|
P.d0t posted:I haven't seen Dueling used much (and there's no way it shouldn't work with a shield, good grief, loving reading comprehension 3e taught a lot of people that shields are a type of weapon. And you can make an argument for that, given how shields were historically used for much more than just a small wall you carry around. But what 3e says is Truth™. Even though 5e clearly lists shields as armor instead of a weapon, some people just cannot accept that. I've genuinely seen people say that they don't care what 5e says, shields are weapons in their games because that's how 3e did it. Some people have had 3e define RPGs for them and they can't read a game on its own merits anymore, it's all colored by 3e-lenses. gradenko_2000 posted:Supposedly the reason behind only ever getting one reaction ever is to speed up combat by eliminating reaction-counterreaction-countercounterreaction chains, but by the gods does it ever make the combat dull, especially when the abilities aren't anything like you see in, say, Hearthstone, a game which similarly isolates a person's turn to just that person's actions within the turn, but has more creativity behind what goes on in the individual cards. "During your turn you may choose one creature other than yourself. For as long as that creature is adjacent to you, you carry a shield, and you aren't incapacitated, all attacks you can see against that creature are made with disadvantage." There. Don't tell me this will slow down combat more than the PHB's version. In fact, I think this might even be faster because a player never has to quickly interject and go, "But wait, you shouldn't have just declared damage on the Wizard like that! I wanted to use Protection Style! Do-over."
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 09:36
|
|
)
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
You can also do automatic damage like Strike! or allow defenders to place damage bounties onto enemies that err which can be cashed in by damage dealers on their turn, when the attack roll won't slow down combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
What are some amoral uses of Detect Thoughts, I learned it instead of other much more useful spells so I want to get the most out of it, I am a tiefling if that matters. Great Old One warlock so I have 30ft telepathy and free Disguise Self and Silent Image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Sneak into enemy camps while disguised, probe the brain of a sleeping person, wake them up to the image of a respected dead person and then proceed to tell them that they are doomed and should abandon whatever you want immediately. Find a rich old person who is not long for the world, probe their brain to discover the loved one they're leaving everything to in their will. Silent Image a grim reaper to give them a heart attack, claim the contents of their will. Doorman at the criminal club. Skim the mind of everyone on the way in, kill all the undercover cops, kill anything that looks like a dog and is in fact a druid, kill anyone trying to hide in there after hours. Find person who is obviously stressed about something they did. Probe mind to discover the sin that is troubling them, appear before them as a devil coming to collect their soul. Be bribed to let them live. Profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
WiiFitForWindows8 posted:Brag post incoming: I've actually been whining to my DM that more characters in our group should be dying. I don't know what part of the description of an ancient red dragon burning down the city was supposed to indicate that our level 4 party should charge in and fight it, but one guy should have been swallowed whole and the rest burnt to a crisp. Of course I'm upset with that situation because I was, appropriately, long gone at the earliest glimpse of a red dragon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Why is your DM throwing ancient dragons at a level 4 party?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
He didn't, the party went to the dragon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Why a dragon, though? An army could have forced a retreat and still provided manageable threats for you to face. Maybe the group is fleeing and you run across a weak straggler unit that's capturing other refugees or important MacGuffins, and defeating that enemy lets you accomplish a little something instead of just going "Alas, comrades, the beast's Challenge Rating be too great, we must hie ourselves hence toward the DM's next intended plot point."
Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
It was supposed to be a dramatic description of an event we were witnessing, never intended to be an actual encounter of any kind. We had been investigating an event which happened a few decades prior and had a chance to interview a couple people who were directly involved. After a couple of these interviews we were on our way to our next destination and shortly after a dragon swoops in and starts burning down the city, the implication being that someone knows we're digging for info and that they are quite powerful upset about us investigating it. So, while we could have still gone to aid the wounded in the aftermath, my party though it would be best to try and subdue the dragon immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:shields are weapons in their games because that's how 3e did it
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:It was supposed to be a dramatic description of an event we were witnessing, never intended to be an actual encounter of any kind. We had been investigating an event which happened a few decades prior and had a chance to interview a couple people who were directly involved. After a couple of these interviews we were on our way to our next destination and shortly after a dragon swoops in and starts burning down the city, the implication being that someone knows we're digging for info and that they are quite powerful upset about us investigating it. So, while we could have still gone to aid the wounded in the aftermath, my party though it would be best to try and subdue the dragon immediately. I would expect a group of PCs to try to challenge the dragon. My group aren't the types to charge forward waving their swords in that kind of situation, but they'd want to do something other than run away. They'd expect there to be a way to do something about a dragon attacking the city. I mean peasants and merchants run away - adventurers fight dragons. Having a dragon show up and start burning things screams fight scene to me and to everyone I play RPGs with. There are good ways to introduce an un-beatable (for now) enemy, but I don't think "a dragon shows up and starts fighting" is one of them, and I don't think their reaction is at all strange. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You can also do automatic damage like Strike! or allow defenders to place damage bounties onto enemies that err which can be cashed in by damage dealers on their turn, when the attack roll won't slow down combat. Yeah I was thinking that Strike! has a really good innovation on the concept by making opportunity attacks into simple opportunities and letting the effect happen when you trigger it, no attack roll required. It makes it far more of a tactical choice because you can count on always imposing that cost on the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Played a session of 5th last night. Been telling our group how imbalanced the system is, but I think last night is when it really hit home for them in a battle. It was our first encounter of the day, and based on how the story was going, it was pretty obvious it was going to be our last. So, as a Bard. for the first 6 rounds of the fight, I was using spells. Our Wizard did the same. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe we outdamaged the Ranger and Paladin about 150 to 20 in that fight. I was using Thunderwave a lot, and got right up to my opponents faces, so I was also drawing attacks. My AC is the highest in the party, so not only was I doing the most damage, but I was also tanking the best. After the fight the Ranger rather dejectedly told me that he sees what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:I've actually been whining to my DM that more characters in our group should be dying. I don't know what part of the description of an ancient red dragon burning down the city was supposed to indicate that our level 4 party should charge in and fight it, but one guy should have been swallowed whole and the rest burnt to a crisp. Of course I'm upset with that situation because I was, appropriately, long gone at the earliest glimpse of a red dragon. Many people's approach to heroic fiction has changed since the 70's. The idea that players have to play through a dozen levels of cliches before doing anything capital I important is pretty dead outside of tabletop gaming. Modern heroic fiction is not about the main character's ten year time-skip where they train hard to be able to fight the villain. Should D&D be any different? (Because it's D&D and it has an established culture is the answer I can come up with.) To work with a concrete example, the formula repeated in Zelda games isn't "kid sees dramatic event, runs away to do real world first responder stuff, levels up through unrelated sideplots, and then confronts the villain." It's "kid sees dramatic event, charges forward with lethal intent but is overpowered, levels up by systematically destroying the villain's support and accomplishments, and then confronts the villain." From the sound of things your own expectations aren't the same as your group's, since you were apparently alone in getting away from the threat. You're not wrong, but you're not right either. It's just a different preference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I would expect a group of PCs to try to challenge the dragon. My group aren't the types to charge forward waving their swords in that kind of situation, but they'd want to do something other than run away. They'd expect there to be a way to do something about a dragon attacking the city. I mean peasants and merchants run away - adventurers fight dragons. Having a dragon show up and start burning things screams fight scene to me and to everyone I play RPGs with. There are good ways to introduce an un-beatable (for now) enemy, but I don't think "a dragon shows up and starts fighting" is one of them, and I don't think their reaction is at all strange. In our 5e campaign we encountered a dragon in, I think, the same cutscene event as SW. I Jump spelled the fighter onto it, then we all shot arrows/magic at it while the fighter stabbed at the foot he was attached to until it went away. Then I yelled magically enhanced insults at it in Draconic until it came back. Eventually it left because it "wasn't getting paid enough to deal with this bullshit". Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Played a session of 5th last night. Been telling our group how imbalanced the system is, but I think last night is when it really hit home for them in a battle. It was our first encounter of the day, and based on how the story was going, it was pretty obvious it was going to be our last. So, as a Bard. for the first 6 rounds of the fight, I was using spells. Our Wizard did the same. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe we outdamaged the Ranger and Paladin about 150 to 20 in that fight. I was using Thunderwave a lot, and got right up to my opponents faces, so I was also drawing attacks. My AC is the highest in the party, so not only was I doing the most damage, but I was also tanking the best. I'm not going to argue that the game is balanced, but you did burn through most of your spells in once combat doing that yeah? The game is explicitly designed around ~6 combats per long rest, with a short rest every 2. The DMG has suggestion on how to hold player to that as well. It's not a good resource system for several reasons, but it's kinda disingenuous to call out a massive damage difference when the remaining 5 fights of the day would have the Paladin and probably even the Ranger outperforming you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm not going to argue that the game is balanced, but you did burn through most of your spells in once combat doing that yeah? The game is explicitly designed around ~6 combats per long rest, with a short rest every 2. The DMG has suggestion on how to hold player to that as well. It's not a good resource system for several reasons, but it's kinda disingenuous to call out a massive damage difference when the remaining 5 fights of the day would have the Paladin and probably even the Ranger outperforming you. e: autocorrect you let me down. Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
TheBlandName posted:It's just a different preference. This is why it's super important for everyone to be on the same page before the game starts. I said before that my group would want to fight the dragon. What I mean is that in (the last 3 editions of) D&D, their expectation would be that "a dragon shows up and starts burning poo poo down" is the cue for a fight scene, or at least for an action scene. Nobody would want to immediately run away. If we were doing a retro AD&D semirandom hexcrawl, different expectations would apply. I wouldn't dream of having "a dragon burns the city" on the list of random happenings for a game like that. Instead, the (predetermined or randomly placeable) encounter would be with an obviously ancient, obviously powerful dragon's lair. The reaction I'd be going for is "Oh gently caress, run away! But wait, it's gonna be full of loot... this will require a careful plan." Or maybe, if they were low on supplies and beat up, they would just run away. The point is, it would be a signposted "dungeon here" moment, not a call to immediate action. When we used to play Hackmaster running away was a popular choice. Even from goblins. Different preferences, different expectations. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
That said, gently caress the ranger, it's legitimately bad at everything. I feel the dragon-charging pain, though. I don't like to play utterly recklessly insane characters, and many people do (by my standards). I'm totally comfortable noping out when the DM describes the dangerous l, obvious trap side quest if I'm not playing a comedy character - even adventurers are unlikely to take silly risks for absolutely no reason. Then again, if I'm playing a 'regular guy' character (not a tiefling / giant snake / literal assassin), I like to point out when we're all calmly discussing murdering people in character: it should be a big deal for normal people to set out to kill someone in cold blood, no matter their crimes. CaPensiPraxis fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:One if the reasons it's imbalanced is because the casters get to make decisions like "we're going to nuke this fight", while the rest just muddle along at the same rate if meh. If the wizard us doing feck all it's because they chose to. It's an imbalance of choice ("narrative control"), not just raw numbers. Yeah, I agree. I was just calling out the specific numbers that were thrown up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is why it's super important for everyone to be on the same page before the game starts. I worked hard to avoid "everything you see is a special trigger/event just for you", but I know thats just a preference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
There is a difference between "a dragon shows up and menaces the party" and "there is a dragon over there utterly destroying and entire town, with its guards all fighting and losing". As a DM I would chuckle if the party charged in the latter, calling for wisdom saves against fear, followed by a cut scene after a round or two to end the combat before everyone dies. Also, obligatory alignment changes to good stupid for people who charge in against warnings and die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The shield bash was introduced in 2e as a part of the weapon-and-shield style proficiency. Not saying you need to use it as an idea, just that yeah youre right that historically they were used to move and smash people, and that DnD brought that idea in a while back. True. I should clarify: when I say that 3e classifies shields as weapons, I mean that in 3.5 (not 3.0 mind you) the shield is literally in the weapon list. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions And some people I've spoken to just cannot accept that the shield might not be a weapon in 5e. It doesn't matter what 5e itself says about the matter, 3.5 decides everything for every edition how things Should Be and Always Were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I worked hard to avoid "everything you see is a special trigger/event just for you", but I know thats just a preference. I like that style of gaming too. AD&D and the earlier 2nd ed stuff supports it pretty well. I feel like D&D diverged in tone from that somewhere in the late 90s. The really important thing is that the person who's not on board with the style of game that's being played is likely to have a bad time. If that person's the DM then everyone will have a bad time. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I feel like D&D diverged in tone from that somewhere in the late 90s. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:Also, obligatory alignment changes to good stupid for people who charge in against warnings and die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Perfect transition to a Planescape game with an all-Petitioner party! I feel like a guy who died solo-charging an ancient dragon is gonna be given some pretty  poo poo to do when he gets to wherever heroes go. People who run away end up in one of those grey cold boring hells, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
I don't think I'm a fan of "unwinnable scenarios" in a game like modern Dungeons and Dragons. Seems like a waste to have all this book space devoted to making sure there's a semblance of encounter balance and then just throw it out the window for whatever reason. I had a DM tell me before a session started, "Hey, man, so, totally make sure that you convince the rest of the party not to fight the evil wizard because he's like 10 levels above you," and I should have just slapped him then and there. If you want to impress upon the players that there's some bad mumbo jumbo going on, there are better ways to do it. Maybe there was a dragon/wizard/undead army attacking a town, but by the time the players get there, it had already returned to its mountain lair/tower/fortress after reducing the town to a smoldering pile or crater. The DM gets to show off the threat without immediately sending the players into an unwinnable situation and sets up the plot hooks there. Or as others suggested, at least make the encounter less about the one massive threat, but how to deal with individual problems like evacuating peasants or fighting off looters or whatever. The encounter with a monster you're not supposed to fight, though, just seems cheap and unfair, especially in a game as combat-heavy as Dungeons and Dragons. As the saying goes, every problem looks like a nail if your only tool is a hammer, and when I'm looking at my character sheet, my tools are mostly weapons and attacks. Even if the DM warns the players beforehand that there will be situations that are unwinnable and your best option might be to run and fight another day, often there's literally no way to know which ones are until you try, and by that point you might already have a dead player or a party wipe. Now, I'm not talking encounters that the players get in over their heads or are crafted to be more challenging, I mean ones that are specifically created so that there is no real chance for the players to win. It just seems like punishing the players for playing the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:The encounter with a monster you're not supposed to fight, though, just seems cheap and unfair, especially in a game as combat-heavy as Dungeons and Dragons. As the saying goes, every problem looks like a nail if your only tool is a hammer, and when I'm looking at my character sheet, my tools are mostly weapons and attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Youre projecting your game onto all games. Yeah, martials really should be removed from DnD in order to facilitate campaigns that have more options than fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I don't think I'm a fan of "unwinnable scenarios" in a game like modern Dungeons and Dragons. Seems like a waste to have all this book space devoted to making sure there's a semblance of encounter balance and then just throw it out the window for whatever reason. I had a DM tell me before a session started, "Hey, man, so, totally make sure that you convince the rest of the party not to fight the evil wizard because he's like 10 levels above you," and I should have just slapped him then and there. Overpowered opponents are a holdover from a time of static world design and quick character generation. When the players are in near total control of the pace of the story, by exploring some dungeon for example, out-of-depth encounters act as locks that the players need a key to get past. The band of trolls on dungeon level 1 might be blocking a valuable shortcut down to lower levels of the dungeon. Or they might be blocking an unspoiled tomb of a hero, loaded with treasure. But the really important thing is that the band of trolls isn't a once off encounter. Those trolls are there at character level 1, and they'll stay right there until your character's are strong enough to get past them. This allows players to fight them at the edge of their territory, die, learn that trolls are serious foes, and then apply that lesson multiple times over the course of the dungeon by avoiding trolls. In a "modern" campaign an overpowered opponent is likely to be some guy who looks like every other slightly notable NPC you've encountered (entirely too many lines of description) but is a dozen levels above your characters. That's what modern adventure paths use, anyway. Also, instead of just sitting down in the way, the modern foe is actively working towards their own goals that are in opposition to the players. FRINGE posted:Youre projecting your game onto all games. No? He specified modern D&D and is literally stating a fact about the ruleset. Just because you can go outside the ruleset to have an engaging experience of setting traps for monsters doesn't mean you aren't going outside the ruleset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I agree with Mecha Gojira. If you want to demonstrate the firepower of a big bad, don't put the party in combat against the big bad directly. Let them watch the big bad incinerate a bunch of dudes (hell, use its actual combat stats for a 1-2 round combat) or put them in a situation that's explicitly about surviving/escaping with their lives. You wouldn't create an unwinnable fight in a JRPG, and you shouldn't do so in D&D either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Youre projecting your game onto all games. Nah, I'm specifically talking about the editions of Dungeons and Dragons I am most familiar with, 4e and 5e. I am sure there are other games that support messing with players that way, usually with simpler character creation or more robust noncombat options. Modern DnD unfortunately has in depth rules and options mostly centering around combat. Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You wouldn't create an unwinnable fight in a JRPG
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You wouldn't create an unwinnable fight in a JRPG, and you shouldn't do so in D&D either. If the game is on rails, I agree with that quote. If the players have the ability to decide "gently caress that insanity, lets go over there instead" I think its less of an issue. (I also think JRPGs arent RPGs in this sense so theres another 20 pages of arguing.  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If the game is on rails, I agree with that quote. If the players have the ability to decide "gently caress that insanity, lets go over there instead" I think its less of an issue. Okay, yeah. If it's the style of world building where you put level 8 ogres in that 20 mile hex (or whatever stretch of map) and the players insist on going there, then yes, by most accounts of that particular playstyle they should get what's coming to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I really don't think it's unreasonable to give players a 'force won't work (well) here' situation from time to time, even in a combat focused game. It's a nice change of place, allows for roleplaying, and in my experience most players like brainstorming solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:I've actually been whining to my DM that more characters in our group should be dying. I don't know what part of the description of an ancient red dragon burning down the city was supposed to indicate that our level 4 party should charge in and fight it , but one guy should have been swallowed whole and the rest burnt to a crisp. Of course I'm upset with that situation because I was, appropriately, long gone at the earliest glimpse of a red dragon. This is different than presenting players with unwinnable combat, it's players jumping to combat when they probably shouldn't be. The combat shouldn't be dumbed down to make it winnable just because players decide to throw themselves straight at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:This is different than presenting players with unwinnable combat, it's players jumping to combat when they probably shouldn't be. The combat shouldn't be dumbed down to make it winnable just because players decide to throw themselves straight at it. Why not? If more of the members of the group felt that the DM's description indicated "charge and slaughter" than people (including possibly the DM) felt the description indicated "abandon all hope" then shouldn't the group consensus hold until such time as the miscommunication can be clarified? Ideally the clarification would take no more than "Uh, guys, we're not running that kind of campaign right now." fool_of_sound posted:I really don't think it's unreasonable to give players a 'force won't work (well) here' situation from time to time, even in a combat focused game. It's a nice change of place, allows for roleplaying, and in my experience most players like brainstorming solutions. There's plenty of opportunities to involve that without going "Here is an opponent is being obviously tyrannical and laying waste to all who stand before him. ((My players will definitely clue in that this means "run away" and won't possibly conclude "we are bad enough dudes to save the president."))
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
TheBlandName posted:There's plenty of opportunities to involve that without going "Here is an opponent is being obviously tyrannical and laying waste to all who stand before him. ((My players will definitely clue in that this means "run away" and won't possibly conclude "we are bad enough dudes to save the president.")) No reason it couldn't either. "Distract the dragon while the civilians escape" for instance. Hell, you could even switch over to a similar objective if the players decide to charge the big nasty critter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 18:10
|
|