|
I hate this drat feat [Crossbow Expert]. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows. I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
I have no idea what it is about that feat that makes so many grogs lose their loving minds.quote:Why is it that you like so many other people miss-construes the timing of when you load (during the attack) as the method, when it is just the timing. And the feat only means you can load more then once, again having nothing to do with the method which is not mentioned. **link is made to a question, "how do you load a crossbow if both your hands are full?" Answer is...  What do you do here? Well, double-down, of course. quote:Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait... quote:The designers response was "you juggle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
io9 can always be counted on for grog! http://io9.com/the-new-dungeon-masters-guide-is-like-a-hackers-manual-1670551012 quote:Kudos on taking your first step into tabletop roleplaying, and what a huge step it was starting as a DM. Is your whole group new to roleplaying? It'll get better as everyone gets more experience (no pun intended). Metagaming is something everyone does, and something every group has to deal with. It can either be a problem (as in, people using outside game knowledge to directly influence in-game play), or it can be fun (people making in-game jokes using outside of game information). There are many ways to deal with it, but my personal preference is to call it out when I see it. You're the DM, the end-all-be-all. Your say is final. Don't let the players bully you into a course of action. Say things like "How does your character know there's a dragon in this cave?" I know it's tough, and you aren't likely to get them to change their decisions to something else simply because you're calling out their metagaming, but I've noticed that the simple act of letting them know you're watching them (and you may change the outcome because of it) is enough to gradually get them to change their play style to more roleplay and less metagame. quote:I think your just a little bit too jaded with this edition. Yes 3.5 was good, but utterly broken when it came to casters vs. melee, especially with how overpowered psions were. 4E streamlined combat, but took out most of the roleplaying and forced most of the community to pathfinder because of how gimmicky and MMO like it was (not to mention how much they tried to cash in with all the different spell cards and other bullshit). But it looks like 5E is going to be around for awhile, and with how balanced and how well written the rules are it looks like this edition is going to last a lot longer because it isnt so rigid and set in its ways, and they arent trying to cash in on every little thing. you should give it a chance, this is probably the best edition since 2E. quote:In all honesty: Why would anyone buy these new books when the last expansion was arguably the poorest of editions? The track record for the people involved seems lacking. quote:
quote:Strangely, I was unimpressed. I was looking for a book filled with meat; instead, what I got was little more than a glossary, where everything was casually touched upon. Like the previous two books in the 5e range, there was very little style OR substance. Very disappointed, which is the first time for me. Well, since 4th Edition!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:"fantasy is required to be on mighty thews otherwise it's pandering to SJWs" comment
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Huh, and I thought I was the only one who basically thought of AD&D as a collection of random optional rules for Basic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Antisemitism never stopped, it just became unfashionable in the US. Open bigotry is growing in popularity, and with it returns open antisemitism. You can decide whether this inspired stuff like South Park, or if South Park is inspiring the rise in antisemitism, or if they're just entwined together.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I've decided the most reliable tic that signals that you're about to read some bullshit from an old school grognard is when they make a point to mention (brag, really) when and with what version they started playing D&D. You just know that as soon as someone tells you about how they cut their teeth on Moldvay B/X or Holmes Basic back in 1981 or whenever that you're about to get hit with a tsunami of whiny grog nonsense.  (True story, though, I'm running some Moldvay Basic this weekend. Should be a great time.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Majuju posted:It's just a different way to say 2d6. The problem is, 2-12 doesn't provide an easy way of communicating how you arrive at that number. Do I roll 2d6? Do I roll 100d6 and only keep the best two? It's the THACO of dice notation.  However, nothing surpassed this little bit of number range and dice genius which went into the AD&D PHB, unexplained. I didn't figure it out until many years later...  Because obviously, what you do to get a number from 1-24 is that, first, you roll 1d6 and read it such that a 1-3 = 0 and a 4-6 = 12. You then roll 1d12 and add it to the result of your 0/12 roll. Obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:How is this a thing. Don't you learn that poo poo in first grade or something? For all that he said it in the shittiest way possible, and drew the wrong conclusions from it*, it's actually pretty lovely to mock people who aren't as good at math or didn't have the same kinds of opportunities to learn it while growing up. It's just as bad to go from there to, "... and you have no place playing dumb elf games." Seriously, folks should stop getting lovely about this. * As for the wrong conclusions... Dice ranges are worse for people who are bad at math because they aren't functional. It's more useful to know what dice you need to roll, than what value the range tops out at, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Is is grog to expect people to remember esoteric poo poo from a game that they just said that they hadn't looked into in a decade? I grew up on AD&D, and I'm glad others hopped in with a "LOOK HOW WRONG YOU ARE" before I did. But you're being petulant, now, about being wrong. Fun fact, though - outside the XP tables, AD&D was still a much better-balanced game than 3e. Hell, even if you ignored nitpicky bullshit like spell components, it's better-balanced.