|
frajaq posted:If I'm creating monsters from scratch for my game, does the pure ability score itself themselves matter a lot or just the modifier ? Modifier is fine.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
why even have enemies that are resistant to magic weapons
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Farg posted:why even have enemies that are resistant to magic weapons Tradition
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Farg posted:why even have enemies that are resistant to magic weapons Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
How are the players meant to figure out which exact three spells actually do anything? I think I can guess the answer
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Everyone sucks until one person does the thing to make everyone awesome" is a Good Thing, but that's not what's happening here. I don't really buy that pre-countermeasure encounter difficulty has to be democratized. If the enemy wizard casts hold person on the rogue, and the allied cleric casts dispel magic on that rogue, and now the rogue's able to fight again, that is a perfectly appropriate enemy party/player character party interaction that would not be automatically improved if it had been hold person (mass) and antimagic field instead. You're doing a lot of special pleading in the specific examples I listed, too - what if invisibility (or darkness or something) doesn't affect most of the party? What if Haste's increase of the fighter's DPR is its principal effect on a fight in which everyone is otherwise already engaged and the enemy isn't attacking AC? (And like, Magic Weapon actually is a damage buff whether or not the monster is vulnerable to magic weapons, and while it's weaker than Haste it's also only a 2nd level spell rather than 3rd) What if the fighter's the only one who needs to cross the root bridge because everyone else has good ranged attacks (how is something being "good old fashioned terrain manipulation" an excuse for a power imbalance, anyway? If a monster can only be hurt by nonmagical weapons when it's in direct sunlight, and the sorcerer disintegrates the cave ceiling to illuminate it , that's suddenly fine?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:How are the players meant to figure out which exact three spells actually do anything? IIRC Tomb of Horrors was intended to be one of those things you fail at dozens if not hundreds of times before you succeed, if it was even possible to succeed at all? It's the epitome of 'tradition has no value in and of itself'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:IIRC Tomb of Horrors was intended to be one of those things you fail at dozens if not hundreds of times before you succeed, if it was even possible to succeed at all? Didn't someone post a while ago that when Gary ran Tomb of Horrors at conventions it was a huge flop? How did one of the worst modules of all time get a good reputation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Here's the thing: like so many things in the earliest beginnings of D&D, I don't think it actually HAS a good reputation as the thing it actually is. It has a rose-tinted nostalgia reputation from people who heard stories about it, house-ruled the gently caress out of it, read it on the toilet, and generally didn't actually play it as written.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Tomb of horrors was fine. As a module for long term play, yes, it would be utter bullshit. It was designed for laughy fun time tournament play, run at multiple tables, where the meaningful difference between groups was the water-cooler question, "how far did you get?" Comparing it to modern play is like comparing Dragon's Lair to Skyrim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
The difference between making a bridge of roots for people to dash across to attack enemies, and throwing a magic weapon enchantment on the fighter's weapon, is the first is using spells in a creative way to get around an interesting problem (the enemies are There and I'm not), whereas the second is checking off a box to continue playing. There's no puzzle to be solved with in an enemy that can only be hurt by magic weapons. There's no clever thinking. It's a purely binary check point. It's a "YOU MUST BE THIS MAGICAL TO GO ON THIS RIDE" sign, and you either pass it, or you don't. Take that earlier example. Enemies are on a platform away from us. What can we do? Well, we can use effects to negate the problem, use effects that bring us closer, or we can use effects that bring the enemies closer. Root bridge is the first one - using a spell to create a bridge, nullifying the problem of "there's a gap between us." You could also do it with mundane measures; a rogue is tossed across and uses their thievery bonus action to connect a bridge on the other side, or the ranger fires a rope across, or etc, etc. The second one is easier; teleport across, or just loving jump across and murder everything on the other side. And the last, again, has plenty of solutions on how to get enemies from A to B. That's why it's a (potentially) interesting problem - because the fun ends up being "how will the players decide to act?" But the magic weapon problem? What are the solutions? "Have a magic weapon." Ok, not something you can really do spur of the moment. "Cast Magic Weapon spell." So this is a problem with literally a single spell solution? There's nothing interesting about this problem, because it is, again, just a box you check off. And it's maddening because WotC refuses to admit the box is there, even as they develop around it's existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
now I'm at the part where I'm designing my first encounter for my game I was thinking one CR 3 monster and another CR 4 one with a different set of strengths/tools, but after checking the rules, just for being an encounter with multiple enemies I'm supposed to multiply the overall XP by 1.5 Is this Something That Actually Works in the system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:You're doing a lot of special pleading in the specific examples I listed, too - what if invisibility (or darkness or something) doesn't affect most of the party? Ferrinus posted:What if Haste's increase of the fighter's DPR is its principal effect on a fight in which everyone is otherwise already engaged and the enemy isn't attacking AC? (And like, Magic Weapon actually is a damage buff whether or not the monster is vulnerable to magic weapons, and while it's weaker than Haste it's also only a 2nd level spell rather than 3rd) Ferrinus posted:What if the fighter's the only one who needs to cross the root bridge because everyone else has good ranged attacks. (how is something being "good old fashioned terrain manipulation" an excuse for a power imbalance, anyway? If a monster can only be hurt by nonmagical weapons when it's in direct sunlight, and the sorcerer disintegrates the cave ceiling to illuminate it , that's suddenly fine?) It's not suddenly fine, because you've completely changed the circumstances. The assumption of your initial example that my reply depends on is that the ranged characters are one component of a fight that everyone is already capable of contributing to. The sorcerer and the fighter then team up to move the fighter from their expected area of contribution into an area where he can do even more damage than in a normal fight, resulting in an easy win through outside the box thinking. If it's that the fighter would otherwise be throwing their two throwing axes before sitting on the sidelines for the rest of the fight without the sorcerer's assistance then yes, that's dumb. That's what is meant by terrain manipulation, moving PCs or enemies into areas they aren't expected to be, while also carrying the baseline assumption that if they're where they're expected to be they can still perform to spec. Also your argument hinges on the fact that martials in D&D are also hosed over by forced specialisation into discrete weapon types, so two wrongs, not a right, etc. Ferrinus posted:I don't really buy that pre-countermeasure encounter difficulty has to be democratized. If the enemy wizard casts hold person on the rogue, and the allied cleric casts dispel magic on that rogue, and now the rogue's able to fight again, that is a perfectly appropriate enemy party/player character party interaction that would not be automatically improved if it had been hold person (mass) and antimagic field instead. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Stuns on PCs should never last more than a round. Or you should get active or resource based ways of getting un-stunned or something. Seriously. Getting stunlocked is worse than getting perma-killed because at least in the latter case you could make a new character or go home or run out and get beers or whatever, but when you get stunlocked you gotta sit there for an hour or two going "I guess I stay there doing nothing. Can anyone help this round?" every 20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The difference between making a bridge of roots for people to dash across to attack enemies, and throwing a magic weapon enchantment on the fighter's weapon, is the first is using spells in a creative way to get around an interesting problem (the enemies are There and I'm not), whereas the second is checking off a box to continue playing. There's no puzzle to be solved with in an enemy that can only be hurt by magic weapons. There's no clever thinking. It's a purely binary check point. It's a "YOU MUST BE THIS MAGICAL TO GO ON THIS RIDE" sign, and you either pass it, or you don't. There are actually a few spells that will render a weapon magical, with increasing bonuses somewhat commensurate to spell level. Magic Weapon's just the easiest because it's only level 2. There are also definitely other conceivable solutions to a creature being impervious to conventional weapons, but the 5e rules don't actually allow a fighter or rogue to strangle a Nemean lion or wrench a Grendel's arm out of its socket. I guess they theoretically allow a martial character to grapple and drag a monster into the area of a bonfire or something, but for the most part that's a fool's game because of how many points of failure it has and because as soon as the creature escapes your grapple it can walk by you like you aren't there because, whoops, it ignores your OAs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
so in summation you're wrong, you know you're wrong and you're arguing just to be a jackass?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Well if we're misquoting logical fallacies at each other your entire premise is based on the slippery slope fallacy and argument ad absurdum. A party who mostly ignores invisibility would be an unusual setup, while our complaint is that D&D played as "intended" is set up such that a part where only a minority of players lack magical attacks is pretty plausible. It would be unusual... but it would also be fine. It's okay if some obstacle poses a problem to a minority, rather than a majority, of the players. quote:I don't quite follow your first sentence. For the second, that's why I specifically called out Haste changing how the Fighter's turn functions. Magic Weapon just ups the damage and accuracy, and thousands of words have been typed on why +1s to attack and damage are the most boring buffs. Haste doesn't really change how the recipient's turn functions. For the most part it increases their outgoing damage and causes them to take less. This has a greater mathematical effect on damage output than +1 to attack and damage (unless your intended target can only be hurt by a magic weapon, in which case Magic Weapon has a much greater effect..!), but then it requires a higher level spell slot and also stuns the recipient as soon as it expires. So Magic Weapon is a weaker and more situational buff than Haste, but is cheaper to cast and in certain situations makes a dramatic difference. Also, Magic Weapon scales with someone's ability to make multiple attacks, while Haste doesn't. (They also synergize nicely if you've got two people who can sling buffs) quote:It's not suddenly fine, because you've completely changed the circumstances. The assumption of your initial example that my reply depends on is that the ranged characters are one component of a fight that everyone is already capable of contributing to. The sorcerer and the fighter then team up to move the fighter from their expected area of contribution into an area where he can do even more damage than in a normal fight, resulting in an easy win through outside the box thinking. If it's that the fighter would otherwise be throwing