How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
It's not made as explicit as it was in past editions, where you had straight-up defined DCs for recalling specific pieces of monster information, but in all the games I've played this has been a core function of the knowledge skills and one of the major reasons to bother training them.
Also, I feel like you probably shouldn't be explicitly telling your players, "Hey, he's resisting fire/lightning/non-magical weapons." Just flavor-tell them.
"OK, it's the monster's turn. He doesn't seem very concerned by <insert name of player wielding non-magical weapon>, even though he's closer. He turns to <insert name of player using magic> and charges."
This reintroduces the low-grade puzzle element people are talking about -- let your players figure things out from context clues. Does the monster hate elves/wizards/whatever? Is the wizard standing near something important that the monster is trying to defend? Is the GM randomly selecting targets?
One of the problems with this approach is that unless you're customizing your monsters - in which case why not do something cooler than resistance - or playing with an entire table of completely new players, resistances are likely to be known by the players simply because of the monster type. Unless it's the very first time that anyone at the table has ever fought an Iron Golem, the players are going to know it's immune to fire damage whether you tell them or not. They're going to know ghosts are resistant to nonmagical damage unless it's basically everyone's first time playing DnD at all. A lot of the things that still have resistances have them specifically because the resistance is a well-known, 'iconic' feature of the monster.
There's also not much space between 'telling players what's happening' and 'not giving them enough information to know what's going on'; if you tell them an attack that hit 'isn't very effective' or 'doesn't seem to bother him as much as it should' or whatever, you are very clearly telling them the damage was resisted, because they know they didn't miss. On the flip side, if you don't make it clear the monster was still injured they'll think he's outright immune, and if you don't make it clear he was injured less than normal, they're going to think you're trying to point them to something other than damage. Being coy with the thematic exposition about a monster resistance is going to hold up for about five seconds while you finish saying "the demon doesn't seem fazed by the hit; you cut him, but his skin is tough and the wound isn't deep" before all the players go "oh, damage resistance" and the mystery is concluded.
I maintain my stance that resistances are shitty and should not exist. Full stop.
Like okay, you've solved my Bone Puzzle and figured out that skeletons are made of bones. As your reward you get to... do the normal amount of damage. Congratulations.
I maintain my stance that resistances are shitty and should not exist. Full stop.
Like okay, you've solved my Bone Puzzle and figured out that skeletons are made of bones. As your reward you get to... do the normal amount of damage. Congratulations.
I maintain my stance that resistances are shitty and should not exist. Full stop.
Like okay, you've solved my Bone Puzzle and figured out that skeletons are made of bones. As your reward you get to... do the normal amount of damage. Congratulations.
And count yourselves lucky! That's only like the third-worst reward people have gotten for solving my Bone Puzzle.
I maintain my stance that resistances are shitty and should not exist. Full stop.
Like okay, you've solved my Bone Puzzle and figured out that skeletons are made of bones. As your reward you get to... do the normal amount of damage. Congratulations.
How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
I really dislike those except using passive scores. The vast majority of monster information players should know because they're not morons and have indeed grown up a world full of books and tales and knowledge.
After they have seen an effect they need no checks; its resistant to fire, you know because you just saw it be resistant to fire.
How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
I really dislike those except using passive scores. The vast majority of monster information players should know because they're not morons and have indeed grown up a world full of books and tales and knowledge.
After they have seen an effect they need no checks; its resistant to fire, you know because you just saw it be resistant to fire.
Depends on the character really and also the obscurity of the monster imho; Like, knowing that red dragons breathe fire is just common sense. Knowing nature of Slaads is another all together since they're a wierd extra planar race.
Also, many of the characters backgrounds wouldn't actually entail that much "book learning"; criminal, urchin, soldier, sailor and outlander wouldn't generally have much schooling on the subject of demonology.
How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
I really dislike those except using passive scores. The vast majority of monster information players should know because they're not morons and have indeed grown up a world full of books and tales and knowledge.
After they have seen an effect they need no checks; its resistant to fire, you know because you just saw it be resistant to fire.
Depends on the character really and also the obscurity of the monster imho; Like, knowing that red dragons breathe fire is just common sense. Knowing nature of Slaads is another all together since they're a wierd extra planar race.
Also, many of the characters backgrounds wouldn't actually entail that much "book learning"; criminal, urchin, soldier, sailor and outlander wouldn't generally have much schooling on the subject of demonology.
You know what I have no schooling on? Demonology. You know what i know about demons? Loads.
Why? Well because i grew up in a world steeped in a history of tales about demons. Because people told me stories over a campfire... Because popular culture is rife with stories about what demons do no one is surprised by finding the devil at the crossroads.
Criminals, urchins, soldiers, sailors, and outlanders all have grandma's and friends and they see and hear and collect the information of their age. This information is unlikely to be significantly wrong, it is, after all, passed down by people who have collected and lived in this world. Don't touch those plants they're poison ivy; check bridges for trolls but if you do fight make sure you have fire or acid.
Sure, some things will be relatively obscure, but the vast majority will not. Hence passive checks rather than rolls.
0
Options
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
I generally just let players know the basics about a monster if they're proficient/trained in the relative stat.
If someone isn't trained in Religion, they ain't knowing shit about undead other than 'maybe chop a zombie's head off?' until they've encountered and fought such an enemy, y'know?
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
+2
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I used to give players a free Monster Knowledge check if they wanted to take one back in the 4e days.
PbP is weird since like, it just makes things go much smoother if you list stats out right away. If you're doing the whole "you don't know exact mechanical details unless you have a specific feat that does such" in a real-time game, it wouldn't be as bad.
Memoirs of a Facepalming GM: Part 2 – A Ranger and Druid walk into a town…
So with two games out of the way followed by some character and tactic refinement during the week we entered into the third session. They’d made their way out of the dungeon with 3 Lost Vik… Dwarves who asked for the party’s help in escorting them to the nearest town: they’d been separated from their convoy and lost in the dungeon and promised that they’d receive compensation there. The Ranger volunteered to scout out in front of the party, a tactic that I wholly support. I’m a “let the best guy roll for the party” sort of DM so having a Ranger with high stealth skills try to find enemies and either route around them or ambush them is exactly how I want them to play. The druid also wanted to participate shapeshifting into a large cat. Again, I’m happy with this cooperative play, unfortunately the Ranger wasn’t. He and the druid start arguing comparing stealth bonuses and movement speeds and other class abilities until I intercede and try to figure out what the player's resistance is.
“Oh, I’m fine with it.” Says the player, “But my character doesn’t trust her: she’s been acting really aloof and suspicious.” This is true in a way; we’re working on the druid player’s IRL social skills: she can be as dense as Sheldon in many respects. But regardless I come back with “So you were happy to let the ‘suspicious druid’ in giant spider form wrap you in spider silk and carry you up that vertical shaft, but you draw the line at having her help you scout?” I’m gaining awareness at this point that the kid just really wants to shine a few times each session, and I’m all about spotlighting, but I’d later explain to him offline about sharing that spotlight when it makes sense. Regardless he eventually relents (especially after our Orc Fighter starts bellowing “Get on with it!”), but that’s hardly the end of their bickering. They come across a kobold camp and the Ranger instructs the Druid to run back to the others and inform them. The Druid is a large cat at this point and would need to short rest to regain the ability to shape-change again. So the player tries to verbally pantomime her counter-argument which boils down to “I’m a freaking cat and I can’t talk.” The Ranger is having no part of this and adamantly continues to try to command her back towards the party, his reasoning being that someone needs to watch the camp to make sure it doesn’t move. The druid falls back on her favorite tactic of muted stubbornness. The player then says to her, and I quote, “I’m getting really frustrated with her, and I start screaming at her to go back to the party!”
“You start screaming at her?”
“Yes”
“20 paces away from the kobold camp you start screaming at the druid?”
“…Yes.”
I think everyone face-palmed at this point. The Fighter said nonchalantly, “Well, that’s the signal.” Earning her Inspiration for her really dry one-liners that I sincerely hope becomes a running gag. I’d like to point out before you judge the ranger too harshly that the rest of the players, the druid included, were all enjoying the constant back-and-forth. I tend towards serious games but it seems my players are much more light-hearted.
After a nice bout of combat to work out their tensions, they continued on toward their destination. Once getting there though the Ranger and Druid are at it again. This time though they want to cooperate. The Druid is worried that as a Teifling she’ll be viewed with suspicion (true) and be denied entry into town (false). So their plan now is for her to shapeshift into a wolf and be the Ranger’s pet. Cue facepalm.
“You think that you’re going to be allowed into town with a wild animal in tow?” I ask them. They both nod. “Roll Wisdom.” DC in this case is 1, I just like saying “roll Wisdom” to let the players know that they’re being dumb. They revise the plan: she’ll turn into a house-cat. I remind them that shape-shifting only lasts for an hour per cast. They shrug; that worry is for future Ranger and Druid to figure out. The other players get to do their thing for a bit but the druid is reaching her limit. She sneaks off to the stable to transform back, fails her perception check hard, and transforms back in full view of a stable-hand. The PCs didn’t know it yet, but this town is having some problems with a particularly nasty druid that wants to eradicate the town to allow the area to return to nature. My intention was for her to see covert signals that the druid used to communicate with his agents in town, arouse her suspicions and have her eventually find her way to the druid to confront him. Instead with her obvious shapeshifting things escalated quickly. One agent contacted her directly before the town guards could catch up with her and she scaled the walls to head out and meet with him. Of course, staying true to her lone-wolf character (pun-intended) she didn’t tell anyone else in the party where she was going or how long she’d be.
After following the agent from town she met up with the disgruntled Halfling druid. Now, a very important plot point is that all dwarves in my setting have been afflicted with The Curse of the Earth rendering any land they lay claim to barren. This is common knowledge in the setting, and something I explained to all the players during our character-creation session. I explained it again to this particular player as she was thinking of playing a dwarven druid (which would have been a really interesting choice with that limitation). Knowing it would come up, I made sure to work another review/explanation into the NPC dialogue that started the session. So when the Halfling Druid brought it up again as his reason for pruning the Dwarven settlement and the druid player starts asking about it like she’s never heard of it before… cue facepalm. Anyway awkward social interactions led to her practically fleeing the scene knowing that this halfling needed to be stopped but not knowing a thing about his plans or pausing long enough to realize this. I try, I really do, I had a monologue all queued up explaining the plan and everything but she cut me short with a kthxbye. I think the rest of the players were also facepalming at this point.
Despite not being informed of her plans the rest of the party was able to track her down (ranger shine moment!). I made her relate the scene to the players as I wanted to see how she had interpreted the meeting. She started with “So Halfling Hitler wants to eradicate the dwarves.” Naturally, the murder-hobos think the best course of action is to storm the druid’s hovel and kill him, thereby eliminating the threat. While I anticipated that a fight could happen, I didn’t count on the fact that they wouldn’t hear his plans, and with only 15 minutes left in our planned playtime I tactically ended it early and promoted them all to 3rd level to fill in the gap. Now I need to come up with a few back-up clues for this guy just in case they again refuse to let him monologue. See, his dastardly plan has already succeeded him: he’s given dragon eggs to a kobold led cult and those eggs will hatch (like tomorrow) and the ravenous hatchlings will all descend upon the town. If the PCs off this guy I have a suspicious feeling that they’ll figure they outsmarted me and quelled the threat. Though it might be fun to just have them flee the town as it’s being devoured, I think they’ll misunderstand what happened.
I wouldn’t call it babysitting exactly, but it does remind me of when I was a camp-councilor for boys & girls club…
Youngest is 20, oldest is 25. I'm not posting this for sympathy or advice (though if you've got ideas I'm happy to hear them). I just figured the thread would get a kick out of their antics.
How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
I really dislike those except using passive scores. The vast majority of monster information players should know because they're not morons and have indeed grown up a world full of books and tales and knowledge.
After they have seen an effect they need no checks; its resistant to fire, you know because you just saw it be resistant to fire.
Depends on the character really and also the obscurity of the monster imho; Like, knowing that red dragons breathe fire is just common sense. Knowing nature of Slaads is another all together since they're a wierd extra planar race.
Also, many of the characters backgrounds wouldn't actually entail that much "book learning"; criminal, urchin, soldier, sailor and outlander wouldn't generally have much schooling on the subject of demonology.
You know what I have no schooling on? Demonology. You know what i know about demons? Loads.
Why? Well because i grew up in a world steeped in a history of tales about demons. Because people told me stories over a campfire... Because popular culture is rife with stories about what demons do no one is surprised by finding the devil at the crossroads.
Criminals, urchins, soldiers, sailors, and outlanders all have grandma's and friends and they see and hear and collect the information of their age. This information is unlikely to be significantly wrong, it is, after all, passed down by people who have collected and lived in this world. Don't touch those plants they're poison ivy; check bridges for trolls but if you do fight make sure you have fire or acid.
Sure, some things will be relatively obscure, but the vast majority will not. Hence passive checks rather than rolls.
Which also means that your getting a lot of stories that basically boil down to things like broken mirrors are 7 years of bad luck (better roll up a new character!), Demons can't follow you if you go through a crossroads and vampires need to pick up mustard seeds if you drop them.
Hence why i have players roll since there is a lot of information out there and not all of it will be relevent or real.
While I like the idea of adding completely unique monster reactions to different damage types, that also requires a lot of play testing to make sure it's balanced and at that point, you may as well make your own monsters too. (Not that it's a bad thing, sometimes I do that also)
Resistance isn't a toggle that you either have or don't have the correct solution. Often times, the environment can hold the key. In your example the player going 'I don't have a magic weapon so I can't do anything about this' should actually be going, 'I don't have a magic weapon, I'll try pushing it into those explosive glowing runes on the ground we went around'
Adding explosive glowing runes is the same amount of balancing and prep work as saying the ghost gets a free counter attack when hit by a non magical weapon.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
While I like the idea of adding completely unique monster reactions to different damage types, that also requires a lot of play testing to make sure it's balanced and at that point, you may as well make your own monsters too. (Not that it's a bad thing, sometimes I do that also)
Resistance isn't a toggle that you either have or don't have the correct solution. Often times, the environment can hold the key. In your example the player going 'I don't have a magic weapon so I can't do anything about this' should actually be going, 'I don't have a magic weapon, I'll try pushing it into those explosive glowing runes on the ground we went around'
Adding explosive glowing runes is the same amount of balancing and prep work as saying the ghost gets a free counter attack when hit by a non magical weapon.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
The point I was trying to make is that if you take a combat encounter with resistances and add environmental ways to work around it, that's as much work as taking that same encounter and adding monster mechanics to dissuade those damage types. In both situations, the resistance is part of a bigger equation and is not used in a vacuum where your barbarian can't use his +2 magic greataxe and instead has to use his mundane club and feels useless for it. We're both talking about the same thing, here.
There is a world of difference between scripting out an alternative resolution and the players creatively finding an alternative resolution.
It's not about scripting out a resolution, it's about making sure that a minimum of one exists. Of course players can and do find solutions that even you haven't thought of, but it's also possible that there simply isn't any other solution if you don't put one in there. If you are putting in monsters with either resists or reactions, it's important to be sure of. Also, as I pointed out, it's really not extra work to do that, as often it's part of the environmental challenge already added to the map during design.
While I like the idea of adding completely unique monster reactions to different damage types, that also requires a lot of play testing to make sure it's balanced and at that point, you may as well make your own monsters too. (Not that it's a bad thing, sometimes I do that also)
Resistance isn't a toggle that you either have or don't have the correct solution. Often times, the environment can hold the key. In your example the player going 'I don't have a magic weapon so I can't do anything about this' should actually be going, 'I don't have a magic weapon, I'll try pushing it into those explosive glowing runes on the ground we went around'
Adding explosive glowing runes is the same amount of balancing and prep work as saying the ghost gets a free counter attack when hit by a non magical weapon.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
The point I was trying to make is that if you take a combat encounter with resistances and add environmental ways to work around it, that's as much work as taking that same encounter and adding monster mechanics to dissuade those damage types. In both situations, the resistance is part of a bigger equation and is not used in a vacuum where your barbarian can't use his +2 magic greataxe and instead has to use his mundane club and feels useless for it. We're both talking about the same thing, here.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think the key point here is that both resistances and monster mechanics are not solutions. They are simply sticks to beat the players into finding those alternate methods, the monster mechanic being a significantly larger stick because if you thought your warrior felt useless doing half damage, imagine how he is going to feel when he is chasing around the monster with his +2 greataxe stuck in the monsters back and he has nothing but the wizard giving him a troll face to protect him.
While I like the idea of adding completely unique monster reactions to different damage types, that also requires a lot of play testing to make sure it's balanced and at that point, you may as well make your own monsters too. (Not that it's a bad thing, sometimes I do that also)
Resistance isn't a toggle that you either have or don't have the correct solution. Often times, the environment can hold the key. In your example the player going 'I don't have a magic weapon so I can't do anything about this' should actually be going, 'I don't have a magic weapon, I'll try pushing it into those explosive glowing runes on the ground we went around'
Adding explosive glowing runes is the same amount of balancing and prep work as saying the ghost gets a free counter attack when hit by a non magical weapon.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
The point I was trying to make is that if you take a combat encounter with resistances and add environmental ways to work around it, that's as much work as taking that same encounter and adding monster mechanics to dissuade those damage types. In both situations, the resistance is part of a bigger equation and is not used in a vacuum where your barbarian can't use his +2 magic greataxe and instead has to use his mundane club and feels useless for it. We're both talking about the same thing, here.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think the key point here is that both resistances and monster mechanics are not solutions. They are simply sticks to beat the players into finding those alternate methods, the monster mechanic being a significantly larger stick because if you thought your warrior felt useless doing half damage, imagine how he is going to feel when he is chasing around the monster with his +2 greataxe stuck in the monsters back and he has nothing but the wizard giving him a troll face to protect him.
In fairness, my suggestion was to have a monster resistant to all damage until the source of their resistance was destroyed.
While I like the idea of adding completely unique monster reactions to different damage types, that also requires a lot of play testing to make sure it's balanced and at that point, you may as well make your own monsters too. (Not that it's a bad thing, sometimes I do that also)
Resistance isn't a toggle that you either have or don't have the correct solution. Often times, the environment can hold the key. In your example the player going 'I don't have a magic weapon so I can't do anything about this' should actually be going, 'I don't have a magic weapon, I'll try pushing it into those explosive glowing runes on the ground we went around'
Adding explosive glowing runes is the same amount of balancing and prep work as saying the ghost gets a free counter attack when hit by a non magical weapon.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
The point I was trying to make is that if you take a combat encounter with resistances and add environmental ways to work around it, that's as much work as taking that same encounter and adding monster mechanics to dissuade those damage types. In both situations, the resistance is part of a bigger equation and is not used in a vacuum where your barbarian can't use his +2 magic greataxe and instead has to use his mundane club and feels useless for it. We're both talking about the same thing, here.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think the key point here is that both resistances and monster mechanics are not solutions. They are simply sticks to beat the players into finding those alternate methods, the monster mechanic being a significantly larger stick because if you thought your warrior felt useless doing half damage, imagine how he is going to feel when he is chasing around the monster with his +2 greataxe stuck in the monsters back and he has nothing but the wizard giving him a troll face to protect him.
In fairness, my suggestion was to have a monster resistant to all damage until the source of their resistance was destroyed.
True, I like that suggestion. I just imagine you don't want every fight to be a Lich style fight of finding the phylactery.
I Don't like resistances on big-bosses, or one monster encounters. I do like resistances on multi-mob encounters, with the caveat that they don't all have that resistance, if only to mess up with my party's normal mode of operandi. I still don't like non-magical weapon resistance, that just feels like an HP buff, which I can't be bothered to track anyway. But fire resistance on a fire-elemental doesn't seem strange to me. though I do like the idea of having them do other shit instead of mitigating damage when hit with fire, if only to speed up the battle and make it more dramatic, I like that idea, imma steal it.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
One of the greatest things 4e did was realize how boring "I am now shit at my job" as a mechanic was and fixed it. I routinely use other mechanics than resistance/immunity at every opportunity except obvious thematic sense (eg Necrotic and undead).
Even then I have begun to change things to a more "Find the correct tactics method". They already do this in 5e with things like the Flesh golem, who is uniquely vulnerable to fire by getting disadvantages on attack rolls.
Woo! My DM's new team is up to where I'd played in Lost Mines so I get to join on Monday for the weekly game!
Actually going to be playing a new character, a half-orc Vengeance Paladin, adapting the Sailor/Pirate variant into a Raider background. It's going to be awesome. Probably a 2h great axe build, and just Smite all the things.
Might also end up starting Barb and getting a level of Paladin as the completion of my first session, depending on the level I'm starting at and if I roll well enough for stats to multiclass like that. That's pretty much a purely RP decision though and I'm not sure it'd work all that well mechanically.
After looking at the paladin spell list, I feel a bit confused. Virtually every single spell is tagged concentration, and all of the offensive options are trash compared to just Divine Smiting the slot away.
I can see using Hunter's Mark from the Vengeance list, but so much of the list just looks really underwhelming. The smite spells in particular just look terrible.
Well, keep in mind you can double up on them for extra burst damage. Put a smite on your weapon before hand, divine smite when you hit. If you get really lucky you crit and even a big bad blows up instantly. But yeah, for the most part I'd expect to only have something like bless up most of the time and burning the rest of the slots on divine smite.
I guess it's partly because Vengeance gets Hunter's Mark, which is much much better from a damage perspective. For big bads it's also competing with Mark of Enmity for that opening bonus action, and more than likely you aren't blowing a Divine Smite AND another spell slot in a single turn except in those kinds of cases.
I guess the status effects are also handy situationally, and some of them even rely on ability checks rather than saves which helps make up for the probably lower spell save DC I'll have. If you can get it to land in the first place, that is.
The nice thing about the Smite spells is that they're not burnt if you miss an attack, so you can keep trying for one. That being said, I feel Paladin spells are very focused towards utility. I did a Paladin/Bard for a one shot and that spells list ended up quite ridiculous.
The nice thing about the Smite spells is that they're not burnt if you miss an attack, so you can keep trying for one. That being said, I feel Paladin spells are very focused towards utility. I did a Paladin/Bard for a one shot and that spells list ended up quite ridiculous.
Neither is divine smite. The smite spells are just risk for more damage you're almost always better off smiting
The biggest problem with the Pally concentration spells is that no matter what sort of roll you are going for, the class is ultimately a front liner and as such much more vulnerable to concentration checks from sustained damage then most of your other casters.
Is the concentration check a save or just an ability check? I forget.
Dc 10 or dc half damage (whichever is larger) con save, your spell stops if you fail. This is for every hit so if a monster hits you 3 times you have to make 3 saves.
I.e. monster hits you for 8 dmg, you have to roll d20 + con modifier (+ profficiency if you have con save proficiency) >= 10.
Monster hits you for 30 damage, all that has to >= 15.
From damage it should be a save, iirc, cause you get prof bonus.
It's a save, yes. But you don't get a proficiency bonus unless you'v gotten it from a feat or something, because paladins don't get con save proficiency.
They also can't usually pump con past either 12 or 14, because they're str-primary and cha-secondary, so their con saves are pretty pitiful until they hit paladin 6 and get to start adding their cha bonus to them.
Paladins have a lot working against them as spellcasters.
Concentration overall feels like something that could have used a little more time in the oven. It's a little simple for something that is a huge part of playing a buffing-type character.
Concentration overall feels like something that could have used a little more time in the oven. It's a little simple for something that is a huge part of playing a buffing-type character.
The best thing about concentration imho, is that it makes players choose a buff as opposed to turtling up under a dozen of them (which was a major problem in 3rd).
Really, my biggest issue with it is there are a bunch of spells that function as instants (paladin smites and ranger arrow tricks) that count as concentration for no god damn reason as far as I can tell.
How do you feel about requiring a skill check from the players to tell them about the creature they're facing, like detailing resistances or powers?
Maybe giving them advantage on the roll if they can come up with a good reason why they'd be familiar with the particulars of the creature.
Just saying that, as a player, I'm not intimately familiar with the Monster Manual, but it seems logical that Seebor the Cleric may have come across a given beastie at some point in his travels and might remember it.
action -> arcana check!
I do this in my games. If gives my players a chance to, lightly, come up with RP reasons for knowing this stuff.
Posts
It's not made as explicit as it was in past editions, where you had straight-up defined DCs for recalling specific pieces of monster information, but in all the games I've played this has been a core function of the knowledge skills and one of the major reasons to bother training them.
One of the problems with this approach is that unless you're customizing your monsters - in which case why not do something cooler than resistance - or playing with an entire table of completely new players, resistances are likely to be known by the players simply because of the monster type. Unless it's the very first time that anyone at the table has ever fought an Iron Golem, the players are going to know it's immune to fire damage whether you tell them or not. They're going to know ghosts are resistant to nonmagical damage unless it's basically everyone's first time playing DnD at all. A lot of the things that still have resistances have them specifically because the resistance is a well-known, 'iconic' feature of the monster.
There's also not much space between 'telling players what's happening' and 'not giving them enough information to know what's going on'; if you tell them an attack that hit 'isn't very effective' or 'doesn't seem to bother him as much as it should' or whatever, you are very clearly telling them the damage was resisted, because they know they didn't miss. On the flip side, if you don't make it clear the monster was still injured they'll think he's outright immune, and if you don't make it clear he was injured less than normal, they're going to think you're trying to point them to something other than damage. Being coy with the thematic exposition about a monster resistance is going to hold up for about five seconds while you finish saying "the demon doesn't seem fazed by the hit; you cut him, but his skin is tough and the wound isn't deep" before all the players go "oh, damage resistance" and the mystery is concluded.
Like okay, you've solved my Bone Puzzle and figured out that skeletons are made of bones. As your reward you get to... do the normal amount of damage. Congratulations.
Full stop.
And count yourselves lucky! That's only like the third-worst reward people have gotten for solving my Bone Puzzle.
Don't be a shithead.
I really dislike those except using passive scores. The vast majority of monster information players should know because they're not morons and have indeed grown up a world full of books and tales and knowledge.
After they have seen an effect they need no checks; its resistant to fire, you know because you just saw it be resistant to fire.
Depends on the character really and also the obscurity of the monster imho; Like, knowing that red dragons breathe fire is just common sense. Knowing nature of Slaads is another all together since they're a wierd extra planar race.
Also, many of the characters backgrounds wouldn't actually entail that much "book learning"; criminal, urchin, soldier, sailor and outlander wouldn't generally have much schooling on the subject of demonology.
You know what I have no schooling on? Demonology. You know what i know about demons? Loads.
Why? Well because i grew up in a world steeped in a history of tales about demons. Because people told me stories over a campfire... Because popular culture is rife with stories about what demons do no one is surprised by finding the devil at the crossroads.
Criminals, urchins, soldiers, sailors, and outlanders all have grandma's and friends and they see and hear and collect the information of their age. This information is unlikely to be significantly wrong, it is, after all, passed down by people who have collected and lived in this world. Don't touch those plants they're poison ivy; check bridges for trolls but if you do fight make sure you have fire or acid.
Sure, some things will be relatively obscure, but the vast majority will not. Hence passive checks rather than rolls.
If someone isn't trained in Religion, they ain't knowing shit about undead other than 'maybe chop a zombie's head off?' until they've encountered and fought such an enemy, y'know?
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
PbP is weird since like, it just makes things go much smoother if you list stats out right away. If you're doing the whole "you don't know exact mechanical details unless you have a specific feat that does such" in a real-time game, it wouldn't be as bad.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
So with two games out of the way followed by some character and tactic refinement during the week we entered into the third session. They’d made their way out of the dungeon with 3 Lost Vik… Dwarves who asked for the party’s help in escorting them to the nearest town: they’d been separated from their convoy and lost in the dungeon and promised that they’d receive compensation there. The Ranger volunteered to scout out in front of the party, a tactic that I wholly support. I’m a “let the best guy roll for the party” sort of DM so having a Ranger with high stealth skills try to find enemies and either route around them or ambush them is exactly how I want them to play. The druid also wanted to participate shapeshifting into a large cat. Again, I’m happy with this cooperative play, unfortunately the Ranger wasn’t. He and the druid start arguing comparing stealth bonuses and movement speeds and other class abilities until I intercede and try to figure out what the player's resistance is.
“Oh, I’m fine with it.” Says the player, “But my character doesn’t trust her: she’s been acting really aloof and suspicious.” This is true in a way; we’re working on the druid player’s IRL social skills: she can be as dense as Sheldon in many respects. But regardless I come back with “So you were happy to let the ‘suspicious druid’ in giant spider form wrap you in spider silk and carry you up that vertical shaft, but you draw the line at having her help you scout?” I’m gaining awareness at this point that the kid just really wants to shine a few times each session, and I’m all about spotlighting, but I’d later explain to him offline about sharing that spotlight when it makes sense. Regardless he eventually relents (especially after our Orc Fighter starts bellowing “Get on with it!”), but that’s hardly the end of their bickering. They come across a kobold camp and the Ranger instructs the Druid to run back to the others and inform them. The Druid is a large cat at this point and would need to short rest to regain the ability to shape-change again. So the player tries to verbally pantomime her counter-argument which boils down to “I’m a freaking cat and I can’t talk.” The Ranger is having no part of this and adamantly continues to try to command her back towards the party, his reasoning being that someone needs to watch the camp to make sure it doesn’t move. The druid falls back on her favorite tactic of muted stubbornness. The player then says to her, and I quote, “I’m getting really frustrated with her, and I start screaming at her to go back to the party!”
“You start screaming at her?”
“Yes”
“20 paces away from the kobold camp you start screaming at the druid?”
“…Yes.”
I think everyone face-palmed at this point. The Fighter said nonchalantly, “Well, that’s the signal.” Earning her Inspiration for her really dry one-liners that I sincerely hope becomes a running gag. I’d like to point out before you judge the ranger too harshly that the rest of the players, the druid included, were all enjoying the constant back-and-forth. I tend towards serious games but it seems my players are much more light-hearted.
After a nice bout of combat to work out their tensions, they continued on toward their destination. Once getting there though the Ranger and Druid are at it again. This time though they want to cooperate. The Druid is worried that as a Teifling she’ll be viewed with suspicion (true) and be denied entry into town (false). So their plan now is for her to shapeshift into a wolf and be the Ranger’s pet. Cue facepalm.
“You think that you’re going to be allowed into town with a wild animal in tow?” I ask them. They both nod. “Roll Wisdom.” DC in this case is 1, I just like saying “roll Wisdom” to let the players know that they’re being dumb. They revise the plan: she’ll turn into a house-cat. I remind them that shape-shifting only lasts for an hour per cast. They shrug; that worry is for future Ranger and Druid to figure out. The other players get to do their thing for a bit but the druid is reaching her limit. She sneaks off to the stable to transform back, fails her perception check hard, and transforms back in full view of a stable-hand. The PCs didn’t know it yet, but this town is having some problems with a particularly nasty druid that wants to eradicate the town to allow the area to return to nature. My intention was for her to see covert signals that the druid used to communicate with his agents in town, arouse her suspicions and have her eventually find her way to the druid to confront him. Instead with her obvious shapeshifting things escalated quickly. One agent contacted her directly before the town guards could catch up with her and she scaled the walls to head out and meet with him. Of course, staying true to her lone-wolf character (pun-intended) she didn’t tell anyone else in the party where she was going or how long she’d be.
After following the agent from town she met up with the disgruntled Halfling druid. Now, a very important plot point is that all dwarves in my setting have been afflicted with The Curse of the Earth rendering any land they lay claim to barren. This is common knowledge in the setting, and something I explained to all the players during our character-creation session. I explained it again to this particular player as she was thinking of playing a dwarven druid (which would have been a really interesting choice with that limitation). Knowing it would come up, I made sure to work another review/explanation into the NPC dialogue that started the session. So when the Halfling Druid brought it up again as his reason for pruning the Dwarven settlement and the druid player starts asking about it like she’s never heard of it before… cue facepalm. Anyway awkward social interactions led to her practically fleeing the scene knowing that this halfling needed to be stopped but not knowing a thing about his plans or pausing long enough to realize this. I try, I really do, I had a monologue all queued up explaining the plan and everything but she cut me short with a kthxbye. I think the rest of the players were also facepalming at this point.
Despite not being informed of her plans the rest of the party was able to track her down (ranger shine moment!). I made her relate the scene to the players as I wanted to see how she had interpreted the meeting. She started with “So Halfling Hitler wants to eradicate the dwarves.” Naturally, the murder-hobos think the best course of action is to storm the druid’s hovel and kill him, thereby eliminating the threat. While I anticipated that a fight could happen, I didn’t count on the fact that they wouldn’t hear his plans, and with only 15 minutes left in our planned playtime I tactically ended it early and promoted them all to 3rd level to fill in the gap. Now I need to come up with a few back-up clues for this guy just in case they again refuse to let him monologue. See, his dastardly plan has already succeeded him: he’s given dragon eggs to a kobold led cult and those eggs will hatch (like tomorrow) and the ravenous hatchlings will all descend upon the town. If the PCs off this guy I have a suspicious feeling that they’ll figure they outsmarted me and quelled the threat. Though it might be fun to just have them flee the town as it’s being devoured, I think they’ll misunderstand what happened.
