Skinnereal wrote: DnD is cool again? It's been on-and-off in the geek world for ages
D&D has been on/off what?
I meant it's been cool-ish, and really bad, depending on the current version, competing products, etc.
So, DnD might have been seen as geek-cool one year, and not the next.
IME D&D is a fixture of nerdom. I think that poorly written blog post is just pandering for clicks because there is a new edition. It's like how there is a dude who has been writing about Fifth Edition for Forbes's website and then wrote an utterly superficial book on the subject of D&D generally. If anything, it isn't that D&D is or ever was cool. More like, the wider market has woken up to the fact that nerds as a demographic have dollar value and flaky bloggers want to exploit that. Perhaps we take tend to naively take it at face value because we aren't used to the attention.
Manchu wrote: IME D&D is a fixture of nerdom. I think that poorly written blog post is just pandering for clicks because there is a new edition. It's like how there is a dude who has been writing about Fifth Edition for Forbes's website and then wrote an utterly superficial book on the subject of D&D generally. If anything, it isn't that D&D is or ever was cool. More like, the wider market has woken up to the fact that nerds as a demographic have dollar value and flaky bloggers want to exploit that. Perhaps we take tend to naively take it at face value because we aren't used to the attention.
That's something Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day certainly figured out...
Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has mostly leaned away from that style.
Every time I plan on running a module, I end up abandoning it -- usually before even starting it -- for an adventure and usually also a setting I create during play with the other players at the table.
Chongara wrote: Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has most leaned away from that style.
I think that D&D has always had a strong tradition of pre-made modules and adventures. Partly because it is the biggest, and so can most justify such GM-only items, but also probably because D&D has a high workload for a GM (thanks to monster and loot calculations) that thus lends itself to modules doing the work for you. The basic idea is simple, really: there is actually two branches of GM work. The first is writing the plot, deciding NPCs, placing encounters and loot, etc. The second is then running the game, i.e. taking all the stuff from step one and bringing it to life in the game.
Beyond that, D&D 5e has only a handful of official products as yet, so it has generated a lot of interest as the first official adventure, providing a glimpse into what WotC plan to do with the brand for the next few years. Also I think that, like the Tomb of Horrors and whatnot, this adventure might become one of the communal experiences of this edition. I mean, there are a lot of people who have played or run the Starter Set, meaning that there is this shared experience that they can discuss with players from other groups. You always hear old school gamers reminiscing about the same dungeons that they all played in different groups. I can certainly see that there would be a desire to play the Tyranny of Dragons storyline at least in part to say that you had done so.
For my part, I've been heming and hawing over the Hoard of the Dragon Queen module primarily because the GM skills that I've identified as my best - funny NPCs, exciting combats, good descriptions - don't actually require me to have done the preparation work myself, and indeed I've found the starter set to work just as well for me as any of my own campaigns. I suspect that a lot of other GMs feel the same, or at least want a module to minimise the out-of-game workload. But then again, I really want to do a sandbox campaign, and I hear that Tyranny is (like any adventure with a overarching plot, I guess) moderately on the rails even if it does have a fair bit of exploration in it. I might pick it up this weekend to read it and then decide if it would work for me; I've done some campaign prep, but not so much that I'd lose sleep over binning my custom setting.
Chongara wrote: Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has most leaned away from that style.
Most of my experience as a player and GM are with modules. I did run a HackMaster 4.0 game in the Forgotten Realms that I made up or pieced together bits from this book or that book, though. It ran for about 2 years before player implosion and forming a new RPG group.
I run modules when I have them, but my biggest and longest games are always GM made campaigns/settings. (I think my record was like 7 years or something like that.)
Melissia wrote: Pre-mades are a good way to start off for a new group, but once the group is established, it's usually better to make stuff up to suit it.
Either this or just make up the entire thing as you go along.
When I DM, I like to have the other players contribute to world building during play. I find this makes them more interested and invested in the setting and NPCs. It also allows those who also enjoy DMing to stretch those muscles a bit.
Manchu wrote: When I DM, I like to have the other players contribute to world building during play. I find this makes them more interested and invested in the setting and NPCs. It also allows those who also enjoy DMing to stretch those muscles a bit.
Oh yeah, I do that. But I usually still start off on a pre-made, just modified to suit the player input.
THough I don't likely take as much input as you do mind you. I feel I'm a bit of a rails-style DM at times.
Melissia wrote: I feel I'm a bit of a rails-style DM at times.
This is sometimes appropriate. I have had a lot of conversation about whether it is possible to run a mystery "off the rails" and while I think it is possible I also acknowledge it would take exacting attention to detail on the DM's part.
Outside of organized play, like LFR (defunct) or the Adventurer's League, I find it best to mix a little railroading with a bit of open world. You want the players to be able to have some say in their destiny, but sometimes destiny comes a knockin' as well.
So I've finally joined a group for 5e and had a game Thursday night. It was a blast! We're playing HotDQ, which sort of sucks since it means my copy has to be stashed away to avoid potential spoilers.
Our party is Nabbi Stonehewer, my Dwarf Rogue, Billy the Great, a 12 year old human sorcerer, and Athena, a hoplite-esque human fighter.
The combat is fun and fast, and we went through 5-6 combat encounters without resorting to a grid. I was the only downed character during the session, which was great since we're kind of short on magical healing.
As to player's world-building in game, our group has already done a lot of that. As the Dwarf player, I've established the difference between the snooty, high-class Mountain Dwarves and the more down to earth, arcane magic embracing, rat-eating-a-la-Pratchett Hill Dwarves. Our fighter is a hoplite from a land called Pythagorea across the sea to the west.
I don't know why, but it always creeps me out when someone makes a child character.
It's a little odd, I'll admit, but the guys been decent enough so far. He just makes the fighter and me keep his character's child-like enthusiasm in check. Like chucking firebolts at a dragon circling overhead.
One of the players in my game was totally set on playing a 14 year old Elf wizard. I really got creeped out by that - someone him being an Elf made it worse, as in my mind the Elves are not mentally mature until like 80 or so. He would still have been in nappies! The player was a bit upset when I insisted that he'd have to be at least 40.
I agree that it is kind of just creepy. I guess that my thinking is that, if you want to do the 'inexperienced youth' trope then there is no need to be younger than 19, in all honesty.
I don't think a child character is so bad as concept. However it best fits in a game aiming for a tone that supports their presence, in a setting where their abilities would make sense, and a player that can make them engaging rather than annoying or weird. In other words probably a bad idea for most games. This is probably less challenging if you're doing a game where the premise is *all* child characters. Say a group of PCs in the 12-15 range forced out their homes without adults for whatever reason. It's one of those things where it's all in the execution and a great many RPers are bit clumsy with that even given the easiest of character concepts.
Chongara wrote: I don't think a child character is so bad as concept. However it best fits in a game aiming for a tone that supports their presence, in a setting where their abilities would make sense, and a player that can make them engaging rather than annoying or weird. In other words probably a bad idea for most games. This is probably less challenging if you're doing a game where the premise is *all* child characters. Say a group of PCs in the 12-15 range forced out their homes without adults for whatever reason. It's one of those things where it's all in the execution and a great many RPers are bit clumsy with that even given the easiest of character concepts.
Right. Our player's backstory for his character is that the kid, despite being a folk hero for his little town - when he killed a monster by way of his sorcerer's powers manifesting - was forced to leave his town and grow up on his own after those same powers accidentally caused the deaths of a few people.
Chongara wrote: I don't think a child character is so bad as concept.
It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Kids playing kids isn't what I am referring to either. Sometimes the concept works for an adult, such as this one seems to be. The ones I always seem to run into are the 37 year old man playing a 12 year old girl. If you haven't run into an older man describing his tween human female Druids lack of clothes than you are quite lucky.
Red Harvest wrote: DM's don't kill characters. Monsters kill characters. No alibi needed.
So do spaceship crashes
Teleport mishaps. Because you could make the players roll those In AD&D 1e, IIRC, There was a 4% chance of coming in 10-40 feet high (ie above the ground) at a well-known location. A player in one campaign of mine built a special chamber, so even if he came in high or low he would be safe. Only, the player made the ceiling 41 feet high. So the top 5' of the mage ended up in stone, and the lower 1' of the mage was dangling from the ceiling. Oops. Also, potion miscibilities. There were so many ways for PCs to do themselves in...
About the child characters: For adults, I can think it would only work well if all the PCs were children, and that was the basis for the campaign. (Orphanage burnt down, or village destroyed and all adults murdered... etc.) It could be an interesting narrative. Otherwise, it seems a bit unsettling.
I don't think I could tell a player no you can't play that. I an really bad at telling my players no. It's part of why I am a bad DM. If the players what to do something I say OK.
Chongara wrote: I don't think a child character is so bad as concept.
It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Kids playing kids isn't what I am referring to either. Sometimes the concept works for an adult, such as this one seems to be. The ones I always seem to run into are the 37 year old man playing a 12 year old girl. If you haven't run into an older man describing his tween human female Druids lack of clothes than you are quite lucky.
Well. I thought I had delved pretty deep into the unwashed neckbeard abyss in my time. I stand corrected. I've never run into anything remotely that bad. In fact I hadn't even considered such a possibility when I'd made the post. I mean that's pretty damn creepy, but I don't think it really does much to change my opinion. I still see it as viable under the right circumstances, turbo-creeper guy being around obviously not qualifying as that.
I don't think I could tell a player no you can't play that. I an really bad at telling my players no. It's part of why I am a bad DM. If the players what to do something I say OK.
I find it helps to set expectations ahead of time. I always put out a paragraph or two on what the premise of the campaign is and what the opening events will be, along with some notes on the tone & themes I'll be trying to touch on. I find doing this gets everyone on the same page and gives players a chance to think about what kind of PC they'd like to fit in the game, rather than just coming up with whatever comes to mind first and then finding it may or may not be a great fit.
Melissia wrote: I probably take a bit too much joy at telling my players no if they have dumb or offensive ideas.
Though I take equal joy in granting odd and interesting ideas permission to be played, as well, even if I have to make houserules to make it work.
Can I be a half-angel dark elf vampire weredragon Rangerwizard-SorcererDruid? See I'm a cowboy cop MMA fighter that doesn't play anyone's rules but his own, because I'm secretly the son of the king and an alternate-world six-times gender swapped Xena: Warrior Princess. I'd have rainbow hair, one purple and one orange eye, my mount would be all the my little ponies fused with the power of digivolution into a single SSJ3 pony named Pikachu but with half it's name also being a my little pony name.
Melissia wrote: I probably take a bit too much joy at telling my players no if they have dumb or offensive ideas.
Though I take equal joy in granting odd and interesting ideas permission to be played, as well, even if I have to make houserules to make it work.
Can I be a half-angel dark elf vampire weredragon Rangerwizard-SorcererDruid? See I'm a cowboy cop MMA that doesn't play anyone's rules but his own, because I'm secret the son of the king and an alternate-world six-times gender swapped Xena: Warrior Princess. I'd have rainbow hair, one purple and one orange eye, my mount would be all the my little ponies fused with the power of digivolution into a single SSJ3 pony named Pikachu but with half it's name also being a my little pony name.
So my group has gotten it hands on some PHBs thanks to my recent trip to Australia. We're having a great time with 5e so far. The DM has been running a mix of pre-generated encounters and his own ones, set in his own world with his own story-line.
I'm running a human fighter using a halberd, we've also got a war cleric, a bard, a halfling fighter and a gnome wizard. Names will be forthcoming, none of us are any good at picking names.
The class balance seems pretty good so far, though the buff and de-buff ability of the bard is really powerful, the DM is throwing fights a good 2-3 CR higher than its supposed to be at us and we're still left standing at the end of it. Assuming you're using feats the polearm fighter is really fun, everyone else seems to be enjoying their characters as well.
One thing I'm a real fan of is the backgrounds. No one in my group are hardcore role players who write pages of back story and stuff, so giving you a mechanical benefit to making a back story is good. We also enjoy rolling for random traits, its quite funny the stuff you end up with. Our bard only likes sleeping in confined spaces, so our first night in an inn she slept in our room's closet. Its good fun and you see people who used to only care about getting the biggest numbers actually getting into character a bit.
Chongara wrote: Can I be a half-angel dark elf vampire weredragon Rangerwizard-SorcererDruid? See I'm a cowboy cop MMA fighter that doesn't play anyone's rules but his own, because I'm secretly the son of the king and an alternate-world six-times gender swapped Xena: Warrior Princess. I'd have rainbow hair, one purple and one orange eye, my mount would be all the my little ponies fused with the power of digivolution into a single SSJ3 pony named Pikachu but with half it's name also being a my little pony name.
nomotog wrote: I don't think I could tell a player no you can't play that. I an really bad at telling my players no. It's part of why I am a bad DM. If the players what to do something I say OK.
The most important part of being a GM is being able to say "No". If you can't look your players in the eye and tell them "no", you aren't ready to be a GM. You don't have to be vindictive and you don't have to relish crushing their dreams, but you have to be able to say "no" if you want to keep the game stable. I have told players they can't use equipment from certain books, I have restricted races, I have point-blank shot down character concepts as unsuitable to the campaign. If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why you are saying no (it's for balance reasons, it to keep the tone of the campaign consistant, the idea is personally unsettling, etc) most players will accept your "no". As long as you are consistent. Don't deny one thing to one player while allowing it for another. Deny it for both, otherwise you are inviting conflict.
As for character concepts, I've had people play young characters in my games before and it's usually a pain in the hoop. One person, in a Star Wars game, played a kid using the "Kid" character template from the core rulebook. I couldn't really get too mad at him for that. And we were in high school, so it wasn't inherantly squicky. More recently, I've started running a low-power level Black Crusade game, set on a feral Chaos world inside the Eye of Terror. The game is starting at Dark Heresy-level power and will build as the players get better at being Chaos worshippers/champions. Since I do want Chaos Marine to be an eventual occupation for these players to achieve (like a prestige class, if you will) I started the party off very young. Of course, on most feral worlds, you are considered an adult by age 12, so having a band of 13 year olds trying to win favor with the leader of their warband and attract the notice of the Gods of Chaos isn't completely nuts. The players did have a serious discusion about how they would approach their characters (they are going for a child soldier kind of vibe) which was good to have and since they are all kids and nobody is crossplaying, we don't have the one 37 year old guy telling everyone how little clothing his 12 year old aspiring champion of Slaanesh is wearing.
It is true that if you cannot say No then you should not DM.
It is equally true that saying No to a player is a good DM's final resort.
From these two principles, we can conclude that the most important thing is to be picky about who you play with, as much as possible. There is no substitute for a good social dynamic.
Manchu wrote: It is true that if you cannot say No then you should not DM.
It is equally true that saying No to a player is a good DM's final resort.
From these two principles, we can conclude that the most important thing is to be picky about who you play with, as much as possible. There is no substitute for a good social dynamic.
Melissia wrote: I probably take a bit too much joy at telling my players no if they have dumb or offensive ideas.
Though I take equal joy in granting odd and interesting ideas permission to be played, as well, even if I have to make houserules to make it work.
Can I be a half-angel dark elf vampire weredragon Rangerwizard-SorcererDruid? See I'm a cowboy cop MMA fighter that doesn't play anyone's rules but his own, because I'm secretly the son of the king and an alternate-world six-times gender swapped Xena: Warrior Princess. I'd have rainbow hair, one purple and one orange eye, my mount would be all the my little ponies fused with the power of digivolution into a single SSJ3 pony named Pikachu but with half it's name also being a my little pony name.