their two throwing axes before sitting on the sidelines for the rest of the fight without the sorcerer's assistance then yes, that's dumb. That's what is meant by terrain manipulation, moving PCs or enemies into areas they aren't expected to be, while also carrying the baseline assumption that if they're where they're expected to be they can still perform to spec. I don't really see "get our melee character into melee with the otherwise inaccessible enemies" as out of the box thinking so much as... thinking, and depending on the specifics it might turn a normal encounter into an easy one or be the one thing that makes a lethal encounter barely winnable. (They also determine whether, by creating a bridge or granting the power of flight or something, our context-reshaping spellcaster is merely saving the fighter a couple rounds of climbing or providing the only realistic means of crossing a canyon or flaming hell-fissure or something) quote:Also your argument hinges on the fact that martials in D&D are also hosed over by forced specialisation into discrete weapon types, so two wrongs, not a right, etc. I strongly agree that the rogue should have options (for instance, a daily power to wriggle free of any binding), but a monster placing a debuff on you - even a cripplingly bad debuff - which you yourself can't counter (maybe you could have taken, but didn't take, the hypothetical power I just described, so you're hoping the cleric can handle it for you) is fine. Elfgames posted:so in summation you're wrong, you know you're wrong and you're arguing just to be a jackass? No, I'm saying that monsters who can't be hurt by normal weapons are acceptable elements of a D&D game, while fighters without powers are not. Like, imagine a party of wizard, druid, cleric, bard, but the cleric and bard are both "melee" characters who only deal damage by attacking with nonmagical weapons (no attack cantrips, no damage spells learned/prepared). Even if the wizard's the only character who has Magic Weapon or equivalent on their sheet, this group can have a rollicking good time fighting a werewolf. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
frajaq posted:If I'm creating monsters from scratch for my game, does the pure ability score itself themselves matter a lot or just the modifier ? Modifier, though quite a few creatures have higher skills as if proficient in them that would bump them up compared to their raw modifier. Saving Throws also don't often line up with the modifier because of proficiency. As for the current argument, Ferrinus. The issue with that is it's a total waste of the Wizard's concentration. There are more powerful things they could use, of the same level, that would end the fight faster. It's like asking the Fighter to only use one of their many attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
The thing i don't like about the non-magical weapon thing s how magical weapons negate it. If it was limited to a very few amount of monsters where that was their specific gimmick then i think i could deal with it for a couple of fights in a campaign, but the idea that a sword that does nothing but glow can deal full damage to them tips it over to being a gently caress you to the guy who hasn't got a magic weapon yet for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Farg posted:why even have enemies that are resistant to magic weapons Well in some cases it can make enemies last longer, it also makes it harder for NPC's and non heroic people to take down powerful threats, which is why they have adventurers do it. There is nothing innately wrong with resistance. Immunity is the harder thing, Unless you have a magic weapon or the ability enchant your weapon, then you can't really participate against Monsters like that. It's why immunity is more rare then resistance. In other news Nathan Stewart the guy who likes to spoil things from the D&D Team said that a new setting book is coming out next year. It won't be for a new setting, as they have too many that they have not used for 5e yet, and he also stated that it's not going to be Spelljammer. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:There is nothing innately wrong with resistance. Immunity is the harder thing, Unless you have a weapon or the ability enchant your weapon then it's to participate. It's why immunity is more rare then resistance. The gently caress is this word salad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
I forgot to put in some words. It's fixed now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
It definitely feels like a weird thing to have be so common. A creature that cannot be harmed by normal means should be a powerful thing to have to deal with in an arc, not some thing you run into and go "Well poo poo!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It would be unusual... but it would also be fine. It's okay if some obstacle poses a problem to a minority, rather than a majority, of the players. So your argument is  only in so many more words
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:... it also makes it harder for NPC's and non heroic people to take down powerful threats, which is why they have adventurers do it. Yep, martials without magic weapons are non-heroic people who should only be NPCs, not adventurers. drat right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
I'm sorry I'm not super familiar with the vagaries of 5e balance or encounter design but it sounds like the way to fix this is for the DM to make sure there is a steady drip of magic and/or silvered weapons for the party. Given the fact that magic weapons both exist and are designed for PCs to wield them it seems like this is the intended experience, otherwise why are they in game at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:I'm sorry I'm not super familiar with the vagaries of 5e balance or encounter design but it sounds like the way to fix this is for the DM to make sure there is a steady drip of magic and/or silvered weapons for the party. Given the fact that magic weapons both exist and are designed for PCs to wield them it seems like this is the intended experience, otherwise why are they in game at all? Why have a resistance that is assumed to be ignored by everyone?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
CJ posted:Why have a resistance that is assumed to be ignored by everyone? Though in my own experience, In any edition, any system, any means. Awkward GMs get more upset at the fact you can deal a net positive damage of "More than zero" when they are expecting you to be hosed, than if you can roll absurdly high damage in normal circumstances. I liked to take Tainted Wounds (Any melee damage means the target can't regain HP through any means until the end of your next turn) in 4th ed over damage boosters for rogues, as much to keep a GM litmus test in my back pocket for the rare occasions it's application would turn up. Section Z fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Arthil posted:It definitely feels like a weird thing to have be so common. A creature that cannot be harmed by normal means should be a powerful thing to have to deal with in an arc, not some thing you run into and go "Well poo poo!" Resistant enemies can be hurt. Not as much as normal, but damage is damage. Creatures with full on Immunity are actually pretty rare. And the majority of them are big boss monsters with High CR's. Over all the Adventures and all the Monsters books there are 39 Monsters with Immunity to magic weapons. 16 are CR 10 or lower, and 15 are CR 20 or higher. The most notable of the pre CR 10 monsters are the Lycans and the Golems. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:I'm sorry I'm not super familiar with the vagaries of 5e balance or encounter design but it sounds like the way to fix this is for the DM to make sure there is a steady drip of magic and/or silvered weapons for the party. Given the fact that magic weapons both exist and are designed for PCs to wield them it seems like this is the intended experience, otherwise why are they in game at all? For certain people, magic weapons need to be both "an option that you don't need to include" and "the obvious way to solve the problems that come up if you don't include them", and this has to obviously mean that there are no problems to see here. MonsterEnvy posted:Restraint enemies can be hurt. Not as much but they can be. What the gently caress is a restraint enemy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
Resistant. My auto correct put out the wrong word there, sorry. Thanks for this point out it allowed me to fix another thing I messed up on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Why does it matter than creatures with resistance are usually high CR? Yes yes ok, you're technically correct and your statement is true, but in context of "some classes needing magic weapons is bad design", what does it matter that your statement is true?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
The Samurai in my game had a wish, and used it to wish for atonement from his god for failing to protect a relic that he had been tasked to guard. He received a vision that lead him to a a local blacksmith shop, specifically a box of broken blades and hilts. He found a broken sword that had his god's insignia on it, a weapon that had failed it's owner and also desired atonement. He began to use the broken blade exclusively and as they battle together they grew together, him in levels and the blade in length and power. Ultimately, the blade grew to a full sized weapon and he welcomed the new blade into his soul, and it revealed it's true name, Kagatsuchi (his choice). Bonded as one, he gained the ability to shutter the weapon away and recall it at will, as it was now part of him. Additionally, they continued to grow together and the blade unlocks new abilities as they grow. This is presented as an invisible achievement system to the player, when certain deeds are performed the sword will gain a new ability (i.e. he rolled two natural 20's on an advantaged melee attack and so the sword gained the Vicious modifier, increasing the damage of his crits). The blade is now an important part of his character and the way he fights, helping to overcome the the lack of options fighters have in combat by introducing new abilities to him and encouraging him to be creative in combat in hopes of achieving new upgrades for his blade. This is not really relevant to the magic weapon conversation, but I thought it was cool and wanted to share.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Why does it matter than creatures with resistance are usually high CR? Yes yes ok, you're technically correct and your statement is true, but in context of "some classes needing magic weapons is bad design", what does it matter that your statement is true? Immunity. Creatures with Resistance are much more common. And even though you won't be doing full damage to Resistant enemies you can still deal damage to them was my point. Creatures with Immunity are unlikely to show up by late levels, when you would have the tools to deal with them. In the most pedantic sense, classes don't need magic weapons. But even needing them is not bad design, you are expected to get them. You are expected according to Xanathar's guide to have 9 by level 5. Edit: Made mistake here. Xanathar's Guide says 11 Magic items by level 5. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:So your argument is I guess you could say, that I would say, that the problem with that image is the dog's lack of firefighting equipment and not the fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Immunity. Creatures with Resistance are much more common. And even though you won't be doing full damage to Resistant enemies you can still deal damage to them was my point. Creatures with Immunity are unlikely to show up by late levels, when you would have the tools to deal with them. What tools do fighters get, at higher levels, to deal with creatures immune to nonmagical attacks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What tools do fighters get, at higher levels, to deal with creatures immune to nonmagical attacks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What tools do fighters get, at higher levels, to deal with creatures immune to nonmagical attacks? Magic weapons
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:They have enough gold to hire a wizard to follow them around and cast Magic Weapon Bring back hirelings in 6E IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Toshimo posted:Bring back hirelings in 6E IMO. They're in the 5e dmg on pg 94
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 02:17
|
|