|
That was not the system's fault.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Yeah, that's your DM being a massive shithead.Master Twig posted:This exact thing has happened with them. Make them all play fighters when you (and any other non-grogs) play casters. See how long before they snap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Please talk to my friends. They claim all the spellcasters have limitations that bring them down to the same level and that you can be effective with any class you want. They all also think that 4e is a terrible system. I swear it's like I'm playing different games than all of them. I've seen this elsewhere and it broadly comes down to "wizards are weaker then they were in 3.x." Which is like, wow, no poo poo, it's impossible for them to be STRONGER without going full Ars Magicka or whatever, but remember that for far too many players, 3.x is the generic baseline. So hey, wizards were better in 3.x, right? but they're weaker now? And 5e said it fixed everything? Well there you go! Total balance! I've even seen people claim wizards are the weakest class because, due to Concentration, they have to spend all their time buffing their allies and can't win fights on their own anymore (NOT LIKE THOSE FIGHTERS). Welcome to the game where fighters are intentionally kneecapped in everything but fighting, because they're supposed to be the BEST EVER in fighting, but as soon as they are the best in fighting, everyone screams that they're too powerful and must be nerfed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Welcome to the game where fighters are intentionally kneecapped in everything but fighting, because they're supposed to be the BEST EVER in fighting, but as soon as they are the best in fighting, everyone screams that they're too powerful and must be nerfed. I feel like this is tied into how there are some people who only ever play D&D. The argument against "Fighters should be the absolute best in fighting", which is "that doesn't leave a lot of room for everyone else in a system that's focused so much on combat" only works if you believe that D&D is focused on combat in the first place. I've had people tell me that I was flat-out wrong for suggesting Pathfinder was a combat-heavy game because they've personally played multiple entire sessions that didn't have combat at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've had people tell me that I was flat-out wrong for suggesting Pathfinder was a combat-heavy game because they've personally played multiple entire sessions that didn't have combat at all. Part of this is caused by the fact that the combat rules are really bad, so even though most of the rules focus on combat, lots of groups will go out of their way to avoid fighting in D&D-ish games just because they don't want to bother. Which is a grave failure for a combat-focused rule system; your combat rules should make people want to get in fights all the time if you're a combat-focused game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Part of this is caused by the fact that the combat rules are really bad, so even though most of the rules focus on combat, lots of groups will go out of their way to avoid fighting in D&D-ish games just because they don't want to bother. Which is a grave failure for a combat-focused rule system; your combat rules should make people want to get in fights all the time if you're a combat-focused game. Pathfinder was so hit and miss, they made paladins much better and more playable, but they changed bardic music and rage to a rounds-per-day thing that's really book-keepy. They also made certain ranger builds better, and tried to fix fighters and rogues. Full casters are still on top of the heap though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
I think the bigger problem is the refusal to believe the mechanics even exist. Like, look at the argument again. "The game isn't built to be combat heavy because we didn't have lots of fights." If someone told you basketball wasn't about having offense or defense because their friends only play Horse, would anyone nod and go "Oh of course?" loving of course not. "I think you'll find that Skyrim had little to do with combat; I almost NEVER got into fights. What it's about is being a horseback riding simulator." Nobody would accept this as being true. "I'm sorry, but if you only use the materials found in the middle of Episode 2, you'd realize that Star Wars is a romantic love story." But this hobby is built around slavishly masturbating to "individual games" in an deifying game ideas to the point where the actual engine is ignored. I cynically think this is one reason 5e makes such a big deal about rulings over rules and "your DM decides" - it absolves them of blame when things go poorly. poo poo, it's how it worked for 3e! Your game had a bad thing happen? Fighters are useless? Wizards too powerful? Rules too complicated? Psh, your DM must be bad! Because the rules don't exist, so how could they mess things up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Is this a normal "Internet not entirely happy with a product" sort of thing or did I really gently caress up by buying all the fifth edition stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
If you're playing with friends who are chill, it's fine. If you're super into organised play, it's probably fine. For pick-up games and from a purely technical standpoint? It's arguably less finished in parts than it was during playtesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
