|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Starter pregen for the rogue leaked, and they get Uncanny Dodge at level 5, which lets them halve the damage of any attack that hits them, once per round. They also have a d8 hitdie now. this gives me some hope they're actually paying attention to things. Perhaps not limiting the Wizard and giving him actual boundaries, but perhaps recognizing the worth of a generally functional party as more than support. Also regarding monster saves vs. effects. It'd be hilarious if, in effect, the wizard becomes far less useful (though still important as a save "soak") since the DM blows all his auto saves vs. wizard effects, thus allowing the martial characters to "Here, have the power of the cosmos" "BUT HE JUST SAVES OUT OF IT!" "Heh" treeboy fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jul 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
i don't see anything in the stat block about auto-saves per day. Is that a generic rule for all monsters, did they axe it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:The Lich and others have it as a special ability. oh that's not so bad then, earlier posts made it sound like a common ability among all higher CR/solo monsters
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
maybe I'm in the minority, but that actually sounds like a neat template, harsh, but a nice setpiece encounter to cap off an adventure or campaign
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Reading through this, at first glance it's pretty neat. The Overchannel ability of the wizard is a nice little double-edged ability. edit: with feats in the game aren't there ways to add additional reactions?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The Fighter archetype that uses maneuvers didn't make it in, apparently: the basics pdf only has one archetype for each class
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
As I enjoyed what they were doing with Feats/Archetypes in the playtests I'll withhold final judgment till I get my hands on the PHB. The Fighter especially gets so many attributes/feats compared to other classes, it could be a pretty big mitigating factor in how they play. I know it makes some people angry for not fixing some problems, but so far it looks decent to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
As far as DC's...I can't find suggested DC's for things like locks, so +10 doesn't mean much if Rogues can easily get significant bonuses to their thievery checks (Rogue with +3 dex mod will have a +7 proficiency bonus assuming prof. with Thieves Tools @lvl1) e: If an average Lock is DC10, Arcane Lock would bump that to DC20. A lvl 1 Rogue (Dex +3) has a 1d20+7, or 13+ (40%) to unlock. Assuming Primary stat @lvl 4 it'd be 1d20+10 (55%) at lvl 5 or just take 10. It definitely makes locks trickier, but hardly breaks the math. By lvl 11 you're guranteed to open an average arcane lock and without using a spell slot or alerting the entire dungeon. treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
I'm also curious about concentration spells in general. They're extremely powerful but prevent any other concentration spells from being cast without immediately ending the other effect. While a dick DM could (potentially, barring successful save) lockdown a single character for a whole fight, I have a feeling there'll be more switching between them than that. Keep them up for a bit so you're not just wasting spells once a round, but keep them up too long and you're neutering your flexibility and other options.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Huh. Not only does the Basic wizard have 3.x era Psion mechanics with Overchannel, but it even gives the damage a damage type so the wizard can resist the side effects of using it again. Reread it, it explicitly states it bypasses any resists or reductions
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well most Cantrips don't offer a saving throw so it does not matter. they're assuming it wasn't updated to the newer spells. I figure they forgot to get rid of it. alternate option: there are spells not in Basics that are affected by it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:whats so great about this spell? I legit don't understand why it's powerful also its a better version of an innate class skill the Fighter gets, thus the "anything you can do i can do better/longer/for more people"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Are those other fighter options from a playtest or leaked from the phb/starter kit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's like they recognised a problem but didn't realise there were more than five levels in the game. Can you cast at a higher level for additional healing like Cure Wounds? Jimbozig posted: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?? Its a green dragon, aren't some of the colors supposedly dumber than the others?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
LFK posted:+1d4/spell level. If it's ranged that sounds a lot like 3.5 Close Wounds
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
LFK posted:Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard Based just on the fluff description warlock sounds pretty cool with some legit story hooks
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Why should it not be a thing? I think the initial negative reaction most people have is to the rather inelegant and awkward way the subject is just kinda thrown out there out of the blue like some giant non sequitur. Much like the rest of the packet they don't take much effort to approach the subject and just kind of vomit words.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Yeah, but that still leaves open the question as to why this was such an offense as opposed to the entire half-page dedicated to telling people how awesome spellcasters are for being able to help fighters. The offense isn't the subject as much as it is the approach. I think because ultimately it comes off as forced and insincere. Like they felt they had to say something about it to try and rope in additional players (or attract them for the very fact they address it) but with zero idea of how to actually do it so they say "hey choose your gender which can totally be whatever cuurraaazy combo you can think of! D&D doesn't care!" Kinda falls flat and pandering. Just my $0.02.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
I still think it's awkward and out of place but decided to spend more time formulating my opinion as to why. I think the topic could have been better written while still approaching it directly and succinctly. Two words which generally are not applicable to most of this packet. That being said I'm fine letting the subject drop, it's one reason I left the other thread. When it came up again here I felt I had something to contribute after thinking about my own distaste for how WotC handled it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Can things other than spells (or spell-like, etc.) call for saving throws? Maybe strength saving throw would be for something like "can you hold the spiked portcullis up, or does it squish you?" Just guessing here, I'm not far into the pdf myself. That's probably be more of a skill check but as the two are fundamentally the same: yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:I don't think anyone was waiting on Wizard's stamp of approval to be allowed to play a queer character, so that little sidebar feels ultimately pointless even if it had obviously worthwhile intentions behind it. If you've got a bigoted player/DM who'd be an rear end about that kind of thing I doubt being able to point to the Official Rules would change their minds. This is essentially what I was originally attempting to, admittedly inelegantly, express. In the end it felt off and extraneous. Ymmv.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
moths posted:Oh definitely, the expectation that you should get to play is totally reasonable. My point is that Ted's stuff is all "balanced" against the chance he won't get it, and that's not realistic in the least. My DM has a pretty good approach to this, usually making sure we have specific components of "big spells" like resurrection, or identify, but making sure that, on occasion when visiting a town, that the casters invest some money into a generic reagents supply which covers things like "small pinches of ash" or whatever. For the most part it doesn't come up, but occasionally has required a small side quest to obtain the component and the other people will get some magic items out of it too. Which come to think of it, with the exception of the bracers there hasn't been a lot of talk about magic items, they seemed really beefy for martial characters in 5e
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
S.J. posted:It would be nice if the fighter had a way to actually protect the wizard, of course. I'm withholding judgment in this particular issue until I see all the fighter archetypes, they clearly list a defense/protection archetype in the fluff intro to Fighter but we haven't see anything about it yet
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:The fighter can always use Protection Style on the cleric who has cast Warding Bond on the Wizard. You can only use it to force disadvantage on an attack on someone other than yourself now, and you need a shield instead of just a melee weapon, so hope you didn't want to deal damage. based on what we've seen the Champion archetype (in Basics) is very different than the Warmaster (i think? cant remember the name, the one with maneuvers) and the Magic/Stormlord/Fighterguy or whatever his name is. I'm assuming that if someone wants to make a legitimately tanky protection Fighter who can, for lack of a better term, pull aggro and taunt, mitigate damage and otherwise force enemies to attack him then that will be somewhat of an actual option. I'm basically assuming that the Champion is the worst Fighter you can be because so far all the other options look way more interesting. edit: also completely unrelated, i do like the custom clickable buttons in their form-fillable character sheet for skills/saving throws. I need to figure out how they did that. Also its clear nobody bothered to setup a logical tab order for the boxes. treeboy fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
I don't disagree that they're [maneuvers] a bit lackluster, but they're at least interesting and unique and could very well change based on feats (if things like additional reactions, cleave, etc are available) The basic characters are kinda meh in general but there's a ton we're not seeing for alternate builds and options. I don't think the game is looking amazing by any means, but I'm not quite convinced it's horrible either. treeboy fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Thinking about how to control wizard scope and ability. I've long thought that Wizards should be forced to choose a specific school of study which would limit the overall availability of other schools (or in certain situations outright deny them) I keep having thoughts like this and should start actually making a ttrpg
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Well at least it limits it to spells in your spell book. Someone mentioned limits to the number of spells a book can carry, was that just a 2e thing or could it also affect 5e?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Even Paizo managed to fix Knock. Ritual or not it sucks. How did pathfinder do it differently?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
So wizard DPR is not as high as was being calculated, also interesting that fighters can get upwards of six attacks in a round with action surge
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Has anyone actually run the starter adventure? Or is everyone just still theorycrafting? I'd be curious to hear a post-game report of how things went.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
zachol posted:Maybe I misread something but don't wizards get a feature where they can cast any ritual in their spellbook, whether they've got the spell itself prepared or not, for free? They have to have it in their spellbook, and i believe it still costs material components
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
is it really so hard to find a single semi-competent mathematician who desperately needs work?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
zachol posted:Also "can do math" is actually, you know, one of the various skills involved in being a game designer. You Personally I am obviously aware of this, however maybe they ought to consider it? It appears to be a recurring issue with D&D. The majority of mathematically competent designers are probably in electronic game design these days anyway. Covok posted:I feel they struggle at times with statistical analysis. In trpgs, that can be a major problem. this is probably the correct issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:That's why players should think outside the box. If you're going up against a medusa, you know you can't look at it's face or you'll get petrified, so get a shiny mirror to look at it, or buy some war dogs and set them on her, or work a trap up, or....something. PCs should be doing research on the creatures their face to know their abilities. The issue with this is that, mechanically, it isn't how D&D has operated in recent memory. With no concept of facing and the fact that petrification is something done *to* you (rather than something you simply avoid by looking the other way) like any other spell, inventive play on the part of the player in many instances doesn't matter. "Balance" is a bit of a misnomer, a better term might be "consistent" or "predictable" game/monster design. It's not about neutering the difficulty as much as making sure no one accidentally kills the party because that Ogre, which is *supposed* to be challenging, turned out to be impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
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. this is, narratively speaking, a beautiful thing
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Well it didn't feel right, all that 4e stuff. which has me thinking. We give it a lot of crap, but feel *is* a legitimate aspect of game design, we're often irrational creatures and when attempting to appeal to irrationality sometimes that means going for a certain feel despite what logic might suggest. However. The ludicrous notion that feel should somehow trump good design, or good math, or any of the other behind-the-scenes functionalities of a system completely misses the point. Primarily because feel, though legitimate, is also completely about window dressing and assertions on the part of the game as to how its systems should be employed. Suggesting that certain mechanics are *forcing* a certain feel would be like believing the Red M&Ms taste differently than the Blue M&Ms. You might feel that way, but that's because you're dumb. edit: In short: I bet you could take almost any TTRPG system, and through careful consideration, get it to feel like D&D despite wildly different mechanics. treeboy fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Here's what's insane: 5e has healing surges. They're called "hit dice", you spend them to regain hit points after short rests, and the interesting thing about them is that while a full night's rest restores all your HP, it only restores up to half your maximum hit dice. This means that unlike surges, hit dice can to some extent model multi-day burnout/exhaustion. weren't there feats in one of the playtest packets that used hit dice as a resource or am i just imagining some better game?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
is there a DM thread? My friends have decided I shall be the source of their entertainment and I need some advice on setting a creepy tone for our first 5e campaign. I considered just reading from the rules to scare them. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I don't know if this is new info, but I just learned it. PHB races: everything from the playtest, except Kender and Warforged which will be in the DMG. All classes have 3 archetypes except Cleric (7), Wizard (8), and Sorcerer (2). A little annoyed at only 3 archetypes for most classes, but then they gotta sell Complete Fighter: Martial Prowess III at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Mad Jaqk posted:Naturally. well i'm assuming one archetype for each school, which at its base conceit isn't bad. But as the evoker has no obvious deficiencies it suggests that the various wizard archetypes are just different ways of being more awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 23:57
|
|