|
starkebn posted:or rather than The Office, more like Archer - the show is just about their inter-relationships rather than the stuff they do Which is why it won't work with D&D, because D&D is explicitly and 100% about what you do, not who you are.
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
The math is bad, a good chunk of the classes are pointless, it gives absolutely nothing new and does nothing better then any other edition, and the whole thing is just dull, lazy, and unimaginative, while relying on DMs to fix the myriad of problems and calling it a "feature."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Like I literally cannot give a single reason to play 5e other then "I need to play a game with 'D&D' on the box and am physically incapable of playing a previous edition." 5e does literally nothing that an older edition does better. And it adds nothing to the mix. It's not that 5e is like, offensively bad. Nothing in 5e sticks out and rankles. It's just bland. It's the very epitome of mediocre. The dev team set out to make An Edition Of D&D with as little work as possible, and it shows throughout the entire product. If you want to play AD&D then play AD&D. If you want to play 3e/PF then play that. If you want to play 4e, well, you were never looking at 5e to begin with, likely. This isn't 4e sour grapes. This is genuine bafflement - name a thing 5e does that I can't do better with a previous edition other then "be the newest edition of D&D."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:And 6) Just make the monsters attack them, because giving fighty guys any serviceable defence mechanic is terrible MMO bullshit for babies. It's pretty great how much 4e hate came from GMs terrified of losing any sort of "power." Like over and over on 3e sites I see "Fighters are fine because as DM I just have all the monsters attack the big guy in the armor first!" But you let the fighter decide that...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
moths posted:There used to be all sorts of terrible in-game roleplay concepts that were supposed to balance out mechanical advantages. And yet none of them ever, ever did. See also: Racism against Drow and Tieflings, an obstacle that has zero weight in a dungeon and can be circumvented with minimal effort. 2e was kinda infamous for this in kits. The Swashbuckler and Bladesinger stand out here, where often times the "roleplay" balance was "every now and then, you get a plotline devoted just to you! This balances your MASSIVE mechanical benefits by"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I know people here were all abloobloo don't play PF, but I stand by it being better then 5e. Path of War from what I've heard is even better then ToB. The actual answer is don't play either mind you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:No, no way in which a slightly modded, heavily bloated version of 3.5 which never attempted to solve any of the deep issues with the system, is better than 5e. PF has all the same problems at 5e, just moreso, and a whole lot more of them. Ferrinus posted:Noooo way. Whatever its problems, 5e has at least dramatically improved on 3.5/PF's usability issues, and it's nerfed casters heavily enough that combat balance can legitimately swing on things like HP and DPS. Here's the thing - PF and 3.x both have large active crowds of players who know the problems and numerous ways to fix their issues. 3.x and PF both have a plethora of materials you can use and just, like, ban the full casters and poo poo. Like in 3.x you can have a party of a Factotum, a Warblade, a Beguiler, and a Bard and have far fewer issues. 5e's problems have no fixes. If this was 2001 I would agree. It's not 2001. 5e doesn't have to contend with 3.x's broken-rear end core, it has to contend with the entirety of it. Like your argument is "the class named Fighter isn't as screwed in 5e." But the concept is screwed way harder, because that's your only choice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:"Don't play any of these classes if you know what's good for you" isn't really a "fix" for most of 3.X's issues. Even in a beguiler/warblade/dread necromancer party you've got poo poo like recalculating half your character sheet if you get dexterity drained, keeping track of the durations and effects of various overlapping buff spells, resolving nightmare spells like Evard's Black Tentacles... 5e is actually simpler, faster, and better balanced than the last edition its fans admit exists. You're kinda missing the problem. "I wanna play a cool warrior dude with options." 3.x has an answer to that. 5e doesn't. I mean my solution in 3.x is "don't play these classes." Your 5e solution is "don't play these concepts."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
My choice isn't "play 5e with friends or play a better game," it's "play 5e with friends or play a better game with friends." I have no emotional connection to "D&D." I started with jRPGs before I played Baldur's Gate, and I didn't get into D&D proper until my late teens. Nothing in me screams "PLAY A GAME WITH D&D ON THE COVER," nor do any of my friends have an overwhelming need to play D&D. 5e provides nothing for me that I can't get in other, better games. Like whenever people say "I'm glad the combat is bad so it can be over fast and we can move on to roleplaying I just think "why are you playing D&D and not something based on that 'roleplaying?'" So as I've said before, 5e is a game for people who need to play D&D. As someone who doesn't need to play D&D, if this isn't a good game, I'm not interested in it. Recycle Bin posted:I feel like everyone is singing the praises of 4e. Where the hell were you people when the game first came out? I remember checking out the 4e thread on SA and it looked almost exactly like this thread. If history is any indication, I expect that when 6th edition comes out the pro-5e crowd will be in full force. Christ, the much beloved Pathfinder grew out of 3.5e and hoooooly poo poo was there ever a wailing and gnashing of teeth over 3.5.... Oh I openly admit I was a huge grog for awhile. Like I'm just glad some of the more foul poo poo I said at the start of 4e is connected to a different name.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
The only 4e argument I can remember was what did or didn't add modifiers to damage for the sake of stuff like monk flurry or assassin shrouds and whatnot. I literally never saw arguments regarding the rules in any games. "What's the rule for this?" "It's this." "Oh, ok." The "Are you your own ally?" thing only really made traction in The Gaming Den, and if you wanna see how fantastic they understood 4e, go look at Trollman's homebrewed 4e class. I never saw any serious arguments about it anywhere else. A lot of it comes from 3e's particular brand of rule lawyering that fetishizes "RAW" in order to "trick" the game or DM into allowing what would otherwise be stupid and nonsensical, trying to find loopholes and the like. The problem with 5e isn't that the written rules differ from how they were intended, the problem is that the written rules don't actually answer things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Every time I see "But the DM can change it!" my first thought is "Or play another game." Literally every defense of 5e is based on "now, pretend you are actually FORCED to play or run it..." and that's just not the case. 5e is basically still trying to act like it's the only product you can buy, and it's defenders are doing a woeful job of defending it outside of that claim. Like, I don't need to fix all this poo poo. I can go somewhere else. Give me poo poo inside the rules that make me go oh man I wanna play that. Give me poo poo inside the rules that fixes problems.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
I guess it's up to me to be relentlessly negative~! A lot of stuff on Next that I see is couched in hopefuls. "They WILL make a better fighter..." "They WILL add more things to martials..." "I WILL be able to make a defender..." "They'll have lots of interesting monster types..." No you won't. No they won't. I keep saying that 5e is a 2001 game for a reason. Next didn't just abandon basically all 4e design, it abandoned most 3e design, too. 5e isn't meant to be a little of 3e and a little of 4e and a little of AD&D. 5e is meant to be "3e, done again." And part of that means going back to and only to early 3e materials. See, the thing is, as terrible as 3e Core was, 3.x as it got older got more and more interesting and inventive. But 5e has none of that. In fact, 5e has been slowly killing whatever small innovations it ever had, while ensuring none of the innovations of past editions make it in. Look at the Eldritch Knight. That is straight up pre-3.x class design right there. A fighter who can also sometimes cast a few magic spells, nothing else. No synergy at all, no new mechanics, no bridging the gap between actions, no even ATTEMPT to make anything more then an exceptionally lazy fighter and wizard mashed together. See I'm not judging 5e by AD&D or by 3e Core. It's not 2001. It's 2014. You compare the product to everything that came before. Lastly, what we've seen time and time again by Mearls is that 5e is his baby. This is HIS D&D, done the way he wants it to be. You are absolutely never going to see a warlord because this is HIS D&D and he loving hates warlords. It's why he refuses to back away from supporting Zak S and RPG Pundit - nobody's going to tell him who or what is bad for HIS D&D. Like, look at 4e Essentials. Now realize that was Mearls being daring and creative, which is isn't going to be for 5e in awhile. Not to mention they've stated rather often that they don't plan on doing the crunch treadmill this time around. The only way 5e sees actual expansion is if Mearls get's laid off. Until that happens, don't hold your breath for any of those "hopefuls" to come true. You're talking up potential new classes in the game that literally nerfed monks and fighters after being told they might be too weak.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
In 4e it's easier to homebrew monsters because 4e monsters honestly have relatively simplistic math and few connected moving parts. This doesn't apply if your imagination has been damaged and you can't homebrew with pure creativity and instead need a full class an attribute system to slog through, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:More fun math facts about the edition: This isn't unexpected tbh. The action economy has always starkly favored summoners; their one weakness was simply that hordes of small guys are inevitably too weak to actually work well. With 5e's flatter math, suddenly those weenies aren't so weenie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Or the players exercise even a modicum of sensibility and recognize perhaps brute forcing your way through encounters has unintended consequences outside of DM dickery. My solution wasn't "poo poo gotta FIX THIS" it was "that's not nearly as effective as you'd think it would be because <reasonable intelligent creature behavior>" and some pretty breezy approaches to resting rules and enemy abilities. You're really freaking out over your game having something broken in it, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
This is FWIW exactly what literally Gary Gygax was worried about - that, when actual rule restrictions were cut back, the game would become The Weird Wizard Show. It's not just that the wizard is super powerful, it's that the entire game slowly begins to revolve around the wizard - why they can or can't do, what the DM does to stop them, etc, etc. Everyone becomes a bit player to the drama between DM and Wizard.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
seebs posted:I think that gap is at least somewhat intentional. Some people like a thing? Guess nobody csn ever complain!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Regarding all the pointless animals in the MM, that was one of the more popular anti-4e memes in ENWorld (there are no stats for MULES!, followed by unfunny "4e" names for mules), and 5e is basically ENWorld Edition.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Oh poo poo, over on enworld people are looking at the skeletal horde, after Jack's mathematical breakdown of the game-breaking implications, and saying, "eh, sounds about right." Man, when someone pointed out that level 20 fighters couldn't achieve actual real life physical tasks, ENWorld went "Yeah sounds about right, they're FIGHTERS, not ATHLETES. Those weight lifters could ONLY LIFT WEIGHTS, while the fighter can do ANYTHING!" Every time you think of 5e, think of it's targeted audience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
MrAptronym posted:So I haven't been paying attention to D&D in a while. I wasn't big into 4th and moved over to pathfinder like I think a lot of groups did. Seems like the consensus by people who did the same is that 5th seems pretty good as a design skeleton, but kind of messed up with balance? (One of my friends played a playtest and told me half his party got one-shotted turn one in their first encounter). I read the basic rules book and I am kind of on the fence. I like the saves but death and resting seem a bit convoluted. Is it worth trying to convince my group to give it a go, or should I stick with PF at least until some more books come out? Should I play 5th but make the entire party be necromancers? The thing about 5e is that it's a 2001 game, not a 2008 one. It ignores almost as much of 3e as it does 4e. It's a response to 3.0 that tries to hew closer to AD&D. If you liked later 3.x material, you probably still won't like 5e.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
treeboy posted:over the past couple pages it's really sunk in that by and large nobody here is even planning on playing the game or interested in running the game or assisting those that do. The vast majority of posts are by people who have zero interest in D&D, or this edition, and will not be purchasing the rules. For this reason I'm not sure why the thread even exists, it serves no practical purpose. Get over yourself and accept that people are going to pick apart problems with your edition. Pointing out flaws isn't some grand conspiracy against it, and crying that we must all hate D&D because oh no, we accept basic loving math, is absolutely pathetic. This thread if anything is the best place for 5e discussion I've seen online because it actually goes into problems you'll see in game and flaws that need to be corrected rather then endless sloppy blowjobs with a napkin named "DM WILL FIX IT." I didn't truly enjoy 3e until I actually found out WHY I was having so many issues with it online, and desperately trying to claim nothing in the game is ever really broken and that you're just playing it wrong will do more to sink it then any amount of negativity towards it will.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:At Ranger 11th your pet gets two attacks per your "Attack" order, so that's something. At that point you can get one of your weapon attacks and two of its whatevers OR using its "Help" you can get two attacks, one with Advantage. Aside from small defensive buffs like casting Barkskin for AC or temporary HP from Enhance Ability, I can't really find much about making companions any better at all. Not even a Magic Fang in this edition so far. I guess you could buy it some barding at quadruple the cost of regular armor and see if your GM will allow you to get a Wizard to enchant it. How hard can it be to buy some plate mail for your flying snake? If animal buddies can't really be upgraded, and there's no Magic Fang, does that make them fundamentally and permanently useless at higher level play when every monster is immune to the non-magical items that are I double super pinky swear promise meant to be optional?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
On that note, does the polymorph thing work with familiars?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
For the record, the power itself didn't actually involve any fire. It's the drow illusion racial ability that momentarily shadows an enemy's eyes. It lacks the Fire keyword. It would be like a wizard casting Faerie Fire to melt some ice. Perkins made the right call, just for the (very) wrong reason. Sade posted:The point buy rules are right there, why would you ever roll them? WotC has been rather explicit that rolling them is the "proper" way. Point buy is the optional path, and it's half finished to boot (no way to buy stats over 15). Every twitter post has reinforced that in 5e, you roll your stats, and you only use the other options if your DM "lets you." ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Like that example was probably Perkins at his worse, but you look at some of the inane bullshit he not only put up with but immediately played with and built on with Acquisitions Incorporated and you can see him at his best. I remember grogs on ENWorld getting angry that he "let too much slide" and that he was demeaning DMs everywhere by allowing some of the goofier parts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Actually, assuming we're going by ICv2, Pathfinder didn't start to outsell WotC until Mearls took over and created Essentials. When Pathfinder was first released it immediately claimed...the second place spot behind 4e. It wasn't until Mearls took the wheel and steered in the opposite direction that PF took first. I think people are applying far too much actual marketing thought to the forgotten loser of WotC's IPs. Nerds always assume D&D is super important, when in reality it is at best a footnote in WotC, much less Hasbro, financial dealings. It's far more likely that a lot of the sudden changes that lead to Essentials - and then to 5e - had little to do with Hasbro's grand masterful plan of recapturing the grognards, and far more to do with "Well now Mearls is in charge and he says make AD&D." EDIT: Mimir posted:Pepsi isn't 4E, Pepsi is an off-brand based on the same basic formula, like Pathfinder. 4E is an attempt to revitalize a popular and long-lived brand by doing something different, that some people liked a lot and others hated. 4E is New Coke. This will eternally be my favorite grog example because literally every test, both in house and out of house, every poll, every single consumer they asked, stated that New Coke was the better product, it tasted better, the preferred it by a landslide, but they were terrified of "COKE" changing. If 4e is new coke, that means it is literally and objectively better then previous editions, but nerds were terrified by it being "new." ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
I can see banning the seeker because it's just that awful, and runepriests are basically just remashed clerics but more fiddly. The psionic classes are mostly fine, though battlemind has some truly stupid hybrids.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Alright so the thing that does kind of blow my mind is that in a world where Pathfinder exists and seems to be really goddamn popular, why would they drop all the good stuff in 4e and then do this? (martial classes being interesting, DM prep being tolerable, etc) it just seems like a good way to literally compete against two entrenched positions, one of which is your own goddamn product (3.5) People are talking about stealing back Pathfinder fans or whatever, but I think that attributes way too much actual marketing thought to this. 5e is 5e because Mearls wanted to make a new 3.x. That's it. Spoilers Below posted:The other important take away from that article is that the author can't convince an actual 11 year old to play the game with him. This is something that's been sticking out to me. Every pro-5e thing I've seen, every person hyped, every picture of people playing it, the average age has been older then 30.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
The main problem is that 3.x HAS a ton of support that 5e lacks. You want to be a sword wizard type? Certain types of swordsage, Magus, Duskblade, countless PrCs. You want to be a more dynamic fighter? Tome of Battle, Path of War. And so on, and so forth. The usual response is "well 5e is still young," but 5e went out of it's way to avoid all of this; I find it doubtful you'll see a Tome of Battle for 5e.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Surely you can understand why people would prefer to play a game that currently works (for variable definitions of "works") out of a single readily available core book everybody knows the name of rather than having to cobble together poo poo from twelve different books piecemeal, which may be allowed or disallowed at any given table for various bizarre reasons. If I want to play a fighter with cool options, much less one that isn't then immediately overshadowed in every way, 5e offers me nothing. Because that's the choice regarding 3e and 5e. Either I have to cobble poo poo together from twelve different books, or I can't make it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I dunno, make something up! Unless it's a spell, then we have detailed rules ALL about how it works, so you can objectively tell your DM "this happens." slydingdoor posted:That's what DMing is? You make a call about what the players want and give it to them: a hook, a challenge, an easy victory, a puzzle, a chance to roleplay. I think people want and enjoy different, inconsistent things based on my playing and DMing experience. It seems that some people don't think anyone exists who doesn't want hard rules, who think it's really lovely to have to roll a DC whatever balance check to walk on a cloud or whatever dumb poo poo was in the 3.5 epic handbook. I've seen, played with, and become one of them. Why are you continuing to ignore number 2. Like, you literally just quoted it. It's right there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Someone posted a thread about the Monk on the Wizards forums - basically indicating that an Elemental Monk could fly after a Dragon and use Water Whip to prone it, meaning it's able to knock a flying dragon out of the air all by itself. Anyone who ever thinks "this is a cool hobby for imaginative people!" need only spend five minutes in basically any forums that discuss D&D. I've seen people complain that Alert, a feat that basically just says "you can't be surprised while awake," is horribly overpowered. EDIT: ENWorld has a thread where one of a DM's players wants to be Captain America. The thread's response: No, you can't do that, not until at least level 15. What a warm welcome to the hobby. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:I don't think I'd have as much as a problem with 5e if it was the only RPG out there. Problem is, there are so many other RPGs out there that do a lot of things better than 5e that I really don't see much of the point of the system. WotC already poo poo the bed with the OGL and doomed themselves to playing second fiddle to Pathfinder, so there's not a very compelling reason to retread that ground. If people are still playing 2e, after weathering both 3e and 4e they're still going to keep playing 2e at this point. In terms of making a narrative game (which if people are still trying to fool themselves that an RPG based off of a wargame's rules is more narrative in scope than other RPGs, I salute your delusion), I think FATE's a far superior system (let alone the other niche elfgames out there). As a murderhobo dungeoncrawler, 4e has pretty much every other edition of D&D beat. As I've said before, I think 5e is largely aimed at AD&D fans who transitioned to 3e sorta against their will. There's a reason he tried to play up his OSR credentials for awhile and talk about how much he loooooves AD&D. 3e fans might want a simpler game with a less broken core, sure, but they also want 3e. They've had almost 15 years of 3.x material saved up. And that's not even touching Pathfinder fans who by and large have an incredible brand loyalty. Both at Pathfinder forums and a lot of 3.x forums, not everyone's biting. This is also why Mearls keeps saying "ASK YOUR DM" because that's exactly what this crowd wants. It's something I see often on ENWorld and the WotC forums - "Finally the DM has authority again!" If all the rules say "ASK YOUR DM" then those filthy peasant "players" can never quote a rule or get all uppity at their proper superiors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's disingenuous to accuse OSR players of wanting to put their players in their 'place' and I think it's probably not even true in a majority of cases. True, there are a lot of people cheesed off that the DM had his power 'taken away' during the 3.X/4e era but I think a lot of what we see on grogs.txt and poo poo is weirdos and outlyers, people who feel so disempowered (sic) that they take to the internet to proclaim their superiority. "Ask your DM" was always an option. No small number of 5e fans don't want it to be an "option." They want it to be mandated. I mean think about it. Both Mearls and players have been touting "Finally a game that EMPOWERS the DM." The DM has literally always had all the power in the game. The only difference is now players don't have any rules they can look at at understand. This isn't "you can ask your DM," it's "you MUST ask your DM." This is only "empowering" if you think the DM has to actually be the most and only important person in the game who decides everything. So every time someone says "Ok but it EMPOWERS the DM!" they're saying "I need my players to obey me."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
I made a giant nerd essay about this a year or two ago but the primary problem - the root of the issue, not the myriad of branches - is how magic is seen via design philosophy. The problem isn't single spells that destroy balance (because there will always be more spells) or limiting the wizard casting (because even if it's just 3/day, 3/day demanading the entire plot stop and do what you say is pretty nice), it's the underlying design that leads to those things. Someone else here called it out as "magic is being used as a keyword system." Simply put, magic is everything. Literally everything is a spell first, an effect in-world second. Easiest example - genies do not grant wishes, they cast the Wish spell. This is what lead to every major enemy in 3.x being a wizard in funny clothes. Balor was a wizard. Dragons were wizards. Etc, etc. 3e didn't start this incidentally, it just peaked it; even in AD&D, Conan was statted out as having psionic powers because his ability to Not Be Surprised and Not Immediately Be Killed By Wizards didn't exist as character abilities. Because everything is a spell first. And you're going to see the exact same thing in 5e. You already are in fact. Paladins no longer smite; they cast the Smite spell. Monks don't twist and move the elements with their unity with the world, they just learned a funny way to cast wizard spells The wizard fits in, naturally, by being The Magic Guy. And if everything is magic?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Ederick posted:Makes sense. The way Cirno phrased it made me believe he thought the entire concept was poisonous. I think it's poisonous in D&D because of a) the narrative force behind everything being a "spell" (which is what leads to, as Gygax called it, the Weird Wizard Show), and b) because it remains the domains of some classes and not all. These two combine in further unhealthy ways. Like, "everything" in 4e, largely, is a power, but there's no "Powers Class," and "powers" are not literal in-universe constructs (which is what drove the whole DISAOCISCSAISCIETED MECHANICS lobby). In 3e/5e, there ARE designated "spell classes," and "spells" are literal in-universe constructs that can objectively be examined and understood, which leads to a patiently stupid rendition of Order of the Stick's whole meta-joke, only taken dead seriously. It's also what feeds the whole "wizard supremacy" thing where people actually do think wizards have to be The Best class, because everything is a spell, ergo ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Serdain posted:"okay you guys have to get to New Land City, its 100km North over even terrain." Why wouldn't you just run 100km straight other then "I, the poster Serdain, am a hilariously dumb loving nerd." Literally name one reason you would do this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I want to point out that magic in harry potter almost always creates problems and very rarely solves them and even when it does it doesn't do so directly. Harry is literally the jock of the wizarding world (he's even good at wizard sports)and solves almost all his problems trough physical prowess, luck and heart, never magical skill. It's really funny to realize that wizard fans always point out the equivalent of NPCs as the characters they want to play as, never PCs. They don't want to be players. They want to be authors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
One of the things that gets tossed around in these discussions is the whole "ALL DAY...!" claim, and it ignores something that I don't think has ever really been formally talked about. In D&D, at least in 3e, one of the discussion that became a "thing" was the "action economy." Essentially, you only get so many actions a round, so you want to use them to the best of your ability. In 3e, fighters got shorted on this hard, because the full attack took up ALL your actions, while spellcasting took up just your standard, leaving all your other actions as is. In 4e, this is what (broadly) lead to the whole minor action overload - you want to make full use of ALL your actions, so you want to have actions that operate as a Minor in order to to two things per turn. In 5e, as is many things with 5e, despite claims of the contrary, this still exists, they're just desperately trying to hide it in spell descriptions rather then actually outright stating it. But there's another economy that doesn't get talked about too much, and it's action supply and demand. See, "ALL DAY...!" is meaningless. That's just stating "rogues have an infinite supply of Use Skill: Lockpicking." That doesn't actually tell you much at all, because you're only looking at one half of the equation. What you need to know is the demand. "How often do I need a door unlocked?" If the answer is infinite then yeah, rogues are looking pretty good. But the answer isn't actually ever "infinite." The answer to some degree depends on the edition you're playing. Or not playing. Like, OD&D. Potentially infinite silent lockpicking matters - a lot - because OD&D is a dungeon crawl. By the rules, literally every door is locked. It's why you buy those chisels and the hammer, to bar doors OPEN when you enter them (or bar them closed, because doors automatically open for monsters - OD&D didn't really have the whole "verisimilitude" thing). But that's not how games are really played anymore. Ask yourself: how many locked doors were in your last game? Remember, this is the "demand" side of the argument. What makes wizards so powerful - what makes their versatility so powerful, and the new spellcasting system in 5e quite frankly radically increases that versatility - is that there is a finite amount of demand in the game. There are only so many locked doors. There are only so many places where you need to sneak past. There are only so many diplomatic situations. Remember that these are divided by day, and the wizard gets to recharge all this in their short rest. D&D is a game, to put it in these terms, of small amounts of varied demand. The wizard can access any type of supply. And while, yes, the wizard only has so much supply to go around, there's equally only so much demand for them to fill. So being able to do things "ALL DAY...!" is meaningless when you don't need to do things all day. The wizard can only completely end an entire combat x/day, but if there are only x/day fights, or close to that, it doesn't matter. If the wizard can only sneak past one encounter, and they only MUST sneak past one encounter, then their spell limits are pointless. And wizards absolutely do not have stringent enough spell limits to hold them back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
EscortMission posted:At the same time they're probably not likely to walk into one of the actual Everburning Pits to get the Ruby Key of Na'eel. That one's probably below their pay grade. At some point with intelligent followers you can say "no man that's crazy nobody would do that." "When a fighter attains 9th level (becomes a “Lord”), he can automatically attract men-at-arms. These soldiers, having heard of the fighter, come for the chance to gain fame, adventure, and cash. They are loyal as long as they are well-treated, successful, and paid well. Abusive treatment or a disastrous campaign can lead to grumbling, desertion, and possibly mutiny" "In addition to regular men-at-arms, the 9th-level fighter also attracts an elite bodyguard (his “household guards”). Although these soldiers are still mercenaries, they have greater loyalty to their Lord than do common soldiers." You are literally incorrect. There is no pay grade. So long as your campaigns rule, your fighter companions are with you to the end. quote:4e lore Remember that the intended fanbase for 5e is upset that 4e tieflings are literally mentioned at all because it ruined D&D forever for them along with everything else. They got angry at Dragonborn getting stats because it meant those filthy 4e players might have something they enjoyed. 5e is and always has been Revenge Edition. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 11:53
|
|