|
If you don't have an FLGS, the Amazon preorder discounts for all this year's releases look nice and deep.
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Repost from that other thread: Here's my houserule. I'm going to cut out these two paragraphs and put them into all my other game books.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Of course, I was intending to do a write up on the overland exploration rules section as I did for their major updates in the playtest. Unfortunately, there's really not that much to say about them to say about them. I think they improved the format a bit I guess, although I could understand the opposite opinion just as well as each of the less often used travel activities sections has been cut down significantly. The major issue with the exploration rules is that they chose to cut out the numbers that actually allow you to DM exploration completely. At first, I assumed this was a ploy to sell the starter set, although it would be pretty odd to set different base values for each part of exploration in every adventure. On closer inspection however, it clearly states that multiple parts of the exploration rules will be in the DMG. I know I should have been prepared for disappointment, but it just doesn't help.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
LFK posted:The first character level is covered over the course of an ambush and a small cave. You know what adventure everyone loved? Keep on the Shadowfell. Let's do a thematic callback to that. LFK posted:More? Yes, please. Does the starter set include rules about random encounter frequency? Does it include a chart or method for determining NPC reactions?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
LFK posted:I liked that cave Well the cave might have been one of the most tolerable parts of KoTS actually. Could you tell me what the frequency of random encounter rolls and the chance of an encounter when you roll, (um, in part 4 which I assume is some sort of dungeon location)? As for the reactions I was actually asking if there was a generic table. Like can you potentially negotiate with monstrous humanoids?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
LFK posted:"Monsters roam through all areas of the mine. Random encounters remind players that monsters aren't neccessarily confined to specific areas, and that no part of the dungeon is safe. Encounters with wandering monsters are an effective ay to keep the players and characters on their toes, alleviate player boredom, and tax party resources. However, having too many random encounters can become tedious, so use them sparingly." So, if I am understanding correctly the random encounter rate is 'whenever you feel like it'?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
LFK posted:Frequency is DM's discretion. Basically "if the characters are loitering, or the players are wasting time." Next's claimed desire to cater to all playstyles sure seems to result in the unwillingness to support any particular style with actual rules. There are multiple types of play which I am enjoy GMing, but I just can't reach any of them from where Next sits. That's very frustrating to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:"I'm looking and actively probing on, under, atop, inside, behind, beside, between, and around every object in the room. I'm also looking at and actively probing the floor, walls, ceiling, and any other surfaces in the room." It doesn't matter. You'll never find something that's not there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:So do people actually roll for wandering monsters? Yes. I roll for wandering monsters whenever I'm running a system and adventure designed to support it. To be clear, no version of D&D released by Wizards, apparently including Next, has done this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:What systems and adventures are designed to support wandering monster rolls? That's probably outside of the scope of this discussion, but feel free to join us in the older D&D and retroclones thread if you are interested in this sort of play.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:8 Actually and that's not including bonus stuff like Two weapon fighting. You don't really want to take two-weapon fighting as a fighter though because it's one extra attack gets increasingly useless as you gain secondary attacks during your progression. It's really more for the thief who wants it to increase their chance to land sweet, sweet sneak attack damage which they would otherwise miss out on whenever they miss their single attack.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's worth dollar sign XP, though! Think of the haul! Did I enjoy fighting a creature with ability drain? Let's just say I had a rich experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:@Plaguescarred : Can a rogue sneak attack with a net even if it deals no damage? Yo, is there any chance you could take the modicum of effort needed to not literally repeat yourself in a single post?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
