D&D 5e Overflow - 2014-07-24 (page 1 of 2)

next day → last day (337 days later) »

7:24 AM

@WesleyObenshain Re your meta answer: In the Living Rules article, it says "A revision significant enough to require serious changes to printed books should offer multiple obvious improvements to the game. If you’re buying new books, it should be because you want to—not because we’re twisting your arm. In an ideal world, updates to our printed products should simply capture the incremental updates and revisions that have proven widely popular."

So I don't think it's only talking about the Basic Rules

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob I'm not really sure how you come to that conclusion. I'm sure there will be separate errata but the Basic Rules are essentially meant to cover how to play the game. Regardless, since they haven't created a "Living Rules System" section, the Basic Rules are what we've got to work with for the time being.

@WesleyObenshain Basically, by deciding that the article which mentions published books, free releases, player feed back, and new content as meaning only the Basic rules, you are deciding that the article which came out describing new possible rules to play with and "see who can use these rules to get to level 20" is obviously NOT part of what the article was talking about. Which seems a bit odd to me.

← 2 messages moved from RPG General Chat

← 1 message moved from RPG General Chat

← 1 message moved from RPG General Chat

Wesley Obenshain

7:41 AM

@GMNoob I'm not saying it only means the Basic Rules but until they start adding a "canon" stamp of some sort to the articles or it becomes clear that they're not going to, we've only got one source for what is and is not canon.

@WesleyObenshain Because the point is "Basic Rules" is NOT all we have to work with. We also have WOTC article to work with.

@WesleyObenshain I don't understand this position. There are years worth of articles in Legends of Lore which describe changes to the rules, which we have now seen being the actual rules in Basic. Why do you think that these article are not a reflection of the game?

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Excuse me, what? This sentence does not make sense to me, in the most literal way: "There are years worth of articles in Legends of Lore which describe changes to the rules, which we have now seen being the actual rules in Basic."

@WesleyObenshain The inspiration mechanic was described in a legends and lore article. It was not in the actual playtest. What was described in that article, became the rules in the Basic PDF.

As just one example

We have not seen anything since the closing of public beta that was written in the legends and lores article which did not become part of the rules. I'm just not understanding this "canon" stamp thing.

room topic changed to D&D 5e Discussion Goes Here.: Not in main chat. (Though links to cool 5e stuff should be shared there.) [dnd-5e]

I'm not gonna be sitting in this room, but as I'm the creator I'm the owner. So if you need anything--pins, tags, etc--you can usually find me in the main chat.

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob As you said, "which has not become part of the rules". Once it becomes part of the rules, it's canon. Until then, it's a preview, a discussion, a request for feedback, or whatever it happens to actually be. Put another way, it is not a rule until it is part of what is actually used by Wizards to adjudicate official events. Invariably these articles are examples of rules-to-come, not rules-in-action.

Of course, Wizards could actually be stupid enough to keep posting articles without incorporating them into some sort of official rules compendium and expect people to assume they are canon. But until I have more evidence of that, my POV is not going to change.

That's not to say you can't, or shouldn't, use them at home. Or even that you can't use them with questions (though if I have my way, they'll have to be part of your question) but in your specific case, the problem is that you're including a whole bunch of irrelevant information; not the fact that the rules aren't canon.

Or, "not the assertion", if you prefer.

7:58 AM

@WesleyObenshain Why does the phrase "Use these rules" not count as "canon"?

@WesleyObenshain This has nothing to do with the question, but with the problem I've been having on the site since the playtest, about what is and isn't a valid source for a question.

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Because the phrase is actually "You can use the guidelines"

No, the line I'm refering to says: ". Have fun, and make the rules your own.

Now, let's see if anyone manages to use this article and the material in the Starter Set to hit 20th level by GenCon . . ."

@WesleyObenshain And why does it matter if it says the word "guidelines"? The rule book is full of "guidelines" and not rules.

Wesley Obenshain

Actually, it matters that it says "can" not "must" or "should" or any of a dozen more definitive words. It also matters that it clarifies to what it is referring, as simply saying "You can use these guidelines" on its own would be a wholly meaningless statement. And you're right; it doesn't really. What matters is that there is no suggestion within the article that the post is meant to be part of the official rules system. In fact, it says just the opposite. "These are not the final rules."

