|
dwarf74 posted:October playtest, Indomitable was advantage on all saves at 13th level. How often will you be making saves per adventuring day? How many will you expect to fail? If you're rolling 5 a day and failing 40% then on average being able to re-roll 2 is nearly as good as having advantage on all. Do those numbers exist explicitly anywhere? I would guess not - they seem loath to even have any expectations of how people might play let alone codify them. Also wait, the dragon's STR and INT saves are missing because those are the two stats it's NOT proficient in? If I could pick two things D&D dragons are known for it's STR and INT. How does this make any sense??
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
treeboy posted:Its a green dragon, aren't some of the colors supposedly dumber than the others?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
sansuki posted:Why is this a thing? I don't mind it, I think its neat, but why did they have to take the time and make this a thing in the book? Because being explicitly inclusive is better than just assuming that everyone knows to be inclusive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I can understand that some of the phrasing or the way they presented it is "a bit off" or stereotypical (androgynous elf, beardy lady-dwarf). I won't disagree with that. I'm still glad they made a good-faith effort and didn't undermine it elsewhere. Like honestly, they could have ended the paragraph by saying "But, of course, you should always defer to the DM if he has any restrictions." That would have been both gross and sadly unsurprising. They didn't. They just straight-up put inclusivity into the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted: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. "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." Think the DM will let me make my perception roll now?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:To be fair the Cleric there was pure luck. But Clerics are a good class though nowhere near as powerful as they used to be. What? Sorry, were you there? I just see you dropping one-line disagreements all over this thread and it's not clear to me that you were at either of the playtests being discussed where the Cleric was the MVP. If you weren't there, how the hell do you come in here saying poo poo like that? We get that you like the game but you don't have to unskew the playtest reports for us. We're not babies - we know that it's just a couple of anecdotes and we can draw our own conclusions without your speculative non-contributions. If you were there, and you were simply stating what you witnessed, then I'm sorry for accusing you like this. My bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
I've been following along with the initiative chat because I'm wondering if anything usable will come up for my game (was called SBBQ, currently undergoing a name change). Right now I've got basically standard initiative as we know it, with one option: team initiative. Everyone rolls (the DM doesn't roll for each monster - she just rolls once). The players who beat the DM go first (and can do so in any order, taking their turns essentially simultaneously), then the DM goes for all the monsters, then all the players get to go, then the DM, etc. Multi-initiative monsters aren't much more dangerous than they already were. They were already nasty fuckers, though - but they are solos anyway, so they are supposed to be as nasty as 4 monsters rolled into one. With players that just want to go fast, it speeds things up a lot. With my usual players, who like to optimize loving everything, the negotiations and planning are interminable. Standard initiative was actually faster, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:The only issue I've seen with team initiative is that it takes away the PC's ability to ruin a plan the monsters are going for. If it's Team PC - Team Monster, then Team Monster can possibly gang up and completely wipe a PC before any PC can actually do anything about it. The PCs are going to be able to act with pretty much perfect coordination, but if the DM does, then a PC can go down really really fast and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Yeah, but as DM with team initiative I was always more interested in getting through poo poo quickly and back to the players instead of optimizing my play. So I just went along with my plans in my usual clumsy and careless way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The "Shitfarmer -> Viet Nam" option ala (early) Black Company, This is a nitpick because most of what you are saying seems reasonable coming from someone who never played anything past 2e, but this made me stop. At the opening of the books, the black company are crack soldiers with experts in strategy, tactics and even politics with three very dangerous war wizards. Not poo poo farmers. Pick another example. Also I would use 4e for black company skirmish-level combat no problem. For the big battles and out of combat stuff, 4e's skill list and task resolution are not a good fit. Something like burning wheel does better. Which is partly why I smashed those two together and simplified both in making SBBQ. The Black Company was very much in the front of my mind when I was working on it. I even made a short little guide to running a Black Company game in SBBQ with special roles for the captain and the annalist and more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:I guess everyone who likes 5e should try SBBQ instead. drat right! I'll have full preview material ready very soon, like this week. Until then, have Ferrinus' latest. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Nice picture! On the other hand mind if I double check why someone in the red and yellow area has disadvantage to hit yellow? zachol posted:Should the green zone be extended further to the right or something? Does that make sense with the picture? Let me know because if we're going to change the picture we'd better do it soon. (PM me if you don't want to clutter the thread with non-5e talk) Sade posted:This art is cool. Where can I read more about this project? "Shut up and wait for the preview mats" is a valid answer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:It makes sense. It just feels wrong; from just looking at that board it looks to me as if the guy in the top left between the text is in an absolutely perfect position to shoot yellow right between the shoulderblades. Yellow alien having cover from Samus Aran in the centre looks to me as if it makes perfect sense. But there really isn't any cover from upper left. Well yellow is popping out to take action right now. If he was pressed up against the corner between the box and the woodpile sort of like the green guy, I think you'd agree that the guy up top has no good shot. Next question: would it feel totally wrong if I changed it so that red doesn't have cover at all? Giving diagonally adjacent guys cover in a quarter-plane works fine here, but when I extrapolate to what happens with Full Cover (i.e. walls and stuff) then it makes things more complicated. We either end up dealing with things like eighth-planes and three-eighth-planes or else we get inconsistencies. So the choices are: a) red gets no cover. Sucker. b) things get complicated. c) things stay pretty simple but get inconsistent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
^^^^^ Yeah, this. It looks a little silly, but it's just causing issues down the line.eth0.n posted:I'm not sure what the inconsistency you're referring to is. Can you give an example? http://imgur.com/YLBAJH8 This is what would ideally happen if red got no cover (he does get some cover but you have to draw lines to determine it.) Here's how the inconsistency works: 1. If you are diagonally adjacent to a single block of full cover, then enemies on a diagonal line can't shoot you. (same as how being adjacent means that you get one column or row blocked) 2. Look at Green in the sketch I just linked. Green gets a quarter-plane blocked off. 3. If we delete the cover to the north of green, suddenly people to the west of Green can shoot him. This is nonsense since his cover to the west has not changed. To resolve this inconsistency, we would have to make the region blocked by Green's the wedge-shape between the northwest diagonal and the north column. (This is what I mean by saying we would need eighth-planes)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
moths posted:I wonder how much of that goes back to the necessity of miniatures or tokens to make monsters accountable for their positions. The grid is great. All hail the grid. The grid allows truly tactical use of the terrain and emergent properties. The first part is theoretically possible in TotM, but the second is not. DMs tend to see exploiting combinations of positions and terrain in TotM as, well, exploitative instead of as good play.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like if you made a phantom 4e where it went the OPPOSITE route and instead embraced the whole "THEATER OF THE MIIIIND" thing instead of going for more hard process battlemaps and poo poo, that'd be pretty cool, but, and this is the kicker, it'd be just as different from D&D as 4e was, if not more so. I wonder if the same grognards would have protested or if it would have made a different set of grognards mad. (I don't think we can really answer that question definitively aside from saying "probably a little of both")
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
seebs posted:Pretty much, yeah. If someone genuinely can't accept a ruling at all, and there's no one who can compromise, then that's an incompatible gaming group. Incompatible with the game in question, maybe. I know from board games that the same group that will happily play one game will argue visciously over another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Do not play Dungeon World if you want a tactical game, or a game with significant character creation options. People need to stop recommending Dungeon World as the universal role playing panacea, especially since half the messages in this thread is that there's no reason to look at a single system anymore. MonsterEnvy posted:I don't view it as bad game design. It allows the statblock to not take up a ton of room. (Vampire statblock takes two pages for example) I didn't do this by making you look through the book for a bunch of spells either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ok. Is your vamps spellblock in your thread. I want to compare them and see which one I like better. First off, I'll have to walk back part of my post. Some of the stuff I called extraneous in 5e...well, now that I revisit the statblock I see that I have a bit of it too. Not as much as the 5e version - but it's not all as extraneous as I implied. Next, on a second look, where you said that the 5e vampire uses 2 pages you really meant 2 columns. So mine, being 1 column, is not 1/4 the length but rather 1/2 the length. Anyway, it's not in my thread because it's in the incomplete monster design section of the game, but I'll post it here. If I was at home I'd get you a nice screenshot and crop it but I'm on an awful slow laptop and that would take 30 minutes, no joke. This thing is trash. So here I just copy-pasted it. Where you see hashtags are where the icons will go in the final version. #H is HP, #D is damage, #S is speed and also move action, #A is attack action, #B is Role action. #M is melee, #R is ranged, #C is Close Burst. Sorry if it's a bit tough to parse. Like I said, I'd get you a screengrab if I could. Vampire Lord, Level 6 #H 52 1x1 #S 10 Champion: The Vampire acts on Initiative counts of 7, 5, and 3, but only gets one move action per round. It automatically succeeds at all saving throws. Unnatural Reflexes: The Vampire has cover against all ranged and melee attacks. Unnatural Senses: The Vampire has Advantage on any roll with his senses. His enemies have Disadvantage on any roll to hide from him. Unnatural Stealth: The Vampire has Advantage on any attempt to hide and can always move absolutely silently. Strong Willed: Whenever the Vampire would be Dazed, Stunned, Panicked, Dominated, or Incapacitated, it first makes a saving throw to try to avoid the effect. It does not automatically succeed at these rolls. Weaknesses: While exposed to sunlight, the Vampire is weakened and takes ongoing 3 damage. Any character may spend an Attack action to raise a holy symbol to keep a vampire away. Until the end of the character’s next turn the Vampire may not move adjacent nor make any melee attack against her. Charm Spell #A At-Will #R10 #D3 Target is blinded (save ends) Unnatural Strength #A At-Will #M #D 3 Target is thrown 5 squares. If it hits a wall, it takes 1 damage for each unused square of forced movement. Drink Blood #A At-Will #M #D 2 2 damage and the Vampire regains Hit Points equal to twice the amount of damage dealt with this power. The target takes a strike and if they finish the combat with enough strikes to gain the Injured Condition, they instead gain the Infected Condition and will turn into a Vampire if not cured. Stunning Spell #A Encounter #C10 #D3 Target is stunned (save ends) Word of Command #B At-Will Target’s move action is chosen by the Vampire at the start of the target’s turn (save ends) First failed saving throw: Target is dominated (save ends) Second failed saving throw: Target is completely enthralled by the Vampire until the end of the encounter (and possibly beyond, depending on how things end up). They get their full complement of actions but now they’re playing for the bad guys. Call Swarm #B Encounter At the end of the Vampire’s next turn two swarms of biting bats appear and act immediately. Mist Form #S At-Will The Vampire turns into mist. It cannot attack or be attacked while in this form. It may revert back to its normal form as a move action.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:This "Natural Language" bullshit is starting to grate on my nerves. Is it really too much to ask to have a codified set of rules that are as unambiguously written as possible? This is 2014 for Christ's sake. That entire section on Opportunity Attacks could be condensed into as little as one loving paragraph and have its meaning as clear as crystal, but NOPE! Gotta add a bunch of flowery language instead of using clearly defined terms! I mean, look at Apocalypse World. The entire thing is written in language that is easy to read and puts one in mind of a friend helpfully describing the rules and what they are for. If it was just the rules without the advice on how to implement them and the reasoning for their existence, I guarantee you it would not have caught on. I think the designers of D&D are taking the natural language thing too far in terms of the inclusion in statblocks. But generally I think the problem is that they are just poo poo at writing unambiguously. I could certainly write the rules using mostly (not all, but mostly) natural language. The trick is just to drop into technical terms when neccessary and then go back to natural language once the rule is clear. Sticking to natural language ENTIRELY is clearly a problem. Not using the word "squares" is a problem. Hell, you don't even have to use the word squares if you just include a color-coded diagram with a grid to clarify. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone else who was talking about it. Just adding my take on it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Ghouls are nasty. I lost a character to ghouls in 4e. I told the group "let's just press on. We might be near the end. If there are enemies, we can just run." Well it was ghouls who immobilized me. I marked all of them and ate all the attacks to let my bros escape. I almost escaped too, but they got me with a crucial opportunity attack. RIP swordmage. So if ghouls are still scary in 5e, that seems right to me. Nasty things. Edit: my Warden I played after was even better. I don't care that much about the warlord, but 5e needs wardens. They kicked rear end. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Wardens are a type of Paladins now. Swordmages are Eldritch Knight Fighters I suppose. Only 4e Paladin I ever played was when I wanted to cheese the Lair Assault format so I chose a Paladin that had tons of daily uses of lay on hands for leader-levels of healing while still being a full defender.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
What the gently caress. I go away for three days without internet and I miss Mike Mearls eating string cheese? I understand being a grognard and wanting to play the games you played when you were 12. I sometimes think it'd be fun to go back and play goldeneye on my n64 while my buddies called each other awful names. But why would you want to eat the same terrible food you ate when you were 12? String cheese is an affront to cheese and an affront to decency. Real cheese, even a simple and inexpensive sharp cheddar, is one of the most delicious types of food you can buy. Why eat tasteless plasticky crap that costs more? Mearls isn't just a grognard. He is a manchild.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's entirely combat taking too long. 90-95% of the game is combat, and it's slow combat where success is measured in how quickly and completely you shut down your enemies with marking and penalties. A 3-4 hour game is probably two encounters. If we had the same amount of 5E players we would have been going 2-3 times as fast. Yep. Totally this. 4e at higher levels is all about shutting down enemies. Hard control powers and massive attack penalties allow you to take out small numbers of combatants without risk. It's a slow strategy but an optimal one. The way to make it not optimal is to have lots of weaker enemies... but that inherently slows things down too. Soooo... you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. One of the things I tried to do in Strike! is to buff damage-dealing a bit in relation to control powers. Trying to shift the balance to an aggressive style rather than a risk-averse one in the interests of speeding up play.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Wasn't it actually something like half-vampire race + half-vampire feat + vampire class = two vampires total? This sounds right. You could also pick a Revenant Vryloka to be a Zombie Double-Vampire.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:First off, anyone playing a Beowulf inspired character hangs around meadhalls a lot and definitely has Tavern Brawler. They can punch a thing or throw a bottle at their head then grab them. Pulling their goddamn arm off is something everyone in this thread forgets about : improvising an action. Any DM that doesn't let that happen doesn't just suck, they also aren't following the rule to make things fun and awesome. It's up to the DM At what level does a Necromancer get to cast Raise Dead? It's not up to the DM Also, to join the earlier conversation, I believe (but am not certain) that fighters have absolutely been nerfed compared to 4e. At level 25, the fighter in my game solo-ed a level 32 dragon for several rounds, neither getting killed nor letting the dragon escape (thanks to the feat 'pinning challenge') while the rest of the party took on the dragon's army. When they were done, the fighter still wasn't dead and they came and killed the big bad of the campaign like 5 levels early. I was shocked. I was certain that I would be able to knock the fighter to zero for a round and make my getaway then. No dice. And it was awesome because everyone knew that wasn't how it was supposed to go. In 5e, does the fighter get the tools to make this happen? Can they stop a dragon in its tracks every time it tries to escape? Obviously not at level 1, but ever? Can they eventually spend one of their dice to do that? These are honest questions: I don't know 5e that well. Somebody might come back and tell me that yeah, a level 20 fighter can tank and pin down a dragon for a few rounds with a little luck. That'd be sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is what I don't get. The game shows promise of doing awesome or interesting things (in this case, a dude can have a skeleton army) and the game's fans immediately start saying how they'd shut it down. Yeah, all this poo poo sounds pretty loving cool to try for a bit. I'd like to play a high-level 5e game where the party is a super-fast flying monk that can knock a dragon out of the air, a necromancer with undead army, a wizard who can turn into a dragon, and a druid who can fill the map with bears. And maybe a fighter played by a dude who is really good at talking the DM into going along with his plans and never uses his actual class for anything. Would it get old pretty quick? Yeah, maybe. Would there be any real tactical considerations? No. But it still sounds fun for an adventure or two. And after typing that I just pictured rolling all those skeleton attacks. Hmm... maybe it'd be better if the DM didn't use the combat rules and just let the players narrate how they embarrass and destroy their opposition in each combat instead of actually slogging through. I guess I just really like the game's spells. I don't like the combat, I don't like the balance, I think the skills are a step up on 4e but still far from great, I don't like the cliche setting, but I think it has really cool loving spells. Making spells 40% of the book might be an unironically great idea, since they are the best thing about 5e. I guess I'm not the first to observe how much cooler this stuff is in my imagination than the game would make it at the table. 5e: at its best while you wipe your rear end. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
I like the idea of skill checks for spells but instead of failure being a null result, make it a hard choice: The spell isn't coming out right. You can fix it by: Putting more magic into it: Spend an extra slot Putting some of yourself into it: spend 1/4 of your HP Or you can let it come out wrong: the DM will roll on a table to see how the effect or target is changed. (I'm thinking of something like Burning wheel's spell failure here)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Please post the rules for tearing off a dragon's wing. I don't have the phb. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:I'm more appalled by monster entries doing absolutely nothing besides making basic attacks. And none of them do anything but multi-attack every round. Strength of Many posted:Eh gently caress it. See, I think you've got the right attitude. It sounds fun to play with some character that can bend the game in some way whether that's through absurd char-op or by simply picking a caster. I'm not going to go looking for a game of it, but I'd play if my friends invited me. Would I run it? Hell no.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems like picking Berserker is actually a big nerf to raging. Which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
I keep seeing people say that Fighters shouldn't be able to do certain things because most fighters in fantasy cannot. Okay, so the line for Fighters is "most can do this? Then you can too!" Seems reasonable. So what can Wizards do? Where's the line there? "Can any wizard do this in any book? Then you can too!" Huh. That seems to be different. What's up with that? Why don't Fighters get all the cool things that any cool fighter can do in any fantasy book as options? And furthermore... why is everyone forgetting about levels? This is a level-based system. Characters of equal level should be of equal power or else what do levels even mean? So if your typical top-notch fantasy hero sword-guy is in his 30's and can't match the top Wizards for power, that says to me that he's probably level 7-ish. The top wizards tend to be old dudes with hunched backs and white beards, with world-changing powers, which says to me level 20. So if you kept fighters as they are now in 5e and let them get all their bonuses by level 7 (or 10), I think that would be comparable to Wizards of that level. The fighter wouldn't have the same level of narrative control as Wizards and wouldn't have the powers that Ferrinus is positing, but their sheer combat destructiveness might make up for that lack. Fighters really would be the kings of combat as advertised. Where would fighters go after level 7? When they already have everything that most fantasy sword-guys can have? I guess they have to start making choices like Wizards of powers that only some fantasy sword-guys have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:There's no real precedent in fiction for D&D Wizards able to fly around throwing fireballs, turn invisible, raise the dead, teleport, stop time etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
In Harry Potter everyone gets more or less the same set of spells by adulthood if they want to. What makes people better at dueling is practicing dueling. What makes people better at using magic to make things is practice. Anyone can cast a spell in Harry Potter but that doesn't make you good at it. Spells do not "just work." In D&D terms you could say that spells are cast through the skill system, not as a way around it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:My experience with 5e was the opposite of these. Chargen alone took around 90 minutes because most of the table either hadn't played a ttrpg in a while, or hadn't played one ever. The second statement only held up while we were playing in lowish levels. Yeah, it seems like everyone who is happy with the class balance and with fighters in particular has only played low levels. I'd be happy to be wrong about that, if anybody wants to say otherwise. Have you played a fighter in a high-level game and found it to be useful? Or a beast master ranger?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I think that rolling for stats is appealing because of the message it sends at the table that the game isn't about balance and numbers. Lots of people don't like optimization and rolling stats tells them in the very first session that optimization is right out. I definitely get that feeling, and I love optimizing. But, see, I don't love optimizing to have the best character in terms of combat effectiveness (nor non-combat effectiveness). I like to optimize for weird things like making the character with the longest reach or the most resistances or the fastest regeneration. But I don't want to feel like I'm falling behind the curve and letting down the team when I do it. Having a game that says "balance? LOL" means that I can optimize for maximum skeletons or for peak bears and not worry about the fact that turning into a dragon would give me more DPR. Of course, the other solution is to have a well-balanced game without trap options. That's the goal of Strike! You can happily maximize your reach or regeneration, secure in the knowledge that the game gives you a strong baseline and you cannot fall far behind no matter what you pick. Even 4e had plenty of trap options and broken bad classes or powers, albeit fewer than 3e. As an aside, if you like breaking games, I invite you to try break mine. It's more challenging than breaking 5e and it's useful because I can still fix whatever you break before I publish. The last guy who tried found some important stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Also, 'most people'? Lets avoid generalizations. If we want to look at demographics in the TTRPG community you will likely, though don't take my word on it, find more people in preference or experienced with point-buy these days. Chances are the only ones holding the torch for rolled stats are old hands and 3e grogs. Anyway, I don't disagree at all that rolling ability scores is a BAD idea for 5e. I was simply trying to explain what I feel is its appeal. It is undeniably appealing to many, and I thought I would share what I personally find appealing about it. If you read my game you'll see that I am well aware that it doesn't belong everywhere (I killed not only rolling for ability scores, but ability scores as a whole). With that said, rolling for ability scores in Basic is awesome and the only way to play. Also dying to unforeseeable poo poo. Unforeseeable poo poo: the great equalizer. Your 18 INT won't save you if you press the mysterious button. If you try to optimize in Basic, you've missed the point entirely. It really is about player skill because the stuff on your character sheet won't protect you from not knowing when to run nor from bad rolls. It was made for wargamers who know how to lose to bullshit bad luck and have fun doing it. But for all that I find that poo poo fun, I'm 100% certain that's not what 5e is going for. That's assuming it actually has a direction, and I don't see much evidence of that. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Really? Standard Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party all has a role even in a fight that is ended by fireballs. What can the fighter do to protect the Wizard that a Cleric couldn't do as well or better?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Well that's fine because we can just have our clerics of the non rear end in a top hat god who doesn't sucktm can just create food for free. Dude, the God of the harvest is already blessing the lands of the entire world. That's why you get any harvest at all. Every crop that grows lives through her providence. It's silly to assume the world is like ours PLUS Gods, when it's presented as being like ours because it was made by Gods. If Gods created people and you can pray to fertility Gods, then we have to at least grant the assumption that in this setting the Gods have a role in said fertility. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
seebs posted:I noticed a long time ago that if people encounter me in two forums where I don't have the same screen name, people will think I'm smart and rational in one forum, and stupid and irrational in another, and as a result I don't place much weight on it. In practice, usually, when people are really angry about how "irrational" I am, mostly it's because they're responding to a thing they think I probably meant rather than to a thing I said. Hey, I get this part, definitely. One time I had people thinking I was friends with James Desborough because I had written a post ambiguously and people read the wrong thing into it. (To be clear, I have never even talked to the guy and I have a big problem with what he has written. I am anti-Desborough.) But with you, I don't think there has been any such mistake. You defended Zak S. Then once you read more, you didn't just apologize and drop it. You apologized but then went right on defending him, so what the gently caress, man. As for being misunderstood in this thread, your pal Zak thinks the following: Zak S posted:"Are you responsible for how others experience you in conversation?" No.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:To the exclusion of being a well design game, innovating in almost any way, or trying to attract new players to the game. I love what they are doing with Legendary monsters. Lair actions and regional effects are super-cool concepts, and Legendary actions are a step in the right direction. All of these were clearly influenced by 4e. Lair Actions are a cool way of building on 4e's terrain and traps, and the regional effects go beyond anything I saw in 4e. The coolness of Regional Effects also teaches us important lessons: taking a fluff element and putting it in a statblock with a label emphasizes that element of the monster and makes it cooler. Standardizing legendary abilities doesn't make them any less awesome. Calling out one specific evocative piece of fluff can be more effective than writing several paragraphs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:41
|
|