Rule questions about 5e

[Astovidas]

Hi guys

I have the final playtest package and want to do an adventure with some friends. The problem is, some of them don't know anything about D&D, so I have to make sure that I don't have any uncertainties myself..
That's why i have some Questions:
1. About Dwarf Fighter in the Pregens (since I'm thinking about using them). He is at lvl 1 but on his Sheet he has an Action Surge as a Class feature. According to the rules, you get this at 2nd level.. is this a mistake, or did i miss something?

2. I want to make an adventure, where they are shipwrecked stranded. So they won't start with any equipment etc. So I have some Questions about swimming:
a) Are there rules about swimming in your armor?
b) Are there rules about helping someone who is drowning?
c) Can you take actions while swimming? like casting a spell (water breathing could be helpfull) :smalltongue:

Please don't say; "just adjust the DC of the swim check.." I don't have any experiences with DCs (i was playing 2e before..)

There will surely be more, but right now, I can't think of any.

So, any help would be appreciated! :)

[Chaosvii7]

1. As far as I can tell, yes, that is a mistake. There doesn't seem to be a reason he'd get it early, based off of his race and class. It looks like all you'd have to do to fix it is omit that ability.

2.
a) There is no penalty in the rules against players in armor swimming, unlike other editions. If you wanted to houserule it, there are armors that provide disadvantage on stealth checks due to being weighty and clunky. You could easily apply this disadvantage to swimming and justify it IMO. That would be a houserule on your part, but the rules do not say anything about it.
b) There are actions in which you can aid others, lending them your proficiency bonus to help make checks on top of theirs. If somebody started drowning one might have to make a check to help them return afloat and then they could begin aiding each other to shore.
c) I'm not sure if there's a set answer to this in the rules, but swimming in all the other editions is usually it's own form of movement such as on land; However, things that don't naturally have a swim speed(non-fish creatures and certain monsters mostly) usually can't move that fast. I'd say it's still a movement action, but they have to make the check to be able to move, and if they succeed they can swim about half their land speed in one round. That way they can use their action to do things like punch sharks that might be chasing them or cast spells to help the party out.

Also, if you need help framing a deserted stranded island adventure, the playtest packets should have an adventure called the Isle of Dread. This is a 3-7th level adventure module(At least it was for us :smalltongue:), that is INCREDIBLY versatile, and up to DM's interpretation. All they do is give you some framing, tell you about the islands that the story takes place in, some NPCs maybe, and then help you out with stats and the like; EVERYTHING else is up to you. You can invent things, add to the island, take away, make up some things for the island. I highly recommend it if you need help making a good setting for them, because it's a great resource in how much it gives you while also still allowing you to make a lot of the decisions regarding the setting and background.

[Lokiare]

I think the characters were left over from a previous version.

[Warskull]

For the actions while swimming, you just have to use your judgement right now. It really should depend on where they are swimming.

It isn't too hard to throw a ball and tread water in a pool. However, throw some current and waves in and it becomes much more difficult.

[Astovidas]

Thanks lot for all your answers!

About swimming in armor: i thought about giving them disadvantage. But swimming in plate mail is IMHO not a disadvantage.. it's just impossible..! i mean, some knights were not able to stand up, once they were thrown of their horses.. So maybe i'll just say: if your armor would give you disadvantage, you CAN'T swim with it. Especially since i don't want them to have their equipment at the start.. :)

and about helping each other: Since their ship is going to sink due to a storm, they won't be treading water in a pool.. :smallbiggrin: I Think i'll just apply a disadvantage to anyone who wants to help someone else. so the other will get his proficiency bonus, but he (the helper) will have a disadvantage or is not allowed to add his bonus to his own check..

And thank you Chaosvii7 for the Isle of Dread tip. I think i already looked at it shortly. But my adventurer will only take place in the first village they'll find. so I won't need information on the whole island. But maybe I'll use it, if they want to go on after my first adventure. :) so; thanks again!

I have another Question, which i asked in a different thread, but it was not answered.. so I'll just post it again:

If you throw a Dagger; do you add Str. or Dex.?
a Dagger is a finesse weapon. That means you can chose between Str or Dex. But when you throw you always have to apply Str?
do you apply it to your to-hit-roll and your damage roll?
i mean damage roll is reasonable, since you can throw it harder or something.. but why do I hit better with more Str?
(imagine the tiny Hobbit rogue, sitting in the shadows and waiting for the perfect opportunity and the Half-Orc Barbarian, storming in through the front door. Both are throwing a dagger at someone; who has the better chance to hit...?)

[da_chicken]

i mean, some knights were not able to stand up, once they were thrown of their horses.

No. Just... no.

The only armor that could possibly be this badly designed would be ceremonial armor. For actual armor: if it doesn't keep you alive you don't wear it. If you can't move, it doesn't keep you alive. The heaviest armors of the day are no heavier than the kit a modern soldier carries, and less that the weight a firefighter in full kit carries (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_b).

As far as swimming... I don't think it's actually that difficult. The human body is actually ridiculously buoyant in general. Skin divers and snorkelers (as well as scuba swimmers) routinely wear weight belts of 5-25 lbs to achieve neutral buoyancy (and, for scuba, balance) to make it easier to swim downward. Full plate or mail armor only weighs twice that, meaning you'd have to work harder to stay at the surface. That, to me, equates to disadvantage.

As for the dagger, it's ambiguous but personally I'd allow Dex or Str while thrown.

[Person_Man]

5E is (currently) a "light rules" game. It does not attempt to account for reality by making heavier armor penalize certain skill/ability checks, nor does it have specific rules for drowning. If you want to play that game, then play 3.5.

In 5E, the Dungeon Master is supposed to just hand wave that stuff or make it up as he goes. If it's something that penalizes a player (such as giving him a penalty or Disadvantage to swimming while wearing heavy armor) I would strongly discourage you from doing it.

Penalizing a player discourages them from the action. So if you penalize anyone wearing heavy armor from swimming, what you're really doing is telling the player not to swim. And now whenever you want to have a body of water of any kind, that player feels screwed, and can't participate normally in this aspect of the game without potentially nerfing himself in combat. Just let it go.

[Kurald Galain]

Penalizing a player discourages them from the action. So if you penalize anyone wearing heavy armor from swimming, what you're really doing is telling the player not to swim. And now whenever you want to have a body of water of any kind, that player feels screwed, and can't participate normally in this aspect of the game without potentially nerfing himself in combat. Just let it go.

