|
I know everyone just breezed over it, but can we talk about the psychic fighter getting 1d10 damage reduction as a reaction at level three. That's honestly not awful. Very bland, but not awful. And then at LEVEL 10, it upgrades to... 1d12. Just lol
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
According to this four year old chart I found, average damage of a CR creature is 63-68 a round.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
The psionics UA all seem to be "Jedi powers" but mish mashed and strewn around three different classes so none of them is overpowered but all kind of suck in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Right and I think you've pointed out my big problem for why I'm asking this. The question of 'who are adventurers and how do they fit' is a really big important one for defining tone of a game and even within the same setting what mercenary and not even having a place to talk about what an adventurer is in your game seems like a pretty big missing step? Like even pathfinder goes into detail about the pathfinder society and pathfinders being a part of that or operating independently an how the interface with the world. This is something they include out of the gate. To be fair, Pathfinder only has one setting to describe and frame in its rules. D&D has to be more generic than that, and what adventurers are differs from setting to setting and campaign to campaign. Arivia posted:Idk you tell me why Mearls took paragraphs right out of Rob Heinsoo and Skip Williams’ work on the 3.5 and 4e DMG and so on. Corporate authorship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:To be fair, Pathfinder only has one setting to describe and frame in its rules. D&D has to be more generic than that
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The persistent belief that this is possible with something as crunch dense as D&D, never mind the completely inexplicable belief that it succeeded, is one of the most baffling things about the whole deal I mean we can certainly argue about how successful it has been in that regard and how different those settings really are, but D&D certainly does support more published settings than PF does. Perhaps that's one of PF's advantages over D&D: it doesn't pretend to be as generic as D&D does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Screw the book of vile darkness, where's my 5e book of erotic fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Screw the book of vile darkness, where's my 5e book of erotic fantasy? You're thinking of Eternal Hearts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Screw the book of vile darkness, where's my 5e book of erotic fantasy? Making all of my friends roll for butthole circumference before we start playing
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
I bet you'll cowards don't even run FATAL
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:I know everyone just breezed over it, but can we talk about the psychic fighter getting 1d10 damage reduction as a reaction at level three. That's honestly not awful. Very bland, but not awful. The other ability is to do an extra 1d4 psychic damage on a weapon hit once per round, it's insane how bad and pointless that is, but maybe that's how Fighters are supposed to be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Screw the book of vile darkness, where's my 5e book of erotic fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The other ability is to do an extra 1d4 psychic damage on a weapon hit once per round, it's insane how bad and pointless that is, but maybe that's how Fighters are supposed to be? Its playtest material which means Mearls wrote it 20 minutes before lunch. It also captures that quintessential Mearls goal of "feeling like D&D" because it's a lovely trap option no one will take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
That book had one of my favorite misreadings ever. There was some line that said something like "kobolds are fiercely homospecies" which I read as "kobolds are fiercely homosexual", and that's just a fun sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Corporate authorship. Oh it's legal, it's just creatively bankrupt and lazy like so much else of this slapdash edition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Oh it's legal, it's just creatively bankrupt and lazy like so much else of this slapdash edition. Nah, man. I'm not trying to make a point about legality. My point is that it's not meant to be an original creative work. It's rules and inspiration for a game. Think of it like a textbook or manual. It's like E.B. White adding a bunch of poo poo and his name to William Strunk's Elements of Style. Why rewrite a section if the current version already does the job? I won't argue with the other part because you're right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Nah, man. I'm not trying to make a point about legality. My point is that it's not meant to be an original creative work. It's rules and inspiration for a game. Think of it like a textbook or manual. It's like E.B. White adding a bunch of poo poo and his name to William Strunk's Elements of Style. Why rewrite a section if the current version already does the job? There's no common framework that's shared between the 3e, 4e, and 5e DMGs though. Of course the 3.5 DMG kept a lot of stuff from the 3.0 one, since it was an update like what you're describing. Each edition's is organized differently with different content. Whoever was working on that part of the 5e DMG went "okay well I should have this part like the 3e DMG and I'm just going to use their example and change the names", which is loving lazy. It wasn't a section that had been passed down for 15 years, they deliberately went back and took it for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:Its playtest material which means Mearls wrote it 20 minutes before lunch. Mearls was not involved with this UA "Jeremy Crawford, Dan Dillon, and Ben Petrisor, with F. Wesley Schneider" are the designers. Arivia posted:There's no common framework that's shared between the 3e, 4e, and 5e DMGs though. Of course the 3.5 DMG kept a lot of stuff from the 3.0 one, since it was an update like what you're describing. Each edition's is organized differently with different content. Whoever was working on that part of the 5e DMG went "okay well I should have this part like the 3e DMG and I'm just going to use their example and change the names", which is loving lazy. It wasn't a section that had been passed down for 15 years, they deliberately went back and took it for themselves. There is nothing wrong with reusing sections of older material so long as the old authors are still credited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Just going to say the Fighter Chassis as a whole is very solid. Any subclass stuff is just extra. My game has a level 12 fighter right now and it's absurd how he is just ripping everything apart. He easily matches our tank of a Paladin crit burst damage. The druid at one point expressed jealousy of his damage, as he has to spend high level slots to even come close to the damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Are there any rules, or anything at all really, for player characters fighting each other? We have one person in our group who basically refuses to work with us as a team and is always doing her own thing. Up until last night, it hasn't really been a big deal because the other three of us have fun doing our group thing and whenever she goes off and does something else things never work out for her and she has almost died multiple times. Until last night. I have a Grung sidekick who rides on my fighter's back on a little platform I built and shoots a (museum quality art piece) longbow at the enemies I am attacking, basically it's just a cool way for my character to have an extra 1d8 + 1 damage. I recruited him back towards the beginning of our adventure and I have been training him and teaching him my language during rest periods. During our session last night we were in a temple and on the other side of this grate there was what was clearly a room whose floor was a pressure plate (TRAP), and our characters could not fit through the grate. The player in question asked me to send my Grung through and I said "no, I do not want to risk him." She then proceeded to talk to an NPC with our party who speaks Grung and attempts to get him to instruct the Grung to go through the grate completely ignoring that I just said no. The DM did a good job of making it pretty clear this was not the move but she kept insisting. So when the NPC started talking to my Grung I just chopped the NPCs head off. Like WTF, this is my sidekick who rides on my players back and you are going to ignore me saying no and try and put him in danger anyway? gently caress you. Then she "gets mad" for what I did and tries to stab me in the eye. She does manage to hit me but only does minor damage. At that point, I decided to ignore it and move on for the sake of the session, but what I really wanted to do was loving murder her character after she attacked mine. It was very clear that nobody at the table was happy with her actions, but she was completely oblivious. This is my first D&D group and up until now her lack of teamwork has been handled very well by the DM and we get to laugh as she gets herself into bad situations that don't affect us. She has been one bad dice roll from death more than once so I figured she would get herself killed at some point and the problem would fix itself. Am I the crazy one here? What she did was unacceptable right? Should the DM have put a stop to it instead of playing it as "you can do what you want but this is definitely the wrong thing to do"? Would I have been the rear end in a top hat had I killed her character? (I would have wiped the floor with her). Edit: To be a bit more clear, the back and forth between her and the DM as she tried to get the NPC to tell my Grung to go through the grate was long. The DM (as the NPC) was refusing to do so, but she kept insisting to the point he told her to roll a persuasion check which she crushed with like a 22. So at the point I chopped his head off he was already telling my Grung what to do and my Grung was going to do it. D-Pad fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
