New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202136 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #301
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Sneak Attack IS the defining ability of the Rogue, though. The fact that he can use it a lot doesn't cheapen it, because he still needs to put effort into getting it off.
    That would be good, except that a 4E rogue doesn't need to put effort into getting it off. That was true when the game was first released, but after all the splatbook power creep, the expectation for a rogue is to easily use sneak attack on 100% of his attacks.

    But he doesn't just say "I want to deal +2d6 Sneak Attack to this enemy, make it so!".
    He actually has two at-will powers that do precisely that, yes.

    And if the ranger always does his bonus damage, and the rogue always does his bonus damage, then the game no longer has a meaningful distinction between the ranger and rogue classes.
    Last edited by Kurald Galain; 2012-10-26 at 09:37 AM.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  2. - Top - End - #302
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That would be good, except that a 4E rogue doesn't need to put effort into getting it off. That was true when the game was first released, but after all the splatbook power creep, the expectation for a rogue is to easily use sneak attack on 100% of his attacks.


    He actually has two at-will powers that do precisely that, yes.

    And if the ranger always does his bonus damage, and the rogue always does his bonus damage, then the game no longer has a meaningful distinction between the ranger and rogue classes.
    Oh, I was talking about 3.5. I don't know 4E. Shame that they ruined Rogues like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    Greater
    \ˈgrā-tər \
    comparative adjective
    1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

  3. - Top - End - #303
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Lord_Gareth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    My problem with this kind of archetype has always been that it uses a dice roll to determine whether you've heard of a creature and learned its weaknesses even if you've already encountered that creature in-game. It's like the way Skills don't improve over the course of a level; it's completely contrary to what logic suggests to me should qualify as "earning experience".
    Yeah Willpell, it's true - skills don't improve over the course of a level, you can't earn fighting style feats just by training and most DMs won't let you invent custom spells. Why are these things? Because the system is an abstraction that happens to be saddled with a bunch of extremely poor attempts to also be realistic. You can't have both, and of the two, it's easier to refluff something to sound realistic than it is to rebalance messed up mechanics.

    Favored Enemy: Goblins would apply to CR 15 Fiendish Bugbear Paladins of Slaughter just fine. If something doesn't scale across levels, then it is an unwise choice of favored enemy, but most creature types have some representation in nearly every level. You probably don't want to pick Outsider or Dragon at 1st level, but beyond that most of the choices are at least semi-valid.
    No, they aren't, because in order to cater to the Ranger you still have to reach past what's reasonable to occur. We can all agree that Humanoid (Reptilian) might be too narrow, but what about Magical Beast? How many of those can sustain a plot on their own? Aberration level-jumps wildly and OH, HEY, ABERRATIONS WITHOUT DISCERNIBLE ANATOMIES AREN'T SUBJECT TO YOUR DAMAGE BONUS. How about Undead? I suppose if the DM says, hey, this'll be an undead-heavy campaign but just like aberrations they're immune to a bunch of your bonuses!

    Shall I go on? Favored Enemy is a terrible feature and it needs improving both conceptually and execution-wise. It's my hope that 5e manages to do this, but trying to claim there's no problem whatsoever strikes me as being unhelpful in the extreme. I'd like to hope that after 10+ years of 3.5 the community might know what it's talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilingsworth View Post
    Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
    My extended homebrew sig

  4. - Top - End - #304
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    You can't have both, and of the two, it's easier to refluff something to sound realistic than it is to rebalance messed up mechanics.
    It sounds easier but it really isn't. Many players, DMs, and even WOTC splatbook writers, when asked to "refluff something to sound realistic" come up with something that's either silly, or that contradicts the rule they're trying to write fluff for. And yes, doing this too often will cause you to lose part of your audience.

    OH, HEY, ABERRATIONS WITHOUT DISCERNIBLE ANATOMIES AREN'T SUBJECT TO YOUR DAMAGE BONUS. How about Undead? I suppose if the DM says, hey, this'll be an undead-heavy campaign but just like aberrations they're immune to a bunch of your bonuses!
    Except you just made that up. In 3E, neither undead nor aberrations are immune to a ranger's damage bonus (because yes, that would have been bad game design). Just because a rule can hypothetically be badly written doesn't mean the rule itself is bad.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  5. - Top - End - #305
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Lord_Gareth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    It sounds easier but it really isn't. Many players, DMs, and even WOTC splatbook writers, when asked to "refluff something to sound realistic" come up with something that's either silly, or that contradicts the rule they're trying to write fluff for. And yes, doing this too often will cause you to lose part of your audience.
    That's why you don't ask the splatbook writers to do it and instead take a page out of White Wolf's book and give examples of how you might translate the numbers on the page into a character. Sure, a Gristlegrinder with Contracts of Elements: Water sounds stupid - until you start talking about him being a bridge-lurking troll that drowns his victim-meals. That kind of thing isn't hard to do at all.

