The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Xanathar's Guide to Striking a Nerve

19394959698

Posts

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Again, what QA staff get handed and what gets sent to the public are not and should not be of equal quality. Games have internal test builds separate from their public beta builds because you're supposed to do at least some basic testing and editing yourself before you give it to the public to polish.

    Those things are simple oversights. When you consistently make simple oversights on basic tasks over a long period of time, you are demonstrating inattention at best and incompetence at worst. These are errors that are only going to be consistently made by someone who either doesn't have the skills necessary to be a professional in their field, or simply isn't paying attention to their job, and who - in either case - has nobody doing any sort of due diligence to check or collaborate on their work.

    They're not design decisions. "Print a defining class feature and then print an upgraded ability that should interact with it but explicitly can't" is not a design decision, it is a design error. It's the sort of thing they put on the board on the first day of class as a simple example of what not to do. Designs like this should lead players to find fun interactions and synergies. There should be an internal logic to them, and when that logic is violated it is jarring and unpleasant. (Hey, look at this class: it's big trick is that it can get advantage whenever it wants, and then when you're higher level you ALSO get the ability to upgrade your advantage into straight-up two attacks instead of just two rolls on one attack! Oh but you...can't use those abilities together? You can only upgrade your advantage if you get it from something OTHER than your defining advantage-generating class feature? Huh.) It's worth noting that every example I gave was corrected as soon as literally any development scrutiny was applied to them - which is great, but should have happened before publishing them, the same way they presumably spellcheck these articles rather than publishing whatever and letting the players find the spelling errors - because they very much are not valid or intentional design decisions. They're just dumb obvious mistakes being constantly, repeatedly made through inattention or inability. Which brings it back around to my root complaint: Involving the players in playtesting is great, but do some of the fucking work yourself first. Public playtests should be for polish and balance tweaks after the design team has done the heavy lifting (or at least any lifting at all), not for elevator pitching a half-formed idea that hasn't even gotten a quick idiot check from the guy at the next desk first.

    UA is specifically not published content. It isn't ready for broadband pubic consumption. Its specifically a QA build. That means it may be content that fails to function at a basic level.

    MegaMekDaenrisMrVyngaardMoridin889
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    UA content is specifically throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

    It's why some stuff goes through multiple rounds of play testing

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited November 13
    I don't get why they wouldn't just give that class Extra Attack instead of having two class features that 'should' interact do the same thing, less a bonus action.
    Maybe make the bonus action Advantage only last one attack, if that's a concern.

    Namely, I think 'Gain Advantage' and 'If you already have Advantage, you get to do something with it other than "wasting" it' seem complementary already.
    That they flipped the decision quickly doesn't necessarily make the original text bad.
    Unless perhaps the second ability was called 'Upgraded Advantage Skill' and gave everyone the wrong impression from the outset.

    discrider on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    I don't get why they wouldn't just give that class Extra Attack instead of having two class features that 'should' interact do the same thing, less a bonus action.

    Namely, I think 'Gain Advantage' and 'If you already have Advantage, you get to do something with it other than "wasting" it' seem complementary already.
    That they flipped the decision quickly doesn't necessarily make the original text bad.
    Unless perhaps the second ability was called 'Upgraded Advantage Skill' and gave everyone the wrong impression from the outset.

    Thats almost precisely my guess.

    The question being, "do we want them to trigger their own ability?" The answer from the public being yes.

    It's a fighter subclass so they already get super extra attack. Which makes fighting spirit super strong on its own already (advantage on all attacks, and immediate action surge thank you very much).

    Seems like a valid test to see if folks want another connected ability or not.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 13
    Hell even better, given the current version, you lose nothing by using fighting spirit and rapid strike together. You lose advantage on one attack just to gain an extra attack that has advantage from fighting spirit. Same for a prone enemy.

    Sleep on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Shit now I want to see a party with a mastermind and a samurai

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited November 13
    Sleep wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    I don't get why they wouldn't just give that class Extra Attack instead of having two class features that 'should' interact do the same thing, less a bonus action.

    Namely, I think 'Gain Advantage' and 'If you already have Advantage, you get to do something with it other than "wasting" it' seem complementary already.
    That they flipped the decision quickly doesn't necessarily make the original text bad.
    Unless perhaps the second ability was called 'Upgraded Advantage Skill' and gave everyone the wrong impression from the outset.

    Thats almost precisely my guess.

    The question being, "do we want them to trigger their own ability?" The answer from the public being yes.

    It's a fighter subclass so they already get super extra attack. Which makes fighting spirit super strong on its own already (advantage on all attacks, and immediate action surge thank you very much).

    Seems like a valid test to see if folks want another connected ability or not.

    If you don't want them to interact, the correct way to do that is to not write the second ability at all. The original text was not a 'test', it was just poorly written. You are attributing a level of deliberation that is not in evidence.

    They did do that with Hexblade, where the invocation gave them a greatsword to smite with but it couldn't be used with their CHA-to-attack trait because (according to twitter) they thought it would be broken if you could combine that with GWM, but again that's not how you do design. The invocation decides what weapon they get. You, the designer, picked what weapon the invocation made. You knew the invocation was being made exclusively for a subclass whose defining feature is using one-handed weapons. Just...don't make the invocation give them a two-handed weapon. Give them a one-handed weapon, like the one the rest of the class features require them to use. Now it doesn't work with GWM! Balance problem solved! They concluded that an invocation they were about to write was too powerful, then wrote it anyway and tried to 'balance' it by making it work in a clumsy unintuitive way with an awkward set of anti-synergistic restrictions, instead of considering that the solution was 'don't write it, then'. (Imagine if they said they were going to do something about GWM itself being too good, and their solution was not to adjust the attack penalty or damage bonus, or to do away with the feat entirely and replace it with something else, but instead to add a restriction that you could only take GWM if your INT was at least 18.) That's a hallmark of how an amateur does game design, and it's something I'd expect from a homebrew class or some guy's custom Magic set, not from a professional outfit.
    Sleep wrote: »
    Hell even better, given the current version, you lose nothing by using fighting spirit and rapid strike together. You lose advantage on one attack just to gain an extra attack that has advantage from fighting spirit. Same for a prone enemy.

    No, you don't, because that's not how advantage works. You can't 'stack' advantage, you either have it or you don't, and rapid strike specifically says you can forgo the advantage on an attack to make two attacks instead. You can't forgo it and also keep it by having it twice from two different sources.

    The whole concept/theme behind rapid strike is that you roll 2d20 just like a normal advantaged attack, but if both rolls would hit you get to hit twice.

    Edit: Oh, I see. That's hilarious, and almost certainly not intentional.

    Abbalah on
    MegaMekMoridin889
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    I don't get why they wouldn't just give that class Extra Attack instead of having two class features that 'should' interact do the same thing, less a bonus action.

    Namely, I think 'Gain Advantage' and 'If you already have Advantage, you get to do something with it other than "wasting" it' seem complementary already.
    That they flipped the decision quickly doesn't necessarily make the original text bad.
    Unless perhaps the second ability was called 'Upgraded Advantage Skill' and gave everyone the wrong impression from the outset.

    Thats almost precisely my guess.

    The question being, "do we want them to trigger their own ability?" The answer from the public being yes.

    It's a fighter subclass so they already get super extra attack. Which makes fighting spirit super strong on its own already (advantage on all attacks, and immediate action surge thank you very much).

    Seems like a valid test to see if folks want another connected ability or not.

    If you don't want them to interact, the correct way to do that is to not write the second ability at all. The original text was not a 'test', it was just poorly written. You are attributing a level of deliberation that is not in evidence.

    They did do that with Hexblade, where the invocation gave them a greatsword to smite with but it couldn't be used with their CHA-to-attack trait because (according to twitter) they thought it would be broken if you could combine that with GWM, but again that's not how you do design. The invocation decides what weapon they get. You, the designer, picked what weapon the invocation made. You knew the invocation was being made exclusively for a subclass whose defining feature is using one-handed weapons. Just...don't make the invocation give them a two-handed weapon. Give them a one-handed weapon, like the one the rest of the class features require them to use. Now it doesn't work with GWM! Balance problem solved! They concluded that an invocation they were about to write was too powerful, then wrote it anyway and tried to 'balance' it by making it work in a clumsy unintuitive way with an awkward set of anti-synergistic restrictions, instead of considering that the solution was 'don't write it, then'. (Imagine if they said they were going to do something about GWM itself being too good, and their solution was not to adjust the attack penalty or damage bonus, or to do away with the feat entirely and replace it with something else, but instead to add a restriction that you could only take GWM if your INT was at least 18.) That's a hallmark of how an amateur does game design, and it's something I'd expect from a homebrew class or some guy's custom Magic set, not from a professional outfit.
    Sleep wrote: »
    Hell even better, given the current version, you lose nothing by using fighting spirit and rapid strike together. You lose advantage on one attack just to gain an extra attack that has advantage from fighting spirit. Same for a prone enemy.

    No, you don't, because that's not how advantage works. You can't 'stack' advantage, you either have it or you don't, and rapid strike specifically says you can forgo the advantage on an attack to make two attacks instead. You can't forgo it and also keep it by having it twice from two different sources.

    The whole concept/theme behind rapid strike is that you roll 2d20 just like a normal advantaged attack, but if both rolls would hit you get to hit twice.

    Edit: Oh, I see. That's hilarious, and almost certainly not intentional.

    No it says foregoe the advantage to make another attack, never says the second attack can't benefit from advantage

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 13
    Also this is definitely a way you can do the design, because it's the way they are doing the design. You can not like that they are doing it this way, but it's the way they are doing it.

    They are in fact professionals, getting paid to make the game, and this is the way they are doing it.

    Sleep on
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Also this is definitely the way you do the design, because it's the way they are doing the design. You can not like that they are doing it this way, but it's the way they are doing it.

    They are in fact professionals, getting paid to make the game, and this is the way they are doing it.

    I mean, it's a convenient tautology but not one that's very useful for making meaningful statements.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    They did do that with Hexblade, where the invocation gave them a greatsword to smite with but it couldn't be used with their CHA-to-attack trait because (according to twitter) they thought it would be broken if you could combine that with GWM, but again that's not how you do design.

    The reason is and was because it would turn hexblades into a perfect 2/2.5 stat gish champion. Which would be OP.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    They did do that with Hexblade, where the invocation gave them a greatsword to smite with but it couldn't be used with their CHA-to-attack trait because (according to twitter) they thought it would be broken if you could combine that with GWM, but again that's not how you do design.

    The reason is and was because it would turn hexblades into a perfect 2/2.5 stat gish champion. Which would be OP.

    Yes. Which is why you don't write that invocation in the first place. Which is why they changed it!

    A duck!MegaMek
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 14
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Also this is definitely the way you do the design, because it's the way they are doing the design. You can not like that they are doing it this way, but it's the way they are doing it.

    They are in fact professionals, getting paid to make the game, and this is the way they are doing it.

    I mean, it's a convenient tautology but not one that's very useful for making meaningful statements.

    I mean its also useless to bitch about the devs being hapless amateurish morons.

    Especially when they seem to be doing quite good in the sales department.

    There's definitely flaws in the game, but I challenge anyone to show me a ttrpg that doesn't have at least some stupid shit in it.

    Like you're drilling down to a handful of subclass features, released in a test documents, that they purposefully say might be bad, to say the devs are hapless idiots that don't know their industry, or basic functions of the jobs they get paid for.

    We've all seen worse shit than that make it to print, and from so called professionals.

    The Fuckin warhammer war game has had to rail through like 3 or 4 editions in the past 5 years because they kept fuckin up.

    I've basically been hearing complaints about dnd 5e like this since the beginning of the playtest, and it always generally burns down to the same ashen core, "i would design it better". Well maybe ya would, but ya aren't, because those guys get to. You can either sit there and complain about them being hapless amateurish morons undeserving of the job because of a handful of flaws, or you can suggest workarounds you've found, or the changes you've made for your table, or just simply pointing out the flaws.

    Its fine to not Like things, my table doesn't like how wild shape affects hit points, so we fuckin changed it. Just cause we don't like the hit point effects of wild shape doesn't mean the designers are idiots that don't understand their game, it's their game. All it means is that we had a difference of opinion on how turning into a bear should affect the hit point pool of a character.

    Just whining about the devs being idiots is a total fuckin waste of everyone's time. They're still the devs, and 4 to 5 years of folks saying this type of thing hasn't changed that, and the PHB is still in the top 50 best selling books on Amazon for just this year (#38 at the moment), and that's from among all books not just rpg books.

    The devs are doing just fine in what they need to accomplish (selling books), and their general audience seems to enjoy the shit out of it. I know I do, and I also know I'm having to reformat my game so I can handle running multiple parties because I have too many folks looking for a DM (mainly a bunch of folks that i never thought I'd see transition off 3.5/ pathfinder).

    Like i get it, in their unearthed arcana test documents they put out some wacky possibly broken or poorly designed shit... that's the fuckin point.

    Sleep on
    SchadenfreudeNotoriusBENSteelhawkDaenrisMoridin889
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    speaking of striking a nerve

    Synaptic static is a pretty dope spell

    Comparing it to a similarly level slot fireball it gives up 2d6 of straight damage for it being an int save rather than a dex save, and leaves those that fail the save with a pretty solid debuff.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Oh man

    oh man

    A Halfelf who was deemed too clumsy and awkward to be admitted into the ranks of the Bladesingers.

    So they become a Hexblade Pact of the Blade instead.

    Yep, got my next character's backstory.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    see317ElvenshaeSleepwebguy20DarkPrimusitalianranmaFuselageAegis
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Oh man

    oh man

    A Halfelf who was deemed too clumsy and awkward to be admitted into the ranks of the Bladesingers.

    So they become a Hexblade Pact of the Blade instead.

    Yep, got my next character's backstory.

    That's fuckin awesome.

    you thinking more of a green flame blade and eldritch smite, or thirsting blade improved pact of the blade type of setup?

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    Oh man

    oh man

    A Halfelf who was deemed too clumsy and awkward to be admitted into the ranks of the Bladesingers.

    So they become a Hexblade Pact of the Blade instead.

    Yep, got my next character's backstory.

    That's fuckin awesome.

    you thinking more of a green flame blade and eldritch smite, or thirsting blade improved pact of the blade type of setup?

    No clue, just love the idea. And actually if Warlock spell slots can be used for Paladin Smite then I may just MC Path of Conquest and accidentally a villain

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    SleepFuselage
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Also this is definitely the way you do the design, because it's the way they are doing the design. You can not like that they are doing it this way, but it's the way they are doing it.

    They are in fact professionals, getting paid to make the game, and this is the way they are doing it.

    I mean, it's a convenient tautology but not one that's very useful for making meaningful statements.

    I mean its also useless to bitch about the devs being hapless amateurish morons.

    Especially when they seem to be doing quite good in the sales department.

    There's definitely flaws in the game, but I challenge anyone to show me a ttrpg that doesn't have at least some stupid shit in it.

    Like you're drilling down to a handful of subclass features, released in a test documents, that they purposefully say might be bad, to say the devs are hapless idiots that don't know their industry, or basic functions of the jobs they get paid for.

    We've all seen worse shit than that make it to print, and from so called professionals.

    The Fuckin warhammer war game has had to rail through like 3 or 4 editions in the past 5 years because they kept fuckin up.

    I've basically been hearing complaints about dnd 5e like this since the beginning of the playtest, and it always generally burns down to the same ashen core, "i would design it better". Well maybe ya would, but ya aren't, because those guys get to. You can either sit there and complain about them being hapless amateurish morons undeserving of the job because of a handful of flaws, or you can suggest workarounds you've found, or the changes you've made for your table, or just simply pointing out the flaws.

    Its fine to not Like things, my table doesn't like how wild shape affects hit points, so we fuckin changed it. Just cause we don't like the hit point effects of wild shape doesn't mean the designers are idiots that don't understand their game, it's their game. All it means is that we had a difference of opinion on how turning into a bear should affect the hit point pool of a character.

    Just whining about the devs being idiots is a total fuckin waste of everyone's time. They're still the devs, and 4 to 5 years of folks saying this type of thing hasn't changed that, and the PHB is still in the top 50 best selling books on Amazon for just this year (#38 at the moment), and that's from among all books not just rpg books.

    The devs are doing just fine in what they need to accomplish (selling books), and their general audience seems to enjoy the shit out of it. I know I do, and I also know I'm having to reformat my game so I can handle running multiple parties because I have too many folks looking for a DM (mainly a bunch of folks that i never thought I'd see transition off 3.5/ pathfinder).

    Like i get it, in their unearthed arcana test documents they put out some wacky possibly broken or poorly designed shit... that's the fuckin point.

    I mean, if we're just going to pretend that the only criteria by which quality is tested is sales, we should also acknowledge that the sales of 5e aren't driven by its actual quality - they're driven by the rise of twitch and the increasing popularity of dnd podcasts. 5e is successful because of its marketing, not its quality, and it's not even WotC's marketing, it's the marketing created by other people in the process of promoting their own twitch brands.

    I am happy to grant that the 'point' of UA is that it's poorly designed haphazard bullshit. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is is precisely the problem.

    OatsMegaMekDevoutlyApatheticOptimusZeditalianranmaSteelhawkMrAnthropyRiemannLives
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I have found mostly that Xanathar's has been extremely well received by most players in my store so far. We basically immediately sold out of the special cover, which is an incredibly beautiful book and no picture on the internet will do it justice to how good it looks in person. On the content I will say I've not sat down to have a good read, but Xanathar's is definitely a good example of some major power creep - something that 5E has generally avoided until this point. The ranger options in this book are flatly better than the player's handbook, but then that's also an acknowledgement that the ranger was generally in a bad shape and needed something. I don't anticipate seeing a lot of non-Xanathar's rangers not being changed to the options in this book in the store's league games

    In terms of UA, this was always the plan of Wizards to release that stuff as a "Playtest", see if players wanted it and then just shove it into a book. UA content may be free, but let's face it, hardly anyone ever lets this stuff into a game unless it's actually published in a book. That it's mostly similar or just as broken/whacky is a genuine criticism, but let's not suddenly pretend everyone was getting this stuff by DMs without it being in a book. The book is tracking to see extremely well on my metrics, so bigger stores I can only imagine are going to be very happy with how this performs and DnD is going to continue it's wider march towards high acceptance/awareness.

    One thing I do find amusing is the healing spirit spell, which essentially makes a raft of out of combat healing spells utterly useless. For one second level spell slot, you can summon a fey spirit that heals 1d6 every time a creature enters the spirits space for 10 rounds (1 minute). Essentially out of combat, you can just cast this and have everyone in the party conga line through it for a guaranteed 10d6 healing x number of players in the party. That's pretty incredible, especially considering how much effort you need to put in to cast something like Prayer of Healing (which is 2d6 per party member and takes 10 minutes of solid casting).

    Based on what I've seen, it's a good thing player books are so infrequent: The power creep in this is definitely a big issue.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Healing spirit is incredibly efficient, yeah. Both in and out of combat - on top of its crazy efficiency, it only costs a bonus action to cast so it can heal near it's full potential even in the middle of a fight. And when cast from a 3rd level spell slot, it doubles in potency, healing 2d6 per packet instead of 1d6. There's basically no reason to ever prep almost any other healing spell if you're a druid or ranger.

    My personal favorite silly thing from Xanathar's is the Ceremony spell, though.

    Specifically, the Wedding mode, which gives two humanoids who are willing to be married each an untyped stackable +2 to AC for 7 days, but cannot be cast on the same humanoids again unless one of them dies.

    And which was printed in the same book as the Zealot barbarian, whose whole deal is that he rages until he dies and then can be resurrected for free.

    With a new lease on life and ready to remarry for another 7 days of +2 AC.

    ElvenshaeFryRainfallwebguy20Moridin889
  • BursarBursar Hee Noooo! Registered User regular
    That culture's wedding vows need to be something stronger than "until death do us part," then.

    Oh my fucking god this post
    GNU Terry Pratchett
    3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324 | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
    Currently RPing: Barran in the Ruins of Undermountain!
    italianranmaSteelhawkNotoriusBENAegis
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    Bursar wrote: »
    That culture's wedding vows need to be something stronger than "until death do us part," then.

    "Until universal heat death do us part,"

    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam, Fortnite - NotoriusBEN
    Uplay, Arc Gigantic - notoriusben
  • see317see317 Taco Count 2017: 61 Registered User regular
    Bursar wrote: »
    That culture's wedding vows need to be something stronger than "until death do us part," then.

    "Until universal heat death do us part,"

    I was just thinking that there aren't enough wedding ceremonies that end with "Or until we're devoured by an insane elder god..."

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Shit now i want to play a level 3 zealot barbarian that's been dead for almost a century that got hit with straight up resurrection

    MrVyngaardMoridin889
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 14
    Yeah the use of the term widowed rather than dies gives a bit of wiggle room there so the zealot can't game it. Sure in a culture that's having its warriors raised from the dead on a regular basis you probably define widowed a bit differently at a conceptual level. However even aside from that, if the zealot barbarian is killed the ceremony isn't voided on them, they weren't widowed, their spouse was. Until the zealots spouse dies they can't be hit with another marriage ceremony. It should also be noted that the two have to be within 30 feet of each other to get the bonus, so it would have to be two members of the same adventuring party getting married to one another, both getting killed, both getting brought back, and repeating, over and over and over again.

    Sleep on
    Elvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 14
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Also this is definitely the way you do the design, because it's the way they are doing the design. You can not like that they are doing it this way, but it's the way they are doing it.

    They are in fact professionals, getting paid to make the game, and this is the way they are doing it.

    I mean, it's a convenient tautology but not one that's very useful for making meaningful statements.

    I mean its also useless to bitch about the devs being hapless amateurish morons.

    Especially when they seem to be doing quite good in the sales department.

    There's definitely flaws in the game, but I challenge anyone to show me a ttrpg that doesn't have at least some stupid shit in it.

    Like you're drilling down to a handful of subclass features, released in a test documents, that they purposefully say might be bad, to say the devs are hapless idiots that don't know their industry, or basic functions of the jobs they get paid for.

    We've all seen worse shit than that make it to print, and from so called professionals.

    The Fuckin warhammer war game has had to rail through like 3 or 4 editions in the past 5 years because they kept fuckin up.

    I've basically been hearing complaints about dnd 5e like this since the beginning of the playtest, and it always generally burns down to the same ashen core, "i would design it better". Well maybe ya would, but ya aren't, because those guys get to. You can either sit there and complain about them being hapless amateurish morons undeserving of the job because of a handful of flaws, or you can suggest workarounds you've found, or the changes you've made for your table, or just simply pointing out the flaws.

    Its fine to not Like things, my table doesn't like how wild shape affects hit points, so we fuckin changed it. Just cause we don't like the hit point effects of wild shape doesn't mean the designers are idiots that don't understand their game, it's their game. All it means is that we had a difference of opinion on how turning into a bear should affect the hit point pool of a character.

    Just whining about the devs being idiots is a total fuckin waste of everyone's time. They're still the devs, and 4 to 5 years of folks saying this type of thing hasn't changed that, and the PHB is still in the top 50 best selling books on Amazon for just this year (#38 at the moment), and that's from among all books not just rpg books.

    The devs are doing just fine in what they need to accomplish (selling books), and their general audience seems to enjoy the shit out of it. I know I do, and I also know I'm having to reformat my game so I can handle running multiple parties because I have too many folks looking for a DM (mainly a bunch of folks that i never thought I'd see transition off 3.5/ pathfinder).

    Like i get it, in their unearthed arcana test documents they put out some wacky possibly broken or poorly designed shit... that's the fuckin point.

    I mean, if we're just going to pretend that the only criteria by which quality is tested is sales, we should also acknowledge that the sales of 5e aren't driven by its actual quality - they're driven by the rise of twitch and the increasing popularity of dnd podcasts. 5e is successful because of its marketing, not its quality, and it's not even WotC's marketing, it's the marketing created by other people in the process of promoting their own twitch brands.

    I am happy to grant that the 'point' of UA is that it's poorly designed haphazard bullshit. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is is precisely the problem.

    Dude that's literally what unearthed arcana has always been. Even in older editions. Unearthed arcana is literally the name of the possibly broken shit article. That's like baseline d&d stuff, since like back in the printed dragon magazine days. It has literally always been the point of that article series. That they are now using it more constructively, and as part of the design process, rather than just a place to put their favorite broken shit from the cutting room floor, is an improvement.

    Like unearthed arcana is where the 3.5e gestalt system came from.

    Also the rise of d&d podcasts is because d&d is easy as shit to play and the people think it's fun... like what the fuck is the argument there? Its only doing so well because so many people like playing it so much that they record their sessions for other people to watch, and tons of people find those session easy enough to follow and engrossing enough to watch? Oh nooo people like the game

    Sleep on
    EncNotoriusBENSmrtnikMoridin889
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 14
    Also, the assertion that wotc didn't start that trend on their own with acquisitions incorporated and their own game streams is just bunk. Yeah there's folks out there doing it on their own now without the involvement of wotc... Thats how a viral marketing campaign works. However wizards definitely did their work to start that trend.

    Sleep on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Fuckin healing spirit is pretty crazy though. I'm wondering how often its going to come up. I'm a big fan of players burning combat resources on healing though. More health in the party is more damage I can do to them, and likely less damage that they are tossing at me. If I'm going to curtail it, it will probably be by taking away the benefit for up casting, but considering its base line is basically a top off for everyone out of combat, feel free to burn a 4th level slot to over heal most of the party. Like at 7th level the only party member that doesn't on average full heal from a 4th level healing spirit is the barbarian. However at 7th level the druid only has one of those in a day, and if they do that, then they give up being able to throw down a conjure woodland beings that day which is a trade off I am fine with.

    Enc
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    How small is the dnd team anyway? Like theres Perkins, Mearls and that the other bloke who did interviews on the dndbeyond channel. How many names are there in the new book?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Aldo wrote: »
    How small is the dnd team anyway? Like theres Perkins, Mearls and that the other bloke who did interviews on the dndbeyond channel. How many names are there in the new book?

    I think the dedicated team is like 5 people at this point, and I think they may have a few folks the magic team shares with them.

  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Bursar wrote: »
    That culture's wedding vows need to be something stronger than "until death do us part," then.

    That would be the sound of wizards, notaries, and lawyers in the Realms everywhere rushing to include a Number of Deaths clause to marriage contracts.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    SleepEncElvenshae
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Honestly, I like 5e waaaay more than 3.5, Pathfinder, and all other iterations (as do my players). For pretty much all of us it not only has driven us to play more regularly with more friendly content and character design, but also inspired us to actually buy the manuals and supplemental materials rather than pirate it out of respect for Wizards and the quality of what they are producing.

    Everyone is different, of course. But as a GM, a player, and a supplemental materials designer I'd rather work with 5e than other things, and working with Unearthed Arcana content is a big part of how we gauge and playtest our own homebrew content. It's a neat threshold, even with the occasional problems with power creep.

    Because "ohhhh nooo, my players might be able to have too much fuuuuuuuun." You can always, as the GM, restrict or alter some moves and traits that are too powerful in your own games. We do it habitually. But I'd rather my players have those options from UA to play around and have fun making a character they want to play than wait a year for a fully playtested perfect addition.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    Sleep
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Re: healing spirit, it is rather bonkers. Something we've done in the past with some of the other spirit guardian type spells is have their be a continuum (IE: there is only one spirit everyone is summoning for this and they have a 9-5 work schedule. Depending upon when they are summoned we have the summoner roll a dice to determine the mood of the spirit and how willing it is to help.)

    We had a spirit guardian, for example, be essentially a 35 year old, celestial middle-manager pulled from her god-cubicle in Heaven HR who is fond of her 10 celestial god-cats she keeps at home and really just wants to find love despite feeling like she is past her prime. The players, over the 5-6 times she was summoned over the campaign ended up cheering her up, getting her to feel confident about herself, and then used a badass critical persuade roll to convince her and the Vrock they were fighting to go out on a date.

    After which the dungeon was resolved with the two summons occasionally switching or showing up together.

    I'll probably try to do something similar with Healing Spirit.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    see317SleepSmrtnikRainfall
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    After running 4e, Pathfinder, 13th age and 5e I prefer the concept of 4e character creation and monster manual monsters, and by extension 13th age. I think if 4e had came out of the gate with a lot of the concepts it had by the time the 3rd players handbook/monster manual came out it would have been a much better game, there were just too many iterations with Wizards figuring shit out. 5e is fine and thats what my friends want to play so we have a good time of course, but I miss really good tactical combat, and 4e had that in spades.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    RiemannLivesElvenshaeMrAnthropy
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    webguy20 wrote: »
    After running 4e, Pathfinder, 13th age and 5e I prefer the concept of 4e character creation and monster manual monsters, and by extension 13th age. I think if 4e had came out of the gate with a lot of the concepts it had by the time the 3rd players handbook/monster manual came out it would have been a much better game, there were just too many iterations with Wizards figuring shit out. 5e is fine and thats what my friends want to play so we have a good time of course, but I miss really good tactical combat, and 4e had that in spades.

    I've pretty much always thought that if 4e started with Essentials and built back towards the PHB classes it would have provoked an entirely different reaction.

    MrAnthropy
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 15
    Eh the main problem was that it was too engrossing as a tactical miniatures game. It was tons of fun to get into the mechanics and get covering your role well, but that would often end up eating the whole session. .Like I'd like to pull out randon character concepts from 4e to run em against various fights and in different teams, but its very much the same part of my brain that wants to try the new warhammer edition. Lets sit down for 4 hours maybe get in 2 fights and then call it a day. Unfortunately the game's impossible without the character creator which is dead, and i pretty much never want to run it ever again because combat construction just required so much effort and fine tuning. Playing it I could be convinced, but running it just wasn't fun for me.

    Sleep on
    Enc
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Eh the main problem was that it was too engrossing as a tactical miniatures game. It was tons of fun to get into the mechanics and get covering your role well, but that would often end up eating the whole session. .Like I'd like to pull out randon character concepts from 4e to run em against various fights and in different teams, but its very much the same part of my brain that wants to try the new warhammer edition. Lets sit down for 4 hours maybe get in 2 fights and then call it a day. Unfortunately the game's impossible without the character creator which is dead, and i pretty much never want to run it ever again because combat construction just required so much effort and fine tuning. Playing it I could be convinced, but running it just wasn't fun for me.

    I find DMing 5th ed to be so much more work, less fun and more frustrating than it was for 4th. Especially for anything to do with combat. Largely because of the fucked up attitude that pervades 5th ed that it doesn't matter if the books are written lazily the "DM can fix it".

    Also there is just so much less content to draw on. Look at any given entry in the 4th ed monster manual vs the 5th. The difference is crazy. Especially considering the 4th ed book was like half the price.

    AegeriMrAnthropy
  • Moridin889Moridin889 Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Yeah the use of the term widowed rather than dies gives a bit of wiggle room there so the zealot can't game it. Sure in a culture that's having its warriors raised from the dead on a regular basis you probably define widowed a bit differently at a conceptual level. However even aside from that, if the zealot barbarian is killed the ceremony isn't voided on them, they weren't widowed, their spouse was. Until the zealots spouse dies they can't be hit with another marriage ceremony. It should also be noted that the two have to be within 30 feet of each other to get the bonus, so it would have to be two members of the same adventuring party getting married to one another, both getting killed, both getting brought back, and repeating, over and over and over again.

    So they are a mercenary team of married zealot beserkers and a cleric/rogue to bring them back. Doesnt matter how dangerous or suicidal the mission, they'll take it.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 15
    Sleep wrote: »
    Eh the main problem was that it was too engrossing as a tactical miniatures game. It was tons of fun to get into the mechanics and get covering your role well, but that would often end up eating the whole session. .Like I'd like to pull out randon character concepts from 4e to run em against various fights and in different teams, but its very much the same part of my brain that wants to try the new warhammer edition. Lets sit down for 4 hours maybe get in 2 fights and then call it a day. Unfortunately the game's impossible without the character creator which is dead, and i pretty much never want to run it ever again because combat construction just required so much effort and fine tuning. Playing it I could be convinced, but running it just wasn't fun for me.

    I find DMing 5th ed to be so much more work, less fun and more frustrating than it was for 4th. Especially for anything to do with combat. Largely because of the fucked up attitude that pervades 5th ed that it doesn't matter if the books are written lazily the "DM can fix it".

    Also there is just so much less content to draw on. Look at any given entry in the 4th ed monster manual vs the 5th. The difference is crazy. Especially considering the 4th ed book was like half the price.

    Eh the best part is the lack of tuning for fights.

    Like the prep for my game tomorrow is simply, winter wolves, succubus, horned devil with warlock sidekick (warlock switches side mid fight, intro for a new PC). With an ever possible barlgura attack. I have the general type of region they will be in. Mountainous outdoors for day 1, the grounds of a secluded personal manor/library in the mountains for day 2. Day 1 is actually the end of a very long day for the party So we only have the winter wolves and maybe a barlgura that day but most of the party is tapped for resources. The winter wolves are a straight up slug fest, the succubus is going to try to lead a party member or two astray for a kiss (I got 3 good targets for the charm from stealth, one of those only they can hear that voice of the beautiful woman calling them off into the wilderness type thing), the horned devil will be a slugfest.

    Outside that we got some skill checks to make and a piece of info to grab before the party heads back to the town they are saving.

    I've also found conversions from all my old books to be a cinch

    Sleep on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Moridin889 wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Yeah the use of the term widowed rather than dies gives a bit of wiggle room there so the zealot can't game it. Sure in a culture that's having its warriors raised from the dead on a regular basis you probably define widowed a bit differently at a conceptual level. However even aside from that, if the zealot barbarian is killed the ceremony isn't voided on them, they weren't widowed, their spouse was. Until the zealots spouse dies they can't be hit with another marriage ceremony. It should also be noted that the two have to be within 30 feet of each other to get the bonus, so it would have to be two members of the same adventuring party getting married to one another, both getting killed, both getting brought back, and repeating, over and over and over again.

    So they are a mercenary team of married zealot beserkers and a cleric/rogue to bring them back. Doesnt matter how dangerous or suicidal the mission, they'll take it.

    Just as a note I'd run the fuck out of that game

This discussion has been closed.