I completely disagree with all of that. If you let the heavy armor guy swim without penalty, then the other players are going to feel screwed; and you're discouraging the heavy armor player from roleplaying, since you've just made one of his character's decisions irrelevant. There are plenty of things a heavily armored character could do in a water encounter, from using archery to strapping an air bag to his back to questing for merfolk-blessed armor to just stripping and taking it. All of these options and particularly giving the player a choice here make for more engaging gameplay than just saying that anyone can swim in platemail normally.

[Astovidas]

As far as swimming... I don't think it's actually that difficult. The human body is actually ridiculously buoyant in general. Skin divers and snorkelers (as well as scuba swimmers) routinely wear weight belts of 5-25 lbs to achieve neutral buoyancy (and, for scuba, balance) to make it easier to swim downward. Full plate or mail armor only weighs twice that, meaning you'd have to work harder to stay at the surface. That, to me, equates to disadvantage.

Well not being able to get up, was a bit exaggerated.. sorry.. :) However standing up and swimming are a big difference and i have to disagree with you.
Scuba Divers wear weight belts, true. However, they wear wet suits as well, which give them about 11 pounds positive buoyancy (http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/The_Ups_and_Downs_of_Buoyancy_Control). that means, you have a max. of 14 pounds from your weight belts. Furthermore, they have a Buoyancy Control Device (http://www.padi.com/scuba/scuba-gear/scuba-gear-descriptions-tips/scuba-unit/scuba-BC/default.aspx) and of course they have flippers (or fins) to help them swim. Knights on the other hand, have armor that weighs from 49-63 lbs. Plate mail does not only weigh more than twice the normal weight belts but further impairs the movement of the swimming person. so i would say it is actually very difficult.
You can make the test; take som metal, strap it to your legs, arms, and chest, wear some army boots and take a swim. But don't go in deep water and don't try to sue me if it goes wrong.. :smalltongue: because I think it will...


As for the dagger, it's ambiguous but personally I'd allow Dex or Str while thrown.

ok thanks, that actually helps. :smallsmile: I'll probably do the same.


On the no penalty discussion; I have to agree with Kurald Galain. One of my player once felt screwed, because i let the other characters (not rogues) make climb and sneak checks (which weren't actually possible in our ed but saying: "no, you're a fighter.. it's physically impossible for you to TRY and walk silently.." seemed even stupider)...
So just allowing the players to swim without any penalty due to their armor is IMO not fair to all the light armored characters.
And as Kurald said it can lead to really interesting roleplaying moments and hard decisions. I think it's better if the players have a hard time once in a while and not everything is easy and victory is never in doubt.

[Person_Man]

I completely disagree with all of that. If you let the heavy armor guy swim without penalty, then the other players are going to feel screwed; and you're discouraging the heavy armor player from roleplaying, since you've just made one of his character's decisions irrelevant. There are plenty of things a heavily armored character could do in a water encounter, from using archery to strapping an air bag to his back to questing for merfolk-blessed armor to just stripping and taking it. All of these options and particularly giving the player a choice here make for more engaging gameplay than just saying that anyone can swim in platemail normally.

So if any player can wear heavy armor, then I agree with you that there should be a trade-off. You get better AC, but you move slower, can't swim, can't tumble, etc.

But if heavy armor is basically a class ability or the best Feat/option/etc for every non-arcane characters then limiting heavy armor is basically nerfing that class ability, while making the rules more fiddly. And since arcane characters tend to be the most powerful, I don't think we should make non-arcane characters weaker and more fiddly.

More broadly, though I think every class should get a full menu of fun and useful options, if 5E is going to stick with some classes are going to be simple (Fighter, Barbarian, etc) and other classes are going to be more complex (all spellcasters) I believe that the simple classes should get the best AC and hit points, without fiddly restrictions on those benefits.

[Kurald Galain]

More broadly, though I think every class should get a full menu of fun and useful options, if 5E is going to stick with some classes are going to be simple (Fighter, Barbarian, etc) and other classes are going to be more complex (all spellcasters) I believe that the simple classes should get the best AC and hit points, without fiddly restrictions on those benefits.

I don't see this as fiddly at all. Nobody's forcing a fighter to wear full plate; if he does choose to wear that, then he has a better AC at the expense of a lower movement rate and certain skills. In the same fashion, nobody's forcing a wizard to cast Shield on himself all day; if he does choose to cast that, then he has a better AC at the expense of a number of spell slots that he could have used for something else.

Tradeoffs keep the game interesting. This also means that this gives an additional way to build two fighters and make them different: i.e. one is heavily armored and the other is nimble.

[SirFredgar]

I don't see this as fiddly at all. Nobody's forcing a fighter to wear full plate; if he does choose to wear that, then he has a better AC at the expense of a lower movement rate and certain skills. In the same fashion, nobody's forcing a wizard to cast Shield on himself all day; if he does choose to cast that, then he has a better AC at the expense of a number of spell slots that he could have used for something else.

Tradeoffs keep the game interesting. This also means that this gives an additional way to build two fighters and make them different: i.e. one is heavily armored and the other is nimble.

I disagree. I am a Dwarf Fighter and I am basically forced to wear plate. If I don't, my ac drops... you know... that thing that keeps me alive in combat? And since combat is my only ability, really, it's kinda a bummer to be told I can't swim, or I have to take additional disadvantages because of it. Also, as a Dwarf I have a racial ability that say I can move in Heavy armor without penalty. So if it doesn't seem to restrict my movement at all, why should it affect my swimming? Furthermore, if you say it's not a mobility thing, it's a weight thing... Then what about those light armored friends of mine carrying gear? That has weight, but at what point do we start to equate that weight to penalties or disadvantage?

I agree that it becomes "fiddly", and you should not impose any further restrictions on swimming. This isn't really a simulationist game anyways, like has been pointed out above, that was 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

I disagree. I am a Dwarf Fighter and I am basically forced to wear plate.
Forced by who? It seems to me that it's your choice to play a fighter in full plate, whereas you could just as easily play a dwarf fighter with a high dexterity. Or a dwarf fighter with the ability to cast mage armor on himself, or who has so many hit points that he can wear a lighter armor instead, or who simply holds his breath and walks along the bottom of the water. I'm sure there are other possibilities.


And since combat is my only ability, really, it's kinda a bummer to be told I can't swim,
Well, there you go. If you choose to build your character so that combat is your only ability, then I find it hardly surprising that your character is missing certain other abilities, such as swimming.


Then what about those light armored friends of mine carrying gear? That has weight, but at what point do we start to equate that weight to penalties or disadvantage?
At the point where they're carrying a medium load. Or, if you don't want to count how much their gear weighs, assume that characters can carry one big or heavy item per point of strength bonus; if they go above that, they're encumbered.


