denada If it makes you feel better, barring intervention I don't think we'll have enough gas in the tank to eek out a victory right now, and if nealneal hadn't scored that massive crit, we would probably be facing a rout. So basically, good job DMing, because I'm scared as hell right now.
Wait, are you saying I shouldn't have all the baby intellect devourers hatch out of their eggs and head for the closest set of brains?
I suppose there are two perspectives on CRs. The first is how difficult is a monster in a straight-up combat situation. Then, there is how difficult the monster is in a non-combat situation.
In a non-combat situation, an Oni could probably stomp a party. The next time the party stays at an inn, it can pose as a bar wench and poison their ale. Or wait until the party falls asleep, then slip into their rooms (e.g. turn into an invisible mouse, slip into the room, and slay the characters one by one as they sleep). The stealth opportunities, and the easy escape options (invisible, fly straight up) make them very viable harassment encounters that slowly wear down the party.
It really depends on how the DM plays the monsters. Even kobolds, played the right way, can be a challenge for a party.
Those Oni examples aren't examples of the monster being a challenge to the party, they're examples of the DM deciding to kill everyone and needing an excuse to do so.
It's bad for the same reasons the Piercer is bad -- you don't demolish the players without providing sensible and usable countermeasures. "Shooting every stalactite and hiring a taster for every cup of ale" are not sensible countermeasures. Nor, for that matter, is "rolled well on a single check in order to avert the disaster."
Well, yeah, a DM can always demolish the players at whim. The scenario I like to play through when considering the maximum usage of a monster is when the players should have known better. For instance "Why yes, there is an Oni sitting in the corner minding his own business and drinking a beer. What do you mean, you're hurling a flagon at his head?"
But if an Oni is the campaign's main villain, I wouldn't expect to confine him to just one battle at the end. I would use him to harass the players and whittle away their resources (within reason of course).
They're like the third most egregiously lethal CR misuse in the MM
Definitely top five
What are your "top 5 most egregiously lethal CR misuse" in the MM?
i don't know about the most egregious, but the needle blight is a CR 1/4 monster with a +3 to-hit, 30/60 ranged attack that does 2d6+1 damage. seems like a disaster waiting to happen for a level 1 party, or even a level 2 party.
Can't get more meat and potatoes than this for a fight.
CR 2 Ogre : AC11 hp59 +6 to hit to do 2d8+4 dmg (13 on average) or +6 to hit on ranged to do 2d6+4dmg
CR 1 Half-Ogre: AC12 hp 30 +5 to hit to do 2d8+3 dmg (or 2d10+3 if using two hands..not sure why it wouldn't since it's not using a shield) or +5 to hit on ranged to do 2d6+3 dmg..
Not sure why the Ogre can't use his greatclub two handed for more damage? I guess they forgot to write it.
4 lvl1 PCs vs a Half-Ogre or 4 lvl 2 PCs vs an Ogre.. BALANCED!
CR2 Orog : AC 18!!, hp42, +6 to hit on two attacks for a dmg potential of 2d12+8.
CR2 Quaggoth: AC13 hp 45, +5 to hit on two attacks for a dmg potential of 2d6+6 (has advantage on attacks and adds 2d6 on each melee attack dmg when under 10 hp) so 6d6+6 damage potential
I keep meaning to cancel at least one of my D&D Insider accounts, but at this rate I'm pretty sure they'll just do it for me.
I don't envy the software team. It sounds like they will continue on with the tool, but being for an edition that felt like it was eschewing the digital anyway, they certainly have an uphill battle. I guess at this point the moral is: never ever contract with WotC.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
So, just added one mark against 5E for me. Apparently casting a spell or making a ranged attack next to someone doesn't provoke an OA unless you get a feat for it. I've always been a huge fan of OAs and positioning, so this is a huge red X for me.
So, just added one mark against 5E for me. Apparently casting a spell or making a ranged attack next to someone doesn't provoke an OA unless you get a feat for it. I've always been a huge fan of OAs and positioning, so this is a huge red X for me.
...yeah it does? I thought it did. Can someone confirm this?
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
All other instances of opportunity attacks/melee attacks as a reaction are contained in feats.
So, just added one mark against 5E for me. Apparently casting a spell or making a ranged attack next to someone doesn't provoke an OA unless you get a feat for it. I've always been a huge fan of OAs and positioning, so this is a huge red X for me.
...yeah it does? I thought it did. Can someone confirm this?
Last time I went looking if it isn't a ranged spell it doesn't. Not sure about it needing to not be ranged. Surprised the heck out of me as well.