    Except you just made that up. In 3E, neither undead nor aberrations are immune to a ranger's damage bonus (because yes, that would have been bad game design). Just because a rule can hypothetically be badly written doesn't mean the rule itself is bad.
    Well crap, that's what I get for not having read Favored Enemy since 3.0. My mistake!


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilingsworth View Post
    Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
    My extended homebrew sig

  6. - Top - End - #306
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    That's why you don't ask the splatbook writers to do it and instead take a page out of White Wolf's book and give examples of how you might translate the numbers on the page into a character.
    That's a good point. On that topic: do you agree with me that WOTC should hire or train better fluff writers? Because I find the fluff we've seen so far for e.g. 5E's warlock abilities to be laughably bad.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  7. - Top - End - #307
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Lord_Gareth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That's a good point. On that topic: do you agree with me that WOTC should hire or train better fluff writers? Because I find the fluff we've seen so far for e.g. 5E's warlock abilities to be laughably bad.
    Yes and no. Hiring better fluff writers wouldn't necessarily be hard - they have forums full of them! But the problem isn't always the writers themselves. What WotC needs is a new fluff paradigm; they need to look at fluff in a different way. "Realistic" mechanics are one symptom of the way they look at fluff, and you'll notice their record of screwing them up or making them weak to use. Two-Weapon Fighting? Falling rules? Drowning rules? All of these stem from the idea that the game is supposed to attempt to closely model an existing world.

    Now, if this were a different RPG that wouldn't be so much of an issue. There's all kinds of limited-focus RPGs whose mechanics really can revolve around a single world or even a single scenario. But versatility is ALSO D&D's watch-word, and the way they shackle themselves like that only hurts that versatility. If they embrace abstraction in the game mechanics and the separation of fluff and mechanics, they'll naturally see the ability for better fluff to flourish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilingsworth View Post
    Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
    My extended homebrew sig

  8. - Top - End - #308
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    To me, the idea that the GM has to tailor each adventure to fit abilities of Character X is ass-backwards - it is at least as much the responsibility of the players themselves to aim for situations where their character's speciality is useful. To paraphrase willpell, it's not a stretch for hunter of goblins to meet goblins adventure after adventure, because he will be hunting goblins!

    The problem here, in my mind, is not in narrowly useful abilities, but in GMs who force a party of specialists to face obstacles that lie outside their specialty, when players should have a say in where to go and what to do.

    However, I'm of the opinion that all such narrow specialist characters should be prestige classes, or equivalent thereof - not base classes in any case! AD&D had it more correct, with Paladin and Ranger being specialist subdivisions of Fighter. Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Marshal, Ranger, Paladin, Knight and Samurai (and to a lesser extent, Monk) should be specializations, something extra on an already solid all-around chassis.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  9. - Top - End - #309
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That would be good, except that a 4E rogue doesn't need to put effort into getting it off. That was true when the game was first released, but after all the splatbook power creep, the expectation for a rogue is to easily use sneak attack on 100% of his attacks.
    For a Thief, yeah, as long as they have a Move action to spare. But Rogues, not so much.

    The At-Will you're referencing for a a Rogue is actually pretty compellingly bad. :)

    -O

  10. - Top - End - #310
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    2) That class setup works in Saga because the class archetypes for Soldier/Jedi/Scoundrel/Scout/Noble basically break down to Fighter/Wizard/Urban Rogue/Wilderness Rogue/Bard (or, let's be honest here, Chewie/Obi-Wan/Han/Luke/Leia ). There's no equivalent of the arcane/divine split there because, firstly, the Force is much more focused thematically and so you don't need to spread the "magic" among multiple classes; secondly, there's a lot more noncombat support in Saga such that "utility magic" is handled by talents and separating the hacker/pilot skilled class from the stealth/perception skilled class and splitting social skills between them makes sense; and thirdly, there's a lot more "plot armor" involved, so the healer/defender/warder archetype isn't really there. A more D&D-esque Saga would look more like Soldier/Jedi/Scoundrel/Noble with a full medic/technician support/repair/healing class taking the fifth slot.

