|
Chaltab posted:Bahamut is supposed to be both Platinum and a good guy right? Because that looks like an evil dragon with tin scales. Yeah. Looks more Blue than Platinum, looks kind of evil, and rather uh thin and malnourished. That Tiamat looks nice and beefy, but Bahamut looks all stringy and starved. I think it would be better if he looked about as thick as Tiamat's body, and maybe with a more chrome-ish looking color?
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I think you could argue he is fairly platinum colored. That mini's more blue-ish than platinum or tin colored. I'm not sure about "evil", either, it's more just generic looking. It's kinda weird to hear the platinum dragon described as "normally looking too silver" because when I'm thinking of platinum I'm thinking in terms of jewelry or coins, which are very very silvery looking. MonsterEnvy posted:I know along with dragons you can have ground minis like Gnolls and Stone Giants fight as well. I know roughly how the rules work, I was just wondering if you could have x-wings vs dragons by combining the Star Wars and D&D games that are both branded Attack Wing. I guess the answer is "kinda, but not really". I won't pretend I'm not disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
Well a problem there is that there is already of type of Dragons called Silver Dragons. So I guess they did not want him to just look like a big Silver one. I think this sort of look would have been best for him, but bigger. 
MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
It's that D&D thing where one cool* idea is implemented, and then it needs an opposite thing, (or 8 more things to fill out the grid, or 12 more versions of itself that aren't as interesting, or whatever) which just ends up being kinda lame. You know what? I could actually get behind the idea of the Alloy Dragon. *if slightly cheesy Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Wait this comment seems like it was directed at me, did you think you were quoting me, or does this guy get flack on this thread as well? It's not directed at you. I was just pointing out a comment that tries to counter an argument of Price for Core rules for Game A and B with the comment of 'theres a beginners set' is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
I actually hope D&D attack wing doesn't become a shitfest like the star trek one quickly became, but the way WizKids does product support means that will be a short lived dream
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I actually hope D&D attack wing doesn't become a shitfest like the star trek one quickly became, but the way WizKids does product support means that will be a short lived dream Well at least the D&D minis are cross comparable. Which is a plus I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well at least the D&D minis are cross comparable. Which is a plus I guess. Yeah, the rarer minis are cheaper than their singles were online at first, at least
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
I think that Bahamut figure looks really cool but yeah that's not Bahamut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well a problem there is that there is already of type of Dragons called Silver Dragons. So I guess they did not want him to just look like a big Silver one. Where does that illustration come from? Maybe the art was misplaced or the artist misread some description, like those in Complete Divine and Races of the Dragon? wikipedia posted:Bahamut is depicted as a massive, long and sinuous dragon with silver-white scales and blue, catlike eyes. According to Complete Divine and Races of the Dragon, the exact color is hard to specify and may depend on Bahamut's mood, ranging from sky-blue to frosty indigo. You would expect someone called the Platinum Dragon to look like a platinum dragon and books do consistently describe him that way. Plenty of illustrations, too, go with the silvery-white-metallic angle. Most likely that picture was a one-time thing that got cargo culted to the miniatures line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Yeah, the mini was already brownish blue, but that one is just completely blue. This is a blue dragon. That picture is definitely of Bahumat at least. It has him in his human form there with the golden canaries that are actually golden dragons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
So am I the only one who never looked up platinum and just sorta assumed it was some kinda gold-silver mix (because those are the two most prominent "good" dragons).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So am I the only one who never looked up platinum and just sorta assumed it was some kinda gold-silver mix (because those are the two most prominent "good" dragons). That would be an electrum dragon! Those existed in AD&D. They were neutral good philosophers who were often "as immobile as statues" when thinking, and their breath weapon caused confusion and/or enfeeblement. (Dragon's choice I guess??) That is all there is to say about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Maybe you just had it confused with electrum, which is indeed a gold-silver alloy? It's time to revisit those Equipment chapters on old-school D&D coinage (which actually included electrum). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Congrats on winning Tiamat. Now this thread has MonsterEnvy monster envy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Maybe you just had it confused with electrum, which is indeed a gold-silver alloy? No, the thought never even went that far. Gold and silver dragons are the big "GOOD" dragons so platinum must be both of those together! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It has a low barrier of entry if you were already a TRPG/D&D player. Otherwise there's still a lot of cruft that could be less complicated, such as attributes vs attribute modifiers, attacker rolling to beat the defender vs saving throws, calculation of saving throw DCs, when and how to apply proficiency, and SPELLS SPELLS SPELLS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Soooooooo I'm planning on multiclassing Fighter/Paladin. I'm getting Fighter to 4 so I can get the stat increase, but I have a question. Now, I know Martial Champions do end up doing more damage in the long run then the Champion, because crits are a trap. However, since I'm not planning on actually improving the martial abilities past what you get at 4, I'm wondering if it would be worth it to just go Champion so I get the 19-20 crit range and more chances to double smite damage dice.  I might just switch out for Champion once I get higher level spell slots, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It's the weirdest thing about D&D Next. It's designed to be easy to get into if you already know D&D, which probably means you already have a set of books from a previous edition or clone like PF knocking around, so why would you drop $150 on a set of rules that are just a watery rehash of a version you already own? And it's so backwards-looking and intentionally off-putting to new players I don't see them getting a whole lot of new customers. Who, exactly, is the target audience for this $150 slab of mediocrity? I guess it's me. My previous (20 years ago) experience had completed faded, I had no books anymore. I picked up the PHB and it all made sense. The rules feel streamlined, character creation is relatively easy, classes have interesting abilities. The PHB was $30 on amazon, and that was all I needed to jump into a group. I've since purchased the DMG ($45 on black friday) and a few other books. But at 35, $150-$200 is not a lot of money to spend on a hobby. I can drop that going out with my wife and some friends for dinner and drinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It's the weirdest thing about D&D Next. It's designed to be easy to get into if you already know D&D, which probably means you already have a set of books from a previous edition or clone like PF knocking around, so why would you drop $150 on a set of rules that are just a watery rehash of a version you already own?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I know there's a lot of Next hate around, but I'd like to offer a simple opinion to the contrary. It... doesn't, though. It has a lower barrier to entry than other editions, because it's newer, but for a completely new group of people, they're basically all as difficult as each other. The core rules for combat and non-combat resolution are deep and complex, and nowhere near quick enough to explain in ten minutes with any accuracy, let alone learning all the fiddly bits like what gives you advantage, how to calculate your bonuses, etc etc etc.# You think it's simple because it's simpler than you're used to, not because it's simple. Dungeon World is simple (if you're not sure what happens, roll 2d6+stat, on a 6- bad stuff happens, you get XP, ona 7-9 reasonable stuff happens or good stuff with a downside, on a 10+ great stuff happens), and even that takes a little while to explain. Next is designed for existing D&D players to pick up easily and play without really reading it much because they KNOW D&D. It's not remotely designed for new players to learn on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Next is designed for existing D&D players to pick up easily and play without really reading it much because they KNOW D&D. Luckily our group doesn't spend a ton of time debating any of this and takes it in stride if it turns out an on-the-spot ruling went against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
The thing is, it didn't even have to be complicated. Non-combat: To do a thing, declare it and roll a d20. Add the matching attribute modifier to your roll, and add the proficiency bonus to your roll if your background is related to that thing. Or, pick 2 attributes to be proficient at. If you do a thing matching that attribute, you add both the attribute modifier and the proficiency bonus to your roll. Otherwise it's just the attribute modifier. Beat the DC set by the DM to accomplish it. Combat: Roll your d20 and add your attribute modifier and proficiency bonus to it. Beat the target's AC to score a hit. (The only change I'd make here would be to go back to Fort/Ref/Will defenses that the attacker's "spell attack roll" needs to beat, as well as level-based scaling of player AC) And right there you've got the framework for a game that you could teach in 5-10 minutes, especially since Bounded Accuracy means non-combat DCs are simple to set and monster stats are (~relatively~) easy to pull up. Except they bolted on so much other stuff to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I know there's a lot of Next hate around, but I'd like to offer a simple opinion to the contrary. Next has a low barrier to re-entry but it still suffers from the same pedagogical failings that are, at this point, basically defining characteristics of the hobby. For a new player the game constantly asks you to make decisions based on information you haven't learned yet. Durrr, I'm an idiot and left the reply tab open for hours. Also we're going to give 5e a slightly more serious go starting on Friday. None of this Lost Mines of Paladalfaphalver "hey, Mike, so... uh... we need the rules to actually make your intro adventure..." jank. The monster creation and customization rules are almost as bad as 3e. This saddens me. LFK fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
5th is a declaration that D&D is now a nostalgia product more than a developing game. It's the first edition to actively walk back an entire previous edition, not because of actual problems with the design but because traditionalists objected to it. It's a declaration that D&D means vancian casting, save or die monsters, and noncasters being strictly limited in their abilities. It's an okay game on its own, but it's deliberately not as good a game as it could be because it doesn't commit to anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
You're all poo-poo'ing my "low barrier of entry" comment. It's anecdotal of course, but I hardly think that 4 sessions at age 14 constitute an age 34 "re-entry". Seriously, 20 years, zero experience in that time. It was a piece of cake. I may be a bit more technical than the average person (seasoned IT person), and I love RPG video games and MMO's, so I have some experience with the subject matter. Until this week I had literally never even heard of most of these other systems (Fate, Dungeon World, etc). I'm sure the barrier for entry when you have little cognitive thinking skills or only a 5th grade reading level is complicated. Most people trying to play a tabletop RPG will be of that ilk though. This is a nerdy hobby, for nerds right? We pride ourselves on being smart right? I'm not even that heated on this topic, I know there are flaws here. Price, convolution of rules, etc. But it's really not a complicated system, and reading your classes pages in the PHB 2 or 3 times, plus the combat section should give anyone a basic understanding of how it all works. The rest you can pick up as you go. Maybe it's not a good system, but it's certainly fun to play (for me). Gerdalti fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I may be a bit more technical than the average person (seasoned IT person), and I love RPG video games and MMO's, so I have some experience with the subject matter. The video games taught you the D&D mechanics. I have a player like that who although he doesn't get the rules as written spot on, we share a vocabulary that can easily convey the game rules. He still thinks we use THAC0. I personally find the barrier to entry nearly insurmountable. I'm not illiterate, but I could not read the 2e AD&D books. The 3e books made me take a long break from D&D and nearly ended RPGs for me. My theory is that after Mentzer basic was released the grog backlash ended the days of having the book explain how to play the game to you. A quick google search will get you hundreds of hits saying that Mentzer "talked down to them." All the core books since then have been reference books. I do not believe people can learn the game solely from reading the core material. That said, NEXT is on the simple end of D&D games even if I consider it a medium-to-high complexity RPG. Look at Mentzer basic, an 8 year old can read and understand exactly how to play the game an hour. Thing isn't even 100 pages. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:You're all poo-poo'ing my "low barrier of entry" comment. It's anecdotal of course, but I hardly think that 4 sessions at age 14 constitute an age 34 "re-entry". Seriously, 20 years, zero experience in that time. It was a piece of cake. "It's a game for nerds on the spectrum, so it doesn't matter." Appealing to a target market isn't a bad thing, but this train of thought produces a product that will only appeal to that target market because it's very likely to straight up alienate anyone else. Which just seems like a complete waste as we're in a heyday of nerd culture breaking into the mainstream. Yes, if you want to learn D&D it's functional, but there's no way 5e is going to do a good job drawing in the "nerd-curious." Also the idea "what if D&D was written to be accessible?" really shouldn't be as radical as it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
If a DM is good the game will be good, but if the rules are bad players are just going to stop engaging the rules. See grappling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
I've got to say, as a DM I'm feeling the effects of their formula-free CR system when it comes to designing encounters. "Follow the rules for creation and then try to kill the party as hard as you can" is a pretty great practice if you can keep to it. But what I'm finding is most of the monsters have low AC, middling amounts of HP, and dangerous damage output. This has resulted in a string of very swingy encounters. For a level 4 party I had ... 1) Thrown in a fight with some bugbears to give flavor to a traveling segment. The budget put the encounter about 30% through the "Hard" range, ie. some people may get banged up a bit and a few class resources will get used up. The bugbears rolled okay, not even exceptionally well, and the party had a number of misses even though the AC was low to hit. By the 3rd round a TPK was starting to look like a very plausible outcome. People were down, big spells were spent, and everyone still standing had at least one bugbear up in their face. Things had gotten serious. They made it through, narrowly, and afterwards the party was badly used up and every one of them agreed they needed a long rest right away. 2) Set up what was supposed to be a climatic story encounter as the party begins in on the next Act. The same 4th level party was going to come under ambush against waves of young dragons appearing round after round. I had contingencies ready for player deaths, an NPC they had met earlier who was waiting in the wings to "arrive just in time" to help out after a few rounds had gone by. The CR budget was past the upper limit for "Deadly" and I had prepared for the fight to get a little out of hand with the intention of building on the narrative with it. The result was the party dispatched the beasts so effectively that I left the NPC out entirely, and while some of them took a pretty good