|
Just list every type of damage under resistances except for... what's magic really unlikely to do? Bludgeoning?
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
goatface posted:Just list every type of damage under resistances except for... what's magic really unlikely to do? Bludgeoning? A handful of the new elemental evil spells do bludgeoning, the first coming to mind being catapult which is a level one 3d8 bludgeoning spell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Resistance "all except mundane weapon damage"? Resistance anything done by a wanker with a spell list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
goatface posted:Resistance "all except mundane weapon damage"? gee if only spellcasters had some way around that oh wait, I'm an Elemental Adept 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Polygon
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
"Resistance all 30/martial"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Resistance all 30/martial" Sleep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
It's legally an elf, can't be sleeped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Fixed. Nah, so long as the McElroys are around they're not entirely bad. Entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
goatface posted:Just list every type of damage under resistances except for... what's magic really unlikely to do? Bludgeoning? Nah, you've got flip things around. Double the HP, make it vulnerable (2x damage) to non-magical attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Magic resist Immune to spell and spell-like effects
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Rakshasas are immune to spells of below a certain level. You could just say the monster is immune to all spells if you really want to. I think immunities are cool when used sparingly. Its scary to hear "your weapons pass straight through him" or "the monster eats your spell and licks his lips". But that should be exceptional so it has more impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Is there a website or program to create monsters and magic items? I liked the thing 4th Edition had. Also this is the first time I popped into this thread in a while, last time was when 5e was still being tested. Do people like it now?? Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Thread consensus (whatever that means) is it's two steps back, one step forward on most things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
MinionOfCthulhu posted:Is there a website or program to create monsters and magic items? I liked the thing 4th Edition had. It's better than Age of Sigmar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
MinionOfCthulhu posted:Is there a website or program to create monsters and magic items? I liked the thing 4th Edition had. If you thought 3E was great but too rules heavy but at the same time don't want to play something that's not D&D, 5E is for you. Only be prepared for intentionally vague wording on a lot of rules because ~DM empowerment~ was a big theme and the way they've highlighted that is to make sure that there are tons of fiddly things to adjudicate. edit: Also the web tools so far have been an absolute trainwreck, with the people who were initially going to do a character builder being effectively fired (their product was even worse than the launch of the 4E web tools) and as far as I'm aware there's no officially sanctioned products. And the Monster Manual has you go through something like a 22 step process to make what may or may not be a balanced creature to throw at your group, but there are a couple goons that have put together more streamlined processes. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:It's better than Age of Sigmar. Still mad we never got Nigmos
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
SA is pretty harsh on 5e, general Internet feeling is generally positive from what I've seen. If you enjoy sifting through people bitching endlessly (and sadly, I do) and thus read this thread regularly, there's a few people around with more neutral approaches to the edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:If you thought 3E was great but too rules heavy but at the same time don't want to play something that's not D&D, 5E is for you. Only be prepared for intentionally vague wording on a lot of rules because ~DM empowerment~ was a big theme and the way they've highlighted that is to make sure that there are tons of fiddly things to adjudicate. Not only have they not released any tools, they've viciously taken down any community tools that were developed. While it's understandable from a copyright perspective, it just goes to show how much this product has received the red-headed-stepchild treatment and that nobody running the show has a loving clue what they're doing. I mean goddamn, Insider was like a license to print money, but "we've got to go back Marfy... Back
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:SA is pretty harsh on 5e, general Internet feeling is generally positive from what I've seen. If you enjoy sifting through people bitching endlessly (and sadly, I do) and thus read this thread regularly, there's a few people around with more neutral approaches to the edition. SA is definitely more hostile to 5E, but it's a really divisive topic. A lot of the people singing praises for 5E are either people who would say poo poo tastes great just to spite 4E, or they're playing 5E because it's D&D and that's what you play if you play TTRPGs. edit: Inflammatory, but if I look up reviews right now, for most any other game I get a breakdown of mechanics and why they're considered good or bad. For 5E, you get poo poo titles like, "Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition gives freedom back to the Dungeon Master," and the articles almost always focus on how this edition feels like classic D&D. Usually without any idea of what classic D&D felt like. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
The few places I view on the internet all generally dislike 5E, so obviously it's terrible (reverse that for liking it, see what I did there). Honestly, my opinion is basically the game is mechanically pretty mediocre and no one would care about it at all if it wasn't named Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:SA is definitely more hostile to 5E, but it's a really divisive topic. A lot of the people singing praises for 5E are either people who would say poo poo tastes great just to spite 4E, or they're playing 5E because it's D&D and that's what you play if you play TTRPGs. I think it's more a combination of negativity bias and there not being a whole lot to talk about regarding 5E. What else can you talk about in a game that does basically nothing new? We sang praises of Advantage/Disadvantage and Concentration, but those aren't particularly deep topics to discuss. Hell, there's a bunch of 5E PbPs on here and questions get answered pretty quickly. All that's left is to wait for (and ridicule) the monthly 'clarifications' or Unearthed Arcanas from Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
5th edition is the first edition of D&D I've actually experienced outside of video game adaptations, and a lot of it still infuriates me, especially from the perspective of someone trying to DM. How does a trap affect an encounter's difficulty? What's an acceptable amount of loot for an encounter to drop? How does being able to cast a non-damaging spell like hold loving person affect a creature's CR? I sure am glad there are no guidelines for any of that so that I could have all this freedom.
Vanguard Warden fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:5th edition is the first edition of D&D I've actually experienced outside of video game adaptations, and a lot of it still infuriates me, especially from the perspective of someone trying to DM. How does a trap affect an encounter's difficulty? What's an acceptable amount of loot for an encounter to drop? How does being able to cast a non-damaging spell like hold loving person affect a creature's CR? I sure am glad there are no guidelines for any of that so that I could have all this freedom. But imagine how lazy and entitled you would be if such things were covered in the rules!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
The thing that makes D&D5 so offensive is the laziness. They clearly have expectations about how the game functions, but they hosed the execution, including obviously bad math. The Monster Manual is probably the worst of it, because it has so much boring cruft that either should've been livened up or just cut. And if they'd cut it, they would've had room to include properly exhaustive cross-referencing in a big book you're supposed to cross-reference all the time. Any given game needn't be a revolution in design and style, but for better or worse D&D is the industry flagship and it's aggressively mediocre. That's the real problem: They couldn't even do well at designing for their own preferred play style.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm like 80% sure that 3.x also had a Diablo book, and the Warcraft still having Vancian goddamned casting is the worst example of non-genre emulation I've ever seen. Casters were not so limited in Warcraft 3.5 at least. Imagine 3E casters but noticeably stronger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:edit: Inflammatory, but if I look up reviews right now, for most any other game I get a breakdown of mechanics and why they're considered good or bad. For 5E, you get poo poo titles like, "Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition gives freedom back to the Dungeon Master," and the articles almost always focus on how this edition feels like classic D&D. Usually without any idea of what classic D&D felt like. The thing I like to remember about 5e is that for an entire month earlier this year wizards.com/dnd went out of their way to fellate DMs, and there were no less than 3 separate article printed describing the various gifts you could get for your Dungeon master to show your appreciation for him crafting a game world for you. Which, somewhat, is fine. But the tenor of the articles was such that it came across as contemptuous of players, that you should be grateful not because of