|
Maybe I'm just missing it, but Knock isn't marked as a Ritual in the Basic rules.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Basilisks and the Medusa is why henchmen should still be in the game. That way, the first target of the SOD is always the henchman who dies screaming, thus alerting the party to what kind of danger they're facing and giving them a chance to counter it. That presses quite a few nostalgia buttons, so I can't see why it isn't in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Can't do that here. No, you can't. In the basic rules they'd have to teleport in while invisible and Power Word: Kill you instead. But they can't be flying at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Sounds more like a marketing gimmick. The monster manual was splitting at the seams, so the dauntless, fearless design team had no option other than to cram in 32 more pages of awesome all for the same low low price! That doesn't sound like a marketing gimmick to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Besides there won't be nearly as many monsters with spells in the statblock as their used to be. How could you possibly judge it from the playtest or the free basic rules or the starter set or the unerrata'd rulebook or the first round of errata? I'm sure the finished product will fix this stuff we really can't know and we have to wait and see.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's only got four strings. Dude's a bass player, which is an impressively elegant way to illustrate bards being a support class that nobody really notices is there. As a support-class fan and also as a lovely bassist... nobody notices you're there until you're not there. Then they're all "Heal me! Buff me! How come the guitar sounds so thin?" e: I'm not saying it's a hard job, but you kinda need someone to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
When you use the D&D system as a base for a game, you're only really ever going to get D&D out of it. In other words, what you actually end up with will vary wildly. But it's going to vary wildly based on the edition of D&D you used as a base, not the genre you're trying to play in. Did anyone play both original Call of Cthulhu and d20 Call of Cthulhu? Was it even close to the same game?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Oh wow, Wish made it in. Awesome. Also, what would be wrong with writing "You can speak to animals" instead of "You can cast 'Speak With Animals' at will, without expending a spell slot"?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
On the next page it's got "You can read all writing" instead of "...cast read languages etc...". Which is natural language.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
moths posted:D20 is another of those heavy flavors, which absolutely overwhelmed any hint of CoC. Levels, needless classes, and emphasis on combat all crush CoC's core gameplay experience. That was the point I was trying to make, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:As to the later there is nothing called 10' ft radius burst in 5e. For Sphere's I personally will be using "Fat Cross" but if you want to use a straight up circle then you can. It does not matter do it how you want to. It literally doesn't matter do what you like falls apart as soon as two people have different expectations. At the very least, the game grinds to a halt while you work out how the current group is going to handle something that should already be a rule. DM's call though, right? If I wanted to make up rules, I wouldn't need to buy a game at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It shows by the second picture that clicking it shows the whole thing. If each of those four headings has that much text under it once clicked, it'd all fit into the blank space just in the rightmost column. I'm sure they'll fix it in the updates though. e: Just noticed that the attributes box needs to scroll to display all the attributes, presumably because the triple-spacing or whatever is important to the feel. Seriously, the attributes and all the information currently in the center column would fit into the center column if it was spaced sensibly. That's disregarding the way that almost none of that poo poo is what you'd actually want on the first page of your character sheet anyway. And it looks like there are six pages. Six. Pages. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
seebs posted:Logical consistency or just "I think this is what the rule says". But there are cases where I think the game would work better with a given ruling. But! The game overall is more fun if we don't spend a ton of time arguing it. Are you saying that "A fireball originates in one grid square and occupies these squares <diagram>" and "I dunno, draw a circle on the grid or make a pixellated circle out of grid squares or a cross shape or something, do whatever" are equivalent because people will argue about it anyway, but you don't argue about it because the game's more fun when you don't argue, so that's ok just don't argue?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This does not matter cause they will cover the same amount of squares anyway. Will it be the same squares? What if I drew a circle from the origin square with a compass, still the same squares? Is it really easier for each group to have this discussion than to have a clearly written rule in the rulebook?