I am seriously very confused on this point. The Basic Rules has a section about Grid combat. It says, "can" not "must" or "should". Are rules about how to move on a grid not part of the canon?

Wesley Obenshain

Sorry, "These are not final rules." From my perspective, you are more than welcome to use them. You are more than welcome to reference them in questions. But you can't assume that they are part of the default ruleset until they are actually made part of the default ruleset.

8:07 AM

@WesleyObenshain my head is exploding here...

The comment was that the 5e tag can not be applied to these rules

Not, that they are default or not default.

Wesley Obenshain

Comment? What comment?

All versions of D&D has rules that are not "default" they are in various splat books that people either use or don't. They still get the tag for the respective edition

The comment has since been deleted.

But on my question it was written, "You can't ask a question about unpublished rules with the 5e tag"

And the chat conversation, makes it more clear.

That questions can't be asked about unreleased rules.

Wesley Obenshain

And what did I say in my answer?

That the article is only talking about "Basic D&D"...

Wesley Obenshain

Read it again.

8:10 AM

This is the line I wanted to correct you about, but didn't want to put a conversation into the comments.
"Lacking any other evidence I have to assume the the Living Rules System is a reference to the Basic Rules."

Wesley Obenshain

I can change that to "some sort of explicitly canon ruleset" but it seems likely that it will just be part of the Basic Rules. As you said, everything else has been. Later.

And this is my specific response to the comment in question: "On the other hand, as with other questions, players should be free to establish their own guidelines for the answer, where relevant."

@WesleyObenshain Ok That would be much more clear and honest. But I'm still confused why the last line of the article on Adventure Building doesn't count as "explicit"

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob "Have fun, and make the rules your own." or "Now, let's see if anyone manages to use this article and the material in the Starter Set to hit 20th level by GenCon . . ."

@WesleyObenshain The combination of the two

Wesley Obenshain

Really, the answer is the same. These are conversational statements; the sort one might see in any article including a new set of rules, whether they are intended to be canon or not.

8:16 AM

I'm not understanding this canon difference.

Wesley Obenshain

Neither statement implies that Wizards of the Coast will be using these rules as part of their canon ruleset (AKA Living Rules System) and such an implication would explicitly be contracted by "These are not final rules."

@GMNoob Not to be insulting, but do you understand what canon means?

Yes, I know what Canon means. I don't understand how a game which is designed around optional rules modules can have canon and non-canon rules.

siren, have to run

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Only the non-optional rules are strictly what I think of as canon, which means they can be applied everywhere. However, there is also a difference between an optional rule created by Wizards of the Coast and included in a splat book and one created by Joe Schmoe and posted in their campaign blog. Likewise, there is a difference between an optional rule posted in a Wizards article and one acknowledge by Wizards to be part of the "official", "default", "cannon", or whatever other term

@WesleyObenshain Ok, let me ask this another way. Do you think WoTC expects people to be able to play D&D with encounters past those in the Start Set at this very moment?

Wesley Obenshain

you'd like to use that still just means "acknowledged by Wizards as more than just an article". Usually the difference is a significant amount of playtesting, but sometimes its something else (like the release of a book containing the final version of the rules).

8:25 AM

@WesleyObenshain But it says the rule has been thoroughly playtested...

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Now you're just looking for an argument because you deliberately ignore the last half of my sentence.

Do you agree that Wizards intends people to be using this rule right now to play characters past the starter set?

2

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Regardless, the answer to that question has no bearing on my answer in meta. When you say "I'm using such and such an optional rule." You actually have to say "I'm using such and such an optional rule." But since these optional rules would be scattered around the Wizards website, you'd have to reference them more directly; which means you'd have to include both a link and the relevant content from the article.

@GMNoob I'll answer you other question when we get done with the current conversation.

@WesleyObenshain This is the current conversation, I'm trying to get my point across in a different direction, since the previous one was not being understood.

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob And simultaneously (apparently) refusing to actually read what I'm writing. Because if you were, you'd know that's not what I'm talking about by now.

8:29 AM

Basically, my understanding is that the "Building Adventures" Article, was an example of the "a living rule set" in action. They have a rule that they want people to know about, but are not yet ready to "put in stone". They are asking people to use the rule, and tell them at GenCon how it went.

@WesleyObenshain What are you talking about right now? When did the topic switch?

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob Let me put it another way. In what way do you think that clarifying this is going to change my answer in meta?

