D&D 5E Discussion

[Dorateen]

Tolkien himself was critical about the "gameification" of his works long before the hobby was birthed

Can you expand on that a bit? Interesting.

I've read a lot of volumes that his son, Christopher, put together posthumously. These included various letters that J.R.R. Tolkien composed. In one, I think when discussing the subject of his invented languages he said something such as: "One must be very careful not to make a sort of game out of the whole thing..."

Sounds like he was concerned about treating language creation as a game rather than serious scholarship. I don't really think you can infer anything about what he would have thought of RPGs from that sentence.

True, it would be easier to explain if I had the exact passage in front of me. But the idea was that because his language creation is so detailed and fundamentally sound, he was wary of kids running around speaking Sindarin or passing notes written in elvish in the middle of class.

I think Tolkien would have taken a dim view of LARPers.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I think Tolkien would have taken a dim view of LARPers.

As should we all.

 

[nikolokolus]

How well would you recommend 5e (for somebody who has played mostly 2e ADnD)?

Try before you buy: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

 

[Ranarama]

Wow, are you telling me that a conservative World War II vet with an oxford education would look down upon retards running around in cardboard armor whipping beanbags at one another?

Isn't that how one qualifies for getting into oxford?

 

[Trias_Betrayed]

Isn't that how one qualifies for getting into oxford?

Being non-white and non-asian is the best way to get into oxford these days, actually.

 

[Magellan]

Wow, are you telling me that a conservative World War II vet with an oxford education would look down upon retards running around in cardboard armor whipping beanbags at one another?

World War I vet, not II

 

[Lhynn]

Moar liek dead thread

 

[DavidBVal]

I got Curse of Strahd! But I don't see how this doesn't end in a TPK at nearly every major encounter, heh. It's more "Call of Ctuhluh" mentality than D&D, i.e, no "balance", very early when you're level 4ish, if you decide to explore certain windmill you meet 3 CR5 Night Hags. Which are literally baking children, so LG types will likely not flee. And the first potential combat encounter is a Wraith, at level 1. It's like heaven for a sadistic DM!

 

[mediocrepoet]

I got Curse of Strahd! But I don't see how this doesn't end in a TPK at nearly every major encounter, heh. It's more "Call of Ctuhluh" mentality than D&D, i.e, no "balance", very early when you're level 4ish, if you decide to explore certain windmill you meet 3 CR5 Night Hags. Which are literally baking children, so LG types will likely not flee. And the first potential combat encounter is a Wraith, at level 1. It's like heaven for a sadistic DM!

I'm actually running this right now, though we just started. You're recommended to start the group at level 3 and there's a small adventure with milestones to pump a group from level 1 to 3. Even that's been fairly deadly to the point of threads online being dedicated to how to water it down. I've had a few one shot downed players and other times they got beaten pretty badly because of bad rolls or bad locations, e.g. a few places where you're forced single file and have an encounter. My favourite was the fighter getting his ass beat into retreating from a broom.

Anyway, I don't think it's too bad. 5E death rules are pretty lenient with the only going to 0 unless instantly killed through massive damage and then three death saves mechanic. I did, however, one shot kill (for real) the party druid during the spectre encounter. I actually watered down that ability because I thought *that* was retarded for a level 1 encounter and seemed more like a lame death than anything. Instead RP'd some crap about her being aged/life force sucked, etc.

 

[Irenaeus]

This adventure sounds more awesome the more I hear about it.

 

[DavidBVal]

It is quality stuff. A lot of interesting movable parts in a very open-ended setting, with endless possibilities. But this is serious work for the DM; there's three small towns and many other locations, with NPCs and subplots you should keep in your head at all times as they're often interconnected. And a lot of facts to remember, because they can be important plotwise, and you can screw it badly. But you get to play a very interesting villian which actually does stuff, instead of sitting in a throne room and waiting at the end of the campaign. And the best is the details, scenarios with incredible potential like the abbey, or the "vestiges" in amber temple.

Of course not all is perfect, a few scenarios are underwhelming, others really need to be fleshed out. I see a few plot weak points... even could be called plotholes, but maybe they aren't, as I haven't read the book completely yet.

 

[LeStryfe79]

It's pretty good.

Also, new Artficer class in Unearthed Arcana is badass.

 

[deuxhero]

So I've been looking at 5E. Who thought it was a good idea to completely support dex based paladins out of the box EXCEPT allowing them to multiclass? Was it really that hard to squeeze "or dexterity 13" into the requirements table?

 

[DavidBVal]

Multiclassing feels like an afterthought addition to the rules.

 

[Lhynn]

Nonsense, mutliclassing is well balanced and fairly cool to pull off different flavors of characters.

 

[deuxhero]

Paladin barely had functionality in 3.5 past passives he gained in 3 level dip, so that wasn't too hard.

Also you had absolutely retarded restrictions on bard alignment (which had even more retarded and contradictory examples) that meant you simply couldn't multiclass to Bard as a Paladin. I don't think anyone actually followed those though, and even the cRPGs that included the equally ignored multiclass xp penalties ignore them.

 

[Lhynn]

Nonsense, mutliclassing is well balanced and fairly cool to pull off different flavors of characters.

Prove it with math, right now.

Make an interesting and valuable bard/paladin build that's at least got 80% of the functionality of one of the builds and 45% of the value of the other. This was possible in 3.5. Go. Now. Faggot.

Your autism will end you one day.
Anyway paladin was among the worst class choices possible, you could go pure cleric in 3.5 and easily get 500% the functionality of a paladin and at least 60% the functionality of a bard, probably more depending on domain.
in 5e how much functionality your class will have will heavily depend on how many levels you put on it, its very hard to go above 100% with both combined, but also very hard to go below 100% with the two combined. meaning its a pretty great time to multiclass.

 

[Lhynn]

so basically you cant do it and you're butthurt

Why would i need to? who cares if a bard/paladin split is better than a pure bard or a pure paladin? as long as its the same effectiveness wise its fine, you just made the character more flexible, not necessarily stronger or weaker.
Also why even bring up an edition where any kind of paladin/something split is a retarded idea? Not that its even possible to do a multiclass with them due to alignment limitations anyway. You are so mindnumbingly idiotic im amazed you are capable of posting at all.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Nothing to do with the argument above, but I've been looking at the rules, trying out a few characters, and it really looks like an interesting system. I wish we had a crpg or two with it.

Anyway, I had enough of wizards so was thinking of making a warlock (maybe multiclass from a rogue for some utility skills). Only problem - it's charisma based, just like sorcerer and bard. And I am not really interested in playing a party face just to be effective at spellcasting. What I had in mind is a bit of a dweeb - someone that could actually sell his soul for power over others. Really wish warlock was intelligence based or even allowed you the choice, it would make sense for my concept and would give some importance to intelligence that is only necessary for a wizard and a couple of archetypes now.

 

[Irenaeus]

What I had in mind is a bit of a dweeb - someone that could actually sell his soul for power over others.

That's what wizards are.

I never understood what warlock's concept was anyway. I pretend it doesn't exist, like I do with ching-ling monks.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Already made a wizard, wanted something different. Warlock is weird, but I do like some of the stuff with the pacts and the invocations as they allow for greater customization of my character as he grows. And that's really important for me, especially since feats are few and far between now.

 

[Mystary!]

You don't have to roleplay as charismatic, it could just be like some sort of enigmatic allure you excude, like Kramers kavorka ("lure of the animal") in Seinfeld.

 

[Zero Credibility]

With that high charisma I'd still be probably stuck with taking to npcs duties. Where I was hoping for more nerdy invisible slightly mad researcher feel. Oh well.

 

[Lhynn]

Nothing to do with the argument above, but I've been looking at the rules, trying out a few characters, and it really looks like an interesting system. I wish we had a crpg or two with it.

Anyway, I had enough of wizards so was thinking of making a warlock (maybe multiclass from a rogue for some utility skills). Only problem - it's charisma based, just like sorcerer and bard. And I am not really interested in playing a party face just to be effective at spellcasting. What I had in mind is a bit of a dweeb - someone that could actually sell his soul for power over others. Really wish warlock was intelligence based or even allowed you the choice, it would make sense for my concept and would give some importance to intelligence that is only necessary for a wizard and a couple of archetypes now.

You can still be a dweeb with a high charisma score, You just never learned to be persuasive or use your natural charisma.
Warlocks use their charisma a lot, so i wouldnt recommend a low score, they need it for damage, DC and some other special abilities.

 

[Spectacle]

Nonsense, mutliclassing is well balanced and fairly cool to pull off different flavors of characters.

Prove it with math, right now.

Make an interesting and valuable bard/paladin build that's at least got 80% of the functionality of one of the builds and 45% of the value of the other. This was possible in 3.5. Go. Now. Faggot.

Paladin 3/Valor bard 6+
You have all the basic paladin abilities and more spells slots to power divine smite than a single class paladin. Also all the basic bard ablities and two attacks from valor bard, so you're not behind a regular paladin in number of attacks. The tradeoff is no access to mid and high level paladin abilities such as the sweet auras, and you also get higher level bard spells 3 levels late.