The rule is that people are supposed to be on the same page for what the group wants out of the game, the GM should be corralling problem players like that person, and if they're constantly refusing to adapt to the rest of the group, it's time to let them go. There are no rules for punishing players that don't conform to what your group wants because that's a player problem, not a character problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:The rule is that people are supposed to be on the same page for what the group wants out of the game, the GM should be corralling problem players like that person, and if they're constantly refusing to adapt to the rest of the group, it's time to let them go. This was my thought as well, I was just curious if I had fought back after she stabbed me are there any special rules or any system for two player characters fighting each other? I just dropped it because gently caress it would have made the whole thing worse, but I don't see what she did as any different than if I asked her to put her familiar in danger and she said no and I somehow circumvented her and commanded her familiar to do it anyway. It just seems like a real dick move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Arivia posted:There's no common framework that's shared between the 3e, 4e, and 5e DMGs though. Of course the 3.5 DMG kept a lot of stuff from the 3.0 one, since it was an update like what you're describing. Each edition's is organized differently with different content. Whoever was working on that part of the 5e DMG went "okay well I should have this part like the 3e DMG and I'm just going to use their example and change the names", which is loving lazy. It wasn't a section that had been passed down for 15 years, they deliberately went back and took it for themselves. It's a new edition of the game. It is an update like I am describing. Again, the books don't exist to be original creative works. They exist to enable playing the game in its newest edition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:This was my thought as well, I was just curious if I had fought back after she stabbed me are there any special rules or any system for two player characters fighting each other? I just dropped it because gently caress it would have made the whole thing worse, but I don't see what she did as any different than if I asked her to put her familiar in danger and she said no and I somehow circumvented her and commanded her familiar to do it anyway. It just seems like a real dick move. There are not because PvP is incredibly stupid in an RPG that isn't explicitly designed around it (like Paranoia) and no decent GM would allow things to get to that point. If someone is being a gigantic rear end in a top hat and also their character is an rear end in a top hat, there is no rules situation to account for that because it's assumed that people won't be assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It's a new edition of the game. It is an update like I am describing. Again, the books don't exist to be original creative works. They exist to enable playing the game in its newest edition. We'll just have to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Arivia posted:We'll just have to disagree. Remember that I'm not disagreeing with you about 5E being lazily slapped together. I'm just pointing out that this sort of patch writing is not unique to 5E.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
That psionic UA is bland as pants. Mind over Matter by Daniel Shea is the best 5e psionics I've found so far, so I feel have to plug it here. I've gone through a lot of psionic homebrew for 5e for my campaign and am using this mainly for monster psionics and players if they like. It's spun off of the UA Mystic but with broader, more psionically themed abilities that players probably haven't seen before, eg ectoplasm and emotionally affecting powers alongside the usual Jedi / Seven telekinesis and mind bombs. It also has Orders that use Wisdom and Charisma as key ability, though Intelligence powers most of them. It doesn't seem too op, I'm adding more gradually to the campaign to keep testing. Part 1 is free. Part 2 is like $2 or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
The idea that every part of everything in the system should be rewritten for each new addition is laughable. If poo poo works don't break it. I know a guy who's been a game developer for nearly thirty years and he's been using the same wolf sprite for 20 of those. It still looks like a wolf, so why pay for someone to re-draw it? When they come out with a new edition of Tomb of Horrors or whatever adventure book, should they replace all the NPC dialog?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
The scant PVP I've seen in 5e has used normal combat rules It is very much not designed all that well The play if you have a player who is that annoying is one of a couple of things Tell the GM, and have them stand up to the player. And tell them to shape up or leave. Have the rest of the players tell them to cut it out if the GM won't. Leave the game yourself if everyone else is down with this lovely person. If your GM is allowing for this amount of flagrant dickishness in their games go all in and kill this annoying player in game and don't bring them back to life. Force them to reroll a character or get so mad they leave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Dexo posted:If your GM is allowing for this amount of flagrant dickishness in their games go all in and kill this annoying player in game and don't bring them back to life. Or maybe don't do either of these, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:We have one person in our group who basically refuses to work with us as a team and is always doing her own thing. Up until last night, it hasn't really been a big deal because the other three of us have fun doing our group thing and whenever she goes off and does something else things never work out for her and she has almost died multiple times. This is a big problem. Every character needs a reason to be a team player. If this character isn't good in a team, then why, in or out of character, would the group be ok with this? You can have a loner character, as long as it's a loner character that works in this specific team. If you guys figure out pvp, and actually fight, what then? This character already wasn't part of the team, is that going to improve? If you win, will they suddenly be a team player? If they win, are you going to be ok with potentially losing your friend? This stuff NEVER works. It should be handled out of character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Or maybe don't do either of these, Jesus Christ. You're under no obligation to be the better man if someone is being enough of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
