|
Slippery42 posted:What about completely decoupling skills from ability scores. Right now, they're often written as something like "you can make a Strength (athletics) check" which seems to me like that might have been the original intention (unless this is some D&D tradition that goes over my head because 5e's my first system). It'd be tougher to justify using something other than int for skills like history or arcana, or for using something other than dex for acrobatics, but intimidation could just as well be based off of str or dex if you have a reputation as a deadly opponent. Con could be used in place of cha while drinking is involved or for athletics checks that involve running long distances. Nature could be combined with either wis or int. The DM can choose when or not to make the skill checks related to actual skills or not. So for instance to use your examples: "intimidation could just as well be based off of str or dex if you have a reputation as a deadly opponent" Somehow you've attained a reputation for being a brutal murderer or something. Like to the extent where the DM agrees that the average guy in the street knows who you are. If you walk up to some peasant in a bar and you're like "Get the hell out of MY seat" the DM could just say "Yeah the guy is clearly scared shitless of you and runs off" or the DM could say "thanks to your deadly reputation, it's an easy (5DC) challenge to scare the peasant" and I'll give you an advantage. If you somehow fail that even with low charisma I'll be amazed and it obviously means some sort of random factor is at play here. The idea that you have a reputation and the idea you can intimidate someone aren't always linked. You may not be very good at talking to people but everyone knows you're Cohen the Barbarian and you'll kill a man if he knocks over your drink, or you could actually have never killed anyone but you convince someone you'll kill them. "Con could be used in place of cha while drinking is involved or for athletics checks that involve running long distances" As far as I was aware constitution is used to see if you get drunk from drinking or not? If you're on about say persuading someone while they are drunk, I'd still say it's the persuade skill but if you are more drunk then they are, you get a disadvantage, if they are more drunk than you you get an advantage to the roll. So that way a character with high con can get people drunk to stand a better chance of getting them to do stuff, but that's nothing to do with what they actually say, and no matter how drunk someone is if you accidentally imply their mother is a whore, they will be pissed off. I think the second point is valid, because the fitter and healthier you are then you can run further, whereas being strong doesn't necessarily mean you can do a marathon. On the other hand, a dwarf may have high con and they aren't known for their endurance running. So I guess that's one of those things you need to sort yourself. "Nature could be combined with either wis or int." To me "Nature" is more like "book stuff" to do with nature and "Survival" is more about experience living in a forest. Nature tests will be "Ah yes, that is locium virbirillium and that contains a horrible poison which will cause your immune system to burn in agonising pain before dying" whereas survival is "Don't eat that mushroom, it will kill you". Personally I can't see a huge amount of difference between the skills, and if there's like a druid or something with 10 intelligence trying to pass Nature tests and failing you could always give them an advantage if it's about the forest they live in or something. Slippery42 posted:On short rest talk: My own personal opinion is that generally a short rest should happen when the DM thinks it should, and should last as long as they think it should. Generally I don't think this needs to be an hour, but it also doesn't need to be half an hour. If you're exploring a dungeon and you want to rest for an hour, there's no real reason you can't do it, but monsters might wander in and things like that, which means you'd have to fight again without getting the benefits of a short rest. Or there could be some time factor, monsters have kidnapped a little girl and they are going to sacrifice her to open a hell portal and you want a nap? If the DM is playing RAW you need an hour though, find a way to make a safe area to sit down in and if you can't the only option really is to back track through the entire dungeon to camp outside, or to press on, otherwise the DM might just be like "OK well a giant spider wanders in".
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:
No, if they want to take a short rest and there's no reason they can't hang around for an hour as described in the rule book then they should be able to rest. However, if you're in the middle of a dungeon and they just got battered because you got some lucky rolls, it's probably unlikely they'll be safe for an hour, but on the other hand you don't want them dying. So you might say they can have a 30 minute break to patch up their wounds and things and it will count as a short rest. In some situations though, yeah the GM should actively work against the players taking rests all the time. Their abilities are limited for a reason, and you want to tread a line between providing a challenge with interesting decisions (do we push on or do we just retreat all together? Do we rest and risk the bad guy getting away? etc), making it way too easy (imagine if they were allowed to just rest for 8 hours after every fight, there would be no need to think about when to use your spells), and making it way too hard (if they get battered black and blue and they are all on half health, is the big boss fight you planned actually going to be fun?). To specifically answer the last point, yeah I think if the DM thinks the players need a rest, they should be told they can have one. Smart players would realise if the DM is giving you a chance to heal for no reason then it's not actually for no reason though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Oh, you didn't have to write all that. I was only really interested in what your answer was if it was 'yes'. Oh well, in that case my apologies. Someone else may find it interesting anyway I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Also on the "decouple skills from stats" discussion. I was checking something else up in the DMG and noticed in page 239 they specifically say if there's a good justification you can use a different stat with the skill proficiency. They even give the example of someone swimming a long distance needing a Con check due to the distance but is proficient in Athletics, so they make a Athletics (Con) check instead of Athletics (Str). I don't think the intimidate check using dex is a good example though. If you're a massive, hulking character then maybe you can argue to merely have to stand there to look intimidating, but if you've got a deadly reputation you firstly need to actually have one through actions that get heard about and secondly you'd still need to say the right thing. So I'd just give advantages due to reputation and make it an easy check or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:There are certainly movies and other media where a skilled swordsman demonstrates his badass sword skills with some Yeah but personally I'd say: OK well first you need to do some bad rear end sword poo poo. So that will be a dex check but I'll let you add your proficiency bonus because you are doing it with your proficient weapon. The DC will be normal as they aren't hard to impress but you're looking to scare them. Say you pass this I'd then say: OK well this guy knows you're pretty awesome with a sword now, so I'll say it's an DC5 (easy) check to intimidate him and I'll give you an advantage. If you failed though I'd say: OK you try to do some impressive sword poo poo and you fumble it up, accidentally dropping your sword where it sticks into the floor with a shudder. The guys sniggers. You can still attempt to save face and intimidate him. He's only a guard so it's a DC10 test (normal) but you have a disadvantage because he saw you cock that up. I mean you mentioned Zoro but he was smooth as gently caress. Remember the scene in the movie where he cuts the woman's dress off her and she looks all angry but that's because she wants to jump his bones so badly? That's the charisma. The dex is being able to cut the dress off a woman without stabbing her, the charisma is her not hating you for doing it. You could just make them take an intimidate (dex) check if you wanted to though. You'd be rewarding interesting roleplaying and it makes it a load simpler. So I think it's fine to do either, you just need to remember who is in the group. If there is a guy with a high charisma stat with a proficiency in persuade and every time you go somewhere the guy just Zoro's the place up and gets what he wants it's no fun for the other guy. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 18:17
|
|
flourishes and whatnot and it intimidates the mooks that have no chance against him in a fight. I think that'd be a proper use of DEX for Intimidate.
|
P.d0t posted:Or, how about just throwing darts in a bar? Same thing applies. The guy you want to intimidate is sitting there. So you say: I want to throw a Dart to land in between his hands to scare him. I'd make you take what is basically an attack role, with a 20 or something being "You close your eyes and throw the dart. It bounces off someone's pewter tankard on another table and then lands in between the fingers of the guy on the table with centimeters to spare" and it might be so impressive I say you don't need the intimidate check. Whereas a 1 probably results in the Dart missing and hitting someone else in the buttock, possibly starting a bar brawl. If you succeeded then sure DC5 with an advantage, if not then DC10 with a disadvantage. The reason I like this better is because it has more roleplaying opportunity, it gives the player a choice (normal roll or risk it trying to get a good roll), and it still relies on the guy having a modicum of charisma. Finally, if you're skilled with a sword it may be better to do it then to take a intimidate (dex) roll as you may not be proficient in intimidate anyway. On the other hand it's much easier to just say "Yeah take an intimidate roll but use dex instead".