|
lord_daeloth posted:Hmmm... I think I'm actually okay with opportunity attacks being a reaction. It'd be kinda neat to be able to actually overwhelm someone. I mean, if you are standing there surrounded its going to be difficult to divide your attention to multiple opponents, plus all the other things you could do with your reaction. I hope, though, that there are eventually options to add more reactions. If not, that'd be something easy to house-rule. Would be cool to grow into some multi-opponent master. I suppose your extreme example is possible, but then you just call your DM a dick (or congratulate their cleverness in luring you into that situation) and move on. The problem is if you need to use your reaction defensively, or if that's an option. Being able to opportunity attack and use one reaction to stop yourself from taking a beating seems more reasonable than one or the other. Also, where is the concentration mechanic people are talking about? I didn't find it in the spellcasting section, but it's possible I missed it.
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
They caved to that insane damage on a miss guy.quote:Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Concentration looks interesting, and might be a soft-cap on the "cleric/druid just buff/debuff and then wade into melee" thing. It looks like it mostly effects buffs and some debuffs - Faerie Fire is effected, Sleep isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Disadvantage on all attacks is huge, and so is advantage on all saving throws; it works out to a ~+5/-5, so it's a save or suck on every enemy except without the save part. The enemies now just suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"Okay wait... my attack goes down, and my damage, and my strength save, and I don't qualify for my feats anymore..." Your to-hit, your damage, and your strength save. I don't think it effects feats in any way, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:is that a placeholder or what yes it's a placeholder
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
treeboy posted:is it really so hard to find a single semi-competent mathematician who desperately needs work? People who can do math usually decide to go into a field that will earn them actual money.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I don't know if thats a fair comparison though, murder in baldur's gate is the worst thing ever. I liked my character for that too, but yeah, MiBG was fighting us pretty hard the whole way through.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I got it as a slightly belated birthday present in the mail today. I'm going to run it on the forums, I think, just not sure in what format or how I should do applications since I want to use the pregens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Well, I'm running it. Let's see how it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Note that this was the same in 3e/Pathfinder, so don't pin it right on 5e. It's the same for pretty much any D&D edition that doesn't explicitly have psionics going on. Pathfinder doesn't have psionics!  quote:Monk isn't really a psionic class though. They dumped it into psionics after they realized that what they were doing was incredibly racist. Which is why it works, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Arivia posted:That makes literally no sense, since the gun rules Pathfinder uses were developed by Jason Bulmahn in the first place. The pathfinder gun/gunslinger rules are pretty awful, though, so that doesn't seem incongruous to me at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
To be fair*, a lot of that wasn't in 4e originally. A fair amount of the support was in the PHB from the start, especially for hammers and shields, but stuff like grappling didn't show up for a few sourcebooks. * Don't ever be fair.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:MM should be out at the end of the month. DMG before the end of the year but no firm date. OAs also take your Reaction, so you can only get one/round and it's a chance to use either that or the shield fighting style, not both. Tank fighters really, really aren't a thing in 5e. quote:In other news the DMG has been delayed so they can make it higher quality http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...mg-release-date I hope they can squeeze in another 24 pages of CR0 critters like they did in the Monster Manual. quote:On the "Champions suck" argument: The increased crit range also increases your chance of getting a bonus attack with great weapon master, which is nice if you're looking to use a maul/greataxe/greatsword. Also, as previously mentioned, there are very few opportunities for the extra fighting style to get a flat numerical bonus, so I think that feature is frequently underrated. That said, I probably still wouldn't play one. Champions really do suck on a mathematical basis, though; go ahead and scroll up for some math. Battlemasters are far and away more damage even if you don't recharge your superiority dice at all over the day, and unlike Champions they can choose when to apply that bonus damage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:It's a role-playing game. A fireball from a wizard makes sense within the context of the story. Being able to load both crossbows simultaneously without some sort of explanation doesn't to me. In Pathfinder you specifically need a free hand to load a ranged weapon, thus freaky alchemist/gunslinger hybrids with extra limbs. It's not specifically stipulated in the rule book here, but the requirement of a "loaded" crossbow in the feat would seem to imply it to me. I'd at least want some sort of fluff explanation about how you were making it happen without putting one crossbow down if I were DMing. It's this move, right here, just with crossbows: http://youtu.be/8OvaSrikG6Q?t=2m52s. E: Actually, does D&D NEXT specify how long a combat round is? I'm not sure I've seen that mentioned anywhere. Is it just still 6 seconds (haha) because that's what it was in 3e?