yet. I did play the original D&D (the one that came with B2 inside, so version 2). The revised D&D version (with the Masters set and so on) was solidly designed, but 1E was largely a matter of accretion and rules cobbled together on the fly and repackaged into a system. Arneson did some good work there; Gygax's contributions were more mixed. I gamed with folks in Wisconsin who had played with Gygax, though nobody who had been one of his regulars. I heard a lot of stories. Maybe it is possible for someone to disagree with you without obviously being young and ignorant. Or maybe I'm wrong and the system where a L1 Monk can expect to be killed in one round by a common housecat is really skillfully designed. Conspiratiorist posted:There isn't; I've checked. What triggered the current flurry of non-chit-chat was someone posting here asking about advice for trying out the 5E system and being advised not to because 5E sucks. By a bunch of people who hang out in the 5E thread. Who apparently not only don't enjoy playing 5E, they want to yell or laugh at people who do for being stupid. I admit I'm unsure why you're such a system-expert for 5E, Conspiratiorist, if it sucks so much. Did you get tricked into playing it early on and sunk cost kept you going?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Narsham posted:And D&D Next wasn't that system? Mearls spent a long time designing a product that didn't appeal to grogs and then changed it at the last second to... a system that still doesn't appeal to grogs? Yes, that's obviously true and the idea that an 11th hour change in a system from what was being playtested to something much simpler might have involved corporate meddling is equivalent to saying President Trump is a liberal. (I know you didn't say that part, you barely wrote anything at all.) 5e sucks but not as much as your posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Narsham posted:And D&D Next wasn't that system? Mearls spent a long time designing a product that didn't appeal to grogs and then changed it at the last second to... a system that still doesn't appeal to grogs? Yes, that's obviously true and the idea that an 11th hour change in a system from what was being playtested to something much simpler might have involved corporate meddling is equivalent to saying President Trump is a liberal. (I know you didn't say that part, you barely wrote anything at all.) Narsham posted:Or maybe I'm wrong and the system where a L1 Monk can expect to be killed in one round by a common housecat is really skillfully designed. Narsham posted:What triggered the current flurry of non-chit-chat was someone posting here asking about advice for trying out the 5E system and being advised not to because 5E sucks. Narsham posted:By a bunch of people who hang out in the 5E thread. Who apparently not only don't enjoy playing 5E, they want to yell or laugh at people who do for being stupid. Narsham posted:I admit I'm unsure why you're such a system-expert for 5E, Conspiratiorist, if it sucks so much. Did you get tricked into playing it early on and sunk cost kept you going? Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Narsham posted:I don't do the laughter counter-posts. I'll just say I played AD&D from 1980 onward, and I think the last 1E campaign I ran wrapped sometime in 1989 with the highest-level PC being 53rd level. Goddamn, what do you even do with a character like that? Isn't literal godhood somewhere around 30th level?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
All the responses above except the one about the absurdly leveled 1E post are exactly the damned problem with this thread.Conspiratiorist posted:If you want to get deep into it, at higher levels it's comparing Rogue+SA+SD roll avg damage (factoring hit and crit chance) vs two Fighter attacks (action and bonus action, with BA having a proc chance if GWM applies) plus chance of Precision turning a near miss into a hit (and thus adding an attacks worth, or consider it a flat accuracy modifier if you wish to simplify), and each attack having a GWM or Sharpshooter rider plus magical bonuses. If we're taking optimization into account, the Rogue's single attack still wins out against the Fighter's single attack. The rogue will be ranged, will have Sharpshooter, and possibly even have Elven Accuracy or Crossbow Mastery. So using about level 10 for this example. Elf Rogue, so has a longbow. 1d8+1d10+5d6+15 wins out against 1d12/2d6+1d10+15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Azhais posted:This used to be my go-to attire for game day There's a good reason that's my current avatar. Something about the dice know when I'm trying to make a crucial roll and THEN decide to gently caress me. At least I tend to GM with people who make 1s interesting in ways other than "you fail and suck moving on"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Arthil posted:So using about level 10 for this example. Elf Rogue, so has a longbow. 1d8+1d10+5d6+15 wins out against 1d12/2d6+1d10+15. It's still forgoing 2 attacks, so it's really 1d8+1d10+5d6+15 vs. 4d6+2d10+30 so 42.5 (Rogue) vs. 55 (Fighter).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Arthil posted:All the responses above except the one about the absurdly leveled 1E post are exactly the damned problem with this thread. I'll gladly talk 5e without always bashing it but that post does not warrant a serious response. Is anyone else gonna be doing Descent into Avernus when it launches? I'm pretty stoked to be going to h*ck with my group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:It's still forgoing 2 attacks, so it's really 1d8+1d10+5d6+15 vs. 4d6+2d10+30 so 42.5 (Rogue) vs. 55 (Fighter). Commanding Strike only asks you to sacrifice one of your attacks, not your entire Attack Action. Unless we're going to assume the Fighter has Polearm Master, which we can, but the damage will be a bit lower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Commanding Strike only asks you to sacrifice one of your attacks, not your entire Attack Action. And also your Bonus action, which is often also an attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
I think my first real effort post in trad games was about how Full Attack: 2 claws +4 melee (1d2-4) and bite -1 melee (1d3-4) came to end up in a cat's stat line and how this was everything wrong with 3.x monster creation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:And also your Bonus action, which is often also an attack. Yeah I edited to take into consideration Polearm Mastery. So it ends up looking like this: 1d10+1d4+2d10+30 vs 1d8+1d10+5d6+15 . So it's 48 DMG vs 42. Very close... now let's bump those levels up a little more, where nothing about the Fighter's damage will change further. Level 20 Rogue: 1d8+1d10+10d6+15 60 DMG Level 17 Rogue: 1d8+1d10+9d6+15 56 DMG Level 15 Rogue: 1d8+1d10+8d6+15 52 DMG Level 13 Rogue: 1d8+1d10+7d6+15 49-50 DMG So it starts off not too far apart, and in a few levels outpaces it. Taking things like having access to Elven Accuracy, making sure to use the Hide bonus action at the end of every turn etc to trigger it also increases the chance of it becoming a critical. Edit: And it we AREN'T assuming the Fighter is using a superiority dice to add further damage to their attack rather than on Precision Strike, the damage actually goes down. By a lot. Arthil fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Yet you participate in society. Curious! I mean, gently caress Mearls, and lol Crawford, but 5e as a system I find serviceable, and it tends to be most of my active games. I don't "hate" it. And from my experience and study of it comes the opinion that if someone has the option open to play something else, they should. As for why I play it despite thinking it isn't good, there's a couple good reasons. Reasons I make sure to mention every single time I recommend people play something else. Feel free to filter my posts of you're curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Yeah I edited to take into consideration Polearm Mastery. You get a C-, for the effort. I'll post the crunch tonight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Splicer posted:I think my first real effort post in trad games was about how Full Attack: 2 claws +4 melee (1d2-4) and bite -1 melee (1d3-4) came to end up in a cat's stat line and how this was everything wrong with 3.x monster creation. please repost, tia
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:53
|
|