Ranged attacks, be they with a weapon, spell or some other means have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within the reach of an enemy that can see you.
So, just added one mark against 5E for me. Apparently casting a spell or making a ranged attack next to someone doesn't provoke an OA unless you get a feat for it. I've always been a huge fan of OAs and positioning, so this is a huge red X for me.
...yeah it does? I thought it did. Can someone confirm this?
Last time I went looking if it isn't a ranged spell it doesn't. Not sure about it needing to not be ranged. Surprised the heck out of me as well.
Okay but that's logical. If it's not a ranged spell it's not intended to be cast from range, so it makes sense it wouldn't provoke.
Having a touch spell provoke would be like having a melee attack provoke.
I think you get Disadvantage on ranged attack rolls instead. But that means there's still no penalty for attacks that require saving throws or spells that have utility effects.
So, just added one mark against 5E for me. Apparently casting a spell or making a ranged attack next to someone doesn't provoke an OA unless you get a feat for it. I've always been a huge fan of OAs and positioning, so this is a huge red X for me.
...yeah it does? I thought it did. Can someone confirm this?
Last time I went looking if it isn't a ranged spell it doesn't. Not sure about it needing to not be ranged. Surprised the heck out of me as well.
Okay but that's logical. If it's not a ranged spell it's not intended to be cast from range, so it makes sense it wouldn't provoke.
Having a touch spell provoke would be like having a melee attack provoke.
Yea, now that people have filled in the disadvantage thing I remember that was the downside. If the spell has no attack rolls though....who cares?
On the one hand, not having OAs on casting ranged spells allows people to cast Healing Word or buffing spells without provoking. 4e's solution to that problem wasn't particularly good; it took me a few months to get everyone in my group to understand and remember that leader healing features don't heal everyone in the burst, and there was a bit of acrimony after one encounter when we discovered the DM had thrown us against a Bizarro World version of our party using PC statblocks instead of monster stats and was using the two leader enemies to heal the entire enemy party.
On the one hand, not having OAs on casting ranged spells allows people to cast Healing Word or buffing spells without provoking. 4e's solution to that problem wasn't particularly good; it took me a few months to get everyone in my group to understand and remember that leader healing features don't heal everyone in the burst, and there was a bit of acrimony after one encounter when we discovered the DM had thrown us against a Bizarro World version of our party using PC statblocks instead of monster stats and was using the two leader enemies to heal the entire enemy party.
"Close" spells don't provoke. "Ranged" spells do. That was 4e's system. You're mixing up area of effect keywords and an inability to read the target line into this which are completely unrelated.
Edit: And yea, there is a whole passel of keywords that 4th never really did a page of "What the fuck are these for?" which would be helpful. I would still rather have a system that could make this distinction rather than maybe possibly looking in the spell text to see if it says anything about this.
Yes, the only penalty for using any ranged attack in melee range is disadvantage on the attack roll if it's a ranged attack(spell or otherwise). So spells that just prompt a save don't have any penalty. This doesn't bother me, because this edition doesn't have 5 foot step/shift. In previous editions you'd just use your move to go 5 feet and cast the spell, prompting no OA. In this edition, you can cast that spell if it uses a save with no problem, but if you want to move any number of feet away from that enemy you're going to get hit with an OA, so it's really more penalizing in that way.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Does everyone remember when I was told "It's a third party and wizards totally learned, it will be different this time?" and I basically said "Wizards are full of shit and you shouldn't do this"?
Because I totally called it.
Edit: And again, I and others may have a reputation for being generally negative about wizards/5e, but believe me' our scepticism of many of the things wizards do is not simply random edition grognardia. They really did completely and absolutely drop the ball on many things towards the end of 4e and it's concerning how much of a disaster they turned some things into. It's a very worrying sign they are already murdering the tools.
Hmmm...well ACs for monsters are normally terrible, and saves for monsters are normally terrible....so yes I think that means save spells are strictly better than attack spells.
On the one hand, not having OAs on casting ranged spells allows people to cast Healing Word or buffing spells without provoking. 4e's solution to that problem wasn't particularly good; it took me a few months to get everyone in my group to understand and remember that leader healing features don't heal everyone in the burst, and there was a bit of acrimony after one encounter when we discovered the DM had thrown us against a Bizarro World version of our party using PC statblocks instead of monster stats and was using the two leader enemies to heal the entire enemy party.
"Close" spells don't provoke. "Ranged" spells do. That was 4e's system.
I know. My point was that when the PHB dropped practically every close burst power except the Cleric's Healing Word and the Warlord's Inspiring Word targeted every enemy/ally/creature in the burst. That a very small number of powers target only one creature in the burst was really easy to overlook, and several people in my group struggled to remember it. And to make matters worse, attacks that provide benefits to nearby allies don't even use that wording, they use "an ally within X squares", so the handful of powers that target a single creature in a burst could have just been worded that way and prevented the confusion.
Hmmm...well ACs for monsters are normally terrible, and saves for monsters are normally terrible....so yes I think that means save spells are strictly better than attack spells.
Save or suck back with a vengeance. Too bad I already rolled that bard or I'd make a wizard and piss everyone off all the time. I'm sure there are some good save vs spells to abbuse somewhere in the bard's list.
I never believe in WotC with the digital tools. The digital tools they did deliver in 4e worked well enough, but it was never anywhere close to what they originally promised. I know the guy who was supposed to make their digital tabletop did a murder suicide, but if losing one guy destroyed their whole plans they were shitty plans. 3e was even worse with them just always promising they'd eventually get something done. From what I've heard from people who are in the dungeonscape beta, the only thing they had working in beta form was the character builder, so they probably just missed too many deadlines and WotC dropped it. That's still on WotC for not choosing a better company to make the tools if they can't do it themselves though.
What they need to do is stop C&Ding everybody who wants to make their own 5e tools, and let the best man win that way since WotC can't handle it themselves.
+3
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I disagree that save spells are strictly better based on that. Spell attacks can get advantage on their attack rolls and also can crit.
5th edition doesn't really do a lot to make casters have to choose, given that you have much more flexibility in spells known and what to cast than 3rd edition. You can use an attack spell for when you have advantage of whatever, or use a spell that will avoid disadvantage in melee if you feel like it.
Basically insert obnoxious tortea ad girl going "Why not have both?" to scenes of celebrating villagers.
I never believe in WotC with the digital tools. The digital tools they did deliver in 4e worked well enough, but it was never anywhere close to what they originally promised. I know the guy who was supposed to make their digital tabletop did a murder suicide, but if losing one guy destroyed their whole plans they were shitty plans. 3e was even worse with them just always promising they'd eventually get something done. From what I've heard from people who are in the dungeonscape beta, the only thing they had working in beta form was the character builder, so they probably just missed too many deadlines and WotC dropped it. That's still on WotC for not choosing a better company to make the tools if they can't do it themselves though.
What they need to do is stop C&Ding everybody who wants to make their own 5e tools, and let the best man win that way since WotC can't handle it themselves.
In 3rd they eventually just licensed it out to Code Monkeys to update but that ended a bit before 4th hit.
Doesn't that just mean they don't want you to factor them in to the multiplier for exp. So if you used 1 even CR monster and then 10 that are way lower, you should just add up the exp for all 11 and use that instead of using the multiplier table? And that you should only use the multiplier if you think the lower CR monsters are going to significantly contribute to the difficulty?
Seems to me like they're just saying "If you're going to use lower CR dudes but they're going to rain arrows on the party then use the multiplier for difficulty, if you're going to throw some fodder at them to let the party feel cool for wiping the floor with 10 weenies before facing the real bad guy then don't multiply."
I can see being unhappy with that, but I personally don't see a problem with it.
So I wanted to readdress this today, because I have calmed down now and have thought about it. There are three huge problems with what wizards have just done and one of them literally stakes the system right in the heart.
1) It is literally an admission that bounded accuracy as a concept failed. This isn't an insignificant thing, even though everyone told them from the playtest it was dumb and never going to work, they persisted on it as a concept and it clearly failed. This is why cr1/4 zombies vs. even a third level party are not a threat anymore. They don't do enough. Conversely, it's why their fucked up monsters excel way too much against parties of their own levels and get ridiculously whacky in any kind of numbers.
As a system, this is admitting a core tenant of 5e has already failed less than a couple of months into its lifespan.
2) Force multiplication is something that clearly only works on a "I will know it when I see it" approach. EG the ranged skeletons vs. zombies example I bring out. As a guideline/rule, this further makes it worthless.
3) I am honestly left with no really good clear idea how 5e wants me to build encounters. By all means, Pearls encounters are both "ludicrous", yet have not TPKed any party I have playtested them with because of the careful mechanics in play to give players breaks (the other wagons, horses and similar). How it goes with real players outside of my little map tools tokens and thought experiments is now just one week away (dear gods!), but I honestly am just assessing the exp chart for difficulty and just winging it.