I said "odd and interesting", nothing about that is either of those, sadly
I went to a game once where someone played a half-angel/half-demon fighter/ranger/sorcerer that could shoot lasers from their eyes and a gay minotaur that had pink fur.
What is the 'Fey Knight' about? My little gang is looking at the 5e stuff, and someone has expressed an interest in this character class. I don't have the PHB yet, but should soon enough... as soon as Amazon ships it, anyway.
I always had a list of classes and races that existed in a particular campaign from which players could chose. Not all classes and races need be available in a given campaign.
Red Harvest wrote: What is the 'Fey Knight' about? My little gang is looking at the 5e stuff, and someone has expressed an interest in this character class. I don't have the PHB yet, but should soon enough... as soon as Amazon ships it, anyway.
I always had a list of classes and races that existed in a particular campaign from which players could chose. Not all classes and races need be available in a given campaign.
It's a sub-class of paladin. At 3rd Level paladins take an Oath which defines some of their class abilities and gives them a theme.
Oath of Devotion: Paladin classic. Healing & Buffs, - Turns Undead. Yadda Yadda. It works well and with the right player and group makes for a good addition to a game.
Oath of the Ancients: Paladin of Nature. Fights for/because of the good things and beauty that nature brings to the world. Buffs, some druid-esque abilities, interacts with Fey/Fiends instead of undead. A cool new take on it that really works.
Oath of Vengeance: Not-a-Paladin. "Dark Knight". Smiting and Revengeance. Offensive abilities. Themes center around seeking the greater evil "By any means". Expect "That Guy" to be playing it so he can be high fantasy Jack Bauer and take the most expedient route while claiming the moral high ground. I like it mechanically and it'd work in a really/dark cynical setting unmodified. For most of my games if player wanted to use it we'd have to gut the fluff and do some re-branding into something a bit more palatable.
I think the mechanics could fit more of an "Oath of Justice" with the emphasis on seeking out and bringing down evildoers, but with a strong theme of humility and guarding against blind zeal.
The best thing we had with our Warlord was a healing banner.
When the banner was planted, and if someone was healed within 5 spaces of it, everyone else with 5 got healed 1 HP.
It was great for near-total wipeout encounters.
I feel like the Battlemaster Fighter can do a lot of 'warlord-ish' stuff, but with less healing and different name.
(Warlord vs. Battlemaster is a tough one. Warlord has a lot of negative connotations: Say it to someone and they'll likely think of atrocities in Africa and similar. Battlemaster sounds less impressive, though. Much more 'Something from He-man' in style.)
Skinnereal wrote:The best thing we had with our Warlord was a healing banner.
When the banner was planted, and if someone was healed within 5 spaces of it, everyone else with 5 got healed 1 HP.
It was great for near-total wipeout encounters.
I don't want to be that guy, but if the best thing about a character was his magic items.... It'll be interesting when the DMG drops to see if they kept anything like this,a s the magic standards were popular in 4e and could be good in 5e with modified rules.
I feel like the Battlemaster Fighter can do a lot of 'warlord-ish' stuff, but with less healing and different name.
(Warlord vs. Battlemaster is a tough one. Warlord has a lot of negative connotations: Say it to someone and they'll likely think of atrocities in Africa and similar. Battlemaster sounds less impressive, though. Much more 'Something from He-man' in style.)
There is definitely something of the legacy of the Warlord in the battle master, but not enough to fully capture the feel of it. YellsAtYouGuy is a concept deep enough for a dedicated class.
Luckily 5e is nothing if not cohesive. Classes follow pretty clear templates and the game as whole follows pretty obvious guidelines for how abilities are structured, and what bonuses can be given when. This looks to be the easiest edition yet to homebrew in, anyone with some general content creating experience could probably come up with a solid "Warlord" class prototype given a couple hours.
I agree the name is a tad problematic, but you could always call it something like "Marshal" for the callback to 3e or something more generic like "Commander".
Do we have any idea about whether there will be a PHB 2/3 for many of the other classes that became "standard" starting classes for 4th?
I ask because well, I actually enjoyed 4th, but I've played as a Warden, a Monk, and an Assassin.
The only odd one being the Assassin, because for some reason WotC thinks that they are best with great weapons and the like (I use a standard longsword).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Do we have any idea about whether there will be a PHB 2/3 for many of the other classes that became "standard" starting classes for 4th?
I can't imagine them not making these.
That being said, my gaming group is talking about only buying the first three books (PH, DMG, MM) and using those to avoid power/rules bloat.
That being said, my gaming group is talking about only buying the first three books (PH, DMG, MM) and using those to avoid power/rules bloat.
I can see the value in that, I just like to "identify" with my characters, and when I first started playing, my first character was the Warden... I guess you could say they are a heavily armored, combat druid (they deal with nature, but are also a combat centric class)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The only odd one being the Assassin, because for some reason WotC thinks that they are best with great weapons and the like (I use a standard longsword).
I don't think the essentials version in Heroes of Shadow used two-handers, but the original version sure did. At least everyone I met used a two-handed weapon.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The only odd one being the Assassin, because for some reason WotC thinks that they are best with great weapons and the like (I use a standard longsword).
I don't think the essentials version in Heroes of Shadow used two-handers, but the original version sure did. At least everyone I met used a two-handed weapon.
Yeah, I built my assassin in the online character builder, so when I selected the weapon under "build my kit for me" they gave him a Greatsword, but since the character himself was based off of Jaqen H'gar from the GoT books, I swapped that for a basic longsword. He still does some serious face melting damage though
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Do we have any idea about whether there will be a PHB 2/3 for many of the other classes that became "standard" starting classes for 4th?
I can't imagine them not making these.
That being said, my gaming group is talking about only buying the first three books (PH, DMG, MM) and using those to avoid power/rules bloat.
That method should work out really well, actually!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Do we have any idea about whether there will be a PHB 2/3 for many of the other classes that became "standard" starting classes for 4th?
I can't imagine them not making these.
That being said, my gaming group is talking about only buying the first three books (PH, DMG, MM) and using those to avoid power/rules bloat.
That method should work out really well, actually!
I agree. A few more backgrounds would be nice, but I worry about bloat and system mastery creep more than anything. I surprisingly liked Psion in 4E, though Battlemind and the psionic Leader class (I forget the name) were 'meh'. Monk is not psionic. There...I said it.
Melissia wrote: Then I guess you didn't have someone utterly abuse the broken rules to make an unkilllable superdeadly character
Believe it or not it's harder to do that kind of stuff with psionics than other power sets (at least in 3.P). Even with just the PHB even mid-level casters are already loaded with potential campaign smashers. That's overlooking cutsey low level gimmicks like Shrink Item.. Not to mention stuff they can pull with a few expansions, and silly TO like the Locate City Bomb. 3.P was held together with duct tape and the fact Fireball was shiny enough to keep most people's eyes off the Conjuration school.
Ahtman wrote: ... Monk is not psionic. There...I said it.
I think the devs stated they wanted to make Monk part of a unified 'Ki' power source, but couldn't flesh it out enough, so it was forced into the Psionic source. Maybe if they had done a proper 4e version of 'Oriental Adventures' they could have had Monk, Samurai, Bushi, etc. as Ki power source. Then again, power sources tended to be pretty much irrelevant in actual play anyway.
Seems like a good abbreviation. I don't know why people pretend there is such a difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Chongara's point about psionics certainly applies to both.
I like psionics A LOT in terms of theme. In terms of mechanics, I don't think they have ever felt alien enough. It just seems like another kind of casting.
Manchu wrote: Seems like a good abbreviation. I don't know why people pretend there is such a difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Chongara's point about psionics certainly applies to both.
I like psionics A LOT in terms of theme. In terms of mechanics, I don't think they have ever felt alien enough. It just seems like another kind of casting.
I've seen 3/3.5/Pathfinder lumped together as 3.P instead of doing writing '3/3.5/PF' each time.
Correct. While I've certainly seen some disagreement on the matter as far as I'm concerned 3.5 and pathfinder are basically the same game, at least from a general mechanics perspective. Pathfinders got some different class layouts, and did some minor streamlining of 1 or 2 futzy parts and that's about it. Pathfinder bears a closer resemblance to core 3.5, than many 3.5 games did post-house rules.
I think the fact you easily port something like Tome of Battle into pathfinder with minimal effort really speaks to how close to the systems are. Tome of Battle was tied pretty tightly to the 3.5 skill system, adopting it in a functional way took me all of about 20 minutes of effort.
A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
A wizard who, for example, takes a school specialization and forebids conjuration and abjuration is required to be much more clever than one that doesn't.
Melissia wrote: A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
A wizard who, for example, takes a school specialization and forebids conjuration and abjuration is required to be much more clever than one that doesn't.
I was under the impression that the utility spells are the big reason for caster imbalance.
Melissia wrote: Why would you WANT to port Tome of Battle in though?
That book is arguably more broken than any other book I can think of, if it'sw the one I'm thinking of (with maneuvers and swordsages and etc).
You are thinking of the correct book. Some editing issues aside I think it is hands down the best supplement they released for the system. In hindsight it was obviously an alpha for ideas later fully realized in 4e, but it was solid all the same.
Given your statements about psionics we obviously either have very different experiences with 3.P materials or just very different ideas of what constitutes good vs degenerate mechanics.
Then again I've never been a powergamer myself, so my "power level", as it were, was never really that high for any of my characters save for my psyker in Dark Heresy (and even then that was basically on accident).
Psionics had a very bad reputation from 2E. 3E psionics were really just another kind of caster and I agree with Chongara that if anything they were less OP than tradcasters (if for no other reason, less splat).
Manchu wrote: Psionics had a very bad reputation from 2E. 3E psionics were really just another kind of caster and I agree with Chongara that if anything they were less OP than tradcasters (if for no other reason, less splat).
The other major hinderance is that they get a lot less of their good stuff. Casters scale with level, Psionic users have to pump more points to scale up their powers. This means that unless you scale up their costs to the same as your high-level powers your older stuff is very "Meh". In contrast a 2nd-level spell slot is going to scale up and remain useful at least until you 6th levels if not indefinitely. The end result is casters have a lot more "Power Points" of magic at their disposal - if you measure things on the psionic scale.
Then again I've never been a powergamer myself, so my "power level", as it were, was never really that high for any of my characters save for my psyker in Dark Heresy (and even then that was basically on accident).
You also may have just never had a player randomly blunder into such gems as Color Spray, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog or Polymorph. It doesn't take a power gamer to have these spells kick an encounter in the nuts so hard they fly out its eye sockets. Any player who just *tries* one of these kinds of spells is probably going to immediately "Get it". Luckily blowing things up is just such an iconic "thing" for casters to do they never try them. Ditto the folks who never look past "Cure Wounds" for their clerics.
Heavens help any big dumb beast up against cleric that's figured out enemies are just a single failed will save from taking one-way trip to the elemental plane of fire (or positive energy... or negative energy... or... pick your poison I guess).
Melissia wrote: A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
That sounds nice on paper but often we have to play with the groups available*. The 3.5 people I play with are nice, but they love caster dominance and system mastery so getting them not to do either of those is unlikely. It is odd because the DM for that particular game loves 3.5 (obliviously) and will allow all sources except Book of Nine Swords.
Melissia wrote: A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
That sounds nice on paper but often we have to play with the groups available*. The 3.5 people I play with are nice, but they love caster dominance and system mastery so getting them not to do either of those is unlikely. It is odd because the DM for that particular game loves 3.5 (obliviously) and will allow all sources except Book of Nine Swords.
I'm looking for the note that goes along with that asterisk.
Melissia wrote: A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
That sounds nice on paper but often we have to play with the groups available*. The 3.5 people I play with are nice, but they love caster dominance and system mastery so getting them not to do either of those is unlikely. It is odd because the DM for that particular game loves 3.5 (obliviously) and will allow all sources except Book of Nine Swords.
Book of anime fan fightan magic is totally op bro.
Dude. Fighter-types totally have ~1hp/level more than Clerics and Druids, can you imagine how OP it is when they can do anything other than make attack roll vs AC to deal 2d6+X damage? It'd totally be unfair. The Druid can only turn into a T-Rex with a pet T-Rex, that uses his magic to summon other T-Rexes! The poor cleric? All he can do is summon angels, regrow lost limbs from stumps, and destroys dozens of lesser enemies with a single world. Seriously man, how could anyone possibly suggest the warrior should be able to more than take a single swing with his sword after moving. He might have as much as 15 or 16 more hit points!
You just wanna turn this game into one of your Chinese cartoons.
Melissia wrote: A better way to do that is to work with your casters to get them to build more utility and less broken pure powerhouse, rather than to try to say "everyone gets a massive power boost".
That sounds nice on paper but often we have to play with the groups available*. The 3.5 people I play with are nice, but they love caster dominance and system mastery so getting them not to do either of those is unlikely. It is odd because the DM for that particular game loves 3.5 (obliviously) and will allow all sources except Book of Nine Swords.
Book of anime fan fightan magic is totally op bro.
Dude. Fighter-types totally have ~1hp/level more than Clerics and Druids, can you imagine how OP it is when they can do anything other than make attack roll vs AC to deal 2d6+X damage? It'd totally be unfair. The Druid can only turn into a T-Rex with a pet T-Rex, that uses his magic to summon other T-Rexes! The poor cleric? All he can do is summon angels, regrow lost limbs from stumps, and destroys dozens of lesser enemies with a single world. Seriously man, how could anyone possibly suggest the warrior should be able to more than take a single swing with his sword after moving. He might have as much as 15 or 16 more hit points!
You just wanna turn this game into one of your Chinese cartoons.
Well obviously we're all just playing the wrong way, and we should be playing AD&D and Basic like real roleplayers.
I never understood the decision to include Psionics in a fantasy setting to begin with. I mean, I get why you would do it in a sci-fi setting: so that you can have "magic" users without actually using magic to do it. But if your setting already has magic-users, who use magic, what purpose does having magic with a different explanation/rationalization/ruleset serve?
That, and the poor implementation of 2e left scars so deep that they are still felt by some people to this very day...
squidhills wrote: I never understood the decision to include Psionics in a fantasy setting to begin with. I mean, I get why you would do it in a sci-fi setting: so that you can have "magic" users without actually using magic to do it. But if your setting already has magic-users, who use magic, what purpose does having magic with a different explanation/rationalization/ruleset serve?
That, and the poor implementation of 2e left scars so deep that they are still felt by some people to this very day...
Psionics has been in since almost day one.
"“The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both the players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind.”"
"“The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both the players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind.”"
That doesn't address the issues I have with it. It is magic, by another name, with another ruleset (at least in 2.0 and 3.x). The question is; why? Does Vancian magic not work anymore? If so, why not change magic to work differently, rather than add a new magic system under a different name? "Unknown poers of the mind"...? That works great in sci-fi, but it is superfluous in fantasy. Who cares about the powers of the mind? How are they any different than the magic already present in a fantasy setting? Psionics give you superpowers. Magic gives you superpowers. Why do you need two sources of superpowers in the same game?
In a sci-fi game, you can use "psionics" to explain why characters have superpowers/cast spells. Psionics are a soft-science (or pseudo-science) explanation for magic in a setting that (apart from Star Wars) shouldn't have magic. Psionics work in sci-fi and have a reason to be there. They serve no purpose in fantasy, because why do you need a pseudo-science explanation for magic, when you already have magic?