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:If you can justify it, apply the Rule of Cool and let the person use the skill they want. Why penalize the Silent Zorro just because he chose to drop Charisma? Well because you may have someone in the group who took high charisma and boosted their persuasion/deception/intimidate skills at the expense of their combat ability only for you to say to the combat guy "Yeah it's cool you don't need high charisma or anything to intimidate that guy" . This is why I'd make it a check of two halves, and just make the Charisma check easier if they are skilled enough to do that Zoro poo poo or whatever. Whereas if your party is combat skill and casting ability heavy then it doesn't matter so much. So I'd probably say yeah do a Intimidate (Dex) check as at least the party is trying to solve a problem without stabbing it or blowing it up for once.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session. I've pretty much always played without miniatures in all my D&D games and from other systems too. The one exception being Rogue Trader where I tried spaceship combat without miniatures and it was way too difficult to do. There are advantages to not using a grid. I'd say the best ones is that it's less stuff to mess with. The other is that it's easier for the DM to fudge things (if you're into that sort of thing). On the other hand a lot of the DnD stuff does rely on distance, positioning etc a lot more because of its tradition of using a grid. This can mean the DM doing stuff like mine did last night: "OK so there are these lizard creatures in front of you. Kitchner what do you do? " " How far away are they? " " About 40ft" "OK well I throw two darts at one of the smaller ones, and then move so the fighter is in between me and the approaching lizards. As I move I draw my short swords." The lizards don't get there in one move to the fighter (so their movement is less than 40ft I guess) but on the monster's next turn the DM is randomly rolling to see who the monsters decide to attack and one of them is me. This is explained as "Oh some of them flanked around the side". It effectively makes positioning this poo poo harder to do. If there had been a grid I could have seen how far they moved and positioned myself so they don't reach me on their next turn (assuming the movement was the same). So yeah I think it does and can work, but it requires being really clear on stuff like positioning, ranges etc, and you have to sort of assume the players are going to make the optimal decisions and not punish them for forgetting details. So if someone is like "Yeah I move back 10ft so I'm out of range of his charge" but you know they need to move 20ft to do that, you should point that out really. That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
I've just had a quick look and there's tons of magic items (maybe not weapons) catered to casters. So my advice would be to have a leaf through a copy if you can get hold of one. It's listed A-Z though so it's not easy to just leaf through. I think a sentient magical item would be pretty cool for a Druid or a Warlock. Like a staff that has its own sentience and personality. You can have the staff level up along with the character on the basis that the spirit within the staff does the same. I'm sure that the creating magical items rules has a bit in there for adding to spell damage, but I haven't had chance to read it all properly yet. Like for example Rod of the Pact Keeper is awesome for a warlock and it comes in several levels so it can level up. But it's hard to judge if it would be overpowered without knowing what the other weapons do. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Thanks. I did some online searches and this site was pretty useful for finding things that looked interesting. I think Cantrips count as spells if it says "+3 to hit with spells" but I'm not sure though. The difficulty with the caster based magic items is balancing them against magic swords and poo poo because casters can already be way stronger than say a fighter, for example. Like if your group is playing with 5 minute short rests or you're just allowed to rest a lot in general between encounters then maybe your casters are already killing the poo poo out of anything and everything so maybe the main reason you need something magic is for a lot point. The caster items to me seem to be a mix of "yeah it's OK I guess" and "loving SHAZAM mother fucker!" in terms of power with not much inbetween. So it may be worth just having custom magic items that mimic the weapons (e.g. If all their weapons give +2 to hit and to damage with melee attack then have a staff that does the same with your spells).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Trast posted:Any DM worth their salt should make a player yell SHAZAM if that is how the weapon is described. I think all players who are casting a spell with a verbal component should shout this anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Yeah, I knew that, but as a druid I don't have many attack spells. So +hit doesn't do a whole lot when most spells call for saves. And the ignoring cover thing only works for one of my two cantrips. Just have a druid staff with an ancient forget spirit living in it and roleplay the poo poo out of talking to it all the time. "I remember when this was all trees" "uhh but ancient forest spirit, this forest is all trees? " " Yes but they were a better sort of tree"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Angryhead posted:The Pathfinder Beginner Box comes with a pretty nice reusable map. I was tempted to look into that for a beginners game I might be running, but it seems what you're basically paying for is the adventure (which I have no idea how good it is) and some (not even interesting looking) dice. I think if the dice were cool and the adventure was good it's probably worth the money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
BashGhouse posted:Been running 5e for two groups. A bunch of dudes at College and my 6 year old little sister (And the rest of my family, but mostly her). Running Mines of Phandelver out of the Starter Set in both. It's going pretty well! Rules have been easy to pick up and the game plays very fluidly. The "Twelve Zombies" encounter drug on a bit, though. Partially because my players kept trying to loot the mages tent in the middle of the fight. Well if you try to scoop up treasure mid combat these things happen. It's a shame to hear about the balance as I was thinking of using it with two newbies and one more experienced player. I suppose you can always adjust the number of monsters involved. In my next session I'm going to be trying to sell some items to village folk like a snake oil salesman. The things in question are the penises I cut off some lizard men we killed (no 6 year old in my game). I'm going to roleplay the poo poo out of that and use a mage as a shill so I can claim it has properties it doesnt using prestidigation. I wonder if my DM is going to allow that or not. I'm getting +5 to all my deception rolls so it should be easy enough to fool some peasants, and they are genuinely the penises from magical lizardmen so technically I'm only lying about what they do. I'll do it all with me and the gnome disguised too so we can change and make a quick get away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Considering that your GM allows you to harvest genitalia from dead enemies, I'm pretty sure his powers of judgment are so withered that you could get away with anything. Well it came across as a guy was like "What are these lizard men wearing" To which the response was "Oh not much, just loin cloths". The guy then, stupidly, said "Yeah well I'm going to look under them". Which got "You see lizard dicks" Then I asked him if I could harvest them to sell to simple village folk as aphrodisiacs and he said I could try to do it, so hence why my inventory has "Bag of lizard cocks" in it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Don't tell people about your adventures with lizard cocks, and don't try to rationalize it when people question your adventures with lizard cocks. No kink shaming please.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:that's extremely loving weird, sorry. What was your thought process for that? Animal genitals are sold/used for aphrodisiacs all the time, I mean Panda Penis is still used in China as an aphrodisiac despite it containing none of the chemicals needed because dumb peasants believe anything. My character is a conman and I've been trying to think of an angle for a con for a while that wasn't just "cheat at gambling" and then when that was mentioned I remembered snake oil salesman and the aphrodisiac thing and went with it. As you can tell my group isn't deadly serious about roleplaying. MonsterEnvy posted:Hey Lizards have a genital sheathe. You should not have been able to see Lizard dicks. Someone actually pointed this out, but the GM had already said there were lizard penises, and I think he wants to see me run an elaborate con selling these things to peasants so he didn't retcon it. It's funny how often general knowledge gets used in a roleplaying game, like I knew Iron mines from this sort of era (e.g. mediaeval) generally weren't very deep, so I asked the DM if we were lower than usualy for an iron mine for that reason (we weren't meaning the miners didn't deliberately mine into the lizard men temple). ScaryJen posted:
Slang has to start somewhere. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Trast posted:I've actually used that already. It wasn't an arrow that I used though it was a copper coin. I cast silence on it and wing it at the bad guys or give it to the rogue so he can make with the stabbing in peace. It's a great suggestion regardless. Yeah when there were creatures lurking around in the rafters of this tall building we got the cleric to cast light on a throwing dart and I threw it at the beam in the cieling to light up the area there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Trast posted:Our rogue was being an rear end in a top hat to some DM controlled characters belonging to my Cleric's temple so I cast light on his clothing so he couldn't sneak around stealing poo poo. DM got a kick out of it. You can do that if they fail a dexterity save. As for the squirrel I'm not sure you can just make a glowing squirrel, but if you put a collar on it you can do that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Also out of interest for people just starting DnD how many of you own a copy of the Dungeon Masters Guide and how many of you own the Monster Manual? If you didn't buy them but somehow have PDF copies of them that you use then say that. The reason I'm asking is because I've paid for the PHB but I've also got PDFs of the other two books and honestly I can't say I feel they are important enough to spend £50 on. On the other hand I already know how to DM so I don't really need a guide. So I'm interested to see how many players, especially newer players, actively use these.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Yeah the MM seems a handy way to not bother creating any monsters yourself, but it's still something you could probably cope without. The DMG though? I guess if you don't have the DMG or the MM you'll struggle to make balanced creatures on your own.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:
This isn't really that weird. The way you need to read this is "No matter what class the dwarf is, he is always proficient in...". So if you look at the Bard class, usually you wouldn't see a Bard armed with a huge battleaxe. This is a Dwarven Bard though so even though his bardic training doesn't cover how to split an orc in tow using an axe bigger than you, he's a Dwarf for God's sake so of course he can do it! Same with elves, all of them can use bows etc because that's just what elves do. So yeah, don't be put off playing a dwarf fighter because of overlapping proficencies, especially as you can become ridiculously tanky with heavy armour and then instead of a skill boost at level 4 you pick the heavy armour mastery feat and the defensive fighting style. For example a level 1 dwarf fighter with heavy armour, sword and shield with the defensive fighting style is like AC 19 with 13 hitpoints which is miles ahead of everyone else at level 1. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
I can't really answer much of the rest but I'm going to assume by 6 players you mean you plus 6 players. It's about the maximum I'd want to run. I've run groups of players from like 3 people to 9 on a regular basis, and it gets difficult to juggle everything to make a good story and keep everyone engaged when you have that many players. You probably need to find as many tricks as you can to speed stuff up too, especially in combat. Even small things like making players roll damage at the same time as they roll to hit can speed things up. Make sure that if one person is doing some awesome roleplaying poo poo, no matter how cool it is if it's taking up a lot of time make sure to pause occasionally and ask the other players what they are doing. If someone tells you they are going to fix their sword and then... Point out that will take an hour or two and then ask the others what they are doing, then sort of run through it all in order that it happens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I understand your point, but I'm already kind of sold on the idea of a dwarven warwizard, with all the spells reflavored as the character activating war runes and such (for an example, all the crafting related stuff from the artificer will be about the character infusing magical victory runes on their weapons and armor. All the divination type spells will be refluffed as rune-casting. Just remember when you cast spells your to hit roll will be proficiency + intelligence modifier. The biggest restriction really is the fact that you are going off the basic rules rather than the PHB. The basic rules don't include multiclassing which would help a lot, or the Eldritch Knight Fighter spec which would also do what you're on about, especially as at higher levels they get abilities to cast spells and attack on the same turn. So yeah you can have a dwarf wizard no problem, but if you're at D20+6 to hit in combat and D20+3 to hit with your spells then it's going to be a bit awkward. I'd say put Int as 15, Str as 14, and Con as 13, as that will give you Int 15, Str 16, Con 15 as your starting stats, and it means you can actually cast spells worth a drat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Yeah I agree the Eldritch Knight is pretty weak. I think maybe the best ability they get is that later on if they hit something it gets a disadvantage to any saves against a spell which is cool. I think the only reason to take it is if multiclassing is banned and you REALLY want to be a fighter who casts spells specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Trast posted:Can anyone speak about the 5e monk? I like what I have read in the PHB so far but had a few questions about them. For instance is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? If it is the former that seems really limiting to be stuck with only four elemental abilities the entire life of the monk. Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. Thai clinch knees are murder let me tell you. So to answer the questions: 1) Is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? The PHB says: quote:When you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you learn magical disciplines that harness the power of the four elements. A discipline requires you to spend ki points each time you use it. You know the Elemental Attunement discipline and one other elemental discipline of your choice, which are detailed in the “Elemental Disciplines” section below. You learn one additional elemental discipline of your choice at 6th, 11th, and 17th level. Which means: Level 3 - Elemental Attunement + One other Level 6 - Elemental Attunement + Two others Level 11 - Elemental Attunement + Three others Level 17 - Elemental Attunement + Four others So the most you'll ever know is five total, which are four of your choosing. 2) Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? Yes that's right. Since you can start with short swords which are "monk weapons" and they do D6+Dex damage, so they do more. When you get to level 5 though all your "monk weapons" do D6+Dex damage, so you might as well punch stuff then. 3) I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Uhh technically not as "unarmed" isn't a "light" weapon and the rules don't actually say you're allowed to. However, there is a bit that says: quote:When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. So it's the same as two weapon fighting in reality. So if you have two short swords, you make an attack and then, as a bonus action, you can make another attack with the short sword or unarmed. So if you were unarmed you could punch twice just as you could stab twice with two swords. However, you can only make 1 bonus action a turn, so flurry of blows says: quote:Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action. So you can make an attack, then as a bonus action make an unarmed attack/attack with your other weapon OR spend a Ki point to make two unarmed attacks. At level 5 you do get an extra attack though. Which means you can attack, attack, then spend a ki point to make two unarmed attacks for 4 attacks total. 4) Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. According to the "grappled" section at the back of the PHB, someone who is grappled has a speed of 0. It doesn't necessarily actually provide an advantage to hi them (though the DM may say it does). It also means that you're putting stats into strength, when really the Monk should be dumping all it's stat increases into Dex and Wis (as your armour rating is 10+Dex modifier + Wis modifier for a total of 18AC while wearing no armour, nice!). Kitchner fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Open question: how does stealth work? So how it should work is like this: You say you're going to sneak down a corridor, and I'm like OK sure. We assume you're actually being stealthy and poo poo. Now here you can just bluff and make then roll for stealth anyway so they think there's a creature ahead but let's assume there is. You take a Stealth (Dex) check. This is either compared to the NPC's "passive perception" or their "Perception (Wis)" check (rolled by the DM). You compare it against the passive score if the creature isn't particularly looking for sneaky things. So like a Baker walking home from work might have a passive perception of 10. If you want to sneak up on him you'd have to roll higher than 10, as he's not actively looking for assassins and poo poo. Bored or lovely guards, or people generally not expecting sneak attacks and poo poo will also fall into this category. You compare against a Perception check if someone is actively on the look out for sneaky poo poo. This could be a vigilant guard who is watching out for people sneaking up on his camp, or it could be an enemy actively searching for you. If this is the case your stealth check is compared to their perception check and the highest wins. So even if you roll a 6 if they roll 5 you're all good, but if you roll a 16 and they roll a 20 you're caught. Some DMs, like mine sadly, don't get this difference and just roll against perception for everything which makes it a bit more random. Not that it matters mind you as I've rolled less than 6 on the D20 for about 8/10 stealth checks so far. Generally as well you need to not be seen to stealth, I know that seems obvious but it needs to be said. So there needs to be shadows, things to hide behind etc. Unless you're a light foot halfling and then you can hide behind humans which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A monster's CR is the thing (the only thing) that defines what its XP value is (Page 275 of the DMG "Experience points by challenge rating"). You could just grant xp at specific story milestones or per session attended as suggested as alternatives in the DMG if for whatever reason the xp of the creatures no longer matches the official CR rating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Yeah I think when you play a rogue whether or not you get to do interesting poo poo is totally in the hands of your DM. All three have interesting things they can do but they need to be given the opportunity. If your DM doesn't do that then you're useless, if they do you can do some cool poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Magic very quickly becomes the easiest solution to most problems, a lot of monsters just have lists of spells rather than unique abilities, and some monsters are purpose-built to screw over a low-magic party. I haven't seen one yet but I assume there are also anti magic monsters?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Great advice guys, I'm glad to see you're keeping a positive and open attitude towards providing constructive advice. All that needs to be said is that there is an encounter system listed in the DMG, some players like it, others don't. One of he posters in the other DnD thread posted an alternative and explained why he made the changes that he did. Since there are multiple methods of awarding xp if you don't use the standard system don't feel you can't just award the group the xp appropriate to the fight. But sure, continue to sling insults and tell people how they obviously don't understand the system as well as you do, or construct ridiculous examples of how broken the CR rating is when you make a monster with great ranged attacks fight a party from 100ft away (which admittedly is dumb to ask someone to do because there is always a way to take even well balanced creatures and make them overpowered based on how, where, when etc they fight). Kitchner fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
kingcom posted:
His statement is his opinion. OK he thinks the encounter system "isn't broken" and "does what it says it will". So what? People had already said why the system has its failings, but all systems have their failings. There's need for people to go on about it trying to change his mind. He didn't help by then trying to prove his point in a dumb way by asking someone to show how it's imbalanced because you can do that even with good systems of you try hard enough, but it's all very hostile. Who gives a gently caress if one guy's opinion is that he thinks it serves it's purpose? It's entirely possible his group have been using it and it works totally fine for them. Let the reader pick between the guy who says that and the multiple other people who say "don't just use it as standard because of x, y, and z".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
The idea of being early clear about rests and things is interesting, though I can't say it appeals to me. I think if the party wants to rest and can rest then they should be able to. It just requires the DM to find way to essentially incentives the players to take risks by not short resting every 5 minutes. I'm assuming under that system though you're not suggesting the players can ONLY long rest after major plot points? Maybe give them a token for a special 5 minute short rest as a reward for hitting the milestone or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You seem to be saying that this thread is not an advice thread, but a 5E hugbox. It's not. Yeah dude there's a difference between a "hugbox" and "well no one is allowed to disagree with me if they think the game is good". The centaur thing was dumb but I wasn't saying that was your fault, it was his for asking to be proven wrong jn such a dumb way. All your example proved was that in one specific example if you pick the best circumstances and meta game the characters it is unbalanced. That's not going to change his mind, as he'll ignore what you said as you obviously picked a rigged encounter, and it just reaffirms what you think, that the system is broken. You and others made your case as to why you think the CR system doesn't work. We even pointed out that it doesn't even need to be linked to xp if that was what the concern was. So really all you're doing now is arguing with someone to try and win an Internet argument about a roleplaying game, and anyone who thinks about asking for advice or providing a different opinion doesn't want to, in case they get you hounding them over your different opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Except that that's not what happened, someone asked for advice and Monster Envy told them they didn't need it. Cool, and about 5 people answered the original request for advice. The original requester got several pieces of advice, one of which was that he doesn't need to worry because the system works. So are your posts trying to "prove" Monster Envy's opinion to be wrong for your benefit, for Monster Envy's or for the original requestor do you think?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:That's basically what I had in mind: the reward for reaching a minor milestone is basically getting to take a short rest that doesn't take much "real time," but is more akin to taking a breather before going on with the task at hand. That sounds much more like what I was thinking. He only problem I've got is that if you plan an adventure over multiple days, every day will include a long rest. So you can't really say with that system "Travel to the far off city of Whateverville and find the shapeshifter disguised as a duke" and then have the city be a week or two worth of travel. Personally I don't like really prescriptive systems outside of combat anyway, as I feel ultimately the DM should be deciding what makes the game better for the group and act accordingly. If I was going to make it more transparent to the players though I think you need some sort of system that says: - Normally a short rest is an hour and a long rest is 8 hours. The group can decide to rest at any time assuming they are safe (if not they risk being attacked etc). - If the group is racing against time (or a phrase that doesn't suck I can't think of one though), which they will be informed of by the DM, then short rests will progress the actions of their enemies while a long rest will greatly progress them. - While racing against time the group will be awarded a short or long rest for reaching minor milestones in the quest. These rests are 5 minutes and 1 hour long respectively, but provide the benefits of a full rest. I don't think you need to "give" a long rest as part of the quest because in theory after they have killed the boss or finished the dungeon or whatever they should be able to get a night's sleep, but I guess you could stretch it out over 48 hours or something. On the other hand though it shows that not every quest is about rushing everywhere and may be stretched out over a longer time. It still has the problem though that you can't say it takes a week to get there, let them rest every night, but also punish them for taking a 4 day detour to another town. Also if I was going to be that transparent I'd probably have like a doom meter for the players or something to make it super clear that wasting time resting will be making the final fight harder but without knowing exactly how. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Like obviously Monster Envy giving out advice not to adjust CRs because the CR system works perfectly is okay. Obviously me giving out advice that CRs need to be adjusted because the CR system is broken is not okay. So show me where the line is and I will abide by it. The sad thing is I honestly believe you that you don't see the difference between saying you think something doesn't work, or that you simply disagree with someone, and what you do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Ratpick posted:Truth be told, I hadn't even given thought to how this system would interact with travel. Basically, when it comes to travel I have two approaches: either the travel is unimportant and doesn't merit anything beyond narrating "So, after one week you arrive in Hobotown" and then that's where the adventure proper starts, or then the travel is actually super-important and deserves to be made an adventure in and of itself. Think of the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit: in the wilderness the characters were constantly pressed for time and low on rest and resources. Like, they may have made camp for the night at certain points in the story, but even then they were constantly under threat of getting attacked by goblins in the night and thus had to keep on moving. Fatigue, hunger and danger were what characterized travel in those stories. Yeah I totally agree with you, I don't think we have different opinions on how it should work at all. What I was saying is that how you originally described it didn't leave room for boring travel, or at least travel with rests that were to be expected. Like if they need to travel to save a city, and that city was a week away, if I tell them it's going to take 7 days to get there and they decide to take 8 something Bad should definitely happen. However the way I read what your originally wrote was they can't actually take any rests on the way there. I guess what I'm trying to think of is a way to make a long travel with random encounters fit into what you said. So I want the players to take 7 days to get there and have two random encounters per day (not always combat). I'd want the players to be able to rest between encounters, but also have them know the more rests they take them more Bad things happen. Usually I'd just tell them this and have a note of roughly what happens if they take too many short or long rests. If I was going to be transparent though, I guess I'd need to tell them how many rests they can take without loving stuff up. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 15:56
|
|