A mix. 5e is pretty much just somewhat simplified 3e, and it's worst crime is that it really does absolutely nothing new, mixed with it's public design goals being totally disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That was not the system's fault. I think it is, because it's an extension of caster supremacy. In a high-magic setting like D&D, at any level beyond Cobblers and Crapmongers almost anything highly valuable will either be magic or will be protected by magic, which means that a thief-type class that can't do anything about magic is totally useless as a thief. 5e even took away the 3.5e rogue's detection of magical traps, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Okay I haven't DMed since second edition and my group is half chill dudes who have been gaming forever and half brand new players who have never played RPGs before so hopefully things work out and we can just sit down and house rule anything that seems too lovely. Reading the GM thread it looks like there are a wealth of other systems out there a lot more suited but I hadn't really heard of anything but White Wolf stuff and Shadowrun when I bought the books. Oh well, hope it works out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
goatface posted:If you're playing with friends who are chill, it's fine. If you're super into organised play, it's probably fine. At certain points during it's development 5e was a game that I would have enjoyed. The Penny Arcade podcasts where Mearls DMed for them are especially telling because Kurtz cut his teeth on 4e, and asked Mearls about defenders and leaders and mid-combat healing and Mearls tells him about all these great things that just aren't in the final PHB anymore. hyphz posted:I think it is, because it's an extension of caster supremacy. In a high-magic setting like D&D, at any level beyond Cobblers and Crapmongers almost anything highly valuable will either be magic or will be protected by magic, which means that a thief-type class that can't do anything about magic is totally useless as a thief. 5e even took away the 3.5e rogue's detection of magical traps, I believe. The fact that the system doesn't give you the tools isn't the issue, the issue is that the DM put you in a situation that you did not have the tools to deal with. He also ran a solo scenario without giving the other players anything to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The fact that the system doesn't give you the tools isn't the issue, the issue is that the DM put you in a situation that you did not have the tools to deal with. That's just fudging it, though - like saying that the fact that a magic user can cast Fly and be practically immune to melee fighting (unless they opponent also has a Wizard) doesn't create caster supremacy because the DM can just have the fighter's opponents not do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
goatface posted:Get the defensive staff from the intro adventure that lets you cast shield for free a bunch of times a day. If you're talking about the Staff of Defense from LMoP, there might be a common misconception. It has +1AC and 10 charges. Both Mage Armor and Shield (1 and 2 charges respectively) require a standard action to cast. I play in Adventurer's League with a warlock who has this and thinks shield is reaction, because the spell is. WotC messed up by not putting all the info on their little cardboard magic item cutouts. There is also a cleric at the store that does not prepare spells. I remember reading somewhere that you don't have to check off spells prepared from your known list until you've actually cast them, but that was probably a houserule. For example, If a caster can have 10 spells prepared, but knows 16. They don't have to actually mark them as prepared until they have cast them once. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
You're thinking about the problem the wrong way. How is the trap being too hard for you because it's magic functionally different than the trap being too difficult for you because it's skill DC to bypass is 40 in this specific situation. The fact that the problem you faced involved magic is a red herring. Your DM set you up to fail without any possibility of success, that's a dick move that's possible regardless of the system. Using your flying example, I could set loose a pack of flying monsters on a group made up entirely of melee characters in 4e, there's nothing inherent in the system preventing me from doing that. I could also just drop an elder wyrm on a group of first level characters in 5e, it's their own fault for not being level 20. Caster Supremacy, however, isn't just "My rogue went up against a mage and lost because it was a mage", the real issue with 5e is "his mage is better at being a sneaky thief than my class who's description is literally 'thief who sneaks'".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
odinson posted:There is also a cleric at the store that does not prepare spells. I remember reading somewhere that you don't have to check off spells prepared from your known list until you've actually cast them, but that was probably a houserule. For example, If a caster can have 10 spells prepared, but knows 16. They don't have to actually mark them as prepared until they have cast them once. Does that sound familiar to anyone? It's definitely a house rule. The "Prepared and Casting Spells" section of every prepared caster says the same thing: "You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Okay I haven't DMed since second edition and my group is half chill dudes who have been gaming forever and half brand new players who have never played RPGs before so hopefully things work out and we can just sit down and house rule anything that seems too lovely. As long as you are aware of potential issues and don't have any obnoxious power gamers, it will be fine. More work for