|
So, in an effort to lose weight, I've started having protien-powder smoothies for breakfast. Since I've got a absolutely awesome blender, this is pretty cool. But I'm looking for other things to toss into my smoothies to add flavor, since I'm beginning to get kind of sick of frozen blueberry shakes. Any ideas?
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
isndl posted:Yeah, that's why I asked to see if the enemies you had been facing were significantly different from the ones I saw. At my table, we had a Monk with AC so high that he literally couldn't be hit except on a crit for some fights. At that point, the trick is getting enemies to attack you rather than trying to negate hits. I think we've said everything possible on fighters and paladins, but I'm surprised to hear that about monks. In my experience they are pretty much the least effective of the melee classes. That would take an ac of like 25+. Was he buffed with spells like barkskin? Monster to hit bonuses are a few higher than similar level pcs and they seen to hit at least like 30% or so of the time on monks just relying on stat bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
isndl posted:Technically the mean is 13.8 vs 10.5+3.5, but the real difference is in the way the set is weighted. Your goal here is to hit, and with bounded accuracy that just means "don't roll low" - a bonus d6 isn't going to help when you roll a 2. Advantage means you roll low half as often, and you get more crits as icing on the cake. PublicOpinion posted:
Cool, thanks for breaking it down. Kai Tave posted:^^^Hey, neat graph. This is something that in D&D's case should be in the DMG. Generic fluffless monster templates should be part of the monster building rules that have generally been found in that book. Basically, they should be an extension of the monster on a note-card stuff with their scaling stats written out as the formula, so like the generic brute's HP line would read something like "HP: 12+6/level" or whatever the heck the actual formula is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I think we've said everything possible on fighters and paladins, but I'm surprised to hear that about monks. In my experience they are pretty much the least effective of the melee classes. That would take an ac of like 25+. Was he buffed with spells like barkskin? Monster to hit bonuses are a few higher than similar level pcs and they seen to hit at least like 30% or so of the time on monks just relying on stat bonuses. I'm not trying to dogpile onto you, but I'm still waiting to hear back on (1) the low reward value on other Super Defense Expertise abilities when compared to Nimble Dodge, and (2) Critical Hits. Nimble Dodge, where you get both the AC+d6 and a free disengage if it sticks, is a reasonably good use of expertise dice (or at least it would be if you could actually use it more than once a fight after your first). Why are there not similar riders for the rest of the SD abilities? Shouldn't they at least be buffed to bridge the gap between the two (AC+d6+2, for instance)? And Critical Hits... I didn't hear anything, so try to sell me on those. Also, one more question as someone who's still turning over rocks in the playtest packet... how mechanically do I draw aggro as a fighter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Also, one more question as someone who's still turning over rocks in the playtest packet... how mechanically do I draw aggro as a fighter? DM fiat! No, seriously, DM fiat. If you have a shield, you can sink all your feats into the ability to spend your single off-turn reaction to give a single attacker disadvantage against an adjacent target (and follow up with an attack), or stop a single advancing attacker in its tracks, and get a whole extra reaction which you can only use to make an opportunity attack. So if the DM wants to bum-rush the wizard, there's not a whole lot you can do to stop him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
In a previous packet, quite some time ago, not long after the Monk was first introduced I played in a level 14 oneshot. In this oneshot I was able to get an impressive AC, making the character nearly unhittable. This involved having something like 20 Dex, 16 or 18 Wis, and three magic items all to either improve one of those stats or to improve AC. Yes he was almost never hit, but this was a previous version of the Monk when they actually had some somewhat cool stuff, this was at a fairly high level, and it required at least 3 magic items that there are no real rules on starting with. In another campaign, even at that level, there is no guarantee that the Monk could have had those vital items. So no without a bunch of special magic items, or a bunch of buff spells that could just as easily be cast on someone else, I do not see how you could possibly have such a high AC. Unless you rolled for stats and got a bunch of 18s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Cool, thanks for breaking it down. The trouble is that the way things are going, you can be pretty sure there won't BE a formula. The design isn't being designed that much, as far as any of the articles indicate. The original monster design areticles were literally just 'whatever feels right'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The trouble is that the way things are going, you can be pretty sure there won't BE a formula. The design isn't being designed that much, as far as any of the articles indicate. The original monster design areticles were literally just 'whatever feels right'. I thought they had realized how ridiculous the early monster design stuff was and were getting back to something more like 3E's system, which did use formulas, just silly formulas with weird side effects. My playtest group isn't really playtesting; rather, we're just playing, and since I'm not DMing, I haven't paid a lot of attention to the monster rules. I'm too busy trying to come up with goofy poo poo for my trickster cleric to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I think we've said everything possible on fighters and paladins, but I'm surprised to hear that about monks. In my experience they are pretty much the least effective of the melee classes. That would take an ac of like 25+. Was he buffed with spells like barkskin? Monster to hit bonuses are a few higher than similar level pcs and they seen to hit at least like 30% or so of the time on monks just relying on stat bonuses. Good rolled stats, so he hit 20 AC pretty quick (DEX/WIS based of course). Picked up a Ring of Protection from randomly rolled loot. So 21 AC, Haste in the big fights to hit 23 AC, then his MO was to use his main action to Total Defense for an additional +4 (this was changed to Disadvantage on attacks against you I believe) while making an attack with Advantage and Deadly Strike on his hasted action (Advantage coming from Seize the Advantage when they miss). Haste is obviously the big enabler here, and there's nothing a Fighter can't duplicate except maybe getting that baseline 20 AC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:OK, I'll bite. I am not an unreasonable person, and by many estimations I run a pretty decent game, so I am gonna go ahead and say I love that level of detail. I like having it there. My favorite book for the L5R game is Emerald Empire; I like knowing what sorts of plants and woods and animals are around. I am not really clear on the weird fluffshaming that is going on here, there is nothing wrong with details that are not spun whole from the head of the DM. "Why not use wikipedia" is not really a satisfactory answer to that, if I wanted to use my own world and make up my own poo poo I wouldn't be using FR or Rokugan or Athas or whatever published setting I am using. It is sort of the point of using a published setting. In fact having a world everyone agrees on helps the fiction in my estimation, but that is a different issue. It is neither unreasonable to want this stuff, and it is not terribly crazy to not want it either if you just want some hit points and some powers to stab and get on with it either. The sort of lines in the sand moths and FRINGE are drawing are loving moronic. PeterWeller posted:They have focused on that setting in every monster manual (and compendium) ever. D&D has always had an implied or explicit core setting. The GH information in the 3E MM didn't impede my game, neither did the PoL information in the 4E MM (or the FR information in the 2E MM). FRINGE posted:
MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:I'm not trying to dogpile onto you, but I'm still waiting to hear back on (1) the low reward value on other Super Defense Expertise abilities when compared to Nimble Dodge, and (2) Critical Hits. Actually I'm just glad to be discussing playtest brass tacks instead of the latest Mearls fever dream or whatever. Nimble vs Parry depends on the fighter's build. Nimble Dodge is for archers who have the Dex to be wearing light/medium armor; Parry is for front-line fighters who have heavy armor and/or don't even want to move away. The important part is the AC bonus, not really the movement. Block Missiles is interesting because it works for you or another person all in one ability, but I don't see it being as useful. And then you have Warning Shout with basically unlimited range, but it can't save you personally; also good for archers. Crits have changed a few times in the playtest already. This version is pretty much the least powerful they've been. Unlike 4e, Next crits are a thing only weapon users get, since spells are just save-or-suck. I wouldn't expect this version of crits to last any longer than the last three or whatever. About all that Next has for defenders is the Interposing Shield and Combat Superiority feats, which are both decent but use up feats and actions. Combat Superiority is great actually since you get an off-turn attack with Deadly Strike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
I genuinely wonder: how many times can threads like this: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29998161/%E2%80%8F@mikemearls_:_Whats_your_favorite_feat_in_3e_or_4e?pg=1 happen, before Mearls & co. realise that 'one D&D for all people' just isn't a thing? Seriously, it starts out as a reasonable and reasoned discussion of what feats are fun, and only takes 3 pages before it's a frothing loving flamewar with opinions varying from FUUUUUCK FEEEEAAAAATSSSSS to massive 4th-ed-bashing (apparently melee training is OP and munchkinny, or possibly using weapon powers with stats other than STR or DEX is, who knew?). Ugh, it just makes me want to spit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yes. Want those goblins to be a frightening raiding party? 2 are F1, 1 is R1, 1 is T2. (Assume 2e) done. (Of course this is not using 4e, where (from what people have said in these threads) it is assumed you need a computer to make a classed character, instead of just a sticky note and a pen. That is a design failure, not an inability on the DMs part.) Want to redefine Elves end-to-end for a specific setting? If I'm running a published setting it'll be in the published setting. If it's my own setting I'll be making up 90% of it with whatever seems like a good idea at the time just like Gary  If I screw up exactly which tree my Elves worship on Wednesday in June it's going to be a lot less glaring than discovering the 4d8-on-a-save attack has just vaporised the fighter, or that it'e three sessions in and nobody has managed to successfully climb a single wall. e: Put it another way: If the lore is the hard part, how come half the true D&D lore without which the game is naught is stuff that was made up in-play or to fill page counts, while 3rd, 4th and so-far 5th edition math was broken on release and tended to get worse as time went on? FRINGE posted:"An encounter" is not "worldbuilding", neither is the creation of some sub-setting for some fights. If you think that "worldbuilding" between some small examples is comparable to the body of the PS or FR material then we are just not going to be able to communicate about this. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:I thought D&D never was designed to have an implicit or explicit core setting until Greyhawk. Even then I don't remember 1E AD&D core never really slathered on absurdly weird amount of words in the Monster Manual that you see in later editions with its core material. Greyhawk was 1E's implicit core setting, the multiverse centering on FR was 2E's implicit core setting, and Mystara and the Hollow World was BECMI's explicit core setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
kingcom posted:They are egotistical as a species. Thats...helpful I guess? I think talented writers could put together an entire book on this species. It's funny you say that!  Mormon Star Wars posted:edit: to continue your Beholder example, the creator of Eberron, Keith Baker, did a Complete Beholder book where he has a page that has 9 paragraphs, each paragraph is an idea-seed for what a Beholder group would look like if they were each alignment. That would be way more useful in a Monster Manual than "This is how Beholders live in the Valley of the Mage in central greyhawk, our 'default' setting." Whoa, what? Where can I find that? That sounds cool. FRINGE posted:They did, and some people are mad about it. People were mad about those books? They were some of the best 2e stuff!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I want that second bit of information thats good stuff. Thats it, thats my whole argument. Have the MM say that second sentence and a few more like it. The 4e MM basically does say the second sentence. It may want a few more like it (I'm not arguing that MV isn't better, just that the MM1 is unfairly maligned fluff wise). FRINGE posted:Yes. Want those goblins to be a frightening raiding party? 2 are F1, 1 is R1, 1 is T2. (Assume 2e) done. (Of course this is not using 4e, where (from what people have said in these threads) it is assumed you need a computer to make a classed character, instead of just a sticky note and a pen. That is a design failure, not an inability on the DMs part.) You do not need a computer. It just helps. I've made a number of perfectly characters on the bus with no computer nearby. But for making a 4e monster, literally all the rules you need fit quite comfortably onto a business card.  By these standards the fact that you need to look up the THAC0 for a fighter, and all the saves, and the rest is incredibly tedious and book-demanding. Of course 2e monster construction is a lot easier than 3e (largely because 2e monsters are even blander than 3e ones). But I especially don't need to know what every single spell does in order to make a monster who is a spellcaster. And yes, you can fit that 4e monster creation rules on a business card while having complex and evocative monsters. This is not in conflict. quote:It is comical that people are complaining that "writing is too hard to trust to DnD" and then defending how they are all better at it. By all means do your own thing, but there is no reason to cripple the printed game material because thats what you want to do. People are complaining that bad writing gets in the way and that if people are forced to write to a set structure you'll get things that are as mockable as 4e MM1 Bear Lore (DC 10: A bear shits in the woods) - or about half the 2e Monstrous Manual that's pure filler implying that Standard Orc Tribes all look almost the same. And that good stats matter (if F2, T1 is all you have to distinguish monsters you don't have good stat). If a picture is worth a thousand words then a good statblock, which shows how monsters move and operate is worth several hundred. A good monster statblock is pure, concentrated fluff. Writing good stats (as opposed to 2e ones or ones like the MM1 Purple Worm or Dracolich) is where the rubber meets the road. Edit: The reason the I, Tyrant book and the others were canned is that stuff doesn't sell. The target audience is a niche group of obsessive DMs. It's not that they hated it, but it's the sort of book that economics says should be fan and not publisher-based. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The 4e MM basically does say the second sentence. It may want a few more like it (I'm not arguing that MV isn't better, just that the MM1 is unfairly maligned fluff wise). Your right, they have a huge dicussion about how Beholders are racist and all about the purity of their genetic line in MM1. I mean anyone can see that. Also, your correct only the most OBESSIVE of DMs would ever want to read up on monsters. God those super turbo spergs, why would you want more information on something you need to run every week. Thats just crazy. EDIT: Or they could just put this stuff out digitally and not worry about printing it at all, that would massively reduce their costs. I don't know what other dnd editions do. I honestly don't really care, my perspective in RPGs is from something completely outside of DnD. I am just saying what I want in a book that is giving me monsters to include. MV is enough. It could be better but its decent compromise that lets everyone win. kingcom fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Dude, you are arguing with reality. Edit since you edited: yeah, digital publication might make products like that profitable. At the time they did not do well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Your right, they have a huge dicussion about how Beholders are racist and all about the purity of their genetic line in MM1. I mean anyone can see that. 4e Beholders aren't racist so much as egotists. And being Aberrent, "Genetic Line" is a non-starter. Each believes it is the pinnacle of creation. quote:Also, your correct only the most OBESSIVE of DMs would ever want to read up on monsters. God those super turbo spergs, why would you want more information on something you need to run every week. Thats just crazy. If you are running Beholders or Sahaguin every week then I'm worried. An entire book about Beholders (as opposed to a normal Monster Manual) is very spergy. That said, there was someone on Amazon UK selling I, Tyrant for 1p + shipping. Cheap at twice the price. quote:I don't know what other dnd editions do. I honestly don't really care, my perspective in RPGs is from something completely outside of DnD. I am just saying what I want in a book that is giving me monsters to include. MV is enough. It could be better but its decent compromise that lets everyone win. MV is IMO far and away the best monster manual D&D has ever seen. That said, I think you'd really like Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:4e Beholders aren't racist so much as egotists. And being Aberrent, "Genetic Line" is a non-starter. Each believes it is the pinnacle of creation. Right but having this cool line about racial purity, thats a fantastic plot hook. I dont see much of that in non-MV products. A species that is able to self-reproduce and as a result builds this super confined xenophobic behaviour? Thats awesome, that makes me care whats going on and gives me a plot out of it. Also I'm not sure what you mean by " And being Aberrent, "Genetic Line" is a non-starter.", could you explain that one? EDIT: Not literally but more your reasoning. Being egotistical does not mean too much to me in regards to racist. It could mean that but that doesn't make me jump there. Makes me think of moustache twirling 'conquer the world' when referring to a giant floating eyeball. neonchameleon posted:If you are running Beholders or Sahaguin every week then I'm worried. An entire book about Beholders (as opposed to a normal Monster Manual) is very spergy. That said, there was someone on Amazon UK selling I, Tyrant for 1p + shipping. Cheap at twice the price. Im not running them every week. The idea is you get a huge chunk of information and I can run a campaign about it. Someone was telling me how beholders have an empire at one setting and running a campaign where you get involved in that seems like a cool idea. Plus I can use all this organisational structure/politics/other fluff and grab what I like out of it and put it in my game where its appropriate. DnD is unique in that it doesnt seem to do things like other games. There are many other systems where its perfectly normal to have a whole book focusing on one specific faction/group/species. Thats apparently super spergy nonsense in DnD? neonchameleon posted:MV is IMO far and away the best monster manual D&D has ever seen. That said, I think you'd really like Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. Thats why im describing that as the gold standard to follow by since everyone benefits from it. I do really enjoy the MV stuff. I mean I like 4e, they just dont go far enough with filling someone who has no-prior DnD experience into actually running something that focuses on monsters. Jimbozig posted:Dude, you are arguing with reality. How so? kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
kingcom posted:How so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I was refering to your sarcastic response when neonchameleon said that books like "I, Tyrant" didn't sell. Ohhhh right yea that makes sense. I mean I don't think it would sell myself given the audience is still too small a subsection and even smaller if this thread is any indication. I'm not saying print that but my response was more about his 'if you want a book about a single race you must be obsessive'. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Also I'm not sure what you mean by " And being Aberrent, "Genetic Line" is a non-starter.", could you explain that one? Aberrant creatures (and Beholders in specific) are visitors from the Far Realm, over here to do ... whatever the hell they are. quote:Being egotistical does not mean too much to me in regards to racist. It could mean that but that doesn't make me jump there. Makes me think of moustache twirling 'conquer the world' when referring to a giant floating eyeball. Yup! quote:DnD is unique in that it doesnt seem to do things like other games. There are many other systems where its perfectly normal to have a whole book focusing on one specific faction/group/species. Thats apparently super spergy nonsense in DnD? Not at all. Or rather not at all for the other large games. But you'll notice two things about almost all such books in other systems - and in D&D. 1: The factions are larger than a single monster. 2: The books in question can be used by players as well as GMs. Players play the Technocracy and the Sabbat. They play Heroes of the Feywild, Heroes of Shadow, or Arcane or Divine heroes. But the only reason I, Tyrant wouldn't be incredibly niche is if it presented rules for Beholder PCs. And then it would still be pretty niche. The simple rule is that people who are exclusively players outnumber DMs by at least 2:1. So anything for players sells much much better. And Beholders are a niche interest even for DMs. quote:Thats why im describing that as the gold standard to follow by since everyone benefits from it. Oh, it is. What I'm pointing out is that there is a lot more fluff in the MM1 than most people think. It's just badly presented. I'm not saying it's a model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Aberrant creatures (and Beholders in specific) are visitors from the Far Realm, over here to do ... whatever the hell they are. I dont know what the Far Realm is or really what an Aberrant creature is. Are you just using the word's meaning of non-standard or is that a thing? Right but that can be applied to everything ever. So, Im probably not going to use beholders because theres nothing that stands out about them. neonchameleon posted:Not at all. Or rather not at all for the other large games. But you'll notice two things about almost all such books in other systems - and in D&D. I'm not talking about what sells or anything. Im just saying I would want it not that it should be sold. Also other large games do this. The FFG games live off this stuff. A book about beholders can have loads of player stuff. Beholder as a player race since monsters are big thing. Make them like Vampires in that they are full blown class unto themselves. Make loads of gear or something, the usual stuff. Fluff compliments all these things, thats what makes it fun. neonchameleon posted:Oh, it is. What I'm pointing out is that there is a lot more fluff in the MM1 than most people think. It's just badly presented. I'm not saying it's a model. Right I think we might be arguing different things here. I'm saying MM1 does not have the information I want. It may have information but nowhere near as much as I like. I have not played DnD before, I have almost zero context for anything in there and the MM provides no where near enough. You HAVE that context, you've probably played DnD before or had a GM. I don't, I come in with nothing. Giving me surrounding information is incredibly helpful to me. Hell I've never even been that into fantasy so learning that stuff is another layer on top. I need to describe whats in a forest and I have no idea whats in a DnD forest. These kinds of minor details are helpful too. I just want you visualise that you had never played DnD and needed to run a game for the first time. You have zero context for anything and need to come up with a campaign for players. I mean along with learning all the rules, mechanics and systems you need learn about a fantasy setting and the DnD setting on top of that. Thats a lot of stuff to worry about and a bunch of that can be made much easier by giving solid descriptions it takes a lot of the burden away from the person doing everything else. EDIT: I understand this information is not necessary for you and the stuff it gives is plenty to fill in the blanks yourself but I would assume you know what a beholder is already. You have this context to place it in. If you dont have it already the MM1 really sucks. Thats the perspective im coming at this from. kingcom fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I dont know what the Far Realm is or really what an Aberrant creature is. Are you just using the words meaning of non-standard or is that a thing? If you're seriously asking if Aberrants or the Far Realm "are things" I'm not sure you're qualified to comment on the quality of fluff in books you clearly didn't read very closely. If you think oodles of Beholder fluff is a good idea and the Monster Vault is a good compromise, then what's up with you blatantly having no idea what the Vault has to say about Beholders? The term "Far Realm" is literally in the first sentence of fluff, and the glossary will happily tell you what an Aberrant is. I'm not really persuaded that the Vault is really an ideal compromise that serves everyone equally. 319 pages for 64 monster types is a raw deal relative to 298 pages for 143 monster types when, like me, you don't really need two full pages of fluff under "Skeleton". I guess the Vault MSRP is $5 cheaper and, yes, the math is certainly better, but the math isn't better because of the lengthy explanations that zombies are fearless and ogres are dumb. You're not wrong in your idea that people coming into D&D blind need an explanation of what a Beholder is, but very few people need explanations for orcs, minotaurs, mummies, werewolves, elves... save the fluff for things that need fluff. Bears don't NEED Bear Lore, and consequently the Animals Appendix to the vault offers no fluff aside from a quote or two. Why not apply that attitude to other things that everybody already knows about? We all know what a bear is, and we all know what