|
thespaceinvader posted:My experience is that for most participants, organised play usually teeters close to the line where no gaming > bad gaming. It's certainly been fairly close to it for me in the past, but nobody in my current group really has the time or motivation to DM a long-term original campaign, much as we'd all very much like to play in one. The fact that the homebrewing guidelines are such utter poo poo makes running original content precarious at best. It doesn't help that we've got 3.5 spells back, so the Wizard's gonna be breaking the plot over his knee once he gets high enough level and no longer finds the campaign hooks to be to his liking.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
I have a question regarding range. I had my wood elf move 35 feet away from a scarecrow. The scarecrow moves 30 feet towards me and has a threat range of 5 feet. Would that attack hit me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
no. You are not within 5 feet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:no. You are not within 5 feet. Excellent, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
"Being 5 feet away" sounds the same as "being in an adjacent 5' square", so Ask Your DMTM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
This isn't an ask your DM question. if you're 5 feet away, you're not within 5 feet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
To me it sounds like a question of is it 35ft away, or is there 35ft between you? Because in the former case it could hit you, in the other it'd be 5 ft too far away. Converting distance to squares to show it lazily:pre:[E] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [S] pre:[E] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [S]
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
This just sounds like a misunderstanding about what the numbers being used are associated with. If you moved 35', and the scarecrow moved 30', then it isn't in range to attack you unless you both started out occupying the same physical space. Normally you'd start at 5' away (adjacent), and then you move 35' further, putting 40' between you and the scarecrow. If the scarecrow moves 30', it's now 10' away from you, out of normal melee range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
So I just DM'ed my first session ever. Which was also the first time I've ever played this game ever that wasn't just Baldur's Gate or something. It was super duper annoying trying to keep two of the six players in line, they seemed determined to be stupid as poo poo. We did Phandelver and the Fighter thought it would be hilarious if he belly flopped into the stream at the mouth of the cave after the goblin ambush. The goblin sentries both hit him with their shortbows and knocked him unconscious because he was making noise for no loving reason. The Ranger decided to then push his unconscious body up the stream and into the cave for some goddamned reason. She was laughing and I was not, but I didn't think until later about the fact that the stream was flowing against her and I could have shut down that idiocy by pointing out that the current would stop her. I managed to get control a little bit once the fighting inside started, with the support of the Monk and Druid in shushing the two idiots into letting me describe the action and whatnot. Idiot Fighter kept being dumb and getting knocked out by insisting he wanted to try to use Animal Handling on the wolves. I'd tell him "Fine. DC 40 because it's blind with rage from the Monk's acid breath and the arrow the Rogue put into its leg," and he would insist on trying to roll a natural 20. I ended up calling Phandelver done after killing Klarg because the Ranger's roommate started shushing me so she could watch the Tony awards. I'm gonna make it clear we'll never do it anywhere with housemates again because fffffuuuuucccckkkkk. Hopefully once we start Hoard of the Dragon Queen they will be a little less intentionally stupid. I told the guy to stop playing like he's literally retarded, he has an Int of 10. It was overall fun despite the immense frustration of trying to get people to at least make an effort to be more serious. Anyway, rant over. I think I have combat pretty well figured out except one big thing: Where the gently caress is the table or explanation or whatever that tells me the critical ranges of various weapons, or of various classes' attacks? All I can find in the PHB is on pg.196, "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target." No loving explanation of "when you score a critical hit." What the gently caress? When is a critical hit scored?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Keshik posted:What the gently caress? When is a critical hit scored? When they roll a 20 (PHB pg 194). Also if you're getting this frustrated by dming maybe you should not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Honestly, it was fun, just those two intentionally trying to be stupid as poo poo combined with the lovely roommate watching Fox News until her goddamn Tony Awards came on. I didn't want to DM this thing. It's just we went into it and the only two experienced players said they thought I should DM. The original DM was gonna be the guy who kept trying to get himself killed and be ridiculous. I think he really didn't want to DM, and I was the only person who had read the PHB and understood the way stats worked. The other two with experience only knew 3.5 so they kept getting confused about things. Thanks for pointing me at 194, I think I read that page several times and my eyes kept skipping over the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ""In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter." This book is insanely badly written. The whole thing about Bruenor is terrible. Is it so hard to make a checklist of "Choose your race, choose your class, roll your abilities, now calculate your modifiers, now add your background and associated features and equipment, now add your class equipment ..." Instead you jump all over the book and back and forth. Is it only a critical if it's a natural 20? Or if they roll 18 and have a +2 modifier, is that a critical? Keshik fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Only a natural 20.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Also of note, natural 20s and natural 1s don't actually mean anything on rolls for things other than attacks, as far as I know. There might be some kind of variant rule for the automatic failure/success thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Keshik posted:Where the gently caress is the table or explanation or whatever that tells me the critical ranges of various weapons, or of various classes' attacks? All I can find in the PHB is on pg.196, "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target." When you roll a 20 with a melee or ranged attack, you roll twice the number of damage dice. There isn't anything with an "expanded crit range" except when the game specifically tells you, such as with the Champion's abilities. Keshik posted:Idiot Fighter kept being dumb and getting knocked out by insisting he wanted to try to use Animal Handling on the wolves. I'd tell him "Fine. DC 40 because it's blind with rage from the Monk's acid breath and the arrow the Rogue put into its leg," and he would insist on trying to roll a natural 20. 1. You don't have to allow automatic/critical successes on 20s non-combat skill checks 2. If you do not want to allow a skill check to be done, just say so. A huge swath of these stories where the player wants to do something highly improbable and the DM sets a really high DC for it and the player manages it anyway comes from the fact that the DM allowed for the act to be rolled for in the first place. Remember that the model has always traditionally been "the player wants to do something -> the DM determines if they can do such a thing -> the player either does it, cannot do it or has to roll for it". Often, players simply assume that anything they cannot do automatically must be rolled, and we allow them to do it because it's shorthand, but we're really not obligated to allow them to do any given thing as long as they want to roll for it. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
To add to that, I think the Handle Animal skill is also useless when dealing with wild animals, something that came up last session with my friends when we cleared out a dire wolf den and they wanted to keep the pups after. The Druids argued that they could wild shape and pass as foster parents for the pups. I'm waiting for an opportune moment to steal and kill them without suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, you're not exactly wrong here because your friends were acting like rowdy and/or disinterested idiots, but don't do this, because he still has a 5% chance of rolling that 20 That's fair, but this is a case of an experienced 3.5 player and an inexperienced DM, and the last thing I want to do is be accused to trying to railroad the players, or stifle their ability to think outside the box. I should have been firmer tonight because we were seriously only doing Phandelver specifically to figure out the combat mechanics. This does cement for me that I need to make a cheat sheet of the skills and when they can and cannot be applied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
A user has made a comparison of all Monster Manual-published Challenge Ratings against calculated Challenge Ratings. Google Spreadsheet. And a blanked calculator for new monsters. Reddit thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:the Handle Animal skill is also useless when dealing with wild animals Thanks, Mearls!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Keshik posted:the last thing I want to do is be accused to trying to railroad the players, or stifle their ability to think outside the box. I think you can leave off worrying about that. Keshik posted:the Fighter thought it would be hilarious if he belly flopped into the stream at the mouth of the cave after the goblin ambush.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Keshik posted:That's fair, but this is a case of an experienced 3.5 player and an inexperienced DM, and the last thing I want to do is be accused to trying to railroad the players, or stifle their ability to think outside the box. Rolling a natural 20 is not an auto-success on a skill check in 5E or in 3.5 so setting a DC 40 is the same as it being impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
