|
kingcom posted:Oh poo poo I never looked at it like this. Try this one on for size: 3.5e was the tsardom while 5e is the Yeltsin era and beyond.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Piling more and more passive bonuses with increasing rhetorical weight on the fighter is a fool's errand. Just give them real powers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
That "Mystic" class they put in some UA with Disciplines that had passive and active effects based on how many points you spent on them in the moment was actually a really good model for a martial hero class. You just had to not use the ones that let you spit fire or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
A ton of spells are also designed like 4e dailies, where you cast them and then for the rest of the encounter you can use your minor action to do some related thing with them and squeeze out as much value as you can.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Your first argument was "ARE YOU CLAIMING MORDENKANEN" by the way let me interrupt myself to remind you that Mordenkainen is a fictional character, not a real person, and thus does not need you defending their honor, becaues this is extremely sad, anyways, "ARE YOU CLAIMING MORDENKAINEN IS RACIST?!" Mordenkainen's Segregation (Sor/Wiz 9)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Why does the 5e sales numbers on that chart stretch back to 2007? Also, why do all sales always total to the same vertical height? That seems to be a chart of percentage of market share, not absolute sales.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
The old 5e threads kicked rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
4e power point classes were really a tragic waste of opportunity. If they'd made your power points be per-day rather than per-encounter, or if it was encounter rather than at-will powers that got power pointed, it would've avoided the lovely situation the paradigm ended up with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
5e is better than Pathfinder, except for the fact that Pathfinder has more raw content and so is your only recourse if you absolutely must play a gunslinger or whatever. Otherwise PF asks you to do way more accountancy (both pregame and in-game) in pursuit of a basically identical experience, except it's not as well balanced.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:I assume this is a joke, right? I know Mearls is on record as saying this, but Hypnotic Pattern and Fear exist. My understanding is that fireball is unusually strong at the level you get it, but that monster hp outpaces it pretty steadily as everyone gets stronger.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
It’s D&D 4th edition that pioneered the fusion of ki with psionics, one of that game’s many spectacular metaphysics/lore home runs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah from what I understand that is extremely plausible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem with "settings that have too many ZANY species out there break my immersion!" is that your immersion is fake and racist. Fascism is not a system of tactics-violence. It is an idea-unity. Against Marxism, which affirms the class struggle as a dogma, and against Liberalism, which demands the party struggle as its very machinery of operation. Fascism maintains that there is something above party and above class, something whose nature is permanent, transcendent, supreme: the historical unity called ability score bonuses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:The Mage playbook for Dungeon World does away with explicit spells entirely and just attaches domains/specialties to a caster (e.g. Time, Winter, Star, Mask) and gives bonuses and penalties to proposed actions based on aptitude. I had the exact opposite read of that playbook. Specifically, I noticed that the basic effect of casting a spell is that "your spell helps to solve the problem," not "solves the problem" and definitely not, like, concretely damages or repairs or transforms or moves or otherwise affects any specific thing. So you summon the entire loving sun.. great, okay, the sun's in their eyes! Now the rest of your party members can actually beat the enemy army, because, says right there, all you're doing is helping. So the DM soothingly reassures you that yes, definitely, you're helping, no for sure, no your magic's REAL important just absolutely crucial, when in fact there's little reason to believe that things would've unfolded differently if you'd just stayed home that day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
The Champion (and Brute and whatever) are interesting rhetorical devices/measuring sticks but never should have been included in the game and are not worth salvaging. If the Champion actually did good enough damage that it was tempting to play one for damage optimization purposes that would probably be worse than the situation we have now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Pretty much every game expects the person running it, if not everyone playing it, to have memorized and therefore immediately recognize some material without full-fledged rules text. For instance, if I'm running Vampire I can look at an NPC stat block, see "Nightmare 2, Obfuscate 3", and know exactly what that means without fuss because the effects of the ten core vampire disciplines are just part of the bedrock of the game. By the same light, it's not really a big deal if a monster statblock just says "Fireball" or "Magic Missile", although it'd be a real dick move for one to say "Magic Jar".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:but I thought you didn't need magic weapons in 5e You don't, thanks to class features like this one. Check and mate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Laying down an effect that turns a fight from hopeless to manageable seems to be perfectly appropriate for the priest or wizard in an adventuring party, and if that effect is “I bless your sword so that it can cut even a smoke demon” rather than “I conjure fog that will shroud us against the enemy archers” it’s fine by me. Fighters need real powers, but they don’t need every power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:That may be true for works of fiction, but when people are commiting their time, effort, and I mean, it’s a matter of degrees. Is it okay for a druid to summon a bridge of roots to let the fighter charge across a ravine at a line of marksmen? To cast Haste so that the fighter can beat the enemy in a damage race? Cast See Invisible if you’re up against something see-through? IMO those are all fine assuming that the fighter actually gets real powers of its own (perhaps which attack enemy defenses in as variegated ways as spells do) so that it has its own consequential resource-allocation decisions to make on its own turn. In other words, imagine if there was like AUGMENT BLADE, FIGHTER UTILITY 6 (Daily) You’ve studied enough magic and stockpiled enough reagant to spoof a magic weapon against a target of your choice. It’d be okay if a fighter didn’t take that particular power on the basis that he has a wizard buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 19:49
|
|
to a social experience, they don't want to, and should not have to, play "Mother may I?" with their party members just to participate (especially when it's massively disadvantageous to the other party members and group as a whole).
|
Darwinism posted:I mean I sort of kind of see your point but it's cleverly hidden behind an entire system that does nothing like what you suggest would be acceptable Oh for sure. I just think it's important not to get hung up on incidental details which are evocative of but don't actually constitute wizard supremacy, like creatures resistant to mundane physical damage or Knock spells or whatever. All of this stuff would have been (and, indeed, was) fine in 4e.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:This isn't getting hung up on incidental details, though, there is literally a baked in "We know magical weapons are required, so here you go," to some classes and not others. It's not evocative narrative-focused details when you can't hurt a thing because your pluses aren't high enough so you have to go to your buddy, who has no problems hurting the thing, and ask him to pretty please let you participate in the fight at the expense of his own ability. And I can't remember a single 4E creature that was just flat-out immune to being just loving stabbed a lot - even ghosts just halved damage, and it was from most sources too so even then martials weren't hosed any more than everyone else was likely to be! I'm thinking of stuff like incorporeal undead that would lose incorporeal whenever they took radiant damage (or more normal controller/striker or defender combos where a Visions of Avarice and a fighter with some aoes turns an entire encounter on its head), although I've also seen 4e fights swing significantly on one character's ability to grant another a fly speed or typed damage resistance or similar. In principle enemies that just can't be hurt until the appropriate player spends a resource to set the stage properly is just a continuation of the trend - one you can get away with a little more in 5e because individual fights are shorter and just plain have less of interest going on, but that still really needs fighters to have credible options to strangle or drown a Nemean lion to be completely defensible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Everyone sucks until one person does the thing to make everyone awesome" is a Good Thing, but that's not what's happening here. I don't really buy that pre-countermeasure encounter difficulty has to be democratized. If the enemy wizard casts hold person on the rogue, and the allied cleric casts dispel magic on that rogue, and now the rogue's able to fight again, that is a perfectly appropriate enemy party/player character party interaction that would not be automatically improved if it had been hold person (mass) and antimagic field instead. You're doing a lot of special pleading in the specific examples I listed, too - what if invisibility (or darkness or something) doesn't affect most of the party? What if Haste's increase of the fighter's DPR is its principal effect on a fight in which everyone is otherwise already engaged and the enemy isn't attacking AC? (And like, Magic Weapon actually is a damage buff whether or not the monster is vulnerable to magic weapons, and while it's weaker than Haste it's also only a 2nd level spell rather than 3rd) What if the fighter's the only one who needs to cross the root bridge because everyone else has good ranged attacks (how is something being "good old fashioned terrain manipulation" an excuse for a power imbalance, anyway? If a monster can only be hurt by nonmagical weapons when it's in direct sunlight, and the sorcerer disintegrates the cave ceiling to illuminate it , that's suddenly fine?)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The difference between making a bridge of roots for people to dash across to attack enemies, and throwing a magic weapon enchantment on the fighter's weapon, is the first is using spells in a creative way to get around an interesting problem (the enemies are There and I'm not), whereas the second is checking off a box to continue playing. There's no puzzle to be solved with in an enemy that can only be hurt by magic weapons. There's no clever thinking. It's a purely binary check point. It's a "YOU MUST BE THIS MAGICAL TO GO ON THIS RIDE" sign, and you either pass it, or you don't. There are actually a few spells that will render a weapon magical, with increasing bonuses somewhat commensurate to spell level. Magic Weapon's just the easiest because it's only level 2. There are also definitely other conceivable solutions to a creature being impervious to conventional weapons, but the 5e rules don't actually allow a fighter or rogue to strangle a Nemean lion or wrench a Grendel's arm out of its socket. I guess they theoretically allow a martial character to grapple and drag a monster into the area of a bonfire or something, but for the most part that's a fool's game because of how many points of failure it has and because as soon as the creature escapes your grapple it can walk by you like you aren't there because, whoops, it ignores your OAs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Well if we're misquoting logical fallacies at each other your entire premise is based on the slippery slope fallacy and argument ad absurdum. A party who mostly ignores invisibility would be an unusual setup, while our complaint is that D&D played as "intended" is set up such that a part where only a minority of players lack magical attacks is pretty plausible. It would be unusual... but it would also be fine. It's okay if some obstacle poses a problem to a minority, rather than a majority, of the players. quote:I don't quite follow your first sentence. For the second, that's why I specifically called out Haste changing how the Fighter's turn functions. Magic Weapon just ups the damage and accuracy, and thousands of words have been typed on why +1s to attack and damage are the most boring buffs. Haste doesn't really change how the recipient's turn functions. For the most part it increases their outgoing damage and causes them to take less. This has a greater mathematical effect on damage output than +1 to attack and damage (unless your intended target can only be hurt by a magic weapon, in which case Magic Weapon has a much greater effect..!), but then it requires a higher level spell slot and also stuns the recipient as soon as it expires. So Magic Weapon is a weaker and more situational buff than Haste, but is cheaper to cast and in certain situations makes a dramatic difference. Also, Magic Weapon scales with someone's ability to make multiple attacks, while Haste doesn't. (They also synergize nicely if you've got two people who can sling buffs) quote:It's not suddenly fine, because you've completely changed the circumstances. The assumption of your initial example that my reply depends on is that the ranged characters are one component of a fight that everyone is already capable of contributing to. The sorcerer and the fighter then team up to move the fighter from their expected area of contribution into an area where he can do even more damage than in a normal fight, resulting in an easy win through outside the box thinking. If it's that the fighter would otherwise be throwing their two throwing axes before sitting on the sidelines for the rest of the fight without the sorcerer's assistance then yes, that's dumb. That's what is meant by terrain manipulation, moving PCs or enemies into areas they aren't expected to be, while also carrying the baseline assumption that if they're where they're expected to be they can still perform to spec. I don't really see "get our melee character into melee with the otherwise inaccessible enemies" as out of the box thinking so much as... thinking, and depending on the specifics it might turn a normal encounter into an easy one or be the one thing that makes a lethal encounter barely winnable. (They also determine whether, by creating a bridge or granting the power of flight or something, our context-reshaping spellcaster is merely saving the fighter a couple rounds of climbing or providing the only realistic means of crossing a canyon or flaming hell-fissure or something) quote:Also your argument hinges on the fact that martials in D&D are also hosed over by forced specialisation into discrete weapon types, so two wrongs, not a right, etc. I strongly agree that the rogue should have options (for instance, a daily power to wriggle free of any binding), but a monster placing a debuff on you - even a cripplingly bad debuff - which you yourself can't counter (maybe you could have taken, but didn't take, the hypothetical power I just described, so you're hoping the cleric can handle it for you) is fine. Elfgames posted:so in summation you're wrong, you know you're wrong and you're arguing just to be a jackass? No, I'm saying that monsters who can't be hurt by normal weapons are acceptable elements of a D&D game, while fighters without powers are not. Like, imagine a party of wizard, druid, cleric, bard, but the cleric and bard are both "melee" characters who only deal damage by attacking with nonmagical weapons (no attack cantrips, no damage spells learned/prepared). Even if the wizard's the only character who has Magic Weapon or equivalent on their sheet, this group can have a rollicking good time fighting a werewolf. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:So your argument is I guess you could say, that I would say, that the problem with that image is the dog's lack of firefighting equipment and not the fire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
doctor 7 posted:So honestly in my experience 5e is bother generally faster and I have more to do. And I just play a BM Fighter Nooo way. A battlemaster fighter is basically a 4e fighter, except your at-wills are per-encounter and you have no actual encounter or daily powers. I guess you have a single utility that you didn't get to pick?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2018 19:06
|
|