This isn't really a simulationist game anyways, like has been pointed out above, that was 3.5.
This has nothing to do with simulationism. This about giving players a meaningful choice on how to build their character, and giving meaningful consequences to that choice.

[da_chicken]

I disagree. I am a Dwarf Fighter and I am basically forced to wear plate. If I don't, my ac drops... you know... that thing that keeps me alive in combat? And since combat is my only ability, really, it's kinda a bummer to be told I can't swim, or I have to take additional disadvantages because of it.

I suppose that means a Mage gets to complain about unfair treatment when he's prepared fireball and encounters a group of fire elementals? Making a choice doesn't make you immune from consequences. If you don't want to go swimming in heavy armor, don't wear it aboard ship.


Also, as a Dwarf I have a racial ability that say I can move in Heavy armor without penalty. So if it doesn't seem to restrict my movement at all, why should it affect my swimming?

It doesn't slow your legs down like it does a human because you're already waddling. That doesn't mean it doesn't restrict your movement. It means you're already suffering restricted movement. It's just that your body is more restrictive than the armor is so the armor penalty doesn't stack. Arguably if it's just movement, then, dwarves should always have disadvantage.


Furthermore, if you say it's not a mobility thing, it's a weight thing... Then what about those light armored friends of mine carrying gear? That has weight, but at what point do we start to equate that weight to penalties or disadvantage?

That's already in the rules. If you carry more than Str * 10, you are encumbered and have disadvantage on Str, Dex, and Con ability checks and saves.

That seems to be high to me for swimming. I think this what I would use currently is to give disadvantage to anybody carrying half your unencumbered weight or more, and make swimming impossible if you're carrying your unencumbered weight value or more. So, yeah, if you're an average person with 100 lbs of crap in your backpack, you're not going to be able to swim. You'll be able to walk on the bottom just fine, though.


I agree that it becomes "fiddly", and you should not impose any further restrictions on swimming. This isn't really a simulationist game anyways, like has been pointed out above, that was 3.5.

You think 3.5 was simulationist?! :smalleek: Compared to 4E, sure, but that's like saying D&D is dice heavy because of Amber... while you're in the middle of playing Exalted.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 5E being at least as simulationist as 3.x, if not more so.

[captpike]

if the system (and therefor class design ) assume everyone is wearing the best armor they can, then yes every class who can wear heavy armor is told they must do so or they will die. for the same reason a wizard is forced to use spells, and the rogue is forced to sneak attack.

and no 3e was no more simulationist then 4e, 3e tried to be and failed epicly, 4e did not try.

[Kurald Galain]

if the system (and therefor class design ) assume everyone is wearing the best armor they can, then yes every class who can wear heavy armor is told they must do so or they will die.
Precisely. And the point is that the 5E system does not assume this.

If you think otherwise, please show me where in the rules it says that you aren't allowed to play a lightly armored fighter. Do you seriously think that the system is that one-sided?

[captpike]

Precisely. And the point is that the 5E system does not assume this.

If you think otherwise, please show me where in the rules it says that you aren't allowed to play a lightly armored fighter. Do you seriously think that the system is that one-sided?

that is like saying that wizard's are not required to cast spells, there after all is not a rule that says they must. so a non-casting wizard should be just as viable as a casting one.

when they make the fighter class they have to assume certain things, one of them is AC, so they know how much hp and healing fighters need.
if they assume fighters have 10 AC rather then 15 for example then they would give the fighters too much hp because according to their math they would be taking more damage then they really would.

they have to assume everyone uses their class features, otherwise the game would be borked up past fixing.

[SirFredgar]

I suppose that means a Mage gets to complain about unfair treatment when he's prepared fireball and encounters a group of fire elementals? Making a choice doesn't make you immune from consequences. If you don't want to go swimming in heavy armor, don't wear it aboard ship.

In such circumstances the wizard is missing out on a prepared slot, but not his entire spell list. If the GM throws a body of water in my path (just like he can with the elementals for the wizard) MY negative consequence is death. Also, this scenario with the wizard is nothing new, and can be forseen because it's actually in the rules. The penalties for Heavy armor while swimming do not exist, and cannot be planned for.



It doesn't slow your legs down like it does a human because you're already waddling. That doesn't mean it doesn't restrict your movement. It means you're already suffering restricted movement. It's just that your body is more restrictive than the armor is so the armor penalty doesn't stack. Arguably if it's just movement, then, dwarves should always have disadvantage.

Other than a speed decrease, and disadvantage on stealth, armor affects no other movement modes or actions that involve movement (by raw). Otherwise, if it was truly that restrictive, how could I effectively swing a sword. That broad movement, I would say, needs just as much movement as treading water. If it really was as restrictive as you claim, wouldn't that be representative of an attack penalty? After all, logic would dictate it's easier for you to swing a sword in leather, than it is to swing a sword in full plate. But you cannot impose reality to a game that isn't built on that premise. Because, honestly, how realistic to be knocked to 0, fail two death saving throws and just barely manage to survive.... and then rest 8 hours and be 100% better? "Oh man, I almost died when that giant hit me with a tree trunk... thankfully I've gotten a full nights rest and am all better!"





That's already in the rules. If you carry more than Str * 10, you are encumbered and have disadvantage on Str, Dex, and Con ability checks and saves.

Yes, but I can carry 200 + pounds without being encumbered. So this 50ish pounds of armor, evenly distributed across my body in a way that does not restrict movement (by raw), is going to drag me to the bottom? I understand from a real-life point of view this isn't quite realistic.... but if your looking for realism, a high-fantasy game where Hero's take on Dragons with magical weapons probably shouldn't be your go-to.

[Envyus]

You do know if you want to swim you can take off the armor. It takes like an in game minute. Just don't swim with it on. This is a really stupid argument.

[SirFredgar]

You do know if you want to swim you can take off the armor. It takes like an in game minute. Just don't swim with it on. This is a really stupid argument.

Yes, but you don't always have an in-game 5 minutes to do that. That's 50 rounds. A lot can happen in fifty rounds.

[1337 b4k4]

Yes, but you don't always have an in-game 5 minutes to do that. That's 50 rounds. A lot can happen in fifty rounds.

It's also only 1/2 a regular turn. I'm trying (and frankly failing) to come up with many scenarios where you will be measuring time in rounds and need to go from wearing plate armor to swimming. I suppose if you're battling on the deck of a ship and a player gets knocked overboard. Other than that, not really coming up with much.

[Lokiare]

It's also only 1/2 a regular turn. I'm trying (and frankly failing) to come up with many scenarios where you will be measuring time in rounds and need to go from wearing plate armor to swimming. I suppose if you're battling on the deck of a ship and a player gets knocked overboard. Other than that, not really coming up with much.

Chase scene, where you are chasing the criminal and they get in the only row boat and start rowing away...

[Kurald Galain]

The penalties for Heavy armor while swimming do not exist, and cannot be planned for.
Up to now, every edition of D&D that had a swim skill has also had penalties for swimming in heavy armor; wanna bet that this one will too?

Don't assume that a fighter is worthless if he's not wearing full plate; he's absolutely not.


You do know if you want to swim you can take off the armor. It takes like an in game minute. Just don't swim with it on. This is a really stupid argument.
Precisely.

[Lokiare]

Up to now, every edition of D&D that had a swim skill has also had penalties for swimming in heavy armor; wanna bet that this one will too?

Don't assume that a fighter is worthless if he's not wearing full plate; he's absolutely not.


Precisely.

In previous editions a fighter could be built to bypass the requirement to have super high AC or build their character in a way that didn't require plate mail to survive. In 3.5E there were feats that allowed adding other attributes and values to AC so that a Fighter could wear lesser armor. In 4E you could build light armored fighters that used things like temporary hit points so they could wear chain or less. In 5E there is no such thing. It would be insanely difficult to try to put something like that into 5E because feats are extremely large and rare (like 5-7 over the course of 20 levels) and need to be used in other ways to make up for other short comings of the systems.

[Knaight]

On the swimming thing - this actually seems like a pretty useful example. In real life, in most situations, people who had access to fairly heavy armor wore it. There were particular things done where it could have been heavier - the back and the back of legs might be minimally armored, faces were rarely covered fully outside of things like cavalry charges as helmets get really hot and restrict vision, etc. Still, in combat, the general rule is that heavier armor is just better.

The presence of water is one of those things that really changes it. If you know you're going to be on a boat, and probably a small boat at that, it turns into a more interesting set of options.

[1337 b4k4]

In previous editions a fighter could be built to bypass the requirement to have super high AC or build their character in a way that didn't require plate mail to survive. In 3.5E there were feats that allowed adding other attributes and values to AC so that a Fighter could wear lesser armor. In 4E you could build light armored fighters that used things like temporary hit points so they could wear chain or less. In 5E there is no such thing.

So, I like a good challenge, and set out to make a non-heavy armored (human) fighter that's still a capable combatant. Here's what I came up with at levels 1, 5, 10 and 15. Note that for these purposes, since we're comparing against a fighter in plate (5,000 gp), I'm not considering cost factors.



Level
Stats (STR / DEX / INT / WIS / CON / CHA)
Bonus to Hit / Attacks per Round
Average Damage per Hit
Equipment
AC
Feats
HP (using non random)
Class Features/Notes


1
14/17/9/13/15/11
+4 / 1
7.5

Rapier (1d8, Finesse)
Mithral Shirt (13 + DEX)
Shield (+2 AC)

19
None
12

+1 to all abilities (Human)
Fighting Style: Defense (+1 AC)
Second Wind gives 1d6+Level temp hit points



5
14/17/9/13/15/11
+5 / 2
7.5

Rapier (1d8, Finesse)
Mithral Shirt (13 + DEX)
Shield (+2 AC)

19 (22 on reaction)
Fencing Master Feat (Add DEX to AC as react, others)
44

+1 to all abilities (Human)
Fighting Style: Defense (+1 AC)
Second Wind gives 1d6+Level temp hit points
Action Surge (grants extra action per short rest)
Path of Warrior (Improved Crit)
Took Feat instead of Ability Score improvement



10
14/20/9/13/16/11
+8 / 2
9.5

Rapier (1d8, Finesse)
Mithral Shirt (13 + DEX)
Shield (+2 AC)

21 (24 on reaction)
Fencing Master Feat (Add DEX to AC as react, others)
89

+1 to all abilities (Human)
Fighting Style: Defense (+1 AC)
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
Second Wind gives 1d6+Level temp hit points
Action Surge (grants extra action per short rest)
Path of Warrior (Superior Crit)
Took Feat instead of Ability Score improvement
+1 DEX/+1 Con (Level 6)
+2 DEX (Level 8)
Defy Death



15
14/20/9/13/18/11
+10 / 3
9.5

Rapier (1d8, Finesse)
Mithral Shirt (13 + DEX)
Shield (+2 AC)

21 (24 on reaction)

Fencing Master (Add DEX to AC as react, others)
Tough (+2x Level HP, +2 HP / level thereafter)

164

+1 to all abilities (Human)
Fighting Style: Defense (+1 AC)
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
Second Wind gives 1d6+Level temp hit points
Action Surge (grants extra action per short rest)
Path of Warrior (Improved Crit)
Path of Warrior (Superior Crit)
Path of Warrior (Devastating Crit)
Took Feat instead of Ability Score improvement
+1 DEX/+1 Con (Level 6)
+2 DEX (Level 8)
Defy Death
Indomitable
Took Feat for Level 12
+2 DEX (Level 14)




So yeah, maybe not as great of a damage dealer as a fighter in plate might be, but better AC and still damn effective, and that's before adding in any magic items

[Orvir]

I understand from a real-life point of view this isn't quite realistic....

Maybe it isn't so far-fetched. This gentleman put on a full suit of armor and attempted to swim in a pool:

http://vimeo.com/13634653

I think he did well enough to make it seem feasible, especially when considering heroic player characters.

[Thrudd]

Maybe it isn't so far-fetched. This gentleman put on a full suit of armor and attempted to swim in a pool:

http://vimeo.com/13634653

I think he did well enough to make it seem feasible, especially when considering heroic player characters.

In what way does that test make it seam feasible to swim in heavy armor? He sinks like a rock after a couple seconds of attempting to swim, every time, can't keep his head above water. When he's in water over his head, it was impossible to reach the surface. They had to help him climb back out of the deep end of the pool.
Sure, maybe give it a DC 40 or so, someone of godlike strength could manage it.

[Envyus]

Characters will still be able to swim with it on anyway they will probably just be taking a penalty due to the difficulty.


In previous editions a fighter could be built to bypass the requirement to have super high AC or build their character in a way that didn't require plate mail to survive. In 3.5E there were feats that allowed adding other attributes and values to AC so that a Fighter could wear lesser armor. In 4E you could build light armored fighters that used things like temporary hit points so they could wear chain or less. In 5E there is no such thing. It would be insanely difficult to try to put something like that into 5E because feats are extremely large and rare (like 5-7 over the course of 20 levels) and need to be used in other ways to make up for other short comings of the systems.

Your doing it again making assumptions before the full thing comes out.

[Lokiare]

Characters will still be able to swim with it on anyway they will probably just be taking a penalty due to the difficulty.



Your doing it again making assumptions before the full thing comes out.

Are you still on about that? I'm basing all my opinions on what has been revealed through the play test, interviews, and articles. Until the full thing comes out, that's what I'll continue to base my conclusions on.

Saying 'making assumptions before the full things comes out' is meaningless. Of course its assumptions. Its assumptions based on all available evidence. Not only that, the developers themselves said a few times that after the final play test there weren't going to be vast changes only number tweaking and bug fixes. They added a couple of classes, but told us exactly what was in them. There are no surprises. If you are expecting 5E to look totally different than the last play test, prepare to be disappointed.

[Envyus]

They added a couple of classes, but told us exactly what was in them. There are no surprises. If you are expecting 5E to look totally different than the last play test, prepare to be disappointed.

They told us a bit about them but they never gave us any mechanics or numbers. Spells as well are being changed along with the math. I don't expect it to be massively different but it will be changed.

[Knaight]

In previous editions a fighter could be built to bypass the requirement to have super high AC or build their character in a way that didn't require plate mail to survive. In 3.5E there were feats that allowed adding other attributes and values to AC so that a Fighter could wear lesser armor. In 4E you could build light armored fighters that used things like temporary hit points so they could wear chain or less. In 5E there is no such thing. It would be insanely difficult to try to put something like that into 5E because feats are extremely large and rare (like 5-7 over the course of 20 levels) and need to be used in other ways to make up for other short comings of the systems.

So, what you're saying is that in 5e not wearing armor makes you easier to hit. Which, conversely, means that wearing armor actually protects you. I really don't have an issue with this. At all.

[captpike]

So, what you're saying is that in 5e not wearing armor makes you easier to hit. Which, conversely, means that wearing armor actually protects you. I really don't have an issue with this. At all.

there need to be ways besides wearing heavy armor to get good AC, or a very large number of concepts just don't work. even in the fighter class there is no reason to offer a (balanced) way to wear lighter armor and function. in 3e and 4e you could offer fixes with feats, but in 5e they are too valuable for that.

[1337 b4k4]

there need to be ways besides wearing heavy armor to get good AC, or a very large number of concepts just don't work. even in the fighter class there is no reason to offer a (balanced) way to wear lighter armor and function. in 3e and 4e you could offer fixes with feats, but in 5e they are too valuable for that.

So we're just going to ignore the light armor fighter on the previous page with better AC than a fighter in plate? Or are you feeling that fighter is giving up something substantial being setup the way they are? If so what?

[Townopolis]

The light armor fighter only has "Better AC than someone in plate" because he took the defense fighting style, which... is available to plate-wearers.

That said, I'd like to point out that, at least in the last playtest, it only takes a 14 Dex to make medium armor strictly better than heavy, and at 20 Dex light armor becomes the best you can wear (although the only advantage it really has over medium is that it doesn't incur disadvantage on stealth checks). In the event your character is using finesse weapons, you will likely be wearing light armor by level 6 and never look back.

Even if you aren't using finesse weapons, most fighters I know will want at least 14 Dex for reasons including, but not limited to, dexterity saves and ranged attacks, so it's really light VS medium armor.

[1337 b4k4]

The light armor fighter only has "Better AC than someone in plate" because he took the defense fighting style, which... is available to plate-wearers.

If you take out defensive fighting, you still have a fighter with AC 20 by level 10, and until then, they're as good as a fighter in plate. That's basically my point, that despite the claims to the contrary, it is possible to get a well armored fighter without having them wear heavy armor.

[Knaight]

there need to be ways besides wearing heavy armor to get good AC, or a very large number of concepts just don't work.

Unless the concepts specifically involve being both lightly armored and specifically more durable than heavy armored people, that's hardly true. There's also a case to be made that a number of concepts work poorly when not having armor is just as good as having armor, in that this kind of hits basically everyone who wears armor.

Put more simply - I have no issue with a system modeling armor being protective. That people who don't have armor end up less protected is an inevitable consequence of this, and also something I'm totally fine with.

[captpike]

Unless the concepts specifically involve being both lightly armored and specifically more durable than heavy armored people, that's hardly true. There's also a case to be made that a number of concepts work poorly when not having armor is just as good as having armor, in that this kind of hits basically everyone who wears armor.

Put more simply - I have no issue with a system modeling armor being protective. That people who don't have armor end up less protected is an inevitable consequence of this, and also something I'm totally fine with.

so every class that does not get heavy armor should be squishy? what about the archetype of "so nimble your hard to hit"? or something like the swordmage who uses a combo of magic and pure smarts to avoid being hit?

making archetype A work should NEVER mean throwing B through E out the window. if it does then you failed in a big way. there is no reason whatsoever that they cant make a tough heavily armored fighter and still have a class like the swordmage work, or even have fighters with a light and heavy armor options.
heavy armor fighter: you gain proficiency in heavy armor and gain 2 DR
nimble fighter: you gain proficiency in light armor, gain 3(or whatever is need to make the math work) AC, and your speed increase by 2sq (10ft)

[Knaight]

so every class that does not get heavy armor should be squishy? what about the archetype of "so nimble your hard to hit"? or something like the swordmage who uses a combo of magic and pure smarts to avoid being hit?
That archetype is fine, and is supported just fine. It just doesn't get to the level of defense that someone covered in armor does, which makes a lot of sense, particularly once things like volley fire get in. There are a lot of things lost in wearing armor - some speed, swimming, etc. Something should be gained for all this, and having the unarmored be just as defensive undermines that.


making archetype A work should NEVER mean throwing B through E out the window. if it does then you failed in a big way. there is no reason whatsoever that they cant make a tough heavily armored fighter and still have a class like the swordmage work, or even have fighters with a light and heavy armor options.
Not having B through E be identical to A in all but fluff isn't throwing them out. There are tradeoffs made - you get less defense without armor, you get to move faster. Done. Sure, it's more complex than that, in that someone like a defensive and fast fighter will probably be harder to hurt than someone who wears armor then rushes into the fray trusting in their armor as a complete defense, but there's a general trend there.

I'd also point out that D&D isn't a generic game. There's some amount of setting there, and archetypes should be thrown out to protect that. For instance, there's the hotshot fighter pilot - they have no business being there.

[Orvir]

In what way does that test make it seam feasible to swim in heavy armor?

He is an untrained hobbyist and managed to swim 10 feet the first time he tried. Here's an example of someone who has trained for it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLcT5J7yg9k

[Sartharina]

there need to be ways besides wearing heavy armor to get good AC, or a very large number of concepts just don't work. even in the fighter class there is no reason to offer a (balanced) way to wear lighter armor and function. in 3e and 4e you could offer fixes with feats, but in 5e they are too valuable for that.D&D Next has Bounded Accuracy, so that +3-5 from a high DEX is always worthwhile, and you can choose to wear medium armor if you only have a +2, and possibly get better results than heavy armor. As l33t b4k4 pointed out in his build, you can still get good AC with lighter armors, especially if you use finesse weapons. Yes, the heavier-armored guy might get 1-3 more points of AC, but that's offset by the penalties of heavy armor.

[captpike]

D&D is a generic fantasy game, that means to be functional it needs to work in as many settings as possbile. one of the things that means is that they need to understand that there need to be more ways then wearing heavy armor to get high AC



D&D Next has Bounded Accuracy, so that +3-5 from a high DEX is always worthwhile, and you can choose to wear medium armor if you only have a +2, and possibly get better results than heavy armor. As l33t b4k4 pointed out in his build, you can still get good AC with lighter armors, especially if you use finesse weapons. Yes, the heavier-armored guy might get 1-3 more points of AC, but that's offset by the penalties of heavy armor.

unless of course your someone like a swordmage who needs to have fighter level AC to function. while alot of defenders should have heavy armor there is no reason to have all of them be heavy armor users.

[1337 b4k4]

D&D is a generic fantasy game, that means to be functional it needs to work in as many settings as possbile.

It's really not. And if you look at the history of D&D, a lot of the biggest problems with D&D have been with trying to shoehorn conventions and styles into the game when the game wasn't made for those conventions and styles. D&D has a metric ton of built in assumptions. Just to name a few:

Elves and Dwarves and Halflings as friendly humanoids.
A mostly european semi-medieval feudal environment.
Humans as the default race and the standard.
No gun powder or explosive weaponry.
Ready availability of magic.
Warrior priests.
Undead.
Resurrections.
Large treasure hoarding dragons.
Roving bands of treasure and fortune seekers pillaging abandoned tombs.
Gods and Deities that are physical and involved in the world.

Sure, these days we think of a lot of these things as "generic fantasy", but a large part of that is because D&D defined a lot of pop culture fantasy. But this wasn't always the case, and before D&D (and the increasing popularity of Tolkien in the decade before), a lot of fantasy didn't look like D&D fantasy. In fact as TTRPGs took off, there were even fantasy RPGs that advertised themselves with the slogan "No Elves!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talislanta) so as to distinguish their form of fantasy from the default D&D assumptions. That isn't to say D&D can't handle other forms of fantasy, and some of the more famous D&D settings invert some of these tropes, but that doesn't mean that D&D doesn't bake a lot in by default and is not a generic fantasy game.


unless of course your someone like a swordmage who needs to have fighter level AC to function. while alot of defenders should have heavy armor there is no reason to have all of them be heavy armor users.

Again, we're ignoring what I just produced on the other page. Seriously, how does Next, from we've seen not support alternate character concepts without heavy armor that still get "fighter level AC"?

[Sartharina]

unless of course your someone like a swordmage who needs to have fighter level AC to function. while alot of defenders should have heavy armor there is no reason to have all of them be heavy armor users.You don't need "Fighter Level AC" to function - you merely need to be able to mitigate as many hits as a fighter. Temporary HP (Though I think that's more a cleric thing, along with heals), inflicting Disadvantage, lockdowns, crowd control, mage armor, and other active defenses all mitigate enemy attacks, especially if he's blastier than a normal fighter - the best defense is a strong offense.

Even then, there's no reason for a Swordmage not to wear heavy armor if you mean a Fighter/Wizard multiclass - He's proficient and suffers no casting penalties for wearing heavy armor, like an Elf from OD&D.

[captpike]

You don't need "Fighter Level AC" to function - you merely need to be able to mitigate as many hits as a fighter. Temporary HP (Though I think that's more a cleric thing, along with heals), inflicting Disadvantage, lockdowns, crowd control, mage armor, and other active defenses all mitigate enemy attacks, especially if he's blastier than a normal fighter - the best defense is a strong offense.

Even then, there's no reason for a Swordmage not to wear heavy armor if you mean a Fighter/Wizard multiclass - He's proficient and suffers no casting penalties for wearing heavy armor, like an Elf from OD&D.

I am talking about a functional gish, not a fighter/wizard. someone who is a tough as a fighter who uses his own spells (not just copied wizard spells) in melee to defend and help his allies, and does not rely on things like armor to do it.

my point was to say that no, the system should not only reflect the idea that high AC requires heavy armor is that the system needs to make room for high AC non-heavy armor users. the swordmage archtype is but one example as to why.

[da_chicken]

I am talking about a functional gish, not a fighter/wizard. someone who is a tough as a fighter who uses his own spells (not just copied wizard spells) in melee to defend and help his allies, and does not rely on things like armor to do it.

my point was to say that no, the system should not only reflect the idea that high AC requires heavy armor is that the system needs to make room for high AC non-heavy armor users. the swordmage archtype is but one example as to why.

So what, you want the 2E Bladesinger to return in 5E? Because it just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

I don't know if you've noticed, but spells in 5e are not like 4e's powers. Not everybody gets the exact same number, and those classes that do get them have much more versatility. The versatility of being a spellcaster has to have a mechanical cost or it will simply be a direct upgrade and turn the Fighter into an NPC class just like 3.x did. You can't have a class routinely get AC equivalent to heavy armor because that's what heavy armor is for and that's why heavy armor has the cost in mobility (and gp) that it does. To be able to do it without heavy armor, you have to pay an equal or higher cost.

Second of all, it's a playtest packet. You're not going to be able to replicate every element from dozens books of content in a mere 200-300 pages. We don't even have a complete PHB, DMG, or MM.

So, no, you probably can't exactly replicate 4e's Arcane Defender. The gish in a system with Vancian magic is going to be wildly different than it's appearance in 4e as an Arcane Defender. It's going to match what it is in 1e (Fighter/Mage, Bard), 2e (Bladesinger, Fighter/Mage, Bard), and 3e (Hexblade, Duskblade, endless PrCs). You'll note that the core 4e books (PHB, PHB II, PHB III) didn't let you do that either; the Swordmage is in the FR Player's Guide. So even in the most liberal reading of the statement about "every class that appeared in a book called 'Player's Handbook'", Swordmage isn't something on WotC's radar for release. As it stands now, the best analogs for what you want are Fighter/Mage, Bard, and Cleric of War/Monk.

