TRPG General Chat

wax eagle

00:00

Hobgoblins > Bugbears > Goblins

actually, swap Hobbys and bugy

bugbears > hobgoblins > goblins

based on CR at least

BESW

My understanding from previous editions was that bugbears are physically most challenging but hobgoblins are the clever ones, and goblins are the redshirts.

@Tablesalt [wave]

Tablesalt

@BESW hey!

BESW

What's new?

Tablesalt

Nothing much. Just heard about modrons, which were a little before my time.

Apparently they're a love-it-or-hate-it thing?

BESW

@JonathanHobbs I'm available from 9 to 2 on Saturday for sure; earlier/later can be negotiated but should be done ahead of time.

@Tablesalt Bweheheh. I'd forgotten about those.

(They're somewhat before my time too, but I've always liked knowing the history and progression of the medium.)

I think the notion is... amusing... but they're really just a meta joke.

Tablesalt

00:09

I feel like they might work in a very Planescapey thing, in terms of the whole setting already being kinda bizarre.

BESW

Fair enough.

I guess my big problem with them is the same reason I can't get into conceits like Planescape; D&D's planar system is too inextricably entwined with a philosophy/ethics system I can't take seriously.

Tablesalt

I hear that a lot. Really my only problem with the alignment system is players justifying disruption of the game by appealing to the fact that they're CN.

(Given that my games aren't very ethically inclined)

And that's mostly a problem of player/group fit anyway.

BESW

(It seems detached from anything in the real world, to the point that the character and motives of a person in that world feel almost impossibly alien to me: faith and reason are identical, so belief has no real role.)

@Tablesalt You've seen me link to Making the Tough Decisions, right?

Tablesalt

I know I've seen it linked, but I can't remember if it was you or not.

BESW

@Tablesalt Ah, yeah. The less a group makes it part of play the more its problems can be ignored, at least. Unfortunately Planescape--and creatures like the modrons--are fundamentally about exploring that flawed system as if it weren't flawed.

@Tablesalt There's a 9/10 chance it was me. (It's also in my bank of Interesting/Useful Links in my profile.)

doppelgreener

00:16

@BESW we will aim to start around 9 or 10 (preferably close to 9)

BESW

Shiny.

doppelgreener

that was an interesting typo

"preferably close to i"

Tablesalt

@BESW Yeah, I remember being all OH WOW at the Goblin Dice link.

wax eagle

@JonathanHobbs perfectly reasonable, if you're looping :)

BESW

@Tablesalt That one's written by our own @Magician.

Tablesalt

00:17

Oh cool!

I always had a problem with the way that 3.5 handled social, but I could never figure out what it was.

BESW

His blog really helped me get the most out of 4e.

Tablesalt

You played 4e? I thought you were all FATE?

Well nevermind just remembered I had your profile open in another tab

BESW

I played 3.5 from 2005 to 2011, then 4e until 2013, and then I moved into Fate and other lighter, more narrative-first systems.

(Pilgrims of the Flying Temple, Roll for Shoes, Cthulhu Dark, Princes' Kingdom...)

I really should update that profile...

I enjoyed 3.5 until its balance and goblin dice issues became too grating.

Tablesalt

Oh! Here it is!

The post that convinced me not to abandon D&D alignment: giantitp.com/forums/…

BESW

After 3.5's internal contradictions, 4e's firm and explicit mechanics were awesome and I loved being able to invent my own mechanics for monsters without setting precedents.

But the work burned me out and eventually I also realised that fundamentally D&D of any edition isn't interested in supporting the kind of stories and gameplay I like, so I gave up trying to force the systems into a shape pleasing to me.

Now I'm using systems that are inherently more BESW-shaped.

Tablesalt

00:25

Oh, ok. Cool.

BESW

@Tablesalt I think that argument only works when looking at the alignment mechanic in a vacuum. While alignment can be used that way, and it can work to some extent, it's only a "good" choice in comparison to not having a personality-and-behaviour system at all.