Basically, I am down to purely guessing and their official adventures don't even help. Horde of the Dragon queens sticks a cr4 Half-Dragon who can one shot any 1st level PC very trivially in a one on one battle. Many other encounters feel similarly whacky. I am actually not sure if wizards even understands their own encounter design and exp system.
I disagree that save spells are strictly better based on that. Spell attacks can get advantage on their attack rolls and also can crit.
5th edition doesn't really do a lot to make casters have to choose, given that you have much more flexibility in spells known and what to cast than 3rd edition. You can use an attack spell for when you have advantage of whatever, or use a spell that will avoid disadvantage in melee if you feel like it.
Basically insert obnoxious tortea ad girl going "Why not have both?" to scenes of celebrating villagers.
You're certainly right. They just prepare some of both flavor and use attack spells when it would be better. That's a whole different conversation than "Save spells are always better than Attack roll spells," which is what I was replying to. Each one is better under different circumstances. Whether the game does a good job making players choose which ones to have available at any given time(it doesn't) is a different conversation.
Based on just saying "Save spells are always better," someone might think they should never prepare attack roll spells at all, which clearly isn't the case since they leverage advantage and crits, one of which you can count on under certain circumstances. It's not actually even quite that simple, because stuff like Bardic Inspiration/Bless can also be used to make attack roll spells more reliable than save spells, and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples too.
Posts
They're like the third most egregiously lethal CR misuse in the MM
Definitely top five
Wait, are you saying I shouldn't have all the baby intellect devourers hatch out of their eggs and head for the closest set of brains?
Well, yeah, a DM can always demolish the players at whim. The scenario I like to play through when considering the maximum usage of a monster is when the players should have known better. For instance "Why yes, there is an Oni sitting in the corner minding his own business and drinking a beer. What do you mean, you're hurling a flagon at his head?"
But if an Oni is the campaign's main villain, I wouldn't expect to confine him to just one battle at the end. I would use him to harass the players and whittle away their resources (within reason of course).
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
What are your "top 5 most egregiously lethal CR misuse" in the MM?
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
i don't know about the most egregious, but the needle blight is a CR 1/4 monster with a +3 to-hit, 30/60 ranged attack that does 2d6+1 damage. seems like a disaster waiting to happen for a level 1 party, or even a level 2 party.
CR 2 Ogre : AC11 hp59 +6 to hit to do 2d8+4 dmg (13 on average) or +6 to hit on ranged to do 2d6+4dmg
CR 1 Half-Ogre: AC12 hp 30 +5 to hit to do 2d8+3 dmg (or 2d10+3 if using two hands..not sure why it wouldn't since it's not using a shield) or +5 to hit on ranged to do 2d6+3 dmg..
Not sure why the Ogre can't use his greatclub two handed for more damage? I guess they forgot to write it.
4 lvl1 PCs vs a Half-Ogre or 4 lvl 2 PCs vs an Ogre.. BALANCED!
CR2 Orog : AC 18!!, hp42, +6 to hit on two attacks for a dmg potential of 2d12+8.
CR2 Quaggoth: AC13 hp 45, +5 to hit on two attacks for a dmg potential of 2d6+6 (has advantage on attacks and adds 2d6 on each melee attack dmg when under 10 hp) so 6d6+6 damage potential
So I'm slightly dreading next session, considering how he's been frustrated at us killing his dudes too quickly.
Also the explanation for 4E half-elves having +Con.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Or at least a tank named Sherman.
So you all can quit complaining about 4e and 5th being completely different now.
e: (not sure how many people are gonna get this joke, but yeah)
ee: (maybe more people than I thought)
Too soon!!!!
*head desk*
Guys, did you know it's 1980? To recapture the success of the past we just need to ignore all these passing fads like computers and the internet.
I don't envy the software team. It sounds like they will continue on with the tool, but being for an edition that felt like it was eschewing the digital anyway, they certainly have an uphill battle. I guess at this point the moral is: never ever contract with WotC.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
...yeah it does? I thought it did. Can someone confirm this?
All other instances of opportunity attacks/melee attacks as a reaction are contained in feats.
Last time I went looking if it isn't a ranged spell it doesn't. Not sure about it needing to not be ranged. Surprised the heck out of me as well.
Okay but that's logical. If it's not a ranged spell it's not intended to be cast from range, so it makes sense it wouldn't provoke.
Having a touch spell provoke would be like having a melee attack provoke.
Yea, now that people have filled in the disadvantage thing I remember that was the downside. If the spell has no attack rolls though....who cares?
"Close" spells don't provoke. "Ranged" spells do. That was 4e's system. You're mixing up area of effect keywords and an inability to read the target line into this which are completely unrelated.
Edit: And yea, there is a whole passel of keywords that 4th never really did a page of "What the fuck are these for?" which would be helpful. I would still rather have a system that could make this distinction rather than maybe possibly looking in the spell text to see if it says anything about this.
Does everyone remember how only one thread back or so, I totally called out Wizards online tools as being full of shit and that nobody should invest in them until 2-3 years had passed.
Does everyone remember when I was told "It's a third party and wizards totally learned, it will be different this time?" and I basically said "Wizards are full of shit and you shouldn't do this"?
Because I totally called it.
Edit: And again, I and others may have a reputation for being generally negative about wizards/5e, but believe me' our scepticism of many of the things wizards do is not simply random edition grognardia. They really did completely and absolutely drop the ball on many things towards the end of 4e and it's concerning how much of a disaster they turned some things into. It's a very worrying sign they are already murdering the tools.
The obvious next question would be... is all else equal?
I know. My point was that when the PHB dropped practically every close burst power except the Cleric's Healing Word and the Warlord's Inspiring Word targeted every enemy/ally/creature in the burst. That a very small number of powers target only one creature in the burst was really easy to overlook, and several people in my group struggled to remember it. And to make matters worse, attacks that provide benefits to nearby allies don't even use that wording, they use "an ally within X squares", so the handful of powers that target a single creature in a burst could have just been worded that way and prevented the confusion.
No to the second question, yes to the first.
The only real difference is save spells tend not to include ability score damage, iirc.
Save or suck back with a vengeance. Too bad I already rolled that bard or I'd make a wizard and piss everyone off all the time. I'm sure there are some good save vs spells to abbuse somewhere in the bard's list.
What they need to do is stop C&Ding everybody who wants to make their own 5e tools, and let the best man win that way since WotC can't handle it themselves.
5th edition doesn't really do a lot to make casters have to choose, given that you have much more flexibility in spells known and what to cast than 3rd edition. You can use an attack spell for when you have advantage of whatever, or use a spell that will avoid disadvantage in melee if you feel like it.
Basically insert obnoxious tortea ad girl going "Why not have both?" to scenes of celebrating villagers.
In 3rd they eventually just licensed it out to Code Monkeys to update but that ended a bit before 4th hit.
So I wanted to readdress this today, because I have calmed down now and have thought about it. There are three huge problems with what wizards have just done and one of them literally stakes the system right in the heart.
1) It is literally an admission that bounded accuracy as a concept failed. This isn't an insignificant thing, even though everyone told them from the playtest it was dumb and never going to work, they persisted on it as a concept and it clearly failed. This is why cr1/4 zombies vs. even a third level party are not a threat anymore. They don't do enough. Conversely, it's why their fucked up monsters excel way too much against parties of their own levels and get ridiculously whacky in any kind of numbers.
As a system, this is admitting a core tenant of 5e has already failed less than a couple of months into its lifespan.
2) Force multiplication is something that clearly only works on a "I will know it when I see it" approach. EG the ranged skeletons vs. zombies example I bring out. As a guideline/rule, this further makes it worthless.
3) I am honestly left with no really good clear idea how 5e wants me to build encounters. By all means, Pearls encounters are both "ludicrous", yet have not TPKed any party I have playtested them with because of the careful mechanics in play to give players breaks (the other wagons, horses and similar). How it goes with real players outside of my little map tools tokens and thought experiments is now just one week away (dear gods!), but I honestly am just assessing the exp chart for difficulty and just winging it.
Basically, I am down to purely guessing and their official adventures don't even help. Horde of the Dragon queens sticks a cr4 Half-Dragon who can one shot any 1st level PC very trivially in a one on one battle. Many other encounters feel similarly whacky. I am actually not sure if wizards even understands their own encounter design and exp system.
You're certainly right. They just prepare some of both flavor and use attack spells when it would be better. That's a whole different conversation than "Save spells are always better than Attack roll spells," which is what I was replying to. Each one is better under different circumstances. Whether the game does a good job making players choose which ones to have available at any given time(it doesn't) is a different conversation.
Based on just saying "Save spells are always better," someone might think they should never prepare attack roll spells at all, which clearly isn't the case since they leverage advantage and crits, one of which you can count on under certain circumstances. It's not actually even quite that simple, because stuff like Bardic Inspiration/Bless can also be used to make attack roll spells more reliable than save spells, and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples too.