|
It's not the statistical addition to the die roll that makes advantage significant, it's that attack bonuses and AC scores have been dialled down a notch since previous editions. Also the fact that they've consolidated all of those granular bonuses into a single three pole switch: Advantage, normal, disadvantage. You could just make advantage +2 instead of an extra d20, I'm not arguing for the additional die roll specifically, just that looking at the system as a whole the way they position advantage was very close to working in narratological favour until it became the play thing of codified abilities. Especially the way they guided GMs in the play test to offer it out situationally. It poses the question of whether 4e could work if they just nerf the numbers a bit. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 26, 2020 |
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Arthil posted:Regarding advantage/disadvantage, I kind of feel SotDL goes a better route with the Boons/Banes system. It helps get rid of -all- fiddly little bonuses (no proficiency), but also still allows multiple sources to stack or to cancel each other out. The overall average from advantage and disadvantage isn't that impressive, it isn't a 5 like most people think, it's closer to a 2.5. Only really making a big effect negatively if the player has a low number for the skill being rolled. Can you for my friend, explain what Boons/Banes is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:There's nothing specific you can do in 5th that you couldn't do in 4th, but 4th nails more things to the floor and that makes it harder to move them. So of course you're going to say "name something specific you can do in 5th that you can't do in 4th" instead of understanding that I'm talking about creating incentives for nonspecific novel actions. You could do something novel in 4th, but there's no incentive to, and 5th came close to doing that with the ways it envisioned advantage/disadvantage and skill checks in its early days before it came out with class abilities. Fate and Dungeon World (or similar) are this. D&D isn't. I actually agree that there's a slight bit more nailed to the floor in 4e but the differences are immaterial when compared to other systems that do this right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
When 5e dies I'll try to use the opportunity to get my group off the branded poo poo, because I've seen FUDGE and Fate, but never had the chance to play them what with the brand loyalty floating around. It's true that's what I'd really want, but at the same time I feel that 5e is the closest compromise given that my group are going to take DnD offerings out of sheer brand recognition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:What I've found from Pathfinder onward is that the play style I'm describing is generally how people start out on DnD until a bad GM has crushed their dreams by saying various disguised forms of "no" until they eventually just hold dogmatically to the actions they have specific rules for. Playing in that game is so boring. Having a chandelier that's designed to be swung from is a plaster over the issue Imo. When we played the DnD Next playtest we handed out Advantage/Disadvantage like candy and it got nuts what people were thinking of to try and turn the tides in their favour. We had people divebombing off balconies and putting low obstacles down to create difficult terrain and where it exceeded previous editions is that this incarnation of the advantage rules made it a useful thing to do. Admittedly this was also around the time where Pirates of the Carribean was hot in everyone's minds so that may have had an influence. The trouble with this is that swinging from the chandelier is a genre trope. In the real world it is the sort of thing that would get you stabbed for moving in a straight line for a second with one of your arms over your head. This doesn't make introducing genre tropes into your game a bad thing. At all. But the question about putting them in the core rules is whether they fit the genre of the game you're introducing it to. When some of your main characters are supposed to be wearing heavy armour and carrying swords and shields they don't have the free hands to grab the chandeliers. So either you can tell the sword and board fighters and clerics in the core rules "no, you suck" or you don't put chandelier swinging in the default core rules. Divebombing is again a genre trope especially when the other guys are carrying spears. Of course I've done divebombing in 4e. Repeatedly in multiple games. And got advantages out of it. But this was because I'd designed my rogue (in one game) and my monk (in the other) with that sort of play in mind. Divebombing with a sword and board fighter or cleric in plate armour is something you only do from ambush. I've never either done or seen divebombing in 5e although might if I play another monk. On the other hand what you want to do is perfectly in line with Feng Shui 2. This would appear to be a problem of you not wanting the same thing D&D offers. Azza Bamboo posted:Which are never as useful as just keeping to your action cards, unless