|
Man I wish wow had anything that cool. There's a new class in there where one of the specs is based around buffing others to get buffs for your own damage but it's pretty specific aesthetics-wise and it's more DPS than support.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Staltran posted:What if there are two wizards, though? Then the GM can use their amazing powers of "knowing the party composition", "being the writer of what is in the world" and "being the arbiter and judge of what things they'll allow to work" and do things like tweaking encounters to add more minions or "giving the boss four legendary action points a round" instead of three or "making sure the boss stands more than 60 feet away from at least one of the wizards".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Man I wish wow had anything that cool. There's a new class in there where one of the specs is based around buffing others to get buffs for your own damage but it's pretty specific aesthetics-wise and it's more DPS than support. Augvoker rocks and it's far more support than DPS lol Like it does less of it's own damage than tanks do. But the buffs it gives when calculated(properly which is dicey even in logs) puts it as one of the best classes like period. And at the tippy top end of raiding as one, you are pretty much just focused on like making sure you are moving your buffs around players who are going into their CD windows to just massively boost overall raid damage And that's ignoring the buffs it gives Tanks and Healers. (I main an Evoker lol) Dexo fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:This is what Legendary Actions are for. I know that some GM's give Big Boss monsters the ability to spend two legendary actions to cast a spell, and wizards only have one reaction a turn. GM's can also attack the wizard to try and get them to burn their reaction on Shield - which is particularly effective if the Wizard has a concentration spell they really want to keep active. Oh for sure, I was the one that put that complaint out there in the first place. And Legendary Actions can be used for this but it's often too little. Consider: If you're using your boss as a solo encounter, he should be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 monsters in order to make up for the action economy between himself and the players. But he gets one turn, and then he maybe gets 3 additional actions (often less, because some legendary actions are for some reason weighed as being 'worth' multiple actions). It's a good starting point that clearly identifies the problem but doesn't correct far enough. The boss should get multiple full turns. After all, if he doesn't, you would have been better off with 4-5 minibosses in the same encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
Nice. I can't get into the draggos, I have tried. Ended up right back on my Dark Iron Monk like always.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:41
|
|
Mendrian posted:Oh for sure, I was the one that put that complaint out there in the first place. And Legendary Actions can be used for this but it's often too little. Consider: If you're using your boss as a solo encounter, he should be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 monsters in order to make up for the action economy between himself and the players. But he gets one turn, and then he maybe gets 3 additional actions (often less, because some legendary actions are for some reason weighed as being 'worth' multiple actions). It's a good starting point that clearly identifies the problem but doesn't correct far enough. You can give your boss Legendary Actions and Lair Actions (or Villain Actions ala MCDM) at higher level. It's still going to be at a disadvantage from an action economy point of view, but the back and forth between it and the party is going to be much more consistent.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 21:47
|
|
|
I’ve always liked reactions, but if I were a game designer and my objective was to try and streamline combat they would be high on the elimination list. It wouldn’t even be hard to do if you made casting time take a full round. A wizard could start casting in round A, then the spell completes (if still relevant) at the beginning of his turn on round B. Other creatures could try to counter or interrupt it between those two points in time on their turns. Maybe they do it via a counterspell, or maybe they just hit him with a giant greataxe to break his concentration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
New survey results video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZvRkRsfvw This means a new playtest document soon probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
The video says that Playtest 8 was still the last one for the 2024 PHB so presumably next UA will be on DMG content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Also the new PHB will not be coming in May. Also there will be a bunch of changes on spells that will be done internally. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
I am a bit late on the 4e talk but I agree that I enjoyed making monsters, class powers, and magic items using 3rd party "monster on a business card" and some web based programs. The 4e Essentials Monster Guide was excellent, with many variations of monsters. The orcs, goblins, lizardman, and the like had many versions. The 5e monster manual has a nice picture and usually a single entry of the monster. In the 10 years of 5e they didn't do many more Monster books and even the one from the Multiverse didn't really give that many options. The 5e monster manual does give several version of drow, but the DMG or the MM does not give great information about making monsters and the "monster on a business card" didn't seem as good. As the Dungeon Master, what I really want from any new edition is either a nice variety of monsters or an easy way to create monsters. The 3e MM gave all those "half" and "demi" things you could add, so you could make a goblin/rogue/vampire and I could just use the books to work out it's stats. It was probably on SA, but some good advice in 4e was to just re-skin monsters and that is basically what I do in 5e. It just didn't seem worth the time to make new monsters in 5e because unlike 4e there was not as much combat abilities to play with. I do find it funny when I see something like dragons have recharge on their breathweapon or when certain monsters get a reaction attack. Does D&D work best just as a dungeon delve looter? Moving room to room, defeating monsters for treasure to take back to the local tavern. It is up to both the DM and the players to come up with their style of play. And what I try to do in my games is do a variety of stuff early so that we can all see what works best or not. Things like, is this a monster or just a misunderstood creature. Rescue and then protect a VIP. Be asked to solve a crime by the locals. Be asked to protect the town by the locals. And both me and the players can learn, do the players like helping the town? Do they like talking to NPCs? Do they just want to move room to room getting treasure? It seems like the 5e Curse of Strahd was one of their best sellers that they even did a revamp version. That single book gives you what you need for a whole campaign, gives a random start and objective, and gives the players a choice to interact with NPC. I think D&D should focus on combat and leave RP more ambiguous. AD&D 2nd is an odd duck to look back on because things like non-weapon proficiencies were optional and there were none that were directly related to interaction with an NPC the way newer skills like Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion are. So RP in 2e was more direct back and forth instead of dice rolling. That is an interesting question, should social encounters be dice roll offs like combat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
If social encounters are supposed to be resolved dicelessly, then there’s not much point to having a Charisma stat. Also, D&D as “dungeon delve looter” and a focus on combat aren’t synonymous. (Indeed, they’re often seen as opposites - are the PCs treasure hunters who prod everything with a 10-foot pole and combat is a failure state, or is combat the point and the dungeon and treasure just set dressing? Though of course there’s plenty of room for an in-between position here.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
nelson posted:maybe they just hit him with a giant greataxe to break his concentration. absolutely unacceptable. what nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 07:08
|
|
In a surprising twist, D&D is now officially supported on Foundry VTT:quote:Dungeons & Dragons is now officially supported on Foundry Virtual Tabletop!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:In a surprising twist, D&D is now officially supported on Foundry VTT: *SRD Only. Purchases from DND Beyond do not carry over. I just wish everything was easy, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:*SRD Only. Purchases from DND Beyond do not carry over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 23:49
|
|
GigaPeon posted:*SRD Only. Purchases from DND Beyond do not carry over. Also I wonder if now they'll be going after the (Patreon locked) DBB integration that allows you to import your DBB content into Foundry.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:SRD was already supported unofficially though, no? But if they have no plans on selling official sourcebooks on Foundry, I guess the only thing they are doing is selling the adventure modules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
homeless snail posted:Yeah but that just puts them on the same level as Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds or whatever, Foundry wants to be a storefront for modules as much as any of them and they're all competing with Beyond too. I just hope the 5e support is good now because I always found 5e in Foundry to be weirdly clunky compared to every other game on there which is weird because the 5e plugin is the Foundry guy's pet project. Yeah I guess I'm just a weirdo. I use Foundry basically just for maps, tokens, combat tracker and sound effects and have my games in person while my players track their character stuff in Beyond. Honestly I probably wouldn't have bought it if DNDBeyond's basic bare rear end Maps feature was around back when.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
I love foundry and what it can do but my players don't really care for it. They don't want it to feel too much like a video game. I on the other hand don't want to explain the ranger his to hit bonus every time and instead spend more time narrating and putting on silly voices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 15:08
|
|
Looks like we have official release dates for the 2024 revised books:quote:Player's Handbook (2024)  I guess this ia just temporary but who knows.https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1660-dungeons-dragons-turns-50-see-how-were-celebrating That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 09:34
|
|
|
Rubberduke posted:I love foundry and what it can do but my players don't really care for it. They don't want it to feel too much like a video game. I on the other hand don't want to explain the ranger his to hit bonus every time and instead spend more time narrating and putting on silly voices. Having run and played games on various platforms I've found that Roll20 is right at the limit for me of automation I like. Auto calculation of rolls with modifiers, automatic encumbrance are great, but the rest of it I'm more than happy to keep manual. I personally find Foundry's automation both a bit fiddly and a little boring--I'm playing in a campaign on Foundry and the DM has a bunch of automations in place that just get grating for me in combat. I can't just say "I'm casting vicious mockery on the vampire", I need to actually target him. And then I can't just say "I'm using my bonus action to cast healing word on Steveicus", because I'm targeting the vampire from the previous cast so if I cast healing word the healing applies to him. And then when its the enemies' turns, the DM sometimes forgets to call out the numbers of the attacks because the system tells him if an attack hits, but I need to know if it's within a certain value because I can use cutting words to block it (there's an automation prompt for this but it doesn't always pop up and it only asks if I want to use the reaction without giving me values). If I cast Lightning Bolt, we can't just eyeball it and say who it hits, we have to place the template because the automation needs to know. If I pick up a bow and try to use it, the automation that controls arrow consumption has a little tantrum and refuses to let me attack because I haven't told it which arrows I want to be shooting (even though I only have one kind of arrow). The DM and the other players like it so I just suck it up and deal with it, but it got me to realise that if I ever swapped over to foundry permanently I'd basically just want it to do what Roll20 does, so there's not really much point in switching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 10:44
|
|
|
The DM can set it so that you can all see the final result of an NPC's attack/roll in chat. That would help with knowing whether to use the reaction or not. Healing from a player's spell is typically not auto-applied to an NPC, as players lack permission to edit their stats. That might be another setting thing the DM could have a look at, or maybe a module that's incorrectly configured. I know this won't fix all your issues, but I hope it helps a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:The DM can set it so that you can all see the final result of an NPC's attack/roll in chat. That would help with knowing whether to use the reaction or not. The healing's not so much about it being auto-applied, more that when the healing is cast, if I've mis-targeted it'll prompt the DM to approve the spell, which he might do by accident (assuming that I've correctly targeted the spell), and even if he catches it, he now needs to say "oh, you didn't target the right person" and then it needs to be fixed. To be honest I'm mostly just grousing about the targeting system in foundry, and this isn't really the thread for me to have a big moan that's technically irrelevant to 5.5e. But thanks for the suggestion of putting the final dice roll in chat, that'd be really useful actually and I'll speak to the DM about it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Having run and played games on various platforms I've found that Roll20 is right at the limit for me of automation I like. Auto calculation of rolls with modifiers, automatic encumbrance are great, but the rest of it I'm more than happy to keep manual. I personally find Foundry's automation both a bit fiddly and a little boring--I'm playing in a campaign on Foundry and the DM has a bunch of automations in place that just get grating for me in combat. I can't just say "I'm casting vicious mockery on the vampire", I need to actually target him. And then I can't just say "I'm using my bonus action to cast healing word on Steveicus", because I'm targeting the vampire from the previous cast so if I cast healing word the healing applies to him. And then when its the enemies' turns, the DM sometimes forgets to call out the numbers of the attacks because the system tells him if an attack hits, but I need to know if it's within a certain value because I can use cutting words to block it (there's an automation prompt for this but it doesn't always pop up and it only asks if I want to use the reaction without giving me values). If I cast Lightning Bolt, we can't just eyeball it and say who it hits, we have to place the template because the automation needs to know. If I pick up a bow and try to use it, the automation that controls arrow consumption has a little tantrum and refuses to let me attack because I haven't told it which arrows I want to be shooting (even though I only have one kind of arrow). I am fine with a lot less than that. But sometimes it becomes grating when people forget their to hit bonuses which are one click away on their foundry character sheet because they insist on manually clicking their dice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 13:21
|
|
|
That being said, even if shields were terrible, it really wouldn't matter because DS2 has an incredible dual wielding system. I loving love powerstance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 13:25
|
|
|
Rubberduke posted:I am fine with a lot less than that. But sometimes it becomes grating when people forget their to hit bonuses which are one click away on their foundry character sheet because they insist on manually clicking their dice. I can relate to that. I recently took a break from DMing our Roll20 game to let one of the group have a go at it, and one of the changes he made was to let people use physical dice, and I screamed a little internally while biting my tongue. I don't think any of my group would cheat, but I do think they could gently caress up adding together 17 and 6. King of Solomon posted:That being said, even if shields were terrible, it really wouldn't matter because DS2 has an incredible dual wielding system. I loving love powerstance. Hell yeah, same
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 13:40
|
|
Hey there! I have been working for the past few months on this project, so I hope you all enjoy  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwQn8xf2hfk If you prefer reading, you can check out the companion blog article instead! It comes with a free 5e Adventure (with the monsters built in the video/article) and Foundry module to play it online if that's your preference! 
That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Hey there! I have been working for the past few months on this project, so I hope you all enjoy This is cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 19:14
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is cool In other good news, the Foundry Module just got accepted for publication, so you can now grab it straight from Foundry VTT
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
That's a very good article, and the monster design is very well thought out. Well done. I'm quite happy there's a lot of good resources for better monsters these days, the base MM monsters are terribly boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 05:09
|
|
|
Rythian posted:That's a very good article, and the monster design is very well thought out. Well done. I am looking forward to the new MM but that's not till February so I need new monsters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 06:08
|
|
Rythian posted:That's a very good article, and the monster design is very well thought out. Well done. Thanks! Wizards does prefer simpler stat blocks as they inevitably have a better appeal to a larger audience, and that does drive a lot of content from third parties; although late stage 5e has definitely benefited from the desire to get some more meat on the bones of monsters, so to speak, and the trend has somewhat inverted. That said, it's still a bit hit and miss, even within the same developer's production; for example, I was positively surprised by the monsters in Ghostfire Gaming's Saga of the Seasons after the ones in Dungeons of Drakkenheim were kinda underwhelming from a mechanical point of view (still a great production all around, mind you). Edit: the authors of the former are staple name in the industry instead of YouTubers though. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Mar 12, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 10:44
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:If you prefer reading, you can check out the companion blog article instead! It comes with a free 5e Adventure (with the monsters built in the video/article) and Foundry module to play it online if that's your preference! That was really good. I especially appreciated that you showed an example of revision according to design principles, which is pretty rare in TTRPGs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CHofferCBus/status/1771892821957464156?t=Z1ocfgt3Req1fRQmj6DGxA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Clearly the solution here is to cut back to Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric, Druid, Truenamer, Necromancer, and Supporting Cast
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
fighter, thief, magic user, cleric. its that simple folks
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Feel like this is kinda alluded to by the "class group" stuff they talked about at the start of this round of UAs, where everything is grouped into the vaguely 2eish Warrior, Mage, Priest, or Expert groups and then theres like, 2 million Kinds Of Mages that include sorcerer and warlock. But also seems like its, barely even a design consideration in the later UAs
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:fighter, thief, magic user, cleric. its that simple folks divide classes into arcane power, divine power, and martial power an original idea sure to revolutionize development of this exciting new edition of D&D
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
homeless snail posted:Feel like this is kinda alluded to by the "class group" stuff they talked about at the start of this round of UAs, where everything is grouped into the vaguely 2eish Warrior, Mage, Priest, or Expert groups and then theres like, 2 million Kinds Of Mages that include sorcerer and warlock. But also seems like its, barely even a design consideration in the later UAs They got a lot of feedback that people didn't want it during the playtests I imagine. Despite what people think is neat design space, people really liked what they had currently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 01:42
|
|
