The deadly, roving warband of feral housecats is a weird artifact of 3rd ed, where any stated attack would deal a minimum of 1 damage.
This would mean that cats, with their 1d3-"a whole bunch" still dealt one damage on a hit. Your average commoner or wizard had about 4-5 HP.
The cat's tiny size, good dex and weapon finesse (claws) meant that it actually had a pretty respectable to-hit value for what it was, while most unarmored people had an AC of like, 10-12. On the flipside, most commoners/wizards had no size bonuses to armor class, an ok dex/strength and no real attack bonus, but had to try to hit a cat's rather good AC (good dex+tiny size). We're basically looking at the cat hitting on a 6-8 while a farmer needing a 12-14.
This ended up with the awkward scenarios where, by the rules, if you pitted a Mittens and Farmer John in the Thunderdome, John would ineptly flail at Mittens while the cat would slowly sever the man's arteries with surprising precision. Note that John might still end up beating poor Mittens by virtue that the cat has, like, 2 HP.
I don't know if you've ever owned a cat, but it is impossible to catch those critters if they don't want to be caught.
+3
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
We have 2 cats.
But I've never been in a Thunderdome situation where it was either die or kill either Spira or Jagger. At best it was lazy attempts to get them to come back inside.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
Of course the obvious question is why not make lower lethality the default. You said it yourself, nostalgia. At it's core, 5th edition was designed to be what is the most representative of the game as a whole. This includes things that were not necessarily strong suits of the game in previous editions. I consider that to be a failure in game design, but it's most fair to judge it for what it is, not what we think it ought to be.
I think we need to do both. We need to compare it to just itself and "score" it based on that, but then also add in what came before and assess the game throughout the various editions. Being able to assess things in such a manner allows us to consider what a piece of media (in this case a game) was meant to be, as well as what it is, and what it is in relation to other similar media.
I think, after finally having taken the time to read through @belligerent and @Aegeri picking nits, that what bothers me the most is that neither of you have pointed out what shitty game design "sloped lethality" (for lack of a better term) is. This is, at the core thesis, a failing of D&D that has only once in its lifetime been correctly addressed (in 4e). Making the first couple of levels not Russian roulette was the first thing everyone noticed and loved about 4e. How anyone would perceive walking back to the old "blink near a housecat and you're dead" was a good design decision boggles the mind. Is it nostalgic? Certainly. Does it make me want to actually play a 5e campaign as an enlightened housecat? Yes. But does it make a single iota of sense? No.
This is why I don't play D&D much any more. Not only does it continually pile in new mechanical failures, it fails to address some of its most rudimentary (and easily fixed!) failures. In the one instance they did so, a vocal minority flipped out and Wizards caved. Those aren't a) the people I want to game with, b) the people I want to buy games from, and c) any way to demonstrate you've got a vision for where your product is going.
While largely I agree with you, I think it may be a bit unfair to declare that they've done nothing to address it right now. We know the DMG will include lots of optional rules so that DMs can tweak the game to suit the playstyle of their table. So it's very likely they'll include a few optional rules to help reduce the lethality of the game overall.
Of course the obvious question is why not make lower lethality the default. You said it yourself, nostalgia. At it's core, 5th edition was designed to be what is the most representative of the game as a whole. This includes things that were not necessarily strong suits of the game in previous editions. I consider that to be a failure in game design, but it's most fair to judge it for what it is, not what we think it ought to be.
I mean really something as simple as "add con score instead of con mod to starting hit points" would go a long way to reducing the lethality of the early levels, and while that would be a full on house-rule right now, there's a fair chance it could be included as an optional rule in the DMG.
And optional rules listed in the DMG are something I think it's fair to distinguish from a straight-up house rule.
A clown car of optional mechanics does not make a good game. Particularly if one of the "optional mechanics" is the only way to address a serious problem.
"Nostalgia" should never be used as an excuse for equipping a game with bad mechanics. If you want nostalgia mechanics put them in a sidebar somewhere and let them be for the people who want to houserule them in.
I argue with the notion that nostalgia should not be used to make game mechanics; one of my favorite things in Dragon Quest VIII was searching through cabinets and bags like the old games, but with a bit of animation to it. I totally get the desire to have mechanics that remind me of Legend of Zelda, or Metroid, for example.
I will highlight one other thing; you seem to be calling high lethality a bad mechanic. In Desktop Dungeons (a game wherein you rogue-like your way around a dungeon) or Spelunky (deadly cave exploration) or Dark Souls, high lethality is the name of the game. now I know these are video games, so regeneration and getting back in the game are much quicker, but the point should stand that as a game mechanic in and of itself, high lethality can be either fun, or just not impeding enough to hurt. If, however, you have a character lovingly crafted by hand or by character builder that you made over several hours only to have it die within the first 5 minutes of game time, with no chance of recovery, then yes, it's a not fun. But it's not specifically a bad mechanic. If for example making a character took all of 10 minutes, I could see high lethality as fine.
It's not the mechanic that is bad, but the placement of the mechanic in a game that make it bad or good. I know that's picking an awful nit, but the placement is everything; a smaller cog in place of a larger cog in a machine is not the right fit, but placed in another machine it might do just fine.
This is not to say I think it does or does not belong in a pen & paper game, and within at least what I've played of pen & paper games I'd find it unwelcome, but I can think of games such as Gamma World (the more recent one) where at least on paper a higher lethality makes sense, and that's at least quasi-p&p.
Kalnaur on
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
+2
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
The deadly, roving warband of feral housecats is a weird artifact of 3rd ed, where any stated attack would deal a minimum of 1 damage.
This would mean that cats, with their 1d3-"a whole bunch" still dealt one damage on a hit. Your average commoner or wizard had about 4-5 HP.
The cat's tiny size, good dex and weapon finesse (claws) meant that it actually had a pretty respectable to-hit value for what it was, while most unarmored people had an AC of like, 10-12. On the flipside, most commoners/wizards had no size bonuses to armor class, an ok dex/strength and no real attack bonus, but had to try to hit a cat's rather good AC (good dex+tiny size). We're basically looking at the cat hitting on a 6-8 while a farmer needing a 12-14.