Compare WoD's nature/demeanour concept, for example.

Or even Storium's Strength/Weakness/Subplot cards when used for personality rather than physicality/skill.

Tablesalt

Fair enough, I gotcha.

BESW

My Mage had a Helping nature with a Teaching demeanour; her primary drive was to help others and she most often expressed that through teaching them. That's gonna be a lot more helpful in "how do I act in this scene?" than "I'm Lawful Good," which is what she'd have been in 3.5.

Unfortunately --especially in 3.5-- the alignment system is so deeply embedded in the mechanics that it's almost impossible to actually remove it; the best I ever managed was to steadfastly ignore it.

Tablesalt

Have you seen 5e's Traits/Flaws/Bonds/Inspiration system? Any thoughts on that?

doppelgreener

holy cow

i have a 71-flag allowance

BESW

00:41

I haven't studied them enough yet.

wax eagle

@JonathanHobbs :)

BESW

@Tablesalt My initial response is that it looks like the reward system is designed for the GM to reward RP he likes. Attaching mechanical awards to pleasing the GM can quickly become poisonous, so I'm inherently skeptical.

Tablesalt

Could definitely see that become an issue.

Sound like I've gotta get going. Great talking to you!

BESW

ttfn

doppelgreener

@BESW sometime soon i'm actually gonna drop by that "what is inspiration?" with something to that effect

BESW

00:52

@JonathanHobbs Thing is, it's a really common stance to take. 3.5 does it with rewarding bonus XP for good RP.

It coincides with the notion that the GM's ideas about the game are inherently superior, or at least have precedence.

doppelgreener

basically an answer of "it's mechanical bribe to roleplay the way the GM wants you to. we could do some nice things with it like turn it into fate points and awarding it only when people make substandard choices consistent with their character description, but the books don't give guidance on that or various supporting rules like Fate does, so that makes it just another form of the GM wanting you to play that way."

wax eagle

@BESW thats the power balance that 5e is designed to support though.

(for good or ill, that seems to be hallmark D&D)

BESW

@waxeagle Aye, and I'm okay with that as a philosophy I don't have to engage with.

But when asked my opinion, I call 'em like I see 'em.

I've been the power mad DM with minions desperately trying to intuit what I expected of them but wouldn't communicate.

I'd rather not put myself in situations where it's easy to become that again.

wax eagle

01:09

that's legit I think

oof, new user, 0-3 there

doppelgreener

oh phew

one of the three is actually pretty good

wax eagle

@JonathanHobbs its a dupe though isn't it?

doppelgreener

@waxeagle i don't think so. we do have player/gm rotation questions, but not one asking about the specifics of "what do i do about my own character?"

0

Q: What ability is used for playing a woodwind instrument?

While reading the D&d 5E Basic Rules, I noticed that under "Other Dexterity Checks", it said "Play a stringed instrument". This led me to wonder what ability is used for playing other types of instruments- specifically, woodwind instruments (it seems that woodwinds and strings are the only types ...

dnd-5e

But why isn't it a Charisma check?

wax eagle

01:32

@JonathanHobbs good question, tbh the fact that it's not listed means there is no check or its up to the DM....

doppelgreener

maybe it's more accurate as both

wax eagle

I'd buy an argument for dex, cha or con depending on the instrument

doppelgreener

constitution: oboe, bassoon

wax eagle

heh

doppelgreener

I'm considering opening a meta Q....