the nature of their character or their qualities as a DM, but just because they exist and are allowing you to play. OneThousandMonkeys posted:Casters were not so limited in Warcraft 3.5 at least. Imagine 3E casters but noticeably stronger. Yes, the thing to remember is that there was both a 3.0 and 3.5 warcraft RPG. the 3.0 RPG was just bolted onto the default players handbook and gimped wizards and sorcerers hardcore. The 3.5 RPG created brand new classes for arcane and divine casters and changed the way spells were prepared. Mainly that you can prepare X(a number determined by your caster level and your ranks in spellcraft) spells per level, and cast any spell that you've prepared that day using any appropriate spell slot. Which is a kind of flexibility that 5e seems to have appropriated. Hrm... Spells were also more powerful, and mages that combined a few spells could do upwards of 5000 damage as a move action if they did some preparation earlier in the day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The 3.5 RPG created brand new classes for arcane and divine casters and changed the way spells were prepared. Mainly that you can prepare X(a number determined by your caster level and your ranks in spellcraft) spells per level, and cast any spell that you've prepared that day using any appropriate spell slot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I think that between having to outsource the development of all supplements to third parties and what I gather to be an anemic GenCon presence that if D&D Next were any other game everyone would be calling it a stillborn flop just waiting to happen. Of course I doubt that it's sold poorly enough that it spells D&D's doom forever or some ridiculous notion, but none of this feels like a triumphant return from the jaws of the 4E menace that Next was built up as over the two year development time it took to make. I'm sure the new D&D movie they're banking on is going to be a smash success unlike the last three D&D movie too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:5th edition is the first edition of D&D I've actually experienced outside of video game adaptations, and a lot of it still infuriates me, especially from the perspective of someone trying to DM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Something I whipped up real quick. Damaged Arcane Golem: Large construct HP: 60 AC: 14 Movement: 25 Darkvision: 120'. Eldritch Blast (2x multiattack): +6 to hit, 120' range. 1d10 + 3 force damage + 3 necrotic damage. Immune: charm, fear, sleep, poison, psychic, blind, deaf Resist: magical damage Resonance Cascade: Whenever this construct is affected by magic, roll on the wild magic table and apply effect to the caster or wielder of the magic weapon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
I'd fight that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
I cast darkness and then the cantrip mold earth a few dozen times, while the fighters distract it, to make a giant pit and then lure it into falling to it's death. Problem solved with magic. Casters rule  .Successful Businessmanga fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Or you summon a monster to fight it, whose innate attacks are just non-magical claws. Problem solved with magic. Or I charm/suggest some other monsters to do my dirty work for me. Problem solved with magic. Or I pump out a lot of Catapult spells, which telekinetically hurls a nonmagical object at the golem. The object is affected by magic, but the golem isn't. Problem solved with magic. Or I make a ceiling collapse on it, create a pit and cover it up with illusions, trap it inside a dead end tunnel with Wall of Stone, or otherwise "creatively" use the terrain. Problem solved with magic. I always love how easily most "mage killer" problems are solved with magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
MinionOfCthulhu posted:Is there a website or program to create monsters and magic items? I liked the thing 4th Edition had. It's aggressively mediocre in a manner that's in many ways worse than if it was just outright terrible since it means people will actually try to defend playing it over any other D&D version and derivative orangelex44 posted:SA is pretty harsh on 5e, general Internet feeling is generally positive from what I've seen. If you enjoy sifting through people bitching endlessly (and sadly, I do) and thus read this thread regularly, there's a few people around with more neutral approaches to the edition. Those people are complete morons, there's almost literally nothing about 5E as a game worth defending(as a book on the other hand it looks great) Plague of Hats posted:The thing that makes D&D5 so offensive is the laziness. They clearly have expectations about how the game functions, but they hosed the execution, including obviously bad math. The Monster Manual is probably the worst of it, because it has so much boring cruft that either should've been livened up or just cut. And if they'd cut it, they would've had room to include properly exhaustive cross-referencing in a big book you're supposed to cross-reference all the time. Fully agree, it's rather sad that