D&D does not comprise a traditional setting. It is better thought of as a unifying theme tying many different settings together, including not only published material but also the stuff people make and use at their own tables. Not every group uses everything published by TSR/WotC for an edition in their games. AD&D particularly is just a bundle of tools players can pick and choose from. Psionics can exist alongside magic (although I personally don't think they are distinct enough) or perhaps in a certain setting there is no magic but there is Psionics. The high-level in-setting explanation for Psionics has to do with the Far Realm, a plane of existence utterly alien to the material, inner, and outer planes. This is where aberrations (mind flayers, aboleths, beholders, grell, etc) come from. While fantastically, magic in D&D is "native" to the normal world. Psionics comes from beyond.
Manchu wrote: The high-level in-setting explanation for Psionics has to do with the Far Realm, a plane of existence utterly alien to the material, inner, and outer planes. This is where aberrations (mind flayers, aboleths, beholders, grell, etc) come from. While fantastically, magic in D&D is "native" to the normal world. Psionics comes from beyond.
Those are just in-game rationalizations for why psionics are different than magic. I'm talking about the role psionics and magic play in a game setting. In that regard, they are identical. Psionics let you do magical stuff. Magic lets you do magical stuff. Doesn't matter if magic comes from the gods, or intense study, or your racial heritage, or how awesome you are, or if it comes from your brain; it's all magic. It serves the same purpose; to allow somebody to be something other than a fighter or rogue. That's why I don't understand why they needed to add it to D&D (or *any* fantasy setting that already has magic... Palladium Fantasy, I'm looking at you) when you already have magic to do magic with. Psionics in sci-fi makes sense: it's how you explain magic in a setting that "magic" wouldn't be readily accepted. That's why I don't see the need for psionics is a setting that already has magic. "Magic" is readily accepted in a fantasy setting, so why do you need to add a new magic that lets you do stuff that magic already lets you do?
Aww, Manchu... I'm sorry that you don't appreciate the full awesomeness that is Exalted. I will pray for you. Hopefully my fervent prayers that will grant you enough motes of Essence to see the truth
Manchu wrote: M, you should start an Exalted thread. You can 'educate' me there.
I did a long time ago, but well, the playerbase for Exalted is pretty small sadly.
Actually, I'm kind of wondering if there IS a "I have magical powers because I'm just plain awesome" character type in the new edition yet now... I really need to pick up the PHB...
I played in an Exalted game a buddy of mine ran once and I didn't really enjoy myself. I'm not totally willing to blame it on the game though as me and him couldn't be more different in terms our RPG-ing styles, so it's kind like an oil and water thing.
It had some good ideas, some of the art was cool and conceptually it's really neat. However I found it off putting in the same way I seem to find all WW games. I'm not sure how to describe it but it always feels like their settings are too caught up in themselves. It feels more like I'm getting the setting as it happened in someone else's campaign, rather than guide to an actual place.
Not that D&D does the "Actual Place" thing all that much better it really throws you a loose connection of tropes and some names. It's just that the WW games always feel like they're trying to give you a world but give you a stage built for somebody else's PCs.
I dunno maybe it's that I've mostly played WW games that particular friend and people that learned GMing directly from him.
imo they're probably the class closest to the "Sweet Spot" in the 3e era, and 4e kind of leveled the playing field for everyone. They're looking to be insane power houses in 5e. Like if my upcoming 5e game turns into an extended campaign I'm seriously thinking I might have prune them a bit.
"“The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both the players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind.”"
That doesn't address the issues I have with it. It is magic, by another name, with another ruleset (at least in 2.0 and 3.x). The question is; why? Does Vancian magic not work anymore? If so, why not change magic to work differently, rather than add a new magic system under a different name? "Unknown poers of the mind"...? That works great in sci-fi, but it is superfluous in fantasy. Who cares about the powers of the mind? How are they any different than the magic already present in a fantasy setting? Psionics give you superpowers. Magic gives you superpowers. Why do you need two sources of superpowers in the same game?
In a sci-fi game, you can use "psionics" to explain why characters have superpowers/cast spells. Psionics are a soft-science (or pseudo-science) explanation for magic in a setting that (apart from Star Wars) shouldn't have magic. Psionics work in sci-fi and have a reason to be there. They serve no purpose in fantasy, because why do you need a pseudo-science explanation for magic, when you already have magic?
Actually, if you read the article I posted, it does.
Spoiler:
The first time psionics is ever mentioned in D&D is in Eldritch Wizardry, supplement 3 from the Original D&D books. The first mention reads,
“The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both the players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind.”
Notice that “powers of the mind” are cited as the source of the ability. Notable is that in this book, most classes had the potential to possess psionic power, including Magic Users and Clerics, but also Fighting Men and Thieves, notable because the later classes cannot possess magical abilities. Psionics is clearly different than magic right out of the gate
Probably the most notorious and feared psionic monster, mind flayers, also made their debut in this book. In their description it reads,
“Although non-magical, these monsters are 90% magic resistant.”
Putting both of those entries together, it seems clear that psionics is intended to be something other than magic.
Next appearance is in the 1st ed. AD&D Player’s Handbook Appendix I. The opening sentence reads,
“Psionics are various powers derived from the brain, and they enable characters so endowed to perform in ways which resemble magical abilities.”
Once again in this edition, any character had the potential to possess psionic abilities.
In 2nd Edition, Psionics finally gets a spotlight in the form of its own handbook, The Complete Psionics Handbook, and its first official class, the Psioinicist. Have a full handbook devoted to the power gave the designers time to directly address what psioncs is and is not. An entire page is written under the heading, “Is Psionics Magical?”
“Many people assume that psionics is just another type of magic - one wielded by wizards and the other by clerics. So it is not unreasonable to ask, “Does the game really need third type of magic?”
The answer is no, the game probably does not need a third type of magic. But the question is misinformed because psionics is not magic. Magic is the ability to shape, control, harness, and utilize the natural forces that infuse the game world that surround the characters…
Psionics is the complete opposite of this. The psionicist shapes, controls, harnesses, and utilizes natural forces that infuse his own being. His effort is focused inward rather that outward. He must be completely in touch with an aware of even the tiniest workings of his body and mind.”
This idea is again reinforced in 3rd edition in the Psionics Handbook,
“Simply put, psionics is the art of tapping the mind’s potential. A psionic character is blessed with a form innate ability that allows him or her to use mental power to achieve goals or perform tasks…”
4th edition is where the developers decide to take a right (wrong?) turn. This is the first time we see the mention of the oxymoronic term, “psionic magic”. There is talk of the gods being involved in the Living Gate and reference to “monks training themselves to access this rare and mysterious power. 4th editions response to psionics is to say that it is external to the character, going so far as to suggest that it is a defiling energy seeping from the Far Realm. They also suggest that psionic ability might be a reaction to this external force, similar to the mortal body’s reaction to disease
To say that I am disappointed with 4th edition’s take on psionics is an understatement. It's contrary to everything psionics has been up to this point in the game. I hope that they recognize this as they move forward and return psionics to what it was, the power of the mind itself. Since we know that we use only a fraction of the mind’s potential, the idea of fantasy characters who have realized that potential is an amazing idea. It’s a concept that resonates fundamentally with players because we all have a mind and therefore are potentially psionic. To attempt to alter psionics into another form of magic or universal power in which characters must learn to access, not only waters down traditional magic, but it contradicts the history of psionics in the game.
I say to the developers, please give psionics the same attention you have given to other parts of the game developed in D&D Next,. Go back through the history of the subject’s life in the game and attempt to arrive at something that makes sense. I hope that as the module books are developed, player feedback continues to be requested and incorporated into design.
“Many people assume that psionics is just another type of magic - one wielded by wizards and the other by clerics. So it is not unreasonable to ask, “Does the game really need third type of magic?”
The answer is no, the game probably does not need a third type of magic. But the question is misinformed because psionics is not magic. Magic is the ability to shape, control, harness, and utilize the natural forces that infuse the game world that surround the characters…
Psionics is the complete opposite of this. The psionicist shapes, controls, harnesses, and utilizes natural forces that infuse his own being. His effort is focused inward rather that outward. He must be completely in touch with an aware of even the tiniest workings of his body and mind.”
Actually, if you read the article I posted, it does.
“Many people assume that psionics is just another type of magic - one wielded by wizards and the other by clerics. So it is not unreasonable to ask, “Does the game really need third type of magic?”
The answer is no, the game probably does not need a third type of magic. But the question is misinformed because psionics is not magic. Magic is the ability to shape, control, harness, and utilize the natural forces that infuse the game world that surround the characters…
Psionics is the complete opposite of this. The psionicist shapes, controls, harnesses, and utilizes natural forces that infuse his own being. His effort is focused inward rather that outward. He must be completely in touch with an aware of even the tiniest workings of his body and mind.”
'
I did read the article. And it does not explain the need for psionics in the setting. It explains the in-game rationalizations behind why this type of magic is not magic (functionally, yes it is magic) but it doesn't explain why a fantasy setting needs a new system of magic that is mechanically different than the magic system that is already in place. It is a different magic system, that lets you do the things that magic already lets you do, with a different name slapped on it. I'm talking about the role it plays in the setting. What's the difference between arcane magic and divine magic? None. They both are "magic" and let you have superpowers. The in-game rationalizations are irrelevant. They are both magic. Psionics is also magic. But it uses a different system, with different rules, with no real reason to. That's what I'm talking about. If they wanted a new magic system, they should have just made all magic work the same way as psionics.
Under that kind of idea, there's no reason to have anything other than one casting class since they all do magic and all magic should work the same. You can just reskin them for whatever in game rationalization you want.
As said in the article: Psionics, as a mechanic, was created to give DMs and players more options mechanically for what they wanted to do.
In my opinion, this is for the same reason that alternate character classes have been created: more options. Do we need a Barbarian class when we have a Fighter class and you can play a barbarian using the Fighter class? Nope, but I'm glad we have it.
I don't mind there being different kinds of magic myself, I actually am more bothered by the move of heal spells from arcane necromancy to divine necromancy than I am by the lore existence of psionics...
Bards are awesome. They can fill in for any of the four basic monster food groups (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) and with the right feats and the right player they can do some amazing things. Its also a great multiclassing class. Take a few levels in either fighter or rogue and then run bard for the rest of the way, and you can pull stunts that will make your GM cry (and you won't even need to use 3rd party books to do it with). I ran a bard/fighter in 3.5 for years and that character kicked so much butt that I still can't believe it.
Bards are awesome. They can fill in for any of the four basic monster food groups (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) and with the right feats and the right player they can do some amazing things. Its also a great multiclassing class. Take a few levels in either fighter or rogue and then run bard for the rest of the way, and you can pull stunts that will make your GM cry (and you won't even need to use 3rd party books to do it with). I ran a bard/fighter in 3.5 for years and that character kicked so much butt that I still can't believe it.
Bards have always been pretty awesome, I completely agree.
Melissia wrote: I don't mind there being different kinds of magic myself, I actually am more bothered by the move of heal spells from arcane necromancy to divine necromancy than I am by the lore existence of psionics...
Yeah, why did they move those spells? They were necro in 2e, which made sense. Then conjuration in 3.x which made less sense. Then I stopped paying attention to see where they wound up after that, because I won't touch 4e with an 11-foot pole with a halfling torch-bearer on the end of it.
Melissia wrote: I actually am more bothered by the move of heal spells from arcane necromancy to divine necromancy.
Healing spells started in Divine, iirc.
IIRC, necromancy used to have healing spells because it manipulated life force.
Sure, sure, I'm sure that was in some splat over the years, but healing originated from the divine source originally. You should be complaining about the loss of arcane healing, if anything. And I am okay with healing either not existing for arcane or being less effective than divine. They have roles for a reason.
I really need to get more in to powergaming, it feels like :/ it just usually doesn't interest me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: And I am okay with healing either not existing for arcane or being less effective than divine. They have roles for a reason.
Oh, I'd be okay with it being less effective than divine healing. I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".
Melissia wrote: I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".
But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.
With good reason. There is something about death and the dead that resonates pretty deeply with people. Especially in our cultural context it seems like the dead and their remains are something to be respected and left alone. It's a lot easier to make channeling death, manipulating the dead, draining life "Feel right" in an evil role than a good one.
I think with the right setting, strong world building and the right themes and tone, you can make it work in other ways. However it's enough of a challenge I think it's probably the right move to have Necromancy (or at least the deathy/poisony/zombie-y bits of it), evil by default.
Melissia wrote: I think you'll find that "tradition" is not a good argument with me
I'm one of the apparently small number of people who actually rather liked 4e, my only complaints were mostly about the non-combat rituals...
It may not be an appealing argument, but it is something you have to acknowledge when you say 'Grr, why is something like X. I want it like Y.'. Also, I'm well established as having loved 4th ed.
I've been hearing rumblings of Bards being a bit overdone in 5E, though I haven't really dove into them yet to see it. As I understand it instead being sort of a Jack of All Trades, Master of None they are MASTER OF EVERYTHING!
Melissia wrote: I really need to get more in to powergaming, it feels like :/ it just usually doesn't interest me.
I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.
Ahtman wrote: I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.
Ahtman wrote: I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.
Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.
Heck, in 3, Ranger was only a dip class.
That was probably one of the most annoying parts of 3.5 for me.
I prefer to play "pure" classes myself, unles they're classes explicitly designed otherwise-- like swordmage in 4e, which was the only good implementation of it in a DnD game so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Disregard rumblings. Judge for thyself.
I keep trying to get people together for a game but no one wants to DM, even the people that have DMed in the past and typically are the ones who enjoy DMing don't really want to any more, it feels like.
Ahtman wrote: I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.
Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.
Heck, in 3, Ranger was only a dip class.
A lot of that had a lot to do with just how poorly 3.5e was put together. Like if at first level you picked "Fighter" and your buddy picked "Druid" and just said they were having their big pet dog as an animal companion, the animal companion was pretty much as good in a fight as you were possibly with more hp, and the dog came with a free druid! Even if you aren't a powergamer something is off if your highly trained warrior is a comparable asset to lassie.
That specific example is a bit of cherry pick, but a lot of the weird level-torturing shenanigans came out of desire to just make a concept work that wasn't really functional at the baseline. A lot of the 3.5 classes (especially in core!) just didn't do what they said in their fluff blurbs. Like there is a reason Flurry of Blows earned the fan nickname Flurry of Misses.
They learned their lessons later and most of the stuff from around the PHB2 era forward actually does what it says it does and they also tamped down in the other direction too. Nothing they released after that is as obscenely strong as the baseline Wizard, Druid or Cleric were.
pretre wrote: Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.
I quit playing D&D sometime after 3rd came out and didn't play again until sometime after PHB2 came out for 4th. I really found the mechanics for 3rd unfun in most ways. I still prefer pretty much every other version of D&D over 3/3.5.
Melissia wrote: I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".
But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.
Necromancy hasn't strictly been evil (not even in Ravenloft, though it was damn hard to be a necro and *not* be evil in that setting) in D&D. As far as I can remember, only the spells that actually create undead creatures or utterly destroy someone's life-force are given the 'Evil' descriptor. The other spells are regarded as icky and of questionable taste, but overall necromancy is the school of nerf/debuff spells that don't get saving throws (at least in 3.5). I've run LN necromancers before and had a great time stripping levels and ability points off of the DM's helpless monsters, while the melee characters did the actual damage in the fight. Yeah, I knew fireball (they take away your wizard's license if you don't) but that was not my go-to spell for most fights.
