|
Victorkm posted:Yeah but why are a group of player characters fighting a centaur or the centaur fighting the PCs? Unless the PCs are all evil in which case they deserve to get pasted by a neutral good hunter/gatherer.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Victorkm posted:Yeah but why are a group of player characters fighting a centaur or the centaur fighting the PCs? Unless the PCs are all evil in which case they deserve to get pasted by a neutral good hunter/gatherer. "the players aren't really expected to fight this monster" isn't an excuse to publish a badly designed monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Also I'll have you know that centaurs are Chaotic Good. As a Lawful Neutral paladin, I EDIT: Wait, no, they're neutral. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I just dislike all that talk you did. An OK would suffice. I don't give a single gently caress whether you like it or not as long as you stop giving useless advice. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I mean even if you're not TRYING to kill the players. Even if you're a good DM focusing the fighter. If the players don't know what's coming, they might not do the perfectly smart thing. The wizard might not throw out his magic missiles at the first sign of trouble. Players might try to fight the centaur at range (which is a MISTAKE), you drop two arrows into the fighter bringing him down to an average of 12HP- maybe he doesn't pop his Second Wind right away because he doesn't realize that the next turn you're going to charge him and knock him rear end over teakettle. If you hit with both the charge and hooves, HE COULD DIE. He has 34HP to dead and the average of the charge if both attacks hit is THIRTY ONE HIT POINTS. That's the AVERAGE. He could die, turn 2. He could die turn 1 if you charge right away and get a few 6's! The guy whose job it is to take hits dying from a "medium" encounter on turn one because of a bad roll! This is a "medium" encounter for a party of 4 level 2 PCs and the fighter could die with a quirk of the dice just because he didn't pop his Second Wind the moment he took 5 damage. The Centaur is a good example of something with a hosed up CR. Its melee damage and charge damage is disproportionately strong compared to other CR2 monsters and compared to PCs. 1d10 + 2d6 + 8, plus an additional 3d6 if it charges. This is completely unlike any of the other CR2 monsters, which leads me to believe that it's a misprint; maybe there was going to be some weaker centaur variant that was cut at the last second, or maybe someone just hosed up. Compare to some of the other CR2 monsters. The Berserker only deals 1d12+3 damage per turn. The Rhinoceros has a 2d8 charge and a single 2d8+5 attack. An Ogre is CR2: 2d8+4 melee, no charge. And none of these fuckers have multiple attacks like the Centaur. All of these are totally within reach of a level 2 party. Take away the Centaur's second attack and it's probably a CR2 creature (on the high end of CR2, but totally possible)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Great advice guys, I'm glad to see you're keeping a positive and open attitude towards providing constructive advice. All that needs to be said is that there is an encounter system listed in the DMG, some players like it, others don't. One of he posters in the other DnD thread posted an alternative and explained why he made the changes that he did. Since there are multiple methods of awarding xp if you don't use the standard system don't feel you can't just award the group the xp appropriate to the fight. But sure, continue to sling insults and tell people how they obviously don't understand the system as well as you do, or construct ridiculous examples of how broken the CR rating is when you make a monster with great ranged attacks fight a party from 100ft away (which admittedly is dumb to ask someone to do because there is always a way to take even well balanced creatures and make them overpowered based on how, where, when etc they fight). Kitchner fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:All that needs to be said is that there is an encounter system listed in the DMG, some players like it, others don't. One of he posters in the other DnD thread posted an alternative and explained why he made the changes that he did. Since there are multiple methods of awarding xp if you don't use the standard system don't feel you can't just award the group the xp appropriate to the fight. Do you intentionally skip the context or? Here it is presented in full: The original question: 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? The original answer: Generic Octopus posted: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. Sounds resolved right? We didn't even have the big alternative CR system at the time so 'you have to learn to eyeball it yourself' is probably the best answer. It was said and done until: 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. Someone said 'dont change anything leave it as is', despite the whole question was based on the idea that encounter guidelines were not working correctly. Later explained the context of the comment was with the understanding that encounter guidelines DO work well: MonsterEnvy posted:I am completely serious that the system works the way it currently is. It is not broken or useless. It does what it says it is supposed to do. Hence why people decided to provide actual examples as to why this statement is clearly not true for the millionth time. kingcom fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Hey, based on the numbers in the Basic rules and some thinking, I decided to cook up a simple XP system that tries to strike the balance between bean-counting and characters leveling up when it's narratively appropriate. The math checks out at level 1 for groups of 3 to 5 (i.e. the system assumes the same amount of encounters for the group to level up) and is self-adjusting for groups of that size. It also comes with the added benefit of allowing for pacing the game on a per-adventure level. It's not a good fit for dungeon crawls (where characters are constantly under threat of random encounters) but if you want to run the game using more narrative time while trying to maintain some of the game's balance assumptions (i.e. the fact that spellcasters are only balanced if long and short rests are few and far between) this system should also help you with that. Part of this