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Was 3.0 even hugely different from 3.5? I know it was a thing that people griped about that they needed to buy new books. Grog! quote:Re: So, when people say "Martials", they really mean fighter, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Or because... that's how the two would work if we actually try to simulate it? Magic is described as "I cast a spell and get an effect. I learn the spell, it generates the same effect every time I cast it." It is like running a program, same input, same output. Premade and locked in. However, when using learned skills, no such rules explicitly exist to govern what you can do with the knowledge. Real world skills are to fluid to be modeled in the same "perform x, get y" way, forcing them to maintain a degree of abstraction and openness not present in magic if they are toi actually capture the spirit of such abilities. Otherwise, you have 4e, where immersion is basically ignored. Which works for some people, don't get me wrong, it just wasn't the idea the came into 5e with. So I think they ahd the idea that, if you want to play a martial character, you want to play someone who functions in the manner one would expect from a martial character, using skills and quick thinking to create new solutions to problems, alongside their natural abilities. Which means fairly loose and open, a playstyle very different from "wait, let me find the right spell". They added a bit of codified stuff in for people who had to have it (monk and battle master), but it wasn't the majority. Now, if that isn't how you see martial characters? Nothing stops you from changing calling your eldritch knight a warblade, and picking abilities to suit. You don't cast shield, but rather use your special parry technique. You don't know the spell true strike, instead you focus yourself on your next attack. Thunderwave is a shockwave generated by your weapon striking the ground, knocking enemies backwards. Shatter can be a mighty shout which shakes the area round you. Counter spell and dispel magic represent you being able to parry spells, and cut through magic (I have no idea if warblades could actually do this, but it sounds cool). I admit, this is harder than it could be as evocation is the flashiest school in the entire game. DM permission to change it from alteration helps. Or ask to poach paladin spells/multiclass paladin. As the above implied, you can do something similar with paladin and ranger. Ranger is pretty close by default if you don't read the fluff of his spells too closely, and paladin as an inspiring commander whose charisma allows him to boost his allies effectiveness, heal wounds (if you dislike 4e wound shouting, lay on hands is advanced medical skills), and hit things extra ahrd/in special ways isn't a stretch. Mainly because he is exactly that as is, they just call it magic. If your issue is you can't have the exact fluff connected to the exact abilities you want without having to make some minor (primarily cosmetic) alternations, I'm sorry, but do you realize what an improvement that is over the sort of issues previous editions had?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Monk exists. Rogue exists. If monk isn't enough utility and Rogue isn't crunchy enough... then I honestly can't picture what you want as anything but a refluffed caster. Maybe your utility spells are called utility abilities or skill powers or something, but every variation I can think of looks like spells mechanically. Sorry if that's rude, but I get tired of this argument, and everytime it gets brought up people fail miserably to actually provide examples of what they mean.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Except that rogue is more versatile than either of those classes by default. Easily. Are martials always less versatile? No, rogue is (by the weird definition of the term people tend to use) a martial, and can eclipse many casting classes easily (sorcerer, ranger, paladin are the most obvious, something like warlock depends more on the variety). The most versatile class, bard, is the most versatile because he combines both martial and magical abilities. Is fighter less versatile than casters? Well, fighter can gain access to the spell system, and can easily match the half casters. So fighter isn't inherently limited from that, admittedly because he can be a caster. Is a fighter who wants to remain a martial character less versatile? Well, he can still access a number of feats to expand his options or multiclass into rogue, while staying a martial and primarily a fighter. So again, not truely. Is a fighter who doesn't want to use spells at a table where feats aren't used and who cannot/will not multiclass less versatile? Yes, that class is not going to be the most versatile. He still isn't a bad class, just fairly focused. Do you see the difference in scope of the issue, by the time we reach the final point? ... Fighters are not limited because they can be casters. In case you missed that, Fighters are not limited because they can be casters. If you want your Fighter to be versatile, make them not a Fighter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Don't a lot of people on here still complain about 4th ed. being tedious and mechanically annoying at high levels also?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