This ended up with the awkward scenarios where, by the rules, if you pitted a Mittens and Farmer John in the Thunderdome, John would ineptly flail at Mittens while the cat would slowly sever the man's arteries with surprising precision. Note that John might still end up beating poor Mittens by virtue that the cat has, like, 2 HP.
I don't know if you've ever owned a cat, but it is impossible to catch those critters if they don't want to be caught.
I think there's a serious flaw in the design here: cats faced with larger opponents are grapplers; they grab on with the front paws then scratch away with the back legs. I think this needs to be worked into the mechanics somehow. Is there not a bonus to hit, or at least a loss of agility bonuses to AC when grappled?
I think, after finally having taken the time to read through @belligerent and @Aegeri picking nits, that what bothers me the most is that neither of you have pointed out what shitty game design "sloped lethality" (for lack of a better term) is. This is, at the core thesis, a failing of D&D that has only once in its lifetime been correctly addressed (in 4e). Making the first couple of levels not Russian roulette was the first thing everyone noticed and loved about 4e. How anyone would perceive walking back to the old "blink near a housecat and you're dead" was a good design decision boggles the mind. Is it nostalgic? Certainly. Does it make me want to actually play a 5e campaign as an enlightened housecat? Yes. But does it make a single iota of sense? No.
Fuck playing as an enlightened housecat.
If the party wants me to go into the caves to fight kobolds they are going to have to shake keys in front of me or leave a trail of kitty snacks!
The best part, of course, is that I can and will take at least one of them with me if they go off on adventure without me and I find out.
The deadly, roving warband of feral housecats is a weird artifact of 3rd ed, where any stated attack would deal a minimum of 1 damage.
This would mean that cats, with their 1d3-"a whole bunch" still dealt one damage on a hit. Your average commoner or wizard had about 4-5 HP.
The cat's tiny size, good dex and weapon finesse (claws) meant that it actually had a pretty respectable to-hit value for what it was, while most unarmored people had an AC of like, 10-12. On the flipside, most commoners/wizards had no size bonuses to armor class, an ok dex/strength and no real attack bonus, but had to try to hit a cat's rather good AC (good dex+tiny size). We're basically looking at the cat hitting on a 6-8 while a farmer needing a 12-14.
This ended up with the awkward scenarios where, by the rules, if you pitted a Mittens and Farmer John in the Thunderdome, John would ineptly flail at Mittens while the cat would slowly sever the man's arteries with surprising precision. Note that John might still end up beating poor Mittens by virtue that the cat has, like, 2 HP.
I don't know. When my brother's cat was a kitten, it would always pounce right at my achillies tendon. Which, I'm pretty sure, is the only realistic way for a kitten to have any chance of eating a 6'4" man.
I guess I'm trying to say that I find 3.0's cat rules are pretty sound.
[edit]
Scratch that. I just remembered that the only iconic way for a cat to incapacitate a human without knocking that human unconscious would be if that cat was a spell caster. I have never known Dora to sleep then study spell books after every encounter with a bird so that's ruled out.
I retract my objection.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That was the case in 3.x, iirc. They got more spell slots, but learned less spells.
And don't forget the classes in 4E that had similar mechanic. Channel Divinity spells, for instance. Or later classes getting multiple Daily powers at each tier, but you could only use one from that tier per day.
So, it's not really new. But I do think it's the correct way to implement spells, so it's good to see they decided to go in that direction.
I've tried to make a 5e character at level 1 for the last 3 days or so, now. And it's fucking baffling. Tell me how you would do this;
Make a Fighter who can use a two-handed weapon and a bow equally. Meaning, equally good (and high) Str and Dex scores, and presumably light armor to take advantage of the Dex mod. Switch between them as the tactical situation dictates.
You can't. Not with it making any lick of sense.
First of all, not a single race (apart from Human) has a bonus to Str and Dex at the same time. It's like that was a concept the design team just didn't entertain at all. So if you want a 16 Str and a 16 Dex, you need to be a Human and you need to use Point Buy. Note that you can't outright buy a 16, either.
If you keep the +1 to all stats option (which seems far weaker than the alternate option which gets you a skill and a feat) then your best array is something like 16/16/14/10/11/10 after racial modifiers. Unfortunately, as further proof that it doesn't seem to have occurred to the designers that someone might do this, there's literally no reason to wear Light (or Medium) armor (even with a +3 Dex modifier) if you have the Str for Heavy (Chain Mail) Armor, unless you need to be sneaky.
If you use the alternate Human option, your best bet is probably Heavy Armor Master for a total of 16/16/14/9/10/9, and you wear Chain Mail and have the Resist 3 to all types of weapon damage. This is not a bad call for a Fighter, but it seems sad to have that kind of Dex and not be wearing Light armor.
Meanwhile, mechanically the very concept is impaired as there's no clean way to swap back and forth between a two-hander and a bow. You can stow or draw a weapon as part of either your Move or your Action, but not both.
I do appreciate that all of the Battle Master maneuvers (with a single exception) are usable with either a ranged or melee weapon. That's some nice versatility. I just fucking wish you could actually make a PC that uses that versatility. I super wish that I could make a Human that picks up the Battle Master feat instead of the ability score band-aid that Heavy Armor Master winds up being.
I haven't seen any monster math or combat yet. Is a 14 primary score sufficient to make weapon attacks with, or do you really want a 16? If a 14's +2 is fine when combined with the Proficiency +2, then I'll be super happy with an array like 14/14/14/12/12/12 (including Heavy Armor Master)
I can't think of any prior editions of D&D where you could use melee and ranged weapons equally well either. I'm not saying there's something wrong with the concept, but I don't think the game is expecting you to try and be equally good at two different things. You pick something to focus on, and do that well, or you spread your points and do two things equally well, but not as well as you could've done a single thing. That's a reasonable trade-off, IMO.
And yeah, they definitely don't want you having two +3s from level 1 without seriously penalizing yourself elsewhere.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I think, from an efficiency stand point, you either want to be Strength melee weapon + Thrown ranged weapon, OR Finesse melee weapon and Dexterity ranged weapon. Specialization is they key to efficiency and competence. You can RP as a jack of all trades, but you won't be as good at anything as someone who picked just one thing.
Several 4e builds can do this exact thing. And if you play Mountain Dwarf in 5e you can have two 16s incredibly easily, without any drawbacks of note at all. Or nearly any race, really.
Ironically if I were playing a druid I could execute this concept super easily thanks to the spell Shillelagh. So a caster is more capable of this style of fighting than any of the melee or ranged classes are. Imagine my surprise.
Ok but, you're basically talking about a +1 bonus. Th er especially a reason you can't buy a 16, everything caps at 20.
So a half orc could do 16, 14, 16 10 10 8. And basically it's +4 to hit wit ranged +5 for melee. With bounded accuracy, it's not like you're way behind.
I've tried to make a 5e character at level 1 for the last 3 days or so, now. And it's fucking baffling. Tell me how you would do this;
Make a Fighter who can use a two-handed weapon and a bow equally.
Dex Barbarian.
If it hasn't changed too much from the playtest, and I can remember everything correctly, you can make a Barbarian who ditches Str and puts all of their points into Dex, and then take the totem path with the Hawk totem I think. You can then use your rage on Dex attacks, and also use Dex instead of Str on all melee attacks eventually.
As well as being able to jump 60 feet or so (which is hilarious).
You just can't multiclass now until you satisfy the Str requirement of the Barbarian.
And there's the inherent trade-off of not being as damaging as a regular Barbarian because you're speccing into a high powered ranged thing as well, but that's not so bad. Especially if you want to survive level 1 and 2.
As opposed to regular Str meleers, where to get through level 1 and 2 you wind up just being rubbish at range to avoid dying.
I can't think of any prior editions of D&D where you could use melee and ranged weapons equally well either. I'm not saying there's something wrong with the concept, but I don't think the game is expecting you to try and be equally good at two different things. You pick something to focus on, and do that well, or you spread your points and do two things equally well, but not as well as you could've done a single thing. That's a reasonable trade-off, IMO.
Um, no.
Every first level Fighter from 2E back had exactly the same ranged capabilities as melee ones, since there wasn't really any way to get better at those things until 4th level. Their abilities were entirely informed by attributes, so if they had high Dex and high Str they were equally good at sword and bow.
In third edition, you could pick feats that either didn't effect either (which was obviously the less satisfying option) like Toughness (which was admittedly crap, but could help in the very very early game) or Dodge. Hell, Dodge + Mobility into Shot on the Run and Spring Attack made for a very versatile combatant who just wasn't particularly good at anything besides giving up iterative attacks.
In 4E, being able to go either melee or ranged was a little harder, but both the Rogue and the Ranger pulled it off. And as a Fighter you could do the Slayer thing and get +Dex to all damage rolls, though that wasn't until nearly the end of the game's life cycle.
The problem is, and I think this might have been more of your point, this is a game that favors specialization over generalization. Unless you're a spell caster. If you're a dude with class abilities that orbit around weapon choice, trying to do too much is a surefire way to make sure you don't do anything well.
That was the case in 3.x, iirc. They got more spell slots, but learned less spells.
And don't forget the classes in 4E that had similar mechanic. Channel Divinity spells, for instance. Or later classes getting multiple Daily powers at each tier, but you could only use one from that tier per day.
So, it's not really new. But I do think it's the correct way to implement spells, so it's good to see they decided to go in that direction.
I don't like it. Mostly because increased versatility means increased power when your options are as powerful as spells. Making this sort of "planned spontaneous casting" one more way that casters are massively better than everyone else.
The way it breaks down, if I have (and I'm just making up numbers here) 5 1st level spell slots and can cast a total of 3 spells per day, I'm going to prep one spell that kills things (doing the Fighter's job), one spell that senses/bypasses traps and locks (the Rogue's job), etc. Then just use them as needed. 100% lockdown spell prep was bullshit, but at least you had to kind of decide which non-caster you were going to make obsolete at the start of the day rather than switching stances from "Fighter Replacement" to "Ranger Replacement" instantly when needed.
Having better access to memorized spells makes casters stronger in ways that are incredibly unattractive to me as a DM and a guy who plays non-Wizards on the rare occasion he gets a chance.
In base 4E you could just go with a half-elf fighter with dilettante Twin Strike and Quick Draw, opening combat at range and then charging in with your two-hander. MC Ranger as you level up to extend your bow abilities beyond a single encounter power (and basic ranged).
With later material you just hybrid and don't think much else about it. One hilarious combo could be a Prescient Bard / Avenger.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
In base 4E you could just go with a half-elf fighter with dilettante Twin Strike and Quick Draw, opening combat at range and then charging in with your two-hander. MC Ranger as you level up to extend your bow abilities beyond a single encounter power (and basic ranged).
With later material you just hybrid and don't think much else about it. One hilarious combo could be a Prescient Bard / Avenger.
Ranger was really easy to build as a Ranged/Melee hybrid right from the start in 4E, but it could be somewhat confusing to first time players. Because the two "builds" available in the first book were basically Melee Guy and Ranged Guy, and they were positioned as being mutually exclusive unless you kept reading to the powers and figured out that there were a bunch of options that did both.
But a quick glance from a new player could miss that fairly easily. Just like, I suppose, a lot of the possibilities in 5E for interesting character builds might still be hidden from people making a casual read of the rules. It seems less likely in this case, though, given that any given non-caster has a much smaller set of options to choose from.
I can't think of any prior editions of D&D where you could use melee and ranged weapons equally well either. I'm not saying there's something wrong with the concept, but I don't think the game is expecting you to try and be equally good at two different things. You pick something to focus on, and do that well, or you spread your points and do two things equally well, but not as well as you could've done a single thing. That's a reasonable trade-off, IMO.
Um, no.
Every first level Fighter from 2E back had exactly the same ranged capabilities as melee ones, since there wasn't really any way to get better at those things until 4th level. Their abilities were entirely informed by attributes, so if they had high Dex and high Str they were equally good at sword and bow.