Melissia wrote: I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".
But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.
With good reason. There is something about death and the dead that resonates pretty deeply with people. Especially in our cultural context it seems like the dead and their remains are something to be respected and left alone. It's a lot easier to make channeling death, manipulating the dead, draining life "Feel right" in an evil role than a good one.
I think with the right setting, strong world building and the right themes and tone, you can make it work in other ways. However it's enough of a challenge I think it's probably the right move to have Necromancy (or at least the deathy/poisony/zombie-y bits of it), evil by default.
And yet how many peoples characters have been resurrected by a temple? It's still messing with life force and the dead, just that in that case it suits them so they pretend it's something different.
Hmmmm... Gives me an idea for a world for a campaign. Temples won't resurrect you as it goes against the natural world so if you want somebody brought back you have to strike a bargain with a necromancer. Just how far would our heroes be willing to go to resurrect their comrade? Mwahahahaha!
Melissia wrote: I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".
But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.
With good reason. There is something about death and the dead that resonates pretty deeply with people. Especially in our cultural context it seems like the dead and their remains are something to be respected and left alone. It's a lot easier to make channeling death, manipulating the dead, draining life "Feel right" in an evil role than a good one.
I think with the right setting, strong world building and the right themes and tone, you can make it work in other ways. However it's enough of a challenge I think it's probably the right move to have Necromancy (or at least the deathy/poisony/zombie-y bits of it), evil by default.
And yet how many peoples characters have been resurrected by a temple? It's still messing with life force and the dead, just that in that case it suits them so they pretend it's something different.
Hmmmm... Gives me an idea for a world for a campaign. Temples won't resurrect you as it goes against the natural world so if you want somebody brought back you have to strike a bargain with a necromancer. Just how far would our heroes be willing to go to resurrect their comrade? Mwahahahaha!
Honestly, I've never been fond of the whole raise dead thing. D&D or otherwise I've never run a game in setting where death wasn't permanent. Generally speaking if I'm running a game when you die you die*. When I've been a player either my character has died before resurrections are on the table or I just switch characters. So It's never really been a point I've had to think about address much, beyond disliking the idea generally.
*I usually have something of a grace period for spells like Revivify. When you mechanically reach the "Dead" status you're only mostly dead from a narrative perspective... for a few minutes anyway, until your soul dissipates or the like. Or you're beyond all mundane recovery half-crushed or guts on the floor and coughing out your dying words in which case the spell is just "Cure really fethed up wounds". It's not an exact science.
I always think that Raise Dead is a funny thing in D&D. On the one hand, forums tend to be full of people earnestly saying that they refuse to allow it in their games as GM. And certainly few other RPGs have the same idea of monetised immortality, though plenty have essentially unkillable dudes (Superhero games, 7th Sea, etc). But I think that in game it is probably rarely denied, since when a player loses their beloved character and is really bitterly disappointed by it, it seems like a hard route to take to say, "You can't cast that spell, that is in the book and which the Cleric automatically knows, that would allow you to undo this situation." I don't know. It just seems to me that I can sit at home and think, "No way would I allow that! Combat is serious business!" and then get into a game and find myself reluctant to be The Bad Guy in that situation. It is meant to be fun, after all, and the GMs role is very much to tailor the experience to give the players fun. not to create some perfect simulation.* D&D is also a game that requires the spell much more than, say, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, because the game's default state sort of expects a whole load of combat, and when you have so many combats unsurprisingly more of them will go against the players.
* Though that absolutely can be fun, depending on the groups. Just look at those guys who play Napoleonic Wargames...
Charles Rampant wrote: I always think that Raise Dead is a funny thing in D&D. On the one hand, forums tend to be full of people earnestly saying that they refuse to allow it in their games as GM. And certainly few other RPGs have the same idea of monetised immortality, though plenty have essentially unkillable dudes (Superhero games, 7th Sea, etc). But I think that in game it is probably rarely denied, since when a player loses their beloved character and is really bitterly disappointed by it, it seems like a hard route to take to say, "You can't cast that spell, that is in the book and which the Cleric automatically knows, that would allow you to undo this situation." I don't know. It just seems to me that I can sit at home and think, "No way would I allow that! Combat is serious business!" and then get into a game and find myself reluctant to be The Bad Guy in that situation. It is meant to be fun, after all, and the GMs role is very much to tailor the experience to give the players fun. not to create some perfect simulation.* D&D is also a game that requires the spell much more than, say, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, because the game's default state sort of expects a whole load of combat, and when you have so many combats unsurprisingly more of them will go against the players.
* Though that absolutely can be fun, depending on the groups. Just look at those guys who play Napoleonic Wargames...
If you're removing raise dead from the game it's important to put everything on the table at the start so expectations are set all around. Like for my upcoming 5e game it's right in introduction to the setting that souls aren't immortal and decompose & dissipate shortly after death. It's a known fact in-universe and something that informs the spiritual lives and philosophy of those living in the setting. The cultures living in this world don't even have the concept of an afterlife because such a concept is plainly absurd to them.
In addition to setting expectations I like to provide players a way to control their risk. I generally include hero point rules that players can use for limited plot armor. D&D is a system that tends to assume death is cheap thus makes it something relatively easy to blunder into. Having a system in place when I want to play D&D but maybe just not with it's particular attitude towards death goes a long way to making the game "Feel" right for me. For example below are the rules I'm using for my upcoming game (adapted from my 3.P games, but they may need adjustment since I've never actually used 5e before. We'll see how they play out)
Spoiler:
Each session characters have 1 Hero Point they may spend for a benefit at any time. If this Hero Point is not spent it is lost. Additionally at the start of the campaign and each time they attain a new level characters gain 1 Hero Point, which they can retain indefinitely. A character may not have more than 5 Hero Points at any time (this includes the "temporary" Hero Point they gain each session):
Hero Points might also be awarded for particularly heroic and risky deeds or the completion of important events or adventures.
1 Hero Point may be spent to:
* Gain advantage on attack, ability check or save.
* Impose disadvantage on an enemy save against one your spells or abilities.
* Impose disadvantage on an enemy attack or ability check used against you.
* Re-roll the damage of an attack, variable numeric effect of a spell or ability or other effect caused by you. You may choose which of the results to use.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion.
2 Hero Points may be spent to:
* Automatically stabilize or prevent Instant Death.
* Add your proficiency bonus to a roll it wouldn't normally apply to (so long as the roll does not require being proficient to attempt).
* Gain 1 free use of an ability that requires a short rest to regain.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion
3 Hero Points may be spent to:
* Regain the uses of abilities as though you had taken a short rest. You don't gain any other benefits of a short rest.
* Get 1 free use of an ability that requires a long rest to regain.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion
5 Hero Points may be spent to:
* Take an additional turn.
* Regain the uses of abilities as though you had taken a long rest. You don't gain any other benefits of a long rest.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion
Since players always have 1 point per session, so long as they choose to hold on to the point they gain when they level up they've always got 1 get-out-jail free card per level. Since low levels are particularly short and dangerous it creates a period where players can come to an understanding about the level of lethality I'm going to run with, without actually experiencing death.Since since risk of death is at least partially tied to a resource the player controls, it gives them greater sense of agency. If it winds happening it's not just because of the monster or trap I threw at them, it's also because blew one of their "Permanent" hero points on restoring Action Surge a couple sessions back.
I don't particularly want to kill off my PCs, actually I'd rather avoid it. I get invested in the characters in my game too. It's just I want to be able to keep the concept of death as we know it in the real world. It's an easy way to always have real stakes on the table and characters that share one of the most basic truths about all our lives are easier to relate to and invest in than ones that don't.
Well if you guys are flat out removing resurrection, I think if I DM I'll flat out change the rules for necromancy so it isn't any more evil than, say, evocation where you can melt someone alive with acid
That change fits in with the lore better than no resurrection, to me at least
The "evilness" of Necromancy should really depend on the culture involved - at least where the basic unintelligent undead are concerned. For instance, a Lawful Neutral culture that emphasized that death was not a barrier to service might view the reanimating of a corpse as a positive thing. Actively participating in the creation of intelligent undead might be another thing entirely (particularly since such forms of undead tend to default to evil). But I can imagine plenty of instances in which a non-Evil culture might allow the reanimation of a body (particularly in a ritual fashion).
On the resurrection note - The old D&D Gazateer that covered the knock-off Vikings had a rather unusual rule regarding Raise Dead. The spell was only usable in that particular region for roughly 24 hours after death. Afterwards, the local deities took an extremely dim view toward use of the spell, and raising someone with it involved the active agreement of the deities.
Manchu wrote: Why do you keep saying necromancy is evil? Even in editions where spells could have the Evil descriptor, not all necromancy spells had it.
But a lot seem to, and most of the prestige classes for arcane necromancy (if not all of them) required you to be non-good.
Melissia wrote: Well if you guys are flat out removing resurrection, I think if I DM I'll flat out change the rules for necromancy so it isn't any more evil than, say, evocation where you can melt someone alive with acid
That change fits in with the lore better than no resurrection, to me at least
Hey different strokes for different folks, right? Kind of the cool thing about RPGs. I can be over here all "I'm totally hating on the revolving door afterlife, but I kind of like the way they've flavored death magic" and you can be all "I don't mind the revolving door afterlife, but they're totally being unfair to necromancy".
I remember a buddy of mine talking about doing a game set in a sort of world where nobody did mundane labor anymore, since it was all done with reanimated skeletons. Sort of Fido D&D, just without the unreliability of control.
Which basically means the only way I could have a good arcane necromancer (there were a couple good divine necromancer prestige classes) was to houserule my own class. And ... I hate doing that. NEver feel like I can achieve the right level of power for a class :/ mind you this is probablybecause 3.5 was always broken anyway...
Melissia wrote: Which basically means the only way I could have a good arcane necromancer (there were a couple good divine necromancer prestige classes) was to houserule my own class. And ... I hate doing that. NEver feel like I can achieve the right level of power for a class :/ mind you this is probablybecause 3.5 was always broken anyway...
What's wrong with just.. straight Necromancer? Like straight up wizard all the way.
I'll agree 3.5 was a bit tricky to homebrew for. I mean it was certainly possible to get good at creating the content it just took a fair amount of dedication to learn the skill. Way more than would be reasonable for most people.
I did that, eventually, because of no other alternatives. But well, WotC really don't like non-divine necromancers in terms of power level. All the really good necro stuff is in the divine spellcasting stuff sadly :/
Melissia wrote: I did that, eventually, because of no other alternatives. But well, WotC really don't like non-divine necromancers in terms of power level. All the really good necro stuff is in the divine spellcasting stuff sadly :/
That's something I noticed, too. Divine necros get Animate Dead earlier than arcane necros do, and virtually all of the prestige classes were divine in origin (not that I cared about prestige classes... you almost always get more bang for your buck going straight base class or maybe picking up a few levels of another base class than you do multiclassing). Why did the D&D guys think divine necros should be more powerful than arcane necros? Most of the time I see necros in fiction they tend to be roughly analogous to arcane casters, rather than divine casters.
Well 'divine' Necromancers would get their abilities from a deity, and a deity that would give you a skeleton army probably isn't going to be Lawful or Good. Within the cosmology of D&D most deities aren't big fans of commanding the undead or forcing them into servitude, with some outright disdaining the idea. They derive their powers from different sources so it makes sense that they would have different attitudes and approaches. An arcane Necromancer is more like a Doctor, obsessed with the nature of life and death and understanding how it works whereas a divine Necromancer would be controlling undead based on their deity's proclivities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: In the D&D universes, manipulation of life force has always been more closely associated with divine than arcane.
Don't recall about earlier editions but in AD&D you specialize in Necromancy as a Wizard.
Melissia wrote: Which is something I feel is kind of wrong, given that it basically cuts out a huge part of how I think Necromancy should work :/
Agreed (and this may be one of the few times we agree on both the subject AND the argument ). I've always felt that there are/should be 2 or 3 ways of Necromancy (depending on how you look at it). First is the "divine" power: given by the deity that the caster worships freely, or with some amount of piety involved. Second would be one of the Arcane ways: through extensive study of lore/books to gain the knowledge and mastery required to do such things. And finally, (in D&D this would still be Arcane) the Sorcerous way: where the caster makes pacts with demons and such (not the actual deities themselves but minions, basically) in return for power now.
It seems like 3.P (I like that designation) caused a lot of confusion about magic. There is only one kind of magic although it is accessed in different ways.
Manchu wrote: It seems like 3.P (I like that designation) caused a lot of confusion about magic. There is only one kind of magic although it is accessed in different ways.
Isn't this kind of highly reliant on setting and the GM?. Even if we're just talking the "Official" settings I wouldn't guess the underlying mechanics of magic are the same in all of them.
Manchu wrote: Perhaps you could lay out exactly what you think necromancy should be like?
I believe that necromancy should be about controlling life force-- positive and negative energy, if you will.
Not the "ohai there scary deathguy here with my skulls and skeletons and zombies don't mind if I steal your soul now kthxbai" rigamarole with which it is often depicted.
Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic (not in source, but application). Divine has always been life force manipulation (I know I said this, but it sounds even more like what you're saying now) of the type you are describing and their spells tend to be exactly like that.
There's absolutely no reason you couldn't play a cleric/paladin/whatever and just have their power source be 'knowledge'. I'm not sure I'd want arcane to do more of that though since it would make it too like divine.
There doesn't seem to be any such thing as "divine magic." Magic is just magic but some magic is only accessible by some means. What school a spells fall into (e.g., necromancy or conjuration) has little/nothing to do with who can cast it as a matter of class.
As for necromancy -- it seems to me that necromancy is not really about either life or death. Rather, it is about a third thing: unlife.
Manchu wrote: There doesn't seem to be any such thing as "divine magic." Magic is just magic but some magic is only accessible by some means. What school a spells fall into (necromancy or conjuration) has little/nothing to do with who can cast it as a matter of class.
Okay, let's say 'The spells that generally are available to divine classes sound like they fit into this category that you are creating'.
As for necromancy -- it seems to me that necromancy is not really about either life or death. Rather, it is about a third thing: unlife.
This is a great point and a better way of describing D&D Necromancy.
I think you're trying to make something into necromancy which necromancy is not, M.
pretre wrote: Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic.
Well in AD&D Clerics and Wizards spells shared schools and all the healing/resurrection spells were in the Necromancy school, alongside the Death and animate dead spells.
pretre wrote: Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic.
Well in AD&D Clerics and Wizards spells shared schools and all the healing/resurrection spells were in the Necromancy school, alongside the Death and animate dead spells.
I since replied saying 'Spells that are generally assigned to divine classes' after Manchu slapped me for using the phrase 'divine magic'.
Melissia wrote: Taking a look at 3.5 et. al.'s list of arcane Necromancy spells, it appears WotC couldn't come to a consistent idea on what Necromancy is, themselves.
