|
megane posted:Don't be silly, if fighters were good or interesting it wouldn't "feel like D&D" it would only feel like every edition of D&D prior to 3e, and also 4e
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
YggdrasilTM posted:My problems with Paladins (and I'm PLAYING a paladin) that right now you are almost only crit fishing (which is boring), and that 90% of the smile spells are worse that just spending the slot for a normal smite, unless you are staking (which is even more boring). This seems to be fixed with the new Paladin. The various smites all seem like legit options. New Rogue also seems cool. Yusin fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
New Rogue is cool enough that I am petitioning my DM to allow it in the next campaign. It does remind me of our trip-happy Battlemaster from the last game but I think the nuances of the saves and only getting one per turn will make it different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Yusin posted:This seems to be fixed with the new Paladin. The various smites all seem like legit options. It'll get nerfed into the ground after the playtest, just you watch
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
New rogue seemed like I actually wanted to play a swashbuckler, maybe as a fighter multiclass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Enshrining Steady Aim was a mistake IMO. I allowed it in the campaign I just ran and it meant the rogue had a very simple decision tree. He could move if he had a spot to hide or if an ally was allowing sneak attack on his intended target. If neither of those were possible, he’d Steady Aim. Which left the rogue spending a lot of combats not moving at all. If sneak attack is vital for the rogue DPS, then there needs to be a mechanism for rogues to “earn” the SA without turning their tactics into “I stand there and attack with advantage.” Monks have at least some mechanisms for doing hit and run attacks. Rogues should be even better at that, not getting put in a situation where they either shoot with advantage, move to new cover, and hide or they just stand where they are and Steady Aim. Especially as that’s the opposite of the tactics you’d expect at range: if you have a good hiding spot in cover, why would you have to constantly abandon it for another hiding spot instead of staying in place? I suppose given how many enemies in the system have no effective ranged attacks, it doesn’t make much difference unless the GM decides a foe will just ignore melee-range PCs to run after the rogue. And I guess if your GM allows you to keep hiding in the same spot without moving and doesn’t have the monsters try to reposition so they can see you, shoot and scoot tactics aren’t necessary. But I’d prefer some sort of bonus action distraction that grants rogues SA and that requires them to move instead of requiring them not to, preferably coupled with a built-in AC boost against opportunity attacks, over the Steady Aim solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Enshrining Steady Aim was a mistake IMO. I allowed it in the campaign I just ran and it meant the rogue had a very simple decision tree. He could move if he had a spot to hide or if an ally was allowing sneak attack on his intended target. If neither of those were possible, he’d Steady Aim. Which left the rogue spending a lot of combats not moving at all. If sneak attack is vital for the rogue DPS, then there needs to be a mechanism for rogues to “earn” the SA without turning their tactics into “I stand there and attack with advantage.” Just give your rogue a horse...then they can steady aim every turn, while the horse does all the moving for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Enshrining Steady Aim was a mistake IMO. I allowed it in the campaign I just ran and it meant the rogue had a very simple decision tree. He could move if he had a spot to hide or if an ally was allowing sneak attack on his intended target. If neither of those were possible, he’d Steady Aim. Which left the rogue spending a lot of combats not moving at all. If sneak attack is vital for the rogue DPS, then there needs to be a mechanism for rogues to “earn” the SA without turning their tactics into “I stand there and attack with advantage.” Nah. Steady Aim fixes a core design mistake and Cunning Sneak means they don't put in the one you are looking at. The 2014 playloop was meant to be "can you get Sneak Attack?" - but was a problem because the 2014 "balance" assumed that you did get Sneak Attack so a badly played rogue was waving around a wet noodle. Between Vex, Nick, and Steady Aim all but the most incompetent rogues should get sneak attack almost every turn - but to get round the fact this takes gameplay away rogues also have the skill bonus of the other uses of Cunning Action and the tactical options of Cunning Sneak so they keep more tactical options and gameplay than the 2014 martial classes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
I'm really glad they're effectively getting rid of Favored Enemies and just shifting that to hunter's mark with Ranger. It needed to happen. Being at the mercy of your GM to get 100% out of your basic class design is something I'm surprised has survived this long at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Yusin posted:New Rogue also seems cool. Indeed it does, very much liking cunning strikes and the related additions to rogue sub-classes. Swashbuckler has some cool options via the reworked panache, and arcane trickster using mage hand to disarm/trip is also very cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
My brother had a GM on RPoL give him poo poo and kick him from the game for Metagaming when he was trying to make a Pathfinder Ranger and asked what would be a good favored enemy to take 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:My brother had a GM on RPoL give him poo poo and kick him from the game for Metagaming when he was trying to make a Pathfinder Ranger and asked what would be a good favored enemy to take There's a weird segment of DND players (I've never encountered them with any other tabletop game) who exhibit wild hysteria over any interaction with the game part of DND. I get that roleplaying is important, but there's a whole rulebook, right? Forcing someone to randomly pick a favored enemy and then having it never come up feels extremely bad and just causes resentment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:I'm really glad they're effectively getting rid of Favored Enemies and just shifting that to hunter's mark with Ranger. It needed to happen. Being at the mercy of your GM to get 100% out of your basic class design is something I'm surprised has survived this long at all. When I made a ranger I just picked Favored Enemies who had languages I wanted to learn. As a ranger I had poo poo charisma, but I could speak so many languages. I took the Fey Wanderer subclass mainly so I would have some chance of actually using those languages without screwing it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