That's only one option. the second part is just what would follow the first part. Obviously  And I guess I should have made it more clear it was in jest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Dexo posted:That's only one option. the second part is just what would follow the first part. Obviously Fair point, you can never fully trust someone that plays 5e
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Like if you go through telling the player they are acting a dick personally, telling them through the GM, and through the rest at the table. There is jack poo poo you can do. Outside of either have a passive agressive rear end in a top hat off which serves no one and makes everyone miserable or the correct way is to press the GM to make a decision(them or me and maybe a coalition others at the table) There is literally no way this situation sounds tenable without someone putting up an ultimatum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Like if you go through telling the player they are acting a dick personally, telling them through the GM, and through the rest at the table. There is jack poo poo you can do. Outside of either have a passive agressive rear end in a top hat off which serves no one and makes everyone miserable or the correct way is to press the GM to make a decision(them or me and maybe a coalition others at the table) I agree, the lovely player needs to be talked to or needs to leave if they refuse to listen. I've just heard too many stories of people attempting to solve out of game problems with in game solutions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Like if you go through telling the player they are acting a dick personally, telling them through the GM, and through the rest at the table. There is jack poo poo you can do. Outside of either have a passive agressive rear end in a top hat off which serves no one and makes everyone miserable or the correct way is to press the GM to make a decision(them or me and maybe a coalition others at the table) I appreciate all the advice from everyone. It is in line with what I was already thinking and I needed a sanity check. There is, however, one piece of vital information I left out because I knew it would be what everybody focused on and I wouldn't get much of an answer besides "lol leave the group you're hosed": Our DM is loving/dating this person. I was willing to give this dynamic a shot and for our first 8 or so sessions things have been just fine. The DM has gone out of his way to not play favorites and has been very fair and reasonable, otherwise, I would have bailed a while back. Yes, she hasn't been a team player, but it was in no way preventing the great fun me and the other two players have been having so none of us have cared enough to start drama. That changed last night. So yeah, I will probably end up leaving the group. I'll see how it goes next week. I can be a spiteful rear end in a top hat though so who knows what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Kung Food posted:The mindset evolved from an attempt to curb my players' tendencies to try and steal everything not bolted down. "The blacksmith's shop has sophisticated locks and sturdy doors because... you know.... adventurers." Thats fine, you've used that definition as a way of couching behaviour of the group. Have you told the players what the world thinks of adventurer and the kinds of actions people expect of them? I wonder if it would have changed what their characters do if you told them something else before the game started. PeterWeller posted:To be fair, Pathfinder only has one setting to describe and frame in its rules. D&D has to be more generic than that, and what adventurers are differs from setting to setting and campaign to campaign. I feel like a few people are missing exactly what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying the rule book needs to specifically lock down the exact details of what an adventurer, I'm saying that the discussion amongst a group about defining what an adventurer is in your setting is really important to building group expectations. Dexo posted:That may have come off in an attacking manner and I don't mean it that way, that's just the description they give in the PHB. I'm at work atm, do you have a page number for that quote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
If you're going to go to one more session and then leave anyway, definitely fight and kill her character. No reason she should get to hang onto hers when you have to give yours up. Joking. just talk to the DM, and if you don't like what they say, don't go back. give them a chance to make it right, though. Also, in the future, don't play these games with people who are loving unless they're married.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
D-Pad posted:I appreciate all the advice from everyone. It is in line with what I was already thinking and I needed a sanity check. lol leave the group you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:34
|
|