|
Jack the Lad posted:Right. Action Surge doesn't give an additional action and "maybe a bonus action" - it gives an additional action on top of your regular action and possible bonus action. Are they definitely doing 3e-style multiclassing? That poo poo was awful.
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Pretty much no one will give a poo poo about mechanics
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
treeboy posted:huh, barbarians are d12 hit dice vs fighter d10. interesting I've never seen anything like it!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Caphi posted:No one gets to choose any path class features until level 2 or 3. Primary casters still get to choose spells right away, though. Well, how boring would the game be if you didn't have any spells?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The other thing that bugs me about monsters that cast the same spells as players is how dull it makes monsters. "A wizard who memorised these spells today" is not an interesting monster. The spells they know are generally pretty random and themeless, which adds nothing to the feel of the monster. It's far better design for monsters to have their own powers, separate to those the players have, from a balance, interest and gameplay point of view.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Not to mention that Pathfinder only exists because Wizards foolishly allowed other companies to plagiarise their work and sell it as their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Anyone put all the spells onto cards yet? That would seem to be the obvious way to make slogging through the PHB to find your spells a bit less horrible. When someone has the spell prepped, chuck them the card. Use smarties of different colours to show how many slots you have left and eat them as you cast spells. (or use tokens or some poo poo if you're boring)
Gort fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Gale Force 9 is ready to sell these cards to you. Between free adventures and the basic rules, I think I can probably get all I'm gonna get outta fifth ed without spending a penny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
My current impression of 5e is that it's 3e with some small improvements and most of the same problems. There are some very small changes they took from 4e - look at the death and dying rules, for one. (no more instantly dead at -10 HP, three "death saves" and you're out)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
treeboy posted:5e is fun to play and I'm enjoying DM'ing it. What materials are you using to DM it? Do you have any tips for someone DMing it for the first time?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
What level are your party now? I have concerns about how the game scales when a few levels are gained. (IE: HP inflicting gets worse and worse and save or die/suck spells get better and better)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Yeah, KotS was a big disappointment to me as well. They actually break their own encounter design suggestions (Irontooth fight is level 6 and eats starting characters for breakfast) in that module. To be honest, I thought that all of the 4e adventures were rubbish with too many fights. They would maybe have worked in a system where monsters went down in one or maybe two hits, but with the amount of time a 4e combat takes, you can't just have combats that are "Some kobolds attack, same as the last three kobold packs that attacked". I find two combats a common number in my 4e sessions. treeboy posted:they're still 1st level. I'm not super concerned about Save-or-die, the only one I'm aware of is Power Word Kill, it's 9th level and doesn't affect any creature/character above 100hp (which is pretty much just your wizard at higher levels) Huh, I honestly thought there were save-or-die spells, but I see that there aren't actually any I can see at all in the Basic rules. (Power Word Kill doesn't allow a save, it's just "have more than 100 HP or you're dead", no save allowed) Then I came across the abomination that is Otto's Irresistable Dance - "You suck at everything, no save allowed. But you can attempt a save as an action, at which point you get it cast on you again." Gort fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Anyone want to have a crack at importing 4e's fighter into 5e?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Wonder how polymorph works. That poo poo was the worst in 3e.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
D&D NEXT: Thieves can't
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:I love the level 17 of the assassin, they make a save or take double damage from your attack? DM's choice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
It's still rubbish that half-casters don't get unique spells, they just get a sub-set of wizard spells.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I tend to steal things to use in other RPGs, and I'd steal Advantage/Disadvantage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Would it break anything for advantage plus advantage to equal "roll 3d20, pick highest", and advantage plus advantage plus disadvantage equalling "roll 2d20, pick highest"?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Going from Kobold Slinger/Kobold Dragonshield/Kobold Shaman/Kobold Cutter back to plain old "here's one statblock for all kobolds, go do the work yourself if you want more than that, DM" is a huge step backwards. I loving loved being able to have an encounter made up of a few different monster groups without having to do any prep at all. Just open the MM to the page on kobolds, it's all there. What's next, having to design boss monsters from the ground up using PC rules?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Reactions are still a thing, though, so isn't the problem still there by your criteria? As an aside: I like the 4e Leader classes, but I will admit that when DMing the fact that (for example) the rogue is taking actions on the turn of the shaman has caused me to mess up initiative, continuing on from the turn of the character after the rogue when it should be the turn of the character after the shaman. Anyone got an easy solution to that that isn't just "remember it better, idiot"? Gort fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:I'm glad this thread has chilled out a little. I guess we're entering the "acceptance" stage of grief. Good luck! I'm probably going to give 5e a shot too, but I'm definitely going to stick with the free materials until I've decided if I like it or not. I have serious misgivings about the design, but it's possible that they might not impact play as much as I expect they will.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
I think the biggest thing that has me coming back to D&D edition after edition is the sheer quantity of stuff available for it. There's always mountains of classes, adventures, feats, magic items and all that stuff available. It's simultaneously a strength and a weakness, and I don't think there's another RPG that matches D&D for sheer quantity of material. Not to mention a large player base, which allows you to steal awesome stuff like this from other players.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Oh god, "Fail forwards" is the best. Anyone ever play an investigation game where you all sat in a room with a statue scratching your heads and suggesting ever-less-likely solutions, while the GM just says "Nope, nothing happens" for an hour? I have. I have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
I guess it's kind of implied by the rules, and the idea that "You fail the lockpicking check" means you get no closer to your final goal, because otherwise why be good at things if you're going to get closer to victory whether you pass or fail? There are probably still some grogs out there who would say you're being a horrible Monty Haul GM if you do something like having an assassin with a note in his pocket saying "Evil Bob sent me" attack the party following a failed Streetwise check to find out who the villain is. If you didn't pass the check, you haven't earned that information.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
The "GM is just a player" games also take some of the narrative burden from the GM. Instead of having to come up with a reason why Blackleaf the rogue is in the town of Holtburg to witness the murder of Lord Fauntleroy, you can just look at the player and say, "Why is Blackleaf in Holtburg and why does she recognise Lord Fauntleroy?" And at the end of the day, if a game isn't easy to GM, eventually it just doesn't get played.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:On the other hand, I've seen it said quite a lot that some people found 4e harder to DM. I found 4e way easier to DM than 3e. Let's say my party is level 1 and I want them to fight some Goblins. I don't just want "Goblin with Spear" in the encounter, I want some ranged goblins, some melee ones and maybe a shaman-type leader who lobs some spells from the back. 4e does all that for me. If I want to do that in 3e, I have to make two out of three of those monster types myself using the PC rules. And the encounter design is really simple in 4e - one normal monster per player. My party is four level 1 dudes, they encounter four level 1 monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:That's certainly true for some people, possibly myself included (I'm certainly not looking forward to trying to DM it), but the idea that a system will die if it's a pain to GM is bunk. Various iterations of 3E D&D have almost definitely been the most popular RPG in the world for over a decade, and that game's a pain in the rear end to DM. You have to compare it with its contemporaries, though. 3E D&D was certainly easier to DM than something like Shadowrun.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
How many HP do these skeletons have? Are they fireball/dragon breath fodder, then the necromancer has to scavenge forever for more bones?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Tell me there are actual rules for that and it doesn't require DM discretion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Man, I wonder if a party of four fighters or a party of four necromancers would require more GM intervention and specific design to fit them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:This is where I am with my take on a good Fighter. It was fun as a quick thought experiment, but making it into a real class would take a lot of effort. It's effort I'd rather put towards finally getting my own game into a releasable state. I added a Creative Commons license to my work, so if anyone else wants to build upon it, feel free. I like your class, but it doesn't say "Fighter" to me, it's more of a Marshall or Captain class. I think to have a Fighter that belongs in the same game as the Wizard and remains a single person you'd either have to come up with a bunch of things a mythical hero could do (knock a mountain down, physically wrestle the concept of Old Age, outrun the concept of Thought) and arrange them into a spell-level-like structure, or just tell the player that every so often they need to come up with a Herculean solution to a problem and it will just work. If you try your solution directly against a monster it gets a save, but if you just want to say, run up a 200 foot cliff in a single round or jump over a castle that just happens. Maybe you just take the spell list and anything you can conceive of as being done by a mythical hero, this class can do that. The trouble is coming up with a way to do this that scales as you level up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
I remember back in 3e, the Harm spell reduced any creature to D4 HP. You had to succeed at a touch attack to do it, but there was no save allowed, and dragons had touch ACs of like, 6. People argued that it was fine because "no dragon would be dumb enough to ever get into melee range". The arguments against the skeleton army seem to be on a similar level. If a power requires specific GM intervention to prevent it being effectively used or it breaks the game (every dragon hears about Mr Skeleton Army beforehand and designs his lair specifically to allow him to take on the skeleton army, any character using the power is hunted down and killed, every plot has to include a way to prevent a pitched battle with the skeleton army) then it is a bad power that needs to be rewritten. There should be a middle ground between "GM prevents player's schtick from ever working because reasons" and "Player's schtick trivialises the game". This is called "balance".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
What changed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
I really wish they would stop alphabetising lists of stuff and start making them by level/CR instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Are there any other spells that pull the "No save against the effect, but if you spend an action, you might save against it" that Otto's does?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I love my old 4e-era minis. Even though they don't stand up to close scrutiny, they're made of reasonably tough and bendy plastic so you can store them without any care at all and not get stuff like swords breaking off, and they have a "good enough" paintjob that they look OK on a battlemat. Also gently caress painting my own minis like so many games seem to think I want to. My only complaint is that they never sold them properly. gently caress booster packs where I might get a goblin. I need "encounter packs". Minions sold in multiples of four, standard monsters sold in multiples of five, elites in pairs, solos on their own. I was able to scour ebay to buy cheap mobs of skeletons, rogues, mace guys, and crossbow guys, though, and I got a ton of use out of those. Gort fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Pogs kinda work though - I quite like "minis for PCs, pogs for NPCs" - makes it super easy to tell goodies and baddies apart. Monster Vault had some pretty cool monster pogs, I particularly liked the rings you could add to medium/large monsters to make them large/huge versions, and the way you could flip a pog to show that it was bloodied. Pogs for medium sized monsters are a bit unclear from a distance though, they seem to work best for large monsters and up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Rugpisser posted:Sly Flourish just tweeted this regarding CR: Is that news? That's what CR always meant.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
ritorix posted:Just 1 but when there's 4 ghouls it didn't matter. 2 pcs dead that encounter, should have been a tpk but the gm had npcs show up to save the rest. 5e. I've already seen people rating their 5e experience by the number of dead PCs as though it was a metric of quality.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 23:13
|
|