Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tawa]

Yeah, Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic was pretty good. I'm getting a pretty good run out of a duelist-esque Swordsage right now and have a Crusader written up that seems pretty badass compared to a run-of-the-mill fighter. (Speaking of which, you can get some obscene damage rolls at early levels with a lance.)

That said, my favorites are still probably DFA (the MONARCH of direct damage) and Sorcerer, but Tome of Battle is a necessity for anybody who wants to play a melee character with any spellcasters in the party.

Dat 8d8 4th level maneuver. I can't imagine that hit with a lance.

Hehehe. Lances are fun. They're like a one-handed spear with reach that deals delicious double damage (ooh, alliteration) when you charge.

So that's like a max of a little over 70 HP of damage. Do I hear "You win"?

[Kadzar]

Don't nerf casters, give martial and skillful classes better bullshit. Here, take an example class with random ideas off the top of my head: fix the basic problems with monks, give them real bullshit (Haste and a Nerveskitter-like as #/days at # level? Featherfall at 1st or 2nd level at-will instead of that bullshit-long useless slowfall progression? Automatically give them things like arrow-catching, Spiderwalk and Spring Attack as they level? Make Flurry of Blows not suck a barrel of dicks? Better unarmed damage? Better class AC progression? Shift some of the class bonuses to reduce MAD? Let them enchant their bodies? Give them a selection of extra special abilities to pick from: let them choose things like getting massive boosts to dipl/intimidate/bluff checks made in combat, element-typed unarmed damage, at-will Blink, &c.) Stuff like that. Make as many classes bullshit enough to at least make it to Tier 2 classification of "Does a small selection of things really, really well."

It's kinda weird that a lot of the things you mentioned wanting monks to have are pretty close to what they get in 5e.

I don't like the half-assed way they redid the alignment system in 4e. They should have either kept it as it was or scrapped it entirely, instead of arbitrarily removing two of the nine alignments.

Have they done anything different with alignment in 5e?

No, 5e brings it back to nine alignments.

[Arcvasti]

I don't like the half-assed way they redid the alignment system in 4e. They should have either kept it as it was or scrapped it entirely, instead of arbitrarily removing two of the nine alignments.

Have they done anything different with alignment in 5e?

No, 5e brings it back to nine alignments.

Also, IIRC, in 5e, you can only detect the alignment of things like outsiders or POSSIBLY powerful paladins/clerics. Which is a change I heartily approve of.

[Bohandas]

Well, how can they function?

Demons function because they are endless armies controlled by extremely powerful demons strong enough to force the others in line. They don't need food, water, shelter, or anything and thus can be constantly blindly destructive... especially since they have their own realm. They need ALL of these elements to survive

This is actually a subject I've devoted considerable thought to. I don't think that demons would realistically actually function that way. In that paradigm they would have to be watched perpetually in order to prevent desertion; there would have to be a literally unbroken line of stronger and stronger demons stretching all the way from the front lines all the way back to the demon prince in charge. The second anyone was left alone they would would desert, just on principle even if for no other reason.

I think it would be more likely that the blood war and any other extraplanar wars would be viewed as a sort of a sport. The Abyss' internal squabbles might reasonably have elements of both paradigms though.

Also, I think that the abyssal lords would mainly attract followers and servants through a sort of crazy rock star/celebrity mystique. Demons wouldn't serve them through loyalty; as for fear the demon lord would be just as likely to harm them whether they obeyed or not (Like Marceline from Adventure Time dispensing "weird punishments" totally at random in the episode where she becomes ruler of the Nightosphere). They might, however, stick around and take orders out of morbid curiosity as to where this was all going

[Bohandas]

Also, IIRC, in 5e, you can only detect the alignment of things like outsiders or POSSIBLY powerful paladins/clerics. Which is a change I heartily approve of.

I think that was more or less the case in 3e and 3.5e as well, with the exception that the alignments of the undead could be detected as well.

[AlleeCat]

The One Unique Thing usually doesn't give bonuses, but it helps give every character a personal story that can tie in with the overarching campaign. For instance, one of the characters in my campaign has visions of a future she cannot change. This might sometimes manifest as as me giving cryptic messages via PMs, or the player giving very open-ended images of the future. Maybe later she'll learn why she has these visions, or learn to control them. Maybe she'll find a way to change the future she sees. The point is that it gives every character something unique. Sure, you can come up with those kinds of backstories in other systems, but this actively encourages the players to add to the lore of the world, and it makes them just as involved in creating the story as the DM is.

[Tawa]

Now, you see, the problem with this is that you really don't need to write that kind of thing into the rules. If your players do want to write their characters into the setting, you can let them and work with them to make that happen. If they don't, that's fine, too. If you want your campaign to involve that kind of thing, you tell your players to come up with that stuff.

[Arcvasti]

So its like mandatory plot velcro. Which, in my experience as a DM, is something that is always useful. Setting up potential plot threads in advance sounds a hell of a lot better then trying to shoehorn your players into going down this adventure path.

[Bohandas]

Well, how can they function?

Demons function because they are endless armies controlled by extremely powerful demons strong enough to force the others in line. They don't need food, water, shelter, or anything and thus can be constantly blindly destructive... especially since they have their own realm. They need ALL of these elements to survive

This is actually a subject I've devoted considerable thought to. I don't think that demons would realistically actually function that way. In that paradigm they would have to be watched perpetually in order to prevent desertion; there would have to be a literally unbroken line of stronger and stronger demons stretching all the way from the front lines all the way back to the demon prince in charge. The second anyone was left alone they would would desert, just on principle even if for no other reason.

I think it would be more likely that the blood war and any other extraplanar wars would be viewed as a sort of a sport. The Abyss' internal squabbles might reasonably have elements of both paradigms though.

Also, I think that the abyssal lords would mainly attract followers and servants through a sort of crazy rock star/celebrity mystique. Demons wouldn't serve them through loyalty; as for fear the demon lord would be just as likely to harm them whether they obeyed or not (Like Marceline from Adventure Time dispensing "weird punishments" totally at random in the episode where she becomes ruler of the Nightosphere). They might, however, stick around and take orders out of morbid curiosity as to where this was all going

Speakimg of demons...

I briefly wrote a webcomic about life in the Abyss. I didn't get very far with it and it was piggybackimg off the forum from another webcomic but I still think it was ok. Check it out:

http://mspaforums.com/showthread.php?52649-Ekolid-A-Demonic-Adventure

[scrdest]

So its like mandatory plot velcro. Which, in my experience as a DM, is something that is always useful. Setting up potential plot threads in advance sounds a hell of a lot better then trying to shoehorn your players into going down this adventure path.

Heh, I'm actually doing that for the Night's Black Agents (what I referred to as 'Jason Bourne: Vampire Hunter') game I mentioned in the Happy Thread. The plot works sorta like Sid Meier's Covert Action plots except more detailed character-wise.

BBEGs have goals, they will take actions to fulfill the goals either by themselves or by using other people, and will proceed no matter what the PCs are doing at the minute (unless they are, in fact, stopping one part of the plan, in which case they will try to get the plan back on track), and as the PCs investigate the clues they move closer to the confrontation.

[sjm9876]

-snip-

I'm actually going to step in and defend 5e here, as someone who has DMd both 3.5e and 5e (and read 4e, quickly deciding I didn't like it.) Sure, the base rules aren't as nuanced as 3.5e. This is very much not an issue - it isn't difficult in the slightest to add in new skills etc..., and the extra streamlining is far more beneficial IMO - in my 5e game the only people who had any difficulty making characters were the two who had played before in 3.5e and so had missed off backgrounds (another nice touch, I feel, especially given how easily new ones can be made) and the first time player who hadn't done known spells as a wizard - so 3 minor things in a group of 6. In comparison, I spent my entire first session of 3.5e with my previous group fixing characters.
 The flatter progression also looks brilliant, as it should make orc hordes a valid threat at any level - I haven't had a chance to test this though.
 I do agree that 3.5e offered slightly more options (interesting play-wise) straight from the rulebooks, but I found in 3.5e my players mostly didn't use there options as there were just too many of them to choose from. In 5e, the players are far more creative, as opposed to just looking through their skill list for one that looks like it might be helpful.

Anyway, my 2c as a DM.

[birdy51]

As far as rules go, methinks they were meant to be broken and modified when necessary. The story and plot is what takes the foreground as opposed to hard mechanics. If a player wants to go an odd route with mechanics that aren't exactly supported, I consider it a task for the GM to make that route that they chose feel fulfilling. In addition, having those odd mechanics can turn a standard campaign into something engaging that keeps the players on their toes.

[Flying Dice]

-snip-

I'm actually going to step in and defend 5e here, as someone who has DMd both 3.5e and 5e (and read 4e, quickly deciding I didn't like it.) Sure, the base rules aren't as nuanced as 3.5e. This is very much not an issue - it isn't difficult in the slightest to add in new skills etc..., and the extra streamlining is far more beneficial IMO - in my 5e game the only people who had any difficulty making characters were the two who had played before in 3.5e and so had missed off backgrounds (another nice touch, I feel, especially given how easily new ones can be made) and the first time player who hadn't done known spells as a wizard - so 3 minor things in a group of 6. In comparison, I spent my entire first session of 3.5e with my previous group fixing characters.
 The flatter progression also looks brilliant, as it should make orc hordes a valid threat at any level - I haven't had a chance to test this though.
 I do agree that 3.5e offered slightly more options (interesting play-wise) straight from the rulebooks, but I found in 3.5e my players mostly didn't use there options as there were just too many of them to choose from. In 5e, the players are far more creative, as opposed to just looking through their skill list for one that looks like it might be helpful.

Anyway, my 2c as a DM.

Fair enough, that's pretty much the only argument I buy regarding 5e. I'd agree that it's probably good for lower-level and more mundane play, but there are elements of it that really feel off. The whole idea of even high-level characters still being largely mortal and within human norms is an interesting premise, just not one which I associate with DnD.

Incidentally, here's an interesting read I forgot I had saved regarding skills in 5e. It covers pretty well one of the issues I have with it: the blending of styles from 3.xe and 4e combined with the attempt to make things more mundane and low-powered leads to some pretty absurd things, albeit in the opposite direction to where things normally go in high-level DnD play. The OP focuses on a 20th level 5e Ranger not only having a narrower range of competence than a 6th level 4e Ranger, but also being much worse even within that range, but what's most quotable is the fact that not only can that 20th level 5e Ranger specced to break objects not bust down a barred door, neither can a Balor.

I mean, I'm not sure what I'd rather take, that 5e was just that badly planned and written, or that they legitimately wanted 20th level characters to be less competent than what people in the real-world are capable of in extreme circumstances.

[Dutchling]

PTW in case you people start talking about MTG :P

[timferius]

PTW in case you people start talking about MTG

Broaden your horizons! Join us in the mass of RPGs, Board Games, Card games and more! There's a million worlds beyond the magic rack in your local game store. Move past the booster packs and join us. I don't really play Magic, but I'm eternally grateful for Magic players funding stores so they can stock the stuff I do play.