|
The grapple rules don't clearly indicate that after escaping your grapple you get your speed back. It's maybe sort implied but not outright stated. You should absolutely 100% give the character that escapes a grapple it's speed back or the game breaks down.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Yeah I've noticed a lot of Monsters grapple
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
User0015 posted:Huzzah, the thread is back! The example skill checks the book gives do not mesh with the math. They just recycled the old 3.x values while not accounting for the fewer bonuses you get in 5e. There was a poster who adjusted the values appropriately to 5e, but I do not remember who. IIRC, the rule of thumb was to lower every check by 2-3. I thought it may have been Gradenko, so I checked his blog and couldn't find an entry about it. That link, however, does have monster stats re-balanced for use against a stereotypical fighter. It would be a good start to try to balance encounters using that math so you don't get battles that are either rocket tag or just beating on a sack of HP for forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Also as a GM a good thing to do is to not have binary pass/fail on skill checks Lots of checks might always suceed with various amounts of 'however' bad stuff. Like picking a locked door might alert whoever was on the other side or take an inordinately long amount of time letting some monster patrol find you just as you finish. Persuasion checks never result in 'nothing happens'. A bad result may make the guy like you less, or convince him to do it but at the cost of his opinion of you leading to complications in the future. This applies to all skill checks generally and is never stated in the PHB or DMG that it is intended, but it should 100% be the goal of the GM to never have skill checks just be nothing. The possible exception is knowledge or perception checks where 'you don't know what this monster is' or 'you hear nothing' are easy go to answers, but even here I think a good DM can finagle something better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
I'm coming up with a concept I'm going to use in my game of a guerrilla band of halfling commandos. Sorta make them like the British commandos during WWII. Rag taggish, very resourceful, high spirit even when down. Any ideas for how they might take on bigger foes? The most straight forward I can think of is traps/ambushes, but anyone got anything else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
If you want a group of adventurers to feel like they're punching above their weightclass either give them magic items above their weightclass or make them fight bigger monsters that are hampered somehow. You could give the players very advantageous terrain or maybe the monster they're fighting is injured somehow. Alternative win conditions like pushing monsters off cliffs or goals of 'steal the mcguffin' where fighting isn't explicitly necessary or wise and the players will just want to run in and steal it and run out. Just be aware that you're going for the feeling of punching up without the actual danger normally assorted with it. A campaign that constantly walked the knife's edge where one little slip ended with the party getting eviscerated by a monster 5 CR higher than them isn't fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Also as a GM a good thing to do is to not have binary pass/fail on skill checks The DMG has a section at the end for modified rules where it suggests fail forward. Theirs is up to -5 is a fail forward with consequences and past that is a hard fail. My favorite thing as a DM is figuring out how a nat1 is going to fail. It's great to see my players face as they see the one, look at me as i kinda smile too and try and figure out how they ate going to gently caress up without totally screwing them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:The grapple rules don't clearly indicate that after escaping your grapple you get your speed back. It's maybe sort implied but not outright stated. That's a great point. I believe that's why your rogue ultimately died, because the DM had ruled you don't get a move afterwards despite breaking a grapple? That doesn't seem sensible to me: Reality wise, people break free from getting grabbed and bolt all the time, and gameplay wise: I get a standard action and a move action, and I can use them in either order, and my standard action freed me from impairment, so yeah, I should be able to run like hell. If I was somehow rooted to the ground by a spell, and I was a caster who could cast Freedom on myself, would I get a move action afterwards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:The DMG has a section at the end for modified rules where it suggests fail forward. Theirs is up to -5 is a fail forward with consequences and past that is a hard fail. My favorite thing as a DM is figuring out how a nat1 is going to fail. It's great to see my players face as they see the one, look at me as i kinda smile too and try and figure out how they ate going to gently caress up without totally screwing them. The first time I heard of the 'fail forward' method was the 13th age LP on here, and it sounds like a pretty good idea. I liked the concept of "You kick open a door on a nat 20: The door flies off it's hinges and slams into the baddie waiting to ambush you, knocking him out cold. You kick open a door on a nat 1: The door flies open and you are greeted with silvered arrows flying towards you from the ambush that had been waiting." Opening the door succeeded regardless of the roll, but the roll determined whether you like the result or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
