|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also chuckling at a discussion that went from "magic users are gods" to "rest periods are unfair" sorry you don't get to spam fire ball or whatever. The discussion is "rest periods are boring" not "rest periods are unfair". Well that's not quite true, there is also a little bit of "rest periods screw over fighters," which ties into "magic users are gods." And to be clear for you here "boring" in this case means taking a rest is a boring way to handle resource management, not resource management is bad. Which is why one of the alternatives that got a bit of play was tying resources to number of encounters so that the DM can run any kind of story they want without obviating management. And yeah, nobody has ever said you can't have fun playing 5e. What they have said is that you can have more fun more easily with a system that is better designed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Is it just to bitch about how much you don't like 5th ed or is it to discuss cool poo poo you've done in games, tips for house ruling the game a bit, and advice for new people how to get stuck into their first game and have a good time? Yes, it is. That's why all of those things happen. The infamous Rogue v Warlock argument came from people giving advice on how to make a 5e character, for example. Advice on how to play that character with Rogue written on the character sheet was also given pretty much as soon as the asker made it clear that Rogue was the most important part of "Conman Rogue Guy." Within the last 2 pages there has been homebrewing a Warlord hack, and discussions of alternate rest systems and mechanics. People occasionally pop in and tell their cool stories of what they did at their games, I recall you doing that not too far back. I don't recall anybody responding to your story about going in solo against the bad guy and getting knocked out by telling you to play a different game, correct me if I'm wrong. But the thing is, discussing what the game is will also include discussing what it doesn't do well. Telling a new person that there may be system options more suited to what they want is genuine advice, and it can be helpful. Saying "this is the 5e thread, nobody speak ill if 5e" is as useless as only ever whining about bad things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:Anyway, related question to all this: does the Sorcerer's Draconic Resilience ("When you aren't wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier") still work when using a shield? The Monk's Unarmored Defense specifically says you can't use a shield with it, and the Barbarian's Unarmored Dense specifically says you can use a shield with it, but Draconic Resilience doesn't specify at all. I would assume this means you can still get the benefit with a shield, but God knows what Natural Language intended. Personally, I'd let you use a shield. Keep in mind that you need a hand free to cast spells with Somatic Components though. IIRC, War Caster gets around that, but it's not like the whole thing becomes dangerous to game balance or anything at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I never had a grid for 3.5e and never found that to be a hindrance, nor have I been using a grid for 5e and I've had no problems with the fights I've run so far. The systems are both chock-full of mechanics that are designed around them, though. Sure, you can get by without a grid on the table, but if you don't have a pretty detailed model of where everybody is in relation to one another you are going to have trouble when the Fighter wants to position himself so that the Orcs can't get to the Wizard who is trying to get as many baddies in his Lightning Bolt as possible without hitting any friends, while the Rogue and the Cleric move to pincer the archer so he can't 5' step away and shoot without provoking an opportunity attack. I won't deny that you can abstract all of that, but the systems themselves are clearly designed for the kind of position specificity that comes from a map. Compare that to something like the Zone system in Fate, where your bar fight has some combatants Behind The Bar, while others are Around The Tables, and the rest are Outside. Gambor fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I again, never really found that to be a problem. If the fighter wants to protect the mage, he can protect the mage, I just assume he's not glued to a single square and can move around freely as a mobile wall to intercept any orcs coming for the wizard, unless they mob him with a dozen at once. For the mage, I assume that if they don't know what he's capable of, or are raging or stupid, enemies generally let him hit the majority of them with any AoE spells without roasting his buddies(unless one of his buddies is currently fighting one of them in melee), and otherwise just hazard a fair and reasonable guess. If the rogue and cleric move to pincer an archer... they move to pincer the archer, I'm... not sure why I need a grid for that. And that's why I said you can abstract it. Can the fighter set up a choke point so that he can hold off the Orcs without getting swarmed? Can the Wizard get more Orcs with a FIreball than a Lightning Bolt. If the Fighter is willing to take the hit how many more bad guys fry? Can the Rogue get to the other side of the archer without provoking an attack himself, from the archer or from someone else on the way? Can any of the players of these characters find out these things without directly asking the DM? Are you contending that the rules are actually not written for grids, or that it doesn't cost much to figure it out without one, despite their design? quote:Yeah, I entirely agree that some things work better with a grid, and I never said the game might not have been designed with them in mind. But most of the mechanics are perfectly possible to abstract and, frankly, a lot of them are more fun if you just roll with them in a way that's cool rather than nitpicking over every last inch of boardspace. I'm not judging you or your game or whatever. Someone pointed out that the last several editions were written specifically for a grid, and that there were other games designed to be gridless from the ground up. You replied that that was only true of 4e. Would you agree that that isn't really the case, and that, regardless of the particulars of what happens at a given table, the rules themselves include many aspects that were written with a grid in mind?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
He's probably referring to Helpless Prisoner, which has the sole effect of letting you make bluff checks while restrained or imprisoned to convince someone you are helpless and in pain. The mechanical effect is a +5 to escape as they try to help you or at least shut you up. If I can do that without the feat, then what is the feat for? If it's the mechanical bonus, then what smaller bonus would you possibly give?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I think that's completely fair. I also think the bigger problem is that any non casting class getting something at level up will uniformly be worse or at least less interesting (as an extra attack is powerful but dull) than a spell slot, which results in the only satisfying reward being a spell like ability. This is true depending on what you mean. If you mean that in D&D as we generally know it, non-spell options will tend to be worse because of the assumptions built into the game at this moment, then sure. If you mean that a non-spell option couldn't be as interesting as a spell option by definition, then I think you are pulling in a ton of unnecessary assumptions. The reason that an extra attack is powerful but dull is because there aren't any new decisions to make surrounding it. You do the same thing you just did again, and whether to take the attack or not isn't really a choice. You might attack a different target, but generally it will be the same. Interest comes from giving players real choices to make, by which I mean multiple options without an obvious single best one. The more diverse the options, the more interest you create. Nothing about that requires spells, it's just that spells are the only thing that's been put in the books that fulfills the conditions at this time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I'd sidestep the action vs. Action debate, and point out that if you are making an OA, it's not your turn.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is just me, but I think that for attacks, saving throws, and basically anything that requires a d20 roll, you should still include the d20. I've seen far too many people get tripped up by what that floating "+x" actually means. True story, when 5e came out and my group picked it up, we had a guy who had never played D&D before. Halfway through the first session, we realized that he was rolling a d10 for his attack rolls. Turns out, that's what he though his classes Hit Die was for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Because I'm frustrated and wanted to make sure I wasn't being irrational before confronting somebody else about it. Runes are writing. Saying they aren't is like saying you can't read Chinese because it's "little pictures" instead of letters. Did somebody put marks on a thing someone else can look at and know what they said? That's writing. The code thing is a little more gray. I could see you reading it as gibberish until you have deciphered the code if it was important to the story, but otherwise he's basically just being a dick. Google posted:Runes (Proto-Norse: ᚱᚢᚾᛟ (runo), Old Norse: rún) are the letters in a set of related alphabets known as runic alphabets, which were used to write various Germanic languages before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialised purposes thereafter. Edit: I can't stop myself Wikipedia posted:Egyptian hieroglyphs (/ˈhaɪərəˌɡlɪf, -roʊ-/[1][2] hyr-o-glif; Egyptian: mdw·w-nṯr, "god's words") were a formal writing system used by the ancient Egyptians that combined logographic and alphabetic elements.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
DrOct posted:That's a pretty bold statement. I'm quite certain there were plenty of GM horror stories during the 4e era. I certainly did some boneheaded things while GMing 4e (admittedly it was my first time GMing anything). You can believe what you want about why this GM made a bad call, but from my perspective it's it's really stretching things to lay something like this at the feet of the system. To be fair, I'm 99% sure he means this story, not that nobody ever had a bad DM is 4E. In other words, he's saying that the sort of thing that would lead someone to define "written language" in such a way as to exclude at least 2 actual systems of writing in order to shut down a player's ability is... less discouraged in the materials of 5E than it was in 4E. Which may be bold, but isn't indefensible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm inclined to think if somebody wants to put on their viking hat and yell no at you they're going to do it whether the game 'lets' you or not. That's the point though. It's not about which game 'lets' you do anything, it's about what the game encourages. If the books espouse a "yes, and..." philosophy you will tend to see a different style of play than ones that tell you that the DM is law and you are playing in his world. Issues of self-selection aside, people come to the table with expectations, and it's naive to say that the persistent message of 5E as the edition of "GM empowerment" in response to 4E's rampant "player entitlement" doesn't impact those expectations. Just because it isn't the only factor doesn't make it no factor at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
That sounds pretty sweet for an intro. People can just roll up w/e and not worry about it too much. Regaining memories could be an easy excuse for everybody to make pretty extensive character changes as well. Also, one way to keep your players alive at low levels is to cheat. They probably won't notice if the baddies never crit, or end up rolling well below average for damage, or die just when the players are backed into a corner and scared for their lives instead of when they take 50 damage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:The start of this whole discussion was "My DM houseruled in crit confirmations to our 5e game" thus showing that they don't understand the differences between 5e and 3.5 It was worse than that: Admiral Joeslop posted:that crits have to be confirmed with a second natural 20 to be an actual crit. Ie. 1 in 20 is too often to do marginally more damage, 1 in 400 sounds right.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 09:23
|
|
