Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13

Author Topic: D&D 5e--Good or nah?  (Read 24481 times)

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #105 on: April 28, 2015, 01:30:44 pm »

Why is Rogue necessary, when Detect Trap is a thing?

Well without a rogue in 3.5 you cannot find any traps that are well hidden period! Nor can you disable any magical traps.

And while in Pathfinder anyone can find a trap... Only the rogue has the high enough ability to do so AND once again only he can disable any magical trap.

The usual DM fiat is they will remove every single trap in existence when there isn't a rogue.

In many ways you could say traps become better without a rogue and allows you to strategically place them for dramatic effect. Woe to you who sees a party spend 5 minutes per chest.
Logged

Kadzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Descan Pengwind
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #106 on: April 28, 2015, 03:44:51 pm »

Quote
Wizards revoked the full OGL
lolwut

u srs bruh

They can revoke the OGL for certain sites, it is a part of the OGL. If you infringe on their copyright (incl 5e) they can revoke the entire OGL despire 5e not being covered under the OGL.
I'm going to have to ask for a big old [CITATION NEEDED] for this, because as far as I'm aware, the OGL cannot be revoked. What it sounds more like is that these websites violated the terms of the license, or they were hit by the DMCA, which is a big old sledgehammer of a law that tends to smash apart perfectly legal things in the process of taking down copyright infringement.
Logged
What if the earth is just a knick in one of the infinite swords of the mighty fractal bear?
Glory to Arstotzka!

Jiokuy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Morning comes whether you set the alarm or not
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #107 on: April 28, 2015, 05:18:39 pm »

Quote
Wizards revoked the full OGL
lolwut

u srs bruh

They can revoke the OGL for certain sites, it is a part of the OGL. If you infringe on their copyright (incl 5e) they can revoke the entire OGL despire 5e not being covered under the OGL.
I'm going to have to ask for a big old [CITATION NEEDED] for this, because as far as I'm aware, the OGL cannot be revoked. What it sounds more like is that these websites violated the terms of the license, or they were hit by the DMCA, which is a big old sledgehammer of a law that tends to smash apart perfectly legal things in the process of taking down copyright infringement.

From the WotC OGL: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.

The sites in question were in the wrong, several of them made fan made 5e Character Generators, which they did not take money for. However 5e is NOT covered under the OGL, so they did not have the right to do so.

This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.*

*Except when WotC decides to be punitive apparently.

They sent massages saying they revoked every sub-clause of the OGL (which Pathfinder legally uses) for the violating sites, the irony here is, for at least one person I know. The violation letter arrived before the 30 day warning letter. But they forced a takedown of non-violating material on top of the material that was infringement.

Ultimatly it was not the most terrible thing in the world. Honestly I think I oversold it a bit in my first post. But it was enough to push me out of 5e and back into PF.

OGL: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #108 on: April 28, 2015, 05:32:20 pm »

What keeps me in Pathfinder is that

Hmm... All their stuff is available online and even if I bought it, it is 10 times cheaper then damn 5e

5e which is not only REALLY expensive but barely has enough materials RIGHT NOW to run a game.
Logged

Spehss _

  • Bay Watcher
  • full of stars
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #109 on: April 28, 2015, 09:21:35 pm »

Wow, this thread is unexpectedly vitrolic.
It seems like the thread's got past that point. Which is cool.

I mean, criticizing and debating a game's features is to be expected. Just as long as people aren't also criticizing others for it.
Logged
Steam ID: Spehss Cat
Turns out you can seriously not notice how deep into this shit you went until you get out.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #110 on: April 28, 2015, 11:22:55 pm »

So I hear bosses are as interesting in 5e as their 4e counterpart to an extent (sort of >_<)

But are normal enemies as good as their 4e counterparts?

I mean say what you will about 4e if there is one thing it did very well it was give monsters a role with some idea of how they are to be used strategically... and be able to do it.

I've sometimes wanted to put a tank in pathfinder and found that none of the tanks can really do their job unless I manipulate the field. Where in 4e has tanks who can actually do their jobs.
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #111 on: April 28, 2015, 11:57:24 pm »

That's pretty much all down to the DM, though, neh? You've got to pick creatures which are appropriate encounters based not only on the party's level and the environs, but also on what you want them to do, and then you've got to properly manage them. The scariest thing a player can encounter isn't any given entry in the MM, it's an enemy or group of enemies that thinks realistically and with a decent level of tactical insight. The classic example, of course, would be Tucker's Kobolds.

So take, for example, the tank. What did you do with the thing you were trying to use as a tank? Just send it lumbering at the party? Set up the battlegrid so that the party had to cut through it? Think about what a tank is supposed to do:

1. Distract enemies, draw aggro.
2. Not die.

2 is easy: pick something with good HP and AC, and preferably decent saves all around. 1 is harder, because just dropping a beefy target in front of the party doesn't cut it. You need it to be enough of a threat that they can't ignore it, without being so dangerous that it can take the party on its own. Here's an example: you're running an ambush scenario in a small gully, a clutch of archers poking over the rim to fire at the party, with a leader built for tripping or grappling and maybe a couple melee mooks in the gully with the party. Whenever someone tries to shoot up at the archers or climb up to smack them around, have the leader and mooks specifically go after them. Or have the leader lock down the biggest direct damage threat while the mooks move to occupy the caster(s), &c. &c...

If the party can just kill the tank in a turn or two, you miscalculated. If they can safely save it for last, you miscalculated.

Wow, this thread is unexpectedly vitrolic.
It seems like the thread's got past that point. Which is cool.

I mean, criticizing and debating a game's features is to be expected. Just as long as people aren't also criticizing others for it.

DnD discussions eventually lead to edition wars, no exceptions.  :P
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #112 on: April 29, 2015, 12:03:22 am »

It isn't that it is impossible but it was nice that they had roles they could do in 4e

As for what you are referring to there are about only two monster that fill that role
1) Animated Objects in pathfinder
2) Golems in Pathfinder

Good HP and AC generally speaking rarely exists on a monster outside of constructs because most high-hp units have low AC.

Outside of that 3.5 also has monsters with weird damage models that can fill the bill due to their large numbers of immunities and stall tactics (Pathfinder is much more fair to the players so they don't pull the crud like the monster that causes you to drown just by existing near you)

---

Oddly enough the most deadly "Swing out of the encounter CR" I ever ran was in a stone walled office with small tight quarters. With a Giant Slug (it can squeeze through) and monsters who can move through the walls with ease.

But they were never meant to be such hard swingers... But I almost had a party wipe.
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #113 on: April 29, 2015, 12:50:54 am »

One really nasty thing you could do in 3.5e -- IDK if it'd transfer to PF or 4e -- would be to engage a party that was underground with swarms of creatures capable of swimming through earth and stone, and have them keep popping in and out of the open areas.

A way of dealing with the HP vs. AC tradeoff without relying on 3.5e's various immunities &c. would probably be to apply an appropriate template, or in some cases equipment/spells. Ferex, if the party is assaulting someplace that has casters in it, have some of the non-humanoid enemies they face be Mage Armored; give the humanoid enemies armor which provides a meaningful boost to their normal AC without unbalancing WBL; if the party has no AoE clearing capability, swarm them with lots of little one-hit-wonders backed by competent ranged attackers; if you're operating at higher levels, rather than a physical tank you could use something like an enemy caster to drop a Wall of Force to split the party at the same time that other enemies engage, &c. ad nausem.

Note that I'm not actually advocating trying to kill the party deliberately, but rather creating situations in which the enemies are clever enough that the party might have someone drop if they putz around and flub their rolls. If they're good enough that any encounter that's remotely fair will be a stomp and you don't just want to drop dragon-shaped bridges on them, start creating situations that can't (or at least shouldn't) be resolved by stabbing and blasting everything until they're the only ones moving - not all the time, but enough to spice it up.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #114 on: April 29, 2015, 12:58:33 am »

Templates really don't apply to Pathfinder very well... not that they don't have them but that the "non-super broken" Templates amount to about... like 5 templates (fiend, half-dragon, fae, fae-creature, celestial)

This is because the vast majority of the templates in the series are made for a handful of adventures or specific enemies and bosses... but they print them separately anyway.

The templates that aren't broken in Pathfinder include adjustments for the HD and CR of the monster involved.

---

Also yes I know your not advocating killing the party but rather putting in a situation where the party can't win sleeping through the encounter. Where the positioning, spells used, and all that actually aids it.

A Bunch of Kobolds with crossbows in an open field are easy pickings. A Bunch of Kobolds with crossbows behind a bunch of crates blocking the hero's path are a bit tougher. Then a bunch of Kobolds with crossbows with a bunch of crates and a giant zombie bat in front of those boxes are scary.

I am thinking of starting another Pathfinder game but I have a feeling I lost all the good will of bay12 due to the last two flummoxed games... and frankly there aren't many other places I can look. I don't know how much people are willing to forgive inexperience and bad DMing.
Logged

Jiokuy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Morning comes whether you set the alarm or not
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #115 on: April 29, 2015, 02:14:11 am »

First, I totally agree about templates in pathfinder. (Although thee Class-Simple Templates are awesome, they let you add class abilities to monsters without giving them all the the class, just the essence.)

Just tonight I ran an encounter that had a pretty awesome tank.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I still think 5e is pretty good btw, it has the flexibility to allow a lot of what I like in my games. That is not something I can say about 4e though.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 02:16:01 am by Jiokuy »
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #116 on: April 29, 2015, 02:34:10 am »

Yeah while I like that 4e monsters fill out a role a LOT better so you have a good variety of monsters for typical situations.

They ONLY fill out those roles.

Would be nice though if Pathfinder and 5e would kind of go down the list of 4e role and make some monsters to do it at different levels.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 02:37:32 am by Neonivek »
Logged

Greenbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #117 on: April 29, 2015, 09:00:28 am »

Tank is such an MMO term.

Leaving aside cases in which the party has to protect something other than themselves, it's all about threat, both from the party's point of view and the enemies'. Normally, and I'm not talking about any single system in particular, you'd have members who deal more or less damage. Also normally, the largest damage dealers compensate with poor defense, which makes them the target of most any intelligent adversary. Therefore, to keep them safe, the most resistant member(s) of the group will have to intercept and engage the attackers who would take them out.

It's the same for either side. The tanks aren't tanks because they are the most attractive/dangerous target, but rather because they put themselves between the attackers and the real target. They're defenders which shield the damage dealers so that they can keep hammering away at the opponents.

Now, if there's godly damage dealers with godly defense who can take on any attacker single-handedly and they aren't exceptions to the norm, then all that breaks down and there's something wrong with the system.
Logged

Dorsidwarf

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INTERSTELLAR]
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #118 on: April 29, 2015, 10:02:25 am »

I have to admit that when I DM, I go for full-out rule of cool.

Like revising the dragon's health downwards when the party is rolling shitty (We had twenty minutes where everything in the combat was rolling standard attacks over and over and nobody was hitting, then I lowered the health and the barbarian 1-shot critted it with the daily), "who cares about the rules", never telling the party where they should go, but hinting in-universe, and partially bailing the rogue out when she rolls 1 to seduce the guard that she didn't blow that building up oh no sir me how could you say such a thing.

Gameplay is a fun thing to give meaning to the roleplay for me.

Also it gives me an excuse to clatter dice menacingly when someone says "I open the door"

And the barbarian can't Use Magic Device on eldritch stone circles ever ever again (boom)
Logged
Quote from: Rodney Ootkins
Everything is going to be alright

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e--Good or nah?
« Reply #119 on: April 29, 2015, 10:40:25 am »

The barbarian... had ranks in UMD. o.0

Tank is such an MMO term.
You want some real irony folks?

The first known usage of the term 'tank' in this sense is pegged to Usenet back in the early '90s, during discussions of a MUD made in 1990-91 by a group of Danes. One of the reasons that their MUD gained popularity is, allegedly, because of its similarities to D&D.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13