If they took proficiency with the bow and sword that is....
That was the case in 3.x, iirc. They got more spell slots, but learned less spells.
And don't forget the classes in 4E that had similar mechanic. Channel Divinity spells, for instance. Or later classes getting multiple Daily powers at each tier, but you could only use one from that tier per day.
So, it's not really new. But I do think it's the correct way to implement spells, so it's good to see they decided to go in that direction.
I don't like it. Mostly because increased versatility means increased power when your options are as powerful as spells. Making this sort of "planned spontaneous casting" one more way that casters are massively better than everyone else.
The way it breaks down, if I have (and I'm just making up numbers here) 5 1st level spell slots and can cast a total of 3 spells per day, I'm going to prep one spell that kills things (doing the Fighter's job), one spell that senses/bypasses traps and locks (the Rogue's job), etc. Then just use them as needed. 100% lockdown spell prep was bullshit, but at least you had to kind of decide which non-caster you were going to make obsolete at the start of the day rather than switching stances from "Fighter Replacement" to "Ranger Replacement" instantly when needed.
Having better access to memorized spells makes casters stronger in ways that are incredibly unattractive to me as a DM and a guy who plays non-Wizards on the rare occasion he gets a chance.
This is the one thing that I've seen that I will freely admit triggers my latent gronardism. Wizards, SPONTANEOUSLY casting spells? Fucking heresy. You want to be Mr Big Man Spellcaster you'd best be prepared to spend hours pouring over your spell list for an optimal distribution!
In base 4E you could just go with a half-elf fighter with dilettante Twin Strike and Quick Draw, opening combat at range and then charging in with your two-hander. MC Ranger as you level up to extend your bow abilities beyond a single encounter power (and basic ranged).
With later material you just hybrid and don't think much else about it. One hilarious combo could be a Prescient Bard / Avenger.
Ranger was really easy to build as a Ranged/Melee hybrid right from the start in 4E, but it could be somewhat confusing to first time players. Because the two "builds" available in the first book were basically Melee Guy and Ranged Guy, and they were positioned as being mutually exclusive unless you kept reading to the powers and figured out that there were a bunch of options that did both.
But a quick glance from a new player could miss that fairly easily. Just like, I suppose, a lot of the possibilities in 5E for interesting character builds might still be hidden from people making a casual read of the rules. It seems less likely in this case, though, given that any given non-caster has a much smaller set of options to choose from.
While true, that melee ranger is a two-weapon fighter, which is typically a very distinct build from a two-handed fighter (and largely much easier to build since it's typically straight DEX).
Specializing in two-handed and ranged takes work in pretty much every edition, just like any other merger of two distinct specialization paths.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
In base 4E you could just go with a half-elf fighter with dilettante Twin Strike and Quick Draw, opening combat at range and then charging in with your two-hander. MC Ranger as you level up to extend your bow abilities beyond a single encounter power (and basic ranged).
With later material you just hybrid and don't think much else about it. One hilarious combo could be a Prescient Bard / Avenger.
Ranger was really easy to build as a Ranged/Melee hybrid right from the start in 4E, but it could be somewhat confusing to first time players. Because the two "builds" available in the first book were basically Melee Guy and Ranged Guy, and they were positioned as being mutually exclusive unless you kept reading to the powers and figured out that there were a bunch of options that did both.
But a quick glance from a new player could miss that fairly easily. Just like, I suppose, a lot of the possibilities in 5E for interesting character builds might still be hidden from people making a casual read of the rules. It seems less likely in this case, though, given that any given non-caster has a much smaller set of options to choose from.
While true, that melee ranger is a two-weapon fighter, which is typically a very distinct build from a two-handed fighter (and largely much easier to build since it's typically straight DEX).
Specializing in two-handed and ranged takes work in pretty much every edition, just like any other merger of two distinct specialization paths.
The warlord in my online group on roll20 doesn't have any issues with doing melee or ranged, as the situation requires. She carries a spear and a longbow, and swaps back and forth between stabbing and shooting usually to help provide a flank for one of the other melee, or to stay out of the AoE of our Sorcerer. Early on in 4e, it took picking the melee/ranged combo attacks of the ranger to make a melee/ranged character that could go back and forth, but with all of the stuff that's available for 4e currently, there's plenty of "weapon based" class builds that give you the option of splitting your range up like that and not really suffering for doing so. Fighters have a couple ways with feat support to do it (slayers, and also multiclassing for ranged related features), rogues have it built in as class feature options, rangers have builds specifically for 2h/ranged combat, warlords have ranged options that give them their str to ranged attacks instead of dex. And I'm sure there's other builds/classes that I'm forgetting.
But anyways, without getting off onto a tangent, yes, it is simple to build a 4e character that is just as effective at facestabbing as rangedstabbing, even with restricting content to the original PHB.
So with regard to AC in 5e, my AC at level 1 is 17 (Chain mail + Defensive Fighter Talenty-Thingy). Is that never going to improve without the addition of magical armor? Does proficiency bonus get added to AC, or something similar?
Edit: Here's my statblock, after much hand-wringing;
Special:
Reduce Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage taken from non-magical weapons by 3.
I'm not happy about the 10 Wisdom, but everything else is satisfactory. At level 3 I'll take the Battle Master feature and pick up three maneuvers, and at level 4 I might take the feat that gives me two more.
So with regard to AC in 5e, my AC at level 1 is 17 (Chain mail + Defensive Fighter Talenty-Thingy). Is that never going to improve without the addition of magical armor? Does proficiency bonus get added to AC, or something similar?
Edit: Here's my statblock, after much hand-wringing;
Special:
Reduce Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage taken from non-magical weapons by 3.
I'm not happy about the 10 Wisdom, but everything else is satisfactory. At level 3 I'll take the Battle Master feature and pick up three maneuvers, and at level 4 I might take the feat that gives me two more.
I suppose you could acquire Plate Armor. But I don't think AC scales at all, unless they introduce increasing grades of magic armor (+1/+2/etc.)
I'm not sure if proficiency affects AC bonus or not. I know you can cast spells in armor you're proficient in, but surely that's not the only benefit.
Either way, AC isn't meant to be very high in 5th edition. Even the Tarrasque has only an AC of 25, and that's higher than literally anything else, from what I can tell. Like, an Adult Red Dragon has an AC of 19. A standard goblin has a 15. An ogre has only 11 AC.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure if proficiency affects AC bonus or not. I know you can cast spells in armor you're proficient in, but surely that's not the only benefit.
Either way, AC isn't meant to be very high in 5th edition. Even the Tarrasque has only an AC of 25, and that's higher than literally anything else, from what I can tell. Like, an Adult Red Dragon has an AC of 19. A standard goblin has a 15. An ogre has only 11 AC.
So once you get to higher levels, people will be dishing out and soaking up more damage, more often?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
One last thing I would like to say about the 4th ed ranged Fighter is that he does have one advantage with the bow over a 2nd ed one: his ability to mark at a distance. He's not doling out 4th ed ranger-levels of hurt, but even on a miss he's actively laying cover fire and distracting the enemy with his Combat Challenge, which is more then one could say 'bout the 2nd ed fighter, who's ability to draw enemy fire and distract is entirely on the whim of the GM.
I've never seen a 4th ed fighter go without a proper ranged weapon for that very reason: even if you don't hit, you can still apply pressure until you do get within sword/axe/maul range, or at least within heavy throwing weapon range.
Still though, both games are entirely different beasts in how they approach HP and damage, as well as class concepts. The 4th ed fighter was very much made, initially anyways, to be the party's meat shield: he draws enemy fire, applies pressure and dissuades enemy actions. The 2nd ed fighter was very much the class you picked because you failed to roll the stats high enough for another class, so they gave it some damage bonuses.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
+1
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So Lair Actions and Legendary Actions are pretty cool things for monsters to have.
Please describe these things to me.
If you're fighting a monster with Lair Actions in its Lair, every turn, at Initiative 20 (i.e. players and monsters who roll higher than 20 take an action, then the Lair takes an action, and then all other players and monsters take their actions), a certain effect, depending on the Lair, takes place. For example, if you're fighting a Red Dragon in a volcanic Lair, perhaps every turn ash erupts from fissures in the ground, spreading noxious gas. Basically, if you engage a boss on his turf, he gets a power up.
If a monster has Legendary actions (so far most seem to get 3), it gets 3 points on each of its turns, which it can spend at the end of any other creature's turn. Different actions cost different amounts of points. For example, the same dragon could spend 1 Legendary action to make a Tail attack, or 2 Legendary actions to Flap its wings, taking flight and knocking all its enemies down with the impact of flapping its wings. Basically, the boss is always moving and dangerous.
So Lair Actions and Legendary Actions are pretty cool things for monsters to have.
Please describe these things to me.
Just extra powers for solos, basically. Lair Actions are only for solos that have a lair and are only usable if you fight them there.
From the Adult Red Dragon in the Basic Rules (it's the only thing in there with either feature):
Legendary Actions
The dragon can take 3 legendary actions, choosing from the options below. Only one legendary action option can be used at a time and only at the end of another creature’s turn. The dragon regains spent legendary actions at the start of its turn.
Detect. The dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check. Tail Attack. The dragon makes a tail attack. Wing Attack (Costs 2 Actions). The dragon beats its wings. Each creature within 10 feet of the dragon must succeed on a DC 22 Dexterity saving throw or take 15 (2d6 + 8) bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone. The dragon can then fly up to half its flying speed.
Lair Actions
On initiative count 20 (losing initiative ties), the dragon takes a lair action to cause one of the following effects; the dragon can’t use the same effect two rounds in a row:
Magma erupts from a point on the ground the dragon can see within 120 feet of it, creating a 20-foot-high, 5-foot-radius geyser. Each creature in the geyser’s area must make a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw, taking 21 (6d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
A tremor shakes the lair in a 60-foot radius around the dragon. Each creature other than the dragon on the ground in that area must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or be knocked prone.
Volcanic gases form a cloud in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on a point the dragon can see within 120 feet of it. The sphere spreads around corners, and its area is lightly obscured. It lasts until initiative count 20 on the next round. Each creature that starts its turn in the cloud must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of its turn. While poisoned in this way, a creature is incapacitated.
So Lair Actions and Legendary Actions are pretty cool things for monsters to have.
Please describe these things to me.
Some creatures are legendary creatures. They are the 5e equivalent to solo monsters.
Legendary creatures get extra actions called Legendary Actions. They get three of these per round. They can use them after any other creature's turn. Some Legendary Actions "cost" more than others. For example, an ancient red dragon can either use all three Legendary Actions on claw attacks, or spend one on claw attacks and two on a substantially more powerful wing attack. This is an obvious case of unclear terminology that should have been improved prior to publication -- perhaps by introducing the concept of action points -- but what can you do, 5e is amateur hour.
If you fight a legendary creature in its lair, they can use Lair Actions. On initiative count 20, legendary creatures can use the terrain to create environmental hazards for enemies.
You can see the concept clearly in this sphinx's stat block:
So Lair Actions and Legendary Actions are pretty cool things for monsters to have.
Please describe these things to me.
If you're fighting a monster with Lair Actions in its Lair, every turn, at Initiative 20 (i.e. players and monsters who roll higher than 20 take an action, then the Lair takes an action, and then all other players and monsters take their actions), a certain effect, depending on the Lair, takes place. For example, if you're fighting a Red Dragon in a volcanic Lair, perhaps every turn ash erupts from fissures in the ground, spreading noxious gas. Basically, if you engage a boss on his turf, he gets a power up.
If a monster has Legendary actions (so far most seem to get 3), it gets 3 points on each of its turns, which it can spend at the end of any other creature's turn. Different actions cost different amounts of points. For example, the same dragon could spend 1 Legendary action to make a Tail attack, or 2 Legendary actions to Flap its wings, taking flight and knocking all its enemies down with the impact of flapping its wings. Basically, the boss is always moving and dangerous.
It sounds much like a slightly rejiggered solo boss concept as far as Legendary goes, and putting terrain power-type effects into the monster block. I find this . . . interesting.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Oh man, compare the Sphinx and the Ancient Red Dragon.
One can use a free action to turn your PC into a literal baby. The other can do some damage or maybe knock you prone.
Guess which one is the higher level monster.
Don't play 5th edition D&D if you have a dickbag DM that is for goddamn sure.
FTFY
Then again, the same is true of all editions; however, there was less overt asshole room within the rules of 4th edition. I.E. if the DM was going to be an asshole, they'd know it, and most likely you'd know it. That monster could be used by the unwary and they'd be labeled a horrible DM when in fact the rules were what sank them.
Kalnaur on
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited August 2014
The androsphinx is a lawful neutral superbeing that, according to the fluff, will guard ancient holy places. They prefer to test heroes with magical riddles n' shit. Basically, reading between the lines here, if you actually end up fighting one, you done goofed.
It's really dangerous in the hands of shitty DMs. But possibly awesome if you have a cool DM. Iconic.jpg
Hachface on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Also regardless of what you think of the specific implementation of Lair Actions with regard to the androsphinx, the concept itself is certainly good.
I was going to ask if these were instead of the long lists of spells these guys got in earlier editions, but I gather that's not the case from that Sphinx statblock.
It's a neat idea, for sure. Lair stuff seems like an extension of the terrain power stuff from 4E, but specifically in the context of a single monster. The Legendary Action stuff seems a little clunky, but it will definitely make solo monsters tougher.
Making "the Sphinx sends you to the future" a property of it's lair rather than a standalone plot hook, I'm not sure how I feel about that. It'll show new DMs that things like that are an option, but it could just as easily be a sidebar in the DMG (which it might be) that it's sometimes more fun to treat whacky monsters as challenges or plot-movers rather than bags of XP.
Posts
I don't know if you've ever owned a cat, but it is impossible to catch those critters if they don't want to be caught.
But I've never been in a Thunderdome situation where it was either die or kill either Spira or Jagger. At best it was lazy attempts to get them to come back inside.
I think we need to do both. We need to compare it to just itself and "score" it based on that, but then also add in what came before and assess the game throughout the various editions. Being able to assess things in such a manner allows us to consider what a piece of media (in this case a game) was meant to be, as well as what it is, and what it is in relation to other similar media.
I argue with the notion that nostalgia should not be used to make game mechanics; one of my favorite things in Dragon Quest VIII was searching through cabinets and bags like the old games, but with a bit of animation to it. I totally get the desire to have mechanics that remind me of Legend of Zelda, or Metroid, for example.
I will highlight one other thing; you seem to be calling high lethality a bad mechanic. In Desktop Dungeons (a game wherein you rogue-like your way around a dungeon) or Spelunky (deadly cave exploration) or Dark Souls, high lethality is the name of the game. now I know these are video games, so regeneration and getting back in the game are much quicker, but the point should stand that as a game mechanic in and of itself, high lethality can be either fun, or just not impeding enough to hurt. If, however, you have a character lovingly crafted by hand or by character builder that you made over several hours only to have it die within the first 5 minutes of game time, with no chance of recovery, then yes, it's a not fun. But it's not specifically a bad mechanic. If for example making a character took all of 10 minutes, I could see high lethality as fine.
It's not the mechanic that is bad, but the placement of the mechanic in a game that make it bad or good. I know that's picking an awful nit, but the placement is everything; a smaller cog in place of a larger cog in a machine is not the right fit, but placed in another machine it might do just fine.
This is not to say I think it does or does not belong in a pen & paper game, and within at least what I've played of pen & paper games I'd find it unwelcome, but I can think of games such as Gamma World (the more recent one) where at least on paper a higher lethality makes sense, and that's at least quasi-p&p.
I think there's a serious flaw in the design here: cats faced with larger opponents are grapplers; they grab on with the front paws then scratch away with the back legs. I think this needs to be worked into the mechanics somehow. Is there not a bonus to hit, or at least a loss of agility bonuses to AC when grappled?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Fuck playing as an enlightened housecat.
If the party wants me to go into the caves to fight kobolds they are going to have to shake keys in front of me or leave a trail of kitty snacks!
The best part, of course, is that I can and will take at least one of them with me if they go off on adventure without me and I find out.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I don't know. When my brother's cat was a kitten, it would always pounce right at my achillies tendon. Which, I'm pretty sure, is the only realistic way for a kitten to have any chance of eating a 6'4" man.
I guess I'm trying to say that I find 3.0's cat rules are pretty sound.
[edit]
Scratch that. I just remembered that the only iconic way for a cat to incapacitate a human without knocking that human unconscious would be if that cat was a spell caster. I have never known Dora to sleep then study spell books after every encounter with a bird so that's ruled out.
I retract my objection.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
And don't forget the classes in 4E that had similar mechanic. Channel Divinity spells, for instance. Or later classes getting multiple Daily powers at each tier, but you could only use one from that tier per day.
So, it's not really new. But I do think it's the correct way to implement spells, so it's good to see they decided to go in that direction.
Make a Fighter who can use a two-handed weapon and a bow equally. Meaning, equally good (and high) Str and Dex scores, and presumably light armor to take advantage of the Dex mod. Switch between them as the tactical situation dictates.
You can't. Not with it making any lick of sense.
First of all, not a single race (apart from Human) has a bonus to Str and Dex at the same time. It's like that was a concept the design team just didn't entertain at all. So if you want a 16 Str and a 16 Dex, you need to be a Human and you need to use Point Buy. Note that you can't outright buy a 16, either.
If you keep the +1 to all stats option (which seems far weaker than the alternate option which gets you a skill and a feat) then your best array is something like 16/16/14/10/11/10 after racial modifiers. Unfortunately, as further proof that it doesn't seem to have occurred to the designers that someone might do this, there's literally no reason to wear Light (or Medium) armor (even with a +3 Dex modifier) if you have the Str for Heavy (Chain Mail) Armor, unless you need to be sneaky.
If you use the alternate Human option, your best bet is probably Heavy Armor Master for a total of 16/16/14/9/10/9, and you wear Chain Mail and have the Resist 3 to all types of weapon damage. This is not a bad call for a Fighter, but it seems sad to have that kind of Dex and not be wearing Light armor.
Meanwhile, mechanically the very concept is impaired as there's no clean way to swap back and forth between a two-hander and a bow. You can stow or draw a weapon as part of either your Move or your Action, but not both.
I do appreciate that all of the Battle Master maneuvers (with a single exception) are usable with either a ranged or melee weapon. That's some nice versatility. I just fucking wish you could actually make a PC that uses that versatility. I super wish that I could make a Human that picks up the Battle Master feat instead of the ability score band-aid that Heavy Armor Master winds up being.
I haven't seen any monster math or combat yet. Is a 14 primary score sufficient to make weapon attacks with, or do you really want a 16? If a 14's +2 is fine when combined with the Proficiency +2, then I'll be super happy with an array like 14/14/14/12/12/12 (including Heavy Armor Master)
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
And yeah, they definitely don't want you having two +3s from level 1 without seriously penalizing yourself elsewhere.
4E Essentials Slayer, probably
Ironically if I were playing a druid I could execute this concept super easily thanks to the spell Shillelagh. So a caster is more capable of this style of fighting than any of the melee or ranged classes are. Imagine my surprise.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
So a half orc could do 16, 14, 16 10 10 8. And basically it's +4 to hit wit ranged +5 for melee. With bounded accuracy, it's not like you're way behind.
Dex Barbarian.
If it hasn't changed too much from the playtest, and I can remember everything correctly, you can make a Barbarian who ditches Str and puts all of their points into Dex, and then take the totem path with the Hawk totem I think. You can then use your rage on Dex attacks, and also use Dex instead of Str on all melee attacks eventually.
As well as being able to jump 60 feet or so (which is hilarious).
You just can't multiclass now until you satisfy the Str requirement of the Barbarian.
And there's the inherent trade-off of not being as damaging as a regular Barbarian because you're speccing into a high powered ranged thing as well, but that's not so bad. Especially if you want to survive level 1 and 2.
As opposed to regular Str meleers, where to get through level 1 and 2 you wind up just being rubbish at range to avoid dying.
Every first level Fighter from 2E back had exactly the same ranged capabilities as melee ones, since there wasn't really any way to get better at those things until 4th level. Their abilities were entirely informed by attributes, so if they had high Dex and high Str they were equally good at sword and bow.
In third edition, you could pick feats that either didn't effect either (which was obviously the less satisfying option) like Toughness (which was admittedly crap, but could help in the very very early game) or Dodge. Hell, Dodge + Mobility into Shot on the Run and Spring Attack made for a very versatile combatant who just wasn't particularly good at anything besides giving up iterative attacks.
In 4E, being able to go either melee or ranged was a little harder, but both the Rogue and the Ranger pulled it off. And as a Fighter you could do the Slayer thing and get +Dex to all damage rolls, though that wasn't until nearly the end of the game's life cycle.
The problem is, and I think this might have been more of your point, this is a game that favors specialization over generalization. Unless you're a spell caster. If you're a dude with class abilities that orbit around weapon choice, trying to do too much is a surefire way to make sure you don't do anything well.
I don't like it. Mostly because increased versatility means increased power when your options are as powerful as spells. Making this sort of "planned spontaneous casting" one more way that casters are massively better than everyone else.
The way it breaks down, if I have (and I'm just making up numbers here) 5 1st level spell slots and can cast a total of 3 spells per day, I'm going to prep one spell that kills things (doing the Fighter's job), one spell that senses/bypasses traps and locks (the Rogue's job), etc. Then just use them as needed. 100% lockdown spell prep was bullshit, but at least you had to kind of decide which non-caster you were going to make obsolete at the start of the day rather than switching stances from "Fighter Replacement" to "Ranger Replacement" instantly when needed.
Having better access to memorized spells makes casters stronger in ways that are incredibly unattractive to me as a DM and a guy who plays non-Wizards on the rare occasion he gets a chance.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
With later material you just hybrid and don't think much else about it. One hilarious combo could be a Prescient Bard / Avenger.
But a quick glance from a new player could miss that fairly easily. Just like, I suppose, a lot of the possibilities in 5E for interesting character builds might still be hidden from people making a casual read of the rules. It seems less likely in this case, though, given that any given non-caster has a much smaller set of options to choose from.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If they took proficiency with the bow and sword that is....
This is the one thing that I've seen that I will freely admit triggers my latent gronardism. Wizards, SPONTANEOUSLY casting spells? Fucking heresy. You want to be Mr Big Man Spellcaster you'd best be prepared to spend hours pouring over your spell list for an optimal distribution!
Anything else is clearly way too videogamey.
Specializing in two-handed and ranged takes work in pretty much every edition, just like any other merger of two distinct specialization paths.
The warlord in my online group on roll20 doesn't have any issues with doing melee or ranged, as the situation requires. She carries a spear and a longbow, and swaps back and forth between stabbing and shooting usually to help provide a flank for one of the other melee, or to stay out of the AoE of our Sorcerer. Early on in 4e, it took picking the melee/ranged combo attacks of the ranger to make a melee/ranged character that could go back and forth, but with all of the stuff that's available for 4e currently, there's plenty of "weapon based" class builds that give you the option of splitting your range up like that and not really suffering for doing so. Fighters have a couple ways with feat support to do it (slayers, and also multiclassing for ranged related features), rogues have it built in as class feature options, rangers have builds specifically for 2h/ranged combat, warlords have ranged options that give them their str to ranged attacks instead of dex. And I'm sure there's other builds/classes that I'm forgetting.
But anyways, without getting off onto a tangent, yes, it is simple to build a 4e character that is just as effective at facestabbing as rangedstabbing, even with restricting content to the original PHB.