It seems to really only do 4 major things:
A) Manipulate Undead/Dead Bodies
2: Command Undead
3: Gentle Repose
3: Halt Undead
4: Animate Dead
6: Create Undead
6: Undeath to Death
7: Control Undead
8: Create Greater Undead
B) Sap energy from living things
1: Chill Touch
1: Ray of Enfeeblment
3: Ray of Exhaustion
3: Vampiric Touch
4: Enervation
6: Circle of Death
7: Finger of Death
7: Symbol of Weakness
7: Waves of Exhaustion
8: Symbol of Death
9: Energy Drain
9: Wail of the Banshee
C) Induce Fear
1: Cause Fear
2: Scare
4: Fear
6: Symbol of Fear
D) Inflict Sickness or Infirmity
2: Blindness/Deafness
2: Ghoul Touch
4: Bestow Curse
4: Contagion
5: Blight
5: Waves of Fatigue
5: Symbol of Pain
6: Eyebite
8: Horrid Withering
Five spells kind in core really fall outside these categories: Magic Jar, Soul Bind. Clone, Spectral Hand, False Life. Magic Jar, Soul Bind and Clone all kind of a have a sub-theme of "Soul Manipulation" but could fit in other schools all the same.
If we accept that categories B an D are kind of variations on a theme, a clear direction for Necromancy emerges. It is first and foremost about harming and crippling others internally rather than with overt force, the damage caused can be mental or physical or spiritual damage but it happens on the inside. It is secondarily about manipulating the dead. This manipulation of the corpse kind of echoes the inner control they exert over those bodies/minds while living.
The phrase 'life force' sounds like a term distinct from what happens in healing, which is based on positive energy. Healing appears to be the summoning power from the positive energy plane, thus conjuration.
By that definition, necromancy already mimics conjuration when it summons negative power from the opposite plane-- the negative energy plane. Which several of its spells do. So I don't really see that as a good objection.
Manchu wrote: The phrase 'life force' sounds like a term distinct from what happens in healing, which is based on positive energy. Healing appears to be the summoning power from the positive energy plane, thus conjuration.
If anything Conjuration is the school that's nebulously defined. It does everything, I don't think trying to use it as reference point would achieve much.
Manchu wrote: In other words, positive energy is not the same thing as life.
And negative energy isn't the same thing as undeath, but necromancy still uses it, too, so again, that's not necessarily an objection in my eyes. There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".
Manchu wrote: In other words, positive energy is not the same thing as life.
And negative energy isn't the same thing as undeath, but necromancy still uses it, too, so again, that's not necessarily an objection in my eyes. There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".
I suppose, but it's that old thing about show don't tell. A one sentence description of Necromancy might imply one thing but what it can do is very, very consistent. If there's an error someplace it's in those two words in the more open-ended description. This is because what Necromancy does is pretty consistent and well-defined. I think it also maps pretty well the connotations Necromancy and Necromancer carry across gaming in general. EDIT: I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.
So they phrased a couple words incorrectly in the introduction, I'm not sure that counts as any great disconnect or design failure.
Melissia wrote: There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".
Nor is there meant to be as necromancy is clearly not the simple diminishment of life force. Life force can be diminished with a fire ball or with a sword. Following Chongara's line of thought, we can distinguish these indirect effects on life force from direct effects.
I think the real question is the nature of the force affected. You suggest that necromancy 'summons' negative energy but is that necessarily the case? Enervation for example involves a bolt of negative energy. But is that energy non-native to the material plane? Furthermore, is negative energy a state of energy generally (where energy can be positive or negative like magnetic polarity)? There is a lot that we don't know about the underlying forces so it is a little silly to claim that necromancy is poorly conceived of.
There is nothing to prevent you from laying down some cosmic laws at your own table about the nature of magic and energy and shifting spells around accordingly.
Manchu wrote: I think the real question is the nature of the force affected. You suggest that necromancy 'summons' negative energy but is that necessarily the case? Enervation for example involves a bolt of negative energy. But is that energy non-native to the material plane? Furthermore, is negative energy a state of energy generally (where energy can be positive or negative like magnetic polarity)?
If negative energy is not non-native to the plane, then it really does follow-- since all the elemental planes are connected to the prime material in similar ways-- that positive energy is also not non-native, so there's no reason to argue that necromancy would have to "summon" positive energy in order to make use of it in its spells and thus be violating Conjuration in any way.
Chongara wrote: I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.
If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.
Chongara wrote: I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.
If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.
Back when, Necromancy typically involved tapping into the Negative Energy Plane. Undead were almost always bodies that had been infused with energy from that plane (either via an animation spell, or level drain). The Negative Energy Plane and its counterpart, the Positive Energy Plane, were separate and distinct from the Elemental Planes - Air, Earth, Fire, and Water. And the two Energy Planes and the Elemental Planes were separate and distinct from the Ethereal Plane, the Astral Plane, and the Outer Planes.
iirc, on at least a few occasions it was claimed in "authoritative" (i.e. until overridden by another "authoritative" source) sources that healing spells drew much of their power from the Positive Energy Plane. As such, the view seems to have been that arcane spellcasters focused on the elemental planes for their fun stuff, while divine spellcasters focused on the two energy planes. As such, that might explain the disparity between arcane and divine necromancers. The old arrangement of the planes has, of course, been more or less tossed out the window these days. But the secondary effects of that still exist elsewhere in the rules, and this might be an example.
For the curious, the Negative Energy Plane has appeared (sort of) in one video game. The Fortress of Regrets in Planescape: Torment was located there.
Melissia wrote: Amusingly, the positive energy plane is not really that much less lethal than the negative energy plane.
Yup. They're both pretty nasty to anyone from the Prime Material plane. An argument could be made comparing the Positive Energy Plane to our Sun and plants. In limited doses at a distance, plants thrive off of sunlight. But get those same plants too close to the sun, and they'll either wither away or catch fire. Similarly, limited amounts of exposure to the Plane of Positive Energy was considered helpful via things like healing spells. But too much exposure was treated the same as bathing in fire or extreme amounts of radiation.
IIRC, it's based off of time spent in the plane and total hit dice(IE after a certain amount of time spent without leaving, you've filled with so much positive energy that you explode in to a miniature sun of positive energy and instantly die), rather than damage healed, but I can't be arsed to look up the official rules again.
Chongara wrote: I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.
If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.
Right these are all true statements and nobody is saying your Necromancers and your Necromancy has to be any one way. What I was saying is that there is a particular common image of what a Necromancer is, and in 3.P necromancy was constructed in a way that aligned with that popular conception. That they did this isn't problematic in any way, it doesn't make the design faulty or incoherent. It just means that's the design.
Now the "Common Conception" thing is true of the "Sexy Sorceress" too, but I think you're kind of taking a cheap shot here. A search for "Sorcerer" (where the images are male), doesn't pull up that kind schlock. This means that the primary thing influencing the sexy designs is the character's gender, not that they're a user of any particular set of imaginary magic powers. It's unfair to use that as a comparison point with the necromancer art because unlike women, necromancers don't exist. One of these common conceptions can be tied to actual trends that are a problem for real people, the other is just the way people see something totally imaginary.
So while it's that both the "Dark Necromancer" and "Sexy Sorceress" are common images that get played to a lot, the underlying cause for one is toxic elements in our culture, the other is just an arbitrary fantasy trope that popped up somewhere along the line. This makes the comparison kind of weak and does a disservice to the problems behind the "Sexy Sorceress" trend.
Melissia wrote: My point is that I don't care what the common idea is, as just because an idea is common, doesn't stop it from being boring and stupid anyway.
Well, that's that then.
Maybe you could either stop 'debating' it now or maybe start a new thread on...something?
Melissia wrote: My point is that I don't care what the common idea is, as just because an idea is common, doesn't stop it from being boring and stupid anyway.
We're obviously in subjective territory here again. So I mean you've clearly got a problem with the prevailing flavor of the Necromancer, I'm wondering how you'd construct your alternative. What would you change both from a narrative and mechanics stand point? What would change, what would stay the same? What changes would this drive in terms game play dynamics and more importantly tones/theme in a setting? What new sources of player engagement would you try to drive with the changes? Does necromancy have it's own theme or is just a tool to drive others? Do you feel like anything would be lost, and if not why?
(also since tone can be kind of hard to unpack via text, I'm not being snarky here. These are honest questions. You've clearly got some strong opinions here and there are often interesting ideas behind those.If anything i'm just trying to get a clear picture of how you'd build things, it might have a cool element or two I could steal.)
Chongara wrote: We're obviously in subjective territory here again. So I mean you've clearly got a problem with the prevailing flavor of the Necromancer, I'm wondering how you'd construct your alternative. What would you change both from a narrative and mechanics stand point? What would change, what would stay the same? What changes would this drive in terms game play dynamics and more importantly tones/theme in a setting? What new sources of player engagement would you try to drive with the changes? Does necromancy have it's own theme or is just a tool to drive others? Do you feel like anything would be lost, and if not why?
No, nothing would be lost-- because even with the vision I had, you can still play a skull'n'bones "hurr I like dead people" necromancer. But the addition of a wider variety allows people to play other things-- anywhere from a scholarly necromancer trying to unlock the secrets of life and death for the pure sake of knowledge, to a tribal shaman whom manipulates the life force of herself and others around her to heal the sick, put spirits to rest, and protect her village, to a necromancer-focused society that views death and undeath as just another stage of life. Right now, the common vision of evil ambitious skull-pauldrons doesn't really allow for much variety in comparison.
I actually would like to reference the Diablo series here. While the aesthetics of the Diablo 2 Necromancer were lame, the actual lore was fairly good-- an order of magic-users whom sought to maintain balance, put spirits to rest, and fight evil, and used their control over life force in order to try to achieve those goals. Similarly, the witch doctor of Diablo 3 matches the "tribal shaman" example I mentioned above as well (And is by no means the first to think of it, considering that's how necromancy is described in many cultures).
I believe, like other forms of magic, necromancy is just a tool. Certainly, I think that other tools can be used for evil-- an Evoker setting someone on fire and watching them burn to death, or a diviner using their knowledge to create insidious plots, or an enchanter using their powers to use people against what would otherwise be their will, and so on. They're tools, more than themes or prescriptions on how they're used. I'd just like to see more focus on the life force manipulation, as well as channeling both positive and negative energy (positive being capable of healing living creatures and harming undead creatures, but is NOT as good at healing as divine magic, for balance's sake), as well as some more spells or rituals that help put undead at peace, including higher-level spells capable of causing evil undead to repent and try to find peace as well.
Life force based spells could easily be things like "transfer a status effect from your ally on to yourself", or "transfer hit points from willing target A, to willing target B", to give basic examples (I haven't had time to actually construct the changes I talk of, but I hope this gives an idea). Similarly, a spell or ritual to put undead at peace could be as simple as summoning an angry ghost, and giving them the chance at getting their message across in exchange for being sent to the appropriate afterlife-- though this would of course depend on the nature of the setting in question, of course. Having control over life, death, and undeath would allow a necromancer to put evil undead in a geas to force them to not do evil, and perhaps at higher levels even gradually shift them from evil to neutral, take away the evil urges they have.
You think you can just come in here and disregard "real" D&D necromancy for some half-baked personal preference of your own???
Well -- you can because it's D&D. You can do anything you want. But as Alpharius mentioned, please start a different thread about it because you are derailing the Fifth Edition thread. Thanks.
Manchu wrote: You think you can just come in here and disregard "real" D&D necromancy for some half-baked personal preference of your own???
Well -- you can because it's D&D. You can do anything you want. But as Alpharius mentioned, please start a different thread about it because you are derailing the Fifth Edition thread. Thanks.
I guess to try and re-rail along those lines:
I've got my first 5th edition game coming up, with a whole bunch of half-baked ideas of my own. I'm super pumped!
Has anyone had experience running things a bunch yet? My PCs aren't building their characters ahead of time so I won't be able to play test my encounters. Most of the low level monsters released seem pretty straightforward but the DM guide still has "Work in progress" plastered all over it. I'm not sure how much I can trust the challenge guidelines as they were notoriously unreliable in a 3.P.
Any huge pitfalls I should avoid that might not readily apparent? They seem to place a lot of importance of the # of monsters in encounters. I've got something planned really earlier on that is going to put the players in front of a group of 6 Bandits. Up to 4 of these bandits can be potentially talked out of the fight before it happens under the right circumstances. I'm not really concerned if the fight is against 2 or 4 . However 6 is a pretty big group. I've downgraded their weapons just in case but I'm wondering anything else is going to need rounding off. I want this to be something of a softball difficulty-wise, but still have the PCs outnumbered if they take the shoot-first approach.
I think, as with any new game, to be ready to wing it if something goes horribly wrong. There's a reason DM's have a a screen.
(Before this goes crazy, I'm not okay with DM cheating for cheating's sake, but fixing mistakes in preparation or such is kinda necessary with a new system.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?
Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?
This I think is a good way of doing it. If their heart really isn't in it (as being able to talk them down suggests) then they probably aren't willing to die just for a bit of gold.
So if the leader goes down or they're brought to really low hitpoints you could have them take a morale check or something to see if they run/surrender.
'Course that could be if your PCs are struggling. If they're wiping the floor with them then you could also just keep those bandits in there. They got super greedy on that particular day
I have been playing 5E basically every week since the PHB PDF came out back in June.
And I've now played a pretty wide variety of games. Just last night we had a session based on DC Comics. We fought a psychotic Arcane Trickster called the Jester (penchant for casting Tasha's Hideous Laughter) and his hyena-man henchmen and also crossed paths with the dark elf cat burglar Felina. I played Boy Wonder Grey Dixon (Human Monk with Urchin background).
Biggest takeaway on 5E monsters -- they are not slouches! I would start new players off with an encounter that you think they will easily, unquestionably win and then play it absolutely hard on them. (For example, have the enemies gang up. And don't let the players metagame battle tactics.) Once the PCs see that what looks like a breezy encounter can hurt, they should develop a healthy caution that will (a) encourage them plan and (b) encourage them to really learn how to play their characters.
pretre wrote: I think, as with any new game, to be ready to wing it if something goes horribly wrong. There's a reason DM's have a a screen.
(Before this goes crazy, I'm not okay with DM cheating for cheating's sake, but fixing mistakes in preparation or such is kinda necessary with a new system.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?
Yes actually, good to know I might be on the right track here. To be specific the encounter works as follows:
The players will run into the bandits harassing a merchant on the road they're going down. The bandits will not make any real attempt to engage the group off the bat, they've no particular interest in picking a fight with an armed group. However knowing the players they'll take it on themselves to intervene.
If they just charge the bandits, they're in a fight with 6 of them obviously.
If they confront the bandits by a means other than just attacking them outright, the bandits are going to try and puff up and browbeat the PCs into minding their own business. With the leader being belligerent enough the players probably won't back down if only players because hate backing down to an a-hole NPC. Nothing makes a PC stick to their guns like trying to trash-talk them.
The bandits aren't particularly brave but their boss is, to use technical terms: A dick. If the PCs attempt intimidation, a DC 13 will cause 1d3-1 (Minimum 1) of the bandits to peace out - not worth it.
Two of the bandits are clearly younger members and a bit unsure about the whole thing. If the PCs notice, they can attempt to a persuasion roll to convince them to just give up on the robbery. This is a DC 14. However if the PC has the "Criminal" background the bandits will be from an offshoot of their old gang or a group they used to hang with. This makes the young bandits more disposed to listen to them, and drops the DC to 10.
If the PC trying to convince them makes a point that the law in the land is rather forgiving and particularly so when it comes to wayward youth (this true), they have advantage on the check.
In the fight, once half the bandits that started the fight are dropped (so maximum 3) any bandits that take additional damage from that point will attempt to flee. If the bandit leader gets taken down at that point or he was one of the half that was dropped initially all remaining bandits attempt to flee immediately even without taking damage. A fleeing bandit that is chased down will surrender, rather than fight to the death.
The bandit leader is the exception and being a megadouche, never flees or surrenders.
EDIT:
The bandits are as per the DM basic guide, but armed with Daggers only instead of the usual the loadout. One of them is the leader and has the usual weapons.
Now the "Common Conception" thing is true of the "Sexy Sorceress" too, but I think you're kind of taking a cheap shot here. A search for "Sorcerer" (where the images are male), doesn't pull up that kind schlock. This means that the primary thing influencing the sexy designs is the character's gender, not that they're a user of any particular set of imaginary magic powers. It's unfair to use that as a comparison point with the necromancer art because unlike women, necromancers don't exist. One of these common conceptions can be tied to actual trends that are a problem for real people, the other is just the way people see something totally imaginary.
So while it's that both the "Dark Necromancer" and "Sexy Sorceress" are common images that get played to a lot, the underlying cause for one is toxic elements in our culture, the other is just an arbitrary fantasy trope that popped up somewhere along the line. This makes the comparison kind of weak and does a disservice to the problems behind the "Sexy Sorceress" trend.
Funny thing, just as a slight "test" I typed "female necromancer" into Google images, and about half of the pictures were about the same as if I typed "sorceress" in... In both searches, approximately half of the images were of scantily clad, magic wielding women.
So, I'd suggest that it really has nothing to do with character "class" within a fantasy/ sci-fi RPG at all
Also, while I don't have much experience DMing, I would probably make the DC checks a TINY bit higher... Depending on the character and their scores, a roll of "not 1" may possibly pass the DC check (unless you are intentionally making this an "easy" encounter )
As far as beating DCs are concerned, 5E PCs aren't going to get much better until level 5 and even then it's just a 5% increase.
The DM should set DCs based on what is reasonable to the world. Do not set low DCs to accomplish difficult tasks simply because the PCs are at low levels.
Manchu wrote: As far as beating DCs are concerned, 5E PCs aren't going to get much better until level 5 and even then it's just a 5% increase.
I always feel a bit odd framing things that way. I'll admit this is kind of nit-picky but:
Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed. Advantage fudges this a bit more too, with 19+(19%) moving to 18+(28%). It might not be much on a single check but over the course of a few levels, and a handful of attempts at long-shots the person with the +1 has a much better chance at having a good track record.
If they attempt 10 such checks over some period of many sessions, the guy who needs 18+ has an 80% chance at least 1 big win. 19+ Guy only has a 65% chance of that.
This is extra true when you consider when given a set of options and one of those options is much harder to pull off, they're only going to go with the harder thing if the payoff seems bigger (or cooler). This means that the hard checks folks do choose to make are likely to be big payoffs if they work, unless you're consistently only providing one avenue forward with a limited range of results.
In the long view +1 is worth a lot in terms of getting your bad ass moment in the spotlight.
The DM should set DCs based on what is reasonable to the world. Do not set low DCs to accomplish difficult tasks simply because the PCs are at low levels.
Is this a general statement or did a particular DC mentioned kind of catch your eye a bit?
Chongara wrote: Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed.
Unless you phrase it differently, of course: there is a 5% difference in chance to succeed between a 19+ and an 18+. There is quite a bit of difference between a 5% increase and a 50% increased chance. Fun with numbers.
Chongara wrote: Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed.
Unless you phrase it differently, of course: there is a 5% difference in chance to succeed between a 19+ and an 18+. There is quite a bit of difference between a 5% increase and a 50% increased chance. Fun with numbers.
That's my entire point. Folks generally just look at the discrete chance of success on a single roll. This is fine for analyzing a single moment but doesn't say much about how it feels over the course of a campaign, and when looking back at your track record.
Relative performance increases come when you're taking a longer view. Like if two folks are comparing and one person has 20 successes and the other has 30 that feels like a much bigger difference than 180 and 190. Not that I typically see PCs sitting down and comparing "wins" mind you, but people reflect on these things and pull out winning and losing moments to color how they perceive their experiences. That 5% increase is only really small when you were probably going to slam-dunk it anyway.
Like I said, I was kind of nit-picking. It's a minor detail in a big puzzle about building experiences. I'm not really sure making the distinction one way or the other even has all that much practical value to a GM.
Excluding that those numbers are taken in a vacuum*, I think breaking it down entirely to numbers and thinking about adventuring in terms of discreet numbers or relative performance misses the point entirely of playing an RPG.
*The guy with the 18+ could fail every time irl and the guy with the 19+ could succeed each time. How it plays out on paper doesn't always translate into actual results.
IMO the +1 to Proficiency at Level 5 feels like a big deal because Proficiency is such an important mechanic. But in terms of rolling a skill check, that +1 is still just +5% chance to succeed. And that is where the game happens.
But the main issue here is how to judge and implement DCs. DCs are about the world, not about the PCs. That is to say, DCs should not level up. This can be confusing because DCs are explained like this:
Very Easy 5 Easy 10 Medium 15 Hard 20 Very Hard 25 Nearly Impossible 30
Unfortunately, the rules don't explain the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it, which allows for the skill mechanic. So to whom or what is that scale relative?
I guess it is relative to a hypothetical NPC with 10 in every stat and no proficiencies. Mr. Average McUnskilled.
DMs should judge the whole world by this constant standard. If the world levels up then it is effectively a treadmill.
Ahtman wrote: Excluding that those numbers are taken in a vacuum*, I think breaking it down entirely to numbers and thinking about adventuring in terms of discreet numbers or relative performance misses the point entirely of playing an RPG.
*The guy with the 18+_ could fail every time irl and the guy with the 19+ could succeed each time. How it plays out on paper doesn't always translate into actual results.
Like I said it's a small nit-picky piece of the much bigger issue of building experiences. I'm not advocating for thinking of stories strictly in terms of numbers, and certainly not entirely in terms of the difference +1/-1 makes. There are lots of considerations. Even just within the realm of game play mechanics there are far bigger issues to consider.
Unfortunately, the rules don't explain that the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it. So to whom or what is that scale relative?
I don't think the world should scale. Context can sometimes make two otherwise very similar tasks in fact different tasks.. say convincing the king to send his army to help his neighbor when you're one of his servants, vs his beloved (if wayward) son.
However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.
Manchu wrote: IMO the +1 to Proficiency at Level 5 feels like a big deal because Proficiency is such an important mechanic. But in terms of rolling a skill check, that +1 is still just +5% chance to succeed. And that is where the game happens.
But the main issue here is how to judge and implement DCs. DCs are about the world, not about the PCs. That is to say, DCs should not level up. This can be confusing because DCs are explained like this:
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30
Unfortunately, the rules don't explain the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it, which allows for the skill mechanic. So to whom or what is that scale relative?
I guess it is relative to a hypothetical NPC with 10 in every stat and no proficiencies. Mr. Average McUnskilled.
DMs should judge the whole world by this constant standard. If the world levels up then it is effectively a treadmill.
You said what I kept trying (and failing) to type up just a bit ago... Sure, there's a place for a DC check that is an "odd" number, but in the better games that I've played, the DM had a copy of all player's sheets so knew that, my character with a very high athletic skill would be almost "garaunteed" to pass a DC 13 check, he wouldn't say "no Ms. Rogue, you can't try to break through this door because your athletic/strength skill sucks"... In fact, when presented with a challenge, he basically opened the floor to allow us players to tell him HOW we were going to pass that challenge.... In my "blocked door" example, with a DC 13, he'd allow my strongman to try to bust through it, or the wizard to use his quarterstaff/ any of the "Wisdom" skills to pry it open, the rogue to pull the pins on the door with a thievery check, etc.... the door being blocked challenge remained the same "level" (ie, DC 13 or whatever) it's just that each character was allowed to go about it in their way.
I think with one of the instances earlier, having a group of bandits react to a DC X for "diplomacy" and a different DC for "intimidation" seems a bit wrong, if it's an "uncontested" check... I mean, if the PCs are comparing their diplomacy/intimidate against the bandit leader's own intimidate (or whatever skill you want to use here) then I can see things being of a different difficulty.
As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS or CHA against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check. Using pre-set DCs is part and parcel of the treadmill setting. Modules often feature pre-set DCs, which IMO amounts to padding the product. If you're going to use a pre-set DC, at least go with the scale given by the rules.
Chongara wrote: However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.
The great thing about D&D -- in fact the greatest thing about D&D -- is that the PCs can do whatever they want. To the extent the DM forces the PCs to do anything, she's not doing it right. Indeed, I'd say it is not the DM's job to know the PCs' limitations and capabilities. It is certainly NOT the DM's job to "expose them to the appropriate challenges." It's the DM's job to run the world so that PC's can reasonably assess the risks as they decide to do things.
Manchu wrote: As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check.
Perhaps in a situation, like chongara (I think) mentioned, where there is a clear cut, easily seen "leader" the opposed roll/DC could be set against them, because up to the point where the PCs are rolling, the "lesser" bandits know, and recognize who's "da boss"
Manchu wrote: Well, I guess I assumed the PCs would try to intimidate whoever was in charge among the bandits.
Agreed, but the way he had originally written it, the preset DC was against the minions, and attempting to convince them, almost individually that a fight wasn't worth it.
Manchu wrote: As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check. Using pre-set DCs is part and parcel of the treadmill setting. Modules often feature pre-set DCs, which IMO amounts to padding the product.
Chongara wrote: However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.
The great thing about D&D -- in fact the greatest thing about D&D -- is that the PCs can do whatever they want. To the extent the DM forces the PCs to do anything, she's not doing it right. Indeed, I'd say it is not the DM's job to know the PCs' limitations and capabilities. It is certainly NOT the DM's job to "expose them to the appropriate challenges." It's the DM's job to run the world so that PC's can reasonably assess the risks as they decide to do things.
I think we come from very different schools of thought, or at least prefer different styles of campaign. I'm not particularly concerned with simulating a world so much as creating an experience. As far as I'm concerned things that aren't and have never been "On Screen" don't exist in a meaningful sense. They're only relevant so far as they relate to the PCs interests, or the PCs story.
Let's say the PCs are going from Town A to Town B. Through knowledge checks, maps or asking NPCs it's been established that there is a bridge between Town A and Town B and that the bridge is old and in disrepair but not it's actual state. In my view the bridge is basically in narrative limbo, it's Schrodinger's bridge. It's state: Up, Down, or "Up but dangerous" only matters once it comes into view either literally or from new information. Which state it is in when it comes into view should be entirely dependent on what is going to provide the most compelling and engaging experience in the context of the adventure.
If the PCs are tired and have had a run of hard challenges and they (and the players) just need kind of break, and I'm not currently looking to create a mood of "When it rains it pours" then the bridge should be up. If i'm looking to evoke a sense of frustration and struggle, the bridge should present a tough challenge being barely intact.
Maybe if the PCs found new flying boots just before getting there, the bridge should be out giving them a chance to use their new toy.
Maybe if they don't have any great tools to deal with it but haven't had a great challenge the bridge should be mostly out, but enough left to improvise some kind of traversal.
In this way the difficulty of crossing a bridge that's up, or down or just partially out doesn't change... but which of these things they run into sure does.
My goal with the game is to first provide an engaging experience, both in terms of narrative and gameplay and provoke an emotional response to the story. Anything that doesn't serve those purposes is just watering things down.
I actually came from that "school" of "creating experiences for players." Over the years, I realized it was unnecessarily difficult (I am not a mind reader yet) and more than a little condescending. (Not meaning you are a condescending person, mind.) As it turns out, players have their own ideas about what they want to experience in the game. If you take a look at the history of D&D, you will find that the DM's job is to facilitate or host player agency. This is the main thing video games have not yet been able to do as compared to table top gaming.
You seem to be interpreting my posts in a very extreme (I daresay impossibly extreme) manner. I think I have posted ITT about a dozen times that I prefer to run D&D off the cuff. That means world building happens during play with the input of the rest of the players. This is not a matter of knowing what is in a room on the other side of the world. Often enough, I have not even known what is inside of a chest at the feet of the PCs until they did.
So let's not take that wrong turn.
What I am actually talking about is -- the PCs are not the center of the world in terms of the 'physics' of that world. The mountain is no easier to climb just because the PCs are no good at climbing it. If climbing the mountain is too difficult it is up to the PCs and not the DM to come up with a different plan. The role of the DM here is to make sure the players have a reasonably accurate understanding of the odds so that they can make good plans -- or suffer the consequences.
Manchu wrote: DMG features Lord Soth for the Death Knight entry:
Spoiler:
I'm loving the look of that thing. Well I guess I could take or leave the torch, but the round helmet with the glowing eyes and the cape. For some reason this design just really pops for me.
So my group had its third session for HotDQ last night:
Spoiler:
Previously, after rescuing Greenest, we interrogated one of the cultists our group took prisoner and found out where the main cultist camp was. So last night's group - a human sorcerer, a dwarf fighter, a dwarf druid, a dwarf rogue, and a halfling rouge - set off. We ambushed a small camp of cultist, took another one prisoner and found out a few more things, such as that there was another half-dragon in addition to the one that almost killed our Human Paladin in a single blow during the last session.
On the way to the camp we were ambushed, but managed to talk our way our that to a bag of "loot" (sticks, stones and paper) that the halfling was carrying, and by convincing the guards that the druid ws actually a dwarven performing bear. One of the cultist guards decided to tag along because he wanted to see the bear perform, but he was quickly killed and the body hidden.
Once in the main camp, the party split up. The two rogues climbed up to the higher watchtower and, after plying the already-celebrating guards with more drinks, surveyed the camp. They spotted a single person tied up on a wooden X across the camp.
The other three decided to put on a show as a distraction. The sorcerer used cantrips, the druid acted as a dancing bear, and the fighter was the bouncer. Langdedrosa Cyanwrath took an interest in the bear, and set up a fight between the druid and four kobolds, which were promptly killed. Impressed, Cyanwrath started to haggle with the fighter over the bear, which was sold for 50 gold.
Meanwhile, the two rogues managed to sneak over to the man, who turned out to be the missing monk they had been sent out to look for. He was cut down, and a knocked out cultist was put in his place (with a little hair cut to help the disguise). In order to sneak back out of the camp with the monk, the rogue wrapped up the monk like a dead body and hustled him out. When challenged by the camp guards, this conversation happened.:
Guard: What'cha got there? Nabbi (Dwarf Rogue): Dead body. Gotta dispose of it. Guard: Why not do it in the camp? Nabbi: 'Cause of the plague! Guard: Plague? Nabbi: Yeah, ever here of the Black Death? Guard: Black Dea- Nabbi: It'll rot yer nuts right off! Guard: Oh! gak, alright. *Yelling to other guards* Hey guys, get down here and help burn this body. Nabbi: Wait, wait, you can't burn the body. Guard: No, we've got to burn it. The plague, right? Nabbi: No, you can't burn the body, on account of the... spores. Guard: Spores? Nabbi: Yeah, yeah, the spores. They get everywhere if the body's set on fire. Guard: That doesn't soun- Nabbi: Look, we're specialists, alright? Outta the way before everyone in the camp's gotten sick.
And so the rogues were let pass and got out of the camp.
Of course, this left the other half of the party in the middle of the enemy camp with the show winding down. It also probably didn't help that the sorcerer spotted the two rogues running past with what looked like a wrapped up body held by both of them. So they stopped the show for an "intermission", the druid changed back into a dwarf, and they went to the back of the camp, where they discovered eight human captives, taken from Greenest, under guard. Their was a little debate as to whether or not they could be saved, with the rogues unable to help as they were nowhere nearby and couldn't be contacted. So the druid, using his personal sack of dried mushroom, spiked a few more drinks and knocked out three of the four guards. The last one started to get hot, thirsty, and really wanted to take his clothes off, but the fighter just knocked him out. The guards were stripped and rolled into the ditch the captives had been digging, and four of the captives got their clothes. On their way out they were helped along by rumors of some sort of plague spreading through the camp, and got out safely.
There was a little bit of confusion when the two groups met up outside the camp ("What the hell are you guys doing with a bunch of cultists?!") but it was quickly sorted out, and by taking a longer path the party managed to avoid any cultist patrols. We safely made it back to Greenest, informed the leaders of what we learned, returned the captives to their families, and collected our gold.
Chongara wrote: I'm loving the look of that thing. Well I guess I could take or leave the torch, but the round helmet with the glowing eyes and the cape. For some reason this design just really pops for me.
Dude must be famous. Luckily I don't think my players are any more familiar with the character than I am, so I'll get to use the art for something with drawing raised eyebrows. It's a damn cool design.
He is a prominent antagonist from Dragonlance and for a time had his own domain in Ravenloft's Demiplan of Dread. TSR published several novels in which he was a main character. He has had his own miniature several times.
It seems most GM's wants to make a new novel using players, but no one wants to raid a dungeon for glory and riches. I just wanted to get that off my chest.
I'm still debating on whether to make my first full 5E character a Human or a Half-Orc Bear Totem Barbarian. If I go with the human I get another feat but if I go with the Half-Orc I can get slightly better starting stats.
Ahtman wrote: It seems most GM's wants to make a new novel using players, but no one wants to raid a dungeon for glory and riches. I just wanted to get that off my chest.
I'm still debating on whether to make my first full 5E character a Human or a Half-Orc Bear Totem Barbarian. If I go with the human I get another feat but if I go with the Half-Orc I can get slightly better starting stats.
Feats seem strictly better than stats to me, they do so much and some give half a stat boost anyway. Also variant human gives you an extra skill which are like uber hard to get this edition.
EDIT: Also it looks there are exactly two conditions in which having +2 racial boost over the humans +1 actually really matters: You've got a 16 or a 18 for your based roll for your primary. I guess what I'm saying here is that barring specific circumstances human-variant is mad baller and kind of super good unless you really, really want one of the racial special powers.
If you've got a 14 or lower as your base roll in your primary, something has gone terribly wrong.
If you've got a 15 +1 brings to 16 (+3) and +2 brings you to 17(+3). Then you first stat boost will be 18(+4) and 19(+4) respectively. All you really get out of the +2 is a little more flexibility with your 3rd stat boost.
If you've got a 16 it's worth it since you now have +4 instead of +3.
If you've got a 17 the same applies as 15 and then again for 18 being worth it.
I have no idea about much of anything in 5E but I just rolled up a Paladin that seems pretty good!
The 5e Paladin is way better implemented than the 3.P one. I'm kind of hoping someone rolls one for my game but none of the players I'm running are huge paladin fans, so I doubt they'll do it. I just really want to see on in action.
Melissia wrote: Speaking of artwork, what is with the halfling artwork I've seen? Some of it is... hideous and disturbing...
Spoiler:
This is the one I've seen talked about the most. I hope that's not from the 5e PHB like the person who sent the image to me said it was...
It is from the PHB and it certainly is unpopular. The proportions are extremely odd but I'm not so sure I mind that.I've always kind of liked it when things aren't just "Human", "Short Human", "Human with Pointy Ears", "Short Human with Pointy Ears", "Green Human", "Half Human-Half Human with pointy ears" we seem to get with fantasy races. They certainly could have done better mind you, especially since haflings are so well established elsewhere. The gnome art was pretty poorly received too.
I found the art quality in the PHB very hit and miss and the Hafling is far from the worst offender in my mind.
Chongara wrote: especially since haflings are so well established elsewhere.
IIRC weren't halflings based on hobbits from LotR? So originally they looked more like this than scaled down humans:
Spoiler:
I did run across an artist on Deviantart that had done some halflings that appear similar to the one in the book, but not as bad. There is other D&D stuff there as well.
IIRC weren't halflings based on hobbits from LotR? So originally they looked more like this than scaled down humans:
It seems like a safe assumption. I don't really mind the new look. Just seems like departure from what they were doing before I guess.
Got my first 5e game in this weekend and it went well:
Character building went pretty fast at least where areas other than spell selection were concerned.
My player base was a little different than usual 2 of my regular players + 2 of my regulars player's buddies. The new guys seemed like they might need a bit more prompting than my regular group, I'm a bit more used to PCs seeking out their own activities during downtime. Some that may be because coming from a 3+ year campaign, I'm a bit rusty at dealing with characters that aren't already well established.
our party was:
Human Fighter
Human Rogue
Elf Sorcerer
Centaur Bard - Yeah nonstandard. I've always wanted to run a game with Centaurs being common in the setting so I did. One of my players has apparently been waiting years to play a centaur and jumped at the chance with gusto. It's also just a good excuse to put together some home-brew material on the new system, which is one of my favorite parts of GMing.
Session summary if anyone's interested. It's kind of long.
Spoiler:
The premise of the game as that they'd all done some act of public service in their background and the crown was tapping known good citizens to help with a big ceremony being held to honor the birth of the king's child. So they along with about 400 other people, were getting called in to be assigned duties.
We had some light RP at the start of the session. I said they had about until late afternoon before they were supposed to turn up and just asked what they were doing.
Our bard went go look for a book. His public service was that he had helped to establish public school and ran into two fathers debating the merits of it, he jumped at the chance to expound upon the virtues of education. He convinced the less skeptical man to let his son try it, least for a little while.
The fighter was a mason by trade and had helped our bard with building said school. He ran into a member of his guild in argument with someone having some work down. They'd agreed to build the wall with special stone from a famous quarry, noted for it's strength. The stone in the wall was clearly of poorly quality and barely suited to build anything, with major cracks/breaks appearing just from the basic shaping being done. A nat-20 on his int check revealed that this was clearly the stone from the famous quarry, the appearance was a dead give away. However, the folks arguing weren't' terribly interested in a 3rd party butting in and didn't listen to him. He was curious enough to go talk to the supplier who was at a loss, it was the genuine article it and shouldn't be like that. His knowledge check again confirmed that it was the genuine article and shouldn't be like that, the facts just don't add up. Being out of time he left scratching his head on how such thing could be possible.
The Rogue was making a few coins showing some visitors around the city, he ran into a guy running a crooked game of chance. He was going to ignore it, but one the folks he was showing around suggested he expose the scam after he was told why they shouldn't play. He did so successfully and the scam artist packed up in left, he decided against getting the city guard involved.
The sorcerer ran into a rather confused looking visitor, something of a hermit who had only come to observe the ceremony. He helped him find an boarding at the home of a friend.
They answered their summons and got a simple fetch quest, for a monster from the swamp to the east. The feathers being vital for decoration. A bit flimsy but I wanted to keep things simple for the first outing.
On the road to the swamp they ran into a group of bandits harassing a merchant. They unanimously resolved to intervene right away,everyone seemed to be in for some heroics. The bandits tried to get them to back off. An insight roll from the bard let him pick up that two younger guys almost kids really were obviously new and not yet hardened criminals. While he leader was trying to get the group to back off, he berated the group generally and specifically called out the young guys about able to change their ways. He cranked his persuasion roll (something like a 23), so when the leader finally got fed up an ordered his men to attack the younger ones didn't join in, and just kind sheepishly stood back,.
The bandits weren't a particularly tough bunch and once they'd taken out the leader and another guy they start running. Not content to let them escape the bard chased them down while the rest of the group went to check on the merchant. He took out one of the fleeing bandits but the other turned and got in a good hit and dropped him. Seeing this the sorcerer turned blasted them, luckily he was only 2 rounds out so he just got patched up with the healers kit.
The merchant thanked them and gave them a small chest of medical supplies out of gratitude. The group debated what to do with the young (now former) bandits. They got grilled about their stories and seemed to have suitably sorry tales. Some insight checks all around they determined they were serious about shaping up and flying right. They asked what the merchant wanted thought of the situation (given he was the wronged party), and he got the same impression. Ultimately their weapons were confiscated and our fighter gave them a letter than would let them get some work. The older bandits were thoroughly hog tied and the merchant gladly offered to deliver them to the authorities. So the players went on their way.
They stopped briefly in a small town to rest, and talked with some of the locals on what to expect in the swamp. They confirmed it was a nasty placed filled with goblins and poisonous critters. They noted the goblins hadn't been coming out and attacking recently, which is a bit odd. They'd always been a major nuisance, stealing some of their hogs and other food items. The patrolman in the area had gone to investigate but hadn't gotten anything for his trouble but a goblin stealing his helmet. Which he wasn't looking forward to explaining come inspection time.
They ventured into the swamp and got ambushed by some goblins and their giant swamp rants. Since the players didn't detect them one of them ran off before the fight to tell others. The goblins seemed only to speak in "Long strings of profanity", which got a cheap chuckle out of the group when elaborated upon. They finished them off pretty easily, taking some scrapes.
They continued in for the better part of the day and got attack by a local variety of swamp ooze - I just pulled the stats of the "Death Dog" monster for this, as it was suitably beefy an poisonous. One of the players got poisoned, but they were able to use the medical supplies they got from the merchant to prevent the worst of the effects. The sorcerer got put down in this fight. However another use of the healer's kit kept out of any real danger of dying - It was seriously good investment for just 5gp.
They settled down for the night and the goblins attacked during the sorcerer's watch. Luckily he spotted them before the came in and the group was able to get weapons ready, though the fighter was obviously lacking his armor. One of the goblins as luck would have it was proudly wearing the pilfered helmet of the patrolman they'd talked to earlier, he tried to run when his buddies went down but a timely firebolt kept him from escaping. The sorcerer got put down again in this fight, once again healer's kit to the rescue.
The next morning they made into the part of the swamp where they think nests are. Their perception checks weren't great and disturbed a nest of angry snakes (used the stats for the flying snakes - just without the flying) that roughed up the party something fierce. Yikes. Put down both the rogue and the sorcerer this fight, but the bard had his cure wounds spell up this time.
Finally they get to the cockatrice nest, and beat pair living there. They also root around in the nest, take the eggs and them. The rogue had sadly succumb to the venom and was now statue. Rather than wait they just roped him to the centaur and donkey and pulled him out of the swamp. The goblins didn't bother them on the way out as they'd had enough beatings so they got out without trouble as they didn't stop to rest.
They stopped off in the small town again to sleep and return their patrolman's helmet. He thanked them and gave them a few coins for their trouble. They returned to the city prize in hand, and we ended the session on their way to turn it in. Between the fights and little bonus XP for RP, they'd reached 2nd level.
tl;dr: They had to go to a swamp to beat up a cockatrice. They ran into some bandits, folks got knocked out a few times but everything turned out OK. They hit level 2.
The proficiency bonus system was nice. It was intuitive and kept things from chugging when a players were looking for IC information that didn't neatly fall into one of the knowledge skills, I could just grant them it if it seem plausible if that's something their character would likely have heard somewhere. I suspect this something I'll be doing a lot.
I need to be keeping a more active mind about advantage/disadvantage. I didn't grant advantage even once during the session and disadvantage only once, though abilities on both sides wound up doing so a few times.
Everyone felt very functional out of the box, which was great. The game also played very, very fast. The session lasted about 5 hours, and we did 6 combats in addition to the RP. Coming off 2 or 3 hour long single combats from 3.P and Iron Kingdoms it was a breathe of fresh air. Having no miniatures to deal with and no fiddly modifiers really sped things up.
The fighter chose the protection style, which did a lot of work. I think it kept people from getting critted to death 3 or 4 times since the disadvantage wound up downgrading natural 20s into just regular hits.
The Rogue got a lot time to shine offensively, it was nice ranged sneak attack triggers are no longer needlessly annoying.
Sorcerer was effective, when he was up. He spent a lot of time at 0 hp. Part of this is just an artifact of being first level and having all of 8hp, part of it was also that my dice were on fire.
The Bard was good, he had a cantrip that granted disadvantage on attack rolls with a failed wisdom save. Just like the fighter's protection ability this saved a lot of pain. It would have been even better if I hadn't been rolling nat 15+ on 70% of the saves. My dice were seriously on fire this session (why does this never happen when I play wargames? sigh)
I enjoyed running it and player feedback was overwhelmingly positive as well. The Sorcerer was understandably a bit frustrated that he wound up on the wrong end of a game of whack-a-mole, but beyond that no real complaints. He rolled max hit points so hopefully that'll be less of an issue next time.
I do like that between short rests granting healing, the fighter's second wind and long rests being a full restoration PCs seem a lot less vulnerable to hit point attrition than in 3.P, even if they're still fairly fragile in the context of a single encounter. I'm really looking forward to next week.
The fighter chose the protection style, which did a lot of work. I think it kept people from getting critted to death 3 or 4 times since the disadvantage wound up downgrading natural 20s into just regular hits.
The guy in our group that made a dwarven fighter chose the static +2 damage from Dueling Style (iirc) over Protection Style, to my chagrin. It wouldn't be an issue but he wants to be a defender type fighter. I think it stems from 4E mentality and worrying that giving disadvantage once a turn is less powerful than always doing two more damage. Of course it could be that it would allow me to do Reckless Attack more often as well...
The fighter chose the protection style, which did a lot of work. I think it kept people from getting critted to death 3 or 4 times since the disadvantage wound up downgrading natural 20s into just regular hits.
The guy in our group that made a dwarven fighter chose the static +2 damage from Dueling Style (iirc) over Protection Style, to my chagrin. It wouldn't be an issue but he wants to be a defender type fighter. I think it stems from 4E mentality and worrying that giving disadvantage once a turn is less powerful than always doing two more damage. Of course it could be that it would allow me to do Reckless Attack more often as well...
It seems immensely unpopular with the charop crowd in general. I suspect one line of thinking is that new abilities and items are acquired there is competition for the use your reaction. I'm not sure how many other battlemaster abilities are reactions, or if items grant powers like that. If you've consistently got stronger reaction options then the fighting style would be a waste. Then again maybe that isn't an issue. It could also be that folks under value disadvantage since it's a newfangled thing.
The fighter chose the protection style, which did a lot of work. I think it kept people from getting critted to death 3 or 4 times since the disadvantage wound up downgrading natural 20s into just regular hits.
The guy in our group that made a dwarven fighter chose the static +2 damage from Dueling Style (iirc) over Protection Style, to my chagrin. It wouldn't be an issue but he wants to be a defender type fighter. I think it stems from 4E mentality and worrying that giving disadvantage once a turn is less powerful than always doing two more damage. Of course it could be that it would allow me to do Reckless Attack more often as well...
Having only played 1E and a bit of 2E, that paragraph makes me a bit less inclined to try 5th!
