|
kingcom posted: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. Don't have a page number but it's the start of the Classes section.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
kingcom posted: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. I did miss that. Apologies. And yeah, you are correct. At the most base level, a group needs to talk about whether or not 'adventurer' is even a concept in a given campaign. But also, isn't this sort of discussion implicit in a lot of the campaign building guidance and discussion that already exists? 5E has sections on playstyles, tiers of play, types of campaign, and creating organizations among its campaign design advice. Wouldn't "what exactly is our characters' job?" be a question that gets raised and answered organically as part of hashing out those considerations? I don't mean to push back. My experience is that this is implicit, but I've been playing with the same folks for nearly 20 years now, so we're really good at talking through everything when beginning a new campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Page 45 for the adventurers thing We also had a guy who wasn't a team player like that, and he still likes to go off to do his own thing but he's reined it in a lot. But mainly it was really getting that message across of, look, man, you're always doing your own thing without regard for the consequences for the rest of the group, why the gently caress wouldn't they just drop you from the party? At that point you're basically asking the DM to run two separate games and that's stupid. If they want to do that, just have the DM run them a private session or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I can be a spiteful rear end in a top hat though so who knows what will happen. I think if you're this upset, the best thing is just talking this out with them and making sure everyone is on the same page with regards to what style of play everyone wants. The emphasis of the conversation should be on how to make sure things are fun for everyone and not like "she hosed up and I hate her play-style". Especially because most of the stuff you describe -- while it sounds bad from your perspective -- isn't totally unreasonable and might seem fine from her pov. Like, roleplaying a loner or sending the tiny NPC to scout ahead isn't completely unreasonable behavior in isolation. Also talk to the other players to make sure they're on the same page; your read on the situation was that they were also unhappy but she was "oblivious" but are you sure they were unhappy with the same things you were? And doesn't the "oblivious" part imply that at the very least she isn't being disruptive on purpose? Just don't go in ready to kill her character or tear up your character sheet and storm out or whatever, there's really no point in doing that. If you do decide to continue playing just be clear when you are upset and address it out of character to avoid any weird drama (e.g. "hey look, speaking out of character I'm gonna be annoyed if you send my sidekick NPC into a dangerous situation, can we please not do that?")
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
D-Pad posted: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. Yeah like real loving talk, SEVER. Its really tough to separate that relationship and they are going to be of a higher priority than you are in their world. I mean yeah if you can talk to them and explain what the problem is, hopefully it works but sounds like you might need to bail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Jokes aside, you have to bring it up, don't be a dick about it just put your cards on the table and say a piece hey look enjoy playing with you all but this thing that happened last session rubbed me the wrong way and blah blah blah blah The reaction to that should tell you everything you need to know. Try talking to the GM privately and see if he can relay this to her from him as an SO and not another person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:Are there any rules, or anything at all really, for player characters fighting each other? Players this dumb and fishmalky usually last about one session in my groups because the negative response they get (the DM not playing along, no one else playing along) gets through even their thick skulls. quote: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. Oh lol this is never going to get better and you need to find a more mature group, sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
D-Pad posted: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. ROFL, no he hasn't. He's letting one player be a dick to everyone else with zero consequences or feedback because he's getting his dick wet. This should have been nipped OOC ages ago, it won't get better, and no matter how tactfully you try to give feedback or leave, the dick is going to throw a hissy fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Dienes posted:ROFL, no he hasn't. He's letting one player be a dick to everyone else with zero consequences or feedback because he's getting his dick wet. I really don't see any reason to doubt the person whose side of the story is all we are getting in the first place anyway. They could have totally painted an even more favorable picture for themselves by saying the DM lets her get away with murder. At the very least being the mature one and talking about it loses you nothing. If the DM throws a hissy fit then that's on him, just don't be the one to throw a hissy fit as a preemptive strike or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I really don't see any reason to doubt the person whose side of the story is all we are getting in the first place anyway. They could have totally painted an even more favorable picture for themselves by saying the DM lets her get away with murder. This is 100% the correct approach. Sodomy Hussein posted:Oh lol this is never going to get better and you need to find a more mature group, sorry This is 100% my prediction though, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I think if you're this upset, the best thing is just talking this out with them and making sure everyone is on the same page with regards to what style of play everyone wants. The emphasis of the conversation should be on how to make sure things are fun for everyone and not like "she hosed up and I hate her play-style". Especially because most of the stuff you describe -- while it sounds bad from your perspective -- isn't totally unreasonable and might seem fine from her pov. Like, roleplaying a loner or sending the tiny NPC to scout ahead isn't completely unreasonable behavior in isolation. Also talk to the other players to make sure they're on the same page; your read on the situation was that they were also unhappy but she was "oblivious" but are you sure they were unhappy with the same things you were? And doesn't the "oblivious" part imply that at the very least she isn't being disruptive on purpose? I get what you are saying, but this wasn't an NPC in our party that was "unowned" (for lack of a better term) that we just disagreed what to do with. We had an encounter with Grungs several sessions ago and I specifically asked the DM if I could try and recruit one as a sort of squire for my character and succeeded on several rolls to do so. I've spent multiple rest periods training him and building a harness so that he can stand on my back and shoot a bow. It is reasonable to want to send in the small NPC but it isn't reasonable to go around me when I say no with that context. Anyway, this is all good advice. I have spoken directly with the other players and we are on the same page about both this specific incident and her lack of teamwork in general. Another thing she did last night was start a fight with a froghemoth that had not yet seen us and then once she got in trouble she ran away and left us to deal with it. Also, oblivious was the wrong term. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, but after talking to the other players who know her better she's just a selfish person who insists on her way it seems like. They are both going to message the DM before our next session with their thoughts so hopefully it is resolved. As far the spite comment, I am not going to go in with the intention of fighting her character. I did ignore her actually attacking and damaging my character after all. It was more along the lines of if the DM doesn't address it or does and she doesn't fix it and this kind of poo poo keeps happening I might decide to be a bigger rear end in a top hat in return before I bail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Reading the psionic UA stuff now that I'm not at work, and I had originally thought the psychic warrior got an extra 1d4 added to ALL of their attacks, not just once per turn. This sucks man. Also it's dumb that you don't add a modifier to the soul knife's damage
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Yeah that player is a shitbag, goondolences. But, um, am I missing something? Characters have HP, attacks, and ACs. What else do you need to interact in the combat system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I get what you are saying, but this wasn't an NPC in our party that was "unowned" (for lack of a better term) that we just disagreed what to do with. We had an encounter with Grungs several sessions ago and I specifically asked the DM if I could try and recruit one as a sort of squire for my character and succeeded on several rolls to do so. I've spent multiple rest periods training him and building a harness so that he can stand on my back and shoot a bow. It is reasonable to want to send in the small NPC but it isn't reasonable to go around me when I say no with that context. Yea I mostly just wanted to avoid making assumptions, and encourage you to follow up with the other players. If you’re doing that I think you’re approaching it well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Remora posted:Yeah that player is a shitbag, goondolences. The combat system is balanced around enemies having way more health than players, for one thing. I've a feeling that PVP will largely come down to who goes first and which of the combatants has more spells.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Personally you'd have been justified in executing her character right there, and quite frankly you're a better person than I am. Listen to your friends who are saying she's selfish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
There is 0% chance she wouldn't have immediately come back with a new character and tried to murder you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
I've been in games where things like this have been successfully handled out of character. I say games because it happened twice, but it is possible, so give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Dexo posted:lol leave the group you're hosed. ED: so it's not an empty quote  Bless your heart Schwalb Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Remora posted:Yeah that player is a shitbag, goondolences. yeah, like that's how PVP normally works. But it's unbalanced as all poo poo. Like in a game I jokingly said "I cast Eldritch Blast at another PC", when we were having an in character disagreement. The DM said alright roll it thinking it would be funny. I did. I crit, and killed them with massive damage. We obviously didn't go with it, and played it off as a mental image my character had. But yeah Player vs player combat is silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:
