|
MonsterEnvy posted:Never said it was genius. It just fixed my problem. It just means the muptiplier only increases when the monsters are actually making this more challenging. An Aboleth and 6 Goblins are not the equivalent in difficultly value as two Aboleths are. This just means your own judgement matters. So would you say that makes it... up to the GM?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
kingcom posted:Why is this a good thing. So you dump to 8, bumb con until level 5, then switch back to 18 int (same as the headband gives you) so you can cap out at 20. Is the 20 Int really that important though? Also the headband gives 19, not that that makes a difference because :reasons:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Never said it was genius. It just fixed my problem. It just means the muptiplier only increases when the monsters are actually making this more challenging. An Aboleth and 6 Goblins are not the equivalent in difficultly value as two Aboleths are. This just means your own judgement matters. "You shouldn't do this unless you should" is not a rules fix, it's "We couldn't fix this, just do whatever" phrased so it looks like a rules fix if you're retarded. They changed literally nothing about the encounter math, and you're still managing to argue that the encounter math got fixed. Rannos22 posted:Do they even have mook rules like 13th age if you want a bunch of weaker enemies that don't slow gameplay down to a crawl? Haha, of course not! Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Dungeon master pro-tip: if a monster does nothing to affect the encounter, remove it from the encounter. You should focus on the things that do matter so you can run them well. Don't be ridiculous, any TRUE DM will be rolling what's in an encounter from the random encounter table in the appendix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Is the 20 Int really that important though? Yes. 18-19 int is irrelevent, they give the exact same modifier and impacts almost nothing else. I was not saying the headband gives 19, I was saying once you have 18 int the headband is useless and you can dump it. 20 int is an extra +1 which given there is very little in the game to increase your modifiers its pretty useful to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Dungeon Master Pro-tip: If the monster you roll from the encounter table is too weak or strong for the party, consider making it an encounter that doesn't involve combating the monster. It can be cool to have a dragon on its way home fly over, or some kobolds that just want to chill. That said, every D&D book I've read has pointed out that you should veto any bad rolls on the encounter table. I just roll with the stupid ones because my verisimilitude demands devotion to the dice rolls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I was joking are there actually encounter tables in any D&D book published by wotc?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
I'm just loving around too, but 3e had them in the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I am dumb and this doesn't make sense to me.p57 of DM basic rules posted:Increase the difficulty of the encounter by one step (from easy to medium, for example) if the characters have a drawback that their enemies don’t. Reduce the difficulty by one step if the characters have a benefit that their enemies don’t. Actually, I think I've got it - it's saying that in terms of awarding XP you should count it as medium even though it only meets the easy criteria, right? Not an instruction to add more monsters so it gets even more difficult? That's nice and clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:I am dumb and this doesn't make sense to me. I think its trying to say, if they are ambushing or are shooting arrows while hiding behind a wall or they are in a dark tunnel and are blinded but the enemies aren't. But this makes it seem like all advantages/disadvantages are equal so its essentially. Make it up and guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Another big change in the new freebie DMG, they have swapped around difficulty value groupings again. Old: 4. Compare the Encounter XP Value to Party Encounter Difficulties. Compare your encounter’s XP value to the party’s difficulty XP values. This should give you an idea of how difficult the encounter is. From there, you can adjust the monsters in the encounter if you want to make the encounter easier or harder. • Medium: up to 550 XP • Hard: up to 925 XP Now you look at the encounter you’ve designed, a fight with four hobgoblins. Each hobgoblin has an XP value of 100, so the total XP is 400. Since there are four hobgoblins, you double the XP value of the encounter; the encounter’s XP value, for the purposes of figuring out its difficulty, is 800 XP. That makes this encounter tougher than a medium encounter, but not higher than the hard threshold—so it’s a hard encounter. New: 5. Compare XP. Compare the monsters’ adjusted XP value to the party’s XP thresholds. The closest threshold that is lower than the adjusted XP value of the monsters determines the encounter’s difficulty. For example, an encounter with one bugbear and three hobgoblins has an adjusted XP value of 1,000, making it a hard encounter for a party of three 3rd-level characters and one 2nd-level character (which has a hard encounter threshold of 825 XP and a deadly encounter threshold of 1,400 XP). Thresholds are now the floor, not the ceiling of each grouping. ritorix fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Another big change in the new freebie DMG, they have swapped around difficulty value groupings again. I missed that. I had it the wrong way round the first time though. mirthdefect posted:Actually, I think I've got it - it's saying that in terms of awarding XP you should count it as medium even though it only meets the easy criteria, right? Not an instruction to add more monsters so it gets even more difficult? The XP value for "how difficult" ([monster xp total * multiplier] shifted a category if conditions are met) is not the same as the XP value for "awarding XP" (which is just [monster xp total]). I'm assuming here that the "modifying encounter difficulty" section is consistent with step 4 of the "evaluating encounter difficulty" section. Given the general fuckedness of these rules, that might be a big assumption to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:The XP value for "how difficult" ([monster xp total * multiplier] shifted a category if conditions are met) is not the same as the XP value for "awarding XP" (which is just [monster xp total]). Oh, right. Because slaughtering 4 hobgoblins you catch sleeping is exactly the same as killing 4 hobgoblins while chained to a ships anchor, blindfolded, with all of your fingers broken. HP is an abstraction, but experience is harvested directly from the blood of your foes and is an immutable quality. e: On second thought, that can't possibly be right because then skeletons would be CR0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I missed that. I had it the wrong way round the first time though. Accurate Mind Flayer, 1 Umber Hulk and 3 Intellect Devourer then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Oh, right. Because slaughtering 4 hobgoblins you catch sleeping is exactly the same as killing 4 hobgoblins while chained to a ships anchor, blindfolded, with all of your fingers broken. HP is an abstraction, but experience is harvested directly from the blood of your foes and is an immutable quality. Look, in a brand new innovation in tabletop roleplaying, monsters drop little XP orbs you autocollect if you're within <radius of the multiverse> of a thing that you helped kill when that thing dies. If you think this is "too videogamey" (suuuuuure it is...) then the orbs are invisible and intangible and cannot be detected by magic or psionics. Problem solved. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Look, in a brand new innovation in tabletop roleplaying, monsters drop little XP orbs you autocollect if you're within <a very big distance> of a thing that you helped kill when that thing dies. Up next: Optimising your Bard for ToTM kiting
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
You mean "whining that of course your character would be in the most optimal position"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You mean "whining that of course your character would be in the most optimal position"? I prefer the "blackmailing your DM about that time he spilled fudge sauce on the carpet and blamed the dog" method
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:According to the rules of expeditions you can you can rebuild your character however you like up to level 4. Meaning if you got the Headband before level 5 you could just drop your Int down to 8 buff your other stats and use it to give yourself 19 int. I'm rather surprised that D&D has a rule as 'progressive' as respeccing and that this hasn't caused more uproar. Rannos22 posted:Don't be ridiculous, any TRUE DM will be rolling what's in an encounter from the random encounter table in the appendix. This is a joke, right? There aren't any random encounter tables in the DM Basic Rules nor the MM, and the monster statblocks don't have the "number appearing" stat anymore
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm rather surprised that D&D has a rule as 'progressive' as respeccing and that this hasn't caused more uproar. Respec was a lot more lenient in 4e and a lot of people bitched about it. I mean, of course. quote:This is a joke, right? There aren't any random encounter tables in the DM Basic Rules nor the MM, and the monster statblocks don't have the "number appearing" stat anymore Those are all good reasons to assume it's a joke, yes  Of course, the reason it's a joke is because there are people like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You mean "whining that of course your character would be in the most optimal position"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Jackard posted:"As a master thief, I sneak everywhere I go" "As a master thief I am, by default, very hard to detect" is the sort of thing a good system provides without you having to try. In D&D it sounds like a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:According to the rules of expeditions you can you can rebuild your character however you like up to level 4. Meaning if you got the Headband before level 5 you could just drop your Int down to 8 buff your other stats and use it to give yourself 19 int. Wait, i'm all up for adjusting or rebuilding your character if they aren't suiting you but this right here is pure bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:Wait, i'm all up for adjusting or rebuilding your character if they aren't suiting you but this right here is pure bullshit. I got the Gauntlets of Orge Strength back when I played expeditions with Lost Mines of Phandelver and I pointed this out. I gave the Gauntlets to another player however as I was planning on retiring the character anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: The first draft of Microlite5E. Partly, the aim is to reduce the complexity of the resulting characters, but it's mostly about narrowing the player's decisions during character creation to the most meaningful and dramatic. It keeps all class features, but simplifies weapon and armour choices, replaces skills with broader proficiencies, reduces races to a single feature, and uses ability modifiers (no scores). Also, proficiency in a save only makes a +2 difference at any level, rather than the potential +6 gap. Please let me know what you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I love it! That's probably the direction D&D should be going, instead of the mess it is now. One suggestion: Maybe you can be proficient in a skill called your weapon. For example, the Mace skill could be rolled to crush armour or break objects, the Spear skill could be rolled to keep dudes at bay and skewer multiple enemies, and so on. The fact that D&D weapons all boil down to a damage type and some combination of dice was always a let down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: I appreciate the 'Half Elf: Don't Bother.' It's the most honest I've seen D&D be about them in a long while (I never played 4e due to kinda getting out of D&D before then, so they might've rocked there.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Half-elves can be rather good in 4e, if you are into some at will stealing shenanigans. I think they may have been real good at some other things, like Diplomacy stacking. In 5e they are actually pretty good. They get a lot of the elf things, and while they don't get +2 to dex they do get more stat bonuses than anyone but a specific type of dwarf, or a non-variant human. They also get 2 skills, and I believe an extra language. They are kind of like the Variant Human, but instead of getting a Feat they get +2 to Charisma and 2 extra skills, actually does Variant Human get a bonus skill, I forget off hand but if so then only 1 extra skill over Variant Human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: That's closer to what I was hoping 5e would look like, yeah. The broader proficiencies (especially class proficiencies) and mod instead of score are both great. Weapon damage by class/category like that is something I've been saying would be great since the first 5e thread. Is there a reason that dual wield isn't just equivalent to 2-hander damage? As in, "if wielding a melee weapon in each hand, you use the 2-handed damage for your class"? I'm not saying I don't like the way you've done it, just that there might be a simpler solution that doesn't require extra rolls. I'm be interested to see how you're going to handle monsters/encounters. Boing posted:One suggestion: Maybe you can be proficient in a skill called your weapon. For example, the Mace skill could be rolled to crush armour or break objects, the Spear skill could be rolled to keep dudes at bay and skewer multiple enemies, and so on. The fact that D&D weapons all boil down to a damage type and some combination of dice was always a let down. Callbacks to B/x weapon mastery are a great idea, and using them as broader skills is even better. e: Thinking about it, this probably goes against the light/simple philosophy, especially if martial class abilities are still in place. Makes me want to start working on a different alternative fighter (or system hack) myself though. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: This sort of owns, someone should run this in The Game Room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: I don't see a list of backgrounds. Do they work like 13th Age backgrounds? As in, you make them up yourself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Alright folks, I decided to do something about finding 5E character creation such a slog: Sorry I kind of find it too bland and simple. (The races part I find is actually kind of terrible.) Though there are some decent idea's in it. Honestly 5e chrarcter creation is already pretty simple. Night10194 posted:I appreciate the 'Half Elf: Don't Bother.' It's the most honest I've seen D&D be about them in a long while (I never played 4e due to kinda getting out of D&D before then, so they might've rocked there.) They are actually pretty drat cool in 5e. Quite possibly the best race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:I don't see a list of backgrounds. Do they work like 13th Age backgrounds? As in, you make them up yourself? Pretty sure it's meant to use the 5e PHB/Basic backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Sorry I kind of find it too bland and simple. (The races part I find is actually kind of terrible.) Though there are some decent idea's in it. That's kind of the point, I think. Very few of the decisions you make in PC creation in D&D really matter that much, outside of being opportunities to screw yourself over. By consolidating the weapons and removing old vestiges like ability scores rather than modifiers, the goal seems to be to cut the game down to a legitimately simple game. If you're not going to get many meaningful decisions in gameplay or creation, might as well boil it down to some relatively simple ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Sorry I kind of find it too bland and simple. (The races part I find is actually kind of terrible.) Though there are some decent idea's in it. What makes it bland and terrible when compared to Next? MonsterEnvy posted:Honestly 5e chrarcter creation is already pretty simple. It's pretty simple if you've played D&D before. It's complicated if you're new to tabletop gaming. It's complicated if you compare it to many other systems from the last few years. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What makes it bland and terrible when compared to Next? Bland because I find it bland lack of fluff and descriptions is probably the reason there. The Races part I find rather terrible because along with being bland from lack of details there is nothing to different them other then a single trait which is generally not very good or interesting. Also please stop undermining every post I make. No one else had to explain their posts. On the later part I was comparing it to other D&D Systems which is primarily what it matters in the face of. I have no played enough of other systems to really compare them. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Im running the Thundertree encounter in Lost Mines of Phandelver on Saturday. I've reflavored the monsters to fit a theme I like, shamelessly stolen from Last Of Us. However, I'm not seeing how the players can not get crushed by the dragon in area 7. Am I meant, as the GM, to play the dragon as an idiot to make sure they don't get immediately crushed? I know the idea behind "if you don't get around the fight, you're doing it wrong", but my players are notoriously bad at the "not fighting" thing. Edit: The party is a Tome 'Lock, a Vengeance Paladin, a Polearm Fighter, and a Colossus Hunter Ranger, if that matters. Might have a Theif Rogue and Life Cleric too. Red Hood fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
You aren't thinking old school enough. Kill them all so they know you aren't messing around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You aren't thinking old school enough. Kill them all so they know you aren't messing around. I figured this was the point of the encounter. Just a giant middle finger. Or is thinking theres a point to the encounter giving WotC too much credit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Bland because I find it bland lack of fluff and descriptions is probably the reason there. The Races part I find rather terrible because along with being bland from lack of details there is nothing to different them other then a single trait which is generally not very good or interesting. Considering this is literally just an alternate ruleset for 5E, I'm pretty sure you can just read your 5E books if you want the fluff. No reason to waste a ton of energy typing it up twice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:32
|
|
