Seems to depend on the source, Enlarge/Reduce gives you +1d4, a potion of Giant Size gives 3 times the damage dice, so 1d8 to 3d8, and monsters get one extra dice per size category above Medium, which matches the potion.
Yes. My point exactly. There are rules for each thing specifically. Monsters are created to match damage breaks not to match size breaks. So being large sized doesn’t get you any advantages here if the rule doesn’t say it gives you any advantages.
The only thing it modifies is the space you take up and the ability to maintain grapples on larger monsters. Because those are the only things that large size, on its own, modified.
Re: 31 damage/attack....power attacking actually reduces your damage/attack if you have large amount of damage die (unless you have a super easy time hitting or advantage).
Seems to depend on the source, Enlarge/Reduce gives you +1d4, a potion of Giant Size gives 3 times the damage dice, so 1d8 to 3d8, and monsters get one extra dice per size category above Medium, which matches the potion.
Yes. My point exactly. There are rules for each thing specifically. Monsters are created to match damage breaks not to match size breaks. So being large sized doesn’t get you any advantages here if the rule doesn’t say it gives you any advantages.
The only thing it modifies is the space you take up and the ability to maintain grapples on larger monsters. Because those are the only things that large size, on its own, modified.
They're not torturing themselves trying to design around things like that are like large-sized characters without actually technically being large-sized with stuff like the UA Centaur because being large-sized doesn't do anything. They're avoiding it because being large-sized is a huge advantage, primarily because it lets you use sized-up weapons that deal more damage. The fact they manage to express this fact in an obtuse and inconsistent way doesn't make it false, it just makes it another example of the incredible power of Natural Language.
"Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."
Players are creatures. The only thing that makes it remotely ambiguous whether this should apply to characters or not is the single use of the word 'monster' at the start of the paragraph - which is also in the sentence that contains no actual rules meaning on its own. The rest just says that a large creature using a large weapon deals double the normal damage dice, which is a state of affairs that absolutely applies to a large-sized player.
That first sentence also ascribes the extra damage as being a property of the weapon, not of the monster - indicating, for example, that if a large-sized player picked up the a large-sized monster's large-sized weapon and swung it, they would - as a reasonable person might expect - do the same amount of damage with it that the monster would, provided they had they same strength score. (Your interpretation would indicate that if a large-sized play took a large-sized monster's weapon away and hit him with it, it would suddenly deal much less damage even if both creatures had the same Strength stat, simply because one of them is a player and therefore a special class of creature that is treated differently by the rules - something that 5e's design paradigm goes out of its way to avoid, to the point of, for example, giving spellcasting monsters whole lists of spells known and prepared just like players have even though 'it can cast fireball twice and magic missile three times' would be much simpler and entirely sufficient for most use cases)
Which is made even more clearly the case by the second paragraph, which exists to cover scenarios where a smaller creature picks up a larger creature's weapon and tries to use it - a situation that would not require special rules if the result was just 'it's the same as using your regular-sized sword' or 'you can't'.
Which is also why the potion of giant size was written to conform to this rule - it is the normal, expected effect of a thing that increases player size, spelled out in the item description because the actual rule for it is buried in the monster design section of the DMG. Enlarge is the outlier, written with a specific, much smaller effect, inconsistent with the normal behavior of size-changing effects, because the normal behavior is clearly much too powerful to be a 2nd level spell and 5e is nothing if not willing to be inconsistent whenever it's convenient.
Re: 31 damage/attack....power attacking actually reduces your damage/attack if you have large amount of damage die (unless you have a super easy time hitting or advantage).
A)A good way to have a super easy time hitting is to have 24 strength so you get to add +7 to your attack bonus instead of the normal max of +5
B)The point of the comparison wasn't to say 'this is the most efficient, optimal way to deal damage', but rather to emphasize that you would get to fly around in a gundam and hit things very hard for lots of damage, which would be cool and fun.
Players are not creatures. The rules for monster creation do not govern players. This is why the DMG is the “dungeon masters guide” and not the “players supplemental rules for uncommon situations”
DnD 5e is not a simulation. It is a game.
+2 strength is enough to make it generally positive at 2d6 but not necessarily at 4d6. I will run it trough the spreadsheet tomorrow but I think you’re overestimating both the effect and value of being large.
The relevant passage in the DMG (pg 278) is only for monster creation. There are zero mentions of it anywhere else. It is for determining whether a monster is a challenge for the players. That is it.
