|
MonsterEnvy posted:More Balanced. Unless they burn their limited high level spells on damage spells they won't do as much damage as a Fighter. So they are better for buffs debuffs and clearing out rooms of large amounts of weak enemies. (Though most buffs and debuffs can't be used while another is being used.) They are super squishy and need the other classes to protect them in this edition. Rogues are much better with skills, locks and traps then them. Casting Knock for example would be a last resort as it wastes a precious spell slot and it makes a loud knocking noise that will alert everything within 300 ft of the party. More balanced then 4E? I disagree entirely, and I consider 4E to be extremely unbalanced. The fact that spells like Otto's Irresistible Dance and Death Ward(and the SoDs requiring it)exist again alone puts implications on 5Es balance that are pretty much impossible to even figure out. It's also going to have the dumb poo poo again where wizards are weaker at lower levels, when fighters are stronger, then at higher levels wizards become overpowered and fighter types become useless. That wasn't good balance 30 years ago, it still isn't. Monster math/balance is...nonexistant, we're back to a silly CR system that puts a level 4 wizard that can spam Hold Person at the same CR as a Bugbear again, to use an earlier example. Edit: That being said I'll probably give the game a shot at some point, I've tried two of the earlier play tests and wasn't super fond of them either though, so maybe this version of DnD just really isn't for me. I like what I've seen of the art so far though, so there's that! goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jul 4, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
The CR system sucks and as a DM that has DMed a ton of 3.x and 4th edition,the fact that the game uses CR again pretty much completely kills any real motivation I have to DM the system. I know I probably will end up DMing the game at some point, but I know that to do so I'll have to memorize how strong each monster ACTUALLY is and figure out how the game ACTUALLY works, and change monsters CRs on the fly just like I had to do with 3.X.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I must have miss typed what I said, what I meant is that I really liked 4ths sensible level system, and loving hate the CR system with the fury of a thousand suns. Hope that's clearer now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You do know the only reason they did not use Level was because they did not want to use the term level a 3rd time. Did you read how the CR works and have you seen the monsters. CR and monsters seem completely arbitrary again, see the Ogre being talked about on this very page, or the Evil Mage or Bugbear talked about earlier. If you can prove this to be false I will be a good deal relieved, but the examples being thrown about on this very page are proving it otherwise. Edit: The Ogre is level 7, how many levels do monsters need to be CR 2? Is it always 7? Do all CR 2 monsters have to have a certain amount of HP, so it needed to be level 7 to have that much hp (if that's how it works by the way that's probably the worst but still better then 3.X somehow) Is it some arbitrary number? Who knows? goldjas fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Who gives a poo poo about about a formula. Pretty much no one will give a poo poo about a formula. Me and every DM I've known who likes building good balanced encounters give a lot of shits about the formula. It was one of the super great things about 4e, and one of the terrible terrible things about 3.x.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
In 3.x size gave a bunch of bonuses to a bunch of random nonsense, all for the sake of "realism" and it ended up being pretty dumb and terrible, so I hope we aren't going down that route again, but it wouldn't surprise me if we are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I've been toying with the idea of getting into D&D, so 5e seems as good a place to get into it as any. From what I've ever seen it's almost always the "detachment style", I don't think I've ever seen anyone basically act out their character the entire time. You might get that playstyle more if you play with theatre group type people and such though, instead of the super number/video game type nerds I tend to play with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
starkebn posted:maybe a ceremonial copy of the Tomb of Horrors map I'd rather play the Tomb of Horrors then play Monopoly ever again. Just saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
4th edition had the sustain/concentration mechanic as well (and martial characters even had it!) I'm not sure why this edition had to go and make it all weird and quirky. Well, actually I think I do, it's so it's not associated with 4th Edition, per usual.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They do just not with spells. Just learn what the spells do, write them down or buy the spell cards when they come out. If you can't be bothered with that or even the looking the spells up then don't use the monster. Or they could do what good games do and have the monsters abilities in the stat block. This is actually a pet peeve of mine for a lot of games, not just D&D Next mind you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Someone else made this exact comment on another forum because having spell casting monsters is too much of an issue. I like spell casting monster for how versatile they are personally. I hate always using 4th Edition as a counter argument for stuff I don't like about Next (god knows there's plenty of stuff I don't like about 4th as well), but again, that game had spell casting monsters. The spells were in the stat blocks. No reason they can't do that here as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Because the few monsters that have them can be interesting challenges for the players. A Lich which will have casting will be very different each time you fight it due to it's wide selection of spells. (And with a Lich there is a pretty good chance you will fight it more then once.) It could just be a different monster stat block each time(or well the same stat block with a different spell here and there), the different abilities being how it's changing to fight the players it keeps on fighting over and over. It's spells don't also have to be player spells, they could be abilities it's developed on it's own, specifically to counter the PCs. There's no real reason to be restrained to player spells. Also most a lot of spells in games like 3E and Next don't really need to be represented in a stat block at all. The lich summons a bunch of zombies and undead and throws them at the players. That doesn't even need to be in a stat block, that's just an encounter(demons and devils summoning other demons and devils is a big offender to this in many editions of D&D that I just can't stand). Same with things like Illusion spells, those can be encounters, or part of an encounter, and don't really need to be on a monsters actual stat block saying "Casts illusionary terrain as a level 10 wizard ritual" or whatever. Instead they just give these monsters a laundry list of spells, give it an arbitrary CR based on the spells, and so go at it, this is a Lich, or whatever. Actually a really dumb thing that 3.x games did(although I have no idea if Next is doing it, I'm just complaining about I thing I really hated in 3.X here) is just say a Lich is a level 15 player wizard but wait it's a Lich so it has these undead traits which is this list of garbage, and all those arbitrary things because LICH, which was pretty stupid. To be fair 4th edition kind of tried that too in the early MMs and I didn't like it much there either (luckily they revised and fix that poo poo in the later Monster Manuals at least). In that case the fact that it's a Lich barely matters statwise, it's just a level 15 wizard with some extra oomph because it's a Lich or a Vampire or whatever. But now I'm rambling. My point is make your monster a Lich, not a level 15 PC Wizard that keeps coming back and tends to look like a Skeleton.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
No matter how bad game /adventure design is, I hope none of you guys are actually rolling 20 do 20s for level 1 Kobolds or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Man D&D is super obsessed about Tiamat, it feels like we've been having a billion adventures dealing with her and her minions since like 3rd edition at least. I shouldn't be one to talk though, she's actually dead in my campaign setting because she was a final boss in a campaign. Still kind of sick of her though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Swarms would not really work for Kobolds as they are humanoids. And no I don't see an issue with rolling a ton of d20's it does not take that long. Hell you are not even doing normal attack rolls your just taking the high result for half of them and if you own at least 2d20's then it's even quicker and easier. Swarms would work fine for kobolds, why the gently caress does it matter if they are humanoids? You can do swarms of anything, it's just a monster, who cares. Do a swarm of dragons for all the hell that it even matters. All that actually matters is that the encounter is interesting/fun for the players, it doesn't matter if it's realistic or whatever the hell. Rolling a billion d20s and taking ages instead of just having one swarm monster makes no sense in this context. I also noticed that DnD Next Just has Kobold, or Orc, or Goblin, instead of Kobold DragonShield and Kobold Shaman, etc. Real talk here, DnD Next. Just me and you. I honestly want to like you enough to give you another shot after the like 3 playtests I tried and didn't really like. For real here. But your monster design is making it really hard for me to ever want to DM you again. Like, just what the hell man, what the hell is this bullshit. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well given we only have a list of monster that only appear in a adventure I would expect that. And you also ignored the Hobgoblin Captain. I did miss the hobgoblin captain I guess, what does it do? But how is the swarm less interesting or would be crushed(stats could be anything you want, no need for it to be straight up crushed or whatever)? Kobolds in general aren't that interesting, who ever really cared about a group of kobolds. I've had single kobold NPCs who I actually gave a character and stuff to be interesting, or boss kobolds and that kind of thing be interesting, but just generic kobolds to fill an encounter, I just want them to end up making an interesting battle, since their entire purpose in existence is to be killed by the PCs but prove an interesting challenge in doing so. In that case, if you want to have the whole "holy poo poo we just killed a billion kobolds" thing going on, you either want to use Swarm rules or something like 13th age or 4Es minion/mook rules.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Kobolds are pretty much minions anyway given that they only have 5 hp. Their gimmick is pack tactics which gives them advantage. I think the fact that you don't get the issues with monster design is part of the problem, because you don't seem to understand...monster design. It is not nearly as good as 4e's monster design was at the start, not even close, even considering how drat flawed 4Es monster design was at the start. That's because there basically is no monster design. There is no formula. There is no design. It's just...arbitrary numbers, eyeballed and given CRs and experience points. There is no this monster is a soldier so has base defenses of X and base HP of X at level Y and will have abilities that generally do Z due to being a soldier. It's just an ogre and we think an ogre should do this because loving OGRES MAN. Edit: I want to point out, I'm so drat nitpicky because I really don't actually like 3.x and 4e, there are a million billion real problems with them. So the fact that DnD next is, instead of being a new awesome game, is just all the bullshit that I already didn't like about 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition all rolled into one. I was hoping to at least have an evolution similar to what we had going from 3rd to 4th, or 2nd to 3rd, instead it's more like we went back to 3rd, but with stuff from 2nd and 4th randomly shoved in there as well, and it's not even the particularly good stuff from 2nd and 4th that were put in. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You know this how how how. You don't you are just assuming. Did it never cross your mind that it can be both. No you don't because you are determined to dislike this and complain about even the good stuff in this game. I've seen the monster stats? Like, a lot of the monster stats. They've been posted in this thread, multiple times, on this page even. I do kind of like advantage. And I guess backgrounds are alright, although they kind of already existed in 4th, in later books though I suppose. Edit for below: Analyzing and breaking down monster stats has been literally something like half this thread. goldjas fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Apparently since Ranger was the class that was super broken in the 4E PHB, we just had to make it the biggest piece of hot garbage in 5E. (Edit: It's actually pretty badass that Ranger was/still is the overpowered class in 4E.). And wizards are super overpowered already, but this surprises exactly 0 people who have been even remotely following the development of this game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
The fact that we have to have this drat skeleton conversation in the first place, ignoring everything else about it, the mechanics, whatever, but just the fact that it's being had, is a huge problem. I do hope everyone realizes this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Why are almost all the monsters in here just "basic attack" and then "flavor ability" (and a lot of times the flavor ability is just attack multiple times). I guess it makes it pretty easy to reskin all the monsters in the game at least if they are almost all exactly the same, so there's that I guess. Edit: Oh boy, it looks magic items like Ring of Protection are back in. Here we go again. goldjas fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Could you stop with the skeletons at this point it's starting to get really annoying. I personally think it's hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:Every time I see a monk class with elemental powers, I want to run/play an Avatar The Last Airbender game. 5e seems so close. It won't happen since we already had that in 4th edition and this is the don't do what that edition did edition.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
There's no real point of stuff like that age regression thing really, it's just a flavorful way of saying Save Or Die, and I get that really flavorful way of saying Save or Die is all kinds of old school (hell it's literally half of the Tomb of Horrors) but I don't think it creates terribly good gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Having to make a billion house rules (or any house rules really) is good for a rules lite game like Dungeon World, it is not good for a rules-heavy game like any edition of DnD (Note that this is a problem I have with every edition of DnD, they are all, even 4E, pretty much unplayable without a decent set of house-rules going in, one of the things I was hoping 5E to fix was this bullshit, instead of fixing it it's loving relying on it, so it's making a bad problem worse).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
seebs posted:Observation: I have had the exact opposite experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So Fighter doesn't really live up to a lot of legendary heroes, but if we were to try and create a subclass specifically to emulate some of those things, perhaps not as powerful as slashing mountains but great leaping and various other heroic things how would you go about it? This is kind of a broken record thing at this point, but a really good example of a well made Fighter is 4th Edition, you don't need to look anywhere deeper to see how a well made fighter should look then the previous edition of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I'll be honest, an edition of DnD that just went whole hog with breaking everything to bits and making everybody downright mythical would be amazing. Necromancers raising entire armies, paladins turning into walking avatars of their gods, rogues so good at their craft that they can steal concepts such as souls, talents, and hearts, fighters that can reshape the world around them with their bare hands . . . I'm running an epic level 4th edition campaign right now (that actually started at level 1 a few years ago even) and that's not far off from how it plays.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
I think the big problem a lot of people have with this current edition of D&D is that if this game didn't have D&D on the cover, and didn't have the funding to get all the fancy artwork and advertising and such that it had, and it was just the current rules and design, released...it would be considered to be a pretty average game and probably have almost no sales. It's all the advertising, the it being D&D, that's doing all the legwork here, there's very little in the actual rules or design that's actually selling the game, where as games with actual decent design and such still have a hard time even making hundreds of sales. Edit: For instance, if this game were called Tunnels and Trolls(I know that that's a game that does actually exist, but work with me here), had generic artwork, and was made by some Indie company, would anyone care about it? The answer is probably no. goldjas fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
My problem with the game is that I didn't want a game that's better then 3.5 or Pathfinder since I already have that(several even), instead I wanted a game that's better then 4th Edition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
To be fair, from what I can remember quite a few of the really old D&D modules that were based in a town actually were like that as well, it just so happens that MMOs kind of copied that, and now we've gone full circle, or something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
It's like the 5th Edition designers are just trying to make bad monsters. Like, on purpose and stuff. That Intellect Devourer posted a few pages ago was just the worst though, like holy hell. Also, does every loving description of everything in 5e need to be pointlessly wordy as all hell. Was the guy who wrote this stuff paid by the word or something? goldjas fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Now all we need are those creatures that are basically floating mines that look like Beholders to trick adventurers into attacking them so they explode in their face. Hopefully with a lot of pointlessly wordy text describing how they explode or some nonsense too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
The concentration mechanic and the rogue getting an extra move to do rogue things mechanic both basically existed in 4E as part of minor actions (hell, Concentrate as a minor is on a lot of spells/powers in 4E) so I don't know that I'd really call that an innovation in 5E or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Because a lot of creatures get multiattack and can do the same thing back, I guess. From a lot of the monsters we've seen, multi-attacking is all a large majority of them even do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
It's not like in 5E sometimes the DM has to roll when a monster attacks, and sometimes the player has to roll when a monster attacks (depending on if it's considered a "spell" or not) and it's not like there are 7 entirely different types defenses to keep track of to survive these things. And it's not like these can be wildly swingy or anything, to the point that, even at low levels, there are some types of attacks that you are just guaranteed to not always get affected by.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Seven defenses? No... it's more than that. Sometimes you need to roll a save, but sometimes you need to roll a check. Different bonuses apply to each. (E.g. Paladin Aura vs. Remarkable Athlete.) And sometimes the monster rolls 3d6 and compares it to one of your scores. Oh god, I just remembered this bullshit. The monster rolling 3d6 and doing a challenge or whatever the gently caress was just a pure display of bad game design front and center, it was almost comical, like a joke. But it's real. Edit: The glorious thing about it too was it was done by a like CR 1 or 2 monster and it ended up in an auto kill if the monster succeeded. It's just SO BAD.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Covok posted:Are there editions that don't work rules as written? I'm interpreting that as saying the game simply doesn't work at all, not that it is just convoluted or unbalanced. Can you think of anyone who actually played 2nd or 3rd edition purely RAW? Anyone at all?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
electrigger posted:Just playing devils advocate here, I'm actually someone who pretty much dislikes most iterations of D&D for the usual reasons. In fact I freaking adored how 4th actually was the first edition of D&D that actually made an attempt to be "good at" being D&D. People are trying to change it is the thing, I think. Change has to start somewhere. Edit: And if anything is going to stop D&Ds momentum and cause it to change, I wouldn't be sad for it to be the version of D&D that printed that stupid Intellect Devourer on actual paper. goldjas fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Although in 2nd Edition Dragons did have a "Your weapon must be this tall to hurt me" quota, but I guess that's just par for the course in older DND games, and not really worth discussion because you really weren't going to fight the dragon if you couldn't even hurt it. I'm still pretty sad they brought that back in 5th. At least it's only magic/nonmagic and not like, requires sword to be at least + 4 and silver and it be Tuesday or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 01:37
|
|