|
quote:Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when What does this even mean? Like, I get it means "It's up to the DM." But, like... what the gently caress does this even mean?
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
It could be saying "you can't really be hidden", but it also could be "They can't see you clearly, so you CAN hide."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Hey, when will the Bladesinger stuff be out? I might be pressed into a short game and if I'm playing 5e, I figure I may as well play a valor bard with bladesinger cantrips. Unless there's a better way to use cantrips and also literally do everything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
I dunno, starting at level 10 you can give the spellcasters an action. That makes it better than the other fighter subclasses starting at level 10.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:PHB Wizards get three at-wills. They do? I thought only Humans got 3 at wills, not specifically Wizards at any point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:13A is great if you want a new-school system that values balance at the table, but still don't expect any interesting world-building. I wouldn't say that 13A is really balanced. It has some interesting ideas, but it's hamstrung by trying to not go too far from old ideas. I mean, it's better balanced than 5e, but, like
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Duct Tape posted:"Cool, you rolled a 6 on your relationship with the Great Gold Wyrm. Well, you are halfway through a Lich King dungeon right now so ???" Are you rolling those every session? I've played in a few games that used 13A icon dice, and the icon dice would usually be rolled at the end of some session, and the DM would use them to kinda plot out a few events that occurred over the next few sessions.Then, when you know you're in a Lich King dungeon and you have a 6 for the Great Gold Wyrm, maybe you find a captured follower of Goldy who gives you some important information and tells you how to approach The Big Fight or something. Or, it's a completely different thing that's addressed some other session. Have them reroll once you've finished all the stuff you've already set up from the previous rolls.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
If the group passes the check overall, or the Main Stealth Guy can pass the check, surprise round. If a PC personally passes a stealth check, they get to act fully in the surprise round. If a PC personally fails a stealth check, they can take one action in the surprise round.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so here's a question, although perhaps not 5e-specific: A reasonable way to know if a 4e DM understands the system is that they give you a couple free feats fairly early on. Expertise feats are needed to keep up with monster defenses, improved defenses to keep up with their attacks, and usually melee training for non-strength classes who end up in melee a lot (especially with warlords). They're generally boring mechanical fixes to allow your character to not suck, as opposed to Be Cool. I've actually played a couple 4e games where they said "Level 1: take 4 bonus feats" and listed those feats as ones you should strongly consider. (For those of you who are in the realm of "Who in the heck wouldn't take those feats", there are cases. Like a fighter can get away with it initially, or an archer ranger can cross their fingers and not take melee training or improved defenses and place a lot of hope on the defender) Some 4e DMs will also give free feats at various times, specifically for completely non-combat feats. So, pick up a psychic power, ritual casting, a new language, or skill training, whatever. It's usually an awkward thing when combat and non-combat abilities share the same resource pool in a game where combat is frequently expected, while knowing esoteric languages MAY come up if you specifically ask the DM to make it an issue to justify your 3 language feats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
kingcom posted:My understanding of those 4e math fixes is you dont really need them (except for stat change up ones) until level 5 or so? I've always felt like adding just a bunch of random feats up front kills a lot of peoples interest in 4e anyway. Seems like the better option is to throw them out when they are actually needed. Well, what happens then is you'll have someone who wants Staff Expertise or something at level 1, instead of waiting until level 5. So, if you gave them staff expertise, they'd take, like, that feat that lets you pick locks with your tiefling tail, but instead they're nabbing Staff Expertise because +1 to hit is literally one of the best things you can do in 4e. And then they don't get the cool little flavorful thing until level 5. Like, yeah, it's just +1 initially, there's no huge reason to give it to them at level 1. But, like, I can't really say there's a strong reason NOT to give it at level 1, and you're going to have at least one player who understands how powerful +1 to attacks is, and feel compelled to take it. 4e character building is complex enough that, if a person is going to make a 4e character, giving them those three feats or so isn't going to make them suddenly burn out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:I dunno, I find that most players aren't taking "flavourful" feats as their second feat, they'll just take something equally boring to Staff Expertise that isn't quite as good as Staff Expertise, like a +damage feat. Well, the reason I brought up that tiefling tail ability thing is I'm thinking of specific examples. In the all-of-two games that started with "Expertise at 5" that I convinced to go to "Expertise at 1", we'd have 1-2 players go from taking an expertise at 1 to some nice little thing I wouldn't expect them to take at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm super rusty on 3.x. Did it not have retraining like 4th? 3.x has stuff like prestige classes, which could have character level, class level, ability score, feat, skill rank, or item prerequisites, and that's not an exhaustive list. And a lot of those prerequisites aren't really things you'd normally take.