5e rules are fine, guys! Just use this flowchart.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Surely its the spell casters that are limited. There are a finite number of spells. Of these, a spell caster knows a fraction. Of those they know, they are limited in how many they can use before resting. Each of these spells has discrete effects explained in the spell description. OTOH there is an infinite number of possible uses for ability checks and skills. You are not limited to how many times per day you can attempt to use them. As opposed to being bounded in by the text of the possible uses of skills, your only limit is DM approval and your own imagination (and your luck with the dice!). Surely the more limited system is the magic system?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Fighters can use Athletics all day, man!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Animal handling to get a flying mount. Arcana or history to know where the nearest portal to another plane is. -I got nothing for teleporting other than fast overland travel to a destination- Pretty sure you could make a wall of ice if you have access to it with athletics or survival. And you can build one anywhere with athletics given a minute or two (I knock down a couple trees and toss them together to build a wall) You've never heard of the Arseplomancer have you? Acrobatics can do odd stuff at high levels. And as for extra attacks, you can get those using stealth and a surprise round. Then you also get advantage. Of what you listed, only the only one I can't replicate with skills is teleporting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
I dunno man, that is exactly how I feel - every single game. I tell the DM what I am doing, and roll the dice for my attack while shrugging off blows that would fell my compatriots. I think what you really want is 4E, with its numerous feat cards outlining your every move. The 5E Fighter is superior, IMO, as he is unhindered by rules that tell him what he can or can not do. The only limitation to the 5E Fighter is the player. What your describing is merely a caster that uses his weapons as his spells. I hope to never see the Fighter ape the casters again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2scz6e/my_players_have_the_monster_manual/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
dnd-brain-damage.txt You are locking on to the specific using that to define how "samey" is not correct. I am pointing out that the generalities of activation and job system are the hallmark of the "samey" feel. A red button is a red button. Pushing it may launch a missile or open a garage. They are still similar red buttons. To be honest, I don't care how x interacts with y. If I can use a power 3 times a day, and so can every other character at the table, that is the "same" to me. I can readily agree that those abilities are different. That doesn't mean anything when we are using them all on a similar schedule. A "defender" fighter punishes targets for not attacking him. So does the defender paladin. Do you deny this is the case? HOW they do it, is not remotely relevant to my question, don't bother explaining. A "tank" is a "tank". The abilities activated to accomplish their goal are meaningless. Damage of equal amounts is damage. The type doesn't matter. a -2 penalty is a -2 penalty no matter how it is inflicted. Not being able to move because you're paralzed is fundamentally no different that not being able to move because your in a block of ice. We aren't discussing narrative. We are discussing general feel as is evidenced by the continuous use from several posters of the adjective "same/samey" I would say that you are seeing the trees, and not the forest in this analogy. I am focused on the feel of general play and mechanic usage (the forest). You are focused on what individual abilities do when triggered (the trees). I am in no way saying Class A is exactly like Class B. I am saying they "Feel" the same to me because usage of their abilities is the same in both cases. I am saying that playing a Tank feels the same no matter which tank I play. You are countering that their specific mechanics differentiate them. I agree with that. That doesn't mean they don't feel the same to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
From Tor's Appendix N Re-read, just linked in chat... quote:I really, really want to discuss this in more detail, but I'll just say that if you're going to throw Howard's stories under the "racist/sexist" bus, then you'll have to throw virtually every fantasy writer from the first half of the 20th century on the road too. I'd also say describing the story as trashy, or pulp in general as trash, even in a positive way, is sorely underselling its very extensive philosophical, historical, and mythic depth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
I'm a guy, considering role playing a female vengeance paladin with a whip, lance, rapier, and shield. I'm set on my build. Any pros and cons to this? Prior experiences? Advice? I plan to make it easier by being a woman of few words.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:But but but... I have it on reliable authority that WotC just pumped out classes because they wanted to meaninglessly fill their role/source grid! That's why the Warlord exists, right, to fill out a 4e classes bingo card? Right? Guys? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I know it's fine with RAW, but dual hand-crossbows makes me want to puke. I know D&D's logic with combat is shaky, at best, but this totally takes the sanity cake and tosses it out the window.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
The Selfish Gene does get into Evo Psych, though, iirc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 20:07
|
|