|
I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
I'm wondering how the monk will look compared to the latest playtest packet, especially the little sub-classes thing. I'm in the middle of a 5e game now, and I'm playing a monk and I NEED TO KNOW ARRRGH
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
The playtest actually had a thing where high level monks could potentially spend a ki to force an enemy to become vulnerable to blunt damage, then another ki to grab on and automatically hit with every attack. I hope that stays in, that's a silly silly thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
But it DOESN'T have the tactical warrior feat?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
What's BECMI?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I've been following along with the initiative chat because I'm wondering if anything usable will come up for my game (was called SBBQ, currently undergoing a name change). Right now I've got basically standard initiative as we know it, with one option: team initiative. Everyone rolls (the DM doesn't roll for each monster - she just rolls once). The players who beat the DM go first (and can do so in any order, taking their turns essentially simultaneously), then the DM goes for all the monsters, then all the players get to go, then the DM, etc. The only issue I've seen with team initiative is that it takes away the PC's ability to ruin a plan the monsters are going for. If it's Team PC - Team Monster, then Team Monster can possibly gang up and completely wipe a PC before any PC can actually do anything about it. The PCs are going to be able to act with pretty much perfect coordination, but if the DM does, then a PC can go down really really fast and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
edit: never mind, solved my own problem
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
So, having only read this thread, are the main differences between the leaked Alpha and the PHB: Transmuters can no longer literally create more gold per year than the 1849 gold rush, but can still raise the dead/do a lot of other things and nerfing fighters?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Why did they lower monk damage? Was 1d6 really ruining low level games?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Tell me about it. Playtest Monk at high levels could grab a guy, inflict bludgeon vulnerability, then auto-hit like four times while his fist was on fire.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Also I preferred something like this to the spellcasting Elemental monk we eventually got. Yeah, I play a monk in the LP Forum's D&D Next thread, and the PHB is like "Hey, remember those unique abilities monks got? Well now they just cast spells with ki points, isn't that wonderfully boring?" Fortunately, the game is a magical tea party and so we ignore everything we don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Hey, we've been talking about martial character nerfs a bit, but (other than the infinite gold thing for transmuters), did the cleric/wizard/druid trifecta receive any nerfs, significant or not?MonsterEnvy posted:The Monks unarmed damage apparently goes up as they level. It will only take me a bit to find how much it does. That's always been how monks work, I just have no idea why they lowered the damage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
I think the reason everyone is tripping over themselves over the dice rolling has less to do with having to roll 100d20 or anything and more that MonsterEnvy seems to think the vast majority of negative opinions about 5e are wrong. People get into these big fights, not really to talk about the game or anything, but just to see if MonsterEnvy will concede ANY point. Like, Treeboy. You're pretty pro-5e, but you're also willing to say things like "Assassins are super DM dependent and also their abilities are pretty lame" and stuff. So when you're defending 5e, people don't trip over themselves to prove you wrong. But MonsterEnvy, man. You literally make it difficult to defend 5e. Especially when you say things like MonsterEnvy posted:Have you analysed and broken them down. No I did not think so. when, you know, You have literally quoted examples of people breaking down monster math. Look, MonsterEnvy, I feel you, bro, I really do. 5e isn't the Worst Game Ever or anything, and, with some houseruling and some time, I think it can be a lot of fun! But you gotta pick your battles. And until the writers start actually fixing problems, you really should be saying "I hope they fix it later" rather than "they probably will fix it later." So let's try to let the healing begin. MonsterEnvy, I will say two positive things about D&D 5e, and you say one thing that's negative. Here we go: I think the Advantage/Disadvantage system is a great way to represent someone having mastery or a significant problem with any given check, without resorting to bogging down in a series of +s and -s like 4e got to. I like how the feats are shaping up to actually be meaningful per selection. A +1 bonus to everything attached to a stat is powerful, and so feats should be powerful too. If you want to play your shapeshifting druid as a defender, you can do so better with feats like Sentinel. Now you say something negative.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The champion fighter is fairly boring. I dislike how reach makes you worse at getting AoO's. There we go two negatives. Ok, let's continue! I like the whole bounded accuracy thing. For the vast majority of characters, skills that they aren't trained in aren't HUGELY different from the ones that are, which means it's more likely that someone without training in a skill can succeed moderate checks. Everyone can help! Because of things like bounded math, no weird iterative-attacks-all-have-different-attack-bonuses, less things to keep track of, I think 5e could be a nice way to introduce people to roleplaying games in general, especially if they have difficulty in building characters and math and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Being able to choose skills from backgrounds as WELL as classes can give more flexibility to classes to play what you want to play. Combat is MUCH faster, even including spellcasters. Edit: And bringing bounded accuracy back into it, because there's generally fewer +1/+2/+3/+5/+10's in there, combat will probably be much faster even in high levels. And look, we even got a guy saying that people have been overly hostile towards 5e recently. Don't worry, I don't expect you to do this all day! Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Do you see, MonsterEnvy? Do you see everyone calming down?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:(Just to balance the optimism a little.) That's fine. I definitely had fun playing 5e, but to say it isn't a flawed game is nonsense. MonsterEnvy, you managed to go the entire thread without saying a single negative thing about 5e or Next, the only thing you did was either praise Next/5e, or dismiss other people's arguments as irrelevant. Now that people can see that you're aware there are things wrong with 5e, we can get back to discussing things, instead of just reflexively arguing whatever you say. For a while, I was doing a Let's Play of Dragon Age 2, otherwise known as A Bad Game. I was making the argument that it was actually a pretty decent game, but I had to make sure to address the criticisms of DA2. I had to make sure people knew I understood their concerns, and even agreed with them at many of the points, but it didn't change the fact that I enjoyed the game. Unfortunately, it turns out I hate LPing, so I kinda stopped, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT. There's good things about it, but I wasn't going to say anything while you were steadfastly refusing to concede even the most minor point. You didn't come off as exactly reasonable, and it made me worry that I'd come off as unreasonable saying good things about Next/5e, too. And I doubt I was alone. For me, 5e isn't a bad game, just really disappointing. 4e taught me that I really enjoy being the group tank, the guy swatting people away from the squishies. It taught me I really don't care about doing damage, I just want to keep people safe. So you can imagine how great the 4e fighter was for me. But in 5e, the fighters and monks and rangers, to me, just don't have the flexibility to do what I want them to do. I mean, at this point, I'd rather play 3.5, because at least I'd have access to the Tome of Battle. A polearm crusader using Thicket of Blades and Stand Still just calls to me the same way that the fighter did in 4e. But in 5e, I'd probably have to play a War Cleric or a War Shape Druid with Sentinel to get the same feeling, and that's... just kinda a cop-out. I want to be the dude using fists or swords keeping his friends safe, but I also want to be mechanically, reasonably, good. And nothing inherent to Fighters or Monks or whatever really supports a defendery role, that the War Cleric or War Shape Druid doesn't do but better.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Drow remain the only race with a pure drawback as one of their traits and it's a doozy. Disadvantage on all attacks in direct sunlight. They're penalizing players who want to play Drizzt. Way to know your market, WotC! Having played with people who are pretty much making Drizzt (or worse, drow paladins of a sun god), I am fully 100% behind this. I would also be ok with mandatory stat penalties for good drow, because there's obviously something wrong with them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Oh, y'all think that's hilarious, but I played Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online, and I've seen more of those guys played straight than ever a man should have to face. It usually wasn't too hard to get someone to join me in purging them, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Oh, you mean played with anything close to a hint of self awareness? Na, that ain't gonna happen. Plus, they were usually the type to run to admins and DMs the second anyone made fun of their stupid, stupid characters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Okay. Using Feinting Attack (the single highest-damage maneuver, because it grants Advantage as well as adding to the damage of the hit) the Fighter's DPR looks like this: Please continue, charts and tables please me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Monks had a really cool sub-class called Disciple of the Elements that had a whole lot of interesting effects. That got turned into "Cast some wizard spells by spending buttloads of ki." Which was kinda awkward when another one of the sub-classes is a monk who casts spells. 2/3rds of the specializations for monk is "Be a spellcaster." Meanwhile, in the playtest, you could make a monk that could grapple an opponent, then auto-hit with four attacks after inflicting bludgeoning damage vulnerability while their fists were on fire. Or explode when they die. Or other cool things. Now, it's just... whoopee, spells.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It auto saves remember. Not that it's likely to fail the save anyway. Also it can just breathe on the army turning it into ash from it's 90 ft radius cone. Given that they all have to be within 60 ft of the wizard or he can't command them he will hit the entire army and the Wizard for 26d6 damage which is likely to kill the entire army save or no save. I know it's hard to keep track of this thread, but there's a reason they're talking about 3 rounds, specifically, as outlined in this post. If you don't want to click the link, the two things we're worried about is: quote:On a hit, you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice from any of the ones described below ... After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends. and quote:Slimy Doom: The creature begins to bleed uncontrollably. The creature has disadvantage on Constitution checks and Constitution saving throws. In addition, whenever the creature takes damage, it is stunned until the end of its next turn. Meaning, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, the Big Bad is subject to this disease for 3 rounds, even if it had the legendary ability "Passes every save always". So as long as it takes damage, from ANY SOURCE, it is stunned for 3 rounds. So, with a little preparation, the dragon is out for 3 straight rounds. That's plenty of time to kill it. Look, we're all totally aware that with enough time and energy, the DM can avoid the whole "Make the dragon sick, hit him once a round, end the battle with skeletons." The problem is that there's no comparably powerful option among other classes. So, let's put it this way: Can you think of a way for a Fighter to fight a dragon and kill it, with a good chance of taking zero damage, in 3 rounds or less, unassisted, without using anything outside its class abilities? We'll assume the fighter is level 20, and has 20 in all stats. You get partial credit for creating a build using feats that, combined, give him enough of an advantage to kill this dragon in 3 rounds or less without taking any damage. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:So monk looks like it fairs okay all the way to 20 (aside from the bad level 1); quad attacks, stuns, good defenses/saves, spells/spell like effects, a save-or-die. Look good to anyone else? I'd still like to know why they changed the elemental monk from "does unique things" to "casts spells with ki"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I just checked the OP and it's clearly called D&D Next. Speaking of the OP, the thread where we (Medibot, Wolfshirt, Myself, et al) were playing D&D Next in the LP subforum has shifted to 3.5, because a) we don't want to officially support the 5e product with the people connected to it and b) at least we could use Tome of Battle. The first 3 sessions are from the last D&D Next playtest, and the sessions after are in 3.5.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The rust monster can't even eat magical gear? Who's this game for, children? Well, it's not like anyone needs magical gear in Next.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:I think my favorite example of CR being a poo poo metric was the notorious CR 3 Giant Crab. Can I get some info on the crab? I've heard of it, but not exactly what made it so deadly, and I do like badly CR'd things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
So, I got invited to a 5e game, and I'm thinking of saying yes, just to see how it goes. I have low expectations, but hey, it might be a good group. What's the general consensus on Melee Classes? I remember hearing really good things about Valor Bards, are they still the top tier when it comes to melee? I think we've got a Cleric of War in our group, so I wouldn't want to step on his toes, but other than that, what's the go-to Beat People Up With Sticks class?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
If possible, I'd like to get as close to a 4e defender that these guys can get. Though, I do know with things like reactions being 1/round, etc etc, I'm going to be pretty limited, but I tend to enjoy being the tanky type. Edit: Though, if that's just not going to happen, I can certainly go towards Valor Bard. Is there a good example of a Valor Bard build? Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
On second thought, I think Valor Bard is gonna be what I do. I'm just gonna be disappointed trying to make a 4e fighter in 5e, so I may as well play something that's a spellcaster.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If you are clever, you have the tools to get the enemies to do what you want using only prestidigitation You really don't need anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Something else I think would be cool to houserule in would be a counter system. Let's say you have an orc barbarian attacking you with his battleaxe. He swings and his attack roll is better than your AC, you could then use your action for that round as a block and counter. You roll and attack roll vs his attack roll. If it's better than his attack roll, you block his attack. If you successfully block, you can roll again against his AC for the counter. Normally I'd say that's not a great idea, but if it ate away at your attacks, a fighter with 4 attacks/round could suddenly prevent a lot of attacks. If you wanted to stop the fighter, you'd need to pile people on him. I mean, there's no reason to stop the fighter when you could attack the wizard, but.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So 5e Eberron stuff. Dragonmarks are tied to mental stats, so they're most useful to classes like the Wizard, Cleric and Druid and least useful to classes like the Rogue or the Fighter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:The best example of caster supremacy is 3.5s tome of battle errata. I never read the errata. How bad is it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:In 4e it's easy to temporarily remove a PC's threat with conditions like stun, blind, or immobilize, but very hard to outright kill them unless you focus every single monster on them. And even then, the other PCs will be able to punish that sort of tactic quickly. For people wondering about the comparative ruggedness of 4e PCs to tactics like "everyone focus fire on a dude", I'm in a game where Really Pants is a DM, and she not only focus fired on my character, but also ended up throwing my character off a goddamn cliff, rolling really well for damage all around. It did a total of 34 damage all around, with my character having a max HP pool of 31. Between my own survival abilities, and a healer, not only was I not brought to unconscious (reactive temporary HP saving the day), but I was only playing defensively for one round before I could resume attacking. Basically, circumstances aligned to do a tremendous amount of damage, and Really Pants rolled lucky, and my character still didn't go down in a single round. Now, if it had happened exactly like that again, I'm not sure if I could've recovered, but by then I was smart enough not to stand at the edge of a precipice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
For the record, as a player, the fact that the DM was free to throw my character off a cliff without wrecking the game was a pretty good feeling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Remember that at one point, the hardest thing to do in 5e, bar none, was climb a rope. You almost immediately enter Catching Your Mouse territory. I would like to hear more about rope climbing and catching mice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:On a related note, does anybody actually use the macro poo poo on sites like Roll20? I had a look the other week and it really seems like it'd just be easier to use it just as a literal virtual tabletop, record stuff in spreadsheets/paper in front of you and make people roll the e-dice or actual dice instead of loving about with javascript. I use macros on roll20 quite a lot. I've got a few templates for rolls and such to make it all nice and concise, and, barring that they don't error check to see if you put in an impossible input in some cases (!!!), it's fairly easy to use once you got a few examples. But I also took some low/mid level programming classes so
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:I'll plug Roll20 again. You can totally whiteboard on it, and it has built in voice chat (...whose efficacy I haven't tested) and iPad/android apps. I wouldn't go with the roll20 voice chat unless you absolutely had to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
I played a game with rolled stats. People rolled mediocre to poor, except for me, who rolled 2 18s, a 17, 2 16s and a 12. That's really not a good outcome. I had to fight pretty hard not to constantly outshine everyone, especially since a couple of the players were pretty new. The campaign had a lot of issues, really, but realizing that my character was just mathematically superior to everyone else's didn't make me feel good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 22:49
|
|