treeboy posted:is there a DM thread? My friends have decided I shall be the source of their entertainment and I need some advice on setting a creepy tone for our first 5e campaign. You can find the generic GMing advice thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3150535&pagenumber=1 If you want to ask D&D Next specific questions, this is probably the place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Oh yeah and my Cheat Sheet is updated to the Basic rules for anyone that is actually going to play 5e. 1 page with all the actions and conditions and stuff. Dash should probably read "Increases your movement by your speed." Which would make it slightly easier to understand what happens when a rogue Mario Kart: Double Dashes I'm eagerly waiting you running Tyranny and reporting back, because the scuttlebutt is that Kobold Press adventures blow Wizards adventures out of the water.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Lazy_Liberal posted:Anybody know if/when the wizard people are going to make a 5e online character builder? If? Yes. When? No. http://www.codenamemorningstar.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i guess i assumed there's a *basic* design tying hp/dpr to CR/level Jack the Lad made one in the Imp Zone thread for the last public playtest. Unfortunately, it's useless because it suggests that either a) there was no basic design like you're suggesting, or b) the monsters are categorized into roles even though the design team never explained what roles exist or even that there are roles. There isn't CR in the playtest, so it also suggests that level isn't tightly bound to CR. My impression (since my starter set has not yet arrived) is that there won't be enough monsters in it to do a meaningful analysis. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Comstar posted:It took 90 minutes or so to make characters from scratch as we read the rulebook, Hold on, what? This was a part of the game that I thought Next would surely improve over 3rd/4th. What took so long?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
starkebn posted:If something is a caster mob, and it has spells in it's stat block, are you supposed to use/know how many spell slots it has? Or can it just use it's spells however, whenever? In the playtest, it lists spell slots. They appear to be full casters, so I don't see any reason they couldn't cast all their third and above slots as fireball (or do something similar with a prep'ed spell of their choice). I'm still wondering if the concentration rule will make NPC casters less dangerous, or more dangerous. (It obviously fixes a problem for PCs.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:So what's your excuse going to be, then? MonsterEnvy posted:It's a thing called errata. It will probably be put in the next update of Basic or he could say it's the DM's call. --- My starter set should arrive by the weekend. I'm looking forward to discussing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Really my only beef with the talent is that it doesn't *help* the person getting attacked (just punishes the attacker) and reactions seem like a sorely limited resource. I'd allow the fighter protection ability to trigger for free during the same reaction. It has to be intended to work that way, right? Them screwing it up almost feels like a callback to the fact that the 4th ed PHB fighter's ability also didn't work together correctly RAW.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:You basically just have to make it up. Let me share a little bit of DMing advice. Don't ever play this way in D&D. I tried to do this in 3rd E once and by the next session my players were demanding to see minis. Next is not designed to accommodate "theater of the mind" any better than any other version of D&D has been. Here is what I do when I want to run a combat without interesting terrain though: Players should have pre-established a 'marching order' by placing their minis on a card at the side of the table. Move the minis to the center of the table and then place all of the enemies in front of them in whatever formation is appropriate. The enemies should be one move away from the front line (or if you really want to shake things up 2 moves away, whoo, exciting). Don't put them less than one move away because than they can flank (read: stab the wizard) in one turn. You want the monsters far enough away that if some of them try to flank the players get a turn to respond. If you are looking for a game that you can play 'theater of the mind' combats in I would recommend Apocalypse World, Mouse Guard, or FATE. Although each of these games also has situations where I would use a map as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
treeboy posted:But a wizard doesn't automatically get spells each level, at least last time i checked. Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. - Basic 31 This is important because there aren't any friendly wizards in the starter set, and there is a chance the bandit wizard will completely escape leaving any PC wizard high and dry without this rule. Edit: Oh, Treeboy, did you figure out how to make up some more monsters? Now that I have the starter set I might be able to give it a shot if you still need help. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i haven't actually sat down and looked at it yet, work's been busy with OT, go for it though for sure In the Gming thread you said you want to run something dark and foreboding. Can you narrow that down? What kind of monsters are you looking for here?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Okay, thanks. I'll give it my best shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Ritorix some of your opinions are truly mind-boggling. Edit: Wait, I think I misunderstood you. Are you saying that the main mode of D&D is usually participationism because it is a badly designed, opaque game? That the most rational method for playing such a game would be to only fully expose one of the players (the DM) to its true problems? DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
LFK posted:Oh, I figured out monsters. Well, I figured out monsters in the way that monsters would be figured out for 4e, but this is clearly not how Mearls and co are doing it. I think number of hit dice is actually arbitrary and they are aiming for a target HP level per CR. I'm still having trouble figuring out how save DCs work for effects not caused by spells though. I may throw my hands up and just slap a 13 on all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
ritorix posted:You have unlocked the deep, dark secret of D&D. It seems pretty good advice if you are running a game that is well designed. What do you feel that Be Consistent and Be Fair mean in the context of this particular system?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Be Fair seems pretty obvious: don't give your buddy all the magic items or let the chatty player take all the face time. Good advice anywhere. This is all quite right. What I was expecting and got was an omission from what I would have said. Thank you, Ritorix, I think I now understand why I will never be a good DM for Next.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
"My character is known as a savage attacker! Tell me, what of your character?" "My character is known as *trails off*" "What?" "moderately armored" Treeboy, I need to know whether your setting has a normal day/night cycle so I can decide whether to write rules for vampire sparkles.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Like a candle lit from both ends, you burned out too soon. Why do I have Deja Vu? Is it because MonsterEnvy is a terrible liar?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Okay, Treeboy, here are some monsters for you. Rat AC 11 HP 2 1dSmall Speed 20, climb 5 Str 6 Dex 12 Darkvision CR 1/8 Special: Packticks: Gets advantage for flanking Act: Bite +0 1 damage -- Bat AC 12 HP 2 1dTiny Speed 0, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 14 Darkvision 120 (sonar) CR 1/8 Act: Bite +0, 1 damage Tougher Specials (Rat and Bat): Filth: On hit, DC 12 Con or poison until short rest. CR +1/8 -- Crow AC 13 (Nat) HP 4 1dTiny+2 Speed 20, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 12 Con 14 Darkvision CR 1/8 Act: Peck +3 (fin), 3 damage -- Hellcrow AC 14 (Nat) HP 8 2dTiny+4 Speed 20, flight 40 Str 6 Dex 14 Con 14 Darkvision CR 1/4 Act: Peck +4 (fin), 4 damage Tougher Specials (Crows): On hit, DC 12 Will or vulnerable to necrotic damage until end of Crow's next turn. CR + 1/4 -- Blasphemous Statuette AC 14 (Nat) HP 28 8dSmall Speed 0 Object (can't fail mental saves or concentration, always fails physical saves) Tremorsense 60 CR 1 Special: The statuette's spells can be recharged by one short rest worth of worship from at least three worshipers. Spellcasting: Guiding Bolt (3 uses) +2, 4d6 psychic damage Lvl 1 Bless (1 use) Lvl 1 Aid (1 use) -- Star Pact Prophet AC 15 (Spell Effect) HP 39 6d8+12 Speed 30 Str 14 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 14 CR 3? Special: The Star Pact Prophet is constantly under the effect of mage armor. The Star Pact Prophet is constantly under the effect of Spirit Guardians. Wis DC 14 3d8 Psychic damage (The spirits do not take a recognizable form) Neither of these effects can be dispelled. Act: Eldritch Bolt +5, (10) 2d8+2 cold damage, Wis DC 14 or frightened save ends Mace +5, (5) 1d6+2 damage -- Alchemical Chaos Golem Ac 15 (Nat) HP 22 4d8+4 Speed 20 Str 16 Dex 8 Con 13 CR 1 Special: Death Throes: On death, the golem erupts in a 10 ft. sphere dealing (6) 1d12 damage of its current type. Chain Reaction: When hit by damage of its current type a golem instead explodes in a 10 ft sphere dealing (12) 2d12 damage of its current type. Act: Fists/Slam +5, (10) 2d6+3 current type damage. On an even roll the golem's type becomes acid, on an odd roll it becomes fire. (Tip: Use two sided tokens to keep track of the monsters type.) Alternate special: Feel free to switch up the two elemental types of the golems if this encounter is used multiple times. -- Lesser Werewolf Ac 15 (Nat) HP 22 4d8+12 Speed 40 Str 16 Dex 14 Con 16 Darkvision CR 1 Special: Packticks: Gets advantage for flanking Attack: Bite +5, (10) 2d6+3 damage, DC 13 save or knocked prone -- Vampirelings Ac 14 HP 18 4d8 Speed 30, flight 10 Str 12 Dex 18 Cha 16 Darkvision CR 1 Special: Gaze: range 60 DC 13 Cha or Charmed save ends Attack: Bite +3, (8) 2d6+1 damage, critical hit against charmed targets Inflict Wounds (1 use), +3, (16) 3d10 necrotic damage Tougher Special (Vampire/Werewolf): Infection: On bite hit, DC 13 Wis vs vampire or DC 13 Con vs Werewolf or become infected. Start down a condition track where you can voluntarily advance to activate your vamp/wolf powers. As you advance more powers/penalties accrue. That's about all I can take for now. This system just fights you every step of the way. I hope this is some help to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
