Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Adaro

Diffan's page

921 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 921 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

All 18's across the board?!! Wow, that's sorta crazy. No wonder they feel weak, since they're pretty much superheroes (stat-wise) early on. Well if they're feeling too weak, you could throw easier enemies at them but make their significance to the story higher. And throw lots at them that make combats that much more grand. I mean a 3d4 burning hands spell looks a lot better when it wipes out 5-7 goblins compared to 1 orc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....


@ Rainzax, that's a very cool alternative. I might steal that for my game instead. And it also works easily for monsters too!!

@ Staffan: thank you for the info. No I really don't think those are good reasons for their implementation but its good to know what the ideas were during the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with all the Martial / Caster discrepancy threads coming in I figured that I delve into probably is one of the most systemic problems facing Martials with v3.5 and Pathfinder. The two being a Full-Attack action and descending attack bonuses. Now this isn't just a problem for Martials as all classes are affected by this to some degree however I feel Martial classes are affected, by far, more than spellcasters since they are the ones that use that particular system the most.

The first problem is Full-Attack. One of the problems this creates is rooting a weapon-based user in place. It doesn't matter if they wield a sword or bow, they only ever benefit from one of their biggest class features when they're standing completely still or have only moved 5-ft. Now imagine if a spellcaster, to cast higher level spells (5th level +), was under the same limitation. I think the entire game would shift in a different way in the way it's played. This also creates a divide in melee-weapon choices, thus making reach weapons FAR more preferable to one-handed/light weapons IF you want to make sure enemies don't slip by you and conversely, weapons like the Spiked Chain become #1 overall.

I'm not entirely sure why the rule of Full-Attack is in place? I don't really understand what it's exactly trying to emulate within the narrative of the game world? Why can't a warrior move 30-ft. and swing a weapon in 6-seconds? Is the time constraint of a round that pivotal to maintain that ALL classes are reduced to move + 1 attack or don't move + ALL attacks? Why is it there?

The second problem are descending attack modifiers. As the AC is static, the modifier is static too and the die roll represents chance / luck / fate / etc. But then why make it further complicated by making iterative attacks worse? What exactly changed between attack #1 and #2 or #3 or #4? What is this specific rule attempting to simulate? I don't think it's endurance or fatigue because it's the same with the opposed hand (a hand that is often 'weaker' by comparison). Does the monster somehow react exceptionally fast after the first swing is created? Even if you take a more narrative view of multi-attacking (each attack isn't 1 swing but the whole round is a commotion of parries and thrusts) then descending attacks don't necessarily make much sense. In sword fighting it's often the 1st attack that is a decoy or ruse that will open up you opponent to secondary and iterative attacks. Except in D&D/PF-Land where the first attack is always swung hardest and all other attacks sort of become weaker and slower and less useful.

So what this boils down to is a Warrior/Martial character who has to stand-still (barring a 5-ft. step) to get his full benefit BUT even then that benefit is hampered as those last attacks become just hopefull-critial threats anyways.

Now imagine if both those rules were removed! Yep, what would happen if the Martial / Warrior didn't have to stand in a 5-ft. area to be a Weapons-Master? What would happen if ALL of their attacks were accurate (and deadly)?

Now one serious downside to removing these restrictions is that you have to remove them from everyone. That means creatuers like Dragons and Hydras and the like can make all their attacks, fly, and be destructive forces of nature in their own right. Well, honestly, I'm OK with that. Dragons are scary dangerous and walking into it's DEN to throw down should be a sure-fire way to get eaten. If a Hydra has come upon you in surprise, best to scatter and used Ranged options until it's close to death. It would change the way the game is played but I think that change is ultimately for the better.

Thoughts?


tsuruki wrote:

Do you mind homebrew, my group uses this feat:

Dervish.
Your attacks are precise enough to nick even the best protected arteries.
Prerequisites: Weapon finesse or One hander. Weapon focus . Base attack bonus +3.
When you fight with a weapon for which you possess weapon focus and that can benefit from the Weapon finesse feat you may use your dexterity modifier in place of your strength modifier for weapon damage rolls.