"can we quote portions of the books, like power or spell descriptions, when we're asking or answering about them?"

to mention "Yes if it's fair use and it probably will be"

wax eagle

01:40

lol yeah

we quote whole 4e powers all the time

the images are annoying though

wax eagle

02:04

Something interesting, The Rogue, Cleric and Fighter are all within a few DPR of each other at L10

L10
Cleric: 2 * 36.75 + 3 * 54.75 + 3 * 22 + 1 * 36.75 + 2 * 17.6 + 1 * 7.6 = 381.2
Fighter: 54 * (.75 * 8.5 + .1 * 3.5) = 363.15
Rogue: 16 * (.75 * 26 + .05 * 21 + .25 * .8 * 17.5 + .75 * 3.5) = 426.8

(figuring out the wizard is a lot more work)

(its important to note with the rogue, that I'm not factoring in advantage at all because I'm being lazy)

doppelgreener

02:23

@waxeagle that might be dangerously lazy with the rogue

wax eagle

@JonathanHobbs almost certainly at this point

it catches the SA, thanks to assumed fighter adjacency, but it's missing a good bit of accuracy, more importantly, it's missing a solid 5% or so on the crit chance

I may work that out with advantage factored every time tomorrow

Just to see how badly it ends up outclassing the fighter

(the fighter is in a bad spot here as their 3rd attack comes at L11 just outside the preselected scope)

Ok, tomorrow I'll rework these numbers against the Bugbear. The +2 AC will mean factoring in advantage for the rogue will be more meaningful

and no change to the Dex save means I won't be wasting my time sorting out the wizard here

Wizard is in and it's bad: 1501.86

from even, to double, to quadruple

doppelgreener

03:01

@waxeagle whaaaaaaaaaat?

L10 rogue is 426, but L10 wizard is 1501?

Did you factor in spell slots?

BESW

[watches "4e-like experience" slip further away]
[beats breast, gnashes teeth]

doppelgreener

@BESW well yeah from the moment they went back to 3e's magic (y'know, where they had stuff like Wish and Gate) things broke

a "4e-like experience" necessitates that everyone either has magic, or an equivalent of magic

and when I say equivalent, I mean something equally competitive

BESW

I consider this combat disparity very much a 3.5 quality and very much not a 4e quality.

GMNoob

I wouldn't call this combat disparity just yet

Adeptus

@waxeagle That's crazy

BESW

03:08

Unless rogues get save-or-die effects multiple times per day (and wizards don't)....

GMNoob

@waxeagle The tiers shift at levels 1,5,11, and 17 those are probabbly the levels that should be used.

@BESW What spells are save or die?

But there are two main things to consider, I think. 1. Are the 4e assumptions about AOE abilities accurate for 5e. 2. Is infinite monsters a useful metric, or should it be capped by the xp of monsters killed.

BESW

In 5e I have no idea. I'm saying that with a damage gap like that, it's hard to imagine what except exclusive wizard-can't-do-equivalent game-changers could possibly create a situation in which this isn't a combat disparity.

Aye, those are assumptions which should be checked.

GMNoob

Meaning, if there are 200 hp worth of monsters to fight through, and everyone is doing 300+ damage, then the fact that one class can potentially do 500 damage and the other class 1,000 isn't really an actual disparity.

BESW

But they're also assumptions which will vary from game to game.

GMNoob

Not necessarily

There are multiple ways to model AOE. One way is the DPR King for 4e method. Another way mentioned in one of the answers is to half damage for every new target

so 1 target gets 100% damage, then there is a 50% of a 2nd target, then a 25% chance for 3rd target etc.

And there might be other ways for 5e that make more sense.

BESW

03:15

I'm confused. Are you saying that we don't yet know how AoE damage is applied to multiple targets in 5e?

doppelgreener

@Zachiel Aha I just realised what you were hinting at in your comment ;)

GMNoob

part of the 4e assumptions is that there is flanking and people are trying to get close to eachother while trying to stay away from AOE as well

@BESW We don't know the best way to apply it.

Not that it's not knowable, just that @waxeagle hasn't looked into it yet

BESW

@GMNoob ...how is this not the exact same argument that you railed against when your playtest experience wasn't being accepted as equivalent to 5e experience?

"We know things about it, but we don't know enough yet to make definitive statements."

GMNoob

Because waxeagle himself said he wasn't sure.