DC 40 is next to impossible almost throughout the entire level progression  . The only way I can think of doing it, without resorting to combing the book for minute details, would be a lore bard with expertise in the skill with a wild magic sorcerer friend who can roll a 3 or 4 on their bend luck ability, the earliest you could do that would be 17th level.3 or 4 from bend luck. +6 proficiency. +6 from expertise. +5 from the ability modifier. 20 on the die roll. Leaves you with a 40-41 result, I'm sure someone has found a way to do it earlier but that's all I could think of  .e:v Yeah I gave it a little thought afterward and at 14th a lore bard gets peerless skill which lets them spend a bardic inspiration to add a d6 to the result of their own ability check. It's why I picked lore bard in the first place for my math and then I completely forgot about it. So at 14th level you could do it on an 11 with maxed out guidance+bendluck+peerless skill, or on a 20 if you maxed out your peerless skill roll. Successful Businessmanga fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
There's also the Guidance cantrip for a +1d4 on the roll, but the point is, 5e doesn't even prescribe simulationist DCs for specific tasks, so there's nothing that the player can point to, to say "well the wolf is hostile so that's DC x, plus Acid Arrow for another +5 to the DC" and so on and so forth. If you wanted to prohibit the player from pulling off that move, just say so. I mean, what were you going to do if he actually rolled the 20? If you were prepared to let him succeed, then it also stands to reason that you should have given him a fair shot at doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
One of my players thought he would be smart outside that goblin cave and use animal noises to communicate what he could see with the rest of the party. He chose wolf howls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Keshik posted:So I just DM'ed my first session ever. Which was also the first time I've ever played this game ever that wasn't just Baldur's Gate or something. It was really good of you to stifle his out of the box thinking and show your players that the only way to resolve encounters is through combat. Next time, try working with your players, and maybe you'll find them easier to play with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:To add to that, I think the Handle Animal skill is also useless when dealing with wild animals, something that came up last session with my friends when we cleared out a dire wolf den and they wanted to keep the pups after. The Druids argued that they could wild shape and pass as foster parents for the pups. I'm waiting for an opportune moment to steal and kill them without suspicion. Raising dire wolf pups over several levels to make an animal companion at the appropriate level sounds cool, I'd be annoyed as a player if the DM took them away with bullshit stealing gnomes rather than just saying "I didn't expect you guys to try to raise them and keeping them messes up my plans. Would you mind if we didn't do that?" just because nerds can't people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Buying them is also an option. Stick a dog trainer in a town, offer them an arbitrary amount of money or a shiny thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
goatface posted:Buying them is also an option. Stick a dog trainer in a town, offer them an arbitrary amount of money or a shiny thing. You want X but it costs a shitload and/or involves using non-muderhobo skills and so it would be forever out of your reach... But fortunately for you someone that can get you one needs your murderhobo skills for something. It's almost like D&D campaigns write themselves or something. "Because Ranger Dave said he'd train our wolf puppies if we did" is a better than usual reason for killing the mad wizard anyway. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Either that or you spend the rest of the adventure setting up your international exotic and dangerous animal supply company. Two hours spent arguing out the exchange rate of dire wolves into griffons while fighting off the adult mating pair who you've nicked them from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
goatface posted:Either that or you spend the rest of the adventure setting up your international exotic and dangerous animal supply company. Two hours spent arguing out the exchange rate of dire wolves into griffons while fighting off the adult mating pair who you've nicked them from. Quite literally more fun for martials than "d20 .... 7 ... I hit the orc"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
That's a 17 total against the male Griffon, and as a bonus action I roll animal handling to point out the relative cost difference between raising the two species. Trader Jones doesn't think I'm smart enough to take part in this conversation, so I count as attacking from hidden with advantage... 6 and a 14.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
So, a new player is talking about making a ranger. This was my case about this issuequote:its.. they dont get anything that makes me go.. id rather ranger than fighter or bard or barbarian or druid. their favored enemy/terrain is advantage on knowledge rolls and survival. no bonus damage, no bonus on bluffing or anything a 3.x ranger has. their companion is limited to a medium animal that is like CR 1/4th their level Are there any house rules for rangers to make them less generic and suck? They feel like a 3rd edition warrior compared to any of the other classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
goatface posted:Either that or you spend the rest of the adventure setting up your international exotic and dangerous animal supply company. Two hours spent arguing out the exchange rate of dire wolves into griffons while fighting off the adult mating pair who you've nicked them from. I ran a game where the players went "this never-empty pool of deadly deadly acid is, when you think about it, actually a never-empty pool of slightly inconvenient money". I'd have thought that moving large amounts of incredibly corrosive acid over long distances would be a way harder and more deadly job than burgling dungeons, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Just dig a canal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
So there's a new Unearthed Arcana out, this time, covering variant rules:quote:When a character forces an opponent to make a saving throw, that player instead makes a saving throw check. The bonus to the d20 roll for a saving throw check equals the effect’s save DC - 8. Okay, so let's take a level 1 Wizard with 14 INT. That's a +2 proficiency bonus and a +2 INT modifier And let's say they shot a spell that uses a DEX saving throw against a CR 1 monster with proficiency with DEX saves and a 12 DEX. That's a +2 proficiency bonus and a +1 DEX modifier. Under normal rules, the Wizard would have a spellcasting DC of [8+2+2], or 12. The monster would roll a 1d20+3 for their saving throw. The monster has a 60% chance of getting 12 or better on a 1d20+3, or rather a 40% chance of suffering the spell's full effects. Under these variant rules, the Wizard would instead roll a 1d20, with a bonus equal to their spellcasting DC - 8, so 1d20 + 4. The DC for this saving throw check is 11 + 3, or 14. The Wizard has a 55% chance of getting a 14 or better on a roll of 1d20+4, which means they succeed, which means the target failed its saving throw. The monster has a 55% chance of suffering the spell's full effects. They hosed up the formula What they should have been doing is [1d20 + proficiency bonus + spellcasting attribute modifier - 3], versus a DC of [11 + saving throw modifiers] That gives our Wizard a roll of 1d20+2+2-3, or 1d20+1 versus a DC of 14. The Wizard has a 40% chance of getting 14 or better on a roll of 1d20+1, which means they succeed, which means the target failed its saving throw. The monster has a 40% chance of suffering the spell's full effects. Let's sanity check: Level 20 Wizard with 20 INT: +6 proficiency bonus, +5 INT modifier CR 20 monster with proficiency in DEX saves and 14 DEX: +6 proficiency bonus, +2 DEX modifier Under normal rules, the Wizard would have a spellcasting DC of [8+6+5], or 19. The monster would roll a 1d20+8 for their saving throw. The monster has a 50% chance of getting 19 or better on a 1d20+8, or rather a 50% chance of suffering the spell's full effects. Under what they should have been doing, the Wizard would roll 1d20+6+5-3, or 1d20+8, versus a DC of 19. The Wizard has a 50% chance of getting a 19 or better on a 1d20+8, which means they succeed, which means the target failed its saving throw. The monster has a 50% chance of suffering the spell's full effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:So, a new player is talking about making a ranger. This was my case about this issue Bit of a nitpick, but the animal companion is CR 1/4, not CR 1/4th player level. Also you could recommend Bard over basically any class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA5_VariantRules.pdfquote:Losing vitality causes a character’s hit point LOLNOPE!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Don't forget that critical hits inflict double vitality damage. It's like they looked at pillars of eternity, and thought "that looks like a good idea. Let's do the exact opposite"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Bit of a nitpick, but the animal companion is CR 1/4, not CR 1/4th player level. That is worse than my first reading of the thing was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:That is worse than my first reading of the thing was. Rangers are so bad that they're the only thing so far that WOTC have admitted need fixing. But Since this is 5e, Any fixes will be entirely optional and can only be implemented with DM's approval.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Is there a way to make a ranger that is anything approaching decent at all, then? I had assumed they were simply Uninteresting rather than being Actually Bad. One of the other players in my game chose a dual wielding ranger, and he's brand new to D&D in general so now I feel kind of bad for him if he managed to stumble his way into something that isn't going to be any fun to play. I already had to gently nudge a few of the other players with advice like "Hey maybe you actually want more than a 14 in your Primary Attribute." On the one hand I sometimes feel a bit guilty for focusing so hard on builds and number crunching rather than letting them just roleplay what they want, but on the other this is very much a game where the math, broken as it may be, is a Really Big Deal despite whatever claims are made to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