I'll just make this clear. I have zero interest in my current question which will remain forever closed. I'm not going to be re-asking it, as I allready have an answer, and I'm not interested in the close votes that will follow.

@GMNoob I'm interested in clarifying the living rules concept, with linked examples, but not until tomorrow at least. If I don't get this job done by tomorrow morning I'll lose all professional viability at the local U.

@WesleyObenshain I expect this line: "Lacking any other evidence I have to assume the the Living Rules System is a reference to the Basic Rules, which have not been updated with this material."

To be changed into this line:

@WesleyObenshain "While the Living Rules system might include less formal articles. It's important that optional rules be clearly linked, and explained as optional"

or some such thing

Zero interest in my current question about Damage.. but lots of interest in my current meta question.

Wesley Obenshain

Okay. I'm not talking about your old question at the moment. And that is essentially what I'm already saying; I just don't believe that this is an example of the Living Ruleset in action. To wit:

8:36 AM

@WesleyObenshain "I just don't believe that this is an example of the Living Ruleset in action." Right, but this is the most important part! :P

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob To you. I'm still typing, here.

I believe that Wizards intends this rule to be available to people before the DMG is released because they realize that it will not be available for 4 months and in that time many groups will surpass the challenges defined in the Starter Set. I do not believe they intend it to be an official update to the rules, otherwise I can fathom no reason they would not include it in the Basic Rules as-is until such time as the DMG is released and they can update.

still typing

in RPG General Chat, Nov 30 '13 at 15:06, by BESW

We've also got a typing indicator script which puts a green line around the user icon of anyone who's typing if they've also got the script installed.

Wesley Obenshain

In addition, the article does not fit the context of the Living Rules System article at all. The article treats the game as an extended Beta test, with Living Rules modifications only coming after the established rules have proven faulty. Therefore, even if Wizards is using this article as an opportunity to Beta test the rule before release it would definitively not be part of the Living Rules System because it is not a modification of the existing rules but a preview of future rules.

done

I understand you are still typing, but I just want to comment on this line before I forget to later: " otherwise I can fathom no reason they would not include it in the Basic Rules as-is until such time as the DMG is released and they can update."

The reason I believe they have not updated the Basic Rules, is because they don't want to confuse more casual players, causing them to re-download the Basic Rules each time a new Legends and Lore article is released with rules updates. As they say in the article, they want all new published material to be done slowly, with care, and not require…

"because it is not a modification of the existing rules but a preview of future rules." Ok that makes sense. I don't agree, but I can I now understand your position. Thanks

Wesley Obenshain

Agreement is not required, Citizen. Only obedience.

Also, you're welcome.

8:46 AM

I understand the Living rules (It's not really a living rules system name btw) to be a live long beta test, with new rules for the rabid fans, and "collated rules" for those who don't want a constant update.

Just mentioning that so you don't expect some book or website called "The living rules" etc.

i.e. The D&D rules are living. rather than some rules are part of "The living rules" system.

Wesley Obenshain

Ah. I understand the "collated" part to be the release of new rules books, with updates coming in the form of updates to the "official" rules. As I've said, I could be wrong; my personal experience of Wizards' release strategy tells me that until I have sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise (likely coming in the form of a lack of official updates after the books are released) it is best to assume that they don't intend every article to be "canon".

@GMNoob Also, I have some thoughts I'd like to share but I'm not sure a public chat is the appropriate forum. If you'd care to hear them, let me know what would be a good way to contact you. I can also keep them to myself. Either way.

@WesleyObenshain daganev electronic delivery system sign thingy from google

@WesleyObenshain So basically, your view is that the articles are "things they want people to know" but not "things they want to answer rule questions about" ?

Wesley Obenshain

lol. That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Really, my view is that Wizards has always published lots of articles from lots of sources, many of the containing rules. Very rarely were those rules well playtested or remotely balanced and they were obviously intended for flavor and home use, not official play. It would seem redundant for them to issue a statement essentially saying they intended to continue the practice.

9:14 AM

@WesleyObenshain KRyan's mentioned that 3.5e (or 3e?) was infamously playtested only up to level 6.

@WesleyObenshain It seems to me they are not continuing the practice. Rather they tell us that things have been playtested or are still in the process of being playtested.

Wesley Obenshain

9:36 AM

@JonathanHobbs laughs Probably

@GMNoob We shall see what the fates decree, I suppose.

@WesleyObenshain I've noticed a lot of hostility on wotc forums due to what they did between 3e and 4e

People who experienced that don't trust a word they say, and people who didn't are really happy with 5e's information leak.

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob This is also a thing.

@GMNoob This is where I'm coming from in expressing doubt when you use a WotC article/blog/interview to back up something about 5e.

Not utter disbelief, but unhealthy skepticism.

@BESW The line on the wotc forum is something along the lines of "We know you were hurt in the past, but where is the disconnect now? The rules are out, and they are what they said they would be."

@GMNoob Trust has to be earned back slowly after so many years of either utter cluelessness or deliberate negligence.

And frankly? Their new more communicative attitude has taken the form of numerous poorly-worded blog posts with a tendency toward being patronising and paternalistic.

9:50 AM

@BESW Interesting that you see it that way. I see it as open and honest. Granted they show no respect to other gaming systems, and they view themselves as the gatekeepers to the hobby. But I'm interested in the thought behind the system, so I sort of ignore the "We are a large corporation with a small staff and define the hobby for millions" self image that they want to project.

I find that self-image... well, narrow-minded and egotistical to the point that I have trouble believing they're really in touch with the RPG community outside their current patronage.

So it makes me less inclined to believe there's much "thought behind the system" worth wading through the muck to learn.

@BESW I see it as coorporate showmanship with no relation to how they actually function internally. But then I've worked for a few coorporations. Because that projected image -does- increase sales.

@GMNoob I'd... be more inclined to believe that if the blogs weren't so obviously not edited with an eye to PR.

Wesley Obenshain

@GMNoob My experience suggests that corporations are usually far worse internally than any image they might want to project.

@BESW I'm not parsing that sentence properly. The blog posts are edited as PR or are not edited?

9:56 AM

@GMNoob They aren't.

I'm remembering one blog that said "Early D&D didn't need RP mechanics because people knew how to RP; we have to add them to 5e because computer games have made our new players stupid."

Wesley Obenshain

@BESW Wait. In those words? Or was it something much more long winded that read that way?

@BESW Heh. I know which blog post your talking about, but I read that differently.

Which is a great way to appeal to modern players. [sarcasm drips like saliva from a xenomorph's mouth]

@WesleyObenshain Not quite that explicitly, but it was obviously a sop to old-school players saying "Don't worry, we don't think you need mechanics to RP." (And ignoring or not caring that younger/newer players would be reading it too.)

I'm also remembering a series of "report on the playtest" blog entires which kept on saying "Today, we learned [fundamental game design thing which they'd demonstrated mastery of in 4e]."

Which again--not writing PR, to be saying they're using the playtest to re-learn lessons they'd already learnt.

@BESW It's interesting, because I read those blogs as saying "Today we learned that the assumptions we made in 4e without large public feedback, holds up under large public feedback."

So if Wizards is asking on their forums why I'm skeptical of promises they make and design philosophies they espouse? See above. I'm not seeing a big increase in perceived competency.

@GMNoob Remember that conversation we had with Magician a while back about how they seem to be ignoring 4e? Those blog posts didn't mention previous editions. They presented the learning as new.

So you remember that they were in 4e, and I remember they were in 4e, but I'm not going to give Wiz the benefit of the doubt for things which are--at best--only implied.

They long ago lost the benefit of the doubt from me in that regard.

(And I know a lot of the people who were involved in the original trust-losing actions are gone from the team, but if they're going to present themselves as continuous guardians of the D&D legacy I'm gonna stick 'em with all that legacy.)

10:07 AM

@BESW Yeah it's interesting. Because they are trying to attract people who think 4e was the worst thing to ever happen to an RPG ever.

@GMNoob And now we're back to my skepticism that their basic premise/goal for 5e is attainable: pleasing all the people all the time.

In that case, Wiz can still at least acknowledge: "We learned this thing in 4e. This is a totally different game, and we've learned you want that too. But we learned it there nevertheless."

Wesley Obenshain

Night all.

@Wesley Night

@WesleyObenshain ttfn

10:08 AM

There was a thread on the forums that 4e was missing from 5e. So a bunch of people pointed out all the things from 4e in 5e. The response to THAT, was a lot more people saying "What? This 4e thing is in 5e? This game will be terble!"

aaaahh, forums.