I'm not entirely sure you need something home-brewed?

There's

Slashing Grace

or

Deadly Agility


Deadly Agility add Dex in place of Str for damage but with only light and finessable weapons. Its in the Path of War supplement by Dreamscarred Press. Pretty much one way to make a rogue better in combat when sneak attacking isn't reliable.


graystone wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Just use Deadly Agility from Path of War from Dreamscarred Press. Use Dex in place of Strength with any light or finessable weapon.

Done.

I wish more DM's did use it.

I'm not sure why they don't? I've used that, and its predecessor the Time of Battle, extensively and I've yet to encounter any sort of broken shenanigans that I often see with simple spellcasters. Its a fun supplement and a reason why I still occasionally play Pathfinder


Just use Deadly Agility from Path of War from Dreamscarred Press. Use Dex in place of Strength with any light or finessable weapon.

Done.


ZZTRaider wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Alright - I'm gonna chime in here on this thread as well:

My sense is that - from the fighters that I build - I get frustrated by needing to take a Feat when someone else gets cool stuff as a class feature.

"But - you get so many more Feats than I do! Why are you complaining?"

"Because your class just GIVES you stuff, and I always have to come begging for things I should just be able to do!"

In part, I think this is an issue with some things being feats when they shouldn't be.

Like, why on earth do I need a feat and BAB+11 to use Strike Back? Why is it somehow insufficient to just ready an action? Readying an action to attack is exactly how I'd want to handle an opponent with greater reach if I can't get in close enough to hit them normally. But, because there's a feat to do it, I can't unless I'm at least level 11 and took the feat.

I'd argue that Power Attack is much the same. Why do you need special training to try to sacrifice accuracy for power? I don't need any special training to sacrifice accuracy for defense (by fighting defensively). I don't need special training to sacrifice my ability to effectively hit my opponent to do non-lethal damage.

And of course, the ridiculousness of martial feat chains comes up pretty often. Are there even any real spellcaster equivalents here? Spell Perfection comes to mind as the closest thing, but those three metamagic feats you need to qualify will be useful in just making good use of Spell Perfection to begin with. (One of the most common uses of Spell Perfection I've seen is to make a Fireball far more powerful by letting you stack Empowered, Maximized, and Intensified at a more reasonable spell level. Or drop Maximized in favor of Quickened to get off two solid Fireballs in a single round.)

Combat Expertise comes up a lot, too, and for good reason. Why is a Wizard more likely to have the potential to safely trip someone...

This is pretty spot on from my experiences as well. In addition to all of that the system itself is pretty hard to weapon-based classes as well. Descending attack bonuses, full-round attacks being the two major hindrances.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irranshalee wrote:

So there have been several people telling me that 5th edition is so much smoother than Pathfinder and the game play is worth buying 5th edition. I made a decision...

I bought a Player's Handbook.

I have been paging through it over the last couple days and I have to say that there appears to be no significant changes that would warrant a shift away from Pathfinder for me. Maybe I am missing something?

Possibly, it really depends on what you're looking for in an RPG. Saying the system more smooth is sort of hard to determine because if you're already geared towards the micromanaging nature of Pathfinder then you only notice a lack of it in 5e as there are FAR less fiddly bits in that system. For some, those fiddly bits are what drives the fun of the game where as for others it's more of a burden.

Irranshalee wrote:
If you have a better understanding of the two systems, would you either point me to a link that describes the differences or would you take a few moment to quickly point out the finer points of 5th edition?

Magic is more limited in the later stages, gaining only a few spells from 6th through 9th level. Magic is also limited because of the Concentration mechanic. Because of this, magic-users aren't slapping multiple stacking spells to own encounters so quickly.

There is more emphasis on encounters and short rests compared to an all-day or X/day limit. Even spellcasters get benefits with short rests.

Healing doesn't require a spellcaster OR days of rest to regain due to full HP regain and Hit Die healing.

Many unnecessary restrictions were removed from hindering weapon-based classes. Example: Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require feats or stat requirements; you can move-attack-move without a feat; no more god-awful Full-attack action, no more lengthy feat chains to get one good benefit.

Magic items take a back seat to character power, no longer required to possess 15 magical items just to keep up with the maths. Also, maths hacked down to normal levels so we don't have monsters with AC 45, +57 to attack & dealing 235 points of damage a turn.

Death is slightly harder to come by but much more permanent.

There aren't ridiculously obvious trap choices to get fooled by.


Arakhor wrote:
What does that feat do?

In 4e it allows you to use another stat besides Strength for Melee Basic Attacks however the damage is only 1/2 the modifier.

In 5e it adds +1 to the stat if your choice (to a Max of 20) and you can use that stat to make melee weapon attacks. The damage is still only 1/2 the modifier. So a Paladin could take the feat and use Charisma for melee attacks or a Wizard could use Intelligence.


Overall me and my group are having fun with 5e. We're currently playing through the Tiamat adventure and while we're only 1st level, its been entertaining. Its quite easily replaced 3.5/PF in our rotation of games so now it's either 4e or 5e. Couple hours of things that I feel have worked well...

• bounded accuracy
• flexible spellcasting
• multiclassing

We've added a few elements from 4e like Melee Training feat and they have worked out rather well.


Why is it that the Paladin and Ranger always get royally shanked when it comes to their spellcasting in 3.5? I mean it's bad enough that they're consistently tier 4 and 5 classes to begin with due to their extremely specific class features and the next-to-zero aid in spellcasting doesn't help them out at all. At the very least I'd give them half the amount of points the Bard gets. Really, anything to help them out because they struggled so bad in this edition.


Sunderstone wrote:

Love SKR, He's a class act (even in WoW).

I wish him success no matter where he ends up.

What did he write for WoW?


Kryzbyn wrote:

Nah. All they have to do is release a turn based Baldur's Gate rehash and it will sell like hot cakes.

They don't have to compete with Skyrim, Elder Scrolls, or the Witcher.
They know this. Houstonderek is right; the DnD brand is easy money.

Like Sword Coast Legends?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.

Why? By all accounts 5E is doing exceedingly well. 4E did exceedingly well at first go, and many believe 3E sold extremely well too. So if by "Bane" you mean making lots of profit, then......sure?

Forever Slayer wrote:
I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want.

They did, back in 2000. It's called the OGL. Your welcome.

Forever Slayer wrote:

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would break that antique piggy bank in order to get to the money inside. I could see them getting frustrated because D&D didn't meet their crazy goals and shelving it.

What get's me is a company like Hasbro and WoTC can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would continue to work on a brand to make it larger than it has. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to make it more interesting to people who might not ever have gamed before. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to do more with the brand other than basically sit on it for coppers a day. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to branch into other spheres of the entertainment industry so that we can enjoy D&D-ish things in addition to just the TTRPG side of it.

To me those are all great things to strive for. They've hit some set backs, yes but I think they're learning.


Core is difficult since a lot of the better feats resides in other supplements or even in Dragon magazine. That being said I'd go with Fighter 4/ Rogue 16. You'll still get 4 attacks per turn and you'll amp up your damage by making attacks with Sneak Attack.

Stats (25 pts)
Str 14 (+2)
Dex 15 (+2) / 16 @ 4th / 17 @ 8th / 18 @ 12th / 19 @ 16th
Con 13 (+1) / 14 @ 20th
Int 10 (+0)
Wis 12 (+1)
Cha 8 (-1)

Feats:
Human - Point Blank Shot
1st - Precise Shot
Fighter 1 - Weapon Focus (longbow)
Fighter 2 - Rapid Shot
3rd - Far Shot
Fighter 4 - Weapon Specialization (longbow)
Rogue 2 (Char lv. 6) - Dodge
Rogue 5 (Char lv. 9) - Manyshot
Rogue 8 (Char lv. 12) - Mobility
Rogue 11 (Char lv. 15) - Shot on the Run
Rogue 14 (Char lv. 18) - Improved Precise Shot


I'm not sure if this thread is still relevant but I'll throw in my 2cp.

Lets see, as a Human Monk you'll get (not including bonus feats)---

Human - Improved Initiative
Monk 1a - Improved Unarmed Strike
Monk 1b - Stunning Fist
1st - Ability Focus (Stunning Fist)
Monk 2 - Combat Reflexes
3rd - Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
6th - Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) now 2d6
Monk 6 - Improved Trip
9th - Blind-Fight
12th - Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike)
15th - Improved Natural Armor
18th - Ability Focus (Quivering Palm)

The last two are pretty much filler. Same thing with Blind-Fight. Being blind really sucks so being able to roll an extra d20 is really nice to have when magical items aren't forthcoming.

As for Stats: 20,18,16,16,16,10
Str 20 / 21 @ 4th / 22 @ 8th
Dex 16 / 17 @ 20th
Con 16
Int 16
Wis 18 / 19 @ 12th / 20 @ 16th
Cha 10

Without any magical aid @ 20th level:
AC 23
Unarmed Attack: +22/+17/+12 or
Flurry of Blows: +22/+22/+22/+17/+12 (4d8+6/19-20)
SR 31
Dimension Door 1/day (Caster Level 10th).
Stunning Fist (Fort DC 27)
Quivering Palm (Fort DC 27)


The "feeling" of D&D, for me, is pretty general because I tend to think of D&D as the Original trope Fantasy RPG. Other games need to distance itself from D&D, not the other way around. Because of that, I tend to D&D a very large margin of variation. Things that stick out as distinctly D&D are:

• Wizards use Intelligence and spellbooks to ready and cast their spells. Every edition so far as had this feature.

• Fighters are tough, weapon-specializing warriors that excel in combat. AD&D and 4E (and to an extent 5E) did this pretty well while 3E, v3.5, and PF need specific builds to make this true (mostly due to excelling in combat part).

• Clerics are mortal instruments of their deities and channel their divine power in wondrous displays of magics and miracles. Again, every edition so far has had this feature.

• Rogues and Thieves are cunning knaves who use a specific set of weapons and tools for unscrupulous acts. Every edition has met this so far.

• Monsters should include Dragons, Mindflayers, and Beholders.

Done


SmiloDan wrote:
That makes sense. Thanks.

No prob. I actually like the Rogue and Vengeance Oath paladin to make a Shadowbane Inquisitor style character.


Draconic scales & Unarmed Defense of the Monk and barbarian do not stack. Both set your AC rather than adding to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houser2112 wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:
I've been playing D&D since 1979, finding something good in every system. And 5th edition has finally done what even 4E couldn't manage, and driven me away from my very first RPG.
I'm scratching my head at this statement. You stayed for 4E, but not for 5E? Nothing can match the perfection that is 3.PF, but at least 5E feels like D&D. When I was thumbing through 4E's PH, I actually closed the book to make sure I was actually reading a D&D book, it was so alien to me.

Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher


I think every edition "feels" like D&D, just in different ways. Each one has its own distinction on what what it focuses on but overall, the game pretty much plays the same.


Some of the stuff I've incorporated:

• Starting HP = Constitution score. Hit Die + Con modifier at every level thereafter.

• Ported over 4E's Melee Training feat, which now grants a +1 bonus to one Ability score of your choice (without going over 20) and you now use that particular score's modifier when rolling for weapon attacks. You only deal half the modifier's number in damage (rounded down). So a Cleric who choose Melee Training (Wisdom) gets +1 to his/her Wisdom score and say they now have a Wisdom 17 (+3), they would add +1 to weapon damage rolls.

• Daggers are more deadly when used in close combat such as grappling, increasing their damage die to d8.

• I'll probably also convert more 4E powers into maneuvers for the Battle Master to pick, as well as anyone who grabs the maneuver-based feat.

• Figuring out a homebrew for the Warlord as well.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Just remember that 5th Edition does not need the crazy bonuses that 3.5 and Pathfinder use. Magic bonuses per item cap at +3 for a reason and the system is meant to be low magic when it comes to items. You could make masterwork weapons cost half the price of a +1 magic weapon, since masterwork only gives you the bonus on the hit and not damage. Masterwork armor is more of a problem, since it would be identical to +1 magic armor, just not being magic.

Masterwork armor in 3e/v3.5/Pathfinder just gives reduces the armor check penalty by 1. So 5e's Masterwork armor could remove Disadvantage on Stealth checks or maybe lower the Strength requirement to wear it properly?


Giorgo wrote:

Starting to catch up on my forum reading (as RL got in the way), I am setting the campaign in the Sword Coast, and now have lots of links, resources and PDFs to read. :)

Now, just need to figure out how to add masterwork weapons to D&D 5E...

Well a simple port from 3e is easy enough, just adjust the prices to reflect the quality of the weapon. Another idea is to make all +1 items non-magical and anything +2 (or greater) or that has a special effect magical so there is a distinction.


Rhedyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I'm not sure how long this has been up, but for all those who kept complaining that 5e lacked an SRD, they have an online version of the Player's Basic Rules HERE.

Oh wow no. That does not even begin to count.

The basic rules are a taste. By themselves they are a crappy game.

I wouldn't say it's a crappy game to go with just the basics, especially when there's a significant portion of the community who doesn't want to delve into the multitude of additional options the PHB has. A DM can have the players download the basic rules while they buy the DMG and then go from there. And if the DM wants to gradually add more content like additional sub-paths, more spells or classes or races, it's pretty easy to do.

Basically it's all in how much you're looking to put into your game. For myself, I'd be happier with the full rules bit I've run a few basic games and they're just as fun.

RE: Topic
As far as the rules go, I'm a fan for the most part. There's a few things I'm not happy with like no actual Warlord (battle master doesn't cut it for me, sorry) and short rests = 1 hr, I like what they're doing. Coming from a mostly 3.5/PF/4e background I have to say the general mechanics of 3.5 and PF were getting to a point of ridiculous proportions that a more streamlined and simpler game is needed.

The way I look at it is like this, D&D is an exception-driven system. Specific beats general and the TONS of specific modifiers, rules, and exceptions that it makes it almost not ever try something you're specifically not build for. Have you ever seen people in 3.5/PF attempt to trip someone else when they weren't equipped with a trip - specific weapon and/or have the Improved Trip feat? My guess is no or it's only done sparsely because the penalties and repercussions of trying it without the feat is a near waste of your turn. To me, that's problematic. I'd rather not have penalties and repercussions for basic actions and allow people who delve into those specific mechanics the greater benefit.


14 sided die wrote:
ONe thing I noticed about 4e was that it was really easy to pick up and play, and to teach to beginners, and didn't require a huge level of system mastery, since everyone works off basically the same mechanics

My experience as well. During a summer two years ago I had a series of friends-of-friends stop by to game occasionally and they never played before. With 2 sessions they picked up the game quite easily and was having a blast, even when one of them died.


I still subscribe and will continue to do so as long as 4e content is still available in the magazines and tools. 5e is much too simple to require a Character Builder program and so far all content has been free for 5e.


CommandoDude wrote:

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, I didn't notice it - but 4e really succeeded in doing something no previous edition was really able to do at all, which is balance the classes (especially along the martial/caster axis).

One thing that has typified Pathfinder for instance is how insanely powerful casters become at high levels, and how much more useful they are out of combat than the skills system that the rest of us get. 4e essentially solved that by ditching the limiting Vancian system and using the AEDU system that brought casters down to par with martials, but still allowing them unique abilities that let them perform traditional caster roles without being op. Casters no longer really had to deal with being powerless at 1st level and warriors were no longer sidelined at later levels - this means players are having fun at all stages of the game, not just when the class they're playing is "in their prime."

Yep, the focus of the spotlight is about role within the round instead of the encounter. For example in 3e if there was an encounter that featured lots of undead or 1 powerful undead the Cleric had the potential to completely obliterate the enemy on his turn, sometimes before anyone else acted. In 4e his radiant spells help immense but the others at the table still get to engage too.

They effectively removed "I Win" buttons for the most part from the game. Still, wizards are unparalleled in terms of monster lock-down and single target penalties as well as mob/minion destruction but they still need help in other areas. Further, by allowing everyone a chance to try skills, you remove the requirement of certain classes to be in the party, like always having a Rogue to picks locks or always a cleric to heal as anyone can get Thievery skill via class, feat, and racial selection as well as other non - casters being able to heal (aka Warlord)


thejeff wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
The key is to mix up encounter challenges so it is hard for the players to predict the story pacing, so in that sense I develop an appropriate level encounter that may encompass multiple rooms, or create the same encounter above the characters levels. The same applies for single rooms, areas, regions, etc. A true sandbox in my mind is a roller coaster ride. You never know what is around the next corner.

How does that work?

My understanding of sandbox is that the GM doesn't restrict things to level appropriate encounters but lets the party figure out what they want to deal with. If they never know what's around the next corner, how can they choose properly?

That's my understanding as well. In my sandbox games the PCs usually start out in an area where the monster threat is minimal in terms of power level. Going into the wilderness and off the beaten path, however, can lead to unexpected dangers like Trolls, Orc warbands, hydras, dragons, and so forth. It's important for PCs to get an idea of their surrou and the local knowledge of the area, going so far as tales, rumors, and superstitions.

These things might be true or an exaggeration or completely baseless. They don't know but for sure it's not always going to be rolled out like a nice, box - shaped encounter with the exact number of monster to XP ratio. It's gonna be what is appropriate for the situation. A group who raids a Kobolds lair isn't fighting 4-6 Kobolds for every 2 to 3 rooms. If they're not cautious then they could awaken the whole tribe and that would be really bad for them.


2097 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I'm not getting the MMO thing. I've played very few MMO and thought they were really boring and not worth my time and I've found 4e the complete opposite. I've done the whole sandbox campaign with 4E and I think it works great with the system, especially with hex-maps.
The leveling becomes a problem. Do you put level three encounters all over the map or do you mix it up?

I place encounters that are consistent with the world-view and not based on PCs level or the WoW style of zones. The players can, quite easi5, enter an area that far surpasses their level or they can get into a scrap with a group of lv. 2 Kobolds when they're Paragon tier. It depends on what they're doing, where they want to go, and how well they follow up on, ignore, or cautiously circumvent rumors the people they interact with know of.

If there's a fable of an ancient and Evil spirit haunting a nearby house they can investigate but there's no guarantee it's level - appropriate.


I'm not getting the MMO thing. I've played very few MMO and thought they were really boring and not worth my time and I've found 4e the complete opposite. I've done the whole sandbox campaign with 4E and I think it works great with the system, especially with hex-maps.


bugleyman wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"

Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.

...which in no way obviates the extra effort currently required to jump through the (unnecessary) hoops created by not having a license. After all, WotC could change who they go after (and why) on a whim, and most people simply can't afford to contend with their legal department...whether or not it is acting within WotC's rights.

Whether WotC calls it -- the OGL or the GSL or the OG-GSL -- they need to release a viable license sooner rather than later if they want a shot at building robust 3rd party support for 5E. Perhaps they don't want third party support.

I think they want 3PP support because, heck, 4E even had 3PP support. However I feel they don't want a repeat of what happened with Paizo in the off-chance they change up systems in X-amount of years. And to both provide 3PP support AND protect themselves later on, they need to be very specific on what gets released so 3PP needs to do more leg work mechanics wise.


Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"

Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?

I suppose there is a really strong desire for "Gritty" style combat and, I'm assuming, to make entering combat a really tough choice regardless of level? With rules regarding losing limbs even a 10th level Fighter with 75 HP is still wary of Kobolds and Goblins if they score a critical hit and chop off their arm.

Personally, I don't think D&D is the genre or game overall to mimic this particular style.


Matthew, are monsters and NPCS also subject to lingering wounds too?


Laurefindel wrote:
Diffan wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
(...) As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing.(...)
If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?

The fact that broken bones don't heal overnight without some kind of explanation, I guess.

I've heard of people allowing HD healing during short rest up to half the character's hp, but requires magical healing or healing kit when below 1/2 hp.

I'm not sure I follow? If someone narrates HP loss as broken bones, wouldn't that also impact nearly everything they did until healed? And at what point does the damage taken = broken bones? If a character with 35 HP takes 15 damage, is that sufficient enough? And if so, what happens when that character tries to attack with that arm or use their reaction to block (via Shield Master feat)? Are added penalties added when they try to climb or use the arm in any way?

I just don't think D&D's HP system is designed well enough to accomplish the gritty feel many people seem to want from it. Falling off a 40 ft cliff SHOULD negatively impact your character for a long while, regardless of level, but in D&D-land so long as you have 1 HP remaining, you can climb that cliff again, swim, fight, drink and carousel around for as long as you want. Which makes constraints on healing seem overly penalizing for seemingly zero gain.


SmiloDan wrote:
Diffan wrote:

A few additional "Favorite things"

• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.

• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.

• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.

• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.

Would you consider a College of Valor bard or Battle Master fighter "warlordy?"

I also am liking how elegant linking one proficiency bonus to Attacks, Saves, Skills, and Spell DC and Attacks is.

Battle Master fighter, yes to a degree. The biggest thing about the Warlord in 4E was that it used Intelligence as a secondary stat AND they could opt to use their turn to allow other people to attack all the time (instead of being tied to Short Rest mechanics). As for the Valor Bard, not really considering that the Bard is magical in nature and the Warlord isn't. I could reflavor the spells to be non-magical but that sort of defeats the purpose IMO.

lastknightleft wrote:


Yes but 4E made them terrible lol.

Obviously, some would beg to differ.

lastknightleft wrote:

I don't hate 4E I just was uber dissapointed in it, when 4E was announced and they were describing pre-release I was all super excited because 5E was what I was expecting.

As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing. So when I got the DMG and read that as an official variant I laughed my ass off for a couple of seconds.

If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?

lastknightleft wrote:


We also houseruled that you don't heal to full health with rest, rather that you heal any unused HD without a healers kit and then your HD pool resets.

The only other houserule is that you need equal amounts of advantage and dissadvantage to cancel themselves out. I don't do the well there are 8 reasons you have dissadvantage, but you did pick up that lucky penny last round, soooo regular attack.

But even as a new DM in 3.5 (when I learned the game) I was creating houserules and homebrews right out the gate so the fact that 5E right now only has two things that I thought needed a houserule out the gate is pretty impressive!

Over the years I've houseruled v3.5 and Pathfinder a LOT, including things like armor as DR, Wound/Vitality system, disease tracks, and other things to the like. So far I haven't house-ruled much of 5E because I really haven't delved too deeply into the system for something to come up. Everything appears to be working as intended so far "officially".


Logan1138 wrote:
Diffan wrote:

A few additional "Favorite things"

• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.

• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.

• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.

• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.

It's always interesting to see that one man's trash is another man's treasure: I dislike ALL of the things you listed above about 5E.

One of the things I do like about 5E is that WotC actively promote the idea that the game should be modified for YOUR table and encourage you to tinker with the rules to make the game play the way YOU want it to play rather than slavishly adhering to the "One True Way". So, Diffan can keep all of the points he listed above and have fun, while I can alter them to play the way I want and have fun.

I think this goes to illustrate the difficult position Wizards is in when they first created this edition. I will say that wizards has always promoted the idea of making a game the way you want to certain degrees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few additional "Favorite things"

• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.

• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.

• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.

• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.


Kthulhu wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.
Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.
Perhaps, but 3.5 and Pathfinder also have a metric f!&+ton more feats, spells, abilities, etc. I really doubt you or any GM knows all of them.

You're right, published adventures were pretty ridiculous with throwing in material from other supplements that any given DM might not have access to. For things like feats and class features there were times they'd reprint the feature in the monster Stat block or on the same page for ease of reference, though spells were another matter. At the least we'd get a small subscript abbreviation of the boom it was in. But not so with 5e.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.
Sure, but I think you are looking at folks wanting this entirely for flavor reasons. For many, it is about ease of play. I've got a player in my group who thought it was fantastic that she could spend two sessions learning the character and getting a feel for the class, before needing to actually make the key decisions that would define her future playstyle.

How many people are really confused by a feat or two and 1-3 spells and/or maneuvers? I think the majority of people buying into 5e are going to be experienced players to which a few added options aren't player - breaking choices that will leave people dumbfounded from the get-go.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Barbarian certainly feels distinct from the others, since it gets Rage right out of the gate. Ranger and Paladin get unique at level 2, when they get spells. Is that really any worse than 3.5, where paladins have to wait until level 4 for spells and 5 for a mount?

Barbarians ALL feel the same out of the gate barring weapon choices. I get that's the idea, just not a fan. As for the Ranger and Paladin, it's not worse but it isn't all that much better. I just like more options at earlier levels. A 4e Paladin got multiple choices and he felt like a divine warrior from the get go where's a 5E paladin just sort of doesn't


Kthulhu wrote:
Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.

Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.

And I'm not even saying they have to put FULL disclosure on every spell an enemy or NPC has access to in their write-up, just the most common ones that particular NPC/Enemy will bring to bear in combat.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Diffan wrote:

• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.

Do you mean in the two published adventures? Because if you go to the product page for each of them, there is a free pdf download for each that includes all the magic items, monsters, and spells used in the adventure that are not also in the Basic Rules, so that you have them for reference and do not need to even have copies of the core books.

I get that, but you're missing the point that I have to look elsewhere from the monster description to get info on their actions in terms of their spells. It's annoying when every time the monster goes and I use a different spell, I have to look up range, duration, damage or effect before I can even figure out if that's a good choice at the time. It's an annoyance that could've been fixed.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?

The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.

Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.
But that was their intention. It was meant that you start making real character choices at 3rd level, as 1st and 2nd level are supposed to almost be apprentice levels and pass by very quickly.

Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?

The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.

Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.


Arakhor wrote:
Monsters having the full text of their available spells printed along side might have been done in 4th Edition, but it's never been done at any other time to my knowledge.

Correct, however I never liked it in those editions either. Having to do multiple page references for 1 monster is really annoying. It would have been better to say "These are his common spell attacks"

Firebolt: at-will, 120 ft., 1 trgt, +8 attack, 3d10 fire damage
Fireball: 150-ft. range, 20-ft. area, 5d6 fire damage (save DC 15 1/2).

Etc.

Instead of just throwing out a dozen or so spells from the PHB that the DM now has to look up for their range, components, duration, effects, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After doing a few sessions with the non-Playtest rules and having access now to the PHB (instead of just the Core material) there are a lot of good things that I like:

• Bounded Accuracy
• Fluid combat
• Simplicity
• Spell design (like Sleep is a lot of fun and still useful after 1st level)
• Bonus actions and how things interact with them
• Less focus on action-during turn (like "Oh wait, did I already use my Intermediate Interrupt and can I use this ability to trigger another effect that uses my Immediate Reaction, etc.) In 4E it sort of bogged the game down a bit IMO.
• Quicker Combats, though I'm assuming that will increase as we gain levels
• Complete removal of Alignment-based restrictions

Things that I'm not a fan of:
• Critical hits are *yawn*.....boring....
• Not enough substances at 1st level
• Multiclassing Rules as I really didn't like v3.5 style and much more preferred 4E's feats and/or Hybrid class rules.
• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.


Drejk wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

(1) Ravenloft adventure (original 1e redo VERBATIM as 5e, nothing related to the less than appealing 3.5e version).

(2) Ravenloft setting as a hardback (last 2nd ed. version as a template)

That's about it really, quite easy to please me :)

And I would like exactly opposite - redoing the vibrant, living, flavorful 3.5 Ravenloft as a setting for 5th edition instead of anything that happened to Ravenloft prior to White Wolf involvement. And possibly sending the people responsible for revoking the White Wolf licensee to a gods-forgotten office in lower Hell for the next ten thousand years.

The last two supplements of Ravenloft I have was created by Sword & sorcery and I think was designed for 3rd Edition. Those two books were pretty awesome for drawing inspiration and a feel of dread. I'm actually look at them to build a 5e adventure from.

1 to 50 of 921 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.