a vampire is. By all means, explain Displacer Beasts, Beholders, Rust Monsters... but who is this theoretical neophyte that needs a long-winded explanation of what a dragon is? That's the compromise I would seek. Heavy fluff for D&Disms, while generic fantasy staples get a paragraph or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I dont know what the Far Realm is or really what an Aberrant creature is. Are you just using the word's meaning of non-standard or is that a thing? Abberant is right there in the MM1 (in the glossary). Far Realm is in the DMG's "The World" section, right at the end. It gets about 2 paragraphs, but that's because the core books assume it's a catch-all for "way out past the stuff we know about", which is a great thing to include in a game's core assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:If you're seriously asking if Aberrants or the Far Realm "are things" I'm not sure you're qualified to comment on the quality of fluff in books you clearly didn't read very closely. If you think oodles of Beholder fluff is a good idea and the Monster Vault is a good compromise, then what's up with you blatantly having no idea what the Vault has to say about Beholders? The term "Far Realm" is literally in the first sentence of fluff, and the glossary will happily tell you what an Aberrant is. I dont know who is arguing about bear lore. Your explaining mostly want I've been arguing for. I apologise most grievously for missing one of the hundred different things the game talks about. EDIT:The discussion was about the monster manual. I'm purely talking about the monster manual as the first thing and only thing you see. I'm talking about a perspective without the monster vault. Using stuff from the monster vault in this discussion is pointless given we we're in an agreement that its good. I dont know if your reading the discussion itself. The entire point was explaining why I didn't like the Monster Manuals and someone else disagreeing. I'm sorry that not knowing/reading anything about 4e expect for the last 2-3 months means that I need to know absolutely everything about the game. There is a huge amount of information to go through and I pick through it bit by bit. My whole perspective is explaining that as a new player I don't know this stuff and that the Monsters Manual did not provide much help for me in this regard. So I gave up on it and moved to the Monster Vault which is both more informative and better designed than those books. That was the whole discussion. Additionally I don't really think 'number of monsters' being directly equal to value. AlphaDog posted:Abberant is right there in the MM1 (in the glossary). Far Realm is in the DMG's "The World" section, right at the end. It gets about 2 paragraphs, but that's because the core books assume it's a catch-all for "way out past the stuff we know about", which is a great thing to include in a game's core assumptions. Thankyou that's all I asked for. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
I find it interesting that you want a lot more poo poo written in great detail, when you keep not knowing anything about any of the poo poo that was written. Like, I'm with PeterWeller in that I liked a little ecology bullshit when it was good poo poo instead of xdy babies, and I also love 4E's flavorful statblocks. Nominally we're in roughly the same camp. But you are making the stupidest god drat argument and tripping over yourself to do it. Read a loving book. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I find it interesting that you want a lot more poo poo written in great detail, when you keep not knowing anything about any of the poo poo that was written. What you just said is what I'm saying. Monster Vault is good and does pretty much what I want. I don't know how to reiterate that any further. EDIT: Also I'm not sure how its crazy that I skim and not really absorb information that I end up finding not interesting. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
It's pretty retarded when you complain about books not having information, and then get passages that have that exact information back at you. Like, I agree that the Monster Vault is much, much better than MM1, but you're undermining that point horribly by making it very, very obvious you didn't really pay attention. If you care about this information so much, then why didn't you read it when it was written there you goofball. Again, I actually agree with you. I want you to shut the gently caress up because it makes my side look bad because you're arguing in a really profoundly lovely manner. How about you talk about problems from MM1 that aren't countered by bothering to read it, like the crappy math for monster HP's?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:EDIT: Also I'm not sure how its crazy that I skim and not really absorb information that I end up finding not interesting. Everyone does that. It's when you skim, miss relevant stuff, and then say that the books suck because they don't have that information. That actually seems to be the cause of a shitload of edition-based arguments, right up there with "AD&D did it by (my houserule which appears nowhere in any AD&D book)". It's hard to fault someone for missing part of the information they need, especially when it's not in the same place - even the same book - as the thing they're looking at, but D&D has quite literally always been like that. The very first edition said explicitly that you needed two other games just to play it. After that it was just 2-3 books you needed (which admittedly usually came boxed together) which had info spread out between them, sometimes in infuriatingly stupid ways (and then splatbooks, campaign settings, "DM's/Player's option" supplements, and and and and...) Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How about you talk about problems from MM1 that aren't countered by bothering to read it, like the crappy math for monster HP's? Cause I don't know the system well enough to understand the mechanics behind it. Something something fights are shorter? AlphaDog posted:Everyone does that. Fair enough I'll stop talking about it then. EDIT: Scratch it ill shut up now. kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Hilarious. The one complaint about MM1 fights in 4e was that they were too long. Most of the monsters are just big sacks of weak hits and HP. The few that are dangerous are generally because they have a dumb or annoying mechanic, like they are always incorporeal, or they have a bloodied immediate reaction to heal a bunch, which is just a timewaste. I jumped out of this argument a while ago because it's clear that it's an difference of opinion based on aesthetics. Maybe you like long bathroom reading about monsters. I do! I have every first edition MM, most of the 2nd, and I even have all three of those books that were listed above about specific monsters, plus a Ravenloft one about liches. I'm crazy for that poo poo. But only as a historical oddity, and mostly for reading on the pooper. sort of in the same way I love all my Palladium collection. I'm not going to play Palladium because it's terrible and no one needs a chart to roll on to see how much their boss likes them or how likely they are to develop a phobia while kicking drugs. I think what makes it particularly obvious that the whole thing is just a difference of opinion about fluff is people saying "well that's just boring info, but this one sentence is evocative and gives me an adventure hook!" It always comes off as disingenuous, since the phrases they're isolating are pretty similar to the rest. Like "Wozzles are xenophobic extradimensional tyrants" (yawn) "that enslave Flarps for their slave pens (holy poo poo that's an adventure!)."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:
I have to disagree, Making monster construction that easy is something every game should do, but calling it incredibly demanding to look up saves ain't true, and a fighter's thac0 is just 20-HD. The only fiddly part is AC, which I guess could use some work. It's still not significantly harder to make up a Basic or 1e or 2e monster on the fly then it is to make up a 4e monster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I dont know what the Far Realm is or really what an Aberrant creature is. Are you just using the word's meaning of non-standard or is that a thing?  So your complaint is that 4e D&D doesn't present enough lore in the books when you can't be bothered to get off your rear end and find out what the D&D lore actually is. The Far Realm is a default part of the 4e cosmology and even made directly relevant within the PHB (Star Pact Warlocks). quote:Right but that can be applied to everything ever. So, Im probably not going to use beholders because theres nothing that stands out about them. So there's nothing that stands out about giant floating eyeballs with ray firing eyeballs on eyestalks that come from beyond the stars, from an extra-planar realm that drives humans (and elves and dwarves and halflings and...) mad by virtue of mere exposure, and who believe they have the right to rule and enslave others. quote:I'm not talking about what sells or anything. Im just saying I would want it not that it should be sold. Also other large games do this. The FFG games live off this stuff. A book about beholders can have loads of player stuff. Beholder as a player race since monsters are big thing. Make them like Vampires in that they are full blown class unto themselves. Make loads of gear or something, the usual stuff. If it's fluff you are after, as opposed to fluff as specific as I, Tyrant, how about starting with the fluff-heavy books 4e already has. Start with Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. Then move on through Manual of the Planes, Heroes of the Feywild, Heroes of Shadow, Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. Then for even more fluff heavy takes there are The Plane Above and The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond. And those are just the books on my bookshelf. Or if you want a world other than the Nentir Vale, there's Dark Sun, Eberron, and the Forgotten Realms. You might even decide to push the number of people who bought the systemless Menzobaranzan book towards a thousand. quote:I need to describe whats in a forest and I have no idea whats in a DnD forest. "a DnD forest" There is no such thing as a generic D&D forest. Either pick your favourite real forest and turn it up to 11 (or 15 if it's in the Feywild or Shadowfell) or your favourite fictional one. Even in as small an area as the Nentir Vale there are two major forests mentioned, each with its own distinct type of trees - and of treemen who go to war with each other every few hundred years. One of the forests is temperate, low lying, and the treemen are oak-like. The other one's cold, mountainous, and the treemen are coniferous. On thinking about it, I think what you are missing is that D&D is not (normally) about doing things The D&D Way ™ - it's (to quote Mike Mornard - a player of D&D in both Gygax's and Arneson's original campaigns) about making up some poo poo you think will be fun. And Next, with its emphasis on "Does this feel like D&D" may well have forgotten this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:I'm not really persuaded that the Vault is really an ideal compromise that serves everyone equally. 319 pages for 64 monster types is a raw deal relative to 298 pages for 143 monster types when, like me, you don't really need two full pages of fluff under "Skeleton". I guess the Vault MSRP is $5 cheaper and, yes, the math is certainly better, but the math isn't better because of the lengthy explanations that zombies are fearless and ogres are dumb. Now, as Peter Weller may have vaguely alluded to at one point, D&D does have an implied setting. But it doesn't market itself as this. It markets itself as a generic fantasy RPG. If it's going to have a default setting, which the Monster Manual is supposed to be a partial setting book for, it should say so front-and-centre. If it's going to be for generic fantasy, don't spend a big chunk of the Monster book reflavouring the staple monsters. 4E's base setting did generic fantasy well; the setting is "There's magic, most of the world is monsters with civilisation quite rare, Primordials fought the Gods and lost. There's a magic fairy land, a magic shadow land, and a magic land of goobledy weirdness to go to later." You can slot whatever story you want onto that somewhere. The same should be true of the stock monsters; if Beholders don't fit my story they won't go in, but there's always going to be Orcs and Goblins so including the Orcs and Goblins that fit my preconceptions should be as little work as possible. Whatever you (or I) would want to say about Pathfinder, they understood that if you want reams of fluff you need an explicit default setting. So either D&D has to either say "Welcome to the land of Greyhawk!" on the cover and stick fluff everywhere (which I'd be fine with) or stick with their generic fantasy stick and keep the setting-defining fluff to a minimum in the core books.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:words My comments were never about 4e stuff just the MM. I have said over and over again I really like the Monster Vault. EDIT: The discussion was about the basic MM stuff including more or less fluff stuff. I want more for reasons, others want less for reasons. This has never been about edition crap. I like 4e, I think its a good game. kingcom fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
What truly bothers me about the Bear Lore thing is that there's quite a bit of interesting and useful information that only specialists or survivors of previous animal encounters would know, a lot of which contradicts common sense or folklore. Rather than obvious things like "The big animal with nasty claws kills things with them," and "Cave bears live in caves," why not stuff like: DC 15 - Bears can run terribly fast, often more than 30 mph, so outrunning them usually isn't an option. Despite rumors to the contrary, they can run perfectly well downhill. Many can climb trees, and will be provoked to chase you if they see you climbing. You can often distract them by tossing something to the ground, in the hope that the noise and motion will attract their attention and allow you to escape. They are most active at dawn and dusk. DC 20 - Bears are often attracted to campsites by the presence of food, and have excellent senses of smell, so do your cooking a distance away from your tents, and change your clothing before you go to sleep; don't wear what you cooked in to go to bed and be sure to store smelly clothing along with your food/smelly items, either far from the tents or in a bag of holding or other airtight container. Hanging food 10 ft above your campsite may also deter them. It's not that much more effort, and it gives some interesting encounter ideas. Who's ever attacked the PCs with bears during breakfast?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Not that some fun bear nature facts are bad, but anything that encourages that sort of "you didn't specifically verbally indicate so it happens" gameplay is bad. Even if a bear encounter is fun for the PCs, players for some reason will take any tiny shred of information they can and use it to vigorously and vigilantly avoid encounters. So I would personally want the books to avoid the realistic camping advice so that I don't end up in an encounters session where a DM says "Well you did your cooking at a safe distance but you forgot to wash your clothes so bear." I guess the other problem I would have with real-world survival info (which again, as an Eagle Scout and avid camper I am like all about normally), is that it's sort of less relevant in the D&D-iverse. It could easily say "Well bears are really fast and can climb trees, but you know what, you're a paladin. You can kill a bear. Good thing it's not a berbalang or a krensharr or a bullette, because that poo poo is dangerous. Also they can run like 30 miles per hour, but that's like speed 23 so pretend we didn't say that. Even horses are speed 10." theironjef fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Spoilers Below - Yes, totally agreed. I'd been thinking similar, but wasnt sure how to phrase it. "Real World" doesn't mean that lore can't be useful, just that it should provide answers relevant to fighting that thing instead of "will fight you". e: because showing who you're agreeing with is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:38
|
|