Chongara wrote: It seems immensely unpopular with the charop crowd in general. I suspect one line of thinking is that new abilities and items are acquired there is competition for the use your reaction. I'm not sure how many other battlemaster abilities are reactions, or if items grant powers like that.
I think he went Battlemaster so that is probably it, and a bit of Disadvantage being undervalued.
Alpharius wrote: Having only played 1E and a bit of 2E, that paragraph makes me a bit less inclined to try 5th!
Noooooo!
Fighters get a bonus to using certain weapon combinations not unlike in Skills and Powers. Protection Style is when they are using 'Sword and Board' they give enemies Disadvantage to attacking nearby allies as a Reaction. There is also a Dueling Style which requires using only a one handed weapon with no weapon in the other hand that just gives a +2 to damage. A Shield isn't a weapon so you can use a shield and get the dueling style.
Personally I use a Maul, because I am a man. /flex
I really need to find one since out of the five games I was in, only two of them are (sometimes) running any given week-- last week I had no game at all. Feeling a bit... I guess you could say like an addict on withdrawl
I really need to find one since out of the five games I was in, only two of them are (sometimes) running any given week-- last week I had no game at all. Feeling a bit... I guess you could say like an addict on withdrawl
Holy Moly. 5 Games with an average of 2 per week, and that's low? My RPG prowess cannot compare, my dice-fu is weak.
Used to be five games a week . But the the games on monday, wednesday, and thursday no longer meet, and the games on sunday and tuesday only sometimes meet now. :/
Melissia wrote: Used to be five games a week . But the the games on monday, wednesday, and thursday no longer meet, and the games on sunday and tuesday only sometimes meet now. :/
So a Ranger/stereotypical Strabucks customer? Sounds hip, in a trying too hard kinda way. "I'd tell you about my feat but you probably never heard of it."
Manchu wrote: So a Ranger/stereotypical Strabucks customer? Sounds hip, in a trying too hard kinda way. "I'd tell you about my feat but you probably never heard of it."
Manchu wrote: So a Ranger/stereotypical Strabucks customer? Sounds hip, in a trying too hard kinda way. "I'd tell you about my feat but you probably never heard of it."
Am I wrong to think of a completely different Starbuck when I see the name listed right above a "Queequeg-like barbarian"...? I mean, the first mate in Moby Dick *was* named Starbuck, after all....
Oddly, while I realized that was wrong, this was the first person I thought of when I saw Starbuck. No idea why when there are actually people named Starbuck.
squidhills wrote: Am I wrong to think of a completely different Starbuck when I see the name listed right above a "Queequeg-like barbarian"...? I mean, the first mate in Moby Dick *was* named Starbuck, after all....
...or am I just now getting the joke?
Nope, I hadn't thought of that originally when discussing character ideas but remembered later.
My wife's the one with the Starbuck (Kara) idea and hers was first. Queequeg came up later.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are we still wholly off-topic, because I totally forgot about this picture:
How about dual wielding, animated swords that have taken enough class levels to know magic (so they can magically hold things) and animate objects themselves. Then you can dual wield animated swords, that are dual wielding the animated swords they animated, that are dual wielding the animated swords they animated... and so on.
We ended up with all martial so I ended up switching from Barbarian to an Elven Evoker (I was on the fence about it anyway) to give us a little balance. So a few quick questions about magic. It sounds like I can cast a spell I have memorized for the day any amount of times up to my number of spells for the day, is that correct? As it stands I have four Level 1 and three Level 2, so if I wanted to I could cast Magic Missile four times as Level 1 and twice as a Level 2 if I wanted? I know I can memorize more spells but it doesn't seem like you are only limited to X uses of Spell Y. Is this an accurate understanding of how the new spell system works?
Ahtman wrote: We ended up with all martial so I ended up switching from Barbarian to an Elven Evoker (I was on the fence about it anyway) to give us a little balance. So a few quick questions about magic. It sounds like I can cast a spell I have memorized for the day any amount of times up to my number of spells for the day, is that correct? As it stands I have four Level 1 and three Level 2, so if I wanted to I could cast Magic Missile four times as Level 1 and twice as a Level 2 if I wanted? I know I can memorize more spells but it doesn't seem like you are only limited to X uses of Spell Y. Is this an accurate understanding of how the new spell system works?
Correct. The details of how the various classes memorize spells vary a bit but you've got the basics of it.
So had my 2nd 5e session last night.
Not much new to report on the engine, as it was mostly an RP session. Most the time was just spent making small talk with NPCs and exploring what the characters had been doing in their off-time. The good news here is the engine didn't seem to get in the way of this.
I had one big combat at the end of the session, as the players were taking in part in a big ceremony and it got it attacked.
I'd structred it so discrete "Encounters" worth of monsters were in groups at various locations attacking citizens. They weren't well organized, so any one group wouldn't start fighting the players until they went in and struck first. This let me have the kind of big chaotic combat I wanted to put in, without it being an auto-TPK because there are like 20x the normal number of monsters around. This worked mostly well, though our Centaur bard once again ran off to face a group of enemies alone and went down in one round.
2nd level was a big improvement over first, since most characters couldn't be put down in a single non-crit. I used a bunch of Mephits from the Monster Manual in the encounters and those death blasts are nasty. I probably would have liked a design where you could do something to avoid proccing them. Some of my players expressed a similar thought after the session. It was a minor complaint. Still at least it shows me & my players are roughly on the same page when it comes to the kind of mechanics we like, which is always a good thing.
The end result is that a really evil looking dude, in a horned helmet and armor with skulls on it wound up kidnapping the royal baby. Thanks to a contrived legal technicality, the players are (of course) the only ones the king can send on the rescue.
Next session will be the first time players will be doing any big amount of major overland travel so we'll see how the game handles that. I'm still a bit stiff with the system but it's working well and everyone is enjoying it. Hopefully things will work out in a way where I can pull some more variety out of the Monster Manual, as I still don't have a great feel for encounters yet.
Alpharius wrote: I think I can see why magic-users are as powerful as they are, even at lower levels!
How so exactly? I agree with this statement I'm just wondering if you clarify your exact thinking is all.
Side Note: Bardic Inspiration has been a total winner, it's a fun interactive mechanic that makes both the bard and receiving player think and rolling extra dice is always fun.
Alpharius wrote: Well, I could be wrong of course - and I probably am! - but I'm used to the Magic-User progression from 1E/2E.
What Ahtman just described? Wow!
And all these 'at will' type things too...
Well the at-will cantrips are minor spells that do minor damage or have small carrier effects. They're not quite as robust as even full weapon attacks for the most part but they give casters magic-y things to do when they're out of slots. They scale with level but they're never terribly impressive, just to give casters something a bit better to do than shoot crossbow bolts when they're out real spell slots.
The spell slots thing does give more flexibility, but it's a downgrade power-wise from the 3.P era. Since spells no longer naturally scale with caster level. I can't compare to 1e/2e as that was before my time.
Ahtman wrote: We ended up with all martial so I ended up switching from Barbarian to an Elven Evoker (I was on the fence about it anyway) to give us a little balance. So a few quick questions about magic. It sounds like I can cast a spell I have memorized for the day any amount of times up to my number of spells for the day, is that correct? As it stands I have four Level 1 and three Level 2, so if I wanted to I could cast Magic Missile four times as Level 1 and twice as a Level 2 if I wanted? I know I can memorize more spells but it doesn't seem like you are only limited to X uses of Spell Y. Is this an accurate understanding of how the new spell system works?
To my understanding, yes. Here's how it works in my mind:
Ever caster (which is, admittedly, all but a couple of classes (2 of 3 fighters, 2 of 3 rogues, barbarians, anything I've missed) has a selection of known spells: Sometimes it's set by the class (clerics get the entire cleric list I believe) , sometimes it's chosen from a list (many classes), etc. Wizard (and specialists) are a little weird in that they explicitly have a 'spell book' for their known spells that can be added to by finding spells.
Then you have your Prepared Spells. Again, slightly differences by class. You can prepare as many spells as listed, and shouldn't prepare duplicates. Preparing is a 'Long rest' activity as I understand.
Actual casting is controlled by spell slots. Each class has a 'pyramid' of spell slots not unlike older editions: 3 1st level, 2 2nd level, 1 3rd level as an example. All casters canst spontaneously from these, by picking a prepared Spell and the desired spell slot upon casting. So if you're casting a 1st level spell, you can use a 1st level slot or or higher level slot depending on how much magic you need.
One big change is spells (except cantrips) don't auto-level by caster level. They get more powerful when a higher-level slot is used.
Cantrips are 0-level and break some of these rules. No spell slots, they're like 4e 'At-Will' abilities that can be spammed every turn (you can even cast a spell and a cantrip in a turn under proper circumstances). They do level with the caster, but tend to be relatively minor abilities... Although a fe classes are probably 'dependent' on cantrips to an extent, like the Warlock.
One thing to note is every aster is a bit different. Many get some spells back with a Short Rest (an hour-long rest, so still a serious decision in a dungeon) or a Long Rest for all slots.
One design decision I was initially critical of was reverting to giving paladins, rangers, etc. spells in lieu of class-specific abilities. They pulled this off, and it should be noted the spells these classes get aren't just low-level spells from dedicated casters, but focused spells for that class. For example, the Paladin's Smites are now low-level Paladin spells.
I like the inclusion of concentration (though they stole my idea so that is part of why I like it) as a way to limit how many spells a caster can have running at a given time.
Ahtman wrote: I like the inclusion of concentration (though they stole my idea so that is part of why I like it) as a way to limit how many spells a caster can have running at a given time.
Yeah, it does mean that your caster needs a second trick though. Our elf mage carries a shortbow just for this circumstance.
You can cast other spells while concentrating, just not other concentration spells. Well that isn't quite right, you can cast other concentration spells but it would git rid of the last one. You should always have a back up though. My Elven Evoker has a Long Sword, Short Sword, and a Short Bow as back up weapons.
Anyone get the MM yet? I'm wondering if there is a random encounter chart in it. It could also be in the DMG but it never hurts to ask. I was thinking of running a completely random dungeon where the dungeon and contents are generated on the fly for off days when the DM can't make it and the like.
Ahtman wrote: Anyone get the MM yet? I'm wondering if there is a random encounter chart in it. It could also be in the DMG but it never hurts to ask. I was thinking of running a completely random dungeon where the dungeon and contents are generated on the fly for off days when the DM can't make it and the like.
Well I don't think it'd be too hard to cobble together one's own random encounter table. You could probably get something functional for your game with an online CR index and hour of work.
"You can't win. But there are alternatives to fighting."
How fast is a wraith this edition, are they still incorporeal? Not in front of MM right now, but traditionally they've had abilities that make it pretty hard to run away or go around them at low levels save your GM playing them as bound to particular place, or not interested in attacking the PCs.
Chongara wrote: Well I don't think it'd be too hard to cobble together one's own random encounter table. You could probably get something functional for your game with an online CR index and hour of work.
Oh absolutely. The dungeon layout will also be completely random as well as I am using Blue Dungeon Tiles to create it on the fly. The random list will be themed so would need to be home crafted anyway, it just would have made coming up with reasonable 'surprises' and probably a few unreasonable ones.
Walking speed was 12", same as a human. Flying speed was 24". 2-16 appeared. 4HD, level drainers and needed magical weapons to hit. The only chance for survival was to be the fastest in the party. Gygax was a bit bloodthirsty I think. Clerics did not have turn undead either :(
The power level of low level characters seems to have increased quite a bit over the years.
It's like you guys assume the world is nothing but a grid map with minis to move into and out of combat range.
There is more to getting into and getting out of trouble than movement speed. A random encounter table is not necessarily a random "either it dies or we die" table.
Bummer. But it's always fun to roll up new characters
Manchu wrote: It's like you guys assume the world is nothing but a grid map with minis to move into and out of combat range.
There is more to getting into and getting out of trouble than movement speed. A random encounter table is not necessarily a random "either it dies or we die" table.
We are talking Original -as in from the little brown books- D&D here. The relevant quote from "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures" booklet. Spoilered because of length
Spoiler:
Avoiding Monsters: Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any char-
acters they "see", with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent
enough to avoid an obviously superior force. There is no chance for avoiding if
the monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the mon-
ster itself has been surprised. If the adventurers choose to flee, the monster will
continue to pursue in a straight line as long as there is not more than 90 feet be-
tween the two. When a corner is turned or a door passed through or stairs up or
down taken the monster will only continue to follow if a 1 or a 2 is rolled on a
6-sided die. If a secret door is passed through the monster will follow only on a
roll of 1. Distance will open or close dependent upon the relative speeds of the
two parties, men according to their encumberance and monsters according to the
speed given on the Monster Table in Volume II. In order to move faster characters
may elect to discard items such as treasure, weapons, shields, etc. in order to light-
en encumberance.
There is a 25% chance that any character surprised by a monster will drop some
item. If he does, roll for the possibilities remembering that only these items held
could be so dropped.
Burning oil will deter many monsters from continuing pursuit.
Edible items will have a small likelihood (10%) of distracting intelligent monsters
from pursuit. Semi-intelligent monsters will be distracted 50% of the time. Non-
intelligent monsters will be distracted 90% of the time by food.
Treasure will have the opposite reaction as food, being more likely to stop in-
telligent monsters.
Random Actions by Monsters: Other than in pursuit situations, the more intelli-
gent monsters will act randomly according to the results of the score rolled on
two (six-sided) dice:
2 - 5 negative reaction
6 - 8 uncertain reaction
9-12 positive reaction
The dice score is to be modified by additions and subtractions for such things as
bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc.
You could bargain with certain sorts of monsters, often to good end, to be sure, but low intelligence Wraiths? Nope. All they want is to drain your character's life. Nothing else mattered to them, not food, not treasure. You either got out of sight/got away or you fought them. Some monsters are just binary like that.
This grid thing? That is a 4e feature? We never had that. I and my little group, we are just now returning to D&D after a 20 year hiatus, FYI. This 5e is looking pretty good to us. And I am going to get stuck playing the magic-user :( They seem much improved. So maybe not so bad.
Makes no difference. Random Encounter Tables have never been a matter of bloodthirstiness/DM dickery. Rather, they are about fantasy "ecology." Gygax and Arneson and everyone else who had a hand in creating D&D came from scenario-based wargaming and D&D has a strong simulationist bend because of it. I think I have some posts even ITT explaining this so-called "Gygaxian naturalism."
But nothing about game design or rules can get in the way of a bad DM.
Manchu wrote: But nothing about game design or rules can get in the way of a bad DM.
So following the rules as they are written would make someone a bad DM? Unless we assume the creators were idiots, it seems at odds to believe they would make rules specifically saying monsters will chase/kill you while also making you bad for following those rules; that random encounter chart wasn't a fan made item and was in the book and official and everything. I know a DM can houserule, but I've also seen you argue against people houseruling and ignoring rules before so I am a bit confused. Perhaps you just aren't making your point clearly enough.
Of course if one wants bloodthirsty then they should read the original Tomb of Horrors, though that was designed with bloodthirstiness in mind.
Manchu wrote: It's like you guys assume the world is nothing but a grid map with minis to move into and out of combat range.
There is more to getting into and getting out of trouble than movement speed. A random encounter table is not necessarily a random "either it dies or we die" table.
Some times it is kill or be killed. You know like a wrath. You can't really reason with a wrath.
In 
!
