D&D 5E Discussion

[Irenaeus III]

It says they are neutral evil.

 

[Lhynn]

I dont get why people talk about AD&D mages as being gods at high levels. There were many more defenses against magic in that edition and they were much more effective too.

 

[Andhaira]

I dont get why people talk about AD&D mages as being gods at high levels. There were many more defenses against magic in that edition and they were much more effective too.

Save or Die spells were extremely deadly in that edition, especially considering there was no way for PCs to increase their saves except via magic items, which were controlled by the DM. There were no Feats like Iron Will/Great Fortitude, etc and no ability score increases.

Also when people say mages were stronger at higher level they don't means against monsters, but against other non magic using PCs such as fighters, thieves, etc.

 

[Jaesun]

Incubus... HOT...

 

[Caim]

Incubus... HOT...

Welcome to 5e, where the job of fiendish hedonist that sucks peoples' souls out through their genetalia is an equal-oppertunity position.

At least it's not as bad as those bee women from the third Pathfinder bestiary who keep you as a drug-addicted sex slave who fuck you until you become too old after which they drug you even more and eat you.

 

[TigerKnee]

At least it's not as bad as those bee women from the third Pathfinder bestiary who keep you as a drug-addicted sex slave who fuck you until you become too old after which they drug you even more and eat you.

Oh, so they've been playing Monster Girl Quest

 

[Caim]

At least it's not as bad as those bee women from the third Pathfinder bestiary who keep you as a drug-addicted sex slave who fuck you until you become too old after which they drug you even more and eat you.

Oh, so they've been playing Monster Girl Quest

Oh you have NO IDEA.

 

[TigerKnee]

I dont get why people talk about AD&D mages as being gods at high levels. There were many more defenses against magic in that edition and they were much more effective too.

3e spillback influencing opinions on other editions, I think - for 2E, I say it's better to have casting ability than not (that is to say, if you have a choice between playing a Fighter/Mage instead of just a Fighter, there's very little reason not to) but pure Fighters aren't as terribly gimped as they were in 3E - good "numbers" overall like saves etc.

Pure thieves were really shit though.

 

[Lhynn]

I dont get why people talk about AD&D mages as being gods at high levels. There were many more defenses against magic in that edition and they were much more effective too.

3e spillback influencing opinions on other editions, I think - for 2E, I say it's better to have casting ability than not (that is to say, if you have a choice between playing a Fighter/Mage instead of just a Fighter, there's very little reason not to) but pure Fighters aren't as terribly gimped as they were in 3E - good "numbers" overall like saves etc.

Pure thieves were really shit though.

Thieves were there to play a very different game. Especially with optional rules that allowed them to detect and disarm magical traps and a couple key magical items. They could just disappearand there was no finding them, which was p. cool.
They were shit in a fight, but that wasnt their main or even secondary purpose anyway and PnP could easily accommodate that.

Save or Die spells were extremely deadly in that edition, especially considering there was no way for PCs to increase their saves except via magic items, which were controlled by the DM. There were no Feats like Iron Will/Great Fortitude, etc and no ability score increases.

Also when people say mages were stronger at higher level they don't means against monsters, but against other non magic using PCs such as fighters, thieves, etc.

Feats werent worth a shit in 3.5, if you picked the saving throw feats you were doing it very wrong, as a wizard could pump the ST DC to hell and back and a mere +4/+6 wasnt going to save you. As for magical items, they werent worth a shit either, any mage could just dispel them easily in 3.5.

in AD&D a high level warrior would have a flat chance to fail of like 15%, even weak items like +1 rings or swords would make a huge difference in performance, because magical items werent tied to the calculated progression of the characters like 3.5 was.

Save or die spells werent that deadly in AD&D, considering the save part was doable. And you had very few no save spell combos. Killing a level 18 wizard as a lvl 18 rogue or fighter wasnt an impossible feat in AD&D, in 3.5 it would have to be a pretty retarded mage to lose.

 

[Spectacle]

Incubus... HOT...

Welcome to 5e, where the job of fiendish hedonist that sucks peoples' souls out through their genetalia is an equal-oppertunity position.

At least it's not as bad as those bee women from the third Pathfinder bestiary who keep you as a drug-addicted sex slave who fuck you until you become too old after which they drug you even more and eat you.

The incubus has always existed as the male variety of succubi, but I think up until 5e they focused on illustrating the scantily clad succibi. Seeing how much Jaesun likes the incubus, expanding the illustrations to cover them as well may be a good strategy if it appeals to female and gay gamers

The medieval legends of succubi/incubi are a bit more interesting than the D&D version. According to the Malleus Malleficarum a succubus will seduce a man and collect his semen, then change form into an incubus and seduce a woman to deposit the sperm in her. Children sired in this way would be born deformed and/or be susceptible to demonic influence. Demons were thought to be unable to reproduce, thus the elaborate scheme to get hold of semen.

 

[DavidBVal]

According to the Malleus Malleficarum a succubus will seduce a man and collect his semen, then change form into an incubus and seduce a woman to deposit the sperm in her.

I missed the OGL/SRD discussion. I think the new OGL is tempting for developing games, especially after the fiasco of SCL, leaving the community eager to play a cRPG based in the new edition.

But I am not sure many of the 5e mechanics translate well to a videogame. Advantage/Disadvantage rolls, or repeating 1s on certain rolls, are good examples. Sure you can internally implement that, but are ideas meant for tabletop and physical dice, which lose their cool factor when simply translated by a cRPG into a succesful/failed roll. some other interesting stuff like Inspirations would probably go as well.

