|
I played a Monk in a 4th Edition campaign run by Poorweather, he once stopped a sea monster from chasing our ship by kicking an iceberg at it. Like an entire one. Point is; Monks are anime as gently caress regardless of what version/game you're playing.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:They didn't cut it, they just gave it to wizards. Actually Wizards don't have it. The ablity most people mistook for it is just useless for the Wizards in the playtest. Anyway While I won't say that Fighters are as good as Casters in 5e. They are much more useful and needed to protect the Wizards and poo poo from being grounded into paste. Wizards are weaker and have much less options in 5e and they do less single target damage then a fighter or rogue unless they burn their very few spell slots. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Actually Wizards don't have it. The ablity most people mistook for it is just useless for the Wizards in the playtest. Having looked it up, it's obviously an issue where wires got crossed. Page 31, Evokers get an ability on level six called Potent Cantrip that allows them to do half damage on a save. The problem is that damaging cantrips seem to be based on a ranged attack roll, not a save. It's either a throwback to earlier playtests, when cantrips were Damage On a Save (which is a miss, darn it) and they simply haven't substituted it for something else, or it's meant to be damage-on-a-miss period. Rules As Written, though, it's completely useless. Go Wizards!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
In a good system, weapons would be entirely made or break by the crafting system which would be the fighters specialty, but the problem is that D&D has always been about magic being really powerful poo poo, with everything else burrowing from them to catch up. I thought most people were just kinda jiving with it by now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Actually Wizards don't have it. The ablity most people mistook for it is just useless for the Wizards in the playtest. Well, except the only option a fighter has to protect an ally is to take the Protection fighting style, which requires you to be right next to the person you want to protect (and which you can only do once per turn). And of course taking the Protection fighting style means you can't take any of the other fighting styles. So yeah, fighters can't really even protect the wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I guess this is why i play a barbarian. (But i play pathfinder, i vastly prefer it to the more recent iterations of D&D). at least for me, protecting the casters involves just being tremendously fast, and closing the distance to get up in the enemy's faces. And as a pure melee class, i've been able to easily keep up with the damage output of the spellcasters, it's truly a sight to behold when the dice are singing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Even though They're Optional™, there is a feat that gives you some 4e fighter features, like stopping people who you hit on opportunity attacks and such. So if that's still in, AND YOUR DM ALLOWS FEATS (weird), you can actually do some defendery things. At least in the playtest we've been using, there's a feat that does it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Drakkel posted:I played a Monk in a 4th Edition campaign run by Poorweather, he once stopped a sea monster from chasing our ship by kicking an iceberg at it. Like an entire one. Either anime as gently caress or professional wrestlers. or both
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:Either anime as gently caress or professional wrestlers. On that light I'm utterly shocked Wolfshirt hasn't managed to sneak an Ultimate MUSCLE reference into this thread yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
The only viable way to play a 3.5 Monk is to also take a Vow of Poverty, but at that point you can play any other class that doesn't rely heavily on equipment (like say a sorcerer with eschew materials) and get an equally, if not more, broken character. Or you could not be a sperglord, come up with a CONCEPT for your character, choose the race and class that best fits that concept, and actually roleplay instead of trying to min-max, but that's just me. I mean, Fighters aren't exactly the best 3.5 class either, but if I want to play a knight-like dude (i find the actual knight class too restrictive and i dont like losing flanking bonuses roleplaying or no) or some sort of merc-for-hire dude, then I'll pick up some armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
kalonZombie posted:Or you could not be a sperglord, come up with a CONCEPT for your character, choose the race and class that best fits that concept, and actually roleplay instead of trying to min-max, but that's just me. I mean, Fighters aren't exactly the best 3.5 class either, but if I want to play a knight-like dude (i find the actual knight class too restrictive and i dont like losing flanking bonuses roleplaying or no) or some sort of merc-for-hire dude, then I'll pick up some armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
kalonZombie posted:The only viable way to play a 3.5 Monk is to also take a Vow of Poverty, but at that point you can play any other class that doesn't rely heavily on equipment (like say a sorcerer with eschew materials) and get an equally, if not more, broken character. kalonZombie posted:Or you could not be a sperglord, come up with a CONCEPT for your character, choose the race and class that best fits that concept, and actually roleplay instead of trying to min-max, but that's just me. I mean, Fighters aren't exactly the best 3.5 class either, but if I want to play a knight-like dude (i find the actual knight class too restrictive and i dont like losing flanking bonuses roleplaying or no) or some sort of merc-for-hire dude, then I'll pick up some armor. That said, 3.5 is a horrid system and I've been GMing it for years. At higher levels encounter design is really tedious, because a single overlooked or skimmed ability description can render the encounter a cakewalk or a total party wipe. You basically have to design encounters specifically for the party that's going to face them if you want any challenge (and lack of sudden party wipes), which makes the whole CR / EL system fall to the wayside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
kalonZombie posted:Or you could not be a sperglord, come up with a CONCEPT for your character, choose the race and class that best fits that concept, and actually roleplay instead of trying to min-max, but that's just me. I mean, Fighters aren't exactly the best 3.5 class either, but if I want to play a knight-like dude (i find the actual knight class too restrictive and i dont like losing flanking bonuses roleplaying or no) or some sort of merc-for-hire dude, then I'll pick up some armor. This is a pretty bad attitude. "Well, you could not have autism and actually PLAY the game by using the super bad rules and sucking it up, like a true gamer."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
If you are going to just ignore the mechanics and only care about your concept, why play 3.5? There are so many other options available now that there is literally no reason to force yourself to ignore everything bad about 3.5 anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
kalonZombie posted:Or you could not be a sperglord, come up with a CONCEPT for your character, choose the race and class that best fits that concept, and actually roleplay instead of trying to min-max, but that's just me. I mean, Fighters aren't exactly the best 3.5 class either, but if I want to play a knight-like dude (i find the actual knight class too restrictive and i dont like losing flanking bonuses roleplaying or no) or some sort of merc-for-hire dude, then I'll pick up some armor. I like succeeding and have things that my character is good at doing, ideally better than what the rest of the party can do, so that we can form a party dynamic and have fun having roles in the group. "Just choose something and play it" just means that I end up worse and not having fun because of it. 3.5 is so antithetical to "make a concept and run with it" that this is probably the worst advice you can give someone if they want to have fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
3.5 isn't next, if you're gonna argue at least be on-topic
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Having looked it up, it's obviously an issue where wires got crossed. Page 31, Evokers get an ability on level six called Potent Cantrip that allows them to do half damage on a save. The problem is that damaging cantrips seem to be based on a ranged attack roll, not a save. It's either a throwback to earlier playtests, when cantrips were Damage On a Save (which is a miss, darn it) and they simply haven't substituted it for something else, or it's meant to be damage-on-a-miss period. Just confirmed by twitter it's useless right now and they plan on adding in some cantrips that benefit from it. Fighters are still much better then they were in 3.5 anyway they will do tons of damage. Action surge can let them get 4 to 8 attacks in a single round. On how they can protect the Wizard. By getting into their enemies face and ripping them apart with their great offensive damage. While I would not put them on the same level as Wizard in overall usefulness at max level, they are still very useful and surpass the Wizard at several points. Hell most Wizard buff spells are better for buffing the fighter then casting on themselves. Take Stoneskin for example it makes whoever it is cast on tanky but if cast on a wizard he has to make his concentration save to keep it up. If cast on the fighter and the fighter is hit he won't have to. Anyway once monsters are added to basic I think the game will look even better. As the characters are not meant to be fight each other. Though if a High Level Wizard Fought a High Level Fighter. I would probably bet on the fighter. Because the Wizard other then a save or suck (And Fighters can have advantage on saving throws and massive damage (And fighters have lots of HP) has no way to beat him on the Wizards first turn. While the Fighters first turn will result in him splatting the Wizard. (Though it is heavily dependent on who will go first.) But I would put it 60 to 40 in favor of the Fighter winning. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
PlasmaMan posted:3.5 isn't next, if you're gonna argue at least be on-topic I got all excited seeing 40 new posts thinking there was a new episode out. (There was not.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Whycalibur posted:I got all excited seeing 40 new posts thinking there was a new episode out. I was as well still I felt I could add to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
If you want it to be more "To Do it, DO IT" (I want to cut the ogre's hair/set his lair on fire/hire him to beat up the kobolds"), try Dungeon World. If you want tactical combat with an interesting, unobtrusive skillsystem and every character being BY DEFAULT One-of-a-kind in some way, 13th Age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
I had a really long drat post here, but then I thought: "It's elfgames. You can say 'It is so much better to run it in X' or 'Do not use Y, it sucks' till you're blue in the face, but in the end, it actually all depends on the GM (EDIT: To clarify, "How the GM does things")." I've played simple games of RIFTs which felt fair. I've played (and run) enough GURPS to know where to streamline and where to crack down so nobody goes "Errrrh, GURPS is reaaaallly complicated and annoying!" So, to summarise what would have been a really long-rear end post: - Wizards are only as OP as a GM lets them be. - This mindset leads to adversarial bullshit, which just isn't fun for most groups. - Every god-drat system has their merits and flaws - Yes, you totally can run X campaign in Y ruleset. But sometimes, the ruleset is actually designed with the campaign in mind. - Prime Directive: Have fun when you're playing your elfgames, and, as a DM, don't hesitate to fudge, streamline, and otherwise gently caress around with the rules within reasonable bounds. (A really good example: The magic system in Shadowrun can be ever so slightly streamlined for more fun. Making Eddie Vedder someone's totem spirit helps.) JamieTheD fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:If you want it to be more "To Do it, DO IT" (I want to cut the ogre's hair/set his lair on fire/hire him to beat up the kobolds"), try Dungeon World. And those are basically the best two D&D alternatives out there. One of those will scratch your D&D itch, guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
I remember when I first played a 3.5 game. Dwarf Fighter, when the rest of the team were either casters or this one smug dude who was min/maxing his monk. Was a pain that the whole of my character's early levels were bull rush, attack, five-foot step, attack, return to five-foot step, when everyone else was doing cool poo poo and was picking up new ways to do cool poo poo with just about every level. I managed to convince the DM that my Bluff checks could be used against enemies during battle, yelling taunts and obscenities or just yelling in general. The sort of effects that would happen would be enemies moving a square away from me or distracting others, or making enemies cower or straight-up flee if the Bluff blew the counter-roll out of the water. We had an encounter where I rolled a high enough Bluff and the counter-rolls were low enough that the whole encounter, which was meant to be tough, was nullified by effectively giving the whole team a free turn. That was a good night. Even if it was that one little thing, it felt great to actually do poo poo to affect battles aside from occupying a space between the enemies and my spell-flinging buddies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
PlasmaMan posted:3.5 isn't next, if you're gonna argue at least be on-topic I'm sorry, this is all my fault. Kill me now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
D&D next seem harder to break compared to 3.x. I'm noticing less stuff that can be stacked with each other and the numbers look tighter, meaning the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character is less when it comes to Attack Bonus and skill checks among other things. It looks less flexible though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Crystalgate posted:D&D next seem harder to break compared to 3.x. I'm noticing less stuff that can be stacked with each other and the numbers look tighter, meaning the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character is less when it comes to Attack Bonus and skill checks among other things. It looks less flexible though. This is what's bothering me about the system currently. In 4e, even before the metric fuckload of add-on material was released, you could mix and match feats with classes and powers and magic armor effects to produce something pretty unique and cool. In 5ed and 13th Age too it seems that in order to keep things from breaking they don't let anything interact or overlap and keep things pretty compartmentalized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Still we will have to wait for the PHB to know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
I know I'll probably give Next a try sometime. At least at a glance (I've forgotten practically everything about how to even play 3.5 at this point), it seems as much of a boring fragile wuss a level 1 Fighter in Next would be compared to 4th edition, at least I'll be a better off than a fresh faced fighter in 3.5. Since you can still self heal once an encounter on top of getting a perk so you can do "Basic attacks plus an extra", instead of just default mechanics without feat options. I am not surprised at all they removed the damage on miss to instead just give you brutal 2 option with big weapons. But at least being able to reroll 1's and 2's on your damage dice, on a 2d6 weapon like a Maul (Only 10 Gold! Buy now!) or Greatsword (50 Gold!... wait, come back! People love swords! And you can get one for free!) is pretty sweet. Though my favorite thing about being a Guardian Fighter in 4th was the combination of "I am a useful tank, and enjoy it  " and "Hahh My Fighter has a good Will defense, suck it psychic attacks  "Larry Lumphammer the blue collar Dwarven miner will have to wait until they actually work out the obvious mistakes in their Free/obvious beta test rules though, as well as some pals of mine wanting to try it out of curiosity if nothing else. MonsterEnvy posted:Still we will have to wait for the PHB to know for sure. Section Z fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Section Z posted:I was looking into that. Could somebody explain to me why the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master Guide are all being released a month apart? The 5E development team is incompetent. They literally finished the starter set PDF the night before it was supposed to release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Man, Wolfshirt is showing us the future episodes, and they are SO GOOD you guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Man, Wolfshirt is showing us the future episodes, and they are SO GOOD you guys Even hearing that brings a smile to my face. I can't wait to see them. I believe we get the next one tomorrow if the I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
 Session 1-3 The Errut Problem The foretold land of cakes and golems gives our heroes a difficult time as things turn out to be less simple than they appeared. (As a side note I dropped the background music levels and boosted the audio in general since people were having trouble hearing it. Let me know if it's better.) WolfShirt fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Aiding and abetting corporate espionage is very evil, Panzer, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Due to finding this LP, I am currently attempting to go through the 4e episodes, and wow is there so much to go through. I'm still only at episode 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
I was literally in tears laughing during this episode. I'm kind of hoping that Mr. Ted Cola winds up being completely innocent after all this. Oh, and the audio levels worked much better in this episode, thanks for adjusting them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
wokow6 posted:Due to finding this LP, I am currently attempting to go through the 4e episodes, and wow is there so much to go through. I'm still only at episode 3. Well if you're looking for something a little less mountainous that has the advantages of greater experience and being ongoing there's this too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I'll check that out sometime, but I think I'm gonna continue with the 4e crew for now. I've already become invested in this group of adventurers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
wokow6 posted:I'll check that out sometime, but I think I'm gonna continue with the 4e crew for now. I've already become invested in this group of adventurers. I don't really get that since it's essentially the same people and they all feature different casts of characters, but it's your free time to spend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Audio levels are poifikt. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
I hope Rockmeats eventually learns the virtue of rolling actual dice for stealth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:57
|
|
