As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[D&D Discussion] The World's Greatest Boxed Soup(TM)

1789101113»

Posts

  • ThawmusThawmus +Jackface Registered User regular
    I do find it funny that Pathfinder 1E was like, oh man, let's give wizards more stuff. And then the common build strategy was to super specialize.

    Now in 2E, if you specialize you're basically fucking up. Generalist wizards get to refresh more of their spell slots than specialists do.

    steam_sig.png
    Twitch: Thawmus83
    Youtube: Thawmus
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dizzy D wrote: »
    I can't see it both ways: Wizards have studied magic and can therefore be more creative with its applications, but also most Wizards follow the precise instructions for a spell created. by somebody else, while a Sorcerer's more instinctive usage allows them to be a bit looser with working the magic. A bit like a chemist vs. a cook.

    More importantly you need to balance power without allowing large discrepancies in the number of spells that can be utilized. Because the number of spells utilized is a very blunt instrument and because combat doesn't tend to last enough rounds to make the lower level spells terribly relevant.

    That is. Sorcerers need empower.

    They certainly need something. There's a lot of stuff that wizards get that I wouldn't necessarily give them.

    If the game ever successfully breaks out of the idea that wizards need to basically have all options all the time that will probably be a huge game changer.

    TBH I think Wizards should have spells prepared that a Sorcerer currentl has as spells known, and a Sorcerer's Spells Known should be at the level a druid/cleric has prepared

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 13
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dizzy D wrote: »
    I can't see it both ways: Wizards have studied magic and can therefore be more creative with its applications, but also most Wizards follow the precise instructions for a spell created. by somebody else, while a Sorcerer's more instinctive usage allows them to be a bit looser with working the magic. A bit like a chemist vs. a cook.

    More importantly you need to balance power without allowing large discrepancies in the number of spells that can be utilized. Because the number of spells utilized is a very blunt instrument and because combat doesn't tend to last enough rounds to make the lower level spells terribly relevant.

    That is. Sorcerers need empower.

    Mechanically I figured 5E Sorcerers got Metamagic to add a little flexibility and complexity to their relatively rigid spells known. Wizards aren't exactly lacking there with a decent spellbook.

    It is both that but also Empower is really good. The point is that you cannot just give wizards metamagic because they're the ones who are supposed to understand magic. If you do this then what sorcerers must get more spells in a way that doesn't work. Sorcerers would have to get like... more 6th level + spells. And that would break things right fast.

    Empower however, there is a reason that its the only metamagic that can be used with any other meta-magic. Empower is like the Evocation wizard 10th level ability except you can do it on every spell and on every roll and its also stronger since it gives 6 average damage on a fireball at +5 charisma. Incendiary Cloud? You can spend 1 sorcery point every time it deals damage. Blade of Disaster? You can empower that shit every time it crits. Disintegrate? Yea you can empower your disintegrate. It costs 1 sorcery point and you will have at least 11/day by the time you can do it. And you get to decide after you roll.

    The main problem, imo, with sorcerers as written in the PHB is that they do not get empower for free. The downsides are that it means that not everyone picks empower (when they should because its baller) and that people who do pick it do not realize they need to be using it all the time because its so baller.

    Like. A Gold Dragon Sorcerer is doing +11 damage on their fireballs: from 28 average damage to 39 At level 6. They will have 6 points/day and 3 fireballs at this point... And then they eventually get a fly speed without having to maintain concentration. An evocation wizard hits 33 damage at level 10. And you might say "but cantrips"... suck. Cantrips suck you should be using a spell slot to blast if you would be using a cantrip for damage.

    And that isn't even getting into extend/silent shenanigans. The problem with sorcerers was almost entirely "people didn't empower their fireballs" and insomuch as this has to do with the writing of the class its because it was not written in such a way as to make people realize they should be empowering their fireballs. It would be as if stunning blows was an optional class choice.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    . It would be as if stunning blows was an optional class choice.

    I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have seen stunning strike land (it's 0). But I guess my group only has a single monk in one of our campaigns, and I played a monk/cleric twice for a couple one shots and maybe someone else played a monk a couple other times for one shots as well, so I haven't seen it attempted more than about 25 times total. But even then, it never landing even once just meant my group wrote it off as worthless

    zeHjgKv.png
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    See I’ve had stunning strike just fully wreck a number of encounters.

    Dizzy DGlalNipsGaddezoverride367
  • NipsNips Luxuriating in existential crisis.Registered User regular
    The Monk in my older campaign routinely floors key combatants, so frequently I have to plan encounters around him not just trivializing things (or just rolling with it when it happens; I've no problems taking the proverbial L if my party plays tight and right).

    JXUBxMxP0QndjQUEnTwTxOkfKmx8kWNvuc-FUtbSz_23_DAhGKe7W9spFKLXAtkpTBqM8Dt6kQrv-rS69Hi3FheL3fays2xTeVUvWR7g5UyLHnFA0frGk1BC12GYdOSRn9lbaJB-uH0htiLPJMrc9cSRsIgk5Dx7jg9K8rJVfG43lkeAWxTgcolNscW9KO2UZjKT8GMbYAFgFvu2TaMoLH8LBA5p2pm6VNYRsQK3QGjCsze1TOv2yIbCazmDwCHmjiQxNDf6LHP35msyiXo3CxuWs9Y8DQvJjvj10kWaspRNlWHKjS5w9Y0KLuIkhQKOxgaDziG290v4zBmTi-i7OfDz-foqIqKzC9wTbn9i_uU87GRitmrNAJdzRRsaTW5VQu_XX_5gCN8XCoNyu5RWWVGTsjJuyezz1_NpFa903Uj2TnFqnL1wJ-RZiFAAd2Bdut-G1pdQtdQihsq2dx_BjtmtGC3KZRyylO1t2c12dhfb0rStq4v8pg46ciOcdtT_1qm85IgUmGd7AmgLxCFPb0xnxWZvr26G-oXSqrQdjKA1zNIInSowiHcbUO2O8S5LRJVR6vQiEg0fbGXw4vqJYEn917tnzHMh8r0xom8BLKMvoFDelk6wbEeNq8w8Eyu2ouGjEMIvvJcb2az2AKQ1uE_7gdatfKG2QdvfdSBRSc35MQ=w498-h80-no
    Sleep
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Huh, any tips for what we might be doing wrong? Or maybe we've just bad luck with rolls? Because while Worm Shepherd was multi-classed (4 levels way of mercy monk, 2 levels grave cleric), I gave him a pretty good wis (16 I think?) so the DC for his stunning strike wasn't super low. I don't have his sheet in front of me, but I'll check when I get home

    zeHjgKv.png
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Wizard is definitely dabbles a bit in different things, good on theory so can work out how something was done and has the right tool for the right time.

    Sorcerer is signature spell and KNEEL MORTALS.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Darmak wrote: »
    Huh, any tips for what we might be doing wrong? Or maybe we've just bad luck with rolls? Because while Worm Shepherd was multi-classed (4 levels way of mercy monk, 2 levels grave cleric), I gave him a pretty good wis (16 I think?) so the DC for his stunning strike wasn't super low. I don't have his sheet in front of me, but I'll check when I get home

    Ah shit see I know exactly what’s making it work better for my table but literally no one else realizes that the entire system works much better if you use the rolled proficiency idea from the DMG.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Darmak wrote: »
    Huh, any tips for what we might be doing wrong? Or maybe we've just bad luck with rolls? Because while Worm Shepherd was multi-classed (4 levels way of mercy monk, 2 levels grave cleric), I gave him a pretty good wis (16 I think?) so the DC for his stunning strike wasn't super low. I don't have his sheet in front of me, but I'll check when I get home

    Well monks get it at level 5 so if they only have 4 levels they’re not using it.

    So that could be a definite issue with it not landing.

    In practice the issue is mainly that you’re probably not using it enough. DC for stunning blows usually is a few below wizard DCs until high levels then should be equivalent since it follows the same stat structure (8+proc+stat) unless the wizard gets legendary wizard equipment.

    But like… you get level KI points per short rest. You can, and should, dump stunning blows on an important target until you’re out of Ki points. It’s not that the DC is that high it’s that the monk, at level 5, can force you to make 4 saves in a round, fail one and you’re stunned and the monk can stop using stunning strike and save the Ki. (The monk also has a lot of decision tree efficiency here). Unless everything you fight has high con saves you’re probably gonna get through. And if you don’t you’re probably burning legendary saves. Which is a win regardless.

    The number of times I’ve seen a monk just flatten the legendary saves of a high level monster.. oh boy. They don’t always land the stun but it’s absolutely worth burning a legendary save to stop your Lich from being stunned and then your Lich is muuuch closer to getting flattened by a wizard.

    Decision tree efficiency: so a monk gets to decide to flurry after they make their normal two attacks. And gets to decide to stun after they hit. So if a monk is optimally disabling they’re only going to flurry if they fail to stun and they’re going to stop using stunning blows as soon as they stun. Say you’ve got DC 14 (16 wisdom +3 prof) and your enemies are rolling at +6 con saves (16 con + prof). The probability of saving is 65% individually. Which means that the monks KI cost to stun is 35% 1 Ki, 22.75% 2ki, 14.78% 4 Ki, 27.46% 5ki. With a net probability to stun of 82% and change (this assumes they all hit but if you don’t hit you don’t spend the Ki so..)




    wbBv3fj.png
    Nipswebguy20
  • NipsNips Luxuriating in existential crisis.Registered User regular
    Yeah, it's really the volume of strikes a Monk can put out, combined with a potential to stun, that's the point. Kinda bonkers, really, but the Monks in both my campaigns love it, and I love my players and it's fun, so I try to let them be Wushu Badasses wherever I can.

    JXUBxMxP0QndjQUEnTwTxOkfKmx8kWNvuc-FUtbSz_23_DAhGKe7W9spFKLXAtkpTBqM8Dt6kQrv-rS69Hi3FheL3fays2xTeVUvWR7g5UyLHnFA0frGk1BC12GYdOSRn9lbaJB-uH0htiLPJMrc9cSRsIgk5Dx7jg9K8rJVfG43lkeAWxTgcolNscW9KO2UZjKT8GMbYAFgFvu2TaMoLH8LBA5p2pm6VNYRsQK3QGjCsze1TOv2yIbCazmDwCHmjiQxNDf6LHP35msyiXo3CxuWs9Y8DQvJjvj10kWaspRNlWHKjS5w9Y0KLuIkhQKOxgaDziG290v4zBmTi-i7OfDz-foqIqKzC9wTbn9i_uU87GRitmrNAJdzRRsaTW5VQu_XX_5gCN8XCoNyu5RWWVGTsjJuyezz1_NpFa903Uj2TnFqnL1wJ-RZiFAAd2Bdut-G1pdQtdQihsq2dx_BjtmtGC3KZRyylO1t2c12dhfb0rStq4v8pg46ciOcdtT_1qm85IgUmGd7AmgLxCFPb0xnxWZvr26G-oXSqrQdjKA1zNIInSowiHcbUO2O8S5LRJVR6vQiEg0fbGXw4vqJYEn917tnzHMh8r0xom8BLKMvoFDelk6wbEeNq8w8Eyu2ouGjEMIvvJcb2az2AKQ1uE_7gdatfKG2QdvfdSBRSc35MQ=w498-h80-no
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Darmak wrote: »
    Huh, any tips for what we might be doing wrong? Or maybe we've just bad luck with rolls? Because while Worm Shepherd was multi-classed (4 levels way of mercy monk, 2 levels grave cleric), I gave him a pretty good wis (16 I think?) so the DC for his stunning strike wasn't super low. I don't have his sheet in front of me, but I'll check when I get home

    Well monks get it at level 5 so if they only have 4 levels they’re not using it.

    So that could be a definite issue with it not landing.

    In practice the issue is mainly that you’re probably not using it enough. DC for stunning blows usually is a few below wizard DCs until high levels then should be equivalent since it follows the same stat structure (8+proc+stat) unless the wizard gets legendary wizard equipment.

    But like… you get level KI points per short rest. You can, and should, dump stunning blows on an important target until you’re out of Ki points. It’s not that the DC is that high it’s that the monk, at level 5, can force you to make 4 saves in a round, fail one and you’re stunned and the monk can stop using stunning strike and save the Ki. (The monk also has a lot of decision tree efficiency here). Unless everything you fight has high con saves you’re probably gonna get through. And if you don’t you’re probably burning legendary saves. Which is a win regardless.

    The number of times I’ve seen a monk just flatten the legendary saves of a high level monster.. oh boy. They don’t always land the stun but it’s absolutely worth burning a legendary save to stop your Lich from being stunned and then your Lich is muuuch closer to getting flattened by a wizard.

    Decision tree efficiency: so a monk gets to decide to flurry after they make their normal two attacks. And gets to decide to stun after they hit. So if a monk is optimally disabling they’re only going to flurry if they fail to stun and they’re going to stop using stunning blows as soon as they stun. Say you’ve got DC 14 (16 wisdom +3 prof) and your enemies are rolling at +6 con saves (16 con + prof). The probability of saving is 65% individually. Which means that the monks KI cost to stun is 35% 1 Ki, 22.75% 2ki, 14.78% 4 Ki, 27.46% 5ki. With a net probability to stun of 82% and change (this assumes they all hit but if you don’t hit you don’t spend the Ki so..)

    I guess he had 5 levels in monk then because he definitely had an extra attack and stunning strike. 😜 So he either had 2 more in cleric and was level 7 total, or just 1 in cleric and was only 6 total.

    REGARDLESS

    I guess I'll need to bring him out again and try what you suggest. Besides hoarding ki points like they were wizard spell slots for some reason, I also never thought to spend more than one point in a round even if I did decide to try and stun. So it'd just be two regular attacks, one bonus attack, and then either flurry of blows or I'd attempt to do a stun.

    zeHjgKv.png
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    I am not what you would call smart

    zeHjgKv.png
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    Played with one of my groups tonight. Doing dungeon of the mad mage. They are level 8 and cleared level 3 of the dungeon so I let them come back to Waterdeep one last time before sealing them in for a while. My druid had picked up a piece of nice spider silk clothing and when she went to sell it, find out it was worth any 100gp (this is according to the module). She asked the shop keeper why so much and I said that spider silk is pretty rare on the surface plus it was excellent quality. So she found one of the more well to do seamstresses in the city and asked how much she would pay for raw spider silk.

    Now this puts me in a pickle because who the fuck even knows that? There have only been a few attempts at using spider silk to create stuff in real life. So I spent the next several minutes trying to look up the price of spider silk, nothing really to go on. So then I turn to normal silk and figure I would raise the price. Turns out real silk is actually pretty damn pricey. So I literally pull some numbers out of my ass. One giant spider can make 50 feet by 2mm of silk per hour. I told her the seamstress would pay 3gp per 50. So at level at 8 she can burn 1 spell slot to summon 3 giant spiders and gather their silk, then wild shape for 4 hours to gather her own. Then repeat. Per short rest.

    I only let her do it once since it would take a while for someone to process and then actually fashion clothes out of it but she loved it. I also let all 4 off my players incorporate the silk into their armor to give them all plus 1 AC.

    Also she made some venom for my rogue to use with her poison dagger. I limited that a bit more severely as in real life it takes quite a bit of time for most venomous animals to create more venom. Still though it will allow my rogue to keep stocked without having to spend any down time hunting down random venomous creatures to extract poison from.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
    kimeElvenshaetzeentchling
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Glal wrote: »

    Really does look like the Gold box SSI games:
    u79y9n50k447.png

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    look at all that 80s hair

    NipsElvenshaeZonugalSteelhawk
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    I mean it's no Shadowrun, but then, what is.

    NipsElvenshaeoverride367mrpakuMatev
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Oh, are we doing art critiques?

    Behold:



    80's. Battletech. Art.

  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh, are we doing art critiques?

    Behold:



    80's. Battletech. Art.

    Look, that's Battletech. Those fuckin nerds were glad to get art of any sort

    zeHjgKv.png
    ElvenshaeNipshlprmnkyMoridin889Tox
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 16
    Darmak wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh, are we doing art critiques?

    Behold:



    80's. Battletech. Art.

    Look, that's Battletech. Those fuckin nerds were glad to get art of any sort

    Yes clearly All the proffessional artists were locked down by TSR at the time; Behold my favorite AD&D monster illustration:
    https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Giant_gar

    Gaddez on
    ElvenshaeDarmak
  • Jam WarriorJam Warrior Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Darmak wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh, are we doing art critiques?

    Behold:



    80's. Battletech. Art.

    Look, that's Battletech. Those fuckin nerds were glad to get art of any sort

    Yes clearly All the proffessional artists were locked down by TSR at the time; Behold my favorite AD&D monster illustration:
    https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Giant_gar
    Giant gars were a rare, larger-than-normal variety of gar.

    This summary definition doesn't really add much to proceedings.

    MhCw7nZ.gif
    Elvenshae
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Darmak wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh, are we doing art critiques?

    Behold:



    80's. Battletech. Art.

    Look, that's Battletech. Those fuckin nerds were glad to get art of any sort

    Yes clearly All the proffessional artists were locked down by TSR at the time; Behold my favorite AD&D monster illustration:
    https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Giant_gar

    What about this beauty
    DfhGx_fWAAEmfFT?format=jpg&name=large

    hlprmnkyDizzy DMoridin889ElvenshaeZonugalNipsMatevDarmakThawmusSteelhawkToxRhesus PositivetzeentchlingWhelkA Dabble Of Thelonius
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Even as a kid (teen?), I thought the irony in that monster manual page was just delicious

    ElvenshaeNips
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Even as a kid (teen?), I thought the irony in that monster manual page was just delicious

    Is that irony though? I thought it was just plain ol humor. A silly joke that still makes me giggle

    zeHjgKv.png
    ThawmusZonugalRhesus PositiveElvenshae
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Darmak wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Even as a kid (teen?), I thought the irony in that monster manual page was just delicious

    Is that irony though? I thought it was just plain ol humor. A silly joke that still makes me giggle

    A picture of something, when that something is really a nothing is good example of irony to my mind, yes.

    Like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid. Dont you think ?

    Elvenshae
  • Cobalt60Cobalt60 regular Registered User regular
    It would be ironic if the picture was of the most conspicuous monster ever created and its name was 'invisible stalker.'

    Dizzy DThawmus
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The stalker picture is neither comedic irony (a statement that means the opposite of what it actually is for comedic effect) nor dramatic irony (a situation in which the audience knows the full significance of the situation but the character does not)

    wbBv3fj.png
    Thawmus
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    All of you nerds out there have completely missed my excellent "Isn't it Ironic" (Alanis Morrisette's mid-90's hit song) gag/reference and I'm very disappointed in all of you. :razz:

  • SchadenfreudeSchadenfreude Mean Mister Mustard Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    All of you nerds out there have completely missed my excellent "Isn't it Ironic" (Alanis Morrisette's mid-90's hit song) gag/reference and I'm very disappointed in all of you. :razz:

    Ironic, don't you think?

    Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe
    SteelhawkRhesus PositiveSmrtnikoverride367Elvenshaewebguy20DarmakThawmusGlalToxJPantsNipsWhelkhlprmnkyDarkPrimusfurlionMatev
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    All of you nerds out there have completely missed my excellent "Isn't it Ironic" (Alanis Morrisette's mid-90's hit song) gag/reference and I'm very disappointed in all of you. :razz:
    No. I got it. The song is about dramatic irony. Which is why I brought it up

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AmarylAmaryl Registered User regular
    That's not ironic Alanis, It's just unfortunate. It's only ironic if you married a weatherman and he picked the Date.

    Steelhawkoverride367
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Amaryl wrote: »
    That's not ironic Alanis, It's just unfortunate. It's only ironic if you married a weatherman and he picked the Date.

    No. it is ironic. Its just dramatic irony rather than comedic irony.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ThawmusThawmus +Jackface Registered User regular
    I'm glad this happened.

    steam_sig.png
    Twitch: Thawmus83
    Youtube: Thawmus
    override367
  • The BraysterThe Brayster UKRegistered User regular
    It's like raiii-aiiiinn, on your wedding day

    Steam: TheBrayster
    PSN: TheBrayster_92
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    10,000 Spoons

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    ZonugalElvenshae
Sign In or Register to comment.