Hell loving yeah Schwalb
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The combat system is balanced around enemies having way more health than players, for one thing. I've a feeling that PVP will largely come down to who goes first and which of the combatants has more spells. If you look at the monster HP values most of them are calculated almost the same way as player HP, i.e. Level * (HD + CON mod). For a CR 1 creatures this would be roughly 4-5, for CR 2 it would be 6-8 (roughly equivalent to the adventurer parties they'd be expected to fight in a group of 4-6). Attack rolls and spellcaster levels seem to follow a similar pattern, although they're usually lower than focused PC martials or pure casters. The difference is that most monsters have a gimmick or two to make them memorable while PCs have a whole slate of abilities (including items) that either allow them to do much more than a monster or interact to do one thing much better than a monster. These abilities aren't balanced against each other for PvP (they aren't even strictly balanced against each other for PvE), let alone 1v1 PvP. In PvE the ability to incapacitate or even kill a comparable monster in a single round is a good thing, in PvP it's not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:ED: so it's not an empty quote  e: and the problem with psionics is wizards e2: shadow, not tower Splicer fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Less tweets more publishing tower of the mad mage The problem with everything in D&D is wizards. Make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The problem with everything in D&D is wizards. It's the MtG problem of "In our game called Magic let's give everyone a specialized niche, and for some people their specialized niche will be Magic," except somehow it's only gotten worse over time. Also re: Schwalb my brain is too small to tell if this is supposed to be serious or sarcastic, or how wonderful/disastrous it would be if true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
change my name posted:Reading the psionic UA stuff now that I'm not at work, and I had originally thought the psychic warrior got an extra 1d4 added to ALL of their attacks, not just once per turn. This sucks man. Also it's dumb that you don't add a modifier to the soul knife's damage Bonus action to summon two throwable psychic shortswords is an amazing three level dip, but everything else requiring int to target is not good. If the +int + level to hp was a passive or you got +int to saves then maybe, but the opportunity cost from not bumping wis or con is too high. e: make the 9th and 13th level abilities limited use and add some passive +int bonuses and we're good. e2: oh everything but the 9th is already limited use. Ugh. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
lightrook posted:It's the MtG problem of "In our game called Magic let's give everyone a specialized niche, and for some people their specialized niche will be Magic," except somehow it's only gotten worse over time. He made a game system based around the idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
lightrook posted:It's the MtG problem of "In our game called Magic let's give everyone a specialized niche, and for some people their specialized niche will be Magic," except somehow it's only gotten worse over time. He's releasing a poopless variant soon (tm).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
It's my first time running 5e, first game is this weekend. I've got most of a Phandelver game setup on roll20 (first time running 5e) and I wanted to run Strahd after reading through the thread. Will I be okay to segue* into Strahd at level 5? Should I skip some parts of it, or beef up the starting encounters? Frida Call Me fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
You should probably segue into Strahd instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 11:12
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:You should probably segue into Strahd instead. Thanks for this.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
Frida Call Me posted:It's my first time running 5e, first game is this weekend. I've got most of a Phandelver game setup on roll20 (first time running 5e) and I wanted to run Strahd after reading through the thread. Will I be okay to segue* into Strahd at level 5? Should I skip some parts of it, or beef up the starting encounters? If youre gonna skip anything, skip the last bits of Phandelver which I think gets a bit tedious towards the end anyway. You could have them go over the Strahd at lvl3 and not run them through the Death House opener (although thats a fun mini adventure in my opinion). Lvl5 isnt super OP for the first few bits of Strahd but remember the campaign only really goes to lvl10 so you wont have as much wiggle room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 12:15
|
|
Nutsngum posted:If youre gonna skip anything, skip the last bits of Phandelver which I think gets a bit tedious towards the end anyway. You could have them go over the Strahd at lvl3 and not run them through the Death House opener (although thats a fun mini adventure in my opinion). I like this idea a lot after reading through the end of Phandelver, I'll just need to wrap things up a bit sooner, maybe move a boss around.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Frida Call Me posted:I like this idea a lot after reading through the end of Phandelver, I'll just need to wrap things up a bit sooner, maybe move a boss around. Regarding Strahd specifically, I moved things around a bit where they get the Tarokka reading encounter right at the start, rather than after a bit, so as to have a bit of direction straight after coming out of the mists. Also I'd keep Death House in, though at level 3-5 it'll be slightly less deadly and scary (but not too much).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
change my name posted:Reading the psionic UA stuff now that I'm not at work, and I had originally thought the psychic warrior got an extra 1d4 added to ALL of their attacks, not just once per turn. This sucks man. Also it's dumb that you don't add a modifier to the soul knife's damage It’s like they are terrified to give a psionic archetype an ability as good as an existing archetype. Soul knife does add Dex or Str to attacks, as it is a finesse weapon. On the “adventurer” thread, a long time ago I ran a segment in Mechanus inspired by the Modron Cube in Planescape: Torment. The PCs needed something from the Modrons and in exchange agreed to participate in an ongoing experiment the Modrons were running to try to figure out how adventurers worked. From their perspective, these “random wandering units” came into an area, did a bunch of random things, and left, leaving the area’s new lawfulness increased in relation to its previous lawfulness. I then ran what was mostly a parody of RPG adventurers. They found out about Dungeon by gathering at Tavern (which had a sign hanging out front reading “Tavern”), talking to “townspeople” who also provided them with local rumors for some reason. The Dungeon itself was entirely Modron-designed, so all the pits and other traps were clearly marked and secret doors had been clearly but cunningly labeled “do not enter.” One wing had a Modron evil wizard who had summoned a real (and amused) fiend; the other a dragon construct that loudly announced whether it was sleeping or awake at periodic intervals. In a broader sense, the two decisions to make about how adventurers are perceived are whether they’re fairly common (with lots of NPCs doing it too, which implies that many adventurers aren’t very successful) or rare figures of legend. Once that’s decided, attitudes are going to vary wildly from place to place or person to person, with the common option being easier in most places because you could have towns whose economies rely on restocking adventurers, places near multiple dungeons of antiquity that thrive off of adventurer activity, or well-regulated cities whose overlords are desperate to keep adventurers away. The rare option means some people might hero-worship the PCs, while others will be terrified of them. It might be neat if Doctor Who showed up in real life, but it might mean you're a minor character who is about to be horribly killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's not a spell it's a weapon so presumably the usual weapon rules apply, so it's 1d6 + mod. Must have missed that it was finesse, that’s not too bad then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Regarding Strahd specifically, I moved things around a bit where they get the Tarokka reading encounter right at the start, rather than after a bit, so as to have a bit of direction straight after coming out of the mists. Also I'd keep Death House in, though at level 3-5 it'll be slightly less deadly and scary (but not too much). Lvl3s should have really no challenge in Death House and lvl5s would run through it without breaking a sweat unless its severely upped in difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Lvl3s should have really no challenge in Death House and lvl5s would run through it without breaking a sweat unless its severely upped in difficulty. The House itself yea, for sure, but the basement encounters like the Ghouls and the Shadows ambushes could be tough - and the shambling mound is still deadly if they don't run away. But you're right, was thinking of 3rd level mostly cause my group barely survived the shadows and I had to fudge a couple of rolls on the Shambling Mound. 5th level would make it trivial. canepazzo fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I get what you are saying, but this wasn't an NPC in our party that was "unowned" (for lack of a better term) that we just disagreed what to do with. We had an encounter with Grungs several sessions ago and I specifically asked the DM if I could try and recruit one as a sort of squire for my character and succeeded on several rolls to do so. I've spent multiple rest periods training him and building a harness so that he can stand on my back and shoot a bow. It is reasonable to want to send in the small NPC but it isn't reasonable to go around me when I say no with that context. Is this your first D&D campaign?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Narsham posted:It’s like they are terrified to give a psionic archetype an ability as good as an existing archetype. Soul knife does add Dex or Str to attacks, as it is a finesse weapon. This sounds like a really fun bit of meta gaming that I'd like to see the outline of, or maybe a link back to the old thread if you have the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 18:26
|
|