there's a very good chance this'll be the last edition of D&D(unless the new movie does extremely & surprisingly well or WOTC sell/licenses out the rights to another company) Sage Genesis posted:Or you summon a monster to fight it, whose innate attacks are just non-magical claws. Problem solved with magic. Monster has an absolute Anti-Magic Field that covers itself and everything within a 100 mile radius of itself as well as permanently attaching said Field to anything with hostile intent towards it until it dies(said field also permanently destroys any magical items it comes in contact with and instantly kills any inherently magical lifeforms or constructs or beings it contacts as well, summoned mundane beings count as magical for the purposes of this, and lastly it's immune to Wish, and anything to do with Reality Manipulation, Dimensional Travel, or Time Manipulation), also to avoid any "Drop the Moon" on it solutions, it'll automatically vaporize anything approaching it over a certain speed, or over a certain size or mass There, beat that with Magic
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Monster has an absolute Anti-Magic Field that covers itself and everything within a 100 mile radius of itself as well as permanently attaching said Field to anything with hostile intent towards it until it dies(said field also permanently destroys any magical items it comes in contact with and instantly kills any inherently magical lifeforms or constructs or beings it contacts as well, summoned mundane beings count as magical for the purposes of this, and lastly it's immune to Wish, and anything to do with Reality Manipulation, Dimensional Travel, or Time Manipulation), also to avoid any "Drop the Moon" on it solutions, it'll automatically vaporize anything approaching it over a certain speed, or over a certain size or mass Prismatic Wall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Monster has an absolute Anti-Magic Field that covers itself and everything within a 100 mile radius of itself as well as permanently attaching said Field to anything with hostile intent towards it until it dies(said field also permanently destroys any magical items it comes in contact with and instantly kills any inherently magical lifeforms or constructs or beings it contacts as well, summoned mundane beings count as magical for the purposes of this, and lastly it's immune to Wish, and anything to do with Reality Manipulation, Dimensional Travel, or Time Manipulation), also to avoid any "Drop the Moon" on it solutions, it'll automatically vaporize anything approaching it over a certain speed, or over a certain size or mass I love how over the top and hilariously setting-warping this hypothetical monster has to be before we can go 'There, beat THAT, wizards!'  And it probably doesn't even work, and unleashes hellish unintended consequences at the same time. Like genociding gnomes (Talking to burrowing animals is a spell-like ability, so they're all instantly killed!). And how it's probably immune to catapults, guns, and archers. And how the radius probably works the same way as other magical radius effects in DnD and doesn't penetrate stone walls or anything where you don't have 'line of effect' to people. (also, it's not explicitly immortal so I'll just pop off to my slow-time demiplane until the thing karks it from old age. Problem solved. WIth magic.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Now let's do the same but with fighters! *takes any arbitrary monster, adds "flight"* Oh wait hang on, archer fighters are a thing. *+ DR/(put whatever you want in here as long as it's not piercing)*
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
It needs a ranged attack of it's own, too. Y'know. To be safe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
These are actually somewhat fitting for the campaign setting I'm running, so here's another one. Mage-hunter Jade Golem Large Construct, unaligned HP: 80 AC: 17 Movement: 25 Darkvision: 120'. Magical Detection and Ranging: The golem automatically knows the location of any magic creature, magic items, or creature actively using magic within 600'. Magic Missile (3x multiattack): 2d4 + 2 force damage. Automatically hits. 120' range. Counter-battery fire: As a reaction the golem may attack any creature attempting to cast a spell or activate a magic item. +6 to hit, 120' range. 1d10 + 3 force damage. Immune: charm, fear, sleep, poison, psychic, blind, deaf Accelerated Counter-battery: The golem may make 2 reactions in between turns. Harmonic Overload: When the golem damages a creature that is concentrating on a spell, that creature has disadvantage on the saving throw it makes to maintain concentration. Antimagic Shield: The golem has a 5' radius antimagic shield surrounding it. This shield does not interfere with the golem's own functions. Lore: Before the Scorching, the jungle elves created these constructs to hunt and eradicate necromancer cults. Surviving units still wander the jungles and guard ruined elvish temples, treating as foes those who don't know the long since forgotten command codes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:10
|
|