moths posted:Were those monsters seen before 13A started using natural even/odd attack, Nastier Specials, and fixed damage? Natural even/odd rolls have never been in Next. I was cribbing from a better game when I made those monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
moths posted:Oh my bad, I thought those were from preview material. Are you insulting my design skills? I worked really hard to make those more interesting than Next monsters.  treeboy posted:edit: did you intend any of these guys to have saves on their strong stats? just wondering. I errored on the side of caution since it seemed like there weren't very many. Let me take another look. Judging by Jack's chart it looks like only creatures with 'class levels' get proficient saves. I would probably give the prophet Wisdom (and Charisma but who cares). Unless you meant did I intend for those stats to boost their saves inherently. Yes, I did, that's why I only listed those stats. You can assume all the others are 10s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
LFK posted:My chart... Sorry, Jack did all those earlier charts in Imp Zone. I should have realized he didn't own a copy of the starter set though. LFK posted:I like your monsters, especially the Blasphemous Statuette. http://brogue.wikia.com/wiki/Goblin_Totem  I thought it would retheme well to the idol from The Call of Cthulhu. LFK posted:ON THE PLUS SIDE This is true. This is a really nice thing inherited from 4th. Unfortunately, I feel like the condition list is considerably weaker combat-wise than 4th. (Obviously this makes it a joke compared to 13th age which outdid 4th in the area of conditions.) Damage over time is out, immobilized now disadvantages you both directions, dazed is right out because of the change in action structure, no sliding, and vulnerability is now always double which is scary powerful. I think the conditions I feel work best in combat are poisoned; frightened; and strangely enough, charmed. Not coincidentally, those are the ones I used in the monsters I created.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So let's talk about the hour long short rests. Ritorix opened my mind so I can see the matrix. And by the matrix I mean Next design philosophy. If you're wondering why short rests are 1 hour long let me enlighten you. At some point during the private playtest they tried short rests that were 30 minutes long, but some people complained that that didn't feel long enough. I guarantee that is what happened. The duration of short rests is completely arbitrary. What really matters is how often the DM chooses to disrupt rest attempts, that's what determines whether the party will short rest after every encounter or rarely short rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
So remember when everyone agreed that the spell list format was so horrible that spell cards would be a godsend? Welp, http://www.gf9-dnd.com/gameAcc/tabid/87/entryid/87/Default.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I'm curious about peoples play styles though. Do most people treat the game as a true role-playing game, where they are their character, or do most have a degree of detachment where they're more sort of controlling a character rather than embodying it, or is it all just a mix of playstyles? I've been watching to some game vids, and a few podcasts, and it seems like a mix so far. The Nerd Poker podcast crew seem to have a bit of that detachment. I was watching some of the Scourge of The Sword Coast vids run by the Wizards crew, and while the DM and three of the players had a bit of detachment, there was definitely one guy who was his character at all times. I think I should point out that D&D is designed for 'rational play' (i.e. detached) over 'role play' likely because the original designers did not see the possibility of 'role play' having a negative impact on the story. Unfortunately, this means that D&D provides no guidelines for situations where 'role play' is in conflict with and causes harm to 'rational play'. I have many times seen/heard of situations where this issue resulted in character death. One was my own character (in 3rd edition) and one that occurred in 5th edition was mentioned in this very thread. As far as I'm aware, there are three generally accepted methods for dealing with this type of conflict. 