|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Arivia posted:Also A Catastrophe the annoying thing is that groups for that already existed! gently caress around with Chessenta! There's the entire Church of Tiamat! What's left of the Morueme clan? on and on and on and on and gently caress. They'll be the dudes in robes and hoods with scimitars, and they'll attack the players after they leave the Exposition Sage's house in part two of module one or whatever the gently caress. It'll be led by an Evil High Priest and their temple will be in the Sewers or a Ruined Temple, or a Ruined Temple in the Sewers. They'll probably have a tattoo of a dragon, or maybe amulets with a dragon on them? Rings if we're lucky. The EHP will have a letter in his room with orders from the next villain, who will probably be a polymorphed dragon, or maybe some kinda interum side flavor monster like a devil. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
LFK posted:Below are all the stats of the Starter monsters. What makes something CR5? Glancing at it you might want to further separate by size category. For instance hit dice look to be based on size, d4 for tiny, d6 for small, d8 for medium, and d10 for large. I bet that's the starting point for a bunch of other calculations Edit: what's the D column at the end? treeboy fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Why should size category be the starting point for determining a monster's role?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Oh my god that's an incredibly stupid and bad change. The Cult of the Dragon has never had anything to do with the Church of Tiamat, it's all Sammaster's crazed prophecies. That was the entire point of why they were dangerous. I guess Kobold Press couldn't even be bothered to read ONE 3rd Edition book, let alone anything good. The entire plot line opened up with a call back to that one video game you all played about Dungeons and Dragons in order to bring back Bhaal. I dont know what your standard should be for the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
The Spellplague didn't go far enough. Burn the Forgotten Realms to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
zachol posted:Why should size category be the starting point for determining a monster's role? It shouldn't affect their role, but it very well could change certain derived attributes. Which could explain some of the oddities. I'm not going to profess a certitude that their monster design is genius, but I sincerely doubt there's absolutely no method.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Did Tiamat not already have a cult? I'm pretty sure that was Venger's whole deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
In 3.x size gave a bunch of bonuses to a bunch of random nonsense, all for the sake of "realism" and it ended up being pretty dumb and terrible, so I hope we aren't going down that route again, but it wouldn't surprise me if we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Have you ever GMed for 3e/PF? Because a big part of why I stopped running it came from the fact that, because CR was meaningless, I had to reverse-engineer every monster and encounter in order to know if any given creature was going to challenge and/or wipe the PCs. Knowing that the exact same less-than-useless CR system is in place for 5e is a big part of why I'll never run that edition either. I have gmed for 3e/Pf. It was not a big deal to me. The CR system will not be the same and is already more useful on the tiny bit of monsters then we have then it was in 3e. In my opinion all monsters have to do CR wise is roughly be as dangerous as another creature of the same CR (Even if it's just because they preform a different role like the Evil Mage and Bugbear.) And to be quite dangerous to creatures of a level lower then their CR. They stated XP budget is how encounters are built in this game CR just means don't use a monster above your parties level unless you are willing to risk them getting slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
goldjas posted:In 3.x size gave a bunch of bonuses to a bunch of random nonsense, all for the sake of "realism" and it ended up being pretty dumb and terrible, so I hope we aren't going down that route again, but it wouldn't surprise me if we are. This was my first thought as well, at the very least it's affecting their hit dice if nothing else. Also what the heck is the "D" column on the extreme right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
goldjas posted:In 3.x size gave a bunch of bonuses to a bunch of random nonsense, all for the sake of "realism" and it ended up being pretty dumb and terrible, so I hope we aren't going down that route again, but it wouldn't surprise me if we are. It's not other then the Size of Hit Die. That and that halflings do not appear to be able to wield heavy weapons because they are too big for them to use well. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
moths posted:Did Tiamat not already have a cult? I'm pretty sure that was Venger's whole deal. Tiamat had a cult before she even showed up. The god-king of Unther used her as a fake menace to keep his people in line, and eventually dissidents started worshiping her. Also, she along with Orcus were supporting Zhengi, but you gotta remember the Blood Stone stuff was absorbed into FR after it had already started.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