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Simple version. Someone goes "I'd like to play a cleric of the god/goddess of knowledge", and decide loremaster is a cool thing to do. Congrats, if you want all the levels of loremaster, you need to spend every available feat on prerequisites, and also must be a human or a strongheart halfling. Like, I'm not saying being a loremaster cleric is the best idea, but if you're looking at someone who's thumbing through the SRD and says "I want to play a librarian cleric", then they have to plan out at least until level 10. It also eats 20 skill points, and by level 10, a normal cleric will have 26. I used the cleric loremaster because it's something that you immediately trip on and is freely available, but most classes can be drastically improved by adding prestige classes, and a lot of those classes (especially classes that fully increase spellcaster levels) are significantly more powerful than the feats you spend on them. Like, Archmages, Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil, and Incantatrix...es are all obviously much better than straight wizards. And once you realize that, it's a very small leap to "Ok, I'll be a wizard/archmage/IotSFV/Incantatrix, which means you have to plan to have (most likely) two feats and 20 skillpoints locked in by level 5, five feats and 32 skillpoints locked in by 10, then six more skillpoints and 2 more feats set by level 17. 7 feats by level 17 means that you've got, essentially, 2 "free" feats that aren't prereqs. And that's all because some of the prereqs overlap. And this is a relatively simple comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
"I want to be the ultimate arcanist! I'm going to cast lots of spells! Hey, it looks like a sorcerer is the way to go!" [five days later] "Here's a wizard build that's just strictly superior to sorcerer when it comes to spellcasting." This guy should probably be able to completely rebuild and keep whatever characterization he has.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I think the idea is that Critical Hits and Sneak Attacks seem "cooler" if they're rare. To make those things seem better, they put you in scenarios where you can't use them. Then, getting to use those abilities is supposed to feel special. To bring it back into 5th edition: There were complaints that Fighter abilities weren't as useful or interesting as the players would like. So, short rests became an hour long. Now, you appreciate your short-rest abilities more, because you have to ration them, so they feel more special when you use them. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm saying that I think the design decisions are consistent with that belief.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
I agree it's not a good idea, but I'm saying that I think these design choices are consistent with a belief that increasing scarcity automatically increases value. Personally, I think you should be able to sneak attack a brick wall (I bet its perception is terrible anyway, so feel free to stealth it up). Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
I've heard it said a couple times that 5e isn't neck deep in character optimization. But, from what I've seen, it's still a major thing. It's kinda hard to go over this without going over other editions, but: character optimization isn't necessarily collecting as many +1s as possible from a bunch of different sources. It's using the game to create a character who is mechanically/narratively powerful. Although character optimization in 5e is simpler, it's certainly still there. There's things like sorcerer/paladins, and fighter/sorcerer/warlocks, that combine several different class features to create a huge amount of nova power. Putting feats and Ability Score Increases in the same slot leads to optimization issues, like the fact that, usually, +1 to a stat mod is really, really powerful. A moon druid is going to be a really good meatshield, by virtue of just flooding itself with hitpoints. If you're doing an official campaign, you want to pump up your perception and probably don't need to worry about investigation. One of the best ways to be a fighter is to have a lot of wizard levels. Probably my favorite little character was from a long time ago (so this may have been a playtest version, so I'm not sure if it applies): it was a necromancer/cleric, who had a constant negative energy field around him, which constantly healed him, and could drop Inflict Wound spells (which also healed him). Party optimization is a thing, too. If you've got 6 levels of paladin somewhere, then a party can have up to +5 on all saves. Clerics can spam guidance for bonuses to every skill roll possible, which is even better if you happen to have a bard. Almost every class has a college/path/domain/etc that's better than others, and works better with others. As a side note on saves: Monsters technically need to be designed to account for the possibility that a given save is rolled at a penalty, up to the maximum situation of +5 (stat) +5 (in paladin aura) +6 (proficiency). That is a massive spread. Unearthed Arcana just makes things weirder. I mean, sure, now you can have a ranger who's not Automatically Bad, and tunnel fighters (which are both good ideas, on an optimization front), but you also have things like Lore Mastery Wizards. The disparity between a well made character and one that's not made with the system in mind is large enough to cause fundamental balance issues throughout the game. If one party has things more like Berserker Barbarians and Beastmaster Rangers, and another party is more in line with Moon Druids and Lore Master Wizards, then things that challenge the first group will get steamrolled by the second, and things that challenge the second group will steamroll the first. Sure, going through 10 books for 4 different ways to add +1 is a lot of work and really fiddly. But in 5e, you can make singular choices that dramatically alter the balance of power for the party and the entire campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes but they still would be the same thing as they are going to overlap as least once in all cases. Well, that's the thing. It literally came up in a rules discussion that a "melee attack with a weapon" was different from "an attack with a melee weapon". Throwing a longsword is weird, but what about throwing a spear? At that point, the difference actually matters. For example, a Paladin's Smite ability is a melee weapon attack, and so you can't throw a spear and smite. However, with improved smite, it's now an attack with a melee weapon, and so you can throw a spear and smite.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
I remember the playtest Monk Elemental tradition was extremely cool. Instead of a slew of "Cast these spells using ki points", there were a whole bunch of unique moves you could spend Ki on. Earth abilities tended to be my favorites. Spend a ki to grab any creature, then spend a ki to inflict bludgeoning vulnerability for the round. At which point you go to town. You could blow through a lot of ki points, but it felt cool as all heck.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
It's a little disingenuous to go "See? Teleportation ISN'T a problem!" when the example you're quoting talks about 5e teleportation spells being orders of magnitude more powerful.
Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:People are like, well the same wizard shouldn't be able to teleport and incinerate. Well, I don't think this is quite their argument, which is unfortunate, because I think you two agree on a lot of things. Ferrinus posted:You know it's not actually okay for a wizard to have at-will firebolt, per encounter fireball, and per day meteor shower while a fighter still has at-will stab, right? This actually involves a lot of arguments that those people are making. What you said here is a closer representation to what they're actually arguing. So, in this case, it's not necessarily that "wizards shouldn't be able to teleport and incinerate", it's "wizards shouldn't have such a wide variety of abilities in the same game where the fighter ends up with just an at-will stab." To borrow from an earlier example: Generic Octopus posted:A 4e wizard can use a class spell to teleport 100 feet; a 5e wizard can use a spell to teleport anywhere on the same plane. The problem here isn't that the 4e and 5e wizards can teleport, it's that the 5e wizard can do something of a magnitude that, reasonably speaking, fighters can never match, and with oftentimes minimal investment (which, if I'm reading you right, you're arguing is the problem). I'm trying not to bog the chat down into 4e talk too much, but: Ok, let's say a wizard can teleport 6 squares. That's pretty good! A ranger or rogue may not be able to teleport 6 squares. However, there's a good chance they'll be able to shift 6 squares, which, while not exactly the same, is comparable. Maybe they'll have an attack during it, or a minor action, or what-have-you, but the basic idea (get 6 squares away relatively safely) is something that a lot of classes have access to. So, in this example, the teleportation isn't a problem. In 5e, however, a wizard can teleport to another country, without using permanent resources like feats or class paths. There isn't really a way for a barbarian to take a group of people from one continent to another, and there's also nothing that a barbarian can do that can match that level of power. What most people are currently discussing is a two pronged approach to the problem: 1) Give non-spellcasting classes more capacity to interact with the game. So, here we'd talk about things like having a fighter who can use cool polearm moves, while also being a charismatic leader, or a good detective. Or Exalted-style stunts. You seem to not be a huge fan of "all I can do is stab", so I think you're probably pretty good with this. 2) Take away from spellcasters anything that completely outstrips anything that a non-spellcaster can do. Using the previous example, a rogue 20 would not be able to get an entire group of people from one continent to another in an extremely short period of time. If rogues can not do that, but also are not be able to do something comparatively as powerful, then they believe that spellcasters should be restricted from having that level of power. There's several ways this might be approached. Earlier, they talked about videogames removing spells that were either difficult to implement or game breaking (such as long distance scrying, long distance teleport, or the capacity to charm a target out of combat in order to completely bypass a social challenge without having to invest more than a spell slot). There are also suggestions that forcing spellcasters (and, from what I'm reading, spellcasters alone) to specialize in the kinds of things they can do. So, a wizard in this system might be able to turn into a T-Rex/roc/frog, but not also charm a person AND put an entire combat to sleep AND magically scout the next room AND fill an entire room of slippery, slippery grease. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's always "fun" watching more people have to deal with Ferrinus for the first time. I think it's interesting, in a pretty bizarre way. Ferrinus is arguing with about 7 people about a point he almost entirely agrees with, and has been doing so for about two pages. I'm pretty sure that: He agrees that noncasters have too little going for them, he agrees that the game would be better off with characters all having a more similar resource system, he agrees that casters need increased limitations. The actual discussion looks like it should be "Is it better to outright remove certain spells [videogame method], give spellcasters limited access to plot-changing spells [specializations], or allow access to plot changing spells but the spells themselves have more limitations [Ferrinus's teleportation restrictions]?" Which, like, really could be a good discussion. Ferrinus posted:As long as both characters have daily powers, and those daily powers are of equal consequence in the contexts they're designed for, it's okay if one character can cause things to happen in the narrative that the other can't This is, as far as I can tell, literally what people are saying. The main argument, in the beginning, was that wizards have comparatively so many options that are so comparatively powerful and have so few comparative restrictions that it's unlikely to impossible to find something for a fighter to do that would be equivalent in the context they're designed for as 5e is currently implemented. So, without excluding the very real need to increase the narrative power of noncasters, they were discussing ways to increase restrictions on wizards, which, as noted above, is a thing you seem to be literally supporting... and this point that they agree on derailed the thread for two pages. Splicer posted:Oh my god it's still going. edit: Like literally, if two pages ago Ferrinus had gone "Well, what if we just add more restrictions to certain spells, like increased costs/casting times/whatever?" then this things might've gone really smoothly. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:So I'm thinking that a mining cart with Animate Object on it (plus Permanency) and a collection of buttons that trigger Magic Mouth spells for "forward", "backward" and "stop" should effectively make an automated rail car? Removing a railway system would be a lot of work, so unless there's some ancient dwarven secret that's imperative to keep out of enemy hands, why not leave it there? And the railway could be used for a lot more than trash removal: it could allow for quick travel between multiple cave entrances, giving the goblins an artificially large territory for... doin' goblin stuff. Either way, underground railway systems are extremely cool, and there should be at least one good jousting challenge when the goblins discover the PCs are riding the railway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
I tried. Maybe I'll jump more into this later. Anyway, Tome of Battle was a great book. I haven't looked at the Pathfinder Equivalent, but I bet if you mixed that with the 6th level progression spellcasters (like the Inquisitor), you'd actually have a pretty cool game going. I always liked the crusader.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Let me tell you about Sacred Geometry. Now THERE'S a feat that 5e needs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The problem is you've got this rogues' gallery of weirdos to whom my posting in a thread is the equivalent of Godzilla rising from the deeps to exact his revenge. The important thing is: who's with me on making Sacred Geometry a 5e feat somehow
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Oh my god arithmancy is a completely necessary feat, thank you for showing me the light Let me know if you remember what the other one is
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Request for some RP help-- I'm in an online game with a large group that meets up as available (sort of Western Marches style). I'm playing a Tiefling Hexblade Warlock with social skills and the criminal background. I want to establish some kind of criminal enterprise in the town, fleecing people, selling drugs and poisons, and gouging refugees. How would you start something like this? What actual actions would you take to set yourself up as a criminal leader in town? All I can think of is using downtime to craft poisons and drugs and hoping the DM lets me sell them for retail. Not jokingly, because this is plot: have you asked your DM? If you have a long-term goal that could affect the plot in a big way, you're probably gonna want the DM on board. The DM might have some ideas on how to make this work, too. Also, if this is impossible because of Western Marches style, I actually don't know what that is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The 3.5 Rod of Ropes and the 4e Portable Hole are both really, really good items. Wasn't there some weird thing about the 4e portable hole, where there was a portable hole magic item and a TRUE portable hole, or something? I'm always a fan of things that let you communicate long distance. 4e sending stones and the like. Walkie Talkies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