Your other option is to homebrew it out, but even then I strongly suggest you not give it AC equal to that of a Fighter in heavy armor with a shield without some cost. If your homebrew allows Fighter AC all day without heavy armor drawbacks or light armor with non-primary ability score investments, then your spell selection list has to be objectively worse than the class features the Fighter gets. Yes, Vancian casting is just that good. If you want to do something better than the Fighter, you have to do other things worse.

[captpike]

So what, you want the 2E Bladesinger to return in 5E? Because it just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

I don't know if you've noticed, but spells in 5e are not like 4e's powers. Not everybody gets the exact same number, and those classes that do get them have much more versatility. The versatility of being a spellcaster has to have a mechanical cost or it will simply be a direct upgrade and turn the Fighter into an NPC class just like 3.x did. You can't have a class routinely get AC equivalent to heavy armor because that's what heavy armor is for and that's why heavy armor has the cost in mobility (and gp) that it does. To be able to do it without heavy armor, you have to pay an equal or higher cost.

Second of all, it's a playtest packet. You're not going to be able to replicate every element from dozens books of content in a mere 200-300 pages. We don't even have a complete PHB, DMG, or MM.

So, no, you probably can't exactly replicate 4e's Arcane Defender. The gish in a system with Vancian magic is going to be wildly different than it's appearance in 4e as an Arcane Defender. It's going to match what it is in 1e (Fighter/Mage, Bard), 2e (Bladesinger, Fighter/Mage, Bard), and 3e (Hexblade, Duskblade, endless PrCs). You'll note that the core 4e books (PHB, PHB II, PHB III) didn't let you do that either; the Swordmage is in the FR Player's Guide. So even in the most liberal reading of the statement about "every class that appeared in a book called 'Player's Handbook'", Swordmage isn't something on WotC's radar for release. As it stands now, the best analogs for what you want are Fighter/Mage, Bard, and Cleric of War/Monk.

Your other option is to homebrew it out, but even then I strongly suggest you not give it AC equal to that of a Fighter in heavy armor with a shield without some cost. If your homebrew allows Fighter AC all day without heavy armor drawbacks or light armor with non-primary ability score investments, then your spell selection list has to be objectively worse than the class features the Fighter gets. Yes, Vancian casting is just that good. If you want to do something better than the Fighter, you have to do other things worse.

your falling into one the fallacies of 3e, that is its ok to be OP in category A if your bad at category B. this is only the case when A and B are very similar. being good at melee attacks but bad at range is good. being bad at defenses but too good at offenses is not and breaks things.

also keep in mind that you need to compare whole classes to each other, you cant look at one part (armor/AC) and say that the swordmage is overpowered because he does not have to wear armor to get fighter level AC.

you are also overvaluing good AC, in 5e you have (for some reason known only to god) 6 saves plus AC to be worried about. armor only helps with AC of them. there will be entire fights where your armor will only slow you down.

also I don't consider going slightly slower or being slightly bad at a few skills to be a real cost.

my concern is not that a gish will not be in the phb1 (it should but I doubt it will be) my concern is that they are making a system that cant support one. they will make spells for wizards and give them to a gish too late, and wont change them to work with a gish.

a real gish is not someone who can both melee and cast spells, he is someone who does both at the same time so well that its hard to tell where one starts and the other stops. he is someone who can do things no wizard can because while the wizard was learning how to cast fireball, the gish was learning how to set his sword on fire and how to create and force bubble around himself. things a wizard would have no reason to learn but a gish would.

[da_chicken]

your falling into one the fallacies of 3e, that is its ok to be OP in category A if your bad at category B. this is only the case when A and B are very similar. being good at melee attacks but bad at range is good. being bad at defenses but too good at offenses is not and breaks things.

also keep in mind that you need to compare whole classes to each other, you cant look at one part (armor/AC) and say that the swordmage is overpowered because he does not have to wear armor to get fighter level AC.

you are also overvaluing good AC, in 5e you have (for some reason known only to god) 6 saves plus AC to be worried about. armor only helps with AC of them. there will be entire fights where your armor will only slow you down.

also I don't consider going slightly slower or being slightly bad at a few skills to be a real cost.

That isn't a "fallacy" of 3e. It is a design decision that no class should eclipse another to keep class choice interesting and meaningful. That design decision exists because when you allow a class to eclipse another in what is supposed to be it's core shtick, you eclipse a player's ability to participate, and that encourages player apathy. When we're talking about classes like Fighter whose primary combat abilities are (essentially) Melee Basic Attack, Ranged Basic Attack, and Heavy Armor Proficiency -- which differs significantly from 4e -- you have significant problems not eclipsing the class. This is especially true now that BAB is universal. WotC tried very hard with 4e to make the Fighter interesting to players, and it shows with just how powerful the class is as a Defender with near low Striker burst damage just considering the core PHB and PHBII (I don't have enough experience with PHBIII to remember it clearly). In 1e, 2e, 3e, and (presumably) 5e, the Fighter as a design constraint is the best class with weapons and armor. Obviously, they have problems with 3e even if you just look at the PHB, but it's clear reading the material that that's what they intended the Fighter to be especially after the PHB II. 4e was about roles. That makes it unique in D&D. In that edition, the true class you were playing was the role. The classes were just pre-defined instances of the role. Fighter and Swordmage were just instances of the Defender role. Other editions aren't like that. The class is it. There's no strict archetype controlling structure like 4e.

And if I'm overvaluing AC, it's only because you made the claim "a swordmage [...] needs to have fighter level AC to function". So, which is it? Is AC so important that the Swordmage needs it to match the Fighter to function, or is it just one of 7 defenses and often isn't that important? Those seem mutually exclusive to me.

Moving slower by 1 square, while a small penalty, is still a penalty. It's one that has a real gp cost to overcome in heavy armors (+20-50% cost). The stealth disadvantage is even worse, increasing the price of the armor by an order of magnitude generally on the medium armor table. That you do not value movement or stealth disadvantage very highly does not mean that others do not as well.


my concern is not that a gish will not be in the phb1 (it should but I doubt it will be) my concern is that they are making a system that cant support one. they will make spells for wizards and give them to a gish too late, and wont change them to work with a gish.

a real gish is not someone who can both melee and cast spells, he is someone who does both at the same time so well that its hard to tell where one starts and the other stops. he is someone who can do things no wizard can because while the wizard was learning how to cast fireball, the gish was learning how to set his sword on fire and how to create and force bubble around himself. things a wizard would have no reason to learn but a gish would.