    3) If you're dropping things down to the classic four, there's no reason to have the ranger as a fifth wheel. Everything it does can be done by either a fighter/wizard or a fighter/cleric depending on the kind of ranger you're going for--fighter/wizard for the archery/TWF buffs and surprise attack stuff, fighter/cleric (i.e. fighter/druid) for the utility magic and companion. The bard has a much better claim to the fifth wheel slot, since it actually has a fairly even split of the four roles historically and can be focused to any one of the four fairly well.

    4) Your five-class setup reminds me of the people who want to keep the primal power source around in 5e, in which case the base five would be fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric/druid and you'd have combinations like ranger = martial/primal, marshal or warlord = martial/skills, bard = arcane/skills, and so on. I don't like this setup because (A) we already have arcane and divine magic, we don't really need a kinda-arcane-kinda-divine "nature magic" source and (B) if you're looking for alternate magic, psionics was there first. In any case, ranger doesn't really deserve to be in the base 5 any more than it deserves to be in the base 4.
    I'm saying I would like to bump down the classes and gave what I would add. Now I personally I have nothing against 6 classes as opposed to 5, and was thinking to myself when I quickly wrote my post to add Bard. But thinking about it, all a Bard is to me is a Charisma based Rogue with buffing spells. To me that could very easily be done Rogue/Wizard or Rogue/Cleric.

    Now I never said anything about nature magic. And in my dream system nature magic would probably be just a subset of Cleric magic. I'm a bit odd how you got that I wanted nature magic from looking to the SWSE Scout since it doesn't have anything magic about it, at all. I just think Survivalist is a wide enough archetype to deserve it's own base class with abilities that don't really fit with Fighters or Rogues but are still non-magical.

    Every class is a bunch of situationally useful abilities. Anything that isn't an always-on passive ability is situational to some extent: sneak attack is situational, so is weapon specializatoin (doesn't count as always-on because it requires a certain weapon), turn undead, enchantment spells, etc. It just so happens that the ranger's collection of situational abilities is grouped thematically under "package of abilities good against creature type X," as opposed to "package of similarly-themed spells" which you may know as domains or schools of magic, or "package of similarly themed feats and combat maneuvers" which you may know as barbarian totems and monk fighting styles, and so on and so forth.
    Isn't this what I was saying?

  11. - Top - End - #311
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    I'm saying I would like to bump down the classes and gave what I would add. Now I personally I have nothing against 6 classes as opposed to 5, and was thinking to myself when I quickly wrote my post to add Bard. But thinking about it, all a Bard is to me is a Charisma based Rogue with buffing spells. To me that could very easily be done Rogue/Wizard or Rogue/Cleric.

    Now I never said anything about nature magic. And in my dream system nature magic would probably be just a subset of Cleric magic. I'm a bit odd how you got that I wanted nature magic from looking to the SWSE Scout since it doesn't have anything magic about it, at all. I just think Survivalist is a wide enough archetype to deserve it's own base class with abilities that don't really fit with Fighters or Rogues but are still non-magical.
    Sorry if that wasn't clear, I wasn't conflating the Scout with nature magic, I was just giving another example of a suggested 5-class system that's really just splitting one of the classic four into 2 classes. Rogue = Scoundrel + Scout and Divine = Divine + Primal, and in either case neither "survivalist" nor "nature magic" has the same breadth and depth as the others. If your four main classes are Mundane Combat Guy, Mundane Skills Guy, Magic Utility And Combat Guy, and Magic Healing And Support Guy, then Survivalist Guy is both far more specific than any of those and better placed under one or more of the four.

    Granted, Ranger is broader thematically than the Barbarian (who could easily be turned into the equivalent of a single talent tree), the Swashbuckler or CW Samurai (one feat, maybe two, for each), and so forth, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own class, it just means that it might have to be a multiclass thing.

    Think of it this way: a main class has to be able to support lots of subclasses. Looking at the 3e classes, Rogue can take factotum, ninja, scout, and so on; Wizard can take sorcerer, wu jen, dread necromancer, and so on; Fighter can take barbarian, swashbuckler, samurai, and so on; and Cleric can take healer, shugenja, archivist, and so on; with multiclass feats/PrCs/whatever taking care of duskblade, paladin, monk, and so on. What would a ranger subclass look like? The different ranger facets are beastmaster, archer, TWFer, stealthy tracker, monster hunter, and druid gish, and all of those are either better served as other classes' subclasses (archer -> Fighter, stealthy tracker -> Rogue), would be better as a multiclass (druid gish -> fighter/cleric subclass), or aren't enough to make full classes on their own (to make "has an animal companion" a worthwhile niche with enough support would require that basically taking over the ranger and not leaving room for the other stuff in the ranger superclass).

    Bard could easily be a rogue/X multiclass--and that's what it was originally, a fighter/rogue/druid with music stuff on top--but my point was that if you have to have a fifth-wheel class it needs to be something like the bard, who has a mix of fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric by default and can be specialized in any one of those directions as the 3e bard can with its many and varied feats and PrCs. The ranger doesn't have that versatility by default (the closest example, the 1e ranger, is FIGHTER/thief/magic-user/cleric rather than fighter/thief/magic-user/cleric) and can't really be stretched in all four directions and retain the theme.

    Isn't this what I was saying?
    You were saying that you think every class should have a bunch of situational abilities, and I was saying that all classes are is a collection of situationally-useful abilities. It's the difference between "I think fighters should have lots of bonus feats" and "Fighters are nothing but bonus feats."
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  12. - Top - End - #312
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    The usual definition of "situational" is that "it works less than 50% of the time" (i.e. it usually doesn't work, but sometimes does). Because if you define "situational" as anything below 100%, then the term immediately becomes meaningless.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  13. - Top - End - #313
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The usual definition of "situational" is that "it works less than 50% of the time" (i.e. it usually doesn't work, but sometimes does). Because if you define "situational" as anything below 100%, then the term immediately becomes meaningless.
    I'm not saying anything less than 100% applicability is situational, in fact I'm making the same point you are. I was responding to the following:

    Though the idea of more broad abilities that are actually effective against a lot of things sounds fine, though then I would argue that it isn't really favored X it's just a bunch of situational useful abilities. Hell I think every class should have a bunch of situational useful abilities.
    If the kind of broad abilities we've been talking about like improved stealth, evasion, energy resistance, and the like are considered "just a bunch of situational useful abilities," then so is everything else a class gets. Evasion only applies to every Ref half save you make, improved stealth only applies against the improved senses of 60+% of the Monster Manual, energy resistance only applies against every character or creature that deals energy damage, sneak attack only applies when you catch people flat-footed, mind-affecting immunity only applies against every Enchantment spell and a bunch of others, etc. If those aren't "really" favored enemy by virtue of just being a package of situational abilities, then nothing is "really" anything because classes, skills, feats, spell lists, and the rest are similarly just packages of situational abilities.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  14. - Top - End - #314
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The usual definition of "situational" is that "it works less than 50% of the time" (i.e. it usually doesn't work, but sometimes does). Because if you define "situational" as anything below 100%, then the term immediately becomes meaningless.
    50% of the time, it works all the time.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Situational abilities, especially situation boosts are hard to balance. They are only worth remembering if they are powerful, which leads to a situation where in that situation they are better than others players, and out of it they are worse. The problem is the players will naturally want to use that ability as much as possible, so you need to strictly balance how often it can be used to keep the game balanced, because if they can use it 80-100% of the time(thus making them better all the time), they will.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  15. - Top - End - #315
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Perth, W.A.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I agree with those saying the Ranger's favoured class ability is too situational. If a Wizard can prepare the right spells for a day's adventuring, why can't the Ranger prepare for the monsters he's off to hunt? I propose something along these lines;


    Known Creatures
    A Ranger maintains a list of known creatures he is familiar with. At level one this list has two types of animals, his own race and a single other creature of his choosing on it. Each level the Ranger may add a new creature of his choice to the list. A Ranger gets a +3 bonus to all skill checks involving creatures on his list.

    In addition to entries gained each level, a Ranger may add a creature to his known creature list by spending one hour studying a live or dead sepcimen up close, plus one hour observing one or more in the wild. Alternatively, a Ranger may spend two hours studying an appropriately detailed text that contains the relevant information, illustrations etc. Such texts are rare and valuable, and are worth 100gp per creature described in this way. A Ranger may make a craft check (DC 15) to create a book for any one creature on his known creatures list. This requires 30gp worth of paper, leather and inks and takes a week of dedicated work.