Still, if I had to develop a 3.5 videogame tomorrow, I'd try to tweak it to include the "bounded accuracy" concept from 5e, or at least come as close as I can to it. Numerical inflation in 3.5 was terribad. It is a superheroes game. I want players to be scared when 5 crossbowmen point at them and say HALT.

 

[DavidBVal]

It'd be fine for turn based. But yeah, there's a lot of "Well, I would like to do X now." I mean if you're a tiefling there's an awesome "nah fuck you" spell where you hit them with some pretty nasty fire damage if they hit you first on their turn. Costs a spell slot though, as far as I remember. Could really slow down gameplay by just having it ask you "hey man do you wanna hellish rebuke someone now?"

There's indeed many "exceptions" to the usual flow of the turn. As in, "I want to use my Indomitable to not fail that save". Which means, the game UI and flow must give you a chance to act on every potential failed save. Same with certain reactions... even damage rolls! it is a bit nightmarish, tbh

 

[Lhynn]

Its doable, especially with small parties, 3, maybe 4 characters.
Ive played turn based games with active defenses and having to pick your stance against every attack you recieve each turn, having a team of 10+ characters against 20+ enemies and i didnt really mind.
It may even help the flow of the game, as battles in 5th edition are usually over very fast, so giving extreme tactical relevance to every action would keep encounters short and sweet.

 

[DavidBVal]

Its doable, especially with small parties, 3, maybe 4 characters.
Ive played turn based games with active defenses and having to pick your stance against every attack you recieve each turn, having a team of 10+ characters against 20+ enemies and i didnt really mind.
It may even help the flow of the game, as battles in 5th edition are usually over very fast, so giving extreme tactical relevance to every action would keep encounters short and sweet.

Yeah Lhynn, but we're not talking about active defense system here, you don't mind in those games because it's part of the gameplay and the tactical choices you make. But when it's powers/abilities meant to be exceptions, like indomitable, we end up with an interruption to the flow that is useless most of the times, because most of the times you won't want to use them. And as such abilities are not universal (other classes don't have indomitable), the flow may be different for different characters. some get a chance to react on failed saves, others after being attacked, others never. Might feel strange to the player.

I agree that it's doable, of course. Just pointing out, it is not as easy as it might seem to be, definitely harder than 3.x. and for dubious rewards in a crpg

 

[Lhynn]

3rd edition also has a ton of circumstancial abilities, especially on prc packs and the solutions were relatively easy to implement. Instead of a reroll it could be a passive +1 modifier to the dice or x3 uses but the uses are spent without the player control, etc.

some effects could also wait to take place until the characters turn, and the character could spend the ability in his turn. All these small changes would do a lot to aleviate player input between turns.

 

[Andhaira]

Curse of Strahd is out and getting rave reviews. It's appears to be a worthy successor to the original I6 Ravenloft.

Here is a free module WOTC put out to lead PCs into Curse

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/Curse of Strahd Introductory Adventure.pdf

 

[Irenaeus III]

 

[LeStryfe79]

 

[Spectacle]

(The other DM in my group is buying it, so I will stay away so he can run it without spoilers)

 

[Irenaeus III]

Yeah, that's a good reason not to get it. I don't even have a group, so I'll buy to support a good D&D edition and to read and dream of playing it, which I never will.

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, that's a good reason not to get it. I don't even have a group, so I'll buy to support a good D&D edition and to read and dream of playing it, which I never will.

You are a good bro iren.

 

[LeStryfe79]

The review says it's a remake of the 1983 adventure and has no crunch. I'm just getting it to learn a few things about good modern adventure layout. Also, some of that artwork looks sick. See, what I really want to do is construct a Forgotten Realms adventure in Phlan that's structured more like Ravenloft. I still like combat XP, regardless. Something seems missing to me when it isn't there.

 

[Neanderthal]

Curse of Strahd is out and getting rave reviews. It's appears to be a worthy successor to the original I6 Ravenloft.

Here is a free module WOTC put out to lead PCs into Curse

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/Curse of Strahd Introductory Adventure.pdf

Had a butchers at that introductory adventure, bit too scripted an forced if you ask me, nice hook an all that but if I were GM I wunt so bluntly force me party into someat like that an i'd gi a few more options for gettin out. Entry level seems off an all, if I remember right Castle Ravenloft were around 5th - 8th lvl min, 3rd lvl party'd get fuckin raped nine ways from sunday by some o shit up there in Castle that looms oer Barovia.

I'd never have Mists take somebdy for no reason neither, they're not like that in me head cannon, they need guilty shit players done to gi em power. Pure Paladin has no need to fear Mists as they can't touch im, one who's commited a few too many righteous acts o vengeance though, skirted falling but just avoided it, now theres fertile ground for Mists an Dark Powers to play wi.

 

[LeStryfe79]

We're gonna make Dungeons and Dragons great again! That pole just got ten feet longer!

 

[Tripicus]

There's indeed many "exceptions" to the usual flow of the turn. As in, "I want to use my Indomitable to not fail that save". Which means, the game UI and flow must give you a chance to act on every potential failed save. Same with certain reactions... even damage rolls! it is a bit nightmarish, tbh

Or how about cutting words for the bard ability? That's a reaction that will come into play on nearly every roll.