It's one thing to say, we've played in the playtest and done one or two sessions and have an idea of what the best way to do it is. It's another entirely to say that we don't know what the best way is, but 4e had a standard, so we will use that for now and see what happens.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob so wait does 5e provide multiple options you pick from for distributing AOE damage?

GMNoob

03:19

@JonathanHobbs What?

BESW

@JonathanHobbs I think he's saying that we don't yet know what "optimal grid tactics" will be in 5e so our math to calculate average AoE damage can't yet accurately reflect optimal target spreads across the grid.

doppelgreener

I am confused. BESW asked if we don't know how AOE damage is applied to multiple targets in 5e. You said you don't know the best way to apply it. That sounds like there's multiple options. Does that mean you're not sure how to apply it in your calculations, or that the game provides multiple options and you're not sure which one to pick is best?

BESW

(IE, will they be bunched up or spread out?)

GMNoob

See this question here:

7

A: What is the expected average damage for an area of effect power?

If I were maintaining a list of my party's attacks and their average damages, I would list area effect attacks under multiple headings for the number of potential targets. Let's take Freezing burst and assume the wizard has a 60% chance to hit and deals 1d6 + 4 damage. Here's how I'd list it in ...

doppelgreener

@BESW conga flanking line of course

GMNoob

03:21

Multiple models are proposed

@JonathanHobbs But flanking isn't really a thing in 5e

doppelgreener

@GMNoob oh good

GMNoob

@BESW Maybe :) We don't yet know which variables and things to use to determine the calculation. Not because it's unknowable, but because nobody in this chat has sat down and pondered it and given an answer yet.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob wait [squints] wax eagle mentioned something about fighter adjacency in calculating rogue damage

BESW

> Flank with your partner, circle left;
> Stab that gnome, put in some heft.
> Forward, back, and dropkick around--
> This fight's gonna get us kicked from town!

doppelgreener

so surely the rogue has some kind of thing that is kinda like flanking?

GMNoob

03:24

You can see in the various answers to that AOE question, that lots of the assumptions are based on 4e rules that 5e doesn't have.

@JonathanHobbs The rogue specifically gets Sneak Attack damage if she either has advantage against the enemy, or there is an enemy of the target adjacent. But the rogue can be far away shooting in.

doppelgreener

@BESW haha. gnomes and dropkicks.

BESW

@GMNoob Which (and it's tangential and an ongoing burr I know can't be filed down yet, but--) brings us back to "How in Sam Blazes is 5e gonna be able to give me a 4e-like experience?"

doppelgreener

ingame theory: the Dropkick Murphies dislike gnomes. Their name comes from a particular run-in with a particular gnome when they were just starting out.

GMNoob

@BESW firstly, with different class builds than basic provides us with. Secondly, with aditional rules modules, and lastly, it will be 4e-like, not a 4e-clone.

I don't think different battlefield tactics changes the game from feeling like 4e

as long as it has battlefield tactics

BESW

@GMNoob I get that last point, I really do. I'm just having trouble seeing much of anything that reflects what I consider some of the crucial "4e-like" experience points, so telling me it won't be a clone isn't addressing my not seeing much even reminiscent of 4e.

GMNoob

03:29

What do you consider crucial to the 4e-like experience?

BESW

So I'm going to try to wait and see, but I will continue to point out where it looks like 5e is deviating from major 4e tenets.

GMNoob

what greatly reminds me of 4e, is the battlemaster maneuvers. Such as the ones that allow you to cause another player to attack a creature instead of you attacking. Or healing someone by rallying them with a shout. Or the ability to shove 10-15 feet, as well as do damage, etc.

Then there are abilities like protector, that allow me to give disadvantage to an enemy attack who is attacking my ally that is adjacent to me.

@BESW Is the flanking congo line a tenet?

BESW

Let's see.
- Character creation should have a minimum of "trap" options.
- Combat can be grid-focused and tactical, by which I mean multiple hard choices between interesting options on most turns.
- Mechanics-enforced character roles are firmly present but don't significantly modify each character's ability to contribute outside their specialty.