you, but everyone can still have a fun time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The fact that the system doesn't give you the tools isn't the issue, the issue is that the DM put you in a situation that you did not have the tools to deal with. I might've missed the level of the party, but the scenario could be solved by a 5th level full-caster (or any other caster at a level able to cast Dispel Magic, assuming the enchantment on the mcguffin is 3rd or lower). So it could be the DM's fault if they introduced the challenge before the party could've beaten it. Assuming he didn't though, it's kinda lovely on the system's part that this sort of puzzle/challenge basically requires spells to overcome. Like I get the complaint that casters/caster supremacy is poo poo design, but given that this is the state of 5e, people should just stop writing "Rogue" and "Fighter" on their sheets and put "Bard" instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:It's definitely a house rule. The "Prepared and Casting Spells" section of every prepared caster says the same thing: Thanks, that is what I thought. I was pretty sure it was a house rule or maybe someone just preparing all but one slot, and then preparing the final one later in the day, using the 5min/spell level ruling. Which is also wrong with it not being at the end of a long rest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I might've missed the level of the party, but the scenario could be solved by a 5th level full-caster (or any other caster at a level able to cast Dispel Magic, assuming the enchantment on the mcguffin is 3rd or lower). I did this. Now I feel like I picked the wrong version of Bard, though, since if I had gone Lore College, I'd be able to pick up any two spells from any other class list as opposed to "make attack twice per turn" now that we've hit Level 6. After all, my Valor Bard, who has the highest AC in the party, generally stands in the back and casts spells at things until they fall down anyway. Not sure why being able to potentially do an additional d6 or d8 + Dex mod damage is a big deal considering I cast spells in the level 1 slot that deal 3d6 and apply an effect on a failed save or half damage on a success. Don't even get the guaranteed damage with my weapon attacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Fighters are useless? Wizards too powerful? Rules too complicated? Psh, your DM must be bad!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Okay I haven't DMed since second edition and my group is half chill dudes who have been gaming forever and half brand new players who have never played RPGs before so hopefully things work out and we can just sit down and house rule anything that seems too lovely. If you're all buddies and your goal is just to have a good time as buddies it'll probably work out fine. I hate Pathfinder and 3.5 as rules systems, and at the same time I've had great times with both when just playing with friends who are all there to have a good time and not be shitlords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Kibner posted:As long as you are aware of potential issues and don't have any obnoxious power gamers, it will be fine. More work for you, but everyone can still have a fun time. loving Power Gamers, how I hate them
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Is this a normal "Internet not entirely happy with a product" sort of thing or did I really gently caress up by buying all the fifth edition stuff? hyphz posted:I think it is, because it's an extension of caster supremacy. In a high-magic setting like D&D, at any level beyond Cobblers and Crapmongers almost anything highly valuable will either be magic or will be protected by magic, which means that a thief-type class that can't do anything about magic is totally useless as a thief. 5e even took away the 3.5e rogue's detection of magical traps, I believe. Any character can disarm magic traps anyway. So you did have the tools to deal with it DMG posted:Any character can attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) hyphz posted:That's just fudging it, though - like saying that the fact that a magic user can cast Fly and be practically immune to melee fighting (unless they opponent also has a Wizard) doesn't create caster supremacy because the DM can just have the fighter's opponents not do that. Or they can take out a bow and shoot the wizard knocking him to ground when he fails his concentration save eventually. Kurieg posted:
Mages in 5e are not better at being a thief then being thief. Unless they also have a good passive perception they would also likely get the poo poo kicked out of them by a Rogue anyway. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:loving Power Gamers, how I hate them By Power Gamer in the context of D&D NEXT we mean 'reads the rules, plays a caster'