The relevant passage in the DMG (pg 278) is only for monster creation. There are zero mentions of it anywhere else. It is for determining whether a monster is a challenge for the players. That is it.
I'm aware of what the section is, and what it probably should govern. But "Double the weapon dice if the creature is large" is not especially ambiguous. PCs are creatures.
Cure Wounds targets 'a creature you touch'. Fireball targets 'each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere'. Things that refer to 'creatures' refer to players, and a large-sized creature using a weapon appropriate for its size applies double the normal weapon dice.
Is it weird that that rule is located in the section that's supposed to be talking about monster creation? Absolutely, but it's also weird that the descriptions a DM needs for the spells a monster can cast are located in the Player's Handbook. It's far from the weirdest organizational choice in 5e, and suggesting that this rule does not apply to players at minimum requires you to argue that the term 'creature' means something different depending on which part of the book its in, which would be a lot weirder.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
PCs are creatures. If they weren't, a LOT of spells and abilities would need to be rewritten.
Not in that sense no. PC's use separate rules than monsters even if they are "creatures" in the natural language sense. The rules governing the creation of creatures to pit against your players do not govern the PC's. Its that simple. Are you a DM creating a monster for your own use against a group of players? No? Then ignore that section.
What if you want to create a monster as a PC like a Mindflayer bard?
What if you want to create a rival band? Or Ex members of the current band?
+1
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
So to hopefully derail this discussion I accidentally spawned I have to say that I highly recommend Wonderdraft for Mapmaking. Pretty intuitive, only $20 too. It's still in alpha but already I think I made a decent map in about 2 hours for my Fantasy Pirates campaign. Image is in the spoiler.
One nice thing is people are already starting to make icon packs for it over on Reddit, so 3rd party content should be interseting.
What if you want to create a monster as a PC like a Mindflayer bard?
What if you want to create a rival band? Or Ex members of the current band?
Then you use the rules for PC creation and design a custom race for mindflayer. If you want to create a rival band you will create them as monsters. Ex members of the band should have one stat block as a PC and one as an NPC
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
So to hopefully derail this discussion I accidentally spawned I have to say that I highly recommend Wonderdraft for Mapmaking. Pretty intuitive, only $20 too. It's still in alpha but already I think I made a decent map in about 2 hours for my Fantasy Pirates campaign. Image is in the spoiler.
One nice thing is people are already starting to make icon packs for it over on Reddit, so 3rd party content should be interseting.
Is there any trial and does it actually approximate distances in there so I can figure out general travel time? Between points on the map.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
override367 on
+1
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
No trial. There are some YouTube videos up reviewing it and I would recommend those to watch.
As far as distance I drew my map (my campaign takes place in the central rosmar sea) then laid down my hex grid and sized it so it approximated the scale I wanted. There is no built in scale tools though. Might be worth asking for though. The maps default to 1920x1080 but you can go to 4096x4096 I believe.
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
And this is absolutely why I (and my steadily more and more involved group as I drag them, one in particular, away from 3.5) love it.
No trial. There are some YouTube videos up reviewing it and I would recommend those to watch.
As far as distance I drew my map (my campaign takes place in the central rosmar sea) then laid down my hex grid and sized it so it approximated the scale I wanted. There is no built in scale tools though. Might be worth asking for though. The maps default to 1920x1080 but you can go to 4096x4096 I believe.
And the overlays are wonderful, you can make your bid world map, export it, load up a new project, turn your world map in to an overlay and increase the size and use that to make super detailed levels of your continents and have the proper coastline still.
+3
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
i also think it's easy to have a bad unpleasant 5e campaign. I had one recently even with an experienced DM. He just... chose not to fix 5e and the published module? I was real worried when I quit about his reaction but he was cool and now my other friend took my place and i still get to hear what happens, like an AP-light. It's great.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike.
(I mean, in this case they did, and this rule absolutely exists in the book, and following up 'okay it's in the book but it's in the wrong place so it doesn't count' by independently bringing up 'also the lead designer does play it the way you are describing but that doesn't count either' as closing line is a strange sort of conversational own-goal, but still.)
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
Eh. I would posit that all systems are equally fun when you don't engage with their mechanics, but that this is not especially a merit of the system - more than anything else it is literally a merit of the absence of a system. Playing 5e in a context where you're not really paying attention to the rules and just sitting around having a good time with friends is fun because sitting around having a good time with friends is fun, regardless of which system's rules you're mostly ignoring at the time. I don't think that especially speaks to the quality or lack thereof of the particular ruleset you're not-using for that purpose.
If you're not really paying attention to the rules, there's no meaningful difference between playing 5e or 4e or 13th age or anything else, because you're not really paying attention to the rules anyway. All else being equal, it seems ideal to be able to have a real good time not taking the rules too seriously and then also have a consistent, mechanically sound system underneath for the times when you do feel like paying attention to the rules.
I like how so many of Mike Mearls's tweets couch everything in "not official" because even the people that made the game can't tell what the official rule is supposed to be. It really gets to the heart of the 5E design philosophy. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way (well mostly), either. I really have come to like it, because once I embraced it 5E became really fun to run.
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
i also think it's easy to have a bad unpleasant 5e campaign. I had one recently even with an experienced DM. He just... chose not to fix 5e and the published module? I was real worried when I quit about his reaction but he was cool and now my other friend took my place and i still get to hear what happens, like an AP-light. It's great.
Totally agree. It's very easy to get frustrated with 5E and to end up in a group or with a DM that makes all the worst parts of the system come to the forefront. I kinda was one of those DMs early on, although to be totally fair I was trying to highlight how bad the rules were.
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
Eh. I would posit that all systems are equally fun when you don't engage with their mechanics, but that this is not especially a merit of the system - more than anything else it is literally a merit of the absence of a system. Playing 5e in a context where you're not really paying attention to the rules and just sitting around having a good time with friends is fun because sitting around having a good time with friends is fun, regardless of which system's rules you're mostly ignoring at the time. I don't think that especially speaks to the quality or lack thereof of the particular ruleset you're not-using for that purpose.
If you're not really paying attention to the rules, there's no meaningful difference between playing 5e or 4e or 13th age or anything else, because you're not really paying attention to the rules anyway. All else being equal, it seems ideal to be able to have a real good time not taking the rules too seriously and then also have a consistent, mechanically sound system underneath for the times when you do feel like paying attention to the rules.
Totally agree with you too. I'm not always clear on this fact (though I think I am most of the time?), but I don't think that my acceptance and enjoyment of 5E is a great endorsement of the product. I don't think one should have to buy $100 worth of books or whatever the going rate on Amazon is right now so that one can then turn around and ignore the stuff one just paid for.
My preference in D&D rulesets is actually Gamma World, because it's light and quick like 5E, but has the underlying solid mechanical systems of 4E. You don't have to take it too seriously, but then when you're actually playing the game part of the role-playing game it isn't going to let you down.
So I'm thinking of starting to sprinkle in some magic items into my 5e Hoard of the Dragon Queen campaign. Currently they're in Episode 3.
The first I'm thinking of is for our front line war domain cleric. So far she's made it a point to collect something from creatures which have downed party members, that she then dealt the killing blow to. She has 2 so far, I'm thinking once she gets a third one I'll have them give off an aura to her intending something like:
Fanged Necklace:
(Bonus Action) Once per long rest, use the energy stored in this necklace to heal (X) to a friendly creature (touch) who is at 0 HP.
I would have the X go up directly based on the number of momentos harvested. Balance suggestions?
I have to admit that I haven't really found the pitfalls with the system that a lot of people have experienced. Not saying that they aren't there but currently everything I've been running for our group has been easy and within the bounds of what's in the game. I'm sure there are holes to the system but I'm not sure they are as numerous or as apparent as sometimes is made to be in this thread. Or maybe I'm just accidentally patching it without knowing that's what I'm doing, in which case, it's still seems pretty intuitive.
Again, this is not a defense to the problems others have found, just that I'm not sure all or most groups find them so easily.
+2
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
No trial. There are some YouTube videos up reviewing it and I would recommend those to watch.
As far as distance I drew my map (my campaign takes place in the central rosmar sea) then laid down my hex grid and sized it so it approximated the scale I wanted. There is no built in scale tools though. Might be worth asking for though. The maps default to 1920x1080 but you can go to 4096x4096 I believe.
And the overlays are wonderful, you can make your bid world map, export it, load up a new project, turn your world map in to an overlay and increase the size and use that to make super detailed levels of your continents and have the proper coastline still.
Good to hear! I am going to be doing that this week once I finish up the overworld.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
override367 on
+1
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I think the biggest issue most people have with the rules is that they're not built in a way that makes them easy to learn and use for first time gamers picking up the hobby, generally speaking. Of course experienced DMs are going to tweak and modify things. For me at least I think that the core books do a poor job of explaining the why of the rules and how modifying them effects the game. A lot of things are "optional", ok how does that effect encounter design, campaign progression and running the game based on what rules a DM has chosen? Things like that.
I want D&D to say "this is how we've designed the game to play and how to run it" with clear consistent rules and examples. Then once that's all explained have a section in each main core book talking about how to modify the game based on common examples in the hobby.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
That rule is not anywhere under items, or the various weapon sections or the size change spells, or anywhere else except under the heading monster creation.
You are house ruling that monster creation rules apply to player characters.
Enlarge person + a big weapon is not the most efficient damage combo ever devised. Sorry.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
Eh, at best it is a set of guidelines on how to set monster damage and the section you're referencing is an alternative to just setting the damage values via the table itself.
Players are expressly handled differently. In the case of the enlarge spell the damage increase is explicitly +1d4 damage.
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
There's also a legendary potion at the conclusion of SKT that caused the confusion in the first place, as it does not follow ordinary enlarge rules, and has multiple extra effects.
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
There's also a legendary potion at the conclusion of SKT that caused the confusion in the first place, as it does not follow ordinary enlarge rules, and has multiple extra effects.
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
There's also a legendary potion at the conclusion of SKT that caused the confusion in the first place, as it does not follow ordinary enlarge rules, and has multiple extra effects.
The potion says exactly what it does doesn't it?
It does indeed. Hence my position that "this does not work like the monster creation rules because it does not explicitly say it does just as every other modification to player size explicitly says exactly what it does".
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
There's also a legendary potion at the conclusion of SKT that caused the confusion in the first place, as it does not follow ordinary enlarge rules, and has multiple extra effects.
The potion says exactly what it does doesn't it?
It does indeed. Hence my position that "this does not work like the monster creation rules because it does not explicitly say it does just as every other modification to player size explicitly says exactly what it does".
Yep that item seems to explicitly state the damage change.
Seemingly any increase to a player's size needs to come with explicit damage increase values.
I mean even I'll agree that's a bit of a hole, but not one I'm immediately hostile to. Gives you the ability to have distinctive size change mechanics?
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
That rule is not anywhere under items, or the various weapon sections or the size change spells, or anywhere else except under the heading monster creation.
You are house ruling that monster creation rules apply to player characters.
Again, no I am not. This rule is not about monster creation. It does not involve monsters. It does not involve creating them. It is a rule about weapon size and what happens if you wield a weapon meant for a larger attacker. Monsters don't do that. The word 'monster' does not appear in the sentence. It's not a rule about monsters. Repeatedly saying that it is a monster creation rule will not make it one.
This argument is like asserting that the rules for damaging an object don't apply if a player is trying to cut a rope during a combat, because the rules about damaging objects aren't located in the 'Combat' section. Meanwhile, the table for improvising damage is in the 'Combat' section - so clearly it must not apply if a player is, say, hit by rubble in a collapsing tunnel outside of combat! Hey, the rules for how to attune to a magic item are in the DMG, not the PHB, and they say 'creature' instead of player, they must not apply to players! It's nonsense.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
That rule is not anywhere under items, or the various weapon sections or the size change spells, or anywhere else except under the heading monster creation.
You are house ruling that monster creation rules apply to player characters.
Again, no I am not. This rule is not about monster creation. It does not involve monsters. It does not involve creating them. It is a rule about weapon size and what happens if you wield a weapon meant for a larger attacker. Monsters don't do that. The word 'monster' does not appear in the sentence. It's not a rule about monsters. Repeatedly saying that it is a monster creation rule will not make it one.
This argument is like asserting that the rules for damaging an object don't apply if a player is trying to cut a rope during a combat, because the rules about damaging objects aren't located in the 'Combat' section. Meanwhile, the table for improvising damage is in the 'Combat' section - so clearly it must not apply if a player is, say, hit by rubble in a collapsing tunnel outside of combat! Hey, the rules for how to attune to a magic item are in the DMG, not the PHB, and they say 'creature' instead of player, they must not apply to players! It's nonsense.
Except that it is literally step 11 of monster creation that you're citing, and all rules for for sizing up players come with explicit damage modification.
The player's handbook is required to play Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, in general, unless you're just using the basic/srd rules
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike. [/spoiler]
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
That rule is not anywhere under items, or the various weapon sections or the size change spells, or anywhere else except under the heading monster creation.
You are house ruling that monster creation rules apply to player characters.
Again, no I am not. This rule is not about monster creation. It does not involve monsters. It does not involve creating them. It is a rule about weapon size and what happens if you wield a weapon meant for a larger attacker. Monsters don't do that. The word 'monster' does not appear in the sentence. It's not a rule about monsters. Repeatedly saying that it is a monster creation rule will not make it one.
This argument is like asserting that the rules for damaging an object don't apply if a player is trying to cut a rope during a combat, because the rules about damaging objects aren't located in the 'Combat' section. Meanwhile, the table for improvising damage is in the 'Combat' section - so clearly it must not apply if a player is, say, hit by rubble in a collapsing tunnel outside of combat! Hey, the rules for how to attune to a magic item are in the DMG, not the PHB, and they say 'creature' instead of player, they must not apply to players! It's nonsense.
Except that it is literally step 11 of monster creation that you're citing, and all rules for for sizing up players come with explicit damage modification.
In what way is "A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker" related to monster creation? Why do you need that information? Which part of creating a monster prompts a question that is answered by that rule? There are two sections giving two different methods of calculating monster damage and this rule only appears in one of them; does that mean if I calculate my monster's damage using the other method then this rule doesn't apply and I can use an oversized weapon without penalty? What scenario is likely to prompt a question that you need to refer to that rule to answer?
Are you asserting that a player who uses a weapon sized for a larger attacker will not have disadvantage on his attacks, since the rule about it is in the monster creation section and therefore doesn't apply to players? An orc that picks up a large-sized sword will have disadvantage on his swings, but a player who does the same will experience no penalty, because the orc is a monster and the player is a player and the rule only applies to monsters even though it says 'creature' because it's in the monster creation section?
The answer is that it's not related to monster creation at all, is clearly intended to apply to players, and that responding to 'here are some examples why simply citing the section or book that a rule appears in as proof that it doesn't apply elsewhere is a bad argument' by just citing the section of the book again isn't even a rebuttal.
Posts
Yes. My point exactly. There are rules for each thing specifically. Monsters are created to match damage breaks not to match size breaks. So being large sized doesn’t get you any advantages here if the rule doesn’t say it gives you any advantages.
The only thing it modifies is the space you take up and the ability to maintain grapples on larger monsters. Because those are the only things that large size, on its own, modified.
Re: 31 damage/attack....power attacking actually reduces your damage/attack if you have large amount of damage die (unless you have a super easy time hitting or advantage).
They're not torturing themselves trying to design around things like that are like large-sized characters without actually technically being large-sized with stuff like the UA Centaur because being large-sized doesn't do anything. They're avoiding it because being large-sized is a huge advantage, primarily because it lets you use sized-up weapons that deal more damage. The fact they manage to express this fact in an obtuse and inconsistent way doesn't make it false, it just makes it another example of the incredible power of Natural Language.
"Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."
Players are creatures. The only thing that makes it remotely ambiguous whether this should apply to characters or not is the single use of the word 'monster' at the start of the paragraph - which is also in the sentence that contains no actual rules meaning on its own. The rest just says that a large creature using a large weapon deals double the normal damage dice, which is a state of affairs that absolutely applies to a large-sized player.
That first sentence also ascribes the extra damage as being a property of the weapon, not of the monster - indicating, for example, that if a large-sized player picked up the a large-sized monster's large-sized weapon and swung it, they would - as a reasonable person might expect - do the same amount of damage with it that the monster would, provided they had they same strength score. (Your interpretation would indicate that if a large-sized play took a large-sized monster's weapon away and hit him with it, it would suddenly deal much less damage even if both creatures had the same Strength stat, simply because one of them is a player and therefore a special class of creature that is treated differently by the rules - something that 5e's design paradigm goes out of its way to avoid, to the point of, for example, giving spellcasting monsters whole lists of spells known and prepared just like players have even though 'it can cast fireball twice and magic missile three times' would be much simpler and entirely sufficient for most use cases)
Which is made even more clearly the case by the second paragraph, which exists to cover scenarios where a smaller creature picks up a larger creature's weapon and tries to use it - a situation that would not require special rules if the result was just 'it's the same as using your regular-sized sword' or 'you can't'.
Which is also why the potion of giant size was written to conform to this rule - it is the normal, expected effect of a thing that increases player size, spelled out in the item description because the actual rule for it is buried in the monster design section of the DMG. Enlarge is the outlier, written with a specific, much smaller effect, inconsistent with the normal behavior of size-changing effects, because the normal behavior is clearly much too powerful to be a 2nd level spell and 5e is nothing if not willing to be inconsistent whenever it's convenient.
A)A good way to have a super easy time hitting is to have 24 strength so you get to add +7 to your attack bonus instead of the normal max of +5
B)The point of the comparison wasn't to say 'this is the most efficient, optimal way to deal damage', but rather to emphasize that you would get to fly around in a gundam and hit things very hard for lots of damage, which would be cool and fun.
DnD 5e is not a simulation. It is a game.
+2 strength is enough to make it generally positive at 2d6 but not necessarily at 4d6. I will run it trough the spreadsheet tomorrow but I think you’re overestimating both the effect and value of being large.
I'm aware of what the section is, and what it probably should govern. But "Double the weapon dice if the creature is large" is not especially ambiguous. PCs are creatures.
Cure Wounds targets 'a creature you touch'. Fireball targets 'each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere'. Things that refer to 'creatures' refer to players, and a large-sized creature using a weapon appropriate for its size applies double the normal weapon dice.
Is it weird that that rule is located in the section that's supposed to be talking about monster creation? Absolutely, but it's also weird that the descriptions a DM needs for the spells a monster can cast are located in the Player's Handbook. It's far from the weirdest organizational choice in 5e, and suggesting that this rule does not apply to players at minimum requires you to argue that the term 'creature' means something different depending on which part of the book its in, which would be a lot weirder.
The Dungeon Master's Guide is not required at all to play the game, it is a supplement to help the dungeon master. If that applied to players, it would be in the player's handbook. You might as well say that every suggestion in the DMG also applies to player character's rules, that their hit dice has some relationship to their AC for example, or that a dwarf's poison resistance means they should have less hitpoints or ac to compensate
Suggestions for monster creation have no bearing on the game rules for players
Not in that sense no. PC's use separate rules than monsters even if they are "creatures" in the natural language sense. The rules governing the creation of creatures to pit against your players do not govern the PC's. Its that simple. Are you a DM creating a monster for your own use against a group of players? No? Then ignore that section.
What if you want to create a rival band? Or Ex members of the current band?
One nice thing is people are already starting to make icon packs for it over on Reddit, so 3rd party content should be interseting.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Then you use the rules for PC creation and design a custom race for mindflayer. If you want to create a rival band you will create them as monsters. Ex members of the band should have one stat block as a PC and one as an NPC
No, those other parts of the section consistently say 'monster', not 'creature', pretty much throughout, with the exception of a few generally-applicable statements, like "a creature with 5d8+5 hit points has an average of 27 hit points". This particular portion repeatedly says 'creature' instead. Things that say 'creature' apply to players, which is why players are, for example, a valid target for the Cure Wounds spell, which only targets 'a creature you touch'.
Moreover, while 'one way you can determine a monster's damage output is to base the monster's attack damage on the weapon it is using' is a suggestion for monster creation, 'large weapons deal double the normal weapon dice' and 'a creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker' are not. Those are just rules for how large weapons work; they have nothing to do with building a monster, and the latter can't ever even apply to a monster unless you make the inexplicable decision to intentionally give one the wrong size weapon so it has disadvantage on all its attacks (in spite of believing that doing so has no other mechanical effect) - it is strictly a rule for how to deal with a player choosing to pick up and swing an oversized weapon.
Rules for the mechanics of oversized weapons are no more or less specifically special 'game rules for players' than rules for the mechanics of magic items, or diseases - which are also located in the DMG. And again, it's a pretty big reach to say 'well obviously if these rules were meant to apply to players they'd be in the player's handbook not the DMG, QED' in a system where rules that demonstrably apply to spellcasting monsters are located in the player's handbook instead of the monster manual or DMG.
Is there any trial and does it actually approximate distances in there so I can figure out general travel time? Between points on the map.
All of the rules for playing the game for players are in the PHB
If you, like mike mearls, want to homebrew it this way because it's more fun, you can, but it's not official
As far as distance I drew my map (my campaign takes place in the central rosmar sea) then laid down my hex grid and sized it so it approximated the scale I wanted. There is no built in scale tools though. Might be worth asking for though. The maps default to 1920x1080 but you can go to 4096x4096 I believe.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Personally I'd do the big weapons = bigger damage ruling. I like the images it conjures up in my mind and it seems like it would be fun for the players.
I super hate 5e but I still suggest it a surprising amount because of how simple it is to pick up. If I'm confident in the players and DM it's almost the default choice
Yeah it's funny, I love 4E because of how fun it is to engage with the game mechanics and systems. I like 5E because of how fun it is when you don't engage with the game mechanics and systems. Or I guess more accurately, when you don't try to engage with mechanics and systems that simply aren't there.
5E has become my default recommendation too mostly because it's the current edition, it's what people are playing on their podcasts and streams, and if you don't take the rules too seriously you can have a real good time with it (which is, not coincidentally, what all those popular groups do).
And this is absolutely why I (and my steadily more and more involved group as I drag them, one in particular, away from 3.5) love it.
And the overlays are wonderful, you can make your bid world map, export it, load up a new project, turn your world map in to an overlay and increase the size and use that to make super detailed levels of your continents and have the proper coastline still.
i also think it's easy to have a bad unpleasant 5e campaign. I had one recently even with an experienced DM. He just... chose not to fix 5e and the published module? I was real worried when I quit about his reaction but he was cool and now my other friend took my place and i still get to hear what happens, like an AP-light. It's great.
This is not accurate, 'here is how to adjudicate unusual equipment' is a rule for DMs not players, and it's as official a rule as anything can be in a system intentionally designed to be constructed entirely from optional house rules and duct tape.
I also, as an aside, deeply enjoy the notion of the lead designer of a game regularly houseruling his table because he thinks it's more fun than the other rules that he also wrote, decided on, and made official. Call me crazy, but if you've got a secret set of other, more fun rules in a folder somewhere, maybe those are the ones that should have gone in the book, Mike.
(I mean, in this case they did, and this rule absolutely exists in the book, and following up 'okay it's in the book but it's in the wrong place so it doesn't count' by independently bringing up 'also the lead designer does play it the way you are describing but that doesn't count either' as closing line is a strange sort of conversational own-goal, but still.)
Eh. I would posit that all systems are equally fun when you don't engage with their mechanics, but that this is not especially a merit of the system - more than anything else it is literally a merit of the absence of a system. Playing 5e in a context where you're not really paying attention to the rules and just sitting around having a good time with friends is fun because sitting around having a good time with friends is fun, regardless of which system's rules you're mostly ignoring at the time. I don't think that especially speaks to the quality or lack thereof of the particular ruleset you're not-using for that purpose.
If you're not really paying attention to the rules, there's no meaningful difference between playing 5e or 4e or 13th age or anything else, because you're not really paying attention to the rules anyway. All else being equal, it seems ideal to be able to have a real good time not taking the rules too seriously and then also have a consistent, mechanically sound system underneath for the times when you do feel like paying attention to the rules.
Totally agree. It's very easy to get frustrated with 5E and to end up in a group or with a DM that makes all the worst parts of the system come to the forefront. I kinda was one of those DMs early on, although to be totally fair I was trying to highlight how bad the rules were.
Totally agree with you too. I'm not always clear on this fact (though I think I am most of the time?), but I don't think that my acceptance and enjoyment of 5E is a great endorsement of the product. I don't think one should have to buy $100 worth of books or whatever the going rate on Amazon is right now so that one can then turn around and ignore the stuff one just paid for.
My preference in D&D rulesets is actually Gamma World, because it's light and quick like 5E, but has the underlying solid mechanical systems of 4E. You don't have to take it too seriously, but then when you're actually playing the game part of the role-playing game it isn't going to let you down.
The first I'm thinking of is for our front line war domain cleric. So far she's made it a point to collect something from creatures which have downed party members, that she then dealt the killing blow to. She has 2 so far, I'm thinking once she gets a third one I'll have them give off an aura to her intending something like:
Fanged Necklace:
(Bonus Action) Once per long rest, use the energy stored in this necklace to heal (X) to a friendly creature (touch) who is at 0 HP.
I would have the X go up directly based on the number of momentos harvested. Balance suggestions?
PSN: ChemENGR
Again, this is not a defense to the problems others have found, just that I'm not sure all or most groups find them so easily.
Good to hear! I am going to be doing that this week once I finish up the overworld.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I mean, not everyone agrees with the idea that a second level spell should turn a martial class into an engine of destruction though
it's FREQUENTLY brought up as a cudgel against 5e that people run different variations on the rules, but this absolutely mystifies me, your preferred ruleset is farther away from mine than the default rules are, most likely. I doubt any of our gaming tables use exactly the same rules and complaining about that is like being upset that every sandwich isn't your favorite kind of sandwich
I'm not interested in arguing whether or not monster creation rules apply to players, it doesnt matter because we just run how we wanna run regardless unless you're playing AL
I think the biggest issue most people have with the rules is that they're not built in a way that makes them easy to learn and use for first time gamers picking up the hobby, generally speaking. Of course experienced DMs are going to tweak and modify things. For me at least I think that the core books do a poor job of explaining the why of the rules and how modifying them effects the game. A lot of things are "optional", ok how does that effect encounter design, campaign progression and running the game based on what rules a DM has chosen? Things like that.
I want D&D to say "this is how we've designed the game to play and how to run it" with clear consistent rules and examples. Then once that's all explained have a section in each main core book talking about how to modify the game based on common examples in the hobby.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I'm not discussing my 'preferred ruleset', nor am I discussing monster creation rules nor whether they apply to players. I'm discussing a rule about weapons and size that is literally written in the book. If you want to houserule something different because you don't like where in the book they put that rule, you are of course free to do so.
That rule is not anywhere under items, or the various weapon sections or the size change spells, or anywhere else except under the heading monster creation.
You are house ruling that monster creation rules apply to player characters.
Enlarge person + a big weapon is not the most efficient damage combo ever devised. Sorry.
Eh, at best it is a set of guidelines on how to set monster damage and the section you're referencing is an alternative to just setting the damage values via the table itself.
Players are expressly handled differently. In the case of the enlarge spell the damage increase is explicitly +1d4 damage.
That's really the only currently existing means by which to be a large player character in the system as far as I can recall.
There's also a legendary potion at the conclusion of SKT that caused the confusion in the first place, as it does not follow ordinary enlarge rules, and has multiple extra effects.
The potion says exactly what it does doesn't it?
It does indeed. Hence my position that "this does not work like the monster creation rules because it does not explicitly say it does just as every other modification to player size explicitly says exactly what it does".
Yep that item seems to explicitly state the damage change.
Seemingly any increase to a player's size needs to come with explicit damage increase values.
Again, no I am not. This rule is not about monster creation. It does not involve monsters. It does not involve creating them. It is a rule about weapon size and what happens if you wield a weapon meant for a larger attacker. Monsters don't do that. The word 'monster' does not appear in the sentence. It's not a rule about monsters. Repeatedly saying that it is a monster creation rule will not make it one.
This argument is like asserting that the rules for damaging an object don't apply if a player is trying to cut a rope during a combat, because the rules about damaging objects aren't located in the 'Combat' section. Meanwhile, the table for improvising damage is in the 'Combat' section - so clearly it must not apply if a player is, say, hit by rubble in a collapsing tunnel outside of combat! Hey, the rules for how to attune to a magic item are in the DMG, not the PHB, and they say 'creature' instead of player, they must not apply to players! It's nonsense.
Except that it is literally step 11 of monster creation that you're citing, and all rules for for sizing up players come with explicit damage modification.
In what way is "A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker" related to monster creation? Why do you need that information? Which part of creating a monster prompts a question that is answered by that rule? There are two sections giving two different methods of calculating monster damage and this rule only appears in one of them; does that mean if I calculate my monster's damage using the other method then this rule doesn't apply and I can use an oversized weapon without penalty? What scenario is likely to prompt a question that you need to refer to that rule to answer?
Are you asserting that a player who uses a weapon sized for a larger attacker will not have disadvantage on his attacks, since the rule about it is in the monster creation section and therefore doesn't apply to players? An orc that picks up a large-sized sword will have disadvantage on his swings, but a player who does the same will experience no penalty, because the orc is a monster and the player is a player and the rule only applies to monsters even though it says 'creature' because it's in the monster creation section?
The answer is that it's not related to monster creation at all, is clearly intended to apply to players, and that responding to 'here are some examples why simply citing the section or book that a rule appears in as proof that it doesn't apply elsewhere is a bad argument' by just citing the section of the book again isn't even a rebuttal.