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It is still six seconds. It was six seconds in 4e too. Nothing changed here. I'm looking for rules text to this effect in the D&D NEXT rules manual. quote:Yeah, I couldn't really come up with anything other than that. I've heard head injuries referred to as "getting their bell rung". "Bell ringer"? E: What the guy above me said.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:He wants the D&D Next page quote. Not the 5e page quote. Sometimes I just want to pinch your cheeks.  The books don't call it 5e either, although I guess you could make a case for this being the D&D, the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game edition, or D&DTWGRPG for short.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
moths posted:Fun fact: When a rust monster tries to eat your shield, drop it! It will be safe because it's not being carried or worn! Take better care of your cast iron pans, you monster.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Speaking of the stealth system! Stealth And Combat (And You) If you want to surprise someone at the start of combat, you need to make a Stealth check against their passive perception score. So far, so good. But unlike in previous versions of D&D, Surprise isn't a bonus round where anyone who was able to Stealth gets a free mini-turn, but is instead a penalty applied to people who didn't have a high enough Passive Perception to beat their enemy's stealth score, and they're effectively stunned for the first round. What this means as a practical matter is that it's almost impossible for large groups to hide, because every member of the group needs to beat the passive perception scores of the people they're hiding from; if anyone flubs their Stealth check then everyone on the opposing team has seen an enemy, which means they're no longer surprised. It also means as a practical matter that ambushes in the game are nearly impossible for groups (say, Kobolds or Goblins) to pull off, because even with a good stealth score the chance of one of them flubbing the roll gets pretty high pretty fast. So far, so good, and fairly clear. But the D&D guidelines in the only official published adventure so far (namely, the Starter Box) contradict this completely. They tell you to make a single roll for the entire group, and then compare that to the party's passive perception scores. This means that ambushes are very likely to be all or nothing affairs, because the variance between passive perception scores is only 2-3 points. It also makes ambushes something that's remotely possible to happen, although with how rocket tag-y low level combat is (again) it also means that you can potentially TPK the party very easily. But the real question is - which is the real stealth system? Do you go with the one that makes them almost impossible and screws over the stealth player (individual rolls), or the one that makes them very common (group roll)? Do you edit the system so it only requires half the group beat their passive perception to get a surprise round? Average everyone's stealth score and just roll once? The world may never know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The basic rules say there are group checks. Were if half the party makes it they all make it. Going for the important part, because you don't understand the Surprise mechanic. Let's go through an example. The players, Alice, Bob, and Charlie, are sneaking up on a Goblin and a Hobgoblin. Alice is a sneaky rogue and rolls well, getting a 17. Bob is a wizard and also rolls pretty well, getting a 14. Charlie is a dumb idiot fighter and rolls a 3. Despite the fact that both Alice and Bob beat the Passive Perception checks of the Goblin and Hobgoblin, neither of them gets a surprise round because a surprise round isn't something an individual character can get. In previous editions of D&D, the way surprise rounds worked was that characters who managed to stealth into combat got a special Round 0/Surprise Round that only they could act in if the ambush went off properly. This surprise round was usually more limited (in 3.5 you could only take a partial action; in 4e you could take a Standard, Movement or a Minor, but not all three like you normally could), which was a good balancing move, but for the moment that's neither here nor there. There is no situation in which Alice, Bob and Charlie are trying to ambush enemies in which Alice, the sneaky Rogue, will get to act in the surprise round where Bob and Charlie won't because those are not the surprise round rules. What the rules, and the stealth scores, dictate is if the Goblin and Hobgoblin see a single member of the enemy party - if they see anyone, then they are not Surprised. If everyone's stealth score exceeds their passive perception, then they are Surprised and cannot act in that first round. There is no mechanic for "only the members that were hiding" to get to act in a surprise round whereas the rest of the party doesn't, not least of which because the concept of a surprise round doesn't exist. If a single party member or enemy is visible, either by flubbing their Stealth roll or just by not trying to hide, then nobody on their side can generate Surprise. e: MonsterEnvy posted:Hidden means creatures don't know you are there. As I mentioned in the past being invisible does not make it harder to detect a creature. If the stealth roll fails to beat the passive perception they know something is there. They just can't see it. However you can become hidden again easily making it very hard for them to attack the hidden target. You can't become hidden 'very easily' because there's no advantage being Invisible gives you on Hide checks (meaning you have exactly as good a chance as you normally would to go into Hiding) and you have to give up your Action to Hide. That means no attacking and hiding, even if you're invisible; it's one or the other. e2: quote:Uh RPZip Hoard of the Dragon Queen is out, that's an official published adventure. Good point, I should see how they handle stealth in that. RPZip fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Quoting Alphadog's PHB quote from the previous page.quote:The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception ) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter. If you ’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can ’t take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't. You compare the stealth scores of Alice, Bob and Charlie to the passive perception scores of Goblin and Hobgoblin. If Goblin doesn't notice any of Alice, Bob and Charlie (a threat) then they're Surprised/stunned on the first round of combat. If they notice any single one of them, then they've noticed a threat and aren't surprised. e: quote:That implies to me that anyone trying to be stealthy can get surprise. The problem is that surprised isn't a buff an individual stealthy character can get, like it was in previous editions. Instead it's a debuff/penalty/condition applied to anyone who fails to notice a threat at the start of combat, which prevents them from doing anything on their first turn. Applying that debuff/penalty/condition requires that the enemy being snuck up on fail to notice any threats. RPZip fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:The point isn't that Invisibility makes the actual stealth-check part of Hiding easier, it removes/satisfies the hardest condition of being able to make said stealth check in the first place. I mean, that's true, I just feel like invisible probably should give some kind of stealth bonus relative to 'sitting in brush' or quote:Naturally Stealthy. Advantage on stealth checks is probably in the right ballpark.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Yakse posted:I'm not actually sure how it works mechanically, but the following rules from the PHB contradict that. You don't have 'surprise' on anyone, it's a binary state; you are either Surprised or you are not. Everyone in Group A can see B1 and B2, so they are not Surprised; they have noticed a threat, so the fact that B3 and B4 are both Hidden from them doesn't actually matter. B1 and B2 haven't seen anyone in group A, so they are Surprised and can't act on the first round of combat. B3 has seen A1, 2 and 3 so they aren't Surprised, and B4 has seen everyone in group A. Your analysis is correct for Hiding: A4 is hidden from B1-B3, etc. But the only people Surprised/don't get to act in the first round are B1 and B2, because Surprise requires you not to have seen/noticed/Passively Perceived a threat (read as: any enemy).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:There's another way to interpret this too. It's a stretch, but not a huge one: If Goblin notices Alice and Bob but not Charlie, then it's failed to notice a threat, and is surprised. Please kill all natural language proponents. Yeah, it took me a read through to understand what you were getting at, but I think it still falls apart. If that reading is correct then any single character or monster rolling well on their Stealth check means that the entire enemy team doesn't get to act, because Surprised is still a debuff/condition placed on a creature. Not noticing the dude in black leather sitting in the brush means that you're also standing there slack-jawed while the big stompy warrior and psychedelic wizard in the open slice you to pieces. quote:For example, if Hobgoblin 1 and 2 have passive perceptions of 12, and the highest stealth role in the group is 17 and the lowest a 3, they have both failed to notice a threat (the 17) and are surprised. On the other hand they have both noticed a threat (the 11) and are both not surprised. It's the Schrodingers Surprise Paradox! Also this. e: quote:I would personally rule it as 17 gets to act during the surprise round while the 3 and 11 do not. This is definitely, 100% not supported by the rules, though. While it is how you'd handle it in previous editions, Surprised in D&D NEXT is a debuff condition that gets applied to creatures that prevents them from acting on the first round and is explicitly not a special, bonus round. The only way this would work is if Bob and Charlie were somehow also Surprised when their good friend Alice popped out of the brush in the ambush they'd planned. RPZip fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yes, the problem is the sentence "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." I think the part where it gets silly is when the group gets that much larger. Alice hiding in the brush means that Bob, Charlie, Dylan, Erica, Fred, George, Harry and Zack all get a free round; or, to go from the monster's side, the lone Kobold with the blowgun who rolled a natural 20 on their stealth check means that the two giant fuckoff dragons get a free round of attacks. I think the smarter implementation is something like: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. If a character or monster doesn't notice at least half of the threats they are surprised at the start of the encounter. If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can’t take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't. That still lets individual members of the group be surprised when other's aren't, and makes it a little less swingy, and it even preserves the (horrible) natural language phrasing. E: quote:The second part, I disagree with. Bob and Charlie know that Alice is going to leap out and stab a dude. That's what she does whenever she gets a chance. That was the point. If Alice, Bob and Charlie are waiting in ambush (and the enemy isn't trying a counterambush), there's no system in D&D NEXT that allows for Alice to get a surprise round attack while Bob and Charlie don't, because Surprise isn't a buff Alice gains with her good Stealth score; instead it's a debuff that the enemy's can potentially get if their Perception isn't good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
ritorix posted:This is how I've been running it in my HODQ game. But to make it work, I added an actual surprise round back to the game, so that the sneaky guy gets his surprise round, then the non-sneakers or failed-sneakers go along with the enemies in normal initiative. This also works (and is how D&D has always done it, more or less). The weird part is that Next didn't go ahead and do this and instead implemented... what they implemented. How is HODQ?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Nah. I'm not sure how this contradicts what thespaceinvader said.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Tendales posted:I'm actually kind of curious now what the earliest documented use of 'tanking' we can find is. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:The result of doing said math is only as good as the assumptions of the model and the interpretation of the results. The fact that in any round an enemy is dropped, a greataxe comes out ahead in expected damage over a polearm in the presence of Great Weapon Mastery is completely ignored (and falsely said to require a critical when I brought it up before). The fact that an actual difference in number of actions required to drop an enemy for any difference in expected damage to matter in practical application is also ignored. Or the fact that many turns will be suboptimal, completely changing the required mathematics. The math being done here is useful, but it's interpreted far too broadly. quote:Dairy Power posted: Would that be the math you're referring to here?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
It's pretty crappy. There's zero rules information (for example, all of the Fighting Styles texts are blank - all you get is the name of it until you get to the actual character sheet), the UI is not easy to navigate, and it's just kind of clunky. The variant human exists but feats don't. And everything but character creation is disabled. Maybe it'll be good someday? Probably not, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
quote:4: "Roll ability scores" is the default screen. "Buy ability scores" is secondary. I mean OF COURSE you're not going to just click "roll" until you get a good set. The text box on the bottom left of the ability score screen DOES contain the racial ability score increase, and this is NOT reflected in the scores it shows me at the top of the screen, although the box does explicitly tell me this is the case in text that runs out of the bottom of the box. You can actually just click on each stat's empty box and enter a number directly. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Yeah, what? Melee rangers can be fairly squishy (low-ish AC, low-ish HP) but ranged... rangers, with their laserlike focus on Dex, hide armor, and some pretty spiffy utilities (Invigorating Stride, just to start off with) are on definitely on the tougher end of strikers. They're not barbarians, but they're better off than melee rangers or avengers. Definitely still squishy, but above average for a striker.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
quote:They don't actually take Int damage from the 2nd part there is just a 2nd roll to see if the die roll is higher then the Int of the target. If the roll is higher Int is reduced to 0 and the target is stunned. However if the number is not high enough it does not do anything. Because another thing about the save or die the Int devouerer does is that it has 2 checks before it succeeds which makes it better then most save or dies already. The chance of failure for a fighter who dumped int to 8 is still ~50% (60% chance of rolling a 12 or lower, which with a -1 Modifier will fail the save, and then a 83.8% chance to fail the "3d6 roll lower than 8"). The second roll's chance of succeeding on a character with 8 int is so high it doesn't help much. It's still ~34% with 10 int, too, and both are pretty bad considering that that's the going to be the chance for a level 2 or level 20 fighter to be taken out of the fight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Does it kill the character? The stun until int is regained line made me think it doesn't, but honestly I'm not interested in running 5E so I'm sure as hell not going to sit down and figure out how a terrible encounter I'd never use works. I got that impression that you essentially had to drag the character out of the dungeon and go get them healed or rested up somewhere. Which if you're running the sort of game that an intellect devourer would EVER appear in is actually worse than death because it stops the action, so great job 5E. It stuns the character until their intelligence is restored, with takes Greater Restoration, a 5th level (character level 9) spell. It can also, for realsie reals, actually eat their brain if it int drops one character and is still around the next round. That takes Wish, a 9th level spell, to fix.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:I agree with you that it is a memorable experience, but the level of effort isn't any different. I think this is heading towards a philosophical argument of whether XP should be awarded based on danger, or based on the mechanics based situation. It boils down to a question of whether or not experience is a game mechanic that tracks your character learning by doing dangerous things; doing very dangerous things will give you more experience, doing trivial things not so much but if you do it a bunch then maybe the practice will pay off. The alternate view is that experience is something inherent to the game world, little floating green orbs that dead monsters and disabled traps vomit out when they're defeated and you collect enough of to magically power up. The first view tends to be much more supported than the second, given that things like quest rewards don't make a whole lot of sense unless the person who gave you the quest is handing you a packet of blackmarket experience orbs. The second view is how you get things like "I don't want to start the campaign at level higher than 1, but look - an elder red dragon just crashed to the ground in front of you, unconscious. You've Coup de Graced it and killed it, and are now all level 8!" Of course you get more experience doing more dangerous things in more dangerous situations. Tons of basketball players can sink free throws almost all the time in calm and relaxed practice, but in the middle of a game where you've been working hard the percentages are going to drop considerably; yes, throwing Rock, Paper, Dragon (paper means 'scroll' in D&D) in an inn is not going to be nearly as stressful as trying it with an ancient and powerful creature who will kill you if you fail. Context matters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:In all of my 2nd edition games we went automatic max hp for first level characters and roll twice and keep the better roll for each level up. This is pretty much true. In 2e because saving throw DCs were set (and fairly easy), while monster HP was moderate, spells like Fireball were pretty hot poo poo because landing a save or suck on a high-level monster was going to be nigh impossible. In 3e monster HP skyrocketed and the ability to boost save DCs meant that going for a nuker wizard was a waste of time, while debuffing them into the floor was fairly easy. I know someone's posted  math about it here before and other places, but I don't have that saved.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:IMO, the HP bloat in 3.x is a bit over-stated. It has a serious problem with 1-shot kills at low levels, especially with low-op groups - if you ever send a somewhat iconic 'orcs with greataxes' group against even relatively seasoned players, you could easily expect a death or two. A level 1 Barbarian with 18 con still only has 16 hp, which an orc dealing 1d12+4 will disable more often than is cool. Hitting that 1d4+2/3 squishy is even worse. Never mind that crits will basically insta-kill. The HP bloat is something that comes in at higher levels, and primarily on the monster's side. Level 1s and 2s still have a very good chance of getting one-shot in 3.5 melee (because it's still very badly designed). Take the humble Tarrasque, for example; it's a big, tough monster, so it's got lots and lots of HD and should have a high CON modifier too because it's big and it's tough. In 2e it has 300 HP (70 HD); because of the way monster math works in 3.5, it has 48d10 (avg: 264, so similar to 2e) + 594 which comes from its massive Con modifier applied to all that HD. You end up with ~2.5x the HP of the 2e monster in a system that copied the rules text from Fireball pretty much word for word from the previous edition, including the damage expression.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:And sure, all classes can stealth, disarm traps, etc, but my rogue can certainly do it far better than anyone else in the party, so why wouldn't I do that? AlphaDog posted:Knock knock. Peas and Rice posted:E2: \/\/\/ Who's there? AlphaDog posted:... a wizard I just wanted you to know that you're my hero.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 22:37
|
|
I don't feel threatened because, should I drop to zero hit points, the fighter might have an outside chance maybe of disarming a trap.
|
Peas and Rice posted:My first character was a bard because I thought hey, maybe a bard might actually not suck in 5th ed. Level 3. Both of the Bard schools are extremely good, with Bards of Valor being by far the best Gish class and Bards of Lore being arguably the best casters, having good defensive proficiencies/martial abilities, a killer "nope" reaction to enemy attacks, and are able to poach spells from every class. This is on top of being a nine level casters with full spell progression, which counts for a lot. Bardic Inspiration is also pretty crazy strong in play.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Transient People posted:At this point I'm not sure why you'd use them. They're specifically the Training Wheel Shitfarmer Levels For Babby Idiots (TM). The game starts at level 3. In their defense, they did make level 2 and 3 come after only a few fights with the extremely low XP requirements. On the other hand it's still stupid. E: quote:Maybe it's just because we're playing them with 30+ years of expectations behind us, and that's what makes it different, but they DO feel different both in and out of combat. We've all mentioned it. This is basically it, though. The reason they feel different is because you're reading your own 'feel' into the fact that the character sheet says THIEF and not FIGHTER (or BARD). The mechanics don't support any real difference, but you can read one into it with the weight of experience. When the mechanics don't support the feel you're trying to create, that's a failure of design. To put it another way - if you were coming at this as a new player without that huge D&D heritage, would the classes actually feel different? RPZip fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 23:31
|
|