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Mages in 5e are not better at being a thief then being thief. The Bard is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Yo spellcasters are all perfectly fine and balanced, you just have to be like me and completely hamstring yourself by playing a cleric who doesn't wear armor because priests should only wear robes. And no weapons either, he's only got 8 strength. Spell slots may only be used to cast Light so that you may read and copy scripture while cloistered in your tiny, windowless room. It's called roleplaying, fuckers. Look it up sometime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Judgement posted:Yo spellcasters are all perfectly fine and balanced, you just have to be like me and completely hamstring yourself by playing a cleric who doesn't wear armor because priests should only wear robes. And no weapons either, he's only got 8 strength. Spell slots may only be used to cast Light so that you may read and copy scripture while cloistered in your tiny, windowless room. Generic Octopus posted:The Bard is. The Bards gimmick is being good at everything. Still they don't seem to be as good at it as a Rogue is as they don't get many of the class features. A bard can easily be used to replace one though as it can cover for pretty much any role that is not fulfilled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You don't even have to go that far. If you play a cleric they probably won't be outshining the rest of the party very often. Krag Hack is calling you out. MonsterEnvy posted:The Bards gimmick is being good at everything. Still they don't seem to be as good at it as a Rogue is as they don't get many of the class features. A bard can easily be used to replace one though as it can cover for pretty much any role that is not fulfilled. They are better than a rogue at anything a rogue could try to be good at. Also they are spellcasters. Seriously what can a Rogue do that a bard cant do better?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
kingcom posted:They are better than a rogue at anything a rogue could try to be good at. Also they are spellcasters. Seriously what can a Rogue do that a bard cant do better? They get expertise at 1st rather than second level, so they are better at something for a single session?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Krag Hack is calling you out. Shank someone for a ton of damage from stealth or if an ally is near. Being able to move around much faster, bail from combat without being punished for it and the ability to hide in the same turn you revealed yourself using Cunning action. Being able to halve damage against yourself using your reaction. Avoiding half or all the damage from area of effect attacks. Always being able to take a 10 on your ability checks. Being able ignore advantage. Being able to hit or succeed when you fail. These are the abilities that all rogues get. The Bard is equal purely on the skill part even then it falls behind once the Rogue gets the power to never roll lower then 10. Bard is a fantastic class but it can't do everything the rogue can do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Basically D&D 5E is the Internet Explorer of RPGs. It's functional, and many people use it everyday without any problems/have fun with it regularly. But there are a lot of options out there that are more than kinda functional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Yup, and just like IE6, you shouldn't really be using something that was lovely a decade ago today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
GrizzlyCow posted:Yup, and just like IE6, you shouldn't really be using something that was lovely a decade ago today. You shouldn't disregard something just because it was terrible a decade ago. The current iteration of IE is widely regarded as the best browser for touch interfaces today. I don't think D&D Next has achieved the same level of improvement though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
If it's the best browser for touch, why is it dead in the water?  We need a Steve Jobs smug or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:If it's the best browser for touch, why is it dead in the water? Probably because most everyone who jumped away years ago will only use IE long enough to download their browser of choice again out of habit. There's also some rear end in a top hat at Microsoft who decided that if you changed your default browser to say Chrome or Firefox you aren't allowed to use the Metro version of IE at all. Coincidentally, Microsoft is dropping the Internet Explorer branding entirely with their next iteration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
There was one version that was good at doing a specific thing, but the company should really just drop the branding altogether and make something new that doesn't have all that baggage. Yup, I'd say the D&D:IE analogy holds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yeah this had nothing to do with the system. It's stated that wizards and stuff are rare, so most stuff including magic item will be mundanely protected. The easiest magic trap is to put an alarm spell on an item. The effect that beat you can't be done by default in the game anyway. That's just the unicorn problem though. Magic might be supposed to be rare but PCs will be interacting with it all the time. And the Alarm spell is an excellent find, seeing as how it neutralizes everything a Rogue can do with a 1st level spell. You could even use it to see through disguises if you can tolerate the casting time. quote:Any character can disarm magic traps anyway. So you did have the tools to deal with it This seems to refer only to the specific traps called magic traps in the DMG, though, not to the Alarm spell which is just a spell and not listed as a trap. I suppose you could argue it was a trap but then you get some nice arguments about which spells count as traps or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
hyphz posted:This seems to refer only to the specific traps called magic traps in the DMG, though, not to the Alarm spell which is just a spell and not listed as a trap. I suppose you could argue it was a trap but then you get some nice arguments about which spells count as traps or not. I recall this exact same thing coming up in AD&D (or maybe 2e... I think it involved something from a brown splatbook) and causing a stupid argument. Anyway, it's good to see the old traditions being kept up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:59
|
|
