|
to be fair that weird "ranged but melee but also ranged" rule could've been written by the intern. Also how hard is it to simply say GM: Gee, how are you using the weapon? are you throwing it or hacking? Player: hacking... GM: Then it's melee you dolt. Player: I mean throwing! GM: Then it's ranged. Player: Can't it be both? GM: No. treeboy fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 11, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
With the staggered release of, especially DM, 5e materials has anyone reverse engineered or otherwise started working on home brew monsters? I'm quickly running into the problem of no real diverse options when doing some preplanning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
i guess i assumed there's a *basic* design tying hp/dpr to CR/level
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted: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! gimmick it may be, i'm still cool with more content
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:...then what should it scale with? I still don't really understand what "CR" is in comparison to the level of the monster. It just seems needlessly confusing to me as someone coming from 4E. from what I can tell Challenge/CR is the level of the monster, they're just using an older term to appeal to people stuck in 3/3.5
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
So i take it you're supposed to average the player levels to get the party level rather than add them together? But to create the encounter you need to add the CR of all the creatures for the total challenge of the encounter and compare that to the average level of the party? yeah that makes sense
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:No read the article it has a handy little chart. The XP value is for balancing encounters not the CR. ok, he actually does a decent job of explaining the setup. it still feels a bit convoluted between figuring out xp budget then using CR to judge whether a monster "fits" with the group or not, but i get it and I suppose it could be a lot harder to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
I for one remain pretty up on the system. I put up with 3.5, I really enjoyed 4e (but hated how combat could drag), and am currently looking forward to getting my starter kit tomorrow and reading through it. Every system has its ups and downs, 5e is neither the second coming of RPG-Christ, nor is it the TableTop Devil. It seems a lot simpler to DM than the last couple editions (i've never DM'd 3.5 but I ran a 4e campaign for about six months) and am currently planning a new campaign for August when the PHB comes out. Honest discussion of flaws does not unmake positives of the system, even though the current opinion at SA is one of derision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Cassa posted:So finally getting around to reading the rulebook in anticipation of a game this afternoon, am I reading it properly that humans get +1 to each ability score at character creation? That umm... That's kind of hosed up? They have almost literally no other benefits (other than their "feat" option which isn't an option because basic doesn't have feats) and stats are capped at 20 and the other races get +2/+1 to two stats. Human +1 all is good but not game breaking, it just seems that way compared to other editions where stats were harder to come by and could keep going higher and higher. If I ever make human in 5e it'll be the optional feat human.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Wow this thread is more negative than I thought it would be! I wanted to ask for a recommendation from people who've done the plastering and stuff for this. fwiw, despite odd decisions on the part of the designers, and some...interesting...math, I really have enjoyed everything I've played in 5e so far. I think a lot of the griping that's going on is due to a couple key reasons. 1) SA loves 4e generally, and while it also has its drawbacks and high points in design, a lot of the 5e/Next development felt needlessly dismissive of all those legitimate progressions in 4e. 2) A lot of posters were (rightfully) hoping that 5e would push D&D beyond where its been before, taking elements of AD&D, 2e, 3.x, and 4e and creating something new and interesting. Instead we've gotten something closer to a retro homage akin to the Mustang redesign in 04. It's new and interesting, but feels more like things we've done before than something new and original. Many I think see it as a huge missed opportunity. I remain pretty positive about this edition despite its flaws, combat is quick and fun (they got rid of dumb rules like sheathing taking an action), Advantage/Disadvantage is a very elegant mechanic, skills are simplified and proficiency is a neat idea. I'm incredibly curious about Concentration for casters and its effects in gameplay, and there's a surprising amount of 4e to be found but its "seasoning" rather than the "meat" of the design. Finally they seem to be pushing feats into the area I always felt it should've been: legit options for changing how your class might play or react to given situations, rather than just a +1 with longswords. There's some weird math, questionable class balance (insofar as wizards serve a broader, less well-defined role in 5 than in 4), but you don't need perfect maths to have an enjoyable game. At the very least you could spend $12 to pickup the starter set and give the included adventure a whirl. edit: slight grammar and clarity treeboy fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
so i'm already considering homebrewing a Fighter Archetype which would focus more on tanking/warlording than the 3 that are apparently in the PHB (Champion, Weapon Master, Eldritch Knight). I was thinking mechanics centering around mark-like abilities (no full on taunt, but punish monsters that ignore you), and granting extra reactions to other players might be cool. The only thing holding me back from at least laying conceptual groundwork is the fact that they've said dick about what kinds of options feats grant you in customizing your gameplay experience. At least one of the playtests had some pretty beefy martial feats. edit: for instance, the latest public playtest had "Tactical Warrior" as an option, but there's no telling if that survived as a feat or is planned for future class options. It'd be nice if they at least gave us a list of feats or something. treeboy fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
i think the most frustrating part of this whole thing is the gradual drip of their rollout. I just want the loving PHB so i can start to piece together a campaign then bitch and moan about the lack of DM support and Monster variety
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:
my only real question would be how do you replenish followers? if i lose 6 guys in a fight, do more just show up after a long rest? the idea of cannon fodder rushing to be my meat shield is rather hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Nope, there is definitely a 267 page alpha PHB floating around (107 pages or 40% of which is spells). yeah i've looked through it and, assuming its not coming back from the last playtest, the Tactical Warrior Feat isn't in it which is a shame.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Nope, there is definitely a 267 page alpha PHB floating around (107 pages or 40% of which is spells). Worth mentioning, the PDF meta data lists its creation/modified date as February 15, 2014. So it's probably seen some revision since then. I wouldn't expect anything huge, but there'll be some differences. treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Where exactly does one find this Alpha Playtest Packet? it wasn't publicly released, so it's getting very close to  . I have a couple friends I'm able to ask about it if you have questions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
LFK posted:Yeah, I was too slow, now it's just a graveyard of [deleted]. talking about it, it seems the pact choice largely affects the spells you get, Fey is more druidic with defensive options, fiend more evocation and attack oriented, and cthulhu is more dominate/charm granting limited telepathy and later the ability to create a thrall. the class in general, as it levels, can choose from certain spells which become at-will spell like abilities, though its traditional spell slots never get very high (like four total, and at most 6th level) edit: honestly Warlock seems a lot more interesting than the normal wizard treeboy fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I'm wondering how the monk will look compared to the latest playtest packet, especially the little sub-classes thing. I'm in the middle of a 5e game now, and I'm playing a monk and I NEED TO KNOW ARRRGH ironically the Monk gets away with what everyone wishes the fighter could. The fluff intro flat out states that they "magically harness the energy that flows through their bodies" and makes them supermurderhobos.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Well anyone with the Alpha should be wary, for instance it apparently still has the old (better) version of Indomitable for Fighter where it provides an automatic save instead of reroll. my buddy is livid, its almost funny.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:But it DOESN'T have the tactical warrior feat? He's currently comparing all the talents to see differences. Also apparently potent cantrip got nerfed, it *used* to apply to misses and saves, in basic its just saves. edit: it's hard to compare apparently, some feats are more or less the same, some have changed minorly, others have been renamed. Tactical Warrior is apparently now called Sentinel, and its essentially the same except you no longer have to mark targets, any enemy within 5 feet provokes AoO when they attack anyone other than you (or another person who has the feat) so they arguably buffed it, even though it still relies on reactions and hitting with AoO. downside is it no longer adds the -2 modifier to attacks vs. others. treeboy fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:No tactical warrior eat...but I suspect a lot of that has been folded into maneuvers for the battlemaster fighter. i edited my post above, they've renamed a bunch of feats, Tactical Warrior is now called Sentinel, is slightly different, but arguably a little bit better. edit: my biggest complaint thus far is the lack of options i've seen for increasing reactions, it'd be really nice if there was something that would grant even one or two extra per round. treeboy fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:A worse Defender Aura. Not quite, iirc defender aura was just -2 attack to any enemies within 5' of you if their attack didn't include you. In this case it's similar: anyone within 5' attacking someone other than you provokes AoO, anyone moving away from you, even disengaging, provokes an AoO, and anyone you hit with an AoO immediately has their speed set to 0. Really my only beef with the talent is that it doesn't *help* the person getting attacked (just punishes the attacker) and reactions seem like a sorely limited resource. Personally in my game I would likely have the opponents respond by first attacking their initial target then switching to the fighter next round if he hits them. treeboy fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Maybe...but that could bork action economy balance. Remember that action cost is one of the ways the game balances abilities. I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that a Combat Reflexes type feat could easily give you 1-2 extra reactions, but still limit your Attacks of Opportunity vs. single targets. Martial characters do far more with their reactions than the caster types do, especially Rogues and Fighters. I think unlimited reactions ala Imp. Combat Reflexes would be too much, but currently you're kind of up a creek if someone provokes your AoO but you used your reflex to avoid dying or to protect your ally. Either that or make Attacks of Opportunity a separate thing which doesn't consume a reaction. heck why not: quote:Combat Reflexes It would require tweaking a bit, the extra AoO might be a bit much, and it could potentially have some crazy interactions with certain classes, but that would just make martial more awesome. edit: interestingly this setup would mean only Human Rogue/Ranger/monk could likely start with the feat, maybe a fighter/paladin with higher than normal Dex. Perhaps a level requirement if its aimed more at the level 5-10 range. As it is most Fighters wouldn't nab this until likely 6th level at the earliest, others would be waiting until 8th unless they had the dex prereq at 4th and skipped stat increase. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:It's not bad as written, but remember that feats aren't restricted by class and the Rogue gets an ability that lets them halve damage from an attack as a reaction. It's okay when they only get to do this once per round...but two or three times a round practically doubles their hit points. That's why I wrote it as is. The first bullet disassociates Opportunity Attack from Reactions, the second bullet grants a second Opportunity Attack, so the Rogue will still only have one evasion (or whatever its called) per round. Even with this feat you'd only have one reaction, you just wouldn't have to spend it on AoO. Apple Mummy posted:Would making reactions 1/turn instead of 1/round break much? As reactions are explicitly not executed on the users turn this gets weird quickly. Can you make one reaction for EACH other persons turn (if applicable?) in a big fight this could be huge, 10+ reactions. Easier to keep it per round and make it a limited resource.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Check out this cutting edge rules tech: bonus reaction. To be fair, 5e does a lot of neat things with reactions, it just fails at scaling those options by providing more resources to spend.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
looking at it i'm actually tempted to tie the homebrew feat into proficiency so it scales better towards lvl 20 allowing a martial character to take half a dozen Attacks of Opportunity per round. Realistically, even with 6 Opportunity Attacks available at lvl 17+, on a grid you'll likely never have more than 2-4 enemies in range, you can still only attack each enemy once, they have to *provoke* in the first place, and to make the most of it you need to have purchased Sentinel to lock down enemies in close range. If they're attacking you directly the only thing that might trigger it would be Polearm Master which gives AoO vs. targets entering reach. Furthermore it has the benefit of not buffing the War Caster feat since that specifically uses a spell as a reaction instead of an attack of opportunity. edit: on an unrelated topic, I was looking at adventure modules online and was generally curious how pricing usually works. What are people typically willing to pay for quality modules and how do you go about finding them? word of mouth? treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Play some 4e as a defender, and tell me your "Average Opportunity Actions Triggered Per Round" in the trip report. Defender was generally one of my favorite roles in 4e though it's been a year or more since I've had a chance to actually play. Also I'm not super sure of what you're arguing. Are you suggesting that Opportunity Attacks aren't worth it, or that this would be unbalancing? That's they're super common or uncommon? Because that would depend a lot on the DM's encounter setup.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:They're saying that 5e allows only one OA per round, not per turn. It is literally impossible to be sticky in 5e. right. which was the whole point of a homebrew feat, which is what i was discussing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Misandu posted:You're home brewing a feat to functionally fix another feat before the PHB has even been officially released. No judgements I guess I'm just pointing that out. the humor of the situation is not lost on me. It's also a fun challenge to fix design issues. Personally I see it as less of a fix for the Tactical Warrior/Sentinel feat, and more of a fix for martial characters in general. Nancy_Noxious posted:Because the feat that did the same thing in 3e was Dex based — http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes That and because not all classes, like rogue, get Extra attack, and not all martial classes will have much Dex (since it provides no bonus when wearing Heavy Armor) and starting arrays are lower in general than 4e. Also because while its fine in theory (assuming theres nothing like it in the final PHB) i haven't had a chance to go through potential interactions with multiclassing or other edge character setups yet. Better to start with something narrower before widening the availability. It essentially serves as a soft level requirement since the feat is very strong at lower levels but diminishes somewhat at higher levels (thus the thoughts on tying it directly to proficiency to better scale). Potentially a flat character level requirement could be used in place of dex/feature requirements, but there aren't any other feats currently available which do that, so i wanted to avoid it until i gained a better understanding why/why not. (fully realizing there may be no particular reason why) treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
that's generally where i'm leaning as well. The thing I wanted to avoid was accidentally buffing casters with a feat aimed at martial characters, but so far i haven't found anything that would break there. There's a feat that allows casters to cast a spell as a reaction instead of taking an opportunity attack, vs. casting a spell *as* an opportunity attack (which is what i was initially afraid it would do, so suddenly you could cast 6 spells as AoO on other characters turns)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
zfleeman posted:Got my Starter Kit in the mail a couple days ago, and haven't opened it yet. As a guy who has only DM'd a little bit of 4E's "Essentials" box and a little bit of Pathfinder's Beginner Box, I'm curious if this is a good "D&D for idiots" starting point. 4e is great but drags the further you get and the more options you allow, I love the game but it has a ton of bloat. One thing I really do appreciate with the new game is the speed of combat encounters vs. 4e.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Not a rhetorical question - have you played 5e yet? Because in my experience so far it's not appreciably faster, especially when there's a lot of Advantage floating around. In our last session we had a fight with 5 PCs and 5 monsters take about 2 hours. When you have Fighters rolling 8 attack rolls and Wizards casting AoE in a Theatre of the Mind encounter, things take time to resolve. I have, though not as much as 4e. I found low-mid levels to go pretty quickly, what level were you playing that 5 monsters took two hours? edit: Advantage is pretty elegant in my opinion. Part of 4e slowdown is the sheer amount of +/-'s that get thrown around beyond level 5, paragon and supplements only make it worse. (and i love 4e, it's just one of the parts of the game i wish was a little smoother)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Level 3 this has not been my experience...wow edit: to expound - at lvl 2 we had 5 PCs (cleric, wizard, paladin, rogue, ranger) and about 15 goblins and the combat took maybe 20-30min. The Ranger and Rogue were dealing the pain while the wizard took out stragglers/runners treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
on an individual level i have very little problem with most of the spells, even polymorph, the problem all along has been the sheer variety available. I was sad they didnt restrict schools at all even though they make you choose a specialty edit: Also polymorph is kinda confusing. It seems like if you drop the polymorphed creature to 0 it reverts to its original form with damage, it doesn't just die. Its more of a CC than a gamestopper. treeboy fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Would you post the Green Dragon's stats? Also, maybe the spell text of polymorph? polymorph isn't in the starter kit, but it's a 4th level spell, cannot affect anything with 150hp or more. It can change them into any creature of 150hp or less, and the target gains all the stats/hp/special abilities of the new form. When it hits 0 hp it reverts to its original form and any extraneous damage is transferred to its original form. the creature retains its intelligence/awareness in the new form. Polymorph is a CC, not a combat obviation. edit: also undead/constructs and i think shapeshifters are immune treeboy fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Polymorph is absolutely a combat obviation. thats ridiculous, as DM i would say as soon as you deal 15 damage the Dragon reverts to normal and the other skeletons are attacking a dragon, not a mouse. You must have terrible DM's edit: also what level does a necromancer have twenty skeletons? treeboy fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
also you're assuming there's a dozen or more suitable piles of bones available to Animate Dead from, even the +2 corpses for casting at 4th instead of 3rd requires 2 more appropriate piles. Unless you're in a bone yard i don't see that happening.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Where is the encounter construction CR/XP budget stuff, I can't find it for the life of me. edit: found it from earlier in the thread  a Young Green Dragon would be a "Hard" fight for a 4 player party at lvl 8 (with some XP budget left over for minions). "Challenging" doesn't give enough of an XP pool to fit the dragon (3,900xp). I guess my point is that your situations where the party polymorph and finish off the dragon at their leisure are just as specific as those saying it probably wouldn't go down like that. As theres no accounting for specific players (who may just want to fight it normally) or GMs (who may over rule dumb alpha strikes with wandering monsters or miraculous saves) this probably would very rarely go down like a bugged boss in WoW treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:If your Wizard wants to cast fireball, that's great. That's never been a problem. yup just as ridiculous as players which walk through a dungeon poking every flag stone with a 10' pole, yet it still happens or people act like it does. Regardless, my point is that the number of logical leaps one has to take in either situation (polymorph never obviates a challenge vs. always obviates a challenge) are just as tenuous. Additionally if a group of 4 level 8 players are going up against a Young Green Dragon then there will be other monsters to fight as well according to the XP budget, that means concentration checks to hold the spell. Also help me with the math, the Dragon has a +4 will save, and a lvl 8 wizard would be DC16. So 12+ would save, which puts it closer to 55% edit: on top of that, even if you succeed and turn it into something with 5hp, as soon as 5 damage is done to it the dragon reverts to normal with 136hp (minus any extraneous damage from the hit that 'killed' it) and proceeds to continue the fight. I'm not saying the system doesn't have issues i'd prefer ironed out or eliminated, but this isn't the rosemary's baby of RPG systems. treeboy fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Thalantos posted:I think a big issue of caster supremacy is due to legacy stuff from earlier editions. Wizards in earlier editions weren't guaranteed to find a spell just because they wanted it, and they weren't guaranteed to learn it even if they found it This is still true, though I don't think there's spell copy failure anymore. But a wizard doesn't automatically get spells each level, at least last time i checked.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 21:57
|
|