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yes it will be the same amount of squares. A kinda pixellated circle. A fat cross. A circle drawn over the grid with a compass. All 5 grid squares across.  e: becaue apparently that's not clear enough for you, here it is with 9 squares A kinda pixellated circle, then a fat cross, then "draw a circle over it" with any square it crosses being hit, then with only squares it occupies the majority of being hit. 4 different answers.  But pretty much no one will give a poo poo about a diagram. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ignoring the first one causes that could not be less of a circle. As I mentioned I would be using fat cross and the Circle you posted covers the same amount of space as it. I edited it with 9 squares as well so you can see what I'm talking about. But you don't, do you? You still think this argument is easier than having a diagram in the rulebook.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Oh I think there should be a Diagram. I suspect they will provide one as well sometime in the future. It just does not bug me that there is not one right now. Oh right, it will eventually be fixed. Why didn't I think of that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Just make poo poo up, it will be exactly the same as what would have been in a well-designed game had you bought one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
moths posted:Let's be generous and assume only ten Kobolds. When you respond to criticism of D&D *) I like it, which is the same thing as it not being a problem. *) It'll be fixed soon, probably by the time it's printed. *) It's exactly the same as if it were done well, so it doesn't matter. *) Actually you're right which is what I was saying all along. edit, poo poo I need *) Just use a computer or something why is this an issue. *) I'm not arguing any more except for <more argument> Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds? Because like generations of D&D players before you, you're not actually following the rules that you swear are perfectly fine rules with no stupid problems. e: Is there a "number appearing" in the new monster listings? What's that number for Kobolds?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't get what you are even complaining about anymore and wish you would just go away. I am complaining about this sort of thing: Pre-edit MonsterEnvy posted:...but you won't be doing it anyway for Kobolds. Post-edit MonsterEnvy posted:but you won't be rolling for them as a group anyway for Kobolds. Response: Xelkelvos posted:Why wouldn't you be doing it for Kobolds? Clarification: MonsterEnvy posted:You would be rolling for all monsters alone anyway is my point not just Kobolds. For Kobolds you just have to roll more then 1 die when an ally of the Kobold's are near a what they are attacking. In other words, after altering what you said so it doesn't mean the same thing, you're nitpicking that you wouldn't roll all those dice at once but rather it would be spread out over a whole round. You've decided that this is fine and that anyone who complains about it is just complaining to be complaining, rather than legitimately having a problem with rolling 30+ d20s in a single round. e: You're not offering any reason for this being ok other than "it's ok". MonsterEnvy posted:Then you would be complaining if 20 non kobold monsters were fought. Kobolds are not rats they are humanoids that take up a space. The fact that rolling dice and picking the higher one is so hard for people is stupid. This is barely different then if you fought 10 goblins. But apparently having to roll twice for a monster once when his allies are near is bad design. Dear god it took 1 second longer. 20 kobolds with advantage make four times the attack rolls that 10 goblins make. Yes, I would be complaining any time a game required me to make 40 attack rolls in one round. Make them a mob or a swarm or something. It's not like that's never been done. Wait... MonsterEnvy posted:How it's always worked like this. You do think that's never been done. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:It's a mediocre system that wouldn't have such devoted defenders if it didn't bear the "Dungeons & Dragons" name in the cover. It's the first system with the D&D label in which I can't see myself ever being motivated to run a game. I'd play in it with my regular group, but it looks to have way too much ambiguous stuff going on for me to be confident that it would be OK with a group of strangers. Edit: Look, I know I'm pretty negative about Next. I've thought about why that is. It's because I'm not seeing any of what I was super excited about in the first thread. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also we know that monsters some monsters will have more then one type given the Hobgoblin captains presence. The Hobgoblin Captain reminds me a lot of the paragraph that's in every 2e Habitat/Society section for humanoid monsters - the one where it says "if there are >X of this monster, one also appears which is <stats> better. If >Y, there's also a chief that is <stats> better and maybe has spells". Except because this is D&D Next, it has it's own super special my god we're out of room bonus extra 400 pages monster entry and idiots say now it's the same as the way 4e did it and why is anyone complaining? The monster variants you get in 4e are not different because they have +1 dex, -1 ac, and they have spears instead of axes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I found a positive thing in the monster section of the new supplement: Troll special ability "Regeneration" works in a straightforward, flavourful way instead of the various clusterfucks it has been in certain previous incarnations. This is because it works exactly the same way it did in 4e. Still a positive though. e: Mike Mearls posted:My dream would be a world where... people are seeing exciting new ideas and concepts for the game Me too, Mike. Me too. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:What would you say defines modern design in RPGs today? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious. *world's "fiction first" approach would be something in addition to the stuff ImpactVector mentioned (not that it's the only game that does it, but it's a great example).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Elaborating on what AlphaDog mentioned, there's also been more of a trend to use fictional works as the basis for gameplay pacing, though this isn't entirely modern. I was referring more to the way that a DW game works as "a conversation" instead of a sequence of rounds/turns. The other thing DW does that I would call modern design is interesting failure. Yes, "make failure interesting" has been good advice for all RPGs forever, but I guarantee that I can join any group playing DW by the book and never ever hear "you miss, nothing happens, next player's turn".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's worthwhile to mention that 'fail forward' isn't necessarily a new thing. Guys were doing that back in the 90's when I started playing DnD and I'm sure there were people doing it earlier too. What I'm trying to figure out is how "fail nowhere" or "stall backward" style play ever got popularized in the first place. I did mention that. It's also pretty clear that "stall" or "fail nowhere" were popularised by games primarily using binary resolution systems and also by the earlier D&D vibe of "Save vs death. Failed? Roll up a new character and join in again real soon".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Gort posted: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... The OD&D/BECMI/AD&D/2e fighter doesn't "remain a single person", which largely contributes to them not sucking at higher levels. They end up with (e: in 1e and 2e at least) ~150 armed followers some of whom are low level PC classes, and a mid level sidekick. This only changed in 3rd edition, so it's not like most of the game's lifespan didn't have fighters implicitly running around with small armies. This kinda ties into the Necromancer discussion. If summoned skeleton minions are staying in the rules, there's no reason not to let the fighters have their small army back. NO WAIT THAT'S A WARLORD OR SOMETHING NOT A FIGHTER A FIGHTER IS ONLY EVER ONE BIG DUMB GUY AND gently caress WARLORDS. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Astus posted:I'll be honest here, if you replaced the Fighter class with "Mob of Skeletons", with you gaining even more skeletons for each level, I would love it. Giant wall in your way? Skeleton ladder. Need to cheer up some townsfolk? Welcome to the Skeleton Circus, one night only. Trapped dungeon? That's alright, I got skeletons to spare. Need to sail a boat? Skeleton crew. I'm not trying to harp on this, but if you just replace "skeleton" with "soldier", this is very very similar to how higher AD&D/2e fighters play. e: Especially the point about having almost as many options as a wizard. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'll admit, I am sad that Leadership-ish stuff didn't return (that i've seen). I've never heard of Fighters actually rolling around dungeons with their armies, but i've heard more than one story about using it as a narrative control "we siege the castle" that kinda thing. There is nothing in the 1e/2e rules to prevent the fighter from taking his whole drat army with him wherever he goes. It'd leave his castle completely undefended, but he can do it if he wants. The ~20 "elite" followers he gets in 2e are explicitly called the fighter's "personal bodyguard". Why would you go on a dangerous expedition and leave your personal bodyguard behind? The BECMI rules more or less encourage you to use your followers as a detect traps spell. e: If you've never heard of the fighter taking his dudes into places, I suspect you played with groups that had an implicit agreement not to do that (along with maybe avoiding playing summoner wizards ? I dunno, that was a common sorta-houserule in the 90s). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't think this will happen in most games. Hell most games won't get up to the levels were making a hundred skeletons can happen. How many skeletons will a Necromancer be able to summon in "most" games?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
seebs posted:I guess I don't see the problem. Some people like playing a character who does lots of magic and obviously impossible stuff, some people like playing a character whose options are pretty plausible. As long as they're both reasonably viable, I don't think it's bad at all for the game to let people get fundamentally different play styles. ...and you totally heard that they are, so it's all good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
seebs posted:I am not entirely sure I comprehend the question. If it's not impossible, why is it magic? Here are some classics: * Go sleepness from Samain, when the summer goes to its rest, until Imbolc, when the ewes are milked at spring's beginning; from Imbolc to Beltine at the summer's beginning and from Beltine to Bron Trogain, earth's sorrowing autumn (ie, one year). * Strike down three groups of nine men with a single stroke, leaving the middle man of each nine unharmed. * Perform the feat of the Salmon-Leap carrying twice your weight in gold (meaning to leap over the shield of your opponent, I think?). * Throw your spear so that it disembowels 3 men and returns to your hand. e: Or should we go with some of the stuff from the Edda, or Beowulf, or maybe some Chinese or Japanese legends? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:I think we share similar tastes. We could play a fairly down-to-earth game of fantasy and have a good time. Honestly, I don't really want Cuchulain or Hercules powers on fighters, or whirlwinds of particle effects whenever a barbarian starts raging. I could still play that and have a good time, too, though. I agree with you. And this is what I consider to be the biggest issue with the fighter/wizard thing. I don't need Beowulf or Hercules in my game, and I'd honestly prefer Conan to either of them. Thing is, if you've got Conan-esque fighters (which D&D does pretty well - they're tough and dangerous, but not superhuman) you need Conan-esque wizards too. D&D is very bad at Conan-esque wizards. D&D wizards do everything every fictional wizard can do plus some stuff that's unique to D&D. Thing is, Cuchulain-lite and "A totally mundane dude with 200 soldiers" are probably about equivalent to each other and to (earlier) D&D wizards. We could have all these things in the same game if the game had modules, but apparently 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
seebs posted:I think that's probably, and this may sound odd, higher-fantasy than D&D normally is. I mean, yeah, you could have epic fighters doing that, but then they'd probably be up against wizards who were moving mountains rather than just throwing a few meteors. Yep, throwing a spear so that it kills 3 dudes and then comes back to you is more fantastic than shooting fire out of your hands and then raising the dead to fight for you 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
seebs posted:It's not that it's "more fantastic". It's that it contradicts things we know, rather than obviously being completely outside our experience. We know how "throwing objects" works. We have no idea at all how magic works. So the suspension of disbelief is harder; we have to simultaneously think about things we know about how physical objects work and completely disregard them. Ok, let me rephrase. Yep, throwing a spear so that it kills 3 dudes and then comes back to you is .You don't have to think about how physical objects actually work, because you're imagining it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
"This was the sword used by the great hero Krongar to slay the Apocalypse Wyrm". Tendales posted:a perfectly good explanation for where magic items come from. It's a better sword because it was carried by a big drat hero. Why?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
seebs posted:I guess I've usually interpreted stories like that as being in the same genre as Paul Bunyan; not actual claims about what people could do. Merlin, Gandalf, not actual claims about what people could do. Aragorn, Conan: not actual claims about what people could do. Paul Bunyan, Elminster: not actual claims about what people could do. Fantasy: Not actual claims about what people could do. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
D&D Next: Not actual claims about what people could do*. *May not apply if you choose Fighter
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
seebs posted:Gosh, I never knew before that tall tales and fantasy novels were the exact same genre and had the exact same narrative conventions and structures. Learn something new every day, I guess. Let me break this down for you. Fantasy and mythology are often based on the exploits of heroes. Fantastic and mythological heroes often have capabilities beyond the capabilities of normal people. Tall tales also include characters that have capabilities beyond the capabilities of normal people. Wizards, unnaturally mighty warriors, thieves that can steal your name, etc are subsets of fantastic, mythological, and tall tale characters that have capabilities beyond those of normal people. None of these characters are bound by the laws of reality, that's why it's called fantasy, mythology, or a tall tale. People with minds that are unimpaired by the Dungeon & Dragons roleplaying game can recognise that in a fantasy/mythological story, the characters are not bound by the rules of reality, regardless of whether they're referred to as "Raistlin the Red", or "Beowulf" and regardless of whether a description of what they do in the story includes the word "magic". D&D causes brain damage. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 10:12
|
|