It was quite funny

They were perfectly happy with the mechanic, even amazed at this "new idea", but when pointed out that it existed in 4e, they said it doesn't belong in an RPG

I'm exacterdating a bit, obviously

If they're scared that the mere mention of an edition they spent... what, about 6 years? flagshipping... will be a PR nightmare--then I dunno, there's something about "the courage of their convictions" there, and at the bottom of it is the ridiculousness of trying to condense four decades of edition sparring into a single all-pleasing package.

Yes, they can't even do a "retrospective" on 4e. Or a "What we learned" convention chat.

That's at the root of my critique of 5e, I guess: I think it's a ridiculously overambitious premise that's doomed to failure.

10:12 AM

They banned 4e from the chat room because it causes too much conflict whenever it comes up :P

Heheh.

I'm pretty happy with their tackling of what I thought would be impossible. Because I actually can have my rules happy friend playing Thorak the Troll killer and my "I hate char creation" friend playing Sam the generic adventurer, to play the same game, without half the people at the table dictating all of Sam's moves.

Fear of the name only increases fear of the thing itself!

quoth Hermione

@GMNoob I do like that notion; one of the things I like about Fate is that each player can define their own level of crunch and subsystems without unbalancing the party.

Oooh fascinating. The "intoxitated" condition was renamed to "poisioned"

10:18 AM

@GMNoob SCIENCE.

The dwarves will argue with that.

@JonathanHobbs We will ply them with poison until they stop.

I didn't even realize the change, but it's there. I thought they just got rid of it entirely.

@BESW Yes, and they forget what they were arguing about, so we can sneakily switch to their position, and they take the opposite because that's how arguing works, and then begin arguing beer is poison and we concede and they take a satisfying drink.

@JonathanHobbs Bugs and Daffy at thier finest

10:21 AM

:)

lol

I like how when the kid switches sides, he seems to smile just a little, as if he realises immediately what's going on.

11:08 AM

I love how a random comment on an answer I upvote makes me double check the rules and find out there is a better answer.

@GMNoob I like how the site makes me do that in general.

After I wrote that answer about 4e's planes, I went back to the writing and found out I'd totally misunderstood something about them.

Oh, which?

I originally thought that the Elemental Chaos had no elements in it at all, just uniform... stuff, and that the Primordials were very upset by this unchaotic state of affairs and separated the stuff out into the elements.

Ah, yes.

And that, presumably, the Astral Sea was exactly the same way, and the Gods could have done exactly the same thing, except to them everything was perfect that way.

11:16 AM

Interesting notion.

@JonathanHobbs What is the actual case?

Yeah. I only realised that last bit shortly before I looked up the rules and found out I was mistaken. xD

5

A: Are there no more elemental planes in 4th Edition?

Yes, there is now only the Elemental Chaos. The previous cosmology has been entirely scrapped. I don't miss it at all: I find the new cosmology far richer and more exciting and fascinating to work with, and D&D 4e's development team thoroughly succeeded in their mission at giving the DM more flex...

@GMNoob The Elemental Chaos had the elements in it from the beginning. The Primordials awoke to an Elemental Chaos pretty much identical to the way it is in D&D 4e's "today", though a bit less full of life and without the Shard there yet.

(I can't remember what that Shard's called...)

Evil Shard of Evil or something equally innovative.

(All my 4e bookmarks were slain by the Great Forum Reorganisation, or I'd have it at my fingertips.)

11:21 AM

@BESW tahlequahpointsoflight.wikia.com/wiki/Mythic_Age#The_Dawn_War Might not have a proper name.

(4e's Elemental Chaos and the Primordials are my favourite thing to come yet out of D&D lore. I was planning a campaign that revolved around both, before my players and I decided to move to Fate.)

Ooh, its a shard of evil incarnate, not a evil shard of something

Yeah. The shard is evil itself.

It created an infinitely deep abyss that's sucking up the elemental chaos (which is also infinite, so that'll take a while) and attempting to unmake creation. From it, demons were born.

"Shard of evil" seems to be what it's called.

@JonathanHobbs I'd like to see it get adapted to Fate...

@BESW Me too.

My players just aren't keen on high fantasy. (Or, two of the four aren't.)

Ah.

I'd forgotten that.

11:37 AM

@JonathanHobbs I'd just like to point out that your inspiration answer you said that you will quote "everything", but then in the quote you say "skipping example" :P

11:47 AM

Does anyone remember if healing for clerics in the playtest was a "swift" action? Or if channel divinity allowed an attack after the heal? Or was that part of the war domain?

I generally want my heals as fast as possible. [ducks]

@BESW Because I can't spell, all I can think of are fast actin' dancin' shoes

@GMNoob ta, edited

On the one hand, I miss having each chapter be it's own pdf as the files open faster... on the other hand, it makes cross referencing and searching harder

Joshua Aslan Smith

12:06 PM

any difference between this and the other D&D 5e room?

@JoshuaAslanSmith I can't talk in the other one.

Joshua Aslan Smith

well the other is invite only/restricted

@JoshuaAslanSmith Yes, to keep me out.

And unless my searching is failing me, no healing was not swift.

Joshua Aslan Smith

theres been people other than you who've taken umbrage to deprecating comments toward 5e in main chat and main chat is meant to be a help/general resource and not be hogged by anything in particular

healing in general or some of the cleric or paladin's actions

@JoshuaAslanSmith clerics actions

Joshua Aslan Smith

12:13 PM

right paladin is only in my head because of the playtest and me finishing the dead in thay last night

Im going to start the starter kit finally next week IRL

@JoshuaAslanSmith Thats why this room exists. The 5e deconstruction room exists because:

in RPG General Chat, 4 hours ago, by Jonathan Hobbs

Despite and in part because of D&D 5e's faults, I am keen on discussing D&D 5e. This room is a Gallery because that's the only way to moderate who can participate, and I will not attempt to make a secret of why that is the case. But I intend for it to be inclusive, so: poke me if you want an invitation and permission to speak there.

@JoshuaAslanSmith nice!

Joshua Aslan Smith

You seem to grapple with magician and his statements over 5e quite a bit. maybe he gets your goose with his wording, but it might not be bad for you and him not to be discussing 5e in the same chat for a little while due to your philosophical differences on how RPGs should be played? both of you can get a breather from the respective other and still get to talk about 5e which will continue to be the topic de jour for a long time.

12:38 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith and @GMNoob opinion. I'm going to recalibrate for L11 so it's slightly fairer (though the L10 structure was quite informative, certain levels favor the wizard...rather strongly)

was looking for opinions on changing the monster. Thinking of stepping up to infinite bugbears

@waxeagle Why not flameskulls?

I don't know the flameskull stats, just that its CR 4

@GMNoob I'm not sweating CR at this point as it's mostly seems to be tied to HP. the focus right now is on AC and Saves

because those are the things that move the needle for the math

whats the noctic ac?

and whats teh bugbear dex?

Or rather, is there monster with a 16 dex and 18 ac?

:P

@GMNoob Bugbear dex is +2 still, 16 AC I think...which isn't much. Hobgoblin has an 18 AC, but only a +1 dex

@GMNoob not sure, I could hypthosize one though

I'm tempted to do that. Con +1, Dex +3, AC 18

we don't care about HP or really anything else at this point

Maybe ac 17 so it doesn't favor the spells so much?

12:44 PM

@GMNoob that would be a 10% reduction both ways, sounds good

actually +4 dex save

17 AC

We'll call the monster "tofu"

:( thats not very evocotive. How about , "Crunchy Tofu"?

:P

poor cleric, the only MAD class and they get boned on abil score ups

Though honestly, I have this suspicion that AC for most monsters will be closer to 15-16 even at paragon

@GMNoob The way they're constructing it, it will vary widely across CRs...because they are using the same logic for it that they are using for PCs

@waxeagle Ah, interesting.

so, CR determines HP and toHit, and "theme" creates AC and Stats?

12:48 PM

@GMNoob more or less

(at least from my vary not rigorous analysis of monsters so far (that largely consists of flipping pages in the starter)

only 3 monsters in the starter have save profs though :(

@waxeagle not surprising for less than level 5

@GMNoob yeah

(and a very small selection of plot important creatures)

One day I'm going to understand how to model these things, and take into account non-infinite creatures, healing resources, and XP budget :P

But tofu is a good start to know where to look at changes

@waxeagle Wizards gain significant power every level, the other classes gain them at specific points. It's an interesting observation.

@GMNoob yes. They'll get diminishing returns at higher levels though, at least in the current system we're operating in. 16 rounds means they've actually now gotten to the point where they have more slots than rounds

(at 11)

@waxeagle Is there a proper way to calculate how many rounds combat should take at each level?

12:58 PM

@GMNoob I'm not sure yet. It's going to depend heavily on what an average combat looks like. I'm writing a spreadsheet now that is going to make tweaking the number of rounds up or down easier

@waxeagle Nice

@waxeagle What I mean is that once you have the DPAD per class, for infinite creatures, it seems there should be a way to look at HP values per CR, and XP budget, and see how many rounds it takes to clear the HP value per level.

But I can't wrap my head around it.

Cause DPAD uses number or rounds to get calculated

@GMNoob yeah, if we can establish an expected HP per encounter, then yeah, we could look at it a bit more closely

@waxeagle I'll await the MM and surfarcher for that.

Joshua Aslan Smith

@GMNoob AC is not directly tied to monster CR

@JoshuaAslanSmith yeah, like with PCs it's mostly tied to Dex + armor or armor

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:03 PM

right

@waxeagle Though it should be possible for lvl 5

Joshua Aslan Smith

but also what I mean is a high level enemy wizard is still going to not have that great of an AC but he'll have reaction spells and madness like fireball amped up

@GMNoob I can look to see if I can develop something I'm comfortable with using Mearls' table

Joshua Aslan Smith

I dislike how much INIT rolls seem to decide combat

whose wizard goes first to cast fireball?

@JoshuaAslanSmith welcome back to 3.5 paradigms

1:04 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith That's why I suspect lower ACs :P

Joshua Aslan Smith

ever so slowly sliding into prejudice against this edition, im clawing onto hope that PHB, but more likely DMG or a splat book for a setting will offer something that makes 5e attractive to me

@GMNoob there will be non-spellcaster monsters with super high AC and spell like abilities though

the cr8 young dragon gets a 4e style recharge ability

@waxeagle I thought the 3.5 paradigm was that you use ready an action, so init doesn't matter?

Joshua Aslan Smith

30 ft cone attack dealing 12d6 poison damage on a failed save, have on a success and it recharges on a 5 or 6 on a d6 roll

dc is only 16 though

@GMNoob perhaps

@JoshuaAslanSmith How have the large amount of dice rolling worked for you? And did your pyramid get printed ok?

@JoshuaAslanSmith What I've found, is that how things play out, and how things sound when analyzying the rules are correlated, but not strongly so.

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:14 PM

so I remembered I had py mapper and then I just sorta looked at the picture given to me and counted only squares I could see 50% or more of the square not covered by rubble and I got a rough approximation of an equilateral triangle

pymapper is an excellent program

it automatically splits itself into pages (with borders!) when it sends the job to a printer

@JoshuaAslanSmith nice

Joshua Aslan Smith

so yeah sorta worked out

also I discovered that there is an infinite tile setting (by default you can only use each tile once)

and I was like wow this is so much better

pymapper was my go to when I made custom maps for 4e

as for rolling all the dice?

swingy

those d6 spells

like fireball

@JoshuaAslanSmith I meant physically rolling them :)

I didn't enjoy shadowrun cause my hands cramped from all the d6s

Joshua Aslan Smith

So when I DM starter kit I might start bringing a small box with me

to keep it all together and it would also sorta hide some of the rolls

Im still on the fence if I want or should obfuscate 5e

@JoshuaAslanSmith do iiiittttt

@JoshuaAslanSmith Or don't do it, and give a lecture about "dramatic moments" and how to enhance them :P

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:21 PM

so most of my players like myself are from 4e

4e is very very open about dice rolls

and when someone rolls a knowledge check vs a monster

if they roll the hard dc

they literally get to see the monster stat block

@JoshuaAslanSmith It's easier that way too.

Joshua Aslan Smith

exactly

Obfuscation is more work for what I've found is usually trivial gains.

Joshua Aslan Smith

while its less dramatic to say "He has resistance vs radiant" the first time the cleric attacks a monster with resistance vs radiant its also way easier that saying, the light beams only sort of harm it and the players see through that anyway

Most of the time my players tell better, more dramatic, stories if they know what their characters are facing better than their characters do: the players can make choices knowing it will increase drama rather than simply hoping it will.

When my players are kept in the dark, they're more likely to make "safe" choices. When they're informed, they're more likely to make "dramatic" choices.

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:24 PM

and the way 5e monsters work out tough monsters are just tougher monsters Ie there isnt a low level version of an orc beserker and then a paragon version, an orc always has the same stats whereas a pit fiend is much more difficult its a system built on player knowledge

great observation

I played with obfuscation for a long time, and only really with Fate did I feel free to abandon that paradigm completely. It's been a joy, and is keeping me from burning out too!

Now, with Cthulhu Dark, obfuscation is a Thing again. But it's a Thing for a very specific and clear purpose.

I see, different meaning of obfuscation

I thought you meant to hide dm dice rolls so they don't know if what you are telling them come from the dice or not

egads..how do you model something like Harm...

Not obfuscating the result of player dice rolls

What does harm do?

@GMNoob In the end result I find it's pretty much the same.

1:32 PM

14d6, Con save for half. Can't kill

reduces to 1 HP

(and their max HP is reduced by the amount of damage dealt by spell)

for now I'm going to treat it as straight damage

Straight damage and if you include healing it subtracts from healing output?

@GMNoob possibly. It depends on the model since most likely it would redirect the healing output rather than prevent it

The main purpose to obdfuscation is to fudge the die results of they aren't satisfying

@GMNoob Which you can do by modifying target numbers just as easily.

If not of

I usually use it for damage not contact

Also to prevent a crit from monster if a player is feeling that they can't die before they do x

1:39 PM

Also, disagree: the main purpose of obfuscation is to modify behaviour. Fudging die rolls, obscuring monster features, and not pointing out where traps are on the map are all subsets of modifying the apparent environment to influence players' decisions.

Though with rolled crits rather than max I havnt done that yet

Trying to wrap my head around that

I'm not sure how keeping a character on their feet one more round infkunces the player decisions. But maybe I'm missing something

@GMNoob obfuscation in D&D goes beyond that though

If you're playing a game where one bad random number without narrative weight can kill a PC, but the PC's player wants to see the end of a particular narrative, he's going to act cautiously--perhaps overcautiously, to the point of ten-foot-pole paranoia and flooding dungeons with chlorine gas.

So you fudge the crits to keep him confident enough of survival to participate meaningfully in the game on the game's terms.

I see, meta decisions not turn by turn decisions

?

(Strictly speaking I'd say it's better to find a system which closer suits the playstyle you both want--one without randomly generated PC death--but if the rest of the system is a good fit, die-fudging is a decent workaround.)

@GMNoob I think that's a false dichotomy.

Joshua Aslan Smith

1:45 PM

@gmnoob I am talking about both hiding roles and clothing mechanics with story languge

There is a difference between not wanting random death in general and not wanting a random death at this instance

Clothing mechanics in story is not a talent I have the ability to do :)

So I can't weigh in on that

Quick opinion on the rogue: going to start assuming advantage, should I keep it TWF rogue or switch to bow?

switch to bow. Only fair way to assume advantage is to assume use of cunning action

Joshua Aslan Smith

@gmnoob if you player attacked a monster with a type of damage that the monster had resistance against what would you say? (not saying anything at all is also a choice)

You get a solid hit but you can tell your attack is only half as effective as it should be.

1:49 PM

"The dragon's fire resistance reduces the damage from your burning hands spell by 5 points," vs "The gout of flame erupting from your hands splits across the dragon's tough scales, inflicting much less pain than you'd hoped."

Then i ask forbtheb die result

Personally, in 4e I'd say, "The gout of flame erupting from your hands splits across the dragon's tough scales, inflicting much less pain than you'd hoped; the dragon's fire resistance reduces your damage by 5 points."

Joshua Aslan Smith

@GMNoob you are intuitively clothing mechanics in story its the default for most people actually

Hmm.. I would consider clothing mechanics to be like when don't reveal there was a lessoning of damage at all

It's not an on/off thing.

1:58 PM

Cause of the whole no scratches until 50% thing.

Ok, how about this one. a Bow with advantage and dual short swords without are nearly identicle

Wha?

You can use only mechanics to describe the action; you can talk about mechanics and describe what it looks like; you can describe what it looks like without explaining the mechanics which match the effects...

How nearly?

@GMNoob 2 DPR

the bow comes out slightly ahead

next day → last day (337 days later) »

Transcript for

Jul '1424

D&D 5e Overflow

For when main chat wants to talk about other things too.

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile