|
gourdcaptain posted:That there are people out there who stubbornly refuse to use powers in D&D 4e is one of those things that makes me realize I understand even less than I thought I did about how people work. I mean, it's a Ranger. Spam Twin Strike. That's the thing - he'd picked Ranger because he'd decided that Twin Strike was insanely good. Then never used it.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's the thing - he'd picked Ranger because he'd decided that Twin Strike was insanely good. Then never used it. Some people just want to see the system fail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
goodness posted:After trying to get my brother to play an RPG with me for years he finally wants to along with a few of our friends (spread out across the country). They are all brand new to pen and paper while I have played a few but never past the first few levels, and no experiencing running a game. What would be a good premade adventure for me to run as a player in the game for the group? e: as does tabletop simulator if your players don't mind throwing down some cash. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's the thing - he'd picked Ranger because he'd decided that Twin Strike was insanely good. Then never used it. I'm all for not playing someone's character for them, but if I was playing in a game where someone was just using basic attacks every turn instead of their powers, I'd have called them on it (EG: "How come you're not using your powers, Jeff?") Being charitable, it's possible that the idea that powers are better than basic attacks 99.9% of the time hadn't been communicated to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's the thing - he'd picked Ranger because he'd decided that Twin Strike was insanely good. Then never used it. Aaaa... Aaaa... I just... what. That's... what. Gort posted:I'm all for not playing someone's character for them, but if I was playing in a game where someone was just using basic attacks every turn instead of their powers, I'd have called them on it (EG: "How come you're not using your powers, Jeff?") Being charitable, it's possible that the idea that powers are better than basic attacks 99.9% of the time hadn't been communicated to them. Yeah, that's what I had to do in my Strike campaign with the two primarily previously 40K players. (One eventually left before fully getting the hang of it, but the other is now up to making my life as a DM miserable by using Pin Down and Area Denial on the same target in a turn with Lightning Strikes. I'm so proud. :p ) gourdcaptain fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
If it was BA over Twin Strike level of  I'd probably give up and just "remind" him to take his second attack every turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Dungeon World. Or, basically any game other than D&D. D&D really isn't that forgiving to brand new players. I tried to get them to play a different system or genre but D&D is what they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
goodness posted:I tried to get them to play a different system or genre but D&D is what they want.  I'm not being entirely serious Wait, did they say which D&D? Pull out 4E.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Play Dungeon World and tell them it's D&D If people are playing RPGs for the first time, playing 4e is kind of a crunch overload. I actually would genuinely give newcomers to RPGs Dungeon World and tell them it's DnD. It's not perfect and it's not a fantastic *World game but it's a pretty good introduction and character creation takes 5 minutes maximum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Play Dungeon World and tell them it's D&D This, only I am being a lot more serious. Don't force yourself to play a system you dislike and you think they might not like because it's D&D. D&D is what you make it, Pathfinder has spent the last 10 years playing that particular fiddle to great effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Play Dungeon World and tell them it's D&D I could do 4E, they are longtime wow players so would probably enjoy it. What's a good module that would go well with me being primarily a player and just running that for us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Zeitgeist's a thing that I've heard a lot of people like. Slaying stone is the general go to first level adventure, although it's kind of janky and could probably do with its story being smoothed over a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
I'll reiterate that the guy in question hadn't heard that 4th ed existed until being invited to the game. He didn't hate the system and want to see it fail. He'd understood enough about the game when making the character that there's no way he didn't know to use abilities. I chalked it up to "didn't really actually want to play D&D that day / ever". I don't believe that enough people fall into both of "actually interested in playing D&D" and "only say I Attack each round" that it's worth catering to in the design, but if I'm wrong about that and a one-button playstyle is something lots of people use, then surely it'd be a good idea to be able to do it with more than 1 in ~33 types of available character. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
goodness posted:I could do 4E, they are longtime wow players so would probably enjoy it. What's a good module that would go well with me being primarily a player and just running that for us. *Given the site name I'm assuming it's not  , if it is uh whoops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Imma sound like a grog here, but I seriously think for Baby's First D&D, you could do a lot worse than Basic/RC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
goodness posted:I could do 4E, they are longtime wow players so would probably enjoy it. What's a good module that would go well with me being primarily a player and just running that for us. It's tough to run 4e and play it at the same time, or any edition of D&D tbh. I wouldn't want to do it and I'm a moderately experience DM and very experienced player. For my money, one of my favourite starter adventure sequences is the CALI3-X series from LFR: CALI3-1 Malice of Mintar by Jordan Caroline Heroic Tier Download (ZIP) Ala'Ammar, patriarch of House Azhar in Almraiven, believes his bloodline might be traced back to the legendary House Asada. To prove his claim, Ala'Ammar seeks the famous Battlecloak of Vycaena. He needs a band of daring adventurers to conduct the search for him -- a search that leads through the twisted streets of Mintar, into dark dungeons where secrets are torn from souls the way flesh is torn from bone. A Living Forgotten Realms adventure set in Calimshan for characters of the Heroic Tier (levels 1-10). This is the first part of the Battlecloak Saga, which continues with CALI3-2 and concludes in CALI3-3. We recommend, but do not require, that you play the three parts of this story arc in order, with the same character. CALI3-2 Menace of Memnon by Dan Anderson Heroic Tier Download (ZIP) The search for the Battlecloak of Vycaena leads to the city of Memnon, where fire genasi enjoy an opulent lifestyle built on the backs of human slaves. Heroes are needed to infiltrate the city, posing as thespians, and locate the prize. Does your ability to perform on stage match your ability to perform in combat? A Living Forgotten Realms adventure set in Calimshan for characters of the Heroic Tier (levels 1-10). This is the second part of the Battlecloak Saga, which began with CALI3-1 and concludes in CALI3-3. We recommend, but do not require, that you play the three parts of this story arc in order, with the same character. CALI3-3 Agony of Almraiven by Dan Anderson, Lori Anderson, Larry DeLucas, and Joe Boerjes Heroic Tier Download (ZIP) In a land of assassins, djinn, giant birds, and magic lamps, our heroes find themselves pursued all the way to the gates of Almraiven, and quickly discover that there are those who would stop at nothing to prevent Ala'Ammar from getting his hands on the precious artifact that will restore honor to his family and could even deliver freedom to the oppressed people of Calimshan. A Living Forgotten Realms adventure set in Calimshan for characters of the Heroic Tier (levels 1-10). This is the third and final part of the Battlecloak Saga, which began with CALI3-1 and continued in CALI3-2. We recommend, but do not require, that you play the three parts of this story arc in order, with the same character. http://livingforgottenrealms.com/ use CTRL+F to find the adventure modules, and be aware that the treasure system is designed specifically around organised play and as a result could and should be ripped out wholesale and replaced with something better for a home game. You should also be giving out bonus feats. But you might be best off dragging this discussion over to the 4e thread if you want to go that way. But even 4e I'd argue is not a good system for a brand new group to TTRPGs, especially not if you're intending to run a DMPC as well. That's a really bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Imma sound like a grog here, but I seriously think for Baby's First D&D, you could do a lot worse than Basic/RC. I doubt you'll find a better very first D&D than Mentzer's red boxed Basic Set. It's a cheapish PDf now. Run the starter dungeon from that, which is D&D as gently caress. Ask people what they liked and disliked about it. Use that information to pick a different version of D&D (or a different game) to play. The bonus is that if everyone loves the hell out of it and you decide to stick with BECMI, there's an absolute wealth of expansions, extras, adventures, addons, clones, supplements, character sheets, etc already available for cheap or free and people are still making more. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
goodness posted:I could do 4E, they are longtime wow players so would probably enjoy it. What's a good module that would go well with me being primarily a player and just running that for us. The Slaying Stone is a good first level introductory adventure that hits a lot of good notes: you're not railroaded down a set series of dungeon rooms, there's a couple of significant challenges that aren't purely solvable via combat, but there's also a series of interesting tactical battles to be had. Just make sure you change the McGuffin into something more convincingly valuable, because the original plot hook sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Imma sound like a grog here, but I seriously think for Baby's First D&D, you could do a lot worse than Basic/RC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Oh I forgot to mention this detail: they want Sword Coast setting, they are still chasing the dream that was NWN1+2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
goodness posted:Oh I forgot to mention this detail: they want Sword Coast setting, they are still chasing the dream that was NWN1+2. http://www.dmsguild.com/product/121733/Lost-Crown-of-Neverwinter-4e
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
goodness posted:I could do 4E, they are longtime wow players so would probably enjoy it. What's a good module that would go well with me being primarily a player and just running that for us. I was going to recommend Zeitgeist until I saw that you wanted FR. Slaying stone could be dropped in but change the core conceit because it's rubbish - have it as a potent magic item or the lost magical banner of a regiment of the king or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'll reiterate that the guy in question hadn't heard that 4th ed existed until being invited to the game. He didn't hate the system and want to see it fail. He'd understood enough about the game when making the character that there's no way he didn't know to use abilities. I chalked it up to "didn't really actually want to play D&D that day / ever". How could you be running this and just let this slide? "I attack" "Okay Bob, which of your attacks?" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
By being a socially awkward fuckin' dweebo, that's how. Who needs to have actual discussions with each other when you can obtusely hint at things not being to your preference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
A dude I'd been friends with for ~15 years at the time, who played D&D with me in high school but not really since, decided to try the new D&D with us one night, understood the system but didn't enjoy the session and so coasted through it expending minimal effort before deciding not to play again. He's not an idiot. He didn't hate fourth edition with the fiery passion of a thousand grognards and want to see it fail. We're still friends 8 or however many years later. We played Fiasco for like the 5th or 6th time the other week. He just showed up for this one D&D session disinterested and failed to engage with the system, and stayed disinterested enough that he just kinda brushed off people's attempts to get him to do things "right" (ie, not just basic attacking). There's nothing socially awkward about it - it's not like he did it every week for 18 months straight and nobody knew how to say anything about it. The session was 2 hours long, and then we went to the pub as planned. He just wasn't into D&D that day. The context for bringing it up was a discussion about simple or one-button characters for people who, like this guy, have showed up for whatever reason but aren't interested in engaging with the rules beyond saying "I attack". I don't think that having bigger numbers come up would have changed his engagement, enjoyment, or motivation to continue playing for another session, and I think the assumption that the game should cater to people playing in a similar way is deeply stupid. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Rules Answers: Feb 2016quote:Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
quote:Second, its description mentions no spell. Is the most surprising part of that answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
This is exactly the sort of thing that a keyword system handles for you. Also, a Mind Flayer's mind blast won't work in an antimagic field but a Vampire's charm ability totally will
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
D&D is the dumbest loving thing. Only grown-rear end nerds who forgot what imagination even is would try to ruleslawyer around and figure out just how exactly a dragon can breathe fire and if it constitutes as magic or not, and desperately trying to justify things by creating magic as a literal rule of physics. D&D is pretty much the cornerstone to the idea that "all supernatural effects must be magic" and continues to stunt the intelligence of everyone who tries to take it seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
I didn't leave a comment because there was nothing I could have said that would have been able to live up to the self-parody that that answer has descended to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:have to engage in a lot of min-maxy dissection of chargen to come out the other side with a certain baseline effectiveness relative to the rest of the party. No offense but this is the worst loving one yet, lets go back and look at 3.x the fighter has to min-max much harder than the wizard to be effective. and with 4e outside of setting your stats right you can choose whatever powers you want and not fall behind anyone but the most bleeding edge system masters
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:No offense but this is the worst loving one yet, lets go back and look at 3.x the fighter has to min-max much harder than the wizard to be effective. and with 4e outside of setting your stats right you can choose whatever powers you want and not fall behind anyone but the most bleeding edge system masters Yeah, pre-4e I found that martial characters had to work even harder to optimize and min-max to even be able to play the 'I attack'. Unless they really enjoy 'I miss or do no damage'
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
I think the correct answer to "why doesn't an anti-magic field suppress dragon breath" should be, "because it's a loving dragon." Really though this illustrates the problem with anti-magic fields which, by the way, are the dumbest loving thing. Every time somebody has a problem with magic it comes down to the anti-magic field corner case. Why? It's only because some idiot thought having catch-all nullifier for a vague class of abilities was a good idea worthy of keeping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think the correct answer to "why doesn't an anti-magic field suppress dragon breath" should be, "because it's a loving dragon." Of course, it also means the only way to stop magic is to use more magic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Some people want a class with few(er) moving parts, so they don't have to engage in a lot of min-maxy dissection of chargen to come out the other side with a certain baseline effectiveness relative to the rest of the party. Personally I don't mind (and sometimes prefer) having a character that boils down to a basic attack machine since it keeps turns quick and the game moving. The difference is that the above is actually useful and the player has the option to add more complexity later without having to suicide and reroll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is it a magic item? The Monster Manual says on page 86: "Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities." So uh... are we really sure that its description doesn't include the word magical? I mean, yeah, the ability itself doesn't say that. But just one page over they also say the ability is explicitly fueled by magical power. Now I am confused again and don't know how this works. Thanks, natural language!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Man even 3.5 had Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-like abilities, with a nice little table listing what was effected by what. 5E is such a step downwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
This is one of the few times that "ask your gm " would be a legitimate answer, and instead they go full on naturalistic language rules lawyer. Never change, team.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:The Monster Manual says on page 86: Well you see that's a a description of the creature and not the effect and so it's clear that oh my loving god how can they have possibly made this unclear enough to even have a discussion about. "Dispel Magic, Antimagic <etc> have no effect on Innate abilities" and a tag or keyword system that puts the word "innate" on things that are not supposed to be dispellable. It wouldn't have been loving hard, but now it's too late to even try. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Splicer posted:This is one of the few times that "ask your gm " would be a legitimate answer, and instead they go full on naturalistic language rules lawyer. Never change, team. It is really goddamned irritating that they can't be of one mind about this: if it's a rules-lite, free-flowing game where the GM is empowered to make decisions about their setting and the universe and even the mechanics, leverage that. If it's actually a tightly defined game where you can regularly refer to the rulebooks for your answer, write that. This will-they-won't-they business just makes the game look slipshod and half-assed. At this point, if someone wrote a 3.5e derivative that didn't have the item treadmill, had numbers scaling that didn't assume +1 BAB/level, and a Concentration mechanic to prevent massive buff stacking, that'd still be a more comprehensible game because you'd still have the d20 SRD to fall back on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:54
|
|