|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Wait, when did that happen, that's hilarious. April 2020. They added this to the Sage Advice Compendium and Crawford has been salty ever since: The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECraw- ford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Apparently people have been confused about Cloud of Daggers for a long time now. https://twitter.com/dmdavidblog/status/1443566002277658633?s=20&t=yvZEnss4GTcCmOHoIVzoJw
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Why can druids use medium armor when the only nonmetal option is hide armor, which is worse than studded leather?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Why can druids use medium armor when the only nonmetal option is hide armor, which is worse than studded leather? Reflavor breastplate to be petrified wood. ezpz
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Why can they use scimitars but metal armor is off the table? Who can say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Why can druids use medium armor when the only nonmetal option is hide armor, which is worse than studded leather? Dragonscale isn't metal Except maybe metallic dragonscale. But it's not smart to advertise how you are willing to wear like a coat the flesh of a grand, benevolent and sapient creature anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Why can druids use medium armor when the only nonmetal option is hide armor, which is worse than studded leather? In addition to magic items that are inherently made from non-metal materials like dragon scale mail, the DMG also has "Strange Material. The item was created from a material that is bizarre given its purpose. Its durability is unaffected." in the minor property table in the special features section. So if your DM uses those tables you might get e.g. +1 half plate made from magical wood or something. Or a DM might just decide to let you get non-metal medium armor (magical or non-magical). But it's definitely not something you can count on without talking to your DM. But the real reason is probably that medium armor and shield proficiency are almost always a package deal. Mountain dwarves get medium armor but not shields, but I'm not sure if there's any way to get shield proficiency without medium armor proficiency?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:Dragonscale isn't metal What about dragon scales from a metallic dragon that was ethically sourced and collected - such as from shed scales only, or accompanied with a signed letter saying "I, the undersigned dragon, have given my full and knowing consent to this portion of my skin being used for one or several pieces of armor for the undersigned Druid?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:What about dragon scales from a metallic dragon that was ethically sourced and collected - such as from shed scales only, or accompanied with a signed letter saying "I, the undersigned dragon, have given my full and knowing consent to this portion of my skin being used for one or several pieces of armor for the undersigned Druid?" Hey, if you don't mind explaining yourself on a regular basis... And an elemental resistance is probably worth it. Might also help if it was made from the scales of a still-living metallic dragon who was a public figure, too. In our game there's an ancient silver dragon who is part of a council of wizards and sort of a celebrity. Wouldn't be a question of dragon murder to go about wearing his cast off scales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:What about dragon scales from a metallic dragon that was ethically sourced and collected - such as from shed scales only, or accompanied with a signed letter saying "I, the undersigned dragon, have given my full and knowing consent to this portion of my skin being used for one or several pieces of armor for the undersigned Druid?" You don't have to ask the creature that supplied the leather for leather armor why ask the dragon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
champagne posting posted:You don't have to ask the creature that supplied the leather for leather armor why ask the dragon? So that you wouldn't look like a villain in the case of a metallic dragon. It'd be like going around in what was visibly tanned human skin leather armor, only arguably worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
The "sustainably harvested from a consenting sentient creature" sign on my magic armour is raising questions that, etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
champagne posting posted:You don't have to ask the creature that supplied the leather for leather armor why ask the dragon? Because the dragon is a hoarder and gets REALLY mad if you try to dip into their boxes of shed dragonscales, or claw clippings, or back issues of the erotic weed magazine "High Fantasies" (They don't even read the articles, it's just about completing the collection).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Don’t mind me and my fair trade +1 studded dolphin armor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
This is my breastplate, made from organically handgrown human sternum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
imagine dungeons posted:Don’t mind me and my fair trade +1 studded dolphin armor. I oil it only with organic cold pressed baby oil made from cage-free, antibiotic free, free range babies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
From investigating futher, I have to imagine that the designer for Cloud of Daggers either wrote the spell before the rules for cubic AoEs were finalized or didn't understand how the rules work. Cloud of Daggers states it is centered on its point of origin. This contradicts the normal rules for cubes that say a cube's point of origin is along one of its faces and is not inside of its area of affect unless one chooses otherwise. In the case of Cloud of Daggers the cube's point of origin must be in the area of effect, at its center. If Cloud of Daggers is supposed to be centered on a point than maybe it shouldn't be a cube, and if it's supposed to be a cube then it shouldn't be centered on a point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:Reflavor breastplate to be petrified wood. ezpz In one of my campaigns, my Forge Cleric made giant crab shells into Scale Mail for the druid, but in retrospect, I should have said it was Half Plate armor. Also, if she takes any fire damage, the armor is going to turn bright red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Why can druids use medium armor when the only nonmetal option is hide armor, which is worse than studded leather? In addition to all the good points raised by other posters, who's gonna tell the Druid they can't wear a bunch of pelts for their armor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
On the topic of Druids… Are Circle of Spores Druids squishy or does the temp health balance it out pretty well? I’ve never seen one played. I’m sure being a Tortle or one of the other races that boosts AC helps a fair amount. I almost rolled one instead of a Fighter for this campaign but was a bit concerned about being too soft as the only melee character in the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
We just wrapped up a campaign with a full caster Circle of Spores Druid. They were super tanky, never got incapped, and were never hurting for resources. I've seen people claim that spores lends itself to melee tank Druids but it just seems like a strong subclass all around. The only downside is that your class skills use damage types that are commonly resisted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
imagine dungeons posted:On the topic of Druids… I played one and it was pretty great, once I had all the buffs up I hit hard, it was awesome. The only downside is if you want to shapechange often, since the spores use that resource. They're a great front line fighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess the floor on a full caster is always pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
It's very challenging to make a bad Druid. It's easily the most well rounded class. Better spells than the cleric, better melee combat than the Rogue, healing magic, animal companions, etc. Druids has it all, they are a one man party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It's very challenging to make a bad Druid. It's easily the most well rounded class. Better spells than the cleric, better melee combat than the Rogue, healing magic, animal companions, etc. Druids has it all, they are a one man party. I loved playing one most recently. The only downside is you have to be careful of outshining other members of the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Additionally, and I cannot stress this enough: D&D in 2022 is primarily focused on online play or at least online-adjacent play, and unclear rules with GM-smoothing over are not compatible with this on a fundamental level. While it is fair to criticize badly-written rules and the comical refusal to errata some of them, it is also fair to point out that rules can be ambiguous even if well-written and one of the purposes of having a referee is to adjudicate when the rules are unclear. If you’re playing online with strangers and you want to avoid any rules discussions, play a CRPG or play chess or something else where the platform handles the rules. Or just have a conversation at the start of the game and agree that in cases of rules confusion, the DM’s judgment holds. Because no RPG system has perfect rules, and even if one did, somebody would misread them and raise a stink during a game anyway. Just set a meta-rule in place and anyone who doesn’t agree can find another game. We’ve all opted in or out of games based on how the judges handled rulings. Imagine how a popular sport like baseball would work if, instead of having a set of agreed-upon rules and a single body in place to make changes slowly, the major league hired part-timers and freelancers to add all sorts of new rules which they could sell to players and teams for use in their games. Even with a consistent group of editors, you’d expect something like that would break down very quickly. Because RPG profits remain built in part on constant rules expansions and additions, things are bound to get unmanageable rapidly. I think 5E may actually suffer more from production pressures and the corporation’s demands, between release deadlines, earlier draft lock-in due to large print runs, and whatever page restrictions they’re operating under. Not having one official rules adjudicator for the edition’s lifetime doesn’t help either: a private RPG developer might put the owner in charge, but Hasbro is never going to allow one person that level of job security. D&D has not done very well, historically, with its rules. But are there other systems with similar longevity and quantity of supplemental materials that have done markedly better this far into their development cycle? Are there any that only trigger one rules question per online game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
I'm trying to come up with a name for neutral good outsiders, like how lawful good outsiders are angels and lawful evil outsiders are devils. My ideas so far were Goodfellows, Benefactors and Samaritans. Does anyone have other ideas or opinions on which of those is best?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Narsham posted:D&D has not done very well, historically, with its rules. But are there other systems with similar longevity and quantity of supplemental materials that have done markedly better this far into their development cycle? Are there any that only trigger one rules question per online game? The problem is: D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. It introduced a significant rules framework and then doesn't go the last mile of editing and review to support the framework it created. I've played many different games online and at conventions with strangers and by and large they either fall into (a) narrative-focused, rules-light where the emphasis is on the story and you say "I do thing" and the DM (and players) are there to decide how "thing" fits into the narrative or (b) crunchy stuff that's been built out to support a more structured playstyle, like PF2E. The former doesn't need to have a strict answer to "How do you X" because it gives players and DMs a structure of "How to put things into the narrative" and you basically always get to "Do X", you just don't always get your most-perfect result. The latter covers a lot more "Xes to do" and provides a lot of guidance on how to adjudicate "Xes that aren't planned for". 