Favored Enemy is kinda dumb anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
I feel really bad about the last time I ran a ranger for one of my friends, I didn't listen to his favoured foe choice either. I didn't listen to a bunch of stuff come to think of it, I had that 1st time DM "I have a brilliant idea for this campaign and by god am I going to wedge whatever characters you make into it" mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Panderfringe posted:There's a weird segment of DND players (I've never encountered them with any other tabletop game) who exhibit wild hysteria over any interaction with the game part of DND. I get that roleplaying is important, but there's a whole rulebook, right? Forcing someone to randomly pick a favored enemy and then having it never come up feels extremely bad and just causes resentment. The culture got the idea that the game was supposed to simulate a world instead of be, like, a game, so it was the players' responsibility to self-balance by choosing to play badly in the name of "good roleplay". When a D&D came out that had actual design, a lot of people melted down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
I always marvel at the other players at my table who know what the tactically correct move is in a turn, then look for an RP reason why they shouldn't do it. It's like people are trained to feel guilty for playing optimally, and look for an excuse to play poorly to assuage the guilt of knowing the optimal move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
It's one thing if like your character doesn't have libe of sight so wouldn't know yet that they need to respond to (thing around the corner) It's another if your cleric doesn't feel like healing and the tank is on his last death save
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Luceo posted:I always marvel at the other players at my table who know what the tactically correct move is in a turn, then look for an RP reason why they shouldn't do it. It's like people are trained to feel guilty for playing optimally, and look for an excuse to play poorly to assuage the guilt of knowing the optimal move. I had a player like that in my current science/fantasy campaign. They frequently stated they couldn't see what was going on everywhere, etc. I sat them down and explained that they are a competent warrior and the optimal play would naturally come to them. Especially so as they were a battlemaster; you can't be a master of battle and be an idiot at the same time. And, of course, being a little meta makes the game part of the game run smoother and keeps people happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Early in my last campaign the party decided that they didn't know the whole "kill trolls with fire" thing because it would be metagaming so I rolled with it as they all spent about 45 real time minutes trying to figure out how to in character figure out how to kill something they all knew how to kill anyways when none of them had any abilities that dealt fire damage. Then we had a conversation about how they're all adventurers who would have heard stories about monsters and we all collectively decided that the whole troll combat was unfun and in the future they'd not act like they've all got amnesia and just woke up at the mouth of the dungeon. I get that we've all been burned by that annoying player who metagames any and all fun out of the game but jfc don't overcorrect so bad you create an unfun time trying to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
I've long since given up trying to separate what my character knows from what I know. My character is an extension of me and knows what I know. I don't care how meta it is, it keeps me sane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Early in my last campaign the party decided that they didn't know the whole "kill trolls with fire" thing because it would be metagaming so I rolled with it as they all spent about 45 real time minutes trying to figure out how to in character figure out how to kill something they all knew how to kill anyways when none of them had any abilities that dealt fire damage. The troll story is an amazing example because the obvious outcome is that in trying not to metagame, you've started metagaming your metagame into trying to figure out when it would be "reasonable" for you to "figure out" the thing you already knew. You're trying to game the rules that you've placed on top of the rules so you don't game them. It would be absurd for a D&D-themed comedy sketch, or a Paranoia meme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
5e has monster knowledge checks for that poo poo already!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've long since given up trying to separate what my character knows from what I know. My character is an extension of me and knows what I know. I don't care how meta it is, it keeps me sane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Arivia posted:5e has monster knowledge checks for that poo poo already! It ended up with them getting the knowledge by passing an insight check, which they specifically declined to do earlier because, for reasons I still am unclear on, they had decided that asking for an insight check would be metagaming. It was an exceptionally dumb sequence even by TTRPG standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Asking "do I know anything about trolls?" and using a mechanic built in to the system to answer that question is metagaming, more at 11.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:Asking "do I know anything about trolls?" and using a mechanic built in to the system to answer that question is metagaming, more at 11. No, you don't understand, their characters wouldn't know enough to think, they would just keep blindly chopping into goop over and over until everyone became super frustrated. They're just playing their characters. It was one of the dumbest rules/system/theory slapfights I've ever been a part of and they wouldn't take my "one of you would have heard you gotta burn them with fire or dissolve them with acid" comment until after much annoyance, they agreed to do a check, got the advice, pulled out a torch and ended the encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
It's like they're playing a bizarre bluff game where they have to avoid "outing" themselves for cheating, except that everyone at the table knows everyone at the table knows, and they're just competing not to crack first. The whole virtuous roleplay theory is insane. Play the game as it presents itself! If you have to tie your consciousness in knots to second-guess and self-moderate for the game to work, it was a bad game anyway!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
I did have a problem a few years ago when I started playing with a new group and they were all relative virgins and I kept having to bite my lip and not say things like "no these are kobolds don't let them group up they'll get advantage" or the like. They all really truly didn't know though and the DM was balancing for that, so I just played a monk who didn't talk much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:they were all relative virgins I got really confused, like what, is kobolds getting advantage arousing or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
It depends. Like I'm willing to believe in most settings that there is some children's book or generalized stories about dealing with trolls or that Dragons breath fire in a cone so you know to spread out. Or like Vampires hate light/radiant damage. Or skeletons are weak to(or are only normally hurt by) maces and bludgeons Like if I was walking down the street and I saw a lady with snakes for hair I through various lore and stories would know to avert my eyes. But like if a player is doing some esoteric extremely OOC poo poo from the jump for something there is like no way you'd figure out from the jump because they have seen the monster block I'm going to be a bit unhappy as a GM. I wouldn't like tell them they can't do it or whatever, because at that point it's too late but would probably talk to them about that after the session.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:I got really confused, like what, is kobolds getting advantage arousing or something? I mean the DM did get excited describing the Rust Monster but not, you know, that kind of excited That one was a genuine problem because I was playing a melee character too
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
I remember the signposting being clear that the DM had a beholder in what was probably an optional area of the dungeon, and upon suggesting that we could just avoid it because beholder, I got "but do our characters know about beholders?!" back. Like, we're level 10 adventurers and a beholder's staple food is adventurers. Maybe we've heard of them y'all. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
There's a weird unspoken idea that I see a lot in the various D&D games I've played where obscuring AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE is somehow ideal for playing. DMs who are otherwise very good regularly start games, one-shots or otherwise, without providing more than the most meager of hooks, and the party ends up being a poor fit for the adventure or there's a lot of effort to excuse why these people are working together, because somehow we were all supposed to make characters in a near vacuum and have them just magically gel together. The last time I ran a 5e game, I asked my players to build into their character a strong reason why they would work with the others, I got push-back from a seasoned player, who then had to swap characters after one session because their initial idea was just not tenable with the party we ended up with. Other games build this poo poo in, I have no idea why people get so weird about it. Presenting a mystery and then demanding knowledge checks for stuff that IC should be common knowledge or easily discoverable is just silly to me. Your character lives in this world (usually), they logically should know more than the player could about how things work there. Even if the players figure out a mystery faster than the DM planned for, they still have to figure out what to do about it, and actually do it, and for me that's usually the really fun part. Why are we holding back the fun part?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
My party is in a Heart of Darkness-style one-shot cruising through merfolk rivers to hunt for a demon and they got a cannon added to their lovely dingy. Let me tell you, everyone was hooting and hollering the one time they actually managed to fire it during a kuo-toa ambush
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Every culture has all sorts of folk tales about the scary monsters out there in the world that got told to kids to keep them in line. Every person, adventurer or not, grew up with these tales and knows a little bit at least about the monsters native to their area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
It probably doesn't help that 5e makes Int an obvious dump stat unless you're wizardish. IRL you're a big nerd who learned about monsters from books, but your character is a dummy who doesn't read so how could he know anything?! Fantasy peasants get bored too. There are going to be plays, puppet shows, songs and stories. Even subsistence farmers and remote barbarian tribes will have songs and stories. Things equivalent to the LotR and Grimm's Fairy Tales are going to exist, and not just in book form. People know stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
Make a int check, if you have a knowledge you think would help add proficiency. 8.. you remember a children's song about trolls being scared of a fire breathing dragon, but not an ice breathing dragon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
This can also go the other way. A friend of mine was once playing a sorcerer in Lost Mine Of Phandelver, and there was an encounter with twig blights. Friend: OK, so I cast fire bolt DM: I'll just remind you that your character doesn't know what vulnerabilities these creatures have. Friend: fire bolt is my only ranged attack cantrip. And also these creatures are made of twigs. DM: *sigh* I guess...
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Lamuella posted:This can also go the other way. A friend of mine was once playing a sorcerer in Lost Mine Of Phandelver, and there was an encounter with twig blights. lol buh how can your character possibly know that plants are weak to fire??? metagame much?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 13:08
|
|
