|
CommaToes posted:the guy who is going to be DMing bought all of the books.  I really suggest spending your time doing anything else Alternatively do what I do when I play 5E: get utterly smashed on beer and whiskey.
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
When you die, point out that nowhere in the rules does it say you have to stop playing your character, and come back as a zombie, then a skeleton, then a series of ever more vengeful ghosts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:As far as I understand it the Tome of battle classes did... terrible things when combining their recharge mechanics with casters. Nope, like the previous poster said, it was a literal fuckup that was never fixed. You could combine ToB classes with casters and make a build that got both maneuvers and spells, but you can either melee things OR cast spells; action economy still exists. Frankly while it was a cool option, things like Persistent Divine Power existed in 3.5 so what was the point?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Regarding fudging die rolls: My belief for any game system is that you should never need to fudge a die roll. Because: 1) You shouldn't be rolling dice at all, or 2) When you are using the game system's random number generation system, all outcomes should be equally interesting and compelling to explore. If a game system fails at informing the DM and players as to when not to roll the dice and just narrate it, the materials on how to play the game are lacking. This idea needs to be disseminated across the text, and ideally, supported by game mechanics. It should not just be in the DMG, it should be in the intro to the PHB. The reason it is not is because D&D is a basically paternal game stuck in the 1970s. The DM is the parents and the players are the children, and the DM's rule is law. Guess what? This does a lot of bad things to how people engage in their Magical Tea Parties. Its pernicious. Problems: Some players and DMs see the dice as an impartial arbiter of reality. If you don't roll it, it lacks validity. This feeling stems directly from the arbitrary nature of DM fiat and the fact that the players and DM are not actually engaging any mechanical game elements when it occurs. Solutions: You can do two things. You can increase player narrative control, which spreads the ability to declare narrative elements across the gaming group, and you can create a game mechanic related to the usage of this. Guess what Compels and Fate Points are? Literally this mechanic. This problem has been solved in other game systems in a variety of clever and interesting ways. D&D is the only laggard. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I can safely say I have not played with a group that approved of dice-fudging - even "roll that d20 again" or "let's call that 7 an 8 instead" style fudging - since high school. It doesn't matter if it's in the players' favor or not. Adjusting the random number generator on the fly to suit the 'needs' of the story ('needs' being 'so the campaign doesn't end' and 'so a mechanically dull character feels relevant') just brings to light the utter pointlessness of the whole exercise. In a system that has a level of granularity that demands a qualitative difference between d6 and d8 damage, or which an entire class's claim to fame is a +1 or +2 under certain circumstances, having the DM hand you a victory smacks of ennui. That is the dark secret of D&D; all of that stuff is just a smokescreen to make you think it matters. It's why spells that set the narrative are so powerful, and why you can't balance the system on the guy who has a lot of numbers and the guy who gets to make meaningful choices. It's also why you need to create game mechanics for narratively telling a story if the rest of the game is also filled with mechanics. It's why skills need mechanics to describe what they do. It's the reason you are paying a pro $150 for a make believe elf game. And if you feel roleplaying and narrative control don't need mechanics (despite the huge plethora of awesome games based on the opposite idea), what, exactly, did you spend $150 on? A bad combat system? A janky class system? The reason the game is fun is the roleplaying. The fact that there are no comprehensive mechanics, and those that exist boil down to "DM's Call" for a shared narrative experience, AKA roleplaying, should be a big indicator of how big a step backwards was taken with D&D Next. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Nothing does enough damage to kill a player in a single turn. A MM3 solo that action points with a multi-attack power (like a Dragon) that stunned the party and won initiative can actually focus and nuke a player off the table (negative bloodied dead). This happened in a 4E game I was running and it was so out of the ordinary that I was shocked. To be fair the player in question had crap AC and I rolled well, but the major thing was being stunned robbed the players of their reactions. quote:Kobolds with Slings 4E encounter math means that you won't kill a player with focus firing unless you build an encounter to be deadly. Even then, a player might have a plethora of cheat-death abilities. AKA if it occurs, its because you built the encounter to be a player-killer. Players could also just win initiative and nuke the Kobolds off the table. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's also this great little tidbit: Writing cool transgender characters into Magic the Gathering Lore (Alesha Who Smiles At Death) and getting hated by grogs for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I was hoping for more stories about how you went to a real life pub. Did it have beer in there? Shut up you stupid internet nerd, no one gives a poo poo about an argument skateboards out doing mad tricks on his way to a cool party
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Simple fix: decouple stats from skills. If someone wants to do an Athletics + CHA check, as long as they can describe it, let them do it. I'd like to point out that Offical DM Chris Perkins does this all the time at PAX games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Hey remember when the other 5e thread was created to stop things from getting shitted up? Those were the days. Its cool the Newbie Advice thread has a wonderful mix of terrible game advice mixed in with sincere attempts to improve D&D Next. "I think D&D Next would be better if you used previous playtest versions of classes" or "I think D&D Next would be better if you ported in the entire Tome of Battle" is useful advice to a veteran but if someone is new to D&D its completely useless to them, because it presupposes an understanding of the issues you are trying to fix, how the rules interact with those issues, and the impact of changing or adding mechanics on those issues.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was thinking about the variant rule in the DMG for replacing the proficiency bonus with proficiency dice: roll a d4 instead of adding +2 to your roll, roll a d6 instead of a +3, a d8 instead of a +4, a d10 instead of a +5 and a d12 instead of a +6. This would increase variance and also slow down the game; its a bad idea to then further attach another system on top of it. Just make an ability, say, a combat maneuver, that you declare after you hit, usable a number of times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:gently caress electrum. Why is there a half-gold piece when the other 4 denominations are a decimal currency system? Greyhawk's Electrum Lucky is very gygaxian, please do not disparage it. Real answer is because Electrum was used in early coinage, a few hundred years before gold was.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Yeah that sounds like the real D&D experience to me - realizing you hosed up and forgot to play some form of full caster. I wonder if people would have liked 4e if all martial classes had Wizard appended to them. Rogue-Wizard. Fighter-Wizard. Warlord-Wizard. No verisimilitude lost you see. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:Since the fetus aoe thing seems *not* to be a joke I'd say autisticly serious. its a house rule that literally belongs in FATAL mastershakeman your game has creepy house rules in it about subjects only a weirdo would care about
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I can't tell whats worse about D&D Next, the large influx of creepy weirdos with house rules for how to target fetuses or the large influx of creepy weirdos complaining that their DM is cheating them out of the value of their harvested lizard dicks. But then I realize its ultimately the fault of Wizards for making a game designed to appeal to creepy weirdos. And I realize that this truly is the worse hobby. But then someone like goatface posts amazing adventure ideas and I see a glimpse of a glimmer of hope which still remains. I am stuck DMing D&D Next because our group committed to tough it out until level 11 and we are, in retrospect, idiots. We are currently at 7, going on 8. So at least my emancipation is soon at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:Dude chill out and don't be so aggro, D&D as a game design problem was solved with 4th edition, though a few very small fixes to the RAW combat math are worth implementing at your table. Otherwise the game is the pinnacle of game design as far as making a D&D game is concerned. Other games might implement player engagement in or control of the narrative better, but no D&D is as good as 4th edition.  You're like the loving william jennings bryan of d&d here mate, "You shall not crucify D&D upon a cross of game-design!" You could try reading the thread (this thread) where everyone goes into detail about the flaws of D&D 4E and solutions to those problems, and how next introduced old problems that we've already seen solutions to - problems, yes, shared by 3.5 and pathfinder. problems like loving Action Economy, and Caster Supremacy, and a whole host of other things. Your smug inhalation of your own farts via thinking that posting three paragraphs that boil down to a strangled accusation of "BADWRONGFUN! BADWRONGFUN!" would be a damning blow against the swirling 4E hordes is pathetic and insulting to everyone who is spending time talking about a game they love (D&D) and how they want it to be better.-- So I ran a D&D Next Devil Boss Rush where I found the best way to do the combat was to completely ignore all of the rules in the DMG, invoke "weird time distortions due to your planar travelling" to give my players each two duplicates (who occupied their same space and who, when reduced to 0, had another duplicate take their place). So on their initiative they got three actions, with three sets of resources. They had to kill the devils in order from Lemure to Pit Fiend, with a riddle because why not its D&D, and did pretty well. Fun was had by just going completely gonzo- and by totally ignoring the useless rules that don't help you have fun. D&D Next everybody. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. Legitimate answer: Whenever I first play any game system, I strive to adhere as close to the rules as possible. When my group played 3.5, we played with a legalistic fetish towards the rules and rulings. We used optional and official rules variants, but we played with the rules. Other games, like Magic the Gathering, Netrunner, Infinity, Warhams, boardgames - we use the rules. When I play FIASCO, I used the rules - when I played FATE, I used the rules. When I played Dungeon World, when I played Unknown Armies - we used the rules. Basically yeah I mean I am playing A Dirty World currently and if you are NOT using the rules in a Greg Stolze game, why did you pick it up? His rules are good, consistent, and coherent to a setting. I'd say they are Good Systems with Good Rules.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I just meant anything that involved ignoring/fixing "useless rules," since Laphroaig seemed to consider having to ignore unfun rules to be a sign of 5E being a failure(at least that was my understanding), when it's been my experience that even the most well-designed games has one or two rules that just don't contribute to the game being fun, for me, or which turn things that I feel are better arbitrated by the GM, into rolls. Though, obviously, it's fair argument if you have to remove/ignore more of the game's core rules and concepts than you leave be. I am ignoring the encounter design rules entirely in my example. They provide no useful framework for building interesting or exciting encounters, and the CR is wildly inaccurate as to the difficulty of a particular fight. In other places, we have house rules (like flanking) which can be consider a rules variant less than ignoring a rule. The reason I said "5E, everyone" was that most of 5E's design philosophy is that you are supposed to ignore rules you don't like. AKA the whole core conceit of the design is that you are supposed to completely ignore the presented game and substitute your own. That is stupid. It is also the only way to make D&D 5E fun or interesting. The Only Winning Move, Is Not To Play Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've always found the sentiment that GMing is some taxing and onerous burden that someone has to nobly shoulder in order for elfgaming to happen to be a toxic one. I mean sure, it takes effort, but so does being a player in any given game if you aren't just sleepwalking through it. If being a GM in a given game is unnecessarily troublesome then that's maybe a sign that the game itself doesn't give the GM very many good tools to use just like how if character generation and combat rules are a huge pain in the rear end then it makes what the players do troublesome as well. agreed but substitute the word "GM" for "moderator of a gaming forum" for comedy laughs
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
If you Wizard doesn't have at least 20 AC (full plate + shield) and a +6 to con saves, what kind of weakling wizard are you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
goatface posted:Get the defensive staff from the intro adventure that lets you cast shield for free a bunch of times a day. Between the 20+ armor class wizards, infinite HP druids, super-Bards, and vanilla clerics, I would find it hard for someone to tell me that D&D next is a balanced game in regards to casters and non-casters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
LGD posted:Am I missing anything? You want shield proficiency so you can get 13 (studded leather) + 5 (DEX) + 2 (shield) for walking around 20. I'd suggest the shield spell so you can just say "gently caress you' to being focused down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:So, an OSR blog I frequent wrote a post about Balance in 5e, specifically at around 5-6 level. (This is the blog famous for writing a series of essays about the importance of player agency.) Incredibly high level of cognitive dissonance here: Hack and Slash posted:I'm not asking for advice. I'm saying that this is literally forcing me into the position of deciding for the characters how much risk they should be taking on, because in many situations "going forward" is their only choice. They have some say in how they manage to do that. 5th edition is good in that it provides and supports diplomacy and trickery and thinking outside the box in a way that 4th edition specifically discouraged, but the expectation of combat in many situations is still there, especially as a result of failure of the other options. Still, I personally prefer to design monsters and factions naturalistically based on good design principles and let the players decide how to navigate the morass.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
It goes Blackmoor by Dave Arneson -> Gygax makes Greyhawk based on the idea of Blackmoor -> Collaborate and make the original Dungeons and Dragons, though it was nearly all Gygax due to him wanting to publish ASAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmoor_(supplement) Blackmoor was published for D&D in 1975, and contains the first monk and assassin. It was also "contradictory, confusing, incomplete, partially incomprehensible, lacking huge bits and pieces and mostly gibberish". so who is the first creator of the Monk? Probably just the tortured brain of Arneson and with help from Tim Kask, the editor. If anyone would know, it would be Kask. Anyway Blackmoor was goofy as gently caress and filled with crazy poo poo like Aliens and injokes and a billion cursed items with humorous and stacking effects. Monk back then was like a Fighter-Thief with special cleric rules. Mentzer, Ward, Kask and Clark are all contributing off and on to Eldritch Enterprises, which coincided with the enthusiasm for 'old-school' style modules. http://www.eldritchent.com/page/Buy-Now.aspx You can see things such as Monty Haul's Lesser Tower of Doom, 40 pages with an 80% fatality rating. I believe the intention is that one dies, then generates a new character, and finds such new character in a room further in the dungeon. Definitely a style of play, but not a modern one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Kurieg posted:Wasn't this what the Apprentice Levels were supposed to solve before the grog hivemine sent up a collective wail and scrapped them? Yes, pretty much every good idea in 5E's development was sacrificed to people who never bought the edition and kept playing their retroclones or pathfinder anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 15:30
|
|