there's an acid vat that is specifically designed to be. For some value of "never" that involves either your DM not following the rules or you not trying hard. Your basic attacks are normally better than the standard repeatable damage expressions - it's normally better to stab someone than to come up with something creative. But if you come up with something actively creative there's the limited damage expressions - which are (barring DMG damage scaling badly) intended to do more damage than at will attacks. Also there are plenty of times when a minor action can help - and if that would help then you can do it on top of actively using something designed to do damage that you train with to do damage. So no. Your problem isn't with the rules of 4e. It's with a DM not using the 4e rules, and with you expecting improv actions to be tuned more strongly than they are. I've seen plenty of improvised actions in 4e and made more than my fair share - and treated them rules as written. The advantage of 4e having such good guidance for damage is that as a DM you can just put things down without having them specifically designed with player actions in mind; the rules will catch you when the players come up with something. quote:We milestone. The guys never liked keeping track of another arbitrary number. In short 4e literally incentivises what you want. You just don't like it because your house rules get in the way. Which is fair enough at one level but at another doesn't mean the game doesn't do exactly what you want. quote:We've been doing this since 3.5, and the GM has always been encouraged to set DCs according to a difficulty chart, but 5e's balance seems to make advantage much more significant. Advantage is worth about +4 not +2 and doesn't stack. Fair enough. But it's also a very simple fix. quote:Which brings us onto the other reason why advantage owns. You don't have to bring an abacus for each attack. 5e doesn't remove that problem entirely, and 3.5 was by far the worst offender for this, but I hate the conversations of "where's that +2 coming from ?" and "wait don't you get +1 to that because I activated my aura of dfapduojhzsdlkjvasdeaaaargh And this is the big advantage of advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Creating some kind of codified rule specifically for swinging from the ceiling would suck, yes. I've been banging that drum since I started saying "chandeliers specifically designed to swing from" but what was being discussed is some way of rewarding unusual novel plays agnostic of what that play specifically is. I'm not frightened of the fact that you're going to have to make a judgment call on whether everyone can do what someone has done before, or whether you just try to say "let's be reasonable here" and then seek out opportunities for the cleric in heavy armor to do something the rogue couldn't do. Like, say, crush someone's foot or barge through a plaster wall.
Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
I'd say that if a room a combat encounter takes place in happens to have a chandelier, then the DM shouldn't check to see if it snaps when swung from to ruin your grand moment of fun and give you advantage in your next attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can you for my friend, explain what Boons/Banes is? The system only uses a d20, and d6's. Boons and Banes fall into the latter category. Say you roll a d20, and you have a +3. But you got a bane on the attack roll. You get a 15 on the d20, but because you rolled a 2 on the d6 you knock it down to a 13. Now you could have a lot of banes, but you don't add them together. You always just use the biggest number. What the amount of boons/banes you roll determines is how likely you are to get a +/- 6 to the result. This kind of replaces proficiency, and all sorts of little fiddly modifiers on top of it. So the system they are from does a lot of the stuff that Azza liked about the initial playtest/the meat of 5e. There's a lot less fiddly modifiers, they even killed CON and CHA so there's only 4 main ability scores. Every number above 10 is an additional +1. It's nice and smooth, also no saving throws. You're generally "attacking" the targets score which gives some meaning to it. The math is also a lot less crazy. 10 levels, players might end up with like 80 health max and your big scary monsters only about 200.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Creating some kind of codified rule specifically for swinging from the ceiling would suck, yes. I've been banging that drum since I started saying "chandeliers specifically designed to swing from" but what was being discussed is some way of rewarding unusual novel plays agnostic of what that play specifically is. I'm not frightened of the fact that you're going to have to make a judgment call on whether everyone can do what someone has done before, or whether you just try to say "let's be reasonable here" and then seek out opportunities for the cleric in heavy armor to do something the rogue couldn't do. Like, say, crush someone's foot or barge through a plaster wall. There are three different types of play here - and they need different types of rule.
The help/hinder play is the one you're thinking of - where 5e offers advantage as a more visceral outcome than the +/-2 of the previous editions. Possibly 5e does do that best. (When it comes to the target range 4e has a similar one to 5e because everything scales in 4e and nothing does in 5e) But almost all forms of D&D do this. When it comes to the damage play 4e is the only one to do this. You might want it to be higher - but IME from both sides of the table as long as you're triggering and using the limited damage expressions it's more than fine. If you aren't ... what are you doing? 4e wins. If you're using something unlimited ... what's this thing that's not limited but is somehow better than using actual combat weapons? (Crushing someone's foot isn't it). As for the positional play 5e is the worst. This is the play where your object isn't specifically to hurt someone but to get in among their back line and punk either the spellcasters or the archers. In 3.5 and 4e casting non-close combat spells provoked attacks of opportunity; spellcasters hated being mugged. 5e spellcasters don't care because their penalty is disadvantage on attack rolls ... so they just break out the spells that require saving throws. Meanwhile archers in 3.5 switch from bows (where they make attack rolls with Dex) to something like a shortsword where they make attack rolls with Str (and so lose the ability to hit) while archers in 4e tend to lose their high damage expression (+25% baseline damage) for a low one (-25% damage), losing 40% of their normal damage. 5e archers? Draw their shortswords which (like their bows) use Dex to hit and damage. Dropping from a longbow to a shortsword keeps your to hit roll the same (Dex + proficiency) and drops your damage from 1d8+dex to 1d6+dex. W00t! (Does this make it completely pointless? No - the back line normally has a lower AC. But it makes it the least pointful). So if we use the chandelier example the reason to swing on a chandelier is likely to be not to attack someone with a sword ready and waiting, but to get at the archers that are trying to shoot you. It's least valuable in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Blooming Brilliant posted:Got a ruling question since I'm brainstorming a Crusher + Mage Slayer Drunken Master Monk build. quote:Secondly, Crusher's forced movement effect is once per turn. Does that mean I can Crusher on my reaction attack, along with Crusher on my turn as well, or can I only Crusher one my actual turn/once during the entire round? quote:To basically lay out what I'd hope is possible: Drunken Sway next to a Mage, reaction attack a Mage that attempts to touch spell me, I Crusher them away eating their action since they're now out of range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:There are three different types of play here - and they need different types of rule. Why is your immediate reaction to a general rule to try and split it into different parts and granularise each part? Not only that, but parts that pertain only to the specifics of an abstraction of combat as opposed to making an attempt at viewing the scenery as a person, or better, a writer of fiction, would? It seems like you're struggling to think outside of this being some kind of wargame, and are then arguing that 4e is better because it provides the wargame goods. You're splitting it apart into "is it a buff, is it a damage boost or does it do interesting things with the battle lines?" Instead of thinking "does it actually encourage people to think of something novel to do?" I'm asking for the game mechanics to encourage people to break out of the "I did it because it's the specific thing written on my character sheet" type thinking and your response is "but 5e doesn't create the roles I expect in my wargames" Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:Hows everyone like the Theros book. Ive been having a lot of fun with it after watching Clash of the Titans. And the two new subclasses seem pretty cool. I'm glad Theros finally added a rule for "Feat at Level 1" like everyone has been clamouring about. As for the subclasses, I find Glory Paladin to be a bit confused about what it's really there to do (though it's higher level shield-and-intercept move is really cool). Eloquence Bard is the Bard I would encourage anyone play as a first time Bard because it makes things the Bard is inclined to be (Party Face and Support Combatant) far far stronger. If you just want to play a super-traditional DnD Bard I would tell you go Eloquence every single time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Why is your immediate reaction to a general rule to try and split it into different parts and granularise each part? Not only that, but parts that pertain only to the specifics of an abstraction of combat as opposed to making an attempt at viewing the scenery as a person, or better, a writer of fiction, would? It seems like you're struggling to think outside of this being some kind of wargame, and are then arguing that 4e is better because it provides the wargame goods. You're splitting it apart into "is it a buff, is it a damage boost or does it do interesting things with the battle lines?" Instead of thinking "does it actually encourage people to think of something novel to do?" I'm asking for the game mechanics to encourage people to break out of the "I did it because I'm a tank and I know I can take the hit" type thinking and your response is "but 5e doesn't create the roles I expect in my wargames" Because this is how DnD has already codified actions? Like a lot of people are saying what you want isn't really something that modern-day DnD provides. It has rules for some of it but you seem to chafe under the idea that having a flexible system for these situations isn't "what you want" and that you aren't being rewarded for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
No I'm arguing the system isn't actually flexible it just uses an optical illusion to make it look like it's bending when really your attempts at doing something the game didn't anticipate in its specificity will likely become a dud. And my cheese is that the playtest of Next made it work for a brief moment, and then just farted on it come the release. When that happens I will take my right to say "this is what DnD could have been: better" If people's complaints about how 5e turned out are that it's not 4e and that it tries to be 3.5, why not just let it tip the balance slightly toward the more freeform play and have that become its own thing? Is it because muh wargames? Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:How’s everyone like the Theros book. I’ve been having a lot of fun with it after watching Clash of the Titans. And the two new subclasses seem pretty cool. I like it and wish I had time to play. I’ve been looking forward to an “Age of Mythology” campaign for a while. Minotaur looks especially fun. I was trying to theory craft a melee strength monster slayer ranger for a (pretend) Theros campaign because the theme is cool, but I couldn’t get it to come together. Maybe a nice spear and shield battle-master fighter would work though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Is it because muh wargames? I don't think you really know what wargames are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
I WAS A NAVY SEAL FOR 50 YEARS I DID WARGAMES AGAINST THE IRANIANS YOU LITTLE BITCH. ALL THE NERDS TRIED TO USE STATISTICS LIKE GUN RANGE TO GET THE UPPER HAND, AND THEY ALL LOST BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. THEIR ARMOR DIVISION RELIED ON ITS TANKS BUT DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT I'D PUT A LOG IN THEIR TRACKS AND DISLODGE THE TREAD. THEIR INTELLIGENCE SQUADS TRIED TO LISTEN TO OUR RADIOS BUT I WAS CARRYING MESSAGES BY MOTORCYCLE OVER THE FARMLANDS. THEY WERE EXPECTING PARATROOPERS BUT THEY WEREN'T EXPECTING ME TO USE THE SKYHOOK TO DROP ON THEM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. TOP OF EVERY BUILDING EVERY TIME. YOU HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX TO WIN AT WARGAMES. DND IS BAD AT WARGAMES. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Just wanted to say thank you for this advice, some great ideas in here. I think I have to start splitting focus after PotA then-- use the end to start a Planescape adventure of sorts, then change gears and start them on another campaign to pick up the high levels later. I really want to run this other FR content with them. The only rub is at least one player is clearly very attached to her Druid, so I don't want to just leave her by the wayside, but I honestly can't think of how to get her into another adventure that would feel "fair."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
But did the Iranians consider using chandeliers
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:But did the Iranians consider using chandeliers Why do you think they won? We were on their turf. I could skyhook myself onto the palace, but inside the chandeliers were everywhere, and they knew where their chandeliers were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I WAS A NAVY SEAL FOR 50 YEARS I DID WARGAMES AGAINST THE IRANIANS YOU LITTLE BITCH. DnD is bad at wargames because DnD is by mechanical and genre conceit literally not a wargame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
So you agree that DnD at no point should feel like a wargame with one man armies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
Don't gotcha me, bro. I am saying that Wargames and DnD operate on completely different levels and if you're gonna pull this poo poo I'm just gonna disengage since this is some bad faith nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Monathin posted:DnD is bad at wargames because DnD is by mechanical and genre conceit literally not a wargame. Where do medieval wargamers get their water from? Seriously there is no way to argue with someone who just wants to come from technical definitions and "well actually" without meeting the point I'm making. My bad faith is a response to your pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
4e D&D was all about tactics, squad based war games are all about tactics, therefore they are the same. Except that D&D made you pretend talk to pretend people before going on your next assignment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Where do medieval wargamers get their water from? If it's pedantry to point out you are literally using the word in a way that does not actually convey your point in the way you think it does, because the word has specific conceits that do not match the argument at hand, then, yes, I suppose so. Seriously you're being a dumbass and I'm out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
By technical definitions and the splitting of the hairs on my necky neck neck? Not the same. By how they felt, however, this statement...nelson posted:4e D&D was all about tactics, squad based war games are all about tactics, therefore they are the same. Except that D&D made you pretend talk to pretend people before going on your next assignment. ...is pretty spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
Tactics is a big word for ‘stand around the boss and nova’ but if you really want to pretend you’re Boudicca, sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
Monathin posted:your point in the way you think it does So you got my point and chose to ignore it because conceeeeeits are more important than what we were even talking about to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:How’s everyone like the Theros book. I’ve been having a lot of fun with it after watching Clash of the Titans. And the two new subclasses seem pretty cool. People have mentioned the sub-classes and the Level 1 stuff (honestly I think some of the non-feat options are cooler) but my favorite part of the book is the Piety system and how in-depth they go into the gods. There's just a whole ton of information you can use wholesale if you're going to run in the Theros setting, or lift the structure for your own game. I fully intend to reflavor the Piety stuff to fit into my games world. Also I'm really confused about what the everliving gently caress is going on above me now. As I mentioned myself, I'm fully open to players trying poo poo that isn't on their sheet. Sometimes what they try works out better as some kind of codified thing later (like the barbarian in my group who kept trying to frighten things by yelling at them), but you really don't need a charge-based ability to be able to do acrobatic maneuvers or feats of strength. Arthil fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:That depends on whether you mean they were in conceptually (in which case yes they were) or whether they were in practically. You can't just say "I hit him" with pre-Slayer 4e martial characters - instead you start out with four different ways of hitting someone at first level (two at wills, an encounter, and a daily). If you just want to hit someone this is a high and annoying overhead that the slayer just doesn't have, especially as the way their options were split out meant that at any time they were only making a simple choice (leaving in stance, deciding who to hit, then deciding whether to do extra damage). I've seen switching over to a scout completely revolutionise how fluidly someone was playing and how much fun they were having - just because they could stay in a single stance and only have to decide who to attack. A real Fighter and an Essentials Fighter both have two at-wills and a per-encounter to start, but the former also has a Daily. Each is equally capable of mindless "I hit him" play, where they just use their most generically useful at-will over and over again (iirc this would be Reaving Strike for the battlemaster, while the Slayer has to make the opaque choice between +2 hit and +2 damage for some reason). On the other hand, each starts with four ways to hit someone, because the Slayer has to choose between two Stances and then choose whether to Power Strike. I appreciate that the "flowchart" mode works better for some people than the "hand of cards" mode of taking your turn, but A) that's not universally true and B) you could probably give someone a battlemaster flowchart to follow if they wanted. ("Spend your encounter attacks -> choose between your favorite at-will and a daily based on if it looks like you're in trouble") In my experience, the accumulating passive traits and interlocking powers with accumulating effects associated with the "simple" Essentials classes often made them fiddlier to play than characters who could just pick a single power, fire it off, and follow its instructions top to bottom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
I'm cracking up at this and the last page because swinging from a chandelier is literally the first example used on page 42.Azza Bamboo posted:When 5e dies I'll try to use the opportunity to get my group off the branded poo poo, because I've seen FUDGE and Fate, but never had the chance to play them what with the brand loyalty floating around. It's true that's what I'd really want, but at the same time I feel that 5e is the closest compromise given that my group are going to take DnD offerings out of sheer brand recognition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
nelson posted:After the spell is cast. Okay cool, thanks for explaining 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 12:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Talk to your DM and see if they'd like a night off then bring FIASCO or something. If you're bringing FATE or *world or what have you bring premade characters and a one shot. I can't remember if it's an actual playbook or if my friend made it from scratch, but he got a bunch of D&D players into storygames by playing Fiasco with the setup "you've made it out of the dungeon with all this loot, and..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I WAS A NAVY SEAL FOR 50 YEARS I DID WARGAMES AGAINST THE IRANIANS YOU LITTLE BITCH. Raenir Salazar posted:I think a good example to support Azzo's argument is the dive attacks from Dark Souls. There's no mechanical advantage, not even attacking at advantage, to jump up to a big height and jumping down pointy end of my stick first and landing it. If you're saying that D&D in general doesn't do improv combat as well as *world or Genesys then I'm 100% in agreement. Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 12:57
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Which are never as useful as just keeping to your action cards, unless there's an acid vat that is specifically designed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
I get the feeling these forums have a boner for a certain system and at that point I may as well be offering the word of Mohammad at a pentecostal church. Even if the numbers and the pages somehow tick every technical box, 4e failed to make itself feel less regimented in your options. But you're not going to address that because 4e is your lord and saviour and that's fair enough. You can read John chapter 5 page 42 as much as you want, it doesn't change the lived experience, and in the end that's what brings people to church. If you choose to believe it's the GM's fault and that your bride system can't possibly go wrong then go for it. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I can't remember if it's an actual playbook or if my friend made it from scratch, but he got a bunch of D&D players into storygames by playing Fiasco with the setup "you've made it out of the dungeon with all this loot, and..." I believe that’s an actual playset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I get the feeling these forums have a boner for a certain system and at that point I may as well be offering the word of Mohammad at a pentecostal church. If you'd said that the to-hit and difficulty scaling broke down in later levels, that ability scores were hosed, that by mid paragon you had way to many powers to choose from, said literally anything bad about feats, or any of the other dozens of actual, genuine, demonstrable issues with 4e, the past two pages would have been nothing but  . You picked a hill to die on that wasn't even a hill, it was a crevasse, and now you're sitting in your hole mumbling "well I feel tall".e: but for reals play that fiasco thing with your group that nerdlington mentioned, it shouldn't be a hard sell for a one night once off Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
I'll play fiasco, but this wasn't about getting a one up. I just want DnD to feel like it did that night we got the DnD next playtest and we were riffing. I might not have correctly identified what made 4e feel so restricted compared to 5e or why I feel disappointed at 5e since its release, but god if everyone here gets their cudgels out the moment someone steps out of the technicality of the matter, of course I'm going to get threatened and sit here with two fingers up. If you want other comments: I wasn't high enough level to encounter the paragon issues. 4e's feat and multiclass system(s) were weird but anything that wasn't 3.5e's absolute mess was actually pretty welcome to me at the time I came across 4e. More damage is at least throwing some bones but on the dice it never beat just making sure your encounters stay divided and don't run over into each other and in the combat it never felt as present as the reward of advantage did that night. The 4e mechanics were there but were a sideline, where 5e had a clear chance to make it front row and center. In the brief rest where we could interpret it that way, it was great, and then it went. While I've swayed into edition wars and statements about specific rules that will always bring out the worst in everyone, my fundamental point is that 5e had a chance to be better than it was by putting that as a very general reward system, and they stuffed it. 4e having a sidenote that could theoretically work this way is nice but it never came out in practice, and that's always the best test of whether it's working. Not "is number bigger" but "do people actually go for it?" Given how central advantage is in 5e, hell do they go for it when coming up with something good is the main way to get it. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 15:06
|
|