See, I still don't see what part of that archetype requires equivalent Fighter AC. Why is a gish, who by definition has spent time studying magic, capable without penalty of all day AC equal to a Fighter who has, by definition, spent the entire time learning just how to swing a sword and wear armor and must endure the penalties of wearing heavier armors. The Fighter is a specialist at what he does. If he isn't the outright best at it, what kind of specialist is he? The Fighter can reliably get equal or better than a Barbarian, Paladin, War Cleric or Ranger, and the best AC always requires strict devotion to Dex or heavy armor regardless of class. Why is gish so different? What are you giving up to get the best AC in the game without penalty? If your answer truly is "nothing", then your class simply represents power creep, and you're going to get resistance to that. Yes, you have to look at the whole class, but I can't do that since no gish class has been presented. All I know is that it has Fighter AC without any drawback, including the drawbacks normally associated with Fighter AC. Why do you get the bad half of the Heavy Armor Master feat for free?

[Lokiare]

That isn't a "fallacy" of 3e. It is a design decision that no class should eclipse another to keep class choice interesting and meaningful. That design decision exists because when you allow a class to eclipse another in what is supposed to be it's core shtick, you eclipse a player's ability to participate, and that encourages player apathy. When we're talking about classes like Fighter whose primary combat abilities are (essentially) Melee Basic Attack, Ranged Basic Attack, and Heavy Armor Proficiency -- which differs significantly from 4e -- you have significant problems not eclipsing the class. This is especially true now that BAB is universal. WotC tried very hard with 4e to make the Fighter interesting to players, and it shows with just how powerful the class is as a Defender with near low Striker burst damage just considering the core PHB and PHBII (I don't have enough experience with PHBIII to remember it clearly). In 1e, 2e, 3e, and (presumably) 5e, the Fighter as a design constraint is the best class with weapons and armor. Obviously, they have problems with 3e even if you just look at the PHB, but it's clear reading the material that that's what they intended the Fighter to be especially after the PHB II. 4e was about roles. That makes it unique in D&D. In that edition, the true class you were playing was the role. The classes were just pre-defined instances of the role. Fighter and Swordmage were just instances of the Defender role. Other editions aren't like that. The class is it. There's no strict archetype controlling structure like 4e.

And if I'm overvaluing AC, it's only because you made the claim "a swordmage [...] needs to have fighter level AC to function". So, which is it? Is AC so important that the Swordmage needs it to match the Fighter to function, or is it just one of 7 defenses and often isn't that important? Those seem mutually exclusive to me.

Moving slower by 1 square, while a small penalty, is still a penalty. It's one that has a real gp cost to overcome in heavy armors (+20-50% cost). The stealth disadvantage is even worse, increasing the price of the armor by an order of magnitude generally on the medium armor table. That you do not value movement or stealth disadvantage very highly does not mean that others do not as well.



See, I still don't see what part of that archetype requires equivalent Fighter AC. Why is a gish, who by definition has spent time studying magic, capable without penalty of all day AC equal to a Fighter who has, by definition, spent the entire time learning just how to swing a sword and wear armor and must endure the penalties of wearing heavier armors. The Fighter is a specialist at what he does. If he isn't the outright best at it, what kind of specialist is he? The Fighter can reliably get equal or better than a Barbarian, Paladin, War Cleric or Ranger, and the best AC always requires strict devotion to Dex or heavy armor regardless of class. Why is gish so different? What are you giving up to get the best AC in the game without penalty? If your answer truly is "nothing", then your class simply represents power creep, and you're going to get resistance to that. Yes, you have to look at the whole class, but I can't do that since no gish class has been presented. All I know is that it has Fighter AC without any drawback, including the drawbacks normally associated with Fighter AC. Why do you get the bad half of the Heavy Armor Master feat for free?

There are a lot of problems with your reasoning. First fighters are only as good with weapons and armor as anyone else that can use those weapons and armor, like say the paladin or the barbarian or the cleric. If they got extra AC bonuses, DR, or advantage on con saves while wearing armor or something like that they would be better at armor. If they got bonuses to damage or bonuses to attack that other classes don't get from weapons or maybe special maneuvers they can do with weapons, then they would be best with weapons, instead they just have a slightly larger variety of weapons and armor to choose from than some classes and the same as others (paladin). Even then you can only wear one armor at a time per encounter (and good luck to you when you try to change armor mid-combat). Weapons are similar, its possible to swap out weapons relatively quickly, but it still has a cost and the only real time its worth it is if something is wrong with your current weapon or swapping between melee and ranged weapons. So it would be worth it to swap to a blunt weapon when fighting skeletons, but it would be worthless if you were just fighting armored goblins. Its about equivalent to giving the paladin the ability to get free lodgings at nobles houses or something like that. Its so situational as to be not worth counting as a class feature when balancing the fighter.

In addition some classes are better at certain weapons than the fighter, for instance the barbarian deals more damage and has a higher hit chance most of the time. Paladins get the smite evil thing that allows them to be much better at weapons than fighters.

What we end up with is a sub-par class that is only afforded options if you pick one specific sub-class and even then most of the maneuvers are very underwhelming and not even equivalent to a level 1 spell, even when used at much higher level.

My solution would be to subtract things like weapon speed and armor speed from initiative modifier and possibly to roll initiative each round. Then grant fighters bonuses to weapon and armor speeds as well as attack and damage. Maybe even let them gain a 'weapon mastery' feature at certain levels that allows them to pick a weapon to gain an extra attack every 2-3 rounds or completely remove the weapons speed penalty. Then do the same for an 'armor mastery', where they gain mastery in sequence from the lowest armors at low level on up to the heaviest armors at high level, which would mitigate speed penalties as well as penalties from skill checks, and move speed. Possibly adding bonuses to situations like a bonus from armor mastery to AC against opportunity attacks or ranged attacks. Grant a bonus to opportunity attacks when using a weapon mastery weapon. Allow a free opportunity attack when using a weapon mastery weapon that doesn't cost your reaction. There are literally hundreds of things they could do to make fighters 'best at weapon and armor usage'. They don't appear to be trying that hard.

Edit: As to the gish part. The gish shouldn't have the same AC as a heavy armored fighter, but they should be able to mitigate attacks on the same level. So while a Fighter might have AC 21 with plate and a shield, the sword mage or blade singer might have AC 16 and a magical deflection shield they can use at the start of combat that absorbs up to 20 damