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

1858688909199

Posts

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Alternatively, take a torch to a devil's house and watch him burn alive.

  • XagarXagar Registered User regular
    I just wish the language was more standardized. Fire immunity is just fire defense level 2, and the feature lets you bypass 1 level of fire defense, including your own. Instead, all I got is

    You are immune to fire. When you deal fire damage to a character with immunity to fire, treat it as if it had resistance. When you deal fire damage to a character with resistance to fire, treat it as if it did not have resistance.

    Which is clunky.

    "For who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow?
    Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?"
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    So last night concluded my time as GM for the Tales season, and my players were so god damm close to finishing temple of Tamoachan; another half hour and I think they could have pulled their way out of that place but alas, the diorama room had other plans.

    Specifically, the players had found a room full of these landscape dioramas with each of them having a nasty DC 15 trap of some sort on it; as such the following happened over the course of the session:
    • Three of the party members stepped onto the grasslands terrain and failed a charisma check to have the desire to leave for 24 hours (they failed this save three times in a row, and given that the rations situation was dicey before, there was the strong possibility that I would have to look up the rules for starvation if they weren't able to get out).
    • There was a hill that caused people to fall down it if players stood on it (this happened multiple times to one player who didn't get back up after the first time and then proceeded to crawl around for twenty minutes or so).
    • A river that caused people who failed an intelligence check to not remember how they got there and if they were a caster to lose casting levels equal to the amount that they failed the save by (thus the sorcerer lost a level).
    • A fiery part that caused people to be subject to heat metal
    • a cold part that cause people to be subject to cool metal (this almost killed the cleric)
    • a patch of burning sand that caused nose bleeds
    • A swamp that caused asphyxiation.
    • a hole that caused fear.

    Still, most of the party was able to make it to the only obvious exit to the room, and upon entering what looked like a storage closet encountered a gibbering mouther, a creature I didn't think would represent any real threat to the party given that there were 4 of them at level 5 and it's only a level 2 monster, but I'd deeply underestimated the thing's ability to CC (or gravely overestimated the ability of the party to make DC to wisdom saves), and as such the thing wound up screwing up the party pretty royally between it's spit and it's gibbering AOE; the lot of them consistently lost turns or actions due to these things going off, and the sorcerer very nearly got devoured by the beasts attacks (which I pointed out would have actually caused him to be added to it's mass).

    After taking it down, the party found some items that they weren't sure about but took along with them aside from a dried up heart in a jar.

    once they were back in the diorama room, they determined with a little help from me that the only diorama that seemed designed to keep people out as opposed to punishing them for entering was the hill, and they decided to dig their way through it, which led to atunnel and eventually an encounter with the last real enemy in the dungeon: a centaur mummy. Sadly, the fight wound up having to be drawn short early because of the store closing,but it still was looking like fun times.

    Overall, I'd say of the three dungeons that the players got to do, Temple was my favorite; the actual fights weren't that dangeous or interesting per say, but the inherent wierdness of AD&D was clearly communicated to them I think, and I'd like to think they appreciated it a little more then Forges' insipid tactics mcgee shtick of everything bein an ambush or a trap or rules abusing nonsense.

    Also, next season I will be playing as Ted M'seeks: Kobold socialist and pacifist.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    never dieFuselage
  • KayKay What we need... Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Let me tell you, encountering a huge sandworm in the desert while scouting as a martial eagle, then deciding to lead it away from the party caravan (after telling them telepathically to STOP MOVING) by hammering the sand with rhythmic Eldritch Blasts is an absolutely HARROWING experience.

    Kay on
    ew9y0DD.png
    3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
    webguy20ElvenshaeRhesus Positivenever dieNotoriusBENSteelhawkMoridin889AegisMrVyngaardTox
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    I duck in every now again is it faux pas to bring up artificers? I know that they are relegated to a subclass of wizard now, instead of being a class in their own right like in 4e.
    Is the stuff on D&D wiki overpowered? or convoluted? I've been getting the itch to make or play an artificer and the official 5e stuff is pretty lacking in my eyes right now.

    Here's the link to what I'm looking at: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Artificer,_Variant_(5e_Class)

    While I am intrigued by the drone rigger (Clockwork engineer) I wouldn't inflict that on a GM. I'm more interested in the Alchemist and the utility monkey Arcane Engineer, maybe even the Battlesmith, but that feels too much like a Tony Stark wannabe. I'm reading over this stuff and it looks fun, but beyond trying to get a GM to agree to nonpublished stuff, I want to know what the regulars around here think about it because they can disseminate this stuff like no one's business.

    NotoriusBEN on
    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam, Fortnite - NotoriusBEN
    Uplay, Arc Gigantic - notoriusben
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    I find the stuff on dandwiki to lack proper self-critical thinking. It's all over the place balance wise.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    RainfallMr Ray
  • RainfallRainfall If you do not repay me, I will RECLAIM the ball.Registered User regular
    I duck in every now again is it faux pas to bring up artificers? I know that they are relegated to a subclass of wizard now, instead of being a class in their own right like in 4e.
    Is the stuff on D&D wiki overpowered? or convoluted? I've been getting the itch to make or play an artificer and the official 5e stuff is pretty lacking in my eyes right now.

    Here's the link to what I'm looking at: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Artificer,_Variant_(5e_Class)

    While I am intrigued by the drone rigger (Clockwork engineer) I wouldn't inflict that on a GM. I'm more interested in the Alchemist and the utility monkey Arcane Engineer, maybe even the Battlesmith, but that feels too much like a Tony Stark wannabe. I'm reading over this stuff and it looks fun, but beyond trying to get a GM to agree to nonpublished stuff, I want to know what the regulars around here think about it because they can disseminate this stuff like no one's business.

    There's an Unearthed Arcana workup for the Artificer that is much better than the hacky one they did in their Eberron blurb, but it's still not great. The class just doesn't fit in particularly well with 5E's magic item economy.

    UlfreBY.png
    NotoriusBENSleepMrVyngaardElvenshaeJustTee
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited September 17
    So if a Fire Immune creature also had Fire Resistance somehow (a spell, magic item, etc.), would someone with that class feature deal half or full damage to them with fire spells?

    Aegis on
    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
    FryElvenshae
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    ok so after quickly flying over that document:
    This is precisely the sort of thing I mean. The author is trying to do too much and as a result it comes across as a rough hack job. 5e is built around full casters, half-casters and the cripples aka warlocks. Trying to come up with your own spell system that somehow slots neatly into what 5e is doing requires more work. My recommendation would be to take what's already there, reskin it and play with that. The UA for the artificer is a good starting point. I don't quite agree with Rainfall on it being lacklustre, it's just that you want to play as something that has access to magic (but isn't a dedicated caster) and can use some sort of weapon (be it cannon, robot or hobo grenades); it feels alot like an EK and that's ok!

    Things I'd have issues with:

    I don't like Unravel from an RP and mechanics point of view. The description says arcanists are basically discount wizards that focus on the enchanting side of things, yet here they're interrupting anti magic zones and dispelling shit for practially nothing. Same goes for the ritual casting of identify and dispel magic. If, at any point, you're doing it better than a goddamned wizard, then your class has issues.
    The being able to double attune things is too much. "Arcane Grappling" isn't something I'd want in my game.
    I couldn't find a limiter on upcasts. The acid vial, for example, is 2d6 + (2d6+2)*additional points spent. So at level 5 (let's say +4 int mod, so 16 points total), that's ... 32d6+32 points of damage if you spend all your resources. That isn't quite a disintegrate but still :/

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    NotoriusBEN
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    good to know, that's why I swing by with this stuff.

    I'll read over the unearthed arcana one then, since that looks way more digestible to the store GM.
    I pine for the 4e artificer because I liked making Boosh the Goblin Tinker from DOTA back about 10years ago.

    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam, Fortnite - NotoriusBEN
    Uplay, Arc Gigantic - notoriusben
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    Making a Bard for an upcoming game and everything about musical instruments makes my fucking head hurt.

    Using them as a spellcasting focus is incredibly ill defined and if you take the leap of logic that they're required to play the instrument during spellcasting, Valor Bard actually literally doesn't work. By a strict interpretation of the rules, you would just need to carry the instrument which is way dumb but makes sense in the way that making a Bard tie up both hands for their focus is very restrictive.

    And then there's the way Performance skill works or doesn't work with musical instrument tool proficiency.

    Maddoc on
    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    MrVyngaardThe Hanged Man
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    I would've assumed musical tool proficiency works like lockpick tool proficiency in that it straight up replaces the normal skill check and you can't use the tool if you don't have it.

  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Thieves Tool proficiency doesn't replace any skill check because there is no separate skill for opening locks/disarming traps.

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    Fuselage
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    I'm not sure what the problem is. The Bard feature specifies musical instruments can substitute as a spellcasting focus for the purposes of casting spells, so they're treated as spellcasting foci. Then musical instruments themselves don't indicate at any point that they're two-handed (even if that's questionable for Bagpipes), so you're free to treat them all as one-handed. The only thing this would complicate would be if you're a bard using a one-handed weapon & shield in which case you'd need to swap your focus and shield whenever you'd want to cast a spell (or design a shield that doubles as a tuba).

    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
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    good to know, that's why I swing by with this stuff.

    I'll read over the unearthed arcana one then, since that looks way more digestible to the store GM.
    I pine for the 4e artificer because I liked making Boosh the Goblin Tinker from DOTA back about 10years ago.

    do you have a link to the 4e artificer? or can you tell me in which book it was?
    some of it might be adaptable.

    edit:
    is this a fair summary?
    http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Artificer

    evilthecat on
    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Thieves Tool proficiency doesn't replace any skill check because there is no separate skill for opening locks/disarming traps.

    Sure it does.
    It replaces <whatever skill check the DM seems appropriate, probably Dex based>
    Just like every other check that doesn't fit cleanly into a skill category.
    Sleight of hand would be the most obvious I think.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    My players just came up with the most ridiculous solution to a problem that I dare say I've ever seen, and I feel like I have to share.

    So here we are, the party has encountered an ancient and eternal storm, conjured up by the frost giant shaman queen and 1,000 chanting giants in a bygone era. The storm now sits, contained by a floating city built by long-dead gods, populated by automatons meant to simply maintain the city's functions (mostly, keep the storm locked in place). Trapped within the storm lie the remnants of the frost giant empire, broken and weak and generally left to rot in obscurity until they all perish.

    The party's leader has spent a good deal of time injecting himself with frost giant blood, and has been having visions of the long-dead queen casting her spell that reshaped the world. He basically treats the memory like his own at this point, and kind of wants to unleash the storm and let it wipe the world clean again. The rest of the party, not being total dicks, would rather just get rid of the storm entirely, ridding the world of a potential doomsday scenario. But alas, the remaining frost giants trapped in the storm do not have the capability they once did, and can at best offer history and some knowledge.

    At this point, I have in no way come up with a real solution to the problem, and am just waiting to see how they choose to approach it.

    They decide on this course of action: Somon, the leader and frost giant poseur will have the eldest remaining frost giants donate their blood for a transfusion engineered by the group's alchemist, Massio. While enraptured in the dream state that injecting so much blood puts him in, their psychic detective, Avi, reads Somon's mind (now connected through the ancestral blood directly to Atali, the frost giant queen who created the storm) and relays to the party's resident arcane experts, Cornelius and Brint the things Somon/Atali sees. They use their knowledge of both arcane magic and the frost giant runic magic to recreate the runes necessary for the core spell. They have the remaining frost giants carve the rune everywhere they can within the temple below the floating city. Flying up to the city center, Bastion, the party's moral center and cleric, uses his command of the city's overseer (achieved earlier in the session through some clever history checks) to relay the necessary runic and chanting knowledge to the 2,000 automatons maintaining the city. They carve the necessary runes all over the structure, and chant simultaneously as the bard and sorcerer work together to start the spell.

    The chain reaction allows them to undo the creation of the storm, utterly destroying it, and sparing the world from any chance of it being freed to usher in a new ice age.

    Sure, Somon is now sharing his body with an ancient frost giant queen, and the power channeled through Cornelius has turned his hair stark white...and maybe they accidentally freed the gargantuan white dragon who was also trapped within the storm, but mission accomplished.

    KetarAldonever dieMr RayThe Hanged ManKwoaru
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    good to know, that's why I swing by with this stuff.

    I'll read over the unearthed arcana one then, since that looks way more digestible to the store GM.
    I pine for the 4e artificer because I liked making Boosh the Goblin Tinker from DOTA back about 10years ago.

    do you have a link to the 4e artificer? or can you tell me in which book it was?
    some of it might be adaptable.

    edit:
    is this a fair summary?
    http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Artificer

    4E Artificer was in the Eberron Player's Guide. In broad strokes, it was mechanically similar to a laser cleric.

  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Thieves Tool proficiency doesn't replace any skill check because there is no separate skill for opening locks/disarming traps.

    Sure it does.
    It replaces <whatever skill check the DM seems appropriate, probably Dex based>
    Just like every other check that doesn't fit cleanly into a skill category.
    Sleight of hand would be the most obvious I think.

    Sure, the DM could make you roll Persuasion to convince the lock nicely to open if they really wanted.

    But opening a lock and disarming traps is specifically called out as a Dex check that isn't related to any skill.

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    edited September 18
    evilthecat wrote: »
    good to know, that's why I swing by with this stuff.

    I'll read over the unearthed arcana one then, since that looks way more digestible to the store GM.
    I pine for the 4e artificer because I liked making Boosh the Goblin Tinker from DOTA back about 10years ago.

    do you have a link to the 4e artificer? or can you tell me in which book it was?
    some of it might be adaptable.

    edit:
    is this a fair summary?
    http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Artificer

    yea, that looks right, but I'll admit my memory of artificers is hazy at best. I remember his encounter and dailies were bascially little gadgets he'd pull from his pack and toss at the enemy, or basically shove elementals into his weapons and gear to power them up. I know 4e was a slog, I'll admit that, but damn I miss all the classes they made for that game, and then mixing in paragon classes and epic classes as well at 10 and 20. Even with the encounter and daily skills, you could create two completely different fighters or wizards, granted that was all geared for fighting, but I liked that part of 4e.

    All my 4e books are in a storage unit, but I'm fairly certain its in the "4e Eberron Player's Guide"
    e278d82d-038e-4a8e-9c67-ade21ae3902f_1.a2c8189f6a717e23d26794f50ba88163.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF

    NotoriusBEN on
    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam, Fortnite - NotoriusBEN
    Uplay, Arc Gigantic - notoriusben
    Fry
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Thieves Tool proficiency doesn't replace any skill check because there is no separate skill for opening locks/disarming traps.

    Sure it does.
    It replaces <whatever skill check the DM seems appropriate, probably Dex based>
    Just like every other check that doesn't fit cleanly into a skill category.
    Sleight of hand would be the most obvious I think.

    Sure, the DM could make you roll Persuasion to convince the lock nicely to open if they really wanted.

    But opening a lock and disarming traps is specifically called out as a Dex check that isn't related to any skill.

    I would argue that's because the lockpick tool exists, and so if the kit didn't, then it would not be called out specifically.
    I suppose the question is whether playing instruments is also called out specifically against Charisma, instead of being potentially lumped against performance.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited September 18
    With regards to 5e artificers: the ones that are in UE are really nice in that they feel interesting and avoid trodding on anyone elses corner too heavily; The gun smith can do some solid ranged damage, but he isn't going to overwhelm a caster or a dedicated archer build while the alchemist basically has some suped up cantrips and a healing power that is great and also balanced in that it eats a hole in the combat action economy but frees up the healers during down time (seriously, you can pretty much assume that everyone will be fully healed inside of a short rest).

    Really hope it's in the upcoming Splat book.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    With regards to 5e artificers: the ones that are in UE are really nice in that they feel interesting and avoid trodding on anyone elses corner too heavily; The gun smith can do some solid ranged damage, but he isn't going to overwhelm a caster or a dedicated archer build while the alchemist basically has some suped up cantrips and a healing power that is great and also balanced in that it eats a hole in the combat action economy but frees up the healers during down time (seriously, you can pretty much assume that everyone will be fully healed inside of a short rest).

    Really hope it's in the upcoming Splat book.

    Wizards thinks that both Artificers and Mystics need more time in the oven so they're going through another round of testing or two on DMG before they commit to anything in a book.

    I dunno, I take you seriously on some topics and dick rider is your profession
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    With regards to 5e artificers: the ones that are in UE are really nice in that they feel interesting and avoid trodding on anyone elses corner too heavily; The gun smith can do some solid ranged damage, but he isn't going to overwhelm a caster or a dedicated archer build while the alchemist basically has some suped up cantrips and a healing power that is great and also balanced in that it eats a hole in the combat action economy but frees up the healers during down time (seriously, you can pretty much assume that everyone will be fully healed inside of a short rest).

    Really hope it's in the upcoming Splat book.

    Wizards thinks that both Artificers and Mystics need more time in the oven so they're going through another round of testing or two on DMG before they commit to anything in a book.

    Mystics are a convoluted mess from what I've seen; feels like they had 8 different idea's for what the class should be and rather then refine it so that it's a little more focused they just trash compacted it together so that It looks like a sampling of a D&D clone from 1985. And it isn't like I don't understand that their are broad implications for what a psionicist should be capable of or how it can be many different things, but rather that each interpretation started from a wildly different place and only gets more similair midway through character generation (if even then).

    Like, if we look at the cleric we see a base class that is going to provide the same spells and abilities no matter what domain you run with, and that the domain functions by adding additional options specifically for that aspect (life domain is all about healing and enduring, War encourages infliction of injury right on the front line, the light domain burns the fuck out of people ect.) and the Wizard specializations work to reward people for choosing specific schools of magic (the conjurer creates better minions, the abjurer buffs like a boss, the enchanter mind controls everyone and everything in sight ect.)

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Demian
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Thieves Tool proficiency doesn't replace any skill check because there is no separate skill for opening locks/disarming traps.

    Sure it does.
    It replaces <whatever skill check the DM seems appropriate, probably Dex based>
    Just like every other check that doesn't fit cleanly into a skill category.
    Sleight of hand would be the most obvious I think.

    Sure, the DM could make you roll Persuasion to convince the lock nicely to open if they really wanted.

    But opening a lock and disarming traps is specifically called out as a Dex check that isn't related to any skill.

    I would argue that's because the lockpick tool exists, and so if the kit didn't, then it would not be called out specifically.
    I suppose the question is whether playing instruments is also called out specifically against Charisma, instead of being potentially lumped against performance.

    I would say instrument proficiency is a subset of performance. Performance indicates a proficiency that can be reasonably leveraged to play an instrument, sing, tell a story, do some public speaking, tell a joke, act in a play, or even be convincing whilst in a disguise. Instrument proficiency is a subset of that list. Or at least, that's how I'd rule it.

  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Incidentally, I did find an answer of sorts from Mike Mearls on twitter, who was asked whether to use Performance or Instrument Proficiency to play an instrument, and his answer was to just use either

    Which, sure that works, but also what the fuck

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    Elvenshaediscrider
  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    Performance-Is you playing the instrument entertaining to watch?

    Instrument proficiency-Are you good at the instrument in a technical sense?

    So performance without proficiency is someone whose playing may not be the best, but it great fun to be at their concert. A snotty punk bad with shitty guitars. Whereas someone with instrument proficiency but no performance gives a technically brilliant performance without engaging the crowd at all. A piano savant that enters, plays a concerto, bows, and leaves without a word.

    sig.gifSteam | D3: captaink#1674 | 3DS: 2466-1914-7679
    SmrtnikSleep
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    edited September 19
    I mean, to be clear here, I could have worked this shit out on my own

    It's not that I literally didn't know how to proceed

    I'm just complaining about very murky rules that don't really communicate their intent very well, and then Mearls goes "Oh well just use whichever" and it's like motherfucker, did anyone even look at this shit before it went to the printer

    At some point if you're coming up with weird rationale like the above "technical vs entertainment skill check" on behalf of the rules, the rules have failed

    Maddoc on
    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    Elvenshae
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    I still will never understand the people writing rules books not caring so much about the rules.

    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
    discriderMoridin889DevoutlyApatheticMr RaySteelhawkOatsElvenshaeCantide
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Incidentally, I did find an answer of sorts from Mike Mearls on twitter, who was asked whether to use Performance or Instrument Proficiency to play an instrument, and his answer was to just use either

    Which, sure that works, but also what the fuck

    That sort of attitude is essential to being a good DM but is fucking negligent in a game designer.

    At least in the context of 5e's design.

    FryElvenshae
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    RiemannLivesElvenshaeCantide
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    I'm OK with a "Just Do Whatever" attitude to be honest.

    Just as long as there is a stable base to build your "whateverness" off of.

    captainkNotoriusBENGaddezElvenshaediscriderMegaMekCarnarvon
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    I think that's an unjust assessment.
    I think there are enough rules there to give a player an expectation of what can foreseeably happen while still giving the DM options to make things interesting.
    I like 5e.
    The grapple/restrain rules are a bit clunky though.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    SteelhawkMoridin889SleepNyhtMrGrimoireMr Ray
  • see317see317 Taco Count 2017: 61 Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    I think that's an unjust assessment.
    I think there are enough rules there to give a player an expectation of what can foreseeably happen while still giving the DM options to make things interesting.
    I like 5e.
    The grapple/restrain rules are a bit clunky though.

    Is there any TT game with smooth grapple/restrain rules?

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    I think that's an unjust assessment.
    I think there are enough rules there to give a player an expectation of what can foreseeably happen while still giving the DM options to make things interesting.
    I like 5e.
    The grapple/restrain rules are a bit clunky though.

    Is there any TT game with smooth grapple/restrain rules?

    4e had some decent ones.

    That having been said, 5e definitley needed an editor who could clarify the garbled mess that some of the dialogue is so that it's easier to skim read and is less prone to "wait hold on a sec". Like christ, people like to complain about rifts but on a lot of things I found it's rules to be more clear (if cumbersome) then parts of 5e.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    RiemannLives
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    .
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    I think that's an unjust assessment.
    I think there are enough rules there to give a player an expectation of what can foreseeably happen while still giving the DM options to make things interesting.
    I like 5e.
    The grapple/restrain rules are a bit clunky though.

    The rule for how many targets an area effect spell can hit if you're not using a grid literally is "Just Do Whatever"

    Technically I think the exact phrase the book uses is "go with your gut"

    Elvenshae
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    .
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    5E's entire design philosophy is "Just Do Whatever".

    I think that's an unjust assessment.
    I think there are enough rules there to give a player an expectation of what can foreseeably happen while still giving the DM options to make things interesting.
    I like 5e.
    The grapple/restrain rules are a bit clunky though.

    The rule for how many targets an area effect spell can hit if you're not using a grid literally is "Just Do Whatever"

    Technically I think the exact phrase the book uses is "go with your gut"

    Yeah I was referencing the design mantra of "Rulings Not Rules" that's been central to 5E throughout its life, from design, to testing, to launch, to twitter advice. The game has rules, yes, and some of them are pretty okay, but it is built around the core belief that the DM should be making stuff up on the fly. This isn't a new idea, of course, but Mike Mearls and the 5E team have gone pretty hard on it for this edition.

    Elvenshae
  • AmarylAmaryl Registered User regular
    How do you determine what gets hit with an area of effect spell on a grid if you're not using templates though? Where do you center a spell? is it in the middle of a square? and does a character in a square that's half-covered by the radius of said spell still get hit? which basically either reduces or increases the radius of a spell by 5 feet, depending which interpretation you use.

    its been a while since I've read those rules but I don't remember them making that clear.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    Amaryl wrote: »
    How do you determine what gets hit with an area of effect spell on a grid if you're not using templates though? Where do you center a spell? is it in the middle of a square? and does a character in a square that's half-covered by the radius of said spell still get hit? which basically either reduces or increases the radius of a spell by 5 feet, depending which interpretation you use.

    its been a while since I've read those rules but I don't remember them making that clear.

    It doesnt. Theres a dorky picture showing the different shapes of AoE. I guess everyone has been homeruling it to their benefit.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • NealnealNealneal Registered User regular
    It lays it out decently I think.
    Under that dorky picture, they define what they mean when they say Point of Origin and what they mean when they reference the different shapes. They then tell you that the spell descriptions will give you specifics for both.
    I've got a lot of issues with 5e, but how to measure Fireballs and Cones of Cold has not been one of them.

    MrGrimoire
This discussion has been closed.