R*SC: BladeCruiser
Check out my GTAV-PC custom race tracks inspired by real life racing circuits!
Edit: Here's my statblock, after much hand-wringing;
Human Fighter 1, Soldier
16 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 08 Intelligence, 10 Wisdom, 10 Charisma
HP: 14 AC: 17 Initiative: +3 Speed: 30
Trained: Athletics, History, Animal Handling, Intimidation
Equipment: Chainmail, Maul, Longbow
Feat: Heavy Armor Master
Attacks:
Maul: +5 / 2d6+3 Bludgeoning
Longbow: +5 / 1d8+3 Piercing
Special:
Reduce Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage taken from non-magical weapons by 3.
I'm not happy about the 10 Wisdom, but everything else is satisfactory. At level 3 I'll take the Battle Master feature and pick up three maneuvers, and at level 4 I might take the feat that gives me two more.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
I suppose you could acquire Plate Armor. But I don't think AC scales at all, unless they introduce increasing grades of magic armor (+1/+2/etc.)
Either way, AC isn't meant to be very high in 5th edition. Even the Tarrasque has only an AC of 25, and that's higher than literally anything else, from what I can tell. Like, an Adult Red Dragon has an AC of 19. A standard goblin has a 15. An ogre has only 11 AC.
So once you get to higher levels, people will be dishing out and soaking up more damage, more often?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I've never seen a 4th ed fighter go without a proper ranged weapon for that very reason: even if you don't hit, you can still apply pressure until you do get within sword/axe/maul range, or at least within heavy throwing weapon range.
Still though, both games are entirely different beasts in how they approach HP and damage, as well as class concepts. The 4th ed fighter was very much made, initially anyways, to be the party's meat shield: he draws enemy fire, applies pressure and dissuades enemy actions. The 2nd ed fighter was very much the class you picked because you failed to roll the stats high enough for another class, so they gave it some damage bonuses.
If you're fighting a monster with Lair Actions in its Lair, every turn, at Initiative 20 (i.e. players and monsters who roll higher than 20 take an action, then the Lair takes an action, and then all other players and monsters take their actions), a certain effect, depending on the Lair, takes place. For example, if you're fighting a Red Dragon in a volcanic Lair, perhaps every turn ash erupts from fissures in the ground, spreading noxious gas. Basically, if you engage a boss on his turf, he gets a power up.
If a monster has Legendary actions (so far most seem to get 3), it gets 3 points on each of its turns, which it can spend at the end of any other creature's turn. Different actions cost different amounts of points. For example, the same dragon could spend 1 Legendary action to make a Tail attack, or 2 Legendary actions to Flap its wings, taking flight and knocking all its enemies down with the impact of flapping its wings. Basically, the boss is always moving and dangerous.
Just extra powers for solos, basically. Lair Actions are only for solos that have a lair and are only usable if you fight them there.
From the Adult Red Dragon in the Basic Rules (it's the only thing in there with either feature):
Legendary Actions
The dragon can take 3 legendary actions, choosing from the options below. Only one legendary action option can be used at a time and only at the end of another creature’s turn. The dragon regains spent legendary actions at the start of its turn.
Detect. The dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Tail Attack. The dragon makes a tail attack.
Wing Attack (Costs 2 Actions). The dragon beats its wings. Each creature within 10 feet of the dragon must succeed on a DC 22 Dexterity saving throw or take 15 (2d6 + 8) bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone. The dragon can then fly up to half its flying speed.
Lair Actions
On initiative count 20 (losing initiative ties), the dragon takes a lair action to cause one of the following effects; the dragon can’t use the same effect two rounds in a row:
Some creatures are legendary creatures. They are the 5e equivalent to solo monsters.
Legendary creatures get extra actions called Legendary Actions. They get three of these per round. They can use them after any other creature's turn. Some Legendary Actions "cost" more than others. For example, an ancient red dragon can either use all three Legendary Actions on claw attacks, or spend one on claw attacks and two on a substantially more powerful wing attack. This is an obvious case of unclear terminology that should have been improved prior to publication -- perhaps by introducing the concept of action points -- but what can you do, 5e is amateur hour.
If you fight a legendary creature in its lair, they can use Lair Actions. On initiative count 20, legendary creatures can use the terrain to create environmental hazards for enemies.
You can see the concept clearly in this sphinx's stat block:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6wpfcim8ufmrit/[5e]Sphinx MM preview.pdf?dl=0
Edit: A more straightforward and less time-wacky example from the red dragon:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyjy4ksd7tpn1oi/[5e]Ancient Red Dragon MM preview.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4j1lhb6sl20b5ga/[5e]Red Dragon continued MM preview.jpg?dl=0
One can use a free action to turn your PC into a literal baby. The other can do some damage or maybe knock you prone.
Guess which one is the higher level monster.
It sounds much like a slightly rejiggered solo boss concept as far as Legendary goes, and putting terrain power-type effects into the monster block. I find this . . . interesting.
Don't fight a sphinx in its lair if you have a dickbag DM that is for goddamn sure.
That said...
my mind is already spinning with adventure possibilities involving these powers.
Do you ever feel like some things are written just to see if anyone at a certain place of business is paying attention?
FTFY
Then again, the same is true of all editions; however, there was less overt asshole room within the rules of 4th edition. I.E. if the DM was going to be an asshole, they'd know it, and most likely you'd know it. That monster could be used by the unwary and they'd be labeled a horrible DM when in fact the rules were what sank them.
It's really dangerous in the hands of shitty DMs. But possibly awesome if you have a cool DM. Iconic.jpg
It's a neat idea, for sure. Lair stuff seems like an extension of the terrain power stuff from 4E, but specifically in the context of a single monster. The Legendary Action stuff seems a little clunky, but it will definitely make solo monsters tougher.
Making "the Sphinx sends you to the future" a property of it's lair rather than a standalone plot hook, I'm not sure how I feel about that. It'll show new DMs that things like that are an option, but it could just as easily be a sidebar in the DMG (which it might be) that it's sometimes more fun to treat whacky monsters as challenges or plot-movers rather than bags of XP.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.