So at the very least, Hit Dice are, generally, determined by the CR, the size, and the Con mod. For instance a medium creature (d8) with +3 Con and a CR of 2 (6dX) will have 6d8+18 or (CR2)d8+(CR2*Con) There are a handful of exceptions to this, the zombie and the ruffian for instance, trying to figure out if there something else factoring in. Edit: and the exceptions still follow the math, they just have fewer or additional dice when compared to the other monsters of similar CR. With notable exception of the sildar and dragon, which makes me think there's something I'm missing. treeboy fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
treeboy posted:So at the very least, Hit Dice are, generally, determined by the CR, the size, and the Con mod. For instance a medium creature (d8) with +3 Con and a CR of 2 (6dX) will have 6d8+18 or (CR2)d8+(CR2*Con) Zombies just are more durable and have more hp while at the same time having super sucky defenses. The Redbrands are just tough but I don't think they will be in the monster Manuel or basic rules anyway. So I would just call them enemies that are too weak to be CR 1 and too strong to be CR 1/2 and an exception. Sildar is not really a monster and the Dragon is CR 8 and we really have nothing to compare it with other then then knowing that fact that it is strong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Glancing at it you might want to further separate by size category. For instance hit dice look to be based on size, d4 for tiny, d6 for small, d8 for medium, and d10 for large. I bet that's the starting point for a bunch of other calculations The D at the end was part of one of my many attempts at culling a pattern for defences out of the numbers. It was basically an arbitrarily defined defensive value that I was cross checking with damage and a bunch of other stuff, but there's no pattern. The only pattern is that Higher CR = More Damage and More HP. Stats are Fantasy Biology, and thus defences are Fantasy Biology. So I fully expect the monster building section to look an awful lot like 3e's with modifications based on size, origin, phase of the moon, and so on and so on and so on. I don't think it'll be hard to come up with our own system for making monsters, but the monsters in the book will likely remain inscrutable. The one caveat on that is that I suspect the numbers are intentionally hosed, aside from HP and Damage. My guess is that they're hoping "bounded accuracy" takes care of the rest, that the margins for PC performance are sloppy enough, and combats short enough, that as long as nothing really has an AC above 18 or a save above +12 it'll work "as intended".
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
The issue with changing the Cult of the Dragon or whatever is that the whole point of 5e is taking things back to how they were. "Except this one thing." Which to be fair is ALSO the most FR thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The issue with changing the Cult of the Dragon or whatever is that the whole point of 5e is taking things back to how they were. Yeah, basically, but it's probably better to think of 5E FR as an "Ultimate" version instead of a straight up return to classic form. So while the 5E CoD isn't the same as the "classic" CoD, it still fits the same basic role: insane cult that works for and with dragons. Also, keep in mind that this particular incarnation of the Cult exists as part of the transitional adventures tied into the Sundering. Perhaps in the final fallout of this event, Sammaster will return and restore the Cult to its original even more insane motives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721 This is pretty amazing because it says 'Feats do obvious and interesting things to characters that make them stand out.' and then provides this list of feats: Alert Athlete Actor Charger Crossbow Expert Defensive Duelist Dual Wielder Dungeon Delver Durable Elemental Adept Grappler Great Weapon Master Healer Heavily Armored Heavy Armor Master Inspiring Leader Keen Mind Lightly Armored Linguist Lucky Mage Slayer Magic Initiate Martial Adept Medium Armor Master Mobile Moderately Armored Mounted Combatant Observant Polearm Master Resilient Ritual Caster Savage Attacker Sentinel Sharpshooter Shield Master Skilled Skulker Spell Sniper Tavern Brawler Tough War Caster Weapon Master Tough, Resilient, and Durable? Sentinel, Observant, and Alert? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
xiw posted:Tough, Resilient, and Durable? Sentinel, Observant, and Alert? Seriously? While I think I get your point that the names overlap and don't really convey a meaningful difference, I'd be okay with boring/somewhat vague names if the feats are all actually strong choices. The playtest ones didn't exactly get me excited though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
xiw posted:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721 Heavily Armored Heavy Armor Master Grappler Tavern Brawler Medium Armor Master Moderately Armored Aside from the seeming-overlap, there's a ton of the usual trap garbage and feat taxes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
And I so believed the guy DMing when he was saying that feats were going to be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
That's the exact same list of feats from the February alpha except that they removed Scroll Scribe (which I still find funny. That they didn't want to call it Scribe Scroll). It seems like most feats give you +1 to an ability score as well as another effect, which at least slightly counteracts the way it was looking as though +2 stat would always be the best option. Lightly Armored -> Moderately Armored -> Heavily Armoured -> Heavy Armor Master is a feat chain. There's also Medium Armor Master which is worthless, especially because Heavy Armor Master reduces piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage you take to an amount equal to your Con modifier. This is considered the same level of effect as Durable, which gives "when you roll a Hit Die to regain HP, the minimum you regain from the roll is your Con modifier".  Also, Resilient gives you proficiency to a chosen save. So that's probably going to be fairly mandatory for most people to shore up those dump stats. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
You know this how?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Judgement posted:The Spellplague didn't go far enough. Burn the Forgotten Realms to the ground. Didn't the Spellplague blow up the Al-Qadim area to be a smoking hole in the ground without the radiation, and the Maztica continents are no longer located on the planet? So 2 out of 4? Personally, I hope they bring Spelljammer back. Comstar fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:You know this how? It says "Wizards of the Coast" right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
LFK posted:Aside from Hit Dice I can't see any other pattern from size. Large things tend to have higher Con score, but that seems to be from playing Fantasy Biologist, so I fully expect to see Frost Giant Wizards with d10 hit dice and +5 Con. Personally I'm guessing they start with stats, size, and CR and the rest can be derived from there. For what its worth I don't think its great design, and I'm not defending it as such, but currently I also don't think its completely arbitrary. Edit: sorting by damage is interesting. It looks to be based on strength/CR, maybe with size thrown in. Though I'm curious if there are roles that aren't revealed. For instance Giant Spider hits way outside its CR with a flat damage of 16 @ CR1, while Ogre hits for 13 @ CR2. Ogre has larger STR mod, and they're the same size, but the Spider has significantly less HP. A "striker" vs a "brute" perhaps? I wish i had my booklet so i could look at the actual damage dice instead of just the average edit2: AC looks to be based on same rules as PCs. Base unarmored AC 10 or Armor AC + Dex Mod (as appropriate. Jelly is unarmored, and has dex mod -2, so AC 8. Ogre has Hide Armor and Dex mod -1, so AC 11. Nothic has Natural Armor and dex mod +3 for AC 15. Not sure if all natural armor is created equal. treeboy fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Also, Resilient gives you proficiency to a chosen save. So that's probably going to be fairly mandatory for most people to shore up those dump stats. Ahhhhh-hah. Can you take it multiple times? Even if you can't, we've definitely found our first feat tax. Gee, I wonder what save a spellcaster is going to choose... Does the game let you buy Resilient for, like, Str or Int saves, by the by? Does any text warn you not to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Ahhhhh-hah. Can you take it multiple times? Even if you can't, we've definitely found our first feat tax. Gee, I wonder what save a spellcaster is going to choose... Resilient gives +1 to a stat and proficiency in that stats saves. They have the standard rule of only taking each feat once unless listed otherwise, in this case Resilient does not allow multiple purchases. Remember you're forgoing ability scores to do this, and most classes can only get feats at 4/8/12/16/19. A fighter might pick this up though for better saves, especially at later levels when they've upped their Str and Con once or twice. I would think most other classes would avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Ahhhhh-hah. Can you take it multiple times? Even if you can't, we've definitely found our first feat tax. Gee, I wonder what save a spellcaster is going to choose... You can only take it once. You can take it for any stat, and it also gives +1 to that stat. No warnings or other notes of any kind, obviously. Also, Toughness is now called Tough and it gives you 2HP per level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
So I could forgo taking a +1 to an ability score and take a feat that gives me 2 HP...Or I could forgo taking a +1 to an ability score and take a feat that gives me a bonus to a saving throw AND I get a +1 to an ability score anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Resilient gives +1 to a stat and proficiency in that stats saves. Are you nuts? It cuts your weak saves in half. It'd give a fighter some kind of reistance against hold person and otherwise trivially effective disablers. Concentration checks are Constitution saves. Obviously, you wouldn't take this instead of twenty-ing your wizard's Int score, but you don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Also, Toughness is now called Tough and it gives you 2HP per level. My first house rule is "Tough" is now "Big" and it increases your size by two categories, and you gain an extra 2 HP per level to represent your improved hit die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Are you nuts? It cuts your weak saves in half. It'd give a fighter some kind of reistance against hold person and otherwise trivially effective disablers. Concentration checks are Constitution saves. I am not nuts, simply pointing out that getting a 20 in a primary stat takes at least 2 ability score increases (if you're using arrays). That means the earliest you'd be able to select this feat is lvl 12. The higher the level the more likely your concentration saves won't matter since eventually they become impossible anyway. Meanwhile feats like Spell Sniper allow you to ignore half and three-quarters cover and *double* the spell's range. War Caster allows you to cast a spell as a reaction in place of your Attack of Opportunity *and* gives you advantage on concentration, *and* allows you to hold a shield or weapon in both your hands and still cast spells. edit: furthermore there's a difference between "a really good feat" and a feat-tax. Feat taxes, as I understand the term, are generally *required* to have even a hope of being effective. i.e. 4e To-Hit scaling was fubar'd out of the box and required corrective feats to make sure you could continue to hit monsters as you leveled. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Are you nuts? It cuts your weak saves in half. It'd give a fighter some kind of reistance against hold person and otherwise trivially effective disablers. Concentration checks are Constitution saves. treeboy posted:War Caster allows you to cast a spell as a reaction in place of your Attack of Opportunity *and* gives you advantage on concentration, *and* allows you to hold a shield or weapon in both your hands and still cast spells. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Concentration is a serious attempt to balance spellcasters. Now, here's a bunch of ways to bypass that balance!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I am not nuts, simply pointing out that getting a 20 in a primary stat takes at least 2 ability score increases (if you're using arrays). That means the earliest you'd be able to select this feat is lvl 12. The higher the level the more likely your concentration saves won't matter since eventually they become impossible anyway. So you buy two regular ability boosts and then Resilient and Warcaster, or maybe just one full boost since most of the caster feats you're taking are worth +1 caster stat anyway. Remember, your Fortitude save is important even if it didn't increase the range of attacks and annoying phenomena you could maintain concentration through - what, you like getting thrown off cliffs and taking full damage from Finger of Death? Resilient is definitely a feat tax. It's the sifferent between being competitive and being overmatched vs. an entire class of attack. Failed saves kill! Or at least pathetically incapacitate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
^^^ There are only two feats with +1 int, one is Keen Mind, the other is Linguist. Neither has any offensive or defensive benefit other than the +1 int.dwarf74 posted:Concentration is a serious attempt to balance spellcasters. so as I understand it, proficient saves give you your mod + proficiency. Standard array for 5e is 15,14,13,12,10,8. Str is probably your dump stat, Int @ 15, dex @ 14, Cha 10, which means Con or Wis for 13/12, lets say Con 13. So at level 1 you have a +1 to concentration saves. Assuming level 4 and 8 you put 2pts into Int, you now have 8,13,14,19,12,10. You there are a couple +int feats you could take, or take stats again at lvl 12 to finish off Int and +1 to another stat (lets say Con). You're now level 12 with 8,14,20,12,10 and a +2 Con save. At level 16 you can take Resilient, have 15 Con and +7 con save, but this is also the point where damage is outstripping the ability to actually save since DC = 1/2 damage taken (per source), or you could take something else. It's a good feat, but i'd say its far more valuable for a class with no proficiency in Wis/Int saves. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Surely you'd put Con over Dex. HP is probably more valuable than AC and most Dex saves are just attempts not to lose HP. (Just taking Resilient twice migh be ideal, in fact) Even Con peoficiency isn't going to save tour concentration from a dragon bite or something, but what about a flurry of goblin arrows? A 1d6/rd burning floor? Seasickness? What if you've got Stoneskin on? If you've got proficiency and advantage on Concentration you've got way more options open to you on top of the enormous universal utility of having one weak save instead of two. Improved Defenses wasn't a 4e feat tax for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Surely you'd put Con over Dex. HP is probably more valuable than AC and most Dex saves are just attempts not to lose HP. (Just taking Resilient twice migh be ideal, in fact) edit: nevermind it's still just a +7 since I put a point into Con at lvl 12 to bring it up to 14. First off the flurry of arrows is a save per attack. So if you get hit by 10*1d6 that's ten DC10 saves. Your chances of making them all aren't too shabby, but by no means a sure thing. Though I'd be a little surprised if you're wasting powerful concentration against goblins at level 16. Same with a burning floor, DC10 concentration per round (plus attacks). I think Warcaster for its advantage is more useful than proficiency. Or spell sniper so you're well outside the range of really powerful melee attacks. Point is there's an argument to be made for other feats (even +5 to initiative so you're more likely to go *before* the dragon), of which casters don't have a ton anyway. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 15:54
|
|