|
D&D weapons are too granular, I prefer abstracting that out. If the damage die of two weapons is the same, and the only differences are weight and cost (which only really matter at low level) or damage type (because gently caress mundanes) than I think that's pretty bad design.
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:And the roleplay when being checked for weapons hilarious. Basically the metal-detector scene from The Matrix.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Neat chart. Monster dpr looks to be totally bonkers. Also: Because they couldn't just say your HP is [whatever you roll each level]+[level*CON mod] 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Your to-hit, your damage, and your strength save. I don't think it effects feats in any way, though. You might not qualify for some multiclassing though... interesting..
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:We don't actully know how it works right now. Guys, it's just a BASIC version of the game. Wait for the PHB.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
So here's a thought. Would it make any loving difference at all, in 5e, if you let casters pick any Spellcasting ability they want, from INT/WIS/CHA? It seems like it might only benefit Paladins and Bards; everyone else, it would just let you be good at whichever skillset you want from those three.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Tactical Warrior is apparently now called Sentinel, and its essentially the same except you no longer have to mark targets, any enemy within 5 feet provokes AoO when they attack anyone other than you (or another person who has the feat) So, Defender Aura. How very mearls.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Not quite, iirc defender aura was just -2 attack to any enemies within 5' of you if their attack didn't include you. While this is technically true, any class that got Defender Aura also got an Opportunity Action power that they could use against dudes in the aura who didn't attack them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Opportunity Attacks Play some 4e as a defender, and tell me your "Average Opportunity Actions Triggered Per Round" in the trip report. While the structure of 1/rd Immediate + 1/turn Opportunity wasn't the most elegant, merging the 2 (for "simplicity") with no consideration for mechanical implications is textbook Nextiness.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Encounters (interesting ones at least) from level 3 on typically take about 30-45 minutes each in 4e. Once you hit level 5/6 they start to take an hour, it's the only thing I don't care for in the system. That's the thing about 4e; when you get rid of Vance's Magical I-Win Button spells, you (shockingly) have to actually fight ALL the encounters rather than just skipping the ones you don't like. So yeah, 4e combat takes longer, shock and surprise! Not to rag on you, specifically, I just see this brought up all the time everywhere and no one seems to consider this angle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:The trouble is that when combats are that long and you still need to fight four of them in a day or the adventuring day design gets squiffy, sessions get longer or squiffier than I would like. Yeah that's fine. I'm not praising long combat times or anything. It's just sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
xiw posted:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721 Heavily Armored Heavy Armor Master Grappler Tavern Brawler Medium Armor Master Moderately Armored Aside from the seeming-overlap, there's a ton of the usual trap garbage and feat taxes. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
LFK posted:I'm probably going to run 5e for a while Do some PbP games; the goons who are in on those are cool and chill as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think something like 'spend a [daily resource/healing surge] to regain all encounter powers during a 10 minute rest' would be a good middle ground, but obviously the 5e designers thought otherwise. This is basically how it works in the game I did up, which Error 404 and I are hacking for the July contest. Perhaps more importantly, it's made into a character resource rather than a party resource.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
yeah it's sorta weird how magic classes get better at magic as they level, because it's The Thing They Do, whereas being martial means getting better at martialling via Finding Magic Items (if the DM feels like it). I'm sure it has everything to do with nerd power dynamics or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
I think some stuff from 5e could be extrapolated into an interesting, lite game, if it weren't for the fact that they're trying so hard to be 3.5 again. Like, adding proficiency to stuff and advantage/disadvantage is probably enough to build a mechanical core around. Damnit, now I need to make this game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It really makes me want to write that 4e heartbreaker. If I'd noticed this month's competition before this weekend, I might actually have done so... Write it anyway. Sign me the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
treeboy posted:what kind of archetypes are not present that people would want to see? alternatively classes/archetypes. Archery + anything meaning spells, duh Paladins can buff the poo poo out of their melee attacks with spells, but archers seem to always get the shaft, comparatively.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I definitely won't be running it though, given what they did to spellcasting monsters, gently caress that. And such is the opinion of everyone else who DMs in my current group, so it looks like I won't be playing anyway. Let's all play 5e without spellcasters, be they monsters or PCs. There's really not much of a game left, let's be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ah. I guess I was used to that in the older editions. 3e was a terrible mess to look through though. Please play some 4e,  But yeah, everything is instant-cast, although zones and stuff you can usually "sustain"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Being able to interrupt spells is important if they're horrible save-or-die spells but guess what 4e didn't do that, either. Or level drain, or ability drain. It's really just an all-around less lovely experience for players and a lot easier to run as a GM (compared to 3.X anyway) 5e content, like seriously if I was to GM this edition, I would ban spells because goddamn. Right now I'm playing in a couple PbP games on SA and I enjoy my Rogue, but I just KNOW it will not be fun or at all useful beyond a certain level. The enemy casters will far outstrip anything a Rogue could do. They didn't even try to make classes equally valid choices. And anecdotally, I'd say we can pretty much confirm magic weapons as being Not-Optional.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Illvillainy posted:I mean, getting your storygame on is awesome but I would like some 4E-inspired games to be made. The game currently known as Sacred BBQ seems like the only one. Check out the July contest entrants for some 4e-inspired games.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Will it be getting renamed? It could use something a little less "inside". I think Countblanc and/or Jimbozig mentioned that yes, it will.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Point me in the right direction, man. Check out the 13th Age thread here on SA; when they aren't talking about homebrewing classes, there'll be a lot of bitching and moaning (especially by that one guy) about how they made monks require too many ability scores, so that it would maintain the class' d20 legacy or something. Basically the game does a fair bit of pandering to 3.X-ists because, well, either Tweet wanted it that way, or else they feel they need the exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Remember that 13th Age used to have an entire sidebar that boiled down to "Yes, we gave the Fighter class less not!skill points and we know that doesn't seem very fair, but on the other hand tradition." They at least rolled that one back I believe but the fact that it was even a thing at all doesn't suggest the most progressive approach to making a d20-alike, whether your skills are "Use Rope" or "Used To Be a Bird." Ah yes, how could we forget?  This is a game that also allows spellcasters to use their powers in ritual-ish ways basically defined by GM fiat, but lets make sure that fighters have less narrative agency than rogues, it's only fair.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'm getting the feeling from the previews that the Fighter is all about being middle-ground-y. Tough, but not as tough as the Barbarian, good at crits, but not as much as the Barbarian. Good at self-healing, but not as much as the Paladin. Damaging, but not as much as the Rogue. OK at out of combat stuff but not as much as the Ranger. It feels like a class other classes dip into to improve their features, rather than really being a class in and of itself. FWIW, fighters can actually use finesse weapons with their class features (fighter class features? Lol) Whereas after the Dead in Thay packet, Barbarians got "using Strength" slapped onto all their melee attack features. Which blows because their AC feature uses CON and DEX. Seriously, not needing strength for your attacks is a godsend, it's basically a dump stat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
moths posted:I wonder how much of that goes back to the necessity of miniatures or tokens to make monsters accountable for their positions. Yeah, it's not like we can have fighters moving to intercept, all willy-nilly. Get that mmo poo poo out of my D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Or just enjoy the game as is, like you said you probably would, despite its imperfections or play something else? There are a lot of people complaining about a game they've decided not to play. It's weird.  For the benefit of anyone who is not awareMyself, kingcom, slydingdoor, and Ritorix post pretty regularly on this thread, and we all have 5e PbP experience under our belts (Ritorix being the DM guy of that grabbag) I'm sure I'm missing some other people but seriously if you only value the opinions of people who actually play the game, head over to The Game Room and check out the 5e/Next games to get an idea of who is talking from experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
^^^Edit: Please go read the Dead In Thay PbP in the game room.thespaceinvader posted:Here's the thing: I'd be willing to give next a play - and so would most of the people in my group. I''d just NOT be willing to run it, and nor would anyone else in my group, so... it's not going to get played. I'm on the other side of this coin; everyone I play with are 3.5/PF fanboys and they won't even give 5e a sniff. I'd happily play it (maybe even run it) with them, but they're like "eh, don't care."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:it would just be nice to have some other discussion too. Having a Cleric in the party is interesting, because when it's out-of-combat time, you can get basically a free +1d4 to each skill check. So it's sort of like the Cleric gets to say "me too!" when the spotlight is on the rogue/bard.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'll try giving it another shot, but first time I sat to read through it the overall "gently caress it whatever" tone kinda grated. Well, you seem to need evidence of everything, so me telling you "the spellcasters are basically the only characters in the parties that matter or get to make interesting choices" won't really convince you. And this is a game that was like level 6-7; I can't see 5e bucking that trend at higher levels, when Fighters get the maneuvers they didn't want and Wizards get level 9 spells. I mean, yeah, Fighters will get more feats once they max their primary, but look how well "more feats" worked in 3.5
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Guitar_Hero posted:I've enjoyed 5e because it eliminates the crunchy combat of 4e, which I didn't care for much, while streamlining some of the clunky numbers from 3(.5)e. I've been running through the starter adventure with a group that's mostly new to PnP RPGs and they've picked it up quite quickly (note: it was their idea to play D&D, so the name recognition does count for something). Where I think 5e is going to suffer (compared to 4e) is that there isn't going to be a a lot of variance in what classes can fill what roles. At least in the early going, who knows, maybe they will re-release every 4e class after all. But right now, IME, the way they balanced the 3 pillars, there is ONE class who is the best at each niche. If you don't have those covered, you're gonna have a clunky, patchwork party. And the roles aren't as well-defined as 4e, so that makes it harder to figure out. Like, Cleric seems to be the best healer, where Paladin and others might be serviceable, they'll never replace a Cleric as an equal. 4e Leaders were all comparatively equally good at basic healing, and then their secondary roles set them apart; 5e doesn't seem to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i haven't looked at the druid recently, but i got the sense they were pretty decent at healing. more so than the paladin at least. Yeah, I played the pre-gen Druid at the tail-end of Dead in Thay; it was set up as a "blow poo poo up" character, but still had shapeshifting going on (which I didn't end up using, so I can't speak to that in-play). That's really the slippery slope with spellcasting; you can change your prepared spells every day -- and that can dramatically change the way you play and the role you can fill. Classes without access to that "daily respec" are much more limited, and seem to lack enough features to offset that. Like, the Archery (and maybe Defense) fighting style is the perfect example of this; Fighters are the best at Fighting so they get Fighty bonuses that they can lock in and never change, and (in this case) doesn't expand the character laterally at all. It's still "I attack" forever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Has anyone reviewed the Rogue's Archetypes yet? Yeah, for the GODC game I'm kinda... gonna be looking at other classes, maybe. The starting features are nice, but if that's what Assassin has to look forward too, eh. It's nice that archetypes always get stuff at the same levels, so that makes it a bit easier if you wanna swap things from other archetypes as a houserule. But again, this should be the job of the designers and not the DM. It's a lot easier for the people using the game, if each option has similar weight regardless of the game-style; otherwise it becomes an exercise in system mastery, and I really dislike the idea of that being mandatory in any system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:Which is more or less what I did. Again, let me be clear, I loved 4e. I hate rituals, too. It's ok.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Shockingly, some DMs will run "a shitload of kobolds" as one turn/initiative. And really, breaking 20 of them amongst 5 PC initiatives wouldn't alleviate much. But I guess we're playing the game wrong in the eyes of forumsposter MonsterEnvy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'd concur that the backgrounds and chargen idea generation systems are some of the best parts of the edition - but they're also among the most lift-out-able parts of the edition. In the packet for Dead In Thay, skills were basically 3 profs from your background and 1 from your class, giving even more customizability. Now it's 2:2 (Rogue and IIRC Bards getting more from class, in both cases) Seriously, gently caress class skill lists anyway. I'm also still annoyed that Barbarians only get their melee stuffz when attacking "using Strength" P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:But guys you're forgetting that jocks are really mean. Emilio Estevez in "The Breakfast Club" disagrees with you. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:He's one of the nice ones. He gets to be a Paladin. I'm down with this.   
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
seebs posted:But I've never seen a D&D that wasn't insanely breakable, except maybe 4e, and 4e lost a lot of other things which a lot of players valued and enjoyed, so it's not an automatic win to go in that direction. I love Pathfinder, and basically every week I mention a new way I found to break it. Couple weeks back, I said "hey, I found a thing in the rules", and our GM said "before I gamed with you people, I didn't know what fear was." But... I don't actually try to do that crap, because *it wouldn't be fun*. Even if it's rules-as-written. This is basically "bug vs. feature" chat. If poo poo is in the game, you shouldn't have to NOT use it; that means it's bad design.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 23:39
|
|