5E does neither. It pretends to be both sides, but it sets up an adversarial relationship between the players and the DM (and as a byproduct, each other) and fails to educate either side well on how to handle situations that occur. Just to give a good example: Treasure. How much loot do you give players, when and how do you give it to them, and how does that interact with the math of the system? In a narrative system, the answer is largely: do what you want as long as it serves the narrative and the math is largely secondary and matters little. In a crunchy system like PF2E, it's like "Here's the wealth by level, each magic item has an equivalent gp value and expected level, here's the crafting rules, if you don't want to do all that for basic stuff and keep magic items special, here's how to just add permanent bonuses at certain levels to make the math work". In 5E the answer is "who knows". The treasure charts break down, are written for specific party sizes and don't scale, they never address how +x weapons/armor fit into the bounded accuracy scale, and the 1st-party books range from showering PCs with above-level loot, to giving absolutely nothing of value. GP goes from being monumentally important for certain classes at level 1 to quickly being worthless. Build-defining items are just not available in 1st-party adventures and requires PCs to beg the DM for them in homebrew because there's no established acquisition method. Crafting is worthless. Like, there's a lot of basic stuff that just falls apart under cursory inspection and a lot of people have been asking, for years, for WotC to just codify the missing pieces and now to add them to DD1. We didn't just "sit here on a forum and complain". We gave WotC feedback on multiple avenues and they were not interested in fixing their product. We are still asking that they fix their next product. So, when you ask "Are there any that only trigger one rules question per online game?", it's an absurd question to me, because no game I usually play has the same 'kind' of rules questions as D&D, because they aren't full of holes where rules should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
NotNut posted:I'm trying to come up with a name for neutral good outsiders, like how lawful good outsiders are angels and lawful evil outsiders are devils. My ideas so far were Goodfellows, Benefactors and Samaritans. Does anyone have other ideas or opinions on which of those is best? Neutral good outsiders are typically animal people, like Leonals and Avorals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
NotNut posted:I'm trying to come up with a name for neutral good outsiders, like how lawful good outsiders are angels and lawful evil outsiders are devils. My ideas so far were Goodfellows, Benefactors and Samaritans. Does anyone have other ideas or opinions on which of those is best? Benefactors is the best in your list. Philanthropists might also work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Dogs are purely good and unconcerned by law or chaos. Therefore the group should be Good Boys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Neutral good outsiders are typically animal people, like Leonals and Avorals. I know. In my campaign they're not going to be though. The animal people are in the chaotic good plane instead. I'm not sure what the neutral good outsiders are going to look like but I want them distinct from from angels, who in my campaign look like seraphim and ophanim, and chaotic good outsiders that are like nature spirits. I might just end up making them look like people but radiantly attractive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Maybe "celestials" or "sidereals" or something like that? They could be sort of space-themed to highlight their neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
"What other long term popular game has better rules" is also a silly question unless you're looking to crib notes. Like the fact that D&D is old, clunky and under millions of eyes should be an argument for why it should be better. I would say there is no other game of similar size, age and complexity that does better. There are lots of games with better ideas though. 4e has better rules language (even if you insist on throwing everything else about it in the bin), 2e had a better "gamefeel", SWRPG is better at TotM etc. There are lots of games that have resolved specific problems D&D has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
NotNut posted:I'm trying to come up with a name for neutral good outsiders, like how lawful good outsiders are angels and lawful evil outsiders are devils. My ideas so far were Goodfellows, Benefactors and Samaritans. Does anyone have other ideas or opinions on which of those is best? Take a page out of Pathfinder and go with Archons for LG and Angels for NG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
D&D is clunky but might as well talk about how you deal with it/resolve it because no one from WotC is reading these posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Like, there's a lot of basic stuff that just falls apart under cursory inspection and a lot of people have been asking, for years, for WotC to just codify the missing pieces and now to add them to DD1. We didn't just "sit here on a forum and complain". We gave WotC feedback on multiple avenues and they were not interested in fixing their product. We are still asking that they fix their next product. this sort of thing really makes me wonder what the point of 5.5e is it's marketing
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
redleader posted:this sort of thing really makes me wonder what the point of 5.5e is it's marketing Of course it is. They don't make any money if people just play the game. They need players to buy stuff, mostly books, to stay viable. A well-thought out, stable, and internally consistent rule set that everyone likes would be the death of the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Of course it is. They don't make any money if people just play the game. They need players to buy stuff, mostly books, to stay viable. I don't think they could make that ideal game you described even if they tried. I doubt WOTC are sabotaging their own rules for profiteering reasons, personally. The moneymen at the top wouldn't have the nose to sniff that sort of thing out, and I doubt the designers are willing to knowingly make a bad product on purpose. It scans more as stubborn refusal to accommodate feedback than anything else to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Of course it is. They don't make any money if people just play the game. They need players to buy stuff, mostly books, to stay viable. That's not true Call of Cthulhu never changes their rules and they still exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 12:49
|
|