Results 301 to 330 of 1486
Thread: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
2012-10-26, 09:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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!".
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!
-
2012-10-26, 10:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-10-26, 10:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
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.
-
2012-10-26, 10:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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!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!
-
2012-10-26, 10:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-26, 10:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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!
-
2012-10-26, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-26, 11:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Gender
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."
-
2012-10-26, 01:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
-
2012-10-26, 03:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-26, 03:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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?
-
2012-10-26, 09:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
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!
-
2012-10-26, 10:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-27, 02:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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
-
2012-10-29, 12:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Perth, W.A.
- Gender
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.
-
2012-10-29, 12:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-10-29, 12:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-10-29, 01:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Perth, W.A.
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-29, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Gender
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.
-
2012-10-29, 03:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
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.
-
2012-10-29, 03:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
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.Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-10-29 at 04:02 PM.
Jude P.
-
2012-10-29, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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.
-
2012-10-29, 04:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-10-29, 04:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
2012-10-29, 05:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
-
2012-10-29, 05:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
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 wellGuide 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!
-
2012-10-29, 05:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Va
- Gender
-
2012-10-29, 06:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
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.
-
2012-10-29, 06:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
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!
-
2012-10-29, 06:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender