|
Does anyone have a link to that encounter exp calculator thing posted a while back? I thought I had it saved but I can't seem to find it. It showed you how difficult the fight should be and how much exp it should be worth based on a sort of "monster party" and how many players you have/what level the party is. edit: this thing: http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 17:09 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 15:29 |
|
According to this, fighting a vampire spellcaster for a party of 6 8-level characters is a Hard challenge. So I guess my Ravenloft party will be level 8.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 18:41 |
|
Peas and Rice posted:According to this, fighting a vampire spellcaster for a party of 6 8-level characters is a Hard challenge. If the vampire knows they're coming: Use illusions that players wouldn't think to interact with to hide him/her, while you use summons or other awfulness from afar as a further distraction. Avoid direct attack spells, as it will give your position away. When they're weakened, attack the rear line while invisible. If they kick in your door, catching you unaware: Escape to another area, and prepare for them like the above. CR 8 seems a really low, to be honest.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 19:16 |
|
Unless I'm misremembering, isn't I-9 Ravenloft full of how he ambushes, traps, or escapes in any room he happens to be in?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 19:21 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Unless I'm misremembering, isn't I-9 Ravenloft full of how he ambushes, traps, or escapes in any room he happens to be in? It is yeah. It looks like there will only be 5 players, and figuring all the other encounters in there, and level 12 actually seems way better considering they fight Strahd several times.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 19:45 |
|
I'm about to play Next for the first time, and I'm starting to think I maybe should have built my character a little differently because a wizard with seven hit points and AC 10 seems hilariously squishy to me. Or is this more or less working as intended? Her armour class in particular seems awful, but light armour proficiency would've cost me a feat (and buying the actual armour takes gold I don't have), putting points in DEX wasn't really an option, and…well, I guess there's Mage Armour, at least. Is that the way a wizard is supposed to attain an AC that isn't utterly terrible? I don't really care for outright min-maxing, but I am wondering now if I didn't screw up somewhere along the way.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 19:58 |
|
MMAgCh posted:I'm about to play Next for the first time, and I'm starting to think I maybe should have built my character a little differently because a wizard with seven hit points and AC 10 seems hilariously squishy to me. Or is this more or less working as intended? Her armour class in particular seems awful, but light armour proficiency would've cost me a feat (and buying the actual armour takes gold I don't have), putting points in DEX wasn't really an option, and…well, I guess there's Mage Armour, at least. Is that the way a wizard is supposed to attain an AC that isn't utterly terrible? You're not really going to get a non-squishy wizard at level 1. Mage armour is definitely a spell worth taking in case someone decides to send an arrow or two your way.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:49 |
|
MMAgCh posted:I'm about to play Next for the first time, and I'm starting to think I maybe should have built my character a little differently because a wizard with seven hit points and AC 10 seems hilariously squishy to me. Or is this more or less working as intended? Her armour class in particular seems awful, but light armour proficiency would've cost me a feat (and buying the actual armour takes gold I don't have), putting points in DEX wasn't really an option, and…well, I guess there's Mage Armour, at least. Is that the way a wizard is supposed to attain an AC that isn't utterly terrible?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:52 |
|
What did you put your points into? Int is your primary but con (concentration checks, HP) and dex (AC, init) should be your secondaries, and it looks like you ended up with a +1 and a +0 in those. At least one of those should be higher. (It should be Con) Other than that, stay in the back.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:56 |
|
The ship has sailed when it comes to making any changes to this character, but if ever I should have to roll another wizard (not hugely likely) I'll keep this stuff in mind. Thanks guys!
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 21:11 |
|
Small question in my playgroup: Can a barbarian with no armor receive the benefits of: Unarmored Defense (Barbarian 1): While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit. And Mage Armor (Level 1 Arcane): You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action. Our group is arguing that technically it's not armor it's a "Magical Force", and since it doesn't inhibit spellcasting, it shouldn't inhibit Barbarians.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:06 |
|
I'd stack it, because Unarmored Defense is basically saying that your AC = base AC + dex mod + con mod. Mage armor is setting your base AC to a specific value. Of course gently caress barbarians, why should anything get to tank ever is also acceptable.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:12 |
|
Am I missing something as to why Mage Armor's wording isn't just a confusing way to describe, "for the spell's duration you have magical armor serving as +3 AC while you don't have armor on". It would seem a barb would then have an AC of 13 + dex + con EDIT: vvv Okay, I can see how it fits with the efforts to prevent stacking, but imho the wording doesn't do a great job of getting that across. If a barb with 18 CON gets mage armor cast on him, and the spell says, "sets their AC to..." then it suggests that barb's AC just went down due to a beneficial spell. Language along the lines of "Mage armor raises the target's AC up to (formula) if it is below that amount, otherwise the spell has no effect" would help make things a lot clearer. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 20, 2014 |
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:43 |
|
This has been covered many times before. They're both effects that set your AC to a specific number. Meaning, they are not effects that provide a bonus to your AC. So it's not a matter of stacking, it's just taking the higher of the two values. Either your AC is 13+Dex or it's 10+Dex+Con, whichever is best. This approach was chosen specifically to prevent stacking. (Contrast it with a spell like Shield of Faith, for example, which does provide a flat +2 bonus and so it would stack.) As always, feel free to houserule.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:45 |
|
That's the exact sort of thing that I mean when I say "the rules are badly written". I want it to stack. The natural language reads like it should stack (ie, "while you are not wearing armor" and "a protective magical force" are not exclusive). The clarity problem is these two parts: "...your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier." "...target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier." The two lines there don't seem to have been written using the same, um, formula seems to be the best way to put it. They appear to do the same thing, in that they both set your AC to a value rather than increasing it by X. If Unarmored Defense said "your base AC becomes..." then it'd be obvious they don't stack. If Mage Armour said "increases your AC by 3", then it would be obvious they do stack. Instead, we get to argue about whether a historically non-armored character class can benefit from a spell designed to help out non-armored classes. (It can't, gently caress martials). Sage Genesis posted:This has been covered many times before. They're both effects that set your AC to a specific number. Yes, this. I would also say that it doesn't. It's just stupid that the non-math part of the wording implies that it should. e: So if they don't stack, which one takes precedence? Again, it's a problem based on the wording, since Mage Armor reads like it over-writes the existing baseline with the wording "...target’s base AC becomes..." Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 20, 2014 |
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:46 |
|
I kind of want The Ape Men items IMC to be fairly distinct from the kinds of magic items that the players know about in their home society. Ape Men magic items are mostly going to be extraplanar entities bound into item form. They all have a semi-organic appearance with crystal protrusions. Ape Men items require attunement, and draw on the wielder's life force, requiring PCs to spend HP daily to power items at a basic level, and/or spend hit dice to fuel powers at a higher level. So, here are some example items: living carapace armor +1 This breastplate appears to be made out of chitin, with small pebbly protrusions of orange crystel. When worn for the first time, it sends crystaline roots into the wearers body, inflicting 1d4 points of damage that cannot be healed until the armor is removed. The wearer can also spend 1 hit dice to cast Enhance Ability on a physical attribute with a range of self. Mind Dagger +1 This blade appears to be made out of crystal and quicksilver, and can be wielded as a normal +1 dagger. When attuned, the wielder takes 2 points of Wisdom damage that cannot be healed until the attunement is lost. The person attuning will here a persistent buzzing or droning sound, amd may experience occasional feelings of sickness amd nausea. Once attuned, the dagger animates and hovers around the wielder, and the wielder can control the dagger with their mind. Attuned daggers do not ned to be held in a hand, are considered returning weapons, and use Intelligence or Charisma in place of Strength or Dexterity to calculate attack and damage bonuses. As a bonus action, the wielder may make a single attack with the dagger, or command the dagger to defend, gaining +2 to AC until their next turn. Burning Fist +1 This chitinous gauntlet is studded with red crystals. When worn, they allow unarmed strikes to do 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and act as a +1 light, finesse weapon. When attuned, the wielder can, as a free action, spend 1 hp to make the gauntlets blaze with heat for 1 round, allowing them to do 2d6 fire damage instead. This damage can be automatically applied if the wielder successfully grapples or holds a target. The wielder can also spend up to 9 hit dice to cast Burning Hands using Charisma as the Spellcasting Ability. Each hit die spent increases the spell slot level by 1.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:02 |
|
Base AC doesn't mean before modifiers in this edition and I find that hilarious.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:03 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Base AC doesn't mean before modifiers in this edition and I find that hilarious.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:05 |
|
OfChristandMen posted:Unarmored Defense (Barbarian 1): So you can use a shield, but does it provide any benefit to AC? Or anything that might increase AC, for that matter?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:17 |
|
A shield gives +2 to AC, and limits you to using 1H weapons. I thought it wouldn't stack just because I have a lot of experience with 3.5, and figured it just felt a little "too strong". Our DM house ruled it that since our party is a: Barbarian, Sorcerer and Wizard (me), we need all the tankiness we can get. I just wanted to see what actual people who read the rules would interpret it as. But yes the wording is very cloudy and like most of 5th, feels designed separately without a system in mind.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:27 |
|
In my experience, no one can tank unless the DM is being very kind and pitching softballs.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:31 |
|
Dilb posted:So you can use a shield, but does it provide any benefit to AC? Or anything that might increase AC, for that matter? That said, for the duration of arcane armor it would be 13+DEX. Tactical Bonnet fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 20, 2014 |
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:36 |
|
RPZip posted:Other than that, stay in the back. And in ~Theater of the Mind~ you can always be in the back!
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 00:01 |
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:As written, no. Equals is a very strong word. Unless Bear's endurance is still a spell. That's got to be a mistake, or why would it mention that you can use (not just carry) a shield and gain the benefit? (e: I'm not arguing with that interpretation - just saying it's dumb as poo poo that it's worded like that). OfChristandMen posted:But yes the wording is very cloudy and like most of 5th, feels designed separately without a system in mind. To be fair, a lot of the rules are actually clear. There's just too many examples of poo poo like this. It's why I won't run it. I hate it when I have to look up a rule and then have this discussion that's happening right now. Natural Language isn't necessarily a bad thing, but
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 00:02 |
|
Do melee a favor, or limit casters? This is the dilemma that will break roleplaying forever.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 00:06 |
|
It's a barbarian ability. The idea is that you can use a shield normally, but use this effect to allow you to drop it and use your versatile weapon with both rage-filled hands.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 00:06 |
|
AlphaDog posted:That's got to be a mistake, or why would it mention that you can use (not just carry) a shield and gain the benefit? Is there anything that requires a shield in hand to do (As in powers that can only be used with a shield in hand or a magic shield's activated ability)? I'm guessing not, but I'm still not fully 100% on the ins and outs of everything 5E yet. Regardless, this is news to me since I didn't even think to relate the two abilities in any way. I'm absolutely dumbfounded how this game could have been made in 2014 and not be the laughing stock of modern tabletop game design. My guess is, if the designers are smart (haha, fat chance) there will be a huge list of errata that will clear this up like with 4E's almost never ending rules changes that eventually rendered nearly all the original 4E PHB, DMG and MM a waste of paper.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 02:02 |
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I'm absolutely dumbfounded how this game could have been made in 2014 and not be the laughing stock of modern tabletop game design. The writing of 5e reminds me in some ways of a Rorschach ink blot test. The "natural language" writing is amazingly vague in some places when you look closely at it, although at a glance it seems clear. For example, the Concentration rules tell you to make a saving throw when you're damaged, rolling separately for each source. But what is a "source" of damage? If a monster multiattacks for three attacks on the wizard, is that three sources (three attack and damage rolls) or one source (one creature using one action)? If a poison continues dealing damage to the wizard every round, isn't that a single source? Does that mean only a single saving throw has to be rolled during the first instance of damage and then never again? Or does the saving throw DC keep scaling up as the total amount of damage from this one single source keeps accumulating? Look, the intent of the rule is probably clear, I won't argue otherwise so let's not even go there. It's just to show that a relatively simple rule has been written in a way that can lead to some pretty different outcomes. And to anyone who says "rulings not rules", that's a cop out. Designing a game with GM adjudication in mind is fine, but that doesn't excuse vagueness in the rules you do intend to include.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 02:29 |
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Is there anything that requires a shield in hand to do (As in powers that can only be used with a shield in hand or a magic shield's activated ability)? The Shield Master feat: quote:You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield: So under one possible interpretation of Unarmored Defense, the Barbarian can equip a shield, gain no AC from the shield, but retain the effect of Unarmored Defense while also still being able to use the Shield Master abilities above.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 02:56 |
|
But why would you even go there? Who read the entry for mage armor and had to be told, "yes, you can hold a shield"?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 03:08 |
|
It's there because shields are on the armor table and the spell specifies unarmored targets.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 03:22 |
|
Then that would mean you get the armor bonus. I meant if you couldn't get the armor, but use it for other things.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 03:48 |
|
The rule isn't complicated:Quick Start Rules, AC Section posted:Some spells and class features give you a different If a Barbarian isn't wearing armor and someone casts Mage Armor on them, they would be allowed to chose to use the class feature or the spell. Mage Armor, Barkskin, Barbarian, Monk, etc. give you new formulas for calculating your AC so they wouldn't stack. Some of those features say you can use a shield, some say you can't. I don't think Barkskin says either way, if so that one would be anybodies guess.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 14:23 |
|
Fortunately, Bracers of Defense stacks with all of the options that don't involve a shield.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 16:25 |
|
Is there some kind of formula for determining what the CR of a homebrew monster should be? Basically, I'm trying to create a CR4 version of a Gargoyle (dread Gargoyle? Dire Gargoyle?) Current monster is CR2. What do I need to do to bump it to CR4? E: \/\/\/ Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 21, 2014 |
# ? Oct 21, 2014 17:59 |
|
Next doesn't even have guidelines for determining what CR the creatures they made should have, why would they have guidelines for people to make their own?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:24 |
|
The Basic DM rules, pages 3-6, have some ... words on creating your own monsters.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 18:54 |
|
Peas and Rice posted:Is there some kind of formula for determining what the CR of a homebrew monster should be? It's ok man don't worry nobody gives a poo poo about a formula.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:07 |
|
Sweet I'll just run the encounter until the party loses enough HP that I feel like they've had fun and then have the monsters die. gently caress.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:18 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 15:29 |
|
Huh playing around with Dungeonscape again, still not seeing an option to choose Expertise for a Rogue or Bard. But when picking a Rogue with the Criminal background it had me pick an extra skill after picking the 4 skills for the Rogue. I think this was to make up for both Rogue and Criminal getting Thieves' Tools proficiency.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2014 19:24 |