|
So, I'm in a place right now where I'd be happy to give 5e a shot if I were to find a group to play it with, just to see how it plays. Still not going to dump any money on it just for the sake of trying it out. Thinking of race for my character, I obviously want to play a dwarf, because dwarves rock. Mountain dwarf seems right for playing the tanky kind of dwarf I want to play. However, the weird thing about mountain dwarves is that even though they have the stat spread (+2 Str, +2 Con) that a Fighter might want, a lot of their racial abilities include stuff that is useless on a Fighter (like weapon and armor proficiencies that the Fighter already has). So, the natural consequence seems to be to play a mountain dwarf wizard. The funny thing is, if I choose spells that have no saves or attack rolls, buffs and reaction spells, I don't even need to worry about Intelligence. I can just mix it up in combat with the most protective medium armor I can find, wielding a battleaxe or warhammer two-handed but leaving my other hand free for me to cast spells with somatic components. If I do hit I can throw a shield to gain an instant +5 to AC, which is not bad. The arcane tradition given in the basic set (evocation) doesn't really mix with this concept, but thankfully the new article about adapting Eberron to 5e has Artificer as an arcane tradition, which actually has a lot of synergies with this idea: I can blow my extra spell slots on preparing various buff potions, and at higher levels even make my weapons and armor temporarily magical. This I think seems pretty fun, and the benefit of turning my weapon magical through the Artificer class feature is that unlike the magic weapon spell it doesn't require concentration. So, assuming I have only the basic set and the Eberron article to go with, what would you recommend as far as stat-spread, spells, background and everything for this type of character?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Ratpick posted:
This isn't really that weird. The way you need to read this is "No matter what class the dwarf is, he is always proficient in...". So if you look at the Bard class, usually you wouldn't see a Bard armed with a huge battleaxe. This is a Dwarven Bard though so even though his bardic training doesn't cover how to split an orc in tow using an axe bigger than you, he's a Dwarf for God's sake so of course he can do it! Same with elves, all of them can use bows etc because that's just what elves do. So yeah, don't be put off playing a dwarf fighter because of overlapping proficencies, especially as you can become ridiculously tanky with heavy armour and then instead of a skill boost at level 4 you pick the heavy armour mastery feat and the defensive fighting style. For example a level 1 dwarf fighter with heavy armour, sword and shield with the defensive fighting style is like AC 19 with 13 hitpoints which is miles ahead of everyone else at level 1. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Spells that don't need/use saving throws nor attack rolls: Cantrips Blade Ward Dacing Lights Friends Light Mage Hand Mending Message Prestidigitation True Strike Level 1 Alarm Color Spray Comprehend Languages Detect Magic Expeditious Retreat False Life Feather Fall Find Familiar Fog Cloud Identify Illusory Script Jump Longstrider Mage Armor Nagic Missile Protection from Evil and Good Shield Sleep Tenser's Floating Disk Unseen Servant Of these, Blade Ward and True Strike go well with the melee combatant theme, although an "end of next turn" duration along with consuming an entire turn to cast themselves might limit their usefulness. Alarm, False Life, Jump and Longstrider all similarly seem to fit with a physically-oriented Wizard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Hey, I am finally getting to run a D&D game with what seem like a reliable group of smart and fun people (one of whom is my fiancee) after wanting to do so for 15 years and never really getting it off the ground. The D&D 5E starter set has been working pretty well so far, as an introduction for the players and for me as DM to get back the feel of the game without having to do too much work. The playstyle we're using so far is to do dungeon exploration and any combat with a 1" grid vinyl mat plus the starter set minis (with coins for the monsters), and no maps for anything else. I'd love to be able to draw up the whole map in advance, but then there's the challenge of how to keep everything hidden and let the players explore, so as a result I've been drawing in real-time using the gridded maps from the starter box as a guide. We're playing the rules pretty straight, though there are a number of occasions where I as the DM, having read the adventure and knowing what will be more fun for the characters, will fudge rolls by deciding what should happen and then pretending to roll the dice. It's worked out well as far as I can tell, and we're all having fun. So, that's my experience in that regard. We're planning to go through the starter box adventure, which should take us into the spring at least, and then start a "real" game with original characters and a more complex ruleset. I am leaning towards using the full 5E ruleset now that all three core books are available, but another player who's had some experience is interested in going with Pathfinder. With my most recent experience being several years ago playing 3E and 3.5E, I'm not yet partial to either (although I have bought the 5E PHB already) but am more concerned with what will allow the right balance of improv storytelling back-and-forth among the players and DM, puzzle-solving exploration, and tactical combat. What do y'all think? I assume some of you have played both by now. I'm also starting to think about the adventure I'd want to run. Since I'm in grad school I'd rather not have to spend TOO much time outside of our bi-weekly game sessions thinking up encounters, areas, and storylines, and thus I'm leaning heavily towards a pre-published adventure or combination of several. I know 5E only has the Tyranny of Dragons available so far and that it's rather unremarkable, but on the other hand I'm reasonably familiar with Forgotten Realms (from Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale PC games) and my group is mostly interested in the game as a social experience and excuse to hang out and make lame jokes and maybe get drunk. So, I'm interested to know - what resources are available for helping a DM who has little free time (or little free time for intellectual activities) to put together a tight, thematic adventure? And finally - is six players too many? Because it's looking like we have interest from that many people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:This isn't really that weird. The way you need to read this is "No matter what class the dwarf is, he is always proficient in...". I understand your point, but I'm already kind of sold on the idea of a dwarven warwizard, with all the spells reflavored as the character activating war runes and such (for an example, all the crafting related stuff from the artificer will be about the character infusing magical victory runes on their weapons and armor. All the divination type spells will be refluffed as rune-casting. The idea for this character came from my love of dwarves, the Artificer (even though I think the 5e interpretation is a bit bland but entirely serviceable for this concept) and the fact that I've been on a huge Norse mythology kick recently. Oh, and thanks to gradenko_2000 for that list of spells, I'll take a look and see which best fit my concept!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I understand your point, but I'm already kind of sold on the idea of a dwarven warwizard, with all the spells reflavored as the character activating war runes and such (for an example, all the crafting related stuff from the artificer will be about the character infusing magical victory runes on their weapons and armor. All the divination type spells will be refluffed as rune-casting. You may want to look into multiclassing. I don't think its in the basic rules, but it would let you be a fighter1/artificer 19 or whatever. That level of fighter gets you full armor+shield.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
I can't really answer much of the rest but I'm going to assume by 6 players you mean you plus 6 players. It's about the maximum I'd want to run. I've run groups of players from like 3 people to 9 on a regular basis, and it gets difficult to juggle everything to make a good story and keep everyone engaged when you have that many players. You probably need to find as many tricks as you can to speed stuff up too, especially in combat. Even small things like making players roll damage at the same time as they roll to hit can speed things up. Make sure that if one person is doing some awesome roleplaying poo poo, no matter how cool it is if it's taking up a lot of time make sure to pause occasionally and ask the other players what they are doing. If someone tells you they are going to fix their sword and then... Point out that will take an hour or two and then ask the others what they are doing, then sort of run through it all in order that it happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:So, I'm interested to know - what resources are available for helping a DM who has little free time (or little free time for intellectual activities) to put together a tight, thematic adventure? Putting together a good adventure with a minimal amount of preparation is really more of a general GM practice than anything system-specific: the system is just supposed to be there to make it easy for you to actually pull a Lizardman encounter out of your rear end if that's where the party ends up, but how they get to the Lizardmen is a(n improv, collaborative) mindset. I'd point you towards the GM Advice thread and the Dungeon World GM's Guide
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I understand your point, but I'm already kind of sold on the idea of a dwarven warwizard, with all the spells reflavored as the character activating war runes and such (for an example, all the crafting related stuff from the artificer will be about the character infusing magical victory runes on their weapons and armor. All the divination type spells will be refluffed as rune-casting. Just remember when you cast spells your to hit roll will be proficiency + intelligence modifier. The biggest restriction really is the fact that you are going off the basic rules rather than the PHB. The basic rules don't include multiclassing which would help a lot, or the Eldritch Knight Fighter spec which would also do what you're on about, especially as at higher levels they get abilities to cast spells and attack on the same turn. So yeah you can have a dwarf wizard no problem, but if you're at D20+6 to hit in combat and D20+3 to hit with your spells then it's going to be a bit awkward. I'd say put Int as 15, Str as 14, and Con as 13, as that will give you Int 15, Str 16, Con 15 as your starting stats, and it means you can actually cast spells worth a drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:the Eldritch Knight Fighter spec which would also do what you're on about, especially as at higher levels they get abilities to cast spells and attack on the same turn. To add to this, casting a spell + attack doesn't come completely online until level 18 (before then you can only do cantrip + 1 attack), and even then it's only 1 attack as a bonus action so you don't even benefit from Extra Attack(s). Plus your spells cap out at spell level 4...there's really no reason to use E. Knight instead of multiclass Sorcerer with Quickened Spell metamagic if you have access to the PHB (unless for some reason multiclassing is banned, in which case you're still better off as Battlemaster if you're sticking with Fighter or playing a Bard of Valor instead if you want good spells/spellcasting).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Yeah I agree the Eldritch Knight is pretty weak. I think maybe the best ability they get is that later on if they hit something it gets a disadvantage to any saves against a spell which is cool. I think the only reason to take it is if multiclassing is banned and you REALLY want to be a fighter who casts spells specifically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
The real benefit of the EK over other fighter options is to cast Shield as needed to save your rear end. It's an extremely useful spell in 5e. Take Find Familiar as your 'any school' spell so you can get bonuses from the pet. When level 2 slots open up, Misty Step is another good off-school choice for the teleport. Otherwise an EK is a fighter doing fighter things. The cantrip bonuses are forgettable since they suffer from MAD (you don't want to boost both INT and STR/DEX). If fighting is your primary focus and character concept, you are better off going EK than doing wizard1/fighter x. You'll get to Shield more often, be able to cast more spells, and won't delay your feat or extra attack progression. If you mostly want to cast spells, wizard x/fighter 1 is the better option (and wizard x/cleric 1 even better). ritorix fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Putting together a good adventure with a minimal amount of preparation is really more of a general GM practice than anything system-specific: the system is just supposed to be there to make it easy for you to actually pull a Lizardman encounter out of your rear end if that's where the party ends up, but how they get to the Lizardmen is a(n improv, collaborative) mindset. Thanks! I realize it is a more general question, indeed. What are some advantages of D&D Next compared to Pathfinder? What are some specific features of D&D Next that I can take advantage of in order to streamline some stage of the process? (the advantage/disadvantage mechanic has been really nice so far, for example) What are some potential pitfalls? Is there anything cool from Pathfinder or previous D&D editions I could incorporate to make the game more interesting? The house rules outlined earlier in the thread look really neat, I will need to take some time and figure out how to use those suggestions going forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Thanks! I realize it is a more general question, indeed. Just looking at the basic rules as compared to Pathfinder: 1) Character creation is a much simpler process. You don't have to juggle single skill points, skill choice is a matter of "Do I have this skill by virtue of my race, class or background?" 2) Related to point 1, actual character advancement is easier as well, as you won't have to make quite as many choices during level up. 3) The rules in general are much more streamlined than Pathfinder's. Full-round actions are gone, meaning that the action economy in general is more simple. However, the main pitfall as compared to Pathfinder also relate to points 1 and 2: part of the reason character creation and character advancement are such simple processes is that there simply aren't that many choices to make. If you enjoy having a lot of options, Pathfinder is currently the game you want. Also, point 1 and 2 are subject to change as more supplements are released. Yeah, the character creation process is a simple, stream-lined process, but once you start adding more feats, archetypes and backgrounds there are going to be more options to choose from and thus it runs the risk of becoming a slower process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Something to note for skills is that the rules for background customization let you pick any two you want, as well as tool proficiencies & languages. So when picking a bg mainly concern yourself with the feature/flavor you like best since you can edit to taste. Personally I like to take Performance so in case an adventure/campaign goes bad, my character can always fall back on storytelling/songwriting/dancing for a permanent Wealthy lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:What are some advantages of D&D Next compared to Pathfinder? Basically, ask yourself what you felt about 2e D&D and 3e D&D. If you felt like 3e D&D was pretty close to perfection and needed no fixing, stick with Pathfinder. If you felt, on the other hand, like what you wanted was a midpoint between 2e and 3e, some sort of mythical 2.5e, then you might be interested in 5e. Mechanically it's very similar to 3e D&D, keeping most of the basic mechanics and ideas outside of revamping the skill system and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but thematically it hews a lot closer to 2e's low-magic and more "street-level" concepts. Apollodorus posted:What are some potential pitfalls? Is there anything cool from Pathfinder or previous D&D editions I could incorporate to make the game more interesting? So far the only "pitfall" I'm noting is that some of the archetypes seem a bit inferior to the others, and that, much like in 3e, monster "CR" is wildly misleading and should be completely ignored if you're using the MM, unless you want to deal with a TPK within three sessions. And I think about the most important content you could add or houserule to make the game more fun would be more feats, 5e vastly improves on feats as a thing over 3e, but the selection feels really, really tiny. Unfortunately since feats were so badly implemented in previous editions, you probably can't lift many from them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Basically, ask yourself what you felt about 2e D&D and 3e D&D. If you felt like 3e D&D was pretty close to perfection and needed no fixing, stick with Pathfinder. If you felt, on the other hand, like what you wanted was a midpoint between 2e and 3e, some sort of mythical 2.5e, then you might be interested in 5e. Mechanically it's very similar to 3e D&D, keeping most of the basic mechanics and ideas outside of revamping the skill system and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but thematically it hews a lot closer to 2e's low-magic and more "street-level" concepts. The way you put it makes it seem like 5E is the better choice. I definitely felt that 3E made magic a little too common (and thus less magical) but playing my first 3E campaign made me realize how terrible 2E mechanics really were. PurpleXVI posted:So far the only "pitfall" I'm noting is that some of the archetypes seem a bit inferior to the others, and that, much like in 3e, monster "CR" is wildly misleading and should be completely ignored if you're using the MM, unless you want to deal with a TPK within three sessions. How would I go about fixing monster CRs to put together more appropriate encounters? Should I just multiply them all by 1.5 or something? Or is there an alternative table somewhere? PurpleXVI posted:And I think about the most important content you could add or houserule to make the game more fun would be more feats, 5e vastly improves on feats as a thing over 3e, but the selection feels really, really tiny. Unfortunately since feats were so badly implemented in previous editions, you probably can't lift many from them. Hm, duly noted. I will see about this once I've gotten a better feel for the system and started to think about what kind of adventures I will try to run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:How would I go about fixing monster CRs to put together more appropriate encounters? Should I just multiply them all by 1.5 or something? Or is there an alternative table somewhere? This is something people are still debating and trying to figure out; there's not gonna be an easy answer/fix. There're a lot of variables at work so at the end of the day you're probably just gonna have to eyeball it and learn/adjust as you play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Well, in my opinion the only way to deal with CR's is to ignore them, they can't be "fixed," because as soon as you're out of the very most basic creatures, every encounter is going to have different amounts of difficulty based on such basic things as what classes your PC's have. Sometimes a raw Fighter party will stomp through something that wizards couldn't handle even five levels higher, and vice versa. The only real alternative is to simply look at the creatures and their abilities, compare the creatures' attack bonuses to PCs' armor classes, damage to HP, resistances to abilities, sometimes you just have to hazard a guess, and if you guess wrong, fudge something during the fight to avoid a TPK. If you really want to insist on using them, the safest thing would probably be to, yeah, apply some sort of multiplier, but I feel like it's better to simply learn not to rely on them at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Can anyone speak about the 5e monk? I like what I have read in the PHB so far but had a few questions about them. For instance is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? If it is the former that seems really limiting to be stuck with only four elemental abilities the entire life of the monk. Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. Thai clinch knees are murder let me tell you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Monks get the ability to run along vertical surfaces, catching enemy missiles and throwing them back. That's pretty loving ninja.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Trast posted:Can anyone speak about the 5e monk? I like what I have read in the PHB so far but had a few questions about them. For instance is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? If it is the former that seems really limiting to be stuck with only four elemental abilities the entire life of the monk. Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. Thai clinch knees are murder let me tell you. With the element branch, every time you reach a level where you can add a new power, you can also swap an old one out for something new. That's the extent of it, you don't get to freely swap around at rests, and yea, it's not that great. Way of Four Elements is arguable the weakest path; you can get some impressive burst damage, but their stuff burns so much ki that you would probably have been better off using it for other things instead, notably Stunning Strikes. On-hit stun for 1 ki is amazing and monks get it as a default part of their kit at level 5. Monk's unarmed stuff is basically dual-wielding, but doesn't apply stuff like feats & fighting styles iirc. You can make one attack per Attack action and can use a bonus action to make a second attack. At level 2 you can spend 1 ki to make 2 attacks as a bonus action, for a total of 3 per turn. So by level 5 you make 4 attacks per turn between your regular Attack and Flurry of Blows. The damage of your unarmed attacks scales based on level as shown on the chart; at low levels, use a monk weapon since you can use all your monk goodies with it and have a damage die that isn't awful. All grappling does is reduce the target's speed to 0; basically you're better off stunning them with Stunning Strikes. That said, it's not a huge deal to make a check (it consumes an attack, but as a monk you get a bunch) and if you have the Grappler feat you'll get advantage on attacks against the target. It's an alright option before level 5; after that, if you have ki, stunning is universally better. As for the other paths, Open Hand is notable for the free control effects it grants when using Flurry of Blows and having an outright Save-or-Die effect (and even if they save, it hurts a lot). Way of Shadow gets a lot of good stealth stuff and can make great use of a couple Rogue levels for Cunning Action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Trast posted:Can anyone speak about the 5e monk? I like what I have read in the PHB so far but had a few questions about them. For instance is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? If it is the former that seems really limiting to be stuck with only four elemental abilities the entire life of the monk. Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. Thai clinch knees are murder let me tell you. So to answer the questions: 1) Is the elemental branch (aka Avatar mode) limited to picking four of their ki abilities or can they swap through the sixteen total skills available after a long rest similar to a cleric or other divinely powered character? The PHB says: quote:When you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you learn magical disciplines that harness the power of the four elements. A discipline requires you to spend ki points each time you use it. You know the Elemental Attunement discipline and one other elemental discipline of your choice, which are detailed in the “Elemental Disciplines” section below. You learn one additional elemental discipline of your choice at 6th, 11th, and 17th level. Which means: Level 3 - Elemental Attunement + One other Level 6 - Elemental Attunement + Two others Level 11 - Elemental Attunement + Three others Level 17 - Elemental Attunement + Four others So the most you'll ever know is five total, which are four of your choosing. 2) Also did I read right that unarmed damage for them starts at 1d4 and then through the martial arts ability it will ramp up in power as you level? Yes that's right. Since you can start with short swords which are "monk weapons" and they do D6+Dex damage, so they do more. When you get to level 5 though all your "monk weapons" do D6+Dex damage, so you might as well punch stuff then. 3) I assume you can dual wield your unarmed attacks like a one-two punch combo and still use your bonus strike. Uhh technically not as "unarmed" isn't a "light" weapon and the rules don't actually say you're allowed to. However, there is a bit that says: quote:When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. So it's the same as two weapon fighting in reality. So if you have two short swords, you make an attack and then, as a bonus action, you can make another attack with the short sword or unarmed. So if you were unarmed you could punch twice just as you could stab twice with two swords. However, you can only make 1 bonus action a turn, so flurry of blows says: quote:Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action. So you can make an attack, then as a bonus action make an unarmed attack/attack with your other weapon OR spend a Ki point to make two unarmed attacks. At level 5 you do get an extra attack though. Which means you can attack, attack, then spend a ki point to make two unarmed attacks for 4 attacks total. 4) Finally would grappling be to the advantage of a monk with good strength? Being able to clinch up and put an enemy at a disadvantage would be nice to use mechanically and as a role play aspect. According to the "grappled" section at the back of the PHB, someone who is grappled has a speed of 0. It doesn't necessarily actually provide an advantage to hi them (though the DM may say it does). It also means that you're putting stats into strength, when really the Monk should be dumping all it's stat increases into Dex and Wis (as your armour rating is 10+Dex modifier + Wis modifier for a total of 18AC while wearing no armour, nice!). Kitchner fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:What are some advantages of D&D Next compared to Pathfinder? It's a heavily modified version of 3.5e (and by extension Pathfinder) that gets rid of some of the jankiest aspects of that game like: * tons and tons of CharOp/multiclassing/prestige-classing * Touch Attacks and other BAB tomfoolery * item wishlisting / Wealth-by-level * buff stacking * feat bloat (at least for now) * small incremental bonus bloat (morale bonus vs reflex bonus vs untyped bonus, etc) * Martials outside of Tome of Battle or multiclassing literally have nothing to do except full attack You could almost call it Dungeons and Dragons: Mike Mearls' 3.5e Houserules Edition 1. Character building is easier - there's less stats to keep in mind, and more-or-less the only decisions characters need to make are their class progression tracks at level 3 and their spells. 2. Monster creation is theoretically easier since you have a chart of expected stats by CR (and goon Sanglorian has made it even easier), but how well this will translate into a fight against the players is up in the air because class design and math isn't as tight as it was in, say, 4E. 3. Combat is objectively quicker at low levels because of a sheer lack of options. As you progress past level 4 or so, everyone starts getting toys to play with. We don't really have a lot of in-depth insight to what happens - some people say combat remains quick, but only because rocket-tagging starts coming into play. Some people say combat starts getting slower as classes start getting more/as many powers as they would have in 4E, especially the casters having to pick through spells. Apollodorus posted:How would I go about fixing monster CRs to put together more appropriate encounters? Should I just multiply them all by 1.5 or something? Or is there an alternative table somewhere? I have attempted to create a fix for this. I have not been able to playtest it yet, but the underlying math and principles are sound, and nobody has piped up yet with any violent reaction. Part 1 and Part 2
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:I definitely felt that 3E made magic a little too common (and thus less magical) You'll be disappointed if you expect 5e to make any significant improvements there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Yeah, doesn't every class have at least one or more way of casting spells? Even Barbarians and Fighters have some limited spellcasting capabilities Although, at the same time, I don't feel like the melee classes are completely hosed like they were in 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah, doesn't every class have at least one or more way of casting spells? Even Barbarians and Fighters have some limited spellcasting capabilities Right - as long as you stay away from the Champion Fighter*, 5E at least pays some lip-service to giving martial characters some mechanical abilities beyond just "full attacks". * The Assassin Rogue, the Path of the Berserker Barbarian and the Beastmaster Ranger are also kind of bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* The Assassin Rogue, the Path of the Berserker Barbarian and the Beastmaster Ranger are also kind of bad Just asking because I'm playing my first D&D and picked the shape shifting Druid over the extra spells when in terrain types if I fall into the same *bad* category?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:
My advice would be to just use the encounter building guidelines as is. CR has next to nothing to do with building encounters. The rule of it is just supposed to be If your party's level is equal to or greater then the CR of this monster it is ok to use them in normal everyday encounters. XP value is what actually matters for building encounters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Right - as long as you stay away from the Champion Fighter*, 5E at least pays some lip-service to giving martial characters some mechanical abilities beyond just "full attacks". Assassin Rogue, Berserker Barbarian are still pretty good classes. Assassin has some cool out of combat stuff and if it can get the drop on some one deals fantastic damage. Berserker is just plain powerful. Though there are big downsides to using it's full power more then once every long rest. Champion Fighter is rather boring but it still at least does it's job. koreban posted:Just asking because I'm playing my first D&D and picked the shape shifting Druid over the extra spells when in terrain types if I fall into the same *bad* category? See above for my opinion on the bad subclasses. But Most people think that the Moon Druid is too powerful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
koreban posted:Just asking because I'm playing my first D&D and picked the shape shifting Druid over the extra spells when in terrain types if I fall into the same *bad* category? You're playing one of the stronger classes and arguably the better archetype of that class. As long as you can get out of level 1 so you can actually start shapeshifting, you should be more than fine - a shifted Druid can be a really powerful and tanky melee fighter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Assassin has some cool out of combat stuff and if it can get the drop on some one deals fantastic damage. Open question: how does stealth work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Open question: how does stealth work? So how it should work is like this: You say you're going to sneak down a corridor, and I'm like OK sure. We assume you're actually being stealthy and poo poo. Now here you can just bluff and make then roll for stealth anyway so they think there's a creature ahead but let's assume there is. You take a Stealth (Dex) check. This is either compared to the NPC's "passive perception" or their "Perception (Wis)" check (rolled by the DM). You compare it against the passive score if the creature isn't particularly looking for sneaky things. So like a Baker walking home from work might have a passive perception of 10. If you want to sneak up on him you'd have to roll higher than 10, as he's not actively looking for assassins and poo poo. Bored or lovely guards, or people generally not expecting sneak attacks and poo poo will also fall into this category. You compare against a Perception check if someone is actively on the look out for sneaky poo poo. This could be a vigilant guard who is watching out for people sneaking up on his camp, or it could be an enemy actively searching for you. If this is the case your stealth check is compared to their perception check and the highest wins. So even if you roll a 6 if they roll 5 you're all good, but if you roll a 16 and they roll a 20 you're caught. Some DMs, like mine sadly, don't get this difference and just roll against perception for everything which makes it a bit more random. Not that it matters mind you as I've rolled less than 6 on the D20 for about 8/10 stealth checks so far. Generally as well you need to not be seen to stealth, I know that seems obvious but it needs to be said. So there needs to be shadows, things to hide behind etc. Unless you're a light foot halfling and then you can hide behind humans which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:My advice would be to just use the encounter building guidelines as is. CR has next to nothing to do with building encounters. The rule of it is just supposed to be If your party's level is equal to or greater then the CR of this monster it is ok to use them in normal everyday encounters. XP value is what actually matters for building encounters. A monster's CR is the thing (the only thing) that defines what its XP value is (Page 275 of the DMG "Experience points by challenge rating"). Telling someone who wants a fixed encounter building system that they don't need one because CR isn't the number you use for encounter building is disingenuous and misleading, since fixing the CR system would necessarily involve recalculating the xp values, which in turn would mean rewriting the encounter building system. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A monster's CR is the thing (the only thing) that defines what its XP value is (Page 275 of the DMG "Experience points by challenge rating"). You could just grant xp at specific story milestones or per session attended as suggested as alternatives in the DMG if for whatever reason the xp of the creatures no longer matches the official CR rating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:You could just grant xp at specific story milestones or per session attended as suggested as alternatives in the DMG if for whatever reason the xp of the creatures no longer matches the official CR rating. Yeaaaaah, I don't know any GM's who actually give XP for monster kills in any system any longer. I think most people with any experience migrate to giving XP for "story advances" or per session or something along those lines. XP for monster kills really only seems like a mechanic I'd use if I was intentionally doing some retro beer&pretzels, boardgamey dungeoncrawl thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Yes, by all means just have everyone level up when it feels about right / when it suits the story / after every major quest / whenever they make it back to civilisation / after every boss fight / however you want to do it that's not fiddly totals. There's been no real point to xp for monster kills since the whole thing of classes needing different xp totals for levels and getting different rewards for different actions was kinda quietly phased out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Assassin Rogue, Berserker Barbarian are still pretty good classes. Assassin has some cool out of combat stuff and if it can get the drop on some one deals fantastic damage. Berserker is just plain powerful. Though there are big downsides to using it's full power more then once every long rest. Berserker is trash, you get to make one attack as a bonus action while raging at the cost of experiencing perhaps the most debilitating status effect in the game. Champion is god awful because the damage bonus from the expanded crit range is outdone by any Battlemaster spamming maneuvers that add damage. It's not just boring, it's mechanically lovely. Frankly all 3 of the Rogue specialties aren't great, but they at least have neat niche things unlike the above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Yeah I think when you play a rogue whether or not you get to do interesting poo poo is totally in the hands of your DM. All three have interesting things they can do but they need to be given the opportunity. If your DM doesn't do that then you're useless, if they do you can do some cool poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah, doesn't every class have at least one or more way of casting spells? Even Barbarians and Fighters have some limited spellcasting capabilities Magic very quickly becomes the easiest solution to most problems, a lot of monsters just have lists of spells rather than unique abilities, and some monsters are purpose-built to screw over a low-magic party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 13:31
|
|