1. Player wimp-out: Player's implicitly agree to only 'role play' their characters up to the point where real negative consequences would occur. (My character feels strongly about getting revenge, but to pursue it here would be character suicide so I won't.) 2. DM ex Machina: The DM intervenes before or after the damage to the story to set things back on track. (You miraculously survive. Or, Suddenly the party finds a treasure chest containing exactly the right amount of money to bring you back to life!) 3. Sacrifice the 'story': The players and DM agree that the consequences of the action were appropriate and accept the damage that was done to the 'story' of the game. (Black Leaf is dead. Roll up a new character.) It's nice to know which one of the methods is preferred among your group, but admitting that D&D doesn't handle things like this can be a touchy subject with some groups. SirFozzie posted:Did anyone announce whether the digital release for 5e books will be same time as hardcopy, or delayed? I'm certain that the Basic pdf will be updated in sync with the book releases. I think other pdf products may be delayed, but there hasn't been any word that I know of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
I'd like to add: I didn't mean to imply that D&D is a bad game because it has this problem. Every RPG has this problem because it is a problem inherent to RPGs. Some more modern games have their answer to this baked in to the system to various degrees of effectiveness. slydingdoor posted:There's an Inspiration mechanic now that gives a floating advantage "when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way." It isn't really going to fix that problem. It will mitigate it, at least. My impression is that inspiration is very similar to skill challenges as a solution to 'noncombat resolution is boring'. It isn't described very well which will lead many DMs to misunderstand and reject the system. However, eventually there will be some DMs who taker the system beyond what the original game designers are capable of. One of the main oddities with Inspiration as it is currently written is that it is laid on top of a system where the effectiveness of a single roll can vary wildly because combat is so granular. If you succeed on a roll out of combat in most cases you have completely done a thing. If you succeed on a roll in combat than congratulations, you hit a man. Another oddity is that you can protect yourself from spell with inspiration, but not from weapon attacks because you don't make a roll to avoid those. My hanzo steel is too real to be deflected by your pathetic plot token. Here's what I'd do with inspiration to address this imbalance. This might be way too powerful but I'd rather it be too powerful than ineffectual. My Call: When you spend inspiration in a combat it applies until the end of combat to every roll you make and against every roll opponents make to target you. Out of combat it applies to every skill roll in a single skill chain. There is another neat thing that the inspiration framework does that D&D has never done before though. It produces direct character plot flags, which is to say that, it allows the player to inform the DM what is important to their character within the game. That's pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
OtspIII posted:Obviously, this style of play has plenty of drawbacks (high initial prep, stories don't follow arcs as cleanly, etc), but it's a style I really like, largely because the triple-dilemma you mentioned before really does bug me in games. I think I pretty much already agree with this post. slydingdoor posted:Distorts the whole game. I was trying to empower inspiration to fix the story conflict. Which, on further consideration, it seems like it was not intended to do that. I'm still not entirely sure why the limit is one point? slydingdoor posted:Also that dilemma isn't that bad, because all of those outcomes shouldn't halt the story or hurt anything. If the character chickens out of revenge, that's great. Someone, PC or NPC, should pry about it. If they go for it, don't cheapen the victory or defeat by handing them a macguffin that lets them just win, make them earn it. If they die and no one wants to pay for the resurrection because no one liked that character anyway, that's fine too. If they do, the cost of Raise Dead is not going to throw off anyone's progression or anything, I had players that acted that way in 4e which was kind of a pain. A lot of stories have situations like that where the protagonist figures out they need to grow before they can accomplish their goal, by chickening out, fighting and losing, or dying. But that describes exactly why the dilemma is bad. You thought that everyone expected one solution, but the players didn't know that and chose a different solution. It certainly isn't a difficult dilemma to solve though. You merely need to openly agree with the rest of the players when each of the options is appropriate. As an aside, I think one of the main reasons people prefer option 1 in 4th ed is that the tactical part of the game is super fun and interesting. So pursuing that part of the game over other parts will frequently result in a game that is more fun.  Oh god, I have so many bad RPG opinions, please read all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 18:33
|
|