I wouldn’t call it babysitting exactly, but it does remind me of when I was a camp-councilor for boys & girls club…
Which also means that your getting a lot of stories that basically boil down to things like broken mirrors are 7 years of bad luck (better roll up a new character!), Demons can't follow you if you go through a crossroads and vampires need to pick up mustard seeds if you drop them.
Hence why i have players roll since there is a lot of information out there and not all of it will be relevent or real.
Well, you are half right... If you don't plan on putting any other options for fighting the encounter other then the straight up beatdown.
Personally I always like to give the players the option for an alternate method of beating the encounter, regardless if they take it or not, so that balancing and prep is already built into every single fight.
If I then wanted to also add the unique monster reactions that effectively doubles the work, or even more then that since it also has to take into account alternate methods. (and unlike the alternate methods, you can't add just the reactions, either you have both or you are back to the original problem of feeling gimped)
There is a world of difference between scripting out an alternative resolution and the players creatively finding an alternative resolution.
The point I was trying to make is that if you take a combat encounter with resistances and add environmental ways to work around it, that's as much work as taking that same encounter and adding monster mechanics to dissuade those damage types. In both situations, the resistance is part of a bigger equation and is not used in a vacuum where your barbarian can't use his +2 magic greataxe and instead has to use his mundane club and feels useless for it. We're both talking about the same thing, here.
It's not about scripting out a resolution, it's about making sure that a minimum of one exists. Of course players can and do find solutions that even you haven't thought of, but it's also possible that there simply isn't any other solution if you don't put one in there. If you are putting in monsters with either resists or reactions, it's important to be sure of. Also, as I pointed out, it's really not extra work to do that, as often it's part of the environmental challenge already added to the map during design.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think the key point here is that both resistances and monster mechanics are not solutions. They are simply sticks to beat the players into finding those alternate methods, the monster mechanic being a significantly larger stick because if you thought your warrior felt useless doing half damage, imagine how he is going to feel when he is chasing around the monster with his +2 greataxe stuck in the monsters back and he has nothing but the wizard giving him a troll face to protect him.
In fairness, my suggestion was to have a monster resistant to all damage until the source of their resistance was destroyed.
True, I like that suggestion. I just imagine you don't want every fight to be a Lich style fight of finding the phylactery.
Even then I have begun to change things to a more "Find the correct tactics method". They already do this in 5e with things like the Flesh golem, who is uniquely vulnerable to fire by getting disadvantages on attack rolls.
Actually going to be playing a new character, a half-orc Vengeance Paladin, adapting the Sailor/Pirate variant into a Raider background. It's going to be awesome. Probably a 2h great axe build, and just Smite all the things.
Might also end up starting Barb and getting a level of Paladin as the completion of my first session, depending on the level I'm starting at and if I roll well enough for stats to multiclass like that. That's pretty much a purely RP decision though and I'm not sure it'd work all that well mechanically.
I can see using Hunter's Mark from the Vengeance list, but so much of the list just looks really underwhelming. The smite spells in particular just look terrible.
I guess the status effects are also handy situationally, and some of them even rely on ability checks rather than saves which helps make up for the probably lower spell save DC I'll have. If you can get it to land in the first place, that is.
Neither is divine smite. The smite spells are just risk for more damage you're almost always better off smiting
Dc 10 or dc half damage (whichever is larger) con save, your spell stops if you fail. This is for every hit so if a monster hits you 3 times you have to make 3 saves.
I.e. monster hits you for 8 dmg, you have to roll d20 + con modifier (+ profficiency if you have con save proficiency) >= 10.
Monster hits you for 30 damage, all that has to >= 15.
It's a save, yes. But you don't get a proficiency bonus unless you'v gotten it from a feat or something, because paladins don't get con save proficiency.
They also can't usually pump con past either 12 or 14, because they're str-primary and cha-secondary, so their con saves are pretty pitiful until they hit paladin 6 and get to start adding their cha bonus to them.
Paladins have a lot working against them as spellcasters.
The best thing about concentration imho, is that it makes players choose a buff as opposed to turtling up under a dozen of them (which was a major problem in 3rd).
Really, my biggest issue with it is there are a bunch of spells that function as instants (paladin smites and ranger arrow tricks) that count as concentration for no god damn reason as far as I can tell.
action -> arcana check!
I do this in my games. If gives my players a chance to, lightly, come up with RP reasons for knowing this stuff.