system owes itself to the neat little game Old School Hack, which has a really neat XP economy, but the actual system only resembles Old School Hack superficially. This system assumes a group of 4 PCs as the baseline, but as noted above the system is self-adjusting to parties of 3 or 5 as well. First you'll need to calculate the difficulties of encounters for a group of four of the appropriate level. An Easy encounter is worth 1 XP, a Medium encounter worth 2, Hard is worth 3 and Deadly is worth 4. After each encounter, the DM puts a number of XP tokens equal as appropriate to the difficulty of the encounter in a bowl in the middle of the table. So, if the group had just beaten an encounter that would've been Easy for a group of 4, the DM would put just one token in the bowl. Once the number of tokens in the bowl equals to the size of the group, each player gets one token and the PCs reach a minor milestone. During a minor milestone the group is free to take a short rest uninterrupted and there's nothing the DM can do about it. The characters have just survived a bunch of encounters, give them a freaking breather. Once a PC gains their third XP, they've finished the adventuring day and reach a major milestone. This is when they get to take a long rest and prepare for the next adventuring day. Also, by my maths this should be enough for a group of 1st and 2nd level PCs to level up, so congrats! Give those tokens back to the DM and start counting tokens from scratch. So, as I said this system assumes a group of 4 for the sake of calculating how much XP an encounter is worth for a party of that level, but it's also self-adjusting: a group of three will have a harder time beating those encounters, but they'll also get to milestones more often (for an example, if the DM was just throwing Easy encounters at the group, a group of 3 would get a minor milestone every 3 encounters and a major milestone every 9 encounters, whereas a group of 4 would only get a minor milestone every 4 encounters and a major one every 12 encounters). Beyond third level, the XP rates need to be rejiggered though. The Basic rules assume that a third level party would gain 1,200 XP each adventuring day, but they need 1,800 XP (from 900 to 2,700) to reach 4th level, meaning that they'd level up in one-and-a-half adventuring day. Because my system assumes an adventuring day in three parts, I'd err on the side of the players and give the players their first level up at the first milestone of their second adventuring day at 3rd level, meaning that to get from level 3 to level 4 you'd need 4 XP instead of 3. Beyond level 3, I don't know, I've yet to do the math. To refine on this idea, I'd also like to somehow tie the idea of milestones into the treasure economy. Basically, for every encounter completed the PCs would gain treasure as appropriate to the difficulty of the encounter, but at every minor milestone the DM would also throw in a limited-use magic item (either a potion, a scroll or any other magic item that has a limited number of uses before it's gone, like a wand) and at major milestones the PCs would gain a magic item that's either "always on" (like a +1 sword, or something less boring I guess) or that's got a limited number of uses per day but doesn't run out of charges, but I'll have to think about that some more. EDIT: One more thing: while the XP values as well as how often the group gets a milestone line up with group size, the GM should bear in mind that the difficulties as calculated for this system are adjusted for a group of 4 characters. An encounter that's Hard for a group of 4 is probably going to be Deadly for a group of 3, and the GM should keep that in mind when constructing encounters. Conversely, a Deadly encounter for a group of 4 might just be Hard for a group of 5. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Cautioning people that the encounter building guidelines as is might produce unwanted TPKs isn't essentially different from suggesting additional survivability at low levels. (It might even be mutually exclusive, if you think about it, but adjusting survivability entirely from the DM back-end has the utility of not confusing players with houserules right off the bat) Even if we grant that the Centaur is an outlier, a newbie DM isn't going to know that just by reading the book. Ratpick posted:This system assumes a group of 4 PCs as the baseline, but as noted above the system is self-adjusting to parties of 3 or 5 as well. First you'll need to calculate the difficulties of encounters for a group of four of the appropriate level. An Easy encounter is worth 1 XP, a Medium encounter worth 2, Hard is worth 3 and Deadly is worth 4. I love your idea of explicitly and mechanically defining rest opportunities and treasure handouts. I want to try this, it's a very cool idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I love your idea of explicitly and mechanically defining rest opportunities and treasure handouts. I want to try this, it's a very cool idea. Giving the PC's "tokens" to help define when they want rests is actually kind of a cool idea, though it might take some serious effort to fluff in some cases(perhaps an adrenaline surge after the first fight in a chain restores some HP and limited-use powers?), and I don't think it'd be unfair to say the DM is allowed to go: "Hey, PC's, explain to me how you manage to rest/recover here." rather than just making it an entirely free thing to use. Though the GM shouldn't be too aggressive about analyzing their rest-justification, he should just push them to come up with something cool rather than taking it as an instant heal effect. Tying it into the treasure economy, though, I think that may be a bad idea. Because if PC's just get to trade tokens or milestones for whatever they want out of the game's selection of magical items(assuming they have enough tokens to "afford" it), then you recapture one of the things I hated the most about 3.x, the way that everything magical and non-standard might as well just have been in a loving shopping catalogue. Magical and special items are no longer unique or interesting, or a defining thing about a character(that he's wielding a long-lost relic of a dead empire he recovered from a tomb or something), it's just another +X item he bought, in 3.x for gold, via this system for "tokens" or "milestones." A system like this might be alright for a total newbie GM who's unsure of exactly how to balance level-ups and treasure handouts, and with total newbie players for whom the main attraction of treasure is that it gives them bigger numbers. But it feels like it takes away something from the, well, story, of a game, to use it at, I loving hate to say it, but at a "higher level" of play, unless you're intentionally doing something dungeon crawly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I love your idea of explicitly and mechanically defining rest opportunities and treasure handouts. I want to try this, it's a very cool idea. Thanks! If I try out this system I'll most likely also use your house rules, including your encounter-building guidelines and better survivability at lower levels. At the moment this is just so much theorycrafting on my part, I don't even have a group to run this game for at the moment. At the very least, I'll adapt this system to my own heartbreaker if I ever get around to dedicating my "D&D but better!" ideas to paper. PurpleXVI posted:Giving the PC's "tokens" to help define when they want rests is actually kind of a cool idea, though it might take some serious effort to fluff in some cases(perhaps an adrenaline surge after the first fight in a chain restores some HP and limited-use powers?), and I don't think it'd be unfair to say the DM is allowed to go: "Hey, PC's, explain to me how you manage to rest/recover here." rather than just making it an entirely free thing to use. Though the GM shouldn't be too aggressive about analyzing their rest-justification, he should just push them to come up with something cool rather than taking it as an instant heal effect.unless you're intentionally doing something dungeon crawly. And again, I stated in my post that this system is explicitly not a good fit for dungeon crawls: the way I see the traditional dungeon crawl it's a hostile encounter where you simply don't take hour-long rests because of the dangers of random encounters. This system is more for free-flowing adventure design where things flow in narrative time. The "adventuring day" might actually be more than a day, this system basically just divides that period into smaller chunks. I should probably type up an example of using this system to make my ideas more clear.  PurpleXVI posted:Tying it into the treasure economy, though, I think that may be a bad idea. Because if PC's just get to trade tokens or milestones for whatever they want out of the game's selection of magical items(assuming they have enough tokens to "afford" it), then you recapture one of the things I hated the most about 3.x, the way that everything magical and non-standard might as well just have been in a loving shopping catalogue. Magical and special items are no longer unique or interesting, or a defining thing about a character(that he's wielding a long-lost relic of a dead empire he recovered from a tomb or something), it's just another +X item he bought, in 3.x for gold, via this system for "tokens" or "milestones." Again, the idea isn't that the players get to choose the items they find from a shopping list: the onus is still on the DM to place the items into the adventure. My system just proposes a rate at which PCs can expect to get new toys to play with, but it's still on the DM to choose or generate said items for the group. e: Gotcha, I found the place where I was being unclear. When I say that after an encounter the PCs get treasure as appropriate to the difficulty of the encounter, I meant mundane treasure like gold, gems, amulets and possibly mundane weapons and armor. At minor milestones PCs can expect to get one limited use magic item (as chosen by the DM) and at major milestones they can expect to gain a permanent magic item (again, as chosen by the DM). Ratpick fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Tying it into the treasure economy, though, I think that may be a bad idea. Because if PC's just get to trade tokens or milestones for whatever they want out of the game's selection of magical items(assuming they have enough tokens to "afford" it), then you recapture one of the things I hated the most about 3.x, the way that everything magical and non-standard might as well just have been in a loving shopping catalogue. Magical and special items are no longer unique or interesting, or a defining thing about a character(that he's wielding a long-lost relic of a dead empire he recovered from a tomb or something), it's just another +X item he bought, in 3.x for gold, via this system for "tokens" or "milestones." I agree with this sentiment, but would say that the biggest problem with nobody having interesting and unique items is that there's been a general lack of them in the lists since at least as far back as 3.x. I remember the guys I played BECMI and AD&D with always being more excited by stuff like "it's a spoon that makes nourishing gruel once a day" or "it's a portable boat that folds up into a tiny piece of cloth" than "it's a sword +3" or "it's a wand of curing". Next has a few interesting things in the treasure tables, but when you actually look at the rarity of them... yeah, it doesn't look great. Trying to capture stuff like "it's a long-lost relic of a dead empire recovered from a tomb" is a great goal, but I think it really needs to be more than a sword +1 you found there and have some mechanical stuff associated with it that makes it play like a long-lost etc. That's been a problem with D&D since forever though, maybe to the point where it's more D&D to have a sword +1 than it is to have a sword that's also the last key to the tomb of King Nebbitzazz and his spirit guides you to there so you can fulfill the prophecy. It seems that currently if you want this stuff, you'd have to make it up. No big deal, I guess. Ratpick posted:e: Gotcha, I found the place where I was being unclear. When I say that after an encounter the PCs get treasure as appropriate to the difficulty of the encounter, I meant mundane treasure like gold, gems, amulets and possibly mundane weapons and armor. At minor milestones PCs can expect to get one limited use magic item (as chosen by the DM) and at major milestones they can expect to gain a permanent magic item (again, as chosen by the DM). I really like the token idea, but I was wary about tying it to treasure. That actually makes pretty good sense though - I'm assuming by "limited use" you mean stuff like healing potions? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
kingcom posted:
His statement is his opinion. OK he thinks the encounter system "isn't broken" and "does what it says it will". So what? People had already said why the system has its failings, but all systems have their failings. There's need for people to go on about it trying to change his mind. He didn't help by then trying to prove his point in a dumb way by asking someone to show how it's imbalanced because you can do that even with good systems of you try hard enough, but it's all very hostile. Who gives a gently caress if one guy's opinion is that he thinks it serves it's purpose? It's entirely possible his group have been using it and it works totally fine for them. Let the reader pick between the guy who says that and the multiple other people who say "don't just use it as standard because of x, y, and z".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Great advice guys, I'm glad to see you're keeping a positive and open attitude towards providing constructive advice. Except unironically. EDIT: quote:People had already said why the system has its failings, but all systems have their failings. There's need for people to go on about it trying to change his mind. He didn't help by then trying to prove his point in a dumb way by asking someone to show how it's imbalanced because you can do that even with good systems of you try hard enough, but it's all very hostile. I'm sorry that my numbers were too hostile for you. However, Monster Envy was doing what you are now accusing me of and have accused me of in the past. Somebody asked for advice and he argued with them about the basis for their request. Now normally I"m all for that but he was also wrong. Alpha Dog tried to point out, at length, that he was injecting his opinions about the system's quality here in this thread, where it does not belong. It didn't really make an impression. Then he requested to be proven wrong with numbers, which I did. I agree that arguing about the quality of the system in this thread is not something that should be done. But Monster Envy was the one who engaged the argument and he leveraged that argument into really, really bad advice for new DMs. There was literally no way to correct that advice without fighting because Monster Envy had picked a fight. I get that you don't like me- I don't like you very much either. But it seems pretty open and shut what occurred here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I agree with you that the argument about the system's plusses and minuses don't belong here. But the problem is that Monster Envy is way super delusional and also likes to pick fights. So here we are. 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I agree with this sentiment, but would say that the biggest problem with nobody having interesting and unique items is that there's been a general lack of them in the lists since at least as far back as 3.x. I remember the guys I played BECMI and AD&D with always being more excited by stuff like "it's a spoon that makes nourishing gruel once a day" or "it's a portable boat that folds up into a tiny piece of cloth" than "it's a sword +3" or "it's a wand of curing". I agree with this sentiment 100%. What I'm thinking of doing is ditching +X weapons and armor altogether, baking the assumed bonuses for magical gear into the math, and giving special weapons and armor more story-related abilities. For an example, instead of finding a +1 sword in a dungeon it would be a magic sword (that thus obviously counts as a magical weapon for the purposes of overcoming monster resistances [another thing I might get rid of altogether]) that, I don't know, shines with light whenever anyone in hearing range of the sword's wielder tells a lie (little white lies glow as bright as a candle, big lies make it shine bright enough to illuminate a dark room). Also, yeah, there's plenty enough cool and weird magic items to choose from that you shouldn't always feel the need to give the players a new and better +X weapon, and this is part and parcel of why I want to get rid of plain +X weapons and armor: to give the magical weapons and armor the players find equal narrative weight to the really fun magic items the game already has in troves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
I can't see any reason not to ditch +x stuff entirely in this game, as long as you also ignore anything that says "you need a magic weapon to..." or similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:His statement is his opinion. OK he thinks the encounter system "isn't broken" and "does what it says it will". So what? You seem to be saying that this thread is not an advice thread, but a 5E hugbox. It's not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
The idea of being early clear about rests and things is interesting, though I can't say it appeals to me. I think if the party wants to rest and can rest then they should be able to. It just requires the DM to find way to essentially incentives the players to take risks by not short resting every 5 minutes. I'm assuming under that system though you're not suggesting the players can ONLY long rest after major plot points? Maybe give them a token for a special 5 minute short rest as a reward for hitting the milestone or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You seem to be saying that this thread is not an advice thread, but a 5E hugbox. It's not. Yeah dude there's a difference between a "hugbox" and "well no one is allowed to disagree with me if they think the game is good". The centaur thing was dumb but I wasn't saying that was your fault, it was his for asking to be proven wrong jn such a dumb way. All your example proved was that in one specific example if you pick the best circumstances and meta game the characters it is unbalanced. That's not going to change his mind, as he'll ignore what you said as you obviously picked a rigged encounter, and it just reaffirms what you think, that the system is broken. You and others made your case as to why you think the CR system doesn't work. We even pointed out that it doesn't even need to be linked to xp if that was what the concern was. So really all you're doing now is arguing with someone to try and win an Internet argument about a roleplaying game, and anyone who thinks about asking for advice or providing a different opinion doesn't want to, in case they get you hounding them over your different opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Maybe give them a token for a special 5 minute short rest as a reward for hitting the milestone or something. That's basically what I had in mind: the reward for reaching a minor milestone is basically getting to take a short rest that doesn't take much "real time," but is more akin to taking a breather before going on with the task at hand. Kitchner posted:I think if the party wants to rest and can rest then they should be able to. It just requires the DM to find way to essentially incentives the players to take risks by not short resting every 5 minutes. I'm assuming under that system though you're not suggesting the players can ONLY long rest after major plot points? That's a really good point. I would agree that the party should be able to take a rest whenever they want, but it should come at a price. I'll probably adapt something like 13th Age's campaign losses for this: taking a short rest before a minor milestone equates to an adventure complication (the dark cult that the PCs are after are now aware of the fact that there's meddling heroes on their tail and thus they strengthen their defenses, just to give an example), whereas taking a long rest before a major milestone equates to, well, basically losing (but losing in this case shouldn't mean that the campaign is over, just that there's a new threat in town that must be addressed now). To use the example of the dark cult again, if the PCs find themselves stretched for resources before the big punchout with the cult and decide to take a long rest, the cult goes ahead with their ritual to open a dark portal into the Dimension of Doom. The campaign isn't over, the stakes have just changed: now the campaign isn't about stopping the cult from opening the dark portal, now it's about finding a way to close the dark portal. EDIT: poo poo, now that I think about it, I could easily marry Dungeon World's fronts and dangers into this system. Taking a short rest before a minor milestone means that one of the dangers on the adventure front progresses one step towards its conclusion, while taking a long rest before a major milestone means that the adventure front goes on to its conclusion and thus changes one of the dangers on the campaign front. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Partly because of the Centaur thing... What ranges and terrains are people mostly fighting at/in? Have you noticed combat becoming easier/harder on the PCs in different distance/terrain scenarios? Is it consistent? Do PCs generally have much effectiveness at range like the ones I've played with seem to have? I've found that in general wide open spaces seem to favor the PC side rather than the monster side, but it sounds like that's not what's happening with everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah dude there's a difference between a "hugbox" and "well no one is allowed to disagree with me if they think the game is good". Except that that's not what happened, someone asked for advice and Monster Envy told them they didn't need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I think you misunderstood a part of my post: the idea of these tokens is not to give the PCs free rein to decide when they rest, it's a mechanic for the DM to pace their adventure in such a way that the PCs get a breather every once in a while. They're every bit a resource for the DM to pace the adventure as they are for the PCs to be able to predictably get a rest after a string of encounters. Looks like I did! It didn't occur to me that it would also help the GM with pacing issues, though that's a good idea, too. And I legitimately liked a lot of the idea with my own interpretation, too, like, giving the PC's a bit of narrative control, like... "After defeating the ogres, covered in their blood and our own, every member of our party is galvanized by a surge of adrenaline. We'll surely pay for it at the end of the day, but for now we feel ready for another encounter at any moment!" [mechanically a short rest or something] And, after thinking about it, I could also kind of see some cooperation with the PC's on treasure options. If the GM doesn't have some hard-set railroad that he expects the adventure to trundle on down, perhaps after hitting a milestone that gives his character access to a new magical item, the party's Fighter pulls the GM aside and goes: "I was thinking, maybe at the end of the tomb I could find..." and they talk it over, and come up with the Blade-Key of Emperor Nebbitzazz, which smites enemies of his ancient empire(lizardmen or something, perhaps) and grants the wielder the ability to open any of the Empire's old tombs or facilities simply by presenting the blade and demanding entry, suddenly providing a shitload of hooks as, after the final encounter, the PC's find both that and, as the GM rapidly improvises, also a large mosaic mural on the wall, a map, indicating where other of the Empire's old forts, tombs and facilities can be found... Obviously it wouldn't be a fit for every game, some GM's have very clear ideas about what they want to do with their game, and their players often trust them with near-total narrative control if it's proven not to lead to bags of severed lizardman genitals in the past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Partly because of the Centaur thing... Well, I think monsters that excel at range are going to prefer wide open spaces and monsters that don't, won't. The deal is that usually players have better damage at range than their enemies. The centaur is definitely an outlier in that he not only has the damage at range to go toe-to-toe with the players, he's also very hard to close with and punishes you for trying. The only good place to encounter him is in a hallway where he can't get distance and can't get 30 feet of movement down to use his charge. I don't think there are very many enemies that excel at range because of the whole "dungeons" part of D&D, I doubt it comes up much in monster design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Looks like I did! It didn't occur to me that it would also help the GM with pacing issues, though that's a good idea, too. And I legitimately liked a lot of the idea with my own interpretation, too, like, giving the PC's a bit of narrative control, like... Absolutely: the system I've devised assumes that the DM is making most of the choices as to what sort of magical equipment the PCs find, but the way you interpreted it is actually how I'd actually run things. Like, when I run any game where punching goblins and looting treasure is the order of the day, I like to consult my PCs as to what kind of magical equipment would be cool for them to find, provided they don't just pick stuff out of a shopping list and we can somehow come up with a cool story for that magic item. And yeah, I totally think that the players and DM should totally work together in creating a good in-world justification for short rests at milestones, whether it's "WE'RE SO loving PUMPED AFTER PUNCHING THOSE OGRES IN THE DICK" or "Man, this forest where we slew those centaurs is really picturesque, let's sit and contemplate the beauty of blood-drenched foliage for a moment." Also, I don't like running railroads. In fact, I like to think on my feet when running games. This system is just me trying to give my own games a bit more structure in terms of narrative pacing and such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Except that that's not what happened, someone asked for advice and Monster Envy told them they didn't need it. Cool, and about 5 people answered the original request for advice. The original requester got several pieces of advice, one of which was that he doesn't need to worry because the system works. So are your posts trying to "prove" Monster Envy's opinion to be wrong for your benefit, for Monster Envy's or for the original requestor do you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:That's basically what I had in mind: the reward for reaching a minor milestone is basically getting to take a short rest that doesn't take much "real time," but is more akin to taking a breather before going on with the task at hand. That sounds much more like what I was thinking. He only problem I've got is that if you plan an adventure over multiple days, every day will include a long rest. So you can't really say with that system "Travel to the far off city of Whateverville and find the shapeshifter disguised as a duke" and then have the city be a week or two worth of travel. Personally I don't like really prescriptive systems outside of combat anyway, as I feel ultimately the DM should be deciding what makes the game better for the group and act accordingly. If I was going to make it more transparent to the players though I think you need some sort of system that says: - Normally a short rest is an hour and a long rest is 8 hours. The group can decide to rest at any time assuming they are safe (if not they risk being attacked etc). - If the group is racing against time (or a phrase that doesn't suck I can't think of one though), which they will be informed of by the DM, then short rests will progress the actions of their enemies while a long rest will greatly progress them. - While racing against time the group will be awarded a short or long rest for reaching minor milestones in the quest. These rests are 5 minutes and 1 hour long respectively, but provide the benefits of a full rest. I don't think you need to "give" a long rest as part of the quest because in theory after they have killed the boss or finished the dungeon or whatever they should be able to get a night's sleep, but I guess you could stretch it out over 48 hours or something. On the other hand though it shows that not every quest is about rushing everywhere and may be stretched out over a longer time. It still has the problem though that you can't say it takes a week to get there, let them rest every night, but also punish them for taking a 4 day detour to another town. Also if I was going to be that transparent I'd probably have like a doom meter for the players or something to make it super clear that wasting time resting will be making the final fight harder but without knowing exactly how. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Cool, and about 5 people answered the original request for advice. The original requester got several pieces of advice, one of which was that he doesn't need to worry because the system works. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but it seems like the rules of this thread need to be further clarified if Monster Envy's in the right and I'm in the wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Like obviously Monster Envy giving out advice not to adjust CRs because the CR system works perfectly is okay. Obviously me giving out advice that CRs need to be adjusted because the CR system is broken is not okay. So show me where the line is and I will abide by it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:That sounds much more like what I was thinking. He only problem I've got is that if you plan an adventure over multiple days, every day will include a long rest. So you can't really say with that system "Travel to the far off city of Whateverville and find the shapeshifter disguised as a duke" and then have the city be a week or two worth of travel. Truth be told, I hadn't even given thought to how this system would interact with travel. Basically, when it comes to travel I have two approaches: either the travel is unimportant and doesn't merit anything beyond narrating "So, after one week you arrive in Hobotown" and then that's where the adventure proper starts, or then the travel is actually super-important and deserves to be made an adventure in and of itself. Think of the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit: in the wilderness the characters were constantly pressed for time and low on rest and resources. Like, they may have made camp for the night at certain points in the story, but even then they were constantly under threat of getting attacked by goblins in the night and thus had to keep on moving. Fatigue, hunger and danger were what characterized travel in those stories. So, basically, if travel from point A to point B is dangerous enough to merit it, run it as a self-contained adventure! What's at stake in that adventure is "Will the PCs make it to Hobotown before the evil forces working there go ahead with their plan?" or something, the minor milestones come to represent those few moments when the PCs have time to catch a few zees before forcing themselves back on the trail again, and the major milestone is the PCs' triumphant arrival in Hobotown to save the day! What I'm basically doing here is stretching the definition of adventuring day to fit the needs of the narrative: sometimes you're in a dungeon and an adventuring day might be just a couple of hours when you punch some goblins and return with loot, sometimes you're on the trail with loving Nazguls and goblins and worgs on your trail and you don't have a moment to lose, and the adventuring day comes to represent something like a week of travel. Of course there's a happy medium between these two extremes: travel from one place to another might not be super important, but you still want to throw in a random encounter or two. Go ahead and run those encounters as self-contained encounters where the PCs are long-rested, but they shouldn't get the benefits of milestones beyond getting XP and treasure for those encounters because they are not important parts of the adventure. This system should kick in when you've got a clear beginning for an adventure, and you need to start pacing the threats and rewards you throw at the PCs. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Like obviously Monster Envy giving out advice not to adjust CRs because the CR system works perfectly is okay. Obviously me giving out advice that CRs need to be adjusted because the CR system is broken is not okay. So show me where the line is and I will abide by it. The sad thing is I honestly believe you that you don't see the difference between saying you think something doesn't work, or that you simply disagree with someone, and what you do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:The sad thing is I honestly believe you that you don't see the difference between saying you think something doesn't work, or that you simply disagree with someone, and what you do. I don't understand what's wrong with saying What this person said is wrong, and this is why/how. If a bunch of people give conflicting advice, I find it extremely helpful when they explain why some of the advice is wrong, especially if they give specific examples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Truth be told, I hadn't even given thought to how this system would interact with travel. Basically, when it comes to travel I have two approaches: either the travel is unimportant and doesn't merit anything beyond narrating "So, after one week you arrive in Hobotown" and then that's where the adventure proper starts, or then the travel is actually super-important and deserves to be made an adventure in and of itself. Think of the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit: in the wilderness the characters were constantly pressed for time and low on rest and resources. Like, they may have made camp for the night at certain points in the story, but even then they were constantly under threat of getting attacked by goblins in the night and thus had to keep on moving. Fatigue, hunger and danger were what characterized travel in those stories. Yeah I totally agree with you, I don't think we have different opinions on how it should work at all. What I was saying is that how you originally described it didn't leave room for boring travel, or at least travel with rests that were to be expected. Like if they need to travel to save a city, and that city was a week away, if I tell them it's going to take 7 days to get there and they decide to take 8 something Bad should definitely happen. However the way I read what your originally wrote was they can't actually take any rests on the way there. I guess what I'm trying to think of is a way to make a long travel with random encounters fit into what you said. So I want the players to take 7 days to get there and have two random encounters per day (not always combat). I'd want the players to be able to rest between encounters, but also have them know the more rests they take them more Bad things happen. Usually I'd just tell them this and have a note of roughly what happens if they take too many short or long rests. If I was going to be transparent though, I guess I'd need to tell them how many rests they can take without loving stuff up. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
On rests, I tend to lean towards enforcing them strictly: the narrative can always be stretched to justify a rest now, or not a rest now, but there's a mechanical reason to pace the rests in a certain way, and leaving it up to the narrative to when it can happen can mess with that. If I'm going to structure the story in such a way that the group can rest when they should, while conversely also throwing in a reason to make resting impossible when the group isn't "owed" it yet, I might as well cut out the middleman and make resting a purely gameplay consideration. At most, I'd take 13th Age's approach to it: if the party wants to rest when they shouldn't, the narrative takes a hit; if the party wants to push on even while they still have an opportunity to rest, the narrative gains a bonus. Ratpick posted:I agree with this sentiment 100%. What I'm thinking of doing is ditching +X weapons and armor altogether, baking the assumed bonuses for magical gear into the math, and giving special weapons and armor more story-related abilities. For an example, instead of finding a +1 sword in a dungeon it would be a magic sword (that thus obviously counts as a magical weapon for the purposes of overcoming monster resistances [another thing I might get rid of altogether]) that, I don't know, shines with light whenever anyone in hearing range of the sword's wielder tells a lie (little white lies glow as bright as a candle, big lies make it shine bright enough to illuminate a dark room). Just a reminder on how loot is supposed to work in 5E: 1. You don't need +x weapons anymore, except when facing traditional-D&D monsters that need +x weapons to hurt/kill. You can get around this by simply not using such monsters or ignoring that particular monster ability. 2. You may need +x armor, but I already explained that in my modified monster stats table Ratpick posted:Thanks! If I try out this system I'll most likely also use your house rules, including your encounter-building guidelines and better survivability at lower levels. At the moment this is just so much theorycrafting on my part, I don't even have a group to run this game for at the moment. Since we're theorycrafting, I want to note that you probably do not need to use both the additional level 1 HP and the modified monster stats table. Something like 10 extra HP on a character is going to drag out the hits-to-kill of a monster against a player by a full 5 hits, and that may make combat way too unthreatening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You seem to be saying that this thread is not an advice thread, but a 5E hugbox. It's not. Right. This is for new players (like myself) to ask questions and get advice without worrying about comparisons to different editions or end game theory craft. However it looks like the question of making monsters generated a lot of discussion and that is good. Just remember to keep it positive and try not to overwhelm the new folks. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
So my Paladin just hit 5, any reason to multiclass into something else? Any cool combos to consider?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:So my Paladin just hit 5, any reason to multiclass into something else? Any cool combos to consider? Dunno, do you want to go Paladin 5 / Whatever else 15 for some reason? Just go Paladin 20 if you want to play a Paladin. This edition is not really about multiclassing, unless you are a Wizard and want to bump up your AC, or are doing some Warlock thing. As for combos? You could take feat combos. You could take Resilient (DEX Saves) for CHA + DEX + Prof. Modifier. Honestly there are not a lot of options. You choose "Paladin" and the type of paladin at character gen. Honestly you could go Paladin 5 / Cleric 15, but I am not exactly sure why you would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:So my Paladin just hit 5, any reason to multiclass into something else? Any cool combos to consider? From what I have read that is when the paladin really starts ramping up in power. You're getting an extra attack now along with a lot of other goodies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Trast posted:Right. This is for new players (like myself) to ask questions and get advice without worrying about comparisons to different editions or end game theory craft. Okay, I will try to do that. On the subject of avoiding weird CR landmines, here's the basic gist: - Watch the immunities. If you're level 2 and your wizard took cone of cold and nobody has magic weapons yet, don't use the Spined Devil, who has immunities to non-magical weapons and cold. - Watch the specials. Monster Envy brought up the Intellect Devourer because it is sort of the bugbear (heh) of encounter creation- a monster that has a semi-permanent stun (requires a high-level spell to unstun) and an ability that basically amounts to an invitation to coup de grace PCs at CR 2. Be very vigilant about any ability that circumvents the ordinary flow of combat or abilities that require a high-level spell to undo. Essentially, the ID could potentially have a place in your campaign- as a low-level hazard in a higher-level fight. If players are aware of what the ID does and how it works, it could be an interesting wildcard in a CR 10 or 12 mindflayer fight, where the worst thing that happens is players have to spring into action to stop the disabled fighter's brain from being eaten and then spend a high-level spell slot to restore him after the fight. - To expand on the above, any ability that effects players' action economy for more than one player or for more than one round, or applies an effect that persists beyond battle (including, you know, death) should probably not be used against the players without some sort of means to reverse the effect being on hand. That might mean just waiting until players are high enough level to have the right spell slots available, or it might mean doing the whole quest-for-magic-item thing. There are a few exceptions to the above- for instance, Silver Dragon Wyrmlings have a 15 foot cone paralyze on a DC13 Con check. This has a few mitigating factors: Dragons are supposed to be epic fights so people will be ready and willing to spend resources on the fight, Con is a really common check, 15 feet is not a very big cone. I'd say that as long as everyone is aware of what they're getting into (the dragon on the hill has a paralyzing breath!), then that should be okay. - The important thing is to THINK HARD about using monsters with abilities that reduce player effectiveness in ways that don't allow a straightforward counterplay. - Watch the movement and distance. In the Centaur example, the monster started 100 ft out from the players on an open plane and Centaurs have 50 speed and 120 range. This made it difficult for players to close. If the monsters move in a way that is difficult for the players to match speed, have a plan for how the players are going to close. This issue doesn't just exist for Centaurs- there are many monsters like the Aarakocra- very fast fliers with a ranged attack and CR 1/4. The spined devil is also a flier who doesn't produce attacks of opportunity while in flight, so can dart in and out of range performing melee attacks. - And for the love of god, watch the DPR. The DMG includes a table for determining the average damage per round for a monster of a given CR. Do not throw any monsters that have a DPR higher than the CR value for the players' current level at them. Do not use monsters that burst up to more than double that in a single round. You can increase these limits by 50% if the fight is billed as a big boss fight. This means that the Centaur should not be encountered until level 5, realistically. - The DMG system for building monsters says that you can determine the CR of a monster by averaging the "defensive" and "offensive" CRs. Yeah, maybe, but even if your glass cannon monster and tanky tank monster are CR 3, if the higher of their two CRs is 5, level 5 should be your party minimum for using that monster. EDIT: Wait, with regard to the "Centaurs at level 5" stuff I was looking at gredenko's monster data. I do think it is more correct, generally, since monster DPR is based on player survivability, and I'd recommend it when screening monster DPR. The one thing I'd say is to compare his DPR to the sort of baseline "I'm not using special abilities this turn" value or half the single-round burst value, whichever is larger. 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Trast posted:Right. This is for new players (like myself) to ask questions and get advice without worrying about comparisons to different editions or end game theory craft. Hey King of the Thread, Most monsters have average damage values next to dice values. Most of the time you want to use those average values instead of rolling dice. I don't want to overwhelm new folks so I won't bother to explain why the above statement is true though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:01
|
|