beating it wasn't anything the party's healing capabilities couldn't keep up with and everyone stayed on their feet. The party was split on needing a long or short rest afterwards. They went with short. In the aftermath of fight #2 they felt like bad asses and rightly so, but from where I was sitting a small amount of variance with the dice had turned an earlier meh fight into "oh poo poo, this is about to go very badly", and 2 sessions later was responsible for undermining the severity of an encounter whose difficulty was supposed to be bordered on "DM is a cheating rear end in a top hat". Instead it was just stunned adventurers standing around going, "drat, that's a whole ton of dragons we just murdered". I get that randomness comes with the territory, and a string of hits or misses has a sizable effect on the encounter, but even still the amplitude of that still feels a bit too strong. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I'm not even that heated on this topic, I know there are flaws here. Price, convolution of rules, etc. But it's really not a complicated system, and reading your classes pages in the PHB 2 or 3 times, plus the combat section should give anyone a basic understanding of how it all works. The rest you can pick up as you go. D&D isn't a simple RPG. That's not to say it won't be easy enough for a given person to understand. But it's complicated when compared to other RPGs (e: I should probably specify that I don't mean all other RPGs by any means. I'm not suggesting that the new D&D is more complicated than say Pathfinder, AD&D, or Rolemaster). Figure out how Invisibility actually works* and tell me the system isn't complicated. *Yeah yeah, you cast Invisibility and then you're invisible. I mean try to figure out what that means mechanically. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:But it's complicated when compared to other RPGs. And it's complicated where it shouldn't be, at that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:5th is a declaration that D&D is now a nostalgia product more than a developing game. It's the first edition to actively walk back an entire previous edition, not because of actual problems with the design but because traditionalists objected to it. It's a declaration that D&D means vancian casting, save or die monsters, and noncasters being strictly limited in their abilities. Which is hilarious because the edition that it walked back to actively tried to toss out the stupid poo poo from the edition before it. Progress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
5e still holds the cardinal sin of making new players immediately choose how accidentally powerful they are right off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I probably am being anecdotely obtuse in this situation too. I tend to read, and research, and read more, and dig into mechanics. This sort of thing, despite very limited experience with this system, is sort of my wheel house. I mean hell, I learned and implemented site-to-site ipsec vpn on a totally unfamiliar system in 3 hours this morning. I am clearly not the average scenario, nor am I even close to bordering on the nerd-curious. You're (collectively) probably more correct, and I am again applying anecdote when I consider my group of friends and how quickly they've taken to it. They all happen to be like me in that mechanic's sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I'm sure the barrier for entry when you have little cognitive thinking skills or only a 5th grade reading level is complicated. Most people trying to play a tabletop RPG will be of that ilk though. This is a nerdy hobby, for nerds right? We pride ourselves on being smart right?  Sure doesn't sound like you've had to deal with introducing/teaching someone unfamiliar to the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:I mean hell, I learned and implemented site-to-site ipsec vpn on a totally unfamiliar system in 3 hours this morning. Nah it's you, you're the alpha nerd. I submit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Alloy Dragon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud-1K4cm2x4 ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I actually hope D&D attack wing doesn't become a shitfest like the star trek one quickly became, but the way WizKids does product support means that will be a short lived dream Generally the D&D Attack Wing stuff features more expensive boxes of the dragon minis that released with 5E. My store marked them down by a lot because essentially all the extras you get out of an Attack Wing box are some tiles and (I think) a stat card. I'm not that impressed with the new D&D minis line, Pathfinder seems to have much more interesting and often better minis. For every good 5E mini, like Tiamat, there are a lot of really bad ones, like the copper dragon, who looks they just spray-painted it and thought they were done (and it's also indistinguishable from a gold dragon). And there's a lot of really dull medium minis in the 5E line. AFAIK they are both done by the same company so the difference in quality is weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yeah, sorry I forgot to mention that instead of being around 5 times the price of (eg) Dungeon World like the full version, the D&D starter set with the cut-down rules is priced roughly the same as (eg) Dungeon World. It was completely unfair of me to compare the price of a full game to the price of another full game. It's not about comparing prices of different games. It's about calling D&D's price a "barrier to entry" when the price of the entry level product is literally zero dollars. kingcom posted:See, comments like this are one of those things that get people to dogpile on you kewl beanz
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:19
|
|