- Even at the end of a hard day expending resources, characters should be able to contribute meaningfully to combat.

doppelgreener

@GMNoob I'm on the periphery of this discussion, but having one class with some reminiscent features is a long way from making the game 4e-like (especially when that class is standing beside a Wizard gating things in)

BESW

- Combat powers are not (without extreme and difficult optimisation) capable of trivialising combat.

doppelgreener

03:34

@GMNoob the flanking conga line thing is, I think, from much earlier editions like AD&D. 4e had a bunch of crowd-control stuff that would make establishing reliable conga lines difficult. (this is a good thing.)

BESW

- Fluff and mechanics are well separated; re-visualising a mechanical element doesn't modify its effects. This means that ability and feature text uses mechanical notation in addition to (or instead of) narrative description.

- Every class feels like it can be a valid option which contributes to the party; there's little sense of "Why pick this class when that one over there does the same stuff better?"

GMNoob

@BESW How exactly does that translate to the feel of the game during play?

BESW

(With the acknowledged exception of the Seeker and most everything in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. [grin])

@GMNoob I consider character creation to be a minigame integral to the D&D experience in every edition I've played or investigated.

One of my players almost preferred building 4e characters to running them, so I'd hope some element of that minigame is present in something which claims to be 4e-like.

Naturally I don't expect a 4e-like experience to embrace all of these elements.

But in order to be 4e-like it should really have at least a few.

doppelgreener

Well... if it's how you create your character, then it translates directly to all of play. In 4e, I can play a Desert Cleric of the God of the Plains who casts using the finer parts of the earth - most of my attacks involve sand, heat, wind, breaking rock, and so on. Beneath that, because of the separation of narrative and mechanics, I could be a reskinned Wizard or Warlock or Shaman or a number of other things, without fighting the game at all.

All I have to do is take the mechanics of the power, and if its narrative doesn't fit my character, I ask myself: "What would it look like if my Desert Cleric was trying to achieve this effect?"

There's some requirements in there, like how a Fireball with the Fire keyword should probably be reskinned as something pretty hot (I'll make it some intense sunrays!), but that's very different to a system where the mechanics care that a fireball looks like a fireball, crackles like a fireball, lights things on fire like a fireball, and so on.

GMNoob

you aren't going to break anything if you decide the fireball spell does 5d8 damage, by making a sphere of Ramstein music.

doppelgreener

03:47

Maybe, but I sure would be breaking things in 3e.

BESW

@GMNoob But is the Ramstein music dealing fire damage?

doppelgreener

@BESW Well, it is Rammstein music.

BESW

More 4e-like elements:
- Terrain features (passive and/or responsive) as an important part of combat tactics, including the ability of characters to modify their surroundings mid-combat in tactically significant ways.
- At least *some* attempt to mitigate the goblin die in goblin-dice-antagonistic scenarios (IE, skill challenges).
- A separate casting mechanic for out-of-combat spells which would trivialise combat but are good to have outside combat (I think 5e DOES carry this over rather nicely?).

GMNoob

no its doing heavy damage :)

as long as you arent constantly changing damage types mid game, its not going to make a difference if its doing fire or thunder damage

A lot of the things you mentioned are allready in the game. So I'm getting confused.

Ok, not a lot , but atleast 3

BESW

@GMNoob I haven't studied the game as closely as you have, as you know, not least because I don't have/want access to the resources you do.

@GMNoob Honestly that's a simple example of the concept but it's not where the concept breaks down.

GMNoob

03:52

I'm also not sure what you meant earlier about mechanic roles. In 4e if I played a defender but tried to act like a controller I'd be really bad at it.

BESW

@GMNoob Easy example of that: in 3.5 the cleric gets to heal or do damage with her turn. Almost never both.

In 4e, the cleric's healing is a minor action she wouldn't be using to attack anyway, or it's a rider on an attack.

GMNoob

@BESW Ah, that's no longer a problem in this edition

doppelgreener

@BESW I'm not sure that relates strictly to this

if that's what's being discussed

also, brb. time to get a coffee!

BESW

@JonathanHobbs Oh, aye.

Better example: in 4e if you've got two defenders in the party and you only need one to force bad choices (marks + punishment) on the solo NPC you're fighting, the other defender doesn't feel useless.

He doesn't deal as much damage as a striker, but his damage is meaningful. He doesn't have as much debuff potential as a controller, but what he's got contributes to the conflict in tangible ways.

Magician

@GMNoob Um, I'm looking at the cleric and can't find anything that'd let them fight and heal in the same round.

BESW

04:01

(I realise that one's pretty subjective, as there are people who argue a 3.5 monk can't contribute meaningfully to MOST conflicts and others who argue they trivialise most conflicts.)

Magician

@BESW Two defenders are terrifying in a party. Especially at higher levels where most can get pesudo-marks and so can both glare menacingly at the same target. I've had monsters destroyed by fighter + paladin. If you attack the fighter, you're blinded (and good luck with hitting that AC blinded) and hit by paladin. If you attack paladin you deal half damage and get drop-kicked by fighter.

BESW

@Magician Oh, indeed. I had a paladin/feylock trolling with eyebite and divine challenge while the fighter knocked everything he swung at (didn't even have to hit) more squares than they probably had move, knocked them prone, and slowed 'em.

Magician

@BESW I've actually had to ask the player not to do a similar thing, as that would have negated most melee enemies :)

BESW

The end result was a lot of monsters weeping huddled in the corners of the rooms.

(We also had a frostcheese ranger of pewdoom and the World's Laziest Leader.)

The scary thing is that none of them were the one I had to ban.

I had to ban the bola ranger.

doppelgreener

@Magician this is hilarious

BESW

04:09

Jan 3 '13 at 21:55, by BESW

@Novian There was the time my party had a bola kobold who dealt no damage but caused slow/restrain/can't teleport, and prone if he hit twice. He could make the attack into a 3x3 burst of squares, or twice into one square. Yes, the monster was invisible, but it was prone and couldn't move at all. The party just kicked it in the kidneys until it gave up.

doppelgreener

CSS WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A VERTICAL CENTERING PROPERTY YET :'(

YOU ARE UP TO VERSION 3 :'(

Magician

Finally got the physical copy of 13th Age Bestiary. It starts with Odd Monster Lists, such as Monsters That Lay Fearsome Eggs. Because of course it does. In it, there's "Bulette: They probably lay eggs, right? I mean, I guess they may not. Find out." I'm going to love this book.

2

doppelgreener

@Magician "Find out." That sounds like the Bestiary is actually written by someone in-universe.

Magician

Their books have personality. They talk to players.

doppelgreener

That's brilliant.

Magician

04:21

In the actual description of the bullettes:
Things Found In The Stomach Of A Bulette
Pebbles. Dirt. Twigs. Gravel. A boot. A crushed humanoid skeleton. Belt buckle from an Imperial tax collector. Jackalope foot. Lion skull. Twenty strange tarnished silver coins of unknown origin. Masonry nails. Shield. Door hinge.

doppelgreener

Reminds me of MechWarrior: every manual for the tabletop strategy game, from the start, was written from the perspective of someone in-universe, actually writing about BattleMech combat. Each subsequent manual - with new material, revisions, or so on - was written by someone who called out the author for the previous manual for being wrong or ill-informed.

Magician

Awesome!

Adeptus

@BESW If an invisible creature gets hit by a bola, you can still see the bola, right? So you can kick it in the bolas... ;)

BESW

@Adeptus Now there's a euphemism.

doppelgreener

@Magician I want to read this book even if I don't play the game XD

Magician

04:24

@JonathanHobbs Each monster description takes a few pages: multiple statblocks, advice on building battles, links to larger setting, adventure hooks, random things like bulette stomach contents. I've read some of it in pdf, it's a good read!

Adeptus

@JonathanHobbs The Shadowrun 2e books that gave new equipment were similar. They were set up like catalogs, and had chat-room-style character comments on the new products.

(2e was the last edition I looked at, so can't comment on the newer ones)

Magician

There is No Ecology of the Rust Monster
Obviously many articles and web sites disagree with that
sentiment. But what we’re suggesting as the default setting for
13th Age games is that rust monsters don’t survive long in the
surface world because almost everyone hates them. Think of
the rust monster as the equivalent of chemical weapons in the
present day world; some magicians might investigate ways of
using them, but getting caught makes everyone your enemy.

So when rust monsters show up, it’s most often because

Adeptus

13th Age

13th Age is a d20 fantasy tabletop role-playing game, designed by Rob Heinsoo (lead designer of D&D 4e) and Jonathan Tweet (lead designer of D&D 3E), and published by Pelgrane Press. It was released on 3 August 2013 and the pre-release version was a nominee for the RPG Geek RPG of the Year 2013. As of December 2013 the ENWorld hot games list showed that discussions of it were responsible for 2.6% of all D&D related web traffic they had been able to index. == Setting == The setting of 13th Age is intended to be fleshed out in the course of play. Although there are default places, 13 default Icons...

sounds pretty good

Magician

@Adeptus I wrote a review of 13th Age some time ago.

BESW

...now I want Ursula Vernon to be able to write a setting guide for GearWorld.

Alas, that is apparently literally impossible. (Much to her chagrin.)

GMNoob

04:40

@JonathanHobbs That' what I really enjoy about Vollo's guide to waterdeep. It has a forward by Eliminster saying that Vollo has no idea what he is talking about, and use his guide at your own risk.

Adeptus

@BESW Post-apocalypse steampunk boardgame? cool

BESW

@Adeptus ...kinda? GearWorld is a strange place.

GMNoob

@Magician Spiritual weapon

BESW

It seems to be distinguished as a sprawling series of underground spaces in which technology develops in apparently independent and organic ways, while organic creatures barely eke out a life within the metallic forests of pipes.

Magician

@GMNoob 3e also had it, and no one thought it was sufficient then.

It's a fine spell, but not something that lets one proclaim clerics can heal and attack in the same turn.

GMNoob

04:45

@Magician Spell casting was different in 3e.

BESW

But the primary feature of GearWorld is its refusal to conform to expectations (except in that it's always creepy), and that it's the only intellectual property of Ursula Vernon's which she can't command.

Adeptus

After talking about shadowrun & steampunk yesterday, I'm thinking it shouldn't be too hard to adapt. Limit the equipment options, and make everything more clunky, less streamlined... and the overall world setting needs to be totally replaced... but mechanics-wise, it's a pretty good fit

GMNoob

@Magician Right ofcourse not. Except I just did. Spiritual weapon doesn't even use up a spell slot. So how that means that a cleric can't heal and attack in the same turn is beyond me.

Magician

@GMNoob How does it not take up a spell slot?...

Yes. You can heal and attack with a small selection of bonus action spells (currently one?) in the same turn. Compare it to 4e's you can use any of your fun abilities and also heal if needed.

GMNoob

Sorry, I misread that. It doesn't count towards prepared spells, not cast spells

doppelgreener

04:51

@GMNoob that's pretty funny

"I hearby disown all content in this manual, as the researcher writing this is an idiot"

GMNoob

@JonathanHobbs yup :)

BESW

> "These facts are all true to the best of our knowledge, however since I am surrounded by weirdos, I take no personal responsibility." - Sam the American Eagle, about "The Muppet Show" season 1 DVD's extras.

trogdor

Sam is awesome

I am glad Muppets Most Wanted gave him a decently important role. I also liked Burrell's performance

Magician

@GMNoob Ah, it's part of the Life domain, I see what you're talking about.

Adeptus

I haven't seen the 2 recent Muppet movies. The old series & movies were great though.

trogdor

04:56

I saw Most wanted on a plane flight relatively recently

I didn't see it when it first came out

Adeptus

omg, train-of-thought collision... steampunk muppet rpg! XD

trogdor

lol

BESW

A quick Google later...

trogdor

somehow gonzo's nose realy makes that work

BESW

I'm still trying to find something that's actually steampunk rather than "Victorian with goggles."

There's this...

trogdor

05:00

yeah

BESW

And this is not steampunk at all but needed to be shared anyway.

@JonathanHobbs It just occurred to me; will you and your friend be in the same room IRL, or is this going to be a three-way chat?

doppelgreener

@BESW three-way chat, most likely

BESW

Aight. I've never done that.

doppelgreener

:O

putting this chevron on the right, in that position, vertically centre-aligned, has taken... the majority of my day

BESW

@JonathanHobbs Reason #327 I'm not a web designer.

doppelgreener

05:09

The Oracle

05:26

0

Q: Can 5e's "Living Rules" be used to ask questions on RPG.SE?

D&D 5e has been called by it's creators a [Living Rules System.] ( http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623 ) What this means is that: If we know something is an issue, we’ll let you know that we plan to address it. When we have some ideas, we’ll put those in front of the c...

discussion

GMNoob

@BESW You may or may not find this interview interesting. suvudu.com/2014/07/…

It talks a bit about the busiiness model for 5e

BESW

So.... "We wanted to make everyone happy."

"We were surprised that people didn't want the same thing we thought they wanted 15 years ago."

You know, I still don't get how "living document" and "living rules" is any different from the "publish errata and expansions/supplements throughout the edition's era" we've seen in 3.x and 4e.

Adeptus

@BESW "Living rules" sounds better than "You'll have to look for errata & expansions"

BESW

Eh, 4e did fine by keeping their online services up to date with their errata so I didn't have to check anywhere except where I was looking for the rule in the first place.

Adeptus

05:41

doppelgreener

@BESW well, they want to do All The Things and have plug-and-play subsystems right? Seems like they don't have anything like that at the moment, but anyway - Living Rules sounds like they'll be releasing new plug-and-play things to do those other things, so the base level of the rules can evolve and be considered 'alive'

Living Rules is a very overly fancy term for it, but w/e

BESW

So "living rules" means "Unearthed Arcana every few months"?

Magician

"It'll be fixed in the next patch".

BESW

@Magician "Soon"?

Magician

Ayup. When's the fighter going to be non-boring? Soon. When're we going to see 4e-like gameplay? Soon. I get that it's not a released game yet and all, but we've had the "you can't criticize it, it's only public playtest number 1/2/5/8 / basic free rules / starter set" excuse for literally years now. At some point, it'll have to actually deliver.

BESW

05:49

@Magician My problem is that simultaneously I'm being told that I should use all those "not yet ready" examples to form my understanding and opinion of the final product.

Magician

And Living Rules (tm) feels suspiciously like that deliverance will be indefinitely "Soon".

Adeptus

@BESW Well, yes, if you like those examples. Otherwise, don't criticize! They're not final! :P

BESW

GMNoob

@BESW Once a year.

doppelgreener

It might be more like the D&D 4e Essentials release, except more of that kind of thing.

(Hopefully with a clear delineation of "you are now entering a different game mode, this probably should not be used alongside XYZ")

GMNoob

05:55

I can't tell if you are guessing based off of reading the full article or not :(

doppelgreener

@GMNoob Me? I'm guessing.

I've read bits and pieces about the living rules from way, way back into the playtest era.

GMNoob

The full article is here: It's not that old.

wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623

From a month ago, to be exact

doppelgreener

Isn't Living Rules also how they'll be delivering the plug-and-play game systems they want?

Updates and fixes don't require Living Rules, they're just errata.

Transcript for