I'll believe people are totally using stats to influence roleplay when I hear of people going "Hmm, you know, I rolled an extra 15, but my guy is really clumsy, can I change that to a 6?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Petr posted:How much information should players have about the campaign before they begin? In the campaign I'm writing, the players have a pretty atypical start (escapees from a tyrannical beholder's compound) that might affect their character and background choices. I don't want them to feel like I'm railroading them or spoiling what I've got planned, though. At the same time, I'm worried that in the first ten minutes someone will be like "oh well if I'd known that, I wouldn't have picked X." Is it possible that more people escaped? If you want to keep it secret, have, like, more unidentified people escape. If after the session they're all "I would've played a different character", then bam, they're one of the other escapees, and the character they WERE playing runs off to their hometown or gets eaten or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
What stats did you roll, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Tome of beasts is great, makes me laugh a lot too. There's a mind of flying eyes that telekeneticaly yanks at the players eyes, causing blindness or whatever, then if they fail the save again it rips the eyes out that go flying across the room and adding to its mass. What level are you supposed to run into this nerd? This sounds like it'd be really unfun as a player.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:An Intellect Devourer Aces the level 9 Barbarian. I distinctly recall someone bringing up the Intellect Devourer being a problem in this thread, with the response being, and I think this is a quote, "Keep on loving that chicken." To be fair, it's brought up a lot. To also be fair, the intellect devourer is a problem. And DMs actually use the guy in real games. But, the important part: Where did that phrase come from? Keep on loving that chicken? What the hell does that even mean? Razorwired posted:Endless meticulous planning and group stealth checks. This definitely isn't a 5e specific thing, though. Every roleplaying game with stealth mechanics I've ever played involved Group Stealth Checks. Also, the good ol' "Roll stealth to get by the gate guards. Ok, roll stealth to get through the courtyard. Ok, roll stealth to get by the door guards. Whoops! Someone rolled a 1, roll initiative."
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Oh, side note on point buy vs die rolling: 5e actually has another subtle way of discouraging point buy. It's a 4d6 drop lowest vs 27 point buy. I forgot where I read it, but going by the generally accepted rules on rolling stats, the equivalent point buy for 4d6 drop lowest is actually something like a 32 point buy. It's small, but in 5e, point buy will get you, on average, slightly lower stats. In terms of power, you're slightly punished for using point buy, against the average roll. Edit: Here we go: You keep loving that chicken, buddy. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:That was probably me, in which case it was the opposite. Someone was defending the ID for like the 11th time and I said pretty much that. Oh, well, sorry for misrepresenting your point. My bad, yo.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Spellcasters force their opponents to roll, which can result in them having very few critical failures. Martial characters may end up rolling multiple times per round, resulting in more critical failures. So, yeah. Popular houserule.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Are there any NPCs that are reasonably good in combat that you can sacrifice? Take someone who can give a PC a run for their money and, when he tries to interfere, punch a hole through his chest. Noxin of Shame posted:Have an NPC come in at some point, and save your asses by being super strong and amazing. Then a short while later, your BBEG comes along and squashes them like it's no big deal. argh Edit: If the guy is simply numerically better, roll out in the open if you can and don't already. When they find out this guy has +bonkers to hit, they'll get the hint.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:like maybe only fighters get powers that stop an enemy from attacking, or even a straight up class ability that lets them always act "first" in their action whenever beneficial. Any time a game gives me the capacity to pull out a sword and be a straight up dick to the enemy, I'm on board. Double if it's purely martial.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Dungeon concept idea: Oops, All Mimics. Room, yes. Dungeon, no. You might have an odd number of mimics pop up in earlier places, before the Room of Mimics, with either no mimics after or like 1 mimic in an otherwise empty room to see if you can get them to fireball the drapes. But, if every room Is Mimics, they'll just break the door and shoot a fireball through it to burn everything to the ground. If you then have One Object that they needed to get without damaging it, you're treading on really annoying ground. Plus, wouldn't it be boring to have several completely identical fights? I think it'd probably work in a book, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 22:11
|
|