    Favoured Enemy
    A Ranger may spend 8 hours familiarising himself with one creature from his known creatures list. At the end of this time, the Ranger is considered Favouring that creature and will have constructed a number of traps in the immediate area (see Favoured Enemy Traps), prepared defensive counter measures against a creature abilities, and prepared his weapons to overcome the creatures natural defences. The Ranger gains +2 to saves against any of the creature's abilities granted by its race/creature type (abilities form class levels are not affected). The Ranger's weapons over come damage reduction of any type the creature has from racial abilities, and he gains +2 to damage against that type of creature. These bonuses last until the Ranger Favours another creature.

    At 4th level and every 4 levels after that, the bonus granted to the Ranger's damage and saves increases by +2.

    At 5th level, a Ranger may be favouring two creatures at one time. He may familiarise with all creatures at the same time but he only produces a single set of traps (use largest creature size for determining number of traps). He may decide against which creature type each trap applies individually. At 10th, 15th and 20th level this increase by one.

    At 11th level, a Ranger may also prepare his allies weapons to overcome the damage reduction of one favoured enemy when he familiarises with the creature.


    Favoured Enemy Traps
    All traps constructed by a Ranger contain a lure that will entice the favoured creature toward it. A creature may make a sense motive or spot check to identify the trap, if it fails it is likely to move toward it; flying creatures will land if possible. DC to identify a trap and for any allowed save is 10 + Ranger's Wisdom modifier. A Ranger creates a number of traps dependant on the Favoured creature's size: 1 for large or larger creatures, 1d4 for medium creatures or 2d4 small or smaller creatures. Once a trap is created it cannot be moved. If a creature not of the favoured type triggers the trap, reduce DCs and attack bonuses by -4 as the trap is tailored for a specific creature’s weaknesses.

    Snare
    A simple but effective trap that latches on to a creature and prevents it from escaping. The DC to spot and evade is +4 higher than normal, but the trap deals no damage. On a failed reflex save, the creature is entangled and it's movement speed is reduced to 0. Escape DC is same as trap DC.

    Spiked Pit Trap
    A deep pit lined with sharpened and specially treated spikes and covered with a camouflaged covering and sized for the favoured creature (medium or smaller is 5’ square). Deals 1d6/Ranger level damage, reflex save for half. This damage overcomes the Favoured creature's damage reduction. Creatures that fall in the pit need to make a DC 12 climb check to escape.

    Arrow Trap
    A trap that releases a hail of sharpened spikes or arrows. When triggered make and attack using the Ranger's ranged attack bonus and if it hits it deals 1d6/Ranger level damage. This damage overcomes the Favoured creature's damage reduction.

  16. - Top - End - #316
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by DisgruntledFrog View Post
    I agree with those saying the Ranger's favoured class ability is too situational. If a Wizard can prepare the right spells for a day's adventuring, why can't the Ranger prepare for the monsters he's off to hunt? I propose something along these lines;
    So the ranger studies a creature for 8 hours, fights it once and then forgets how to do it? That's not a ranger, that's a college student cramming for an exam.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    Greater
    \ˈgrā-tər \
    comparative adjective
    1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

  17. - Top - End - #317
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    So the ranger studies a creature for 8 hours, fights it once and then forgets how to do it? That's not a ranger, that's a college student cramming for an exam.
    Yeah. I already strongly dislike Vancian magic as an RPG system, let's not try to make mundanes fit it too.
    Jude P.

  18. - Top - End - #318
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Perth, W.A.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    So the ranger studies a creature for 8 hours, fights it once and then forgets how to do it? That's not a ranger, that's a college student cramming for an exam.
    I didn't mean to imply that they'd forget anything. The idea is that once they prepare to fight a creature (what I meant by familiarising themselves with it), they keep the bonuses against it until they decided to change to another. The reasoning behind this is not so much forgetting as it is being prepared (with the right physical equipment) for a particular enemy.

    Re-reading it, I admit I wasn't very clear in my usage of creature/creature type. I didn't mean a singular creature (the goblin named John) but rather all creatures of a type (all golbins, or all bugbears) but not in the 3.5 creature type (not all creatures of the type Humanoid Goblin, just the goblins).

    Needs some refinement sure, but I think the concept is workable.

  19. - Top - End - #319
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    New Legends & Lore is out.

    Apparently we can expect a new playtest packet very soon.

    Biggest thing I noticed: They're adding expertise dice to the Rogue too, but with a separate set of maneuvers accessible, and they can use them on skill checks, dodge opportunity attacks (!!) and 'other things'. (Did I miss a previous update where they added those back in?) Basically rolling Sneak Attack into that. (I don't mind the idea that ExDice might become a hallmark of martial characters, personally.)

    They're also dialing back spellcasting, apparently, in numbers per-day. We'll see how that goes.

  20. - Top - End - #320
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    New legends and lore out: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.a...d/4ll/20121029
    There will be a new packet out today, going to level 10 and with changes to number of spells known (less, but at-will and encounter spells are back) and rogues will use expertise dice.

    Edit: ninjaed.

    Expertise dice as the way manoeuvres work makes sense to me as well.
    Last edited by Excession; 2012-10-29 at 03:57 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #321
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
    First, a confession. I'm thinking about, playing, and reviewing material that's a couple of packets ahead of you. Being ahead like this makes it fairly strange to go back and look at what's going out in the playtest packet.
    Cool, so basically they've already written a bunch of later stuff. Giving us earlier material to "playtest" and "review" is essentially meaningless, because for them to take our input, they'd have to scrap later stuff they've already gone ahead and written, which is so ridiculously inefficient I doubt that's their plan.

    Edit:
    We've dialed down the number of spells that casters get, capping them at two per level up to 5th level. We've compensated for that by holding on to at-will spells based on a wizard tradition or cleric deity. In addition, wizards now have signature spells. These are spells that a wizard can cast every five minutes. Wizards have one such spell, determined by their tradition.
    No. Weak at-wills may be acceptable, like cantrips being at-will, but lots of at-wills and per-encounter abilities are bad (we get overpowered casters) and also just play like an MMO with cooldown times. And a spell that can be used once every five minutes is a per-encounter ability with a shoddy mask on.
    Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-10-29 at 04:02 PM.
    Jude P.

  22. - Top - End - #322
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Cool, so basically they've already written a bunch of later stuff. Giving us earlier material to "playtest" and "review" is essentially meaningless, because for them to take our input, they'd have to scrap later stuff they've already gone ahead and written, which is so ridiculously inefficient I doubt that's their plan.
    Much as it pains me to do so, I'm inclined to give Mearls the benefit of the doubt here. What I think he means is that while everyone was giving their feedback on the initial packet 2 problems they were playtesting the sorcerer and warlock internally, while we were playesting the sorcerer and warlock they were playtesting the magic items, etc., not that they're playtesting later versions of the stuff we already have. It's the context-switching that would make it confusing, not working with previous versions of anything.

    When it gets to the point that there are enough interlocking subsystems that you can't playtest new things in a vacuum, that's when we should start to worry.
    Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-10-29 at 04:03 PM.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  23. - Top - End - #323
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Much as it pains me to do so, I'm inclined to give Mearls the benefit of the doubt here. What I think he means is that while everyone was giving their feedback on the initial packet 2 problems they were playtesting the sorcerer and warlock internally, while we were playtesting the sorcerer and warlock they were playtesting the magic items, etc., not that they're playtesting later versions of the stuff we already have. It's the context-switching that would make it confusing, not working with previous versions of anything.
    I'm still a little leery of this. Hopefully you're right, and we'll see. I simply have little confidence in the WotC team.
    Jude P.

  24. - Top - End - #324
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    I'm still a little leery of this. Hopefully you're right, and we'll see. I simply have little confidence in the WotC team.
    I don't have much confidence in them either at the moment, but I'd like to think they're not so incompetent as to have their PR guy publicly declare that the playtest process is a meaningless sham. Though I've been wrong about their level of competence before....
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  25. - Top - End - #325
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I don't have much confidence in them either at the moment, but I'd like to think they're not so incompetent as to have their PR guy publicly declare that the playtest process is a meaningless sham. Though I've been wrong about their level of competence before....
    They tell us their working on monsters right now, and that monster math isn't revised in the current playtest.

    Which is consistent with the "testing C while working on D, E, and F" hypothesis.

  26. - Top - End - #326
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    There's a new playtest up, this time featuring levels 1 through 10.

    ...but I can't access it. The info says you need to register anew again even if you've already done so (and logging in fails for the same reason) but registering also fails because I'm already registered. So, yeah. WOTC and websites don't seem to mix well
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  27. - Top - End - #327
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    There's a new playtest up, this time featuring levels 1 through 10.

    ...but I can't access it. The info says you need to register anew again even if you've already done so (and logging in fails for the same reason) but registering also fails because I'm already registered. So, yeah. WOTC and websites don't seem to mix well
    Logging in worked for me. Did you scroll all the way to the bottom where it says sign in?
    Last edited by Loki_42; 2012-10-29 at 05:29 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #328
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    So the rogue's sneak attack is much reduced in damage, but it's easier to use. You need either Advantage or an ally that has reach to the target, and you roll your expertise dice and add them as damage to the attack. Same as the Fighter's Deadly Strike but marginally harder to use. Rogues also don't get any more or bigger expertise dice than fighters from what I can see. I was expecting something like requiring advantage and letting you roll the expertise dice twice.

    The Maneuver rules seem a little fuzzy on when you can decide to spend dice. Using Composed Attack as an example, I would probably rule that you can spend dice, one at a time even, after the Disadvantaged attack misses. This avoids wasting dice and gives the player the maximum control, but it's unclear whether it's the intended ruling.
    Last edited by Excession; 2012-10-29 at 06:11 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #329
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki_42 View Post
    Logging in worked for me. Did you scroll all the way to the bottom where it says sign in?
    Yeah. But trying it 4, 5 more times made it work, so I guess it was a temporary glitch or something. Let's see.

    • The magic item system hasn't changed.
    • There's now a point buy system; notably, neither point buy nor the standard array will give you scores over 15, although rolling for stats can still do that.
    • Interestingly, skills are no longer tied to ability scores. So while the sneak skill generally applies to dexterity, it could also be used with strength or charisma, if you can think of a reason to do so (note that the main rules still assume Stealth+Dex and Spot+Wis). I'm not really sure where they're going with this; I recall White Wolf using a similar system, but it never really worked for me there. It does open the door to the same misuse as in 4E's skill challenges, if players want to fast talk their DM into always allowing their best stat for any skill.
    • The triad of Listen/Search/Spot is back, as are old splits like Balance/Tumble and Climb/Swim. There's still way too many knowledge skills. There's finally a Perform skill again, but no Repair.
    • Certain spells now require concentration. This appears to be a clever trick to avoid over-buffing, as you can only concentrate on one spell at a time (although you can still cast non-concentration spells while doing so). It appears to be largely arbitrary which spells do and do not require concentration.
    • Clerics can now cast certain spells ("words of power", but unrelated to the classic Power Word Stun line) as a free action while doing something else that does not involve spellcasting. This solves the "heal or attack" problem that clerics used to face, but does go against the "one action per turn" paradigm.
    • Rogues now use the same expertise dice system as fighters do, but some of the maneuvers (e.g. composed attack) are ridiculously complicated. Sneak Attack is now an expertise maneuver. Note that a 10th level fighter and rogue get 3d10 expertise dice!
    • Of course you can't freely pick maneuvers, just like you can't freely pick feats, by default. Maneuvers belong to a style (for fighters) or scheme (for rogues); the latter also decides which skills you get trained.
    • Rogues no longer get skill bonuses. They're not particularly distinct from the fighter class any more.
    • Disarm and Grab are back.
    • Critical hits use the 4E system again, i.e. max out your normal damage and add a certain amount of extra dice, because people really like rolling them.
    • Searching/spotting now sometimes requires intelligence, sometimes wisdom
    • Channel Divinity is gone, Turn Undead is back. Clerics now have a deity rather than a domain.
    • Sorcerer and warlock have been cut, at least for now.
    • Wizards now must pick a tradition, which determines their At Will and Encounter powers. Other traditions can still use these spells, but only as Dailies (Vancian). There's only three traditions for now.


    Overall verdict: still a solid meh. Most changes appear to be arbitrary reshuffling. The skill system has gotten much worse, fighters and rogues are too similar now, and the wizard turns into a 4E character. At least the cleric is improved now. The jury is still out on sorcerer, warlock, and magical items.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  30. - Top - End - #330
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    • Of course you can't freely pick maneuvers, just like you can't freely pick feats, by default. Maneuvers belong to a style (for fighters) or scheme (for rogues); the latter also decides which skills you get trained.
    There are rules for "Creating Your Own [Style|Scheme]" though, where you just pick your own manoeuvres and, in the case of the rogue, skills. So you can just freely pick them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •