TRPG General Chat

Magician

2:52 AM

Good morning!

stizzle84

3:04 AM

Hi

Magician

4:09 AM

On building encounter in 5e using CR and XP budget.

It is, apparently, CR and not Challenge, after all.

The xp budget table is mystifying. Why do pairs of levels 10-11, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20 have the same xp budget for each pair, but 14, 17 and 18 (as well as the first 9 levels) stand apart? Is a Hard encounter really meant to be 3 times harder than the Moderate one and about 10 times harder (xp-wise) than the Easy one?

But that's numbers, and they're subject to change (though it's only a couple of months till release, and they only had a couple of years to figure them out). I find the role of CR just as mystifying.

lisardggY

@Metool Yeah, it was a brand new class for PF.

Metool

Indeed. Six levels of spells!

Summon on-level monster 3+casting mod/day? Sign me up.

Oh, I get a monster friend, too? Great!

BESW

@Magician The first thing which comes to mind is that mathematical progressions can't be protected by intellectual property laws, so in order for XP progression to be considered protected IP it has to be something other than a mathematic sequence.

lisardggY

And apparently there are some synthesist builds that are completely borked, too.

Metool

Synthesist is hilarious.

lisardggY

4:18 AM

However, the best way to avoid broken, exploitable rules is not to play with people who try to break them.

Magician

It's the minimum level PCs should be before they even think of fighting such monster. Which puts the whole bounded accuracy thing in question, instead of arising from xp budgets as I would have expected from such system.

@BESW Eh, there are plenty of mathematical progressions in the system (and previous editions), this hasn't been an issue before.

BESW

@Magician Yes, but some of them have been deliberate fudged with so they fall outside the OGL/whatever.

And no, I don't think that's the only reason--or even necessarily a reason--for the 5e XP weirdness. But it came to mind.

Metool

@lisardggY Mind you, Synthesist doesn't quite have the potential that a face-wrecking pet and a spellcaster acting with one turn apiece have.

lisardggY

@BESW "They won't die! They just won't die!"

►

BESW

As for CR.... that's generally doomed to failure in a system founded on mix-and-match optimisation minigames.

Magician

4:23 AM

@lisardggY There's a very fine line between deliberately breaking the game and going "ooh, that's a shiny ability, I want to use it!"

lisardggY

@Magician But even with the breakiest, most exploitable ability, a willingness to not screw everything up goes a long way.

I'm not saying broken rules shouldn't be fixed, just that they're not immediately and unavoidably the game-breaking abominations they're made out to be.

Magician

@BESW Yes, well. CR was fairly meaningless in 3e, levels worked as intended in 4e. I'd have hoped that some lessons have been learned.

lisardggY

They're problems with the rules. They can be fixed by changing the rule or by stepping around them a bit. Problems have solutions.

BESW

@Magician "Meaningless" is a little generous.

Metool

Okay, but it's still problems with the rules.

BESW

4:25 AM

Oooh, is this the "if a GM can fix a game, is it really broken?" debate?

lisardggY

@BESW No, I think we all agree that it's broken.

Magician

@lisardggY It takes system mastery to know what's breaking the game, and what's just a neat ability. System mastery that is earned bit by bit every time a game gets entirely screwed up by its lack.

lisardggY

@Magician Sure. And until you get there, you'll have bits that don't work as well. And builds that are unbalanced and will get abused, either purposefully or not.

And groups will shrug and make their own house rules about it, or read up online and ban certain builds, or just choose to play the broken builds all the time. And all that's fine.

Games aren't perfect, but that's not enough to ruin the game.

And newer games should get less broken, right out the gate. I know that was one of Lord_Gareth's biggest peeves with PF, that it failed to unbreak what 3.5 already taught us that was broken.

BESW

Which then brings in the question, "At what point does a game stop being 3.5-imperfect and start being deadEarth-imperfect?"

lisardggY

But all in all, even the breakiest, most exploitable ability won't ruin a game completely, if there's a willingness not to screw everything up.

BESW

4:30 AM

@lisardggY And it's been one of my greatest bemusements watching the 5e playtest/design articles.

lisardggY

And now, having ranted, I am off to work. :)

BESW

ttfn

Magician

The question on boss battles in 5e is somewhat indicative of it, sadly.

1

Q: Advice for making an adventure entirely based on "boss" battles?

we're currently playing D&D Next using the Basic rules and covnerted Pathfinder monsters covnerted based on the Playtest monster stats. Next session my players (Monk, Ninja (Pathfinder converted class), Druid and Cleric) will win tickets for a resort island with a circus and an amusement park; h...

BESW

[sad]

@Matt Hi.

GMNoob

5:12 AM

Is there a way to compose a draft answer and save it?

BESW

@GMNoob Maybe some of these posts will help.

GMNoob

@magician levels worked as intended in 4e but I wouldn't say they.worked.

Btw, I'm still working on my answer to your question

Magician

@GMNoob They worked in the sense that a level 10 PC fought level 10 monsters with no issues. Level 10 PC couldn't meaningfully fight level 1 or level 20 monsters, but that's a stated goal of 5e. We'll see how that works out soon enough.

@GMNoob Waiting for it :)

BESW

I'm not actually sure levels as a challenge rating system worked "as intended" in 4e; they endorsed level differences up to 4, when in practice even a difference of two levels could totally bork the hit/miss ratios and turn encounters into trivialities or gruesome wipes.

It worked really well if you stuck within one level of the party, and the party level wasn't disparate by more than one.

But the game's own materials made it clear they thought their level system worked at wider ranges than that.

Magician

5:28 AM

True. So their own understanding of levels was flawed, but levels themselves worked fine.

BESW

@Magician Only if you ignored their advice, though.

Magician

That's what I meant. Levels still provided a useful metric, even if encounter building advice wasn't that good.

BESW

Oh, aye.

Especially in contrast to, say, 3.5, where the challenge rating value attached to a creature was often totally irrelephant to its actual ability to threaten the party.

Magician

Going purely by that article, here's how I'd define CR for 5e: "this monster can kill a wizard of level CR-1 in a round".

Which becomes a straightforward kind of DPR calculation. DWPR. Dead Wizards Per Round.

3

BESW

> Each round 1D3 investigators are scooped up in Cthulhu's flabby claws to die hideously.

Magician

5:38 AM

Precisely!

BESW

(For those who don't know, that's an actual word-for-word quote from the Master of R'lyeh's stat block in the 6th Ed Call of Cthulhu manual.)

It's an awesome stat block.

> Cthulhu could try to grab a plane or similar object with his claws to keep it from hitting him. If he so tries, he is automatically successful.

Also, the list of his spells is actually a list of the spells he doesn't know.

Magician

Cthulhu in the actual short story must have been having an off day...

BESW

@Magician I like to think he was just looking for an excuse to go back to bed.

> Azathoth always manifests with a servitor flautist to play its music, and 1D10-1 Lesser Other Gods.

(For the record, there are only 6 Lesser Other Gods in the manual.)

GMNoob

6:05 AM

@magician the reason I feel like levels didn't work, is because it was almost always a 1 to 1 ratio, and only if you had a party of 4-6. Trying to play 4e with only a 2 person party felt nearly impossible.

Couldn't even take on a small group of goblins. Which was my highlight as a solo first level adventurer in previous editions.

Magician

It's hard to play 4e with 2 PCs because it's hard for them to cover all roles. But the levels shouldn't have been an issue there - you throw at them the same number of monsters as there are PCs, of the same level, for a fairly easy fight, and go from there.

GMNoob

Yes but there was no level 0.25

And more often than not, I didn't want them to face off against 1 or 2 goblins. I wanted them to face 4-6 like we did in previous incarnations of D&D

Magician

But it's not the same game! That'd be like saying an ogre used to be of CR 6 so you'd take this ogre of level 15 and put it up against a level 6 party.

GMNoob

That's what I mean by working as intended, but not working.

Magician

And yes, 4e strongly presupposes a party of 4-5 PCs, deviating from that creates issues.

GMNoob

6:11 AM

It's very wierd and odd, when to tell the same story, you have to turn a group of goblins into a swarm.

Thankfully that's all behind us now cackle

Magician

@GMNoob Different rules handle things differently. Again, just because something was represented mechanically as one thing in a previous edition means nothing for the current one - they're different games. Criticizing 4e for not letting 2 PCs take on 5 goblins easily would be the same as me criticizing 5e for changing 4e's respective representation of monsters.

Also, minions.

GMNoob

@Magician I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about story.

Magician

They're linked, though. Just like bounded accuracy of 5e is going to have a huge impact on the story.

GMNoob

Minions = death when you are outnumbered 3 to 1. At low levels atleast.

@Magician Sure they are linked. Thats how it breaks.

Magician

@GMNoob Considering they start at 4-1 and increase to 6-1 by epic (or is it 8-1? It's been a while), that doesn't sound right. But the first level or two could be volatile.

GMNoob

6:18 AM

I don't remember, but I tried 4 minions vs 1 pc in 5 battles and the PC died each time.

Magician

They should have been fine. If this was still relevant, we could have worked out what went wrong, but I suspect that's no longer the case.

One likely cause is that it was a bad match-up for the PC. Again, 4e expects you to have a full party with a diverse range of capabilities. If you pit a striker with single-target attacks dealing massive damage against minions, the striker PC will suffer.

kviiri

Last game on Friday, next game today.

For once I have a party that appreciates frequent sessions!

Magician

@kviiri Nice! Also, exhausting, I imagine.

kviiri

@Magician Well I had the whole weekend for R&R ;)

kviiri

6:40 AM

My other party, on the other hand, takes a few weeks to even fill a Doodle.

BESW

6:50 AM

@kviiri I found that with long-term campaigns I always needed a full week to reflect, process, study, and prep, or the quality would suffer.

kviiri

@BESW Oh, to be clear this is the party where I'm not mastering.

BESW

Ah, excellent.

...I hope your GM can cope.

What's the system?

kviiri

He can, I believe. This is the Apocalypse World game on the Shadowrun setting I told about earlier.

BESW

Ah.

I'm not sure what kind of prep-to-improv ratio AW has, but I seem to recall it's not too bad.

I'm increasingly fond of systems which encourage me to stare blankly at the players and ask, "And then what awful thing befalls your characters?"

(The answer is usually a resounding "Themselves!")

kviiri

Yeah, it's not too bad. The GM needs to take notes though, which he did.

I like it for the light rules though.

The general moves available to all the characters fit on an A4, all the class-specific stuff is on the charsheet.

BESW

7:03 AM

AW seems really rules-light for players, less so for GMs.

Magician

@BESW Yes and no. It has lots of moves for GM, just like there are some for players, but they're all the things you'd be doing anyway, like Separate Them, or Make Them Pay.

kviiri

I think it's rules-light for the GM as well... but not light in the other sense. Many moves specify for the GM to come up the details.

Magician

And GM never rolls anything. You just describe the situation, ask players what they want to do about it, inform them which move if any they have to use for that, then respond to the outcome of the roll.

kviiri

For example, if a player tries to buy something that's fairly uncommon and fails their roll to find it, by the book the GM has to come up with an obstacle. The sheet lists options such as "it costs a lot more than you expected" and "oh booger, I had one of those but I just sold it to Mr. Nasty Big Guy over there" etc... but the GM has to come up with the specficis.

Or rather, that's what happens on a soft hit. A total miss would yield even more severe hindrances, naturally. Possibly not even getting the desired item at all.

GMNoob

Did my answer to magician's question get posted?

Magician

7:16 AM

Don't think so?

GMNoob

My laptop ran out of battery.... :-(

Grumble

Have you guys played that way, or just read about the system?

Creating the obstacles on the fly hasn't sat well with me in past experiences.

kviiri

We're playing that way.

BESW

I've never played AW, but my group is excellent at improvising obstacles.

kviiri

It's sort of a hybrid; the playbook gives a vague outline of what might happen if things go south, and the GM fills in the specifics on the fly.

BESW

7:31 AM

I hardly ever have to do the heavy lifting in that sense; they just shout out ideas whenever someone fails.

kviiri

Yeah, that happened with us too.

GMNoob

Ah interesting. My group tends to flounder in that environment. We've done really well with the warhammer 1e adventure path, with the pre-written contingencies, and intricate plot.

Yay, the post surived having the computer plugged in!

What is AW, I thought you were talking about Dungeon world?

BESW

@GMNoob Dungeon World and Apocalypse World use the same engine.

As I understand it, DW is a bit more structured/subsystemy?

GMNoob

Seems the same from what you are saying. I'm guessing the setting is just different

BESW

I think Apocalypse World is like the prototype for the engine, and Dungeon World is its better-known offspring with some variant rules to support a more D&D-evocative atmosphere.

kviiri

7:43 AM

Yeah, that's right iirc.

BESW

But I wouldn't take my word for it.

GMNoob

Looking at the website, it just looks like same rules with a different genre and classes

and stat names

"powered by the apocalypse: Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week,
Murderous Ghosts, Nanoworld: a Game of Clones, Sagas of the Icelanders, The Sundered Land, Tremulus"

BESW

Many of those have rather unique takes on how to implement or modify the AW engine.

I know Monsterhearts has a reputation for being very good at (en)forcing its particular playstyle.

Okay, people who have played 3.0: did it have facing rules?

GMNoob

D&D 3?

BESW

Yes.

'cause I taught myself on 3.0 handbooks but moved to 3.5 before I got to play 3.0, so I could easily be misremembering, but I don't remember anything in D&D 3.0 about facing.

GMNoob

7:53 AM

I haven't seen facing rules since I played a thief in the black box.

If they existed, it was some splat book I never saw :)

BESW

Bah. Usually Aramis is pretty spot-on about rules even when I disagree with his conclusions, but I think he's missed the mark here.

I'm half tempted to make it a question, but it might seem spiteful and I'm loathe to ask questions which might require proving a negative.

(And I'm sure somebody, somewhere, invented Yet Another 3.X Subsystem for facing, so then there'd be the "It exists, therefore it's an integral part of the system" argument and the "Core only is balanced/idiotic" debate wouldn't be far behind... No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me.)

[cough] Sorry, I seem to have momentarily become a pair of ragged claws/ Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

Magician

3.x didn't have facing. There was Unearthed Arcana variant rule for it, but that's about it.

BESW

8:51 AM

BTW, @Magician, did you see the deadEarth chargen I did last night?

Oxinabox

9:22 AM

hey

BESW: In DnD all characters are assumed to be constantly spinning spheres

BESW

@Oxinabox, @JonathanHobbs [wave]

doppelgreener

Hi!

BESW

@Oxinabox Except in 4e, where they're spherical cubes.

doppelgreener

Sphubes

BESW

@JonathanHobbs Did you enjoy the deadEarth chargen last night?

doppelgreener

9:26 AM

@BESW Very much so

I only read your character summaries, but wow

BESW

The last guy, the bedridden one? He wound up with double-digit negatives in the stats which determine how much you can do each turn, how much injury you can resist/sustain, and how strong you are.

doppelgreener

So he can do nothing, and has glass bone syndrome

BESW

He was literally incapable of taking any game-mechanic action.

doppelgreener

Wow.

BESW

He was also blind with echolocation, well-known for his amazing story, streetwise, extra-sensitive to radiation, 2.15 meters tall, and weighed 121 kilos.

Oh, but he had bonuses to the Guile and Command skills.

And at the very end, after all that, my last roll was:

> 176 Retard.
> Radiation no longer affects you. Never roll on this table again under any circumstances

doppelgreener

9:31 AM

Does that actually make him retarded in some sense?

BESW

Only roleplayingly.

doppelgreener

Huh, ok.

BESW

The game's connection between mechanics and RP are... erratic and insane.

You know, like the rest of the game.

doppelgreener

@BESW Does that include that I have no idea why being retarded would have anything to do with radiation or ceasing to have further developments?

like, at this rate, surely someone who's retarded could still develop, like, bat-wings or poison spurs

BESW

@JonathanHobbs Yes.

Or, apparently, an overwhelming urge to get out of bed.

(To be fair, that one was "Your game master will assign you a task. Once assigned, the quest will be your primary focus. For completing your mission you will be rewarded with 5 renown." We just decided the guy's quest would be to get out of bed.)

But quests are acquired by exposure to radiation in deadEarth.

Oh, and estrogen treatment is a radiation effect which gives you perfect memory.

The game is not afraid to be stupid and bigoted.

kviiri

9:41 AM

Hah!

What next, a homosexuality mutation that gives you a pink purse of holding?

doppelgreener

@BESW this makes no sense

BESW

@kviiri Surprisingly not; gender is treated with merciless bigotry, but sexual orientation is just flipped around casually. You can get bonuses to social skills when dealing with people attracted to you, but that's all I've seen.

(There are some very brutal and tasteless sexual radiations, but not specifically about orientation.)

kviiri

I need to download those playbooks, seriously. This sounds like a good read.

While a horrible game, no doubt!

BESW

Oh, it's awful. And not just in its stupidness and bigotry and arrogance.

It's also genuinely a painfully bad system.

kviiri

I can see that. Even the character generation system is something I'd rather not endure.

BESW

9:46 AM

A single segment of character generation involves rolling 2d6 one hundred separate times.

And remember, you roll three characters at a go.

kviiri

Yes, and those hundred 2d6 rolls are followed by possibly losing it all to an unlucky case of head-exploded-titis.

BESW

Yes.

Even if you don't lose 'em, they're soon mucked about with as radiations alter your skill abilities.

Sometimes a radiation will have you do two pages of math, and then the next one you roll will un-do it.

The fish-man mutation? It actually says "Take D6 attributes from fish and other water dwelling creatures like clams and crabs (that can be found in your area) of your choice and add them to your character."

We decided that being a post-apocalyptic hellscape, we should use Australian water-dwelling creatures.

kviiri

Ugggh... the estrogen treatment is even worse than I thought.

PMS? Fit? Bloated? Bitch-slap immunity? Seriously, what was the problem with whoever decided this was a good idea?

BESW

My point with the fish-man mutation being that there is no mechanical representation of the d6 attributes--it's technically pure fluff/RP.

(So if I choose "can only breathe in water...")

@kviiri Oh, yes. I don't think I've exaggerated about how unashamedly bigoted the game is.

I may have undersold it, though.

kviiri

Uh-huh. "Must protect the other members of the party to the point of babying them."

"Character will insist on doing the cooking and other chores for other players whenever possible."

BESW

9:53 AM

(For those of you following along at home, "Fit" is not about physical wellbeing; it's about throwing tantrums when things don't go your way.)

kviiri

Oh yes, for physical fitness you seem to have a choice between anorexia and bloated.

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs seriously, do you know of any examples of 2e terms that are re-used in 5e, that meant something else in 3e or 4e?

doppelgreener

@GMNoob i don't, not having played more than a few sessions of each version - but why would they be excluded?

GMNoob

Whoa nice.. wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140707

@JonathanHobbs Because I don't think they exist. And it just makes the question clunky.

doppelgreener

and yet you provide the example of AC. If D&D 5e went back to negative armor class being good and the days of THAC0, that's something you apparently wouldn't point out despite the question being written for people who haven't read the rules (which is still ???)

you have good intentions with that question, but it's overbroad in what it includes, and yet rules out things that would be gotchas

i haven't played 5e, and what i read of it was much earlier on in the playtest, so no, I don't know these things

BESW

10:05 AM

@GMNoob You're focusing on the specific example rather than the general objection. I have no idea whether saves should go on such a list or not because they're still the same idea as 3.5 (a defensive roll to resist a threat which uses the basic 1d20+ability mod structure)--just like your AC example--but has different specifics.

AC in 5e also has different specifics--lack of armor proficiency imposes disadvantage, which 3.5 didn't have.

So I have no idea how to tell whether you'd feel a term is used similarly enough or dissimilarly enough for it to be on the list.

GMNoob

AC is not affected by proficiency in the armor..

BESW

Under the "Armor Class" heading I see 1/4 of the text dedicated to the concept is about proficiency.

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs If AC went back to Thaco, I would say that AC is like in 2e and goes back to thaco. If people then didn't know what Thaco was, I could explain it, but if they did, then they get it. No need to explain the details of the rules.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob but, it's not meant to be mentioned at all.

this question isn't a changelog, evidently.

the main crux here is what BESW said: it's unclear what does and does not get mentioned. i would mention most things, because I know most things changed at least a little.

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs No, it's not a changelog. That was determined to be too broad. This is asking for the terms in 5e that have no previous example in any edition. (2e-4e, cause 1e is too far back for most )

So while, any previous condition or term that uses (dis)advantage needs to be explained, things which have previous examples don't.

@BESW Read it more closely, it tells you to read about it in chapter 5. Not under AC. It's just being helpful to let you know about it.

BESW

10:12 AM

@GMNoob Thanks for the condescension, but if you'd read my objection closely you'd notice that I mentioned something about armor proficiency I could only know if I'd turned to chapter 5 and read the relephant entry.

@GMNoob It's still unclear how much difference is necessary to say something has no previous example. Again with AC, for example, 5e has spells and class features which let you calculate your AC differently. 3.5 didn't really bake that into the system.

GMNoob

No condenscension implied... It's just not part of AC.

BESW

Is that enough of a difference to mention?

doppelgreener

@GMNoob If it listed terms that have no previous examples in any edition, you wouldn't mention saving throws or proficiency or status effects like Blinded. Those exist in previous editions, and your question doesn't say that's what you're after.

So, take a step back, and take a look at your question. How do you define what's different enough?

GMNoob

The TERMS existed.. that is what I'm looking for. But the MEANING of the TERM is NEW.

BESW

Yes, we've got that.

doppelgreener

10:14 AM

@GMNoob The meaning of saving throws hasn't changed.

GMNoob

Blinded does not mean you get -10 to perception checks. Blinded does not mean you get a -2 to your attack roll.

There is no REF saving throw, or Paralysis saving throw

doppelgreener

At least, if they have, that's not the basis on which you're saying they've changed: you say they now tie to ability scores instead.

GMNoob

No previous edition had a Strenght saving throw

BESW

We're saying that we don't understand what rubric you're using to define 'new.'

doppelgreener

@BESW Yeah, this

GMNoob

10:15 AM

new is new...

BESW

I see changes to the AC mechanic which I'd mention to my players. You see those as changes to armor proficiency, which I consider under the umbrella of armor class but you don't.

GMNoob

I'm not aware of ever being able to say , "Please roll your Intelligence Saving throw" in 2e 3e or 4e.

Such a phrase would have no meaning. In 5e, this meaning is new, and it confuses players if you don't explain it to them. I've had many cases where someone says, "Which saving throw is int based again, Willpower?"

BESW

That's not an old term with a new meaning, then. "Intelligence saving throw" is a new term and so wouldn't go on your list.

GMNoob

@BESW Why do you consider armor proficiency to be AC?

doppelgreener

@BESW Would, wouldn't it, if it's new?

But saving throws aren't new. The concept's been there for ages. Just that the way you add 'em up has changed.

BESW

10:18 AM

@JonathanHobbs No, he only wants old terms with new meanings.

doppelgreener

That would be better served by a "how are saving throws different?" question, anyway.

kviiri

Fundamentally new, or just somewhat altered?

BESW

So apparently "saving throw" would go on the list but "intelligence saving throw" wouldn't?

GMNoob

@BESW If you wanted to spell out each attribute that would be fine. Because Saving throws are not the same as previous saving throws. In the old days, Saving throws refferd to Willpower, Reflexs, or Fortitude. (Or what 2e had) They no longer refer to that.

@kviiri Whats the difference between new and somewhat altered?

doppelgreener

@GMNoob attacks got somewhat altered, the entire system got somewhat altered, that's why it's a new edition

GMNoob

10:22 AM

How did attacks get altered? You roll a d20 add modifiers and try to beat an AC.

doppelgreener

Different modifiers are involved now, aren't they? That's the basis on which saving throws are new.

BESW

@GMNoob But you said "such a phrase would have no meaning" in older editions, and to me that sounds like it shouldn't be on your list of terms that players might misunderstand because of previous editions' usage....

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs Most terms I read that were re-used had the same meaning as they did in 4e or 3e.

BESW

@GMNoob You just described both 5e and 3.5 saving throws, too.

We're not trying to catch you up in a fallacy or anything.

We're genuinely confused and failing to understand.

kviiri

@GMNoob If a foo does bar now and did bar then, but is now calculated by summing two stats instead of two stats and a roll, it's just somewhat altered.

BESW

10:25 AM

I have no idea how to parse your explanations into something which would let me clearly understand if a saving throw should or shouldn't be explained in an answer to your question.

kviiri

Some tweaking in the maths doesn't make a concept fundamentally different. Reversing something might.

GMNoob

@BESW I am explaining the game to players who have played previous versions of D&D. I say things to them like, make a Saving throw, but I never explained saving throws to them, because I didn't realize I needed to. They then get confused. Thus this question exists, and this question needs to know what else will they get confused about, since the term is the same, but the meaning is new.

BESW

So you don't have a clear set of criteria for each element to be weighed and evaluated by; your criterion is "this confuses people because they get it mixed up with something from a previous edition."

That's great!

GMNoob

@kviiri So just somewhat altered then. Cause I would consider something that adds a roll where a roll never existed before as new.

BESW

Say that!

Ask for experience-based answers!

kviiri

10:27 AM

@GMNoob In that case I would just drop the assumption that you don't need to explain stuff and explain everything as new.

BESW

"What did your players get confused about in 5e because of their experience with previous editions and how did you sort it out?"

kviiri

Because chances are everything has been tweaked to some degree.

GMNoob

@kviiri That would waste all of our time, because MOST Things do NOT require new explanations.

Temp HP are the same as 4e temp HP. dim light is dim light. Sometimes when things mean the same thing the terms were changed, like 3/4ths cover vs Supreme Cover(sp?)

doppelgreener

That would actually work better.

See, the problem with this question is: for any given system I actually understand and have read (3.5e, PF, 4e) I would still have absolutely no idea where to begin answering this.

That's what i'm using for a rule of thumb, in lieu of not having read 5e much.

And the examples you provide are at odds with what you appear to be requesting, or the intent behind your requesting it, or both.

GMNoob

If asked for terms which changed meaning between 3.5 and PF you wouldn't know how to answer it?

BESW

10:33 AM

When in doubt, say what the problem is and throw wide your arms to the community's experience-based guidance; attempts to pre-define what kind of answer I think I need have always gotten me in trouble.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob Yeah, that's right. Most things kept precisely the same meaning, whilst a clause that would be a massive gotcha was added or removed. Like Paladins being able to take other class levels. Paladin still means the same thing.

BESW

@GMNoob Nope, not at all. Skills work exactly the same in play, but have a single difference in calculation; does that count?

GMNoob

CAuse when I tried to ask the equivilent of this question I was told it was too broad.
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1/differences-between-dd-3-5-and-pathfinder

doppelgreener

When did you ask that?

GMNoob

@BESW I did that and was told the question was too broad.

BESW

10:35 AM

@GMNoob That was asked four years ago. It should get closed as too broad according to the site's current standards.

doppelgreener

@BESW I dunno, it might not.

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs You can see the history of the question.

BESW

I suspect it should get a historical lock.

It's got a very specific difference from what I'm suggesting @GMNoob ask.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob Your question never asked "what's the diff between 5e and Xe?" it asked, "what terms are different to 2e through to 4e?"

BESW

It's asking "what's the difference?" I'm suggesting he ask "How do I help my players with the differences?"

GMNoob

10:37 AM

This was my question: "5th edition uses something like Vancian magic but it isn't, it will be using 'challenge rating' to mean something differnent than in 3rd edition. Which terms in the rules might mislead a player if they assume previous edition rules but don't read the 5e rules carefully?"

BESW

Good answers will probably define the differences they found most significant, but they'll focus on experience-based procedures to deal with the problem rather than a list of potential problem areas.

GMNoob

I should probabbly have left out the word "carefully"

BESW

"What might be a problem?" is a bad question. I've asked it myself and got shut down.

"How have you dealt with problems of this sort?" is much more answerable.

GMNoob

I ended up doing the research myself, and finding out the answer to my question, so I'm not really concerned about it anymore. Though I'd definitely be curious if anyone finds other things.

BESW

There's the nugget of a great and useful question for posterity in there.

GMNoob

10:41 AM

I found that all the conditions are different, but only two of the combat actions are.

BESW

The fundamental problem you're trying to solve is one that I think the site should be able to field.

GMNoob

I was also surprised, that the light terms were nearly all the same, or if they weren't they were given new terms.

BESW

@RedRiderX Do you know who invited me to the Arqade chat earlier today, and/or why?

I have my suspicions, but I'd rather it's not so.

RedRiderX

11:14 AM

Hmm, I wasn't in that room for a good part of the day, so I couldn't really say

Don't room invites include the name of who invited you?

I can't recall

BESW

Not that I can track down; I wasn't around for it, so I got the notification an hour later.

Aaron

12:00 PM

Morning

GMNoob

hi

Aaron

12:47 PM

6

A: Pathfinder Magic Item Crafter Build Guide

Axoren's Devoted Crafter's Guide Things to Focus on These aren't in any particular order. Craft (Int) Without this, you have to buy the base items at market price. Since magic items require that the base item be masterwork, you're going to want to pay 1/3 the market price if you're making a l...

I just want to point out Axoren's answer. It's awesome^

Aaron

1:10 PM

How was everyone's 4th?

wax eagle

@Aaron pretty good, 5 yr old got a kick out of the fireworks

kviiri

Just another working day for me, although also a RP day so pretty good!

(Also, a Friday)

Aaron

@waxeagle Cool. I think I am slowly becoming the fireworks organizer of my family. I was the one who brought and shot off the big fireworks.

wax eagle

@Aaron I was tentatively planning on letting this 4th pass without explosions (maybe watch over the trees if some of the neighbors were setting them off), but my 5yr old came home from camp begging to go see some. So we looked and saw most of the shows in town were Thursday night and it wasn't going to be feasible, so we went out and bought some GA legal ones.

Our state is boring, nothing that leaves the ground, so we had a good time lighting off fountains

Aaron

You can't set off anything that leaves the ground?

wax eagle

1:19 PM

@Aaron not....legallly :)

(TN allows them, so they're readily available, and no on gives a flip on the 4th)

Aaron

Huh. Not even bottle rockets?

wax eagle

@Aaron not even bottle rockets I don't think

Aaron

That seems a little extreme. party poopers.

wax eagle

@Aaron aye, will have a talk with our state legislature on that one :(

(the fountains and sparklers are legal because they aren't classed as fireworks apparently...investigating now)

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:43 PM

good morning folks

Aaron

waves

Joshua Aslan Smith

2:16 PM

@AldathLe'Carde love the enthusiasm of your posts I think you could work to make the less conversational

Oxinabox

2:56 PM

Demon the Decent, system of *really* useful dramatic failures.
I just wrote a interlock (Special Customised Secret ability a a character can unlock)
Discovered that its effects are the same as dramatically failing on one of the prereq abilities

wax eagle

Best point from Rob Donoghue's Advantage discussion from his starter set unbox/review:

> It’s more forgiving. Chris Gardiner made an observation which absolutely sold me on the dice mechanic. If you forgot about an advantage or disadvantage when you rolled, the means of correcting that is to just roll another die. That, combined with the simplicity (rather than bonus-counting) of the mechanic removes a huge number of hold-ups in play, as a player stops to make sure he’s accounted for all his bonuses.

3

Joshua Aslan Smith

@waxeagle yeah I liked reading it

My party found steath to be very not optimal right now

I do dislike the DM Fiat aspect of a lot of 5es rules

wax eagle

3:12 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith yeah, I'm thinking we'll get a lot more guidance/clarification come PHB and DMG

Joshua Aslan Smith

which I what I said with my disgruntled players

like were trying it out to see where it is at

I was running a poorly written mod from ENworld's contest which I didnt have time to read beforehand to realize how bad it was

wax eagle

blech

Joshua Aslan Smith

Like the alarm spell was referenced but thats not an actual spell in 5e yet in anyway

so it was a mechanically active magic that had no mechanics basis

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith lol, oops. Did you pull the playtest version?

Joshua Aslan Smith

and then my one very experienced player was lobbying for him making a thievery check to remove it because X previous edition allowed you to make a mundane thievery check to disarm trap spells at a higher dc

eh I dont think this one got updated

but it was the shortest lvl 1 adv they had

I ruled he couldnt do that and that arcana check wouldnt work to disarm it (dispell magic would)

they could just leave the room alone though

wax eagle

3:16 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith oh I mean of the spell

Joshua Aslan Smith

which they did

ah, no its not in basic I dont think

oh youre saying it was in the playtest?

hmmm

wax eagle

not that it's helpful in determining of a theivery check will dispel it. AFAICT dispell magic is the only thing available for it

Joshua Aslan Smith

right

wax eagle

(though you could totally wait it out, only lasts 8 hrs...)

Joshua Aslan Smith

I like this player, hes been the GM for me lots of times, hes a great 4e GM but he is cynically trying to break 5e because of its 3.5 and 2e insipirations

and its like, while yes its clear they have discarded the 4e playerbase so far, thats not licenses to whilly nilly try to import mechanics from previous editions into it

wax eagle

3:20 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith yeah no

Joshua Aslan Smith

we did have a great discussion afterward while smoking cigars around the fire that if I could somehow create a framework for playing Dungeonworld that involved grid combat (maybe even using descent rules) I would have my perfect game

Aaron

Creeeepy stuffs XD imgur.com/gallery/dBsvM

Joshua Aslan Smith

because dungeon world is the perfect game for out of combat D&D style storytelling, its just that combat itself gets boring because its theater of the mind and theres no initative or other things

Joshua Aslan Smith

3:33 PM

@waxeagle really cant wait for starterkit and the monsters therein

that is the reason to buy it if you already know how to D&D

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith yep, that's no small part of why I'm picking it up (and the adventure looks cool)

I'm tapping my toes for this stuff to be out already....

(though the spacing is nice for my wallet)

btw did you see this over the weekend: kickstarter.com/projects/necromancergames/…

Quentin

Yeah, the dangling licensing questions on it are rather worrying. It feels very much like they're leaping on an old, rickety bandwagon before someone can build a nice new one.

wax eagle

@Quentin yes. They've said they're actually actively working on it, which is encouraging, but I definitely wouldn't commit until they've got something firm there

(add to that they've said that they want people to wait until the DMG comes out to hack it and I'm kind of concerned that their design is going to be rather inconsistent with the goals of 5e)

(plus their production schedule sort of indicates most of it is finished (Nov release is not much time)

(or its going to be late (which I'd rather see tbh))

Transcript for