User0015 posted:That's a great point. I believe that's why your rogue ultimately died, because the DM had ruled you don't get a move afterwards despite breaking a grapple? That doesn't seem sensible to me: Reality wise, people break free from getting grabbed and bolt all the time, and gameplay wise: I get a standard action and a move action, and I can use them in either order, and my standard action freed me from impairment, so yeah, I should be able to run like hell. If I was somehow rooted to the ground by a spell, and I was a caster who could cast Freedom on myself, would I get a move action afterwards? That was one of the bigger mechanical issues but we also had a problem with table communication that we didn't even realize was a problem until me and the DM argued for like 72 hours. All worked out tho. I would say anytime you are freed from a movement confining effect you should get your movement back, otherwise there is no point in freeing yourself. Also in 5e there is no 'move action' so much as you can move up to your speed per turn. Which is really a minor nitpick except remembering that you're allowed to move in one big chunk or as many little chunks as you need with no penalty or special feats required.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:The DMG has a section at the end for modified rules where it suggests fail forward. Theirs is up to -5 is a fail forward with consequences and past that is a hard fail. My favorite thing as a DM is figuring out how a nat1 is going to fail. It's great to see my players face as they see the one, look at me as i kinda smile too and try and figure out how they ate going to gently caress up without totally screwing them. Yeah but if I remember correctly in the DMG their suggestion for failing forward is if you succed the DC but only by a little amount. Like getting 15 on a DC 15 gives you some sort of failure that still works. When that is the opposite of what I do. a 15 on a 15 is perfect success, a 10 on a 15 is a success with various consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Wait, does that mean I can move, attack, and move again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
In 5e yes. You can move, use an item, move, attack, move, taunt the vampire, and move again if you wanted. This is like standard rogue procedure (assuming melee) because you might walk in beside the fighter, roll your dice and sneak attaks, then use cunning action to disengage and waltz back out. Agent355 fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Allowing characters to move, attack and move again without a feat tax is one of those things from 5e which I think is objectively a good thing and it's one I take as default when running games these days. But then they made Charge have a feat tax so you win some you lose some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Which is why the rogue using Disengage as a bonus action is so useful and fun. Move up to a monster being attacked by a friend, make a melee attack with sneak attack damage dice, disengage, and move out of melee range so you can't be freely retaliated against. All in one turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
My rogue is a kobold because kobolds are awesome, and not only do I get to do that poo poo I also always attack with advantage because the same requirements to trigger my sneak attack damage trigger kobold's pack tactics. Little shin stabbin lizard. yes this the same rogue that the vampire almost killed, chased an invisible kobold over 150 ft. Also I have two weapons so if i swing and get a hit with my short sword, great, fine, sneak attack dice. yet if I miss the short sword i can swing again with a dagger and go fishing for those sneak attack dice since the actual weapon portion of the attack is insignificant compared to the sneak dice. I hate power gaming and absolutely refuse to do it (I'm play a martial, so obviously) but the movement rules in 5e are super helpful for rogues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Although it would get an attack of opportunity on the moving away move unless you have disengage as a bonus action, yeah? Edit: answered above I guess, okay cool just making sure I understood the split moving stuff correctly. Agent355 posted:My rogue is a kobold because kobolds are awesome, and not only do I get to do that poo poo I also always attack with advantage because the same requirements to trigger my sneak attack damage trigger kobold's pack tactics. Sup fellow kobold player, kobolds ownin' hard. Right now I'm running a kobold wild magic sorcerer who is afraid of magic because he accidentally blew up his band, and my backup character right now will be a kobold artificer who is fascinated by gnomish engineering but wants to "improve" it for Kobold use. His artificer beast thing is just gonna be a straight up treaded mining drill. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Updated OP with disclaimer about Zak S which hopefully will stop any future discussion on the topic:quote:
And I'm following this up with a new thread rule: No More Arguing Or Discussing These Events In This Thread. Take It To The Industry Thread Instead, Where Such Arguments Are Expected. Covok fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Although it would get an attack of opportunity on the moving away move unless you have disengage as a bonus action, yeah? Worth noting that goblins (I think) in volo's guide get a disengage as bonus action racial trait, which is suuuuper good. My kobold made friends with a gold dragon for about a year in her past. At which point he taught her about good and evil and the nature of kobolds (being inherently evil). Eventually he left and told her to 'okay, you be good while I'm gone. Cya' without really thinking about it, because, you know, dragons don't give a poo poo about anything that isn't themselves really. So now I got this kobold who was told to 'be good' and wanders the kingdom trying to be good against her kobold nature. It's the most fun I've had playing a character in a long rear end time. (this is an incredibly truncated simplistic backstory but nobody wants to read the loving mini-novella I have in my head so it will suffice)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
New Warlock and Wizard archetypes. In today's Unearthed Arcana, the Wizard becomes a better more versatile sorcerer than the sorcerer. Warlock Raven Queen and Hexblade archetypes, Raven Queen seems nice, but Hexblade seems lacking. Also a good selection of Eldritch Evocations for the new, and old Archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Hexblade: "Once per rest you can do what a forge Cleric can do once per round" wowee Like swinging with charisma is cool but the invocations weren't really exciting for them. I like what they did on the other ones though edit: Oh okay it picks up at level 14 Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Some of this Arcana really needs to be reburied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Yeah but if I remember correctly in the DMG their suggestion for failing forward is if you succed the DC but only by a little amount. Like getting 15 on a DC 15 gives you some sort of failure that still works. I thought it was meet or beat the dc number, like ac. At least that's how I've been doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:I thought it was meet or beat the dc number, like ac. At least that's how I've been doing it. RAW it is. However this leads to situations like Fightbro: I roll to break down the door, i got an 8 DM: nothing happens Fightbro: I try again, 7 DM: nothing happens Fightbro: I try again, 18 DM: the door shatters And thats what I like to avoid. generally I don't let people fail some skill checks, I just make the succeed in crappier and crappier ways to avoid the above. It works particularly well in that situation, but i use it in basically every situation where the normal DM response is 'nothing happens'. Lots of things already have a sort of failure state, jumping across a gap for instance, failure meant falling not 'nothing happens' and they don't need to be messed with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Big Black Brony posted:I thought it was meet or beat the dc number, like ac. At least that's how I've been doing it. It is by default. The issue is that fail forward usually involves turning outright failures into partial failures instead of taking outright successes and making them partial successes. Given how messy 5E math is, turning outright failures into partial failures is far safer than taking outright successes and making them partial successes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Yeah I was running Storm King's Thunder and there's a DC 20 chest in the starting town. Lockpicking a chest while there's no time pressure sounds like a reasonable time to take 20, but that's kinda boring and why was the chest even there with no encounter? I may just not do stuff like that any more, since why was there a lock, but I thought that was a particularly strange one. (I said rolling a 1 would break his tools and made him roll until he passed but still.) The other option would be to say like, one attempt and that's it, or one attempt and that's it until a long rest (to uhh, re-approach the problem with a beginner's mind.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
I'd say a situation like that is just badly written as is. You have a reward in a safe place locked behind a roll with no consequences. Just give em the treasure. At least a locked box in a dungeon threatens wandering monsters if you take the hour it takes in game time to take 20 on a roll. Even then 'locked box with nothing else going on' is bad. I don't even include them unless a rogue or other thievery sort of dude is in the party. It makes rogues feel good that they get to be useful, otherwise it's just a waste of space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Spiteski posted:New Warlock and Wizard archetypes. In today's Unearthed Arcana, the Wizard becomes a better more versatile sorcerer than the sorcerer. I'm really impressed by the extent to which 5E caters to magic users. The super-versatile generalist academician is like my favorite wizard archetype and to get it working in 4E you needed a considerable amount of finagling and item support while here Mearls shows up in a maitre d outfit like "ah, welcome, right this way my good sir"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:
This is my ruling when I DM. One-and-done checks. Your character doesn't know how well you, the player, rolled. If a thief tries to pick a lock and fails, he'd think "this one is above my pay-grade." Likewise when the beef boy can't bust down the door, the wispy elf isn't going to throw himself against it. The elf doesn't know the beef boy's player rolled a 2. The elf would think "That must be one motherfucker of a door."
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah I was running Storm King's Thunder and there's a DC 20 chest in the starting town. Lockpicking a chest while there's no time pressure sounds like a reasonable time to take 20, but that's kinda boring and why was the chest even there with no encounter? I may just not do stuff like that any more, since why was there a lock, but I thought that was a particularly strange one. (I said rolling a 1 would break his tools and made him roll until he passed but still.) Agent355 posted:I'd say a situation like that is just badly written as is. You have a reward in a safe place locked behind a roll with no consequences. Just give em the treasure. If there is no time pressure and the only thing that happens on failure is "I try again", you're supposed to let them succeed without a roll according to the rules. From what I've seen, the published adventures just give the DCs for certain things (doors/locks) reflexively. If its a DC they could achieve by taking 10, just let them do it. If they'd have to take 20, it takes them 30 minutes-1 hour of work depending on the actual DC. The problem with "a 1 jams the lock/breaks the tools" is...if I roll a 1 for just smashing the door, do I tear my ACL or break my weapon? Maybe, but that seems overly punitive. MTV Crib Death posted:This is my ruling when I DM. One-and-done checks. Your character doesn't know how well you, the player, rolled. If a thief tries to pick a lock and fails, he'd think "this one is above my pay-grade." Likewise when the beef boy can't bust down the door, the wispy elf isn't going to throw himself against it. The elf doesn't know the beef boy's player rolled a 2. The elf would think "That must be one motherfucker of a door." If the door is made of wood, and beefy boy has an axe...you know? It's a matter of time and energy at that point. Beefy isn't going to take one hack and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I've been debating with a friend of about Agent's "your speed is 0 after you escape a grapple" rule that plagued him. My friend and I both knew in our hearts that this is wrong, but we couldn't pin down why. After a while we agreed on a couple things: -Grappled is a condition. Among other effects, it sets your speed to 0. -Being freed from a condition ends its effects. -"Speed" is a stat, and not a pool you drain like HP. Taking a move action doesn't "use your speed", it allows you to move a distance up to your speed stat. Therefore: your speed is restored after being freed from the grappled condition and can move assuming you haven't been forced to use your move action somehow. You'll eat an opportunity attack, but hey. This doesn't change a drat thing in that argument, though, but I do love debating rules as written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Hexblade: "Once per rest you can do what a forge Cleric can do once per round" The curse bringer class feature lets you make a greatsword without letting you use your charisma modifier for attack rolls with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
MTV Crib Death posted:This is my ruling when I DM. One-and-done checks. Your character doesn't know how well you, the player, rolled. If a thief tries to pick a lock and fails, he'd think "this one is above my pay-grade." Likewise when the beef boy can't bust down the door, the wispy elf isn't going to throw himself against it. The elf doesn't know the beef boy's player rolled a 2. The elf would think "That must be one motherfucker of a door." I feel like this is falling into the trap of sacrificing fun for realism. It's a real good interpretation of whats happening but it isn't a whole lot of fun for players to miss out on loot because the thief rolled badly on his thief tools check. Even being realistic people will often try again if they fail something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
I like the new invocations. Particularly the themed ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
quote:Spell Secrets
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
MTV Crib Death posted:This is my ruling when I DM. One-and-done checks. Your character doesn't know how well you, the player, rolled. If a thief tries to pick a lock and fails, he'd think "this one is above my pay-grade." Likewise when the beef boy can't bust down the door, the wispy elf isn't going to throw himself against it. The elf doesn't know the beef boy's player rolled a 2. The elf would think "That must be one motherfucker of a door." If it's time sensitive, that might make sense, but if nothing prevents you from trying over and over, wouldn't you just take 20 and call it a day?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Jesus christ. Necroticball that requires a charisma save, gently caress off bitches. Though they can only change once per rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
They can change the saving throw once per rest but they've got infinite flexibility on damage types forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
I do genuinely love 5e but man the martial caster balance in this game is just all sorts of out of whack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
It's better then it was in all editions other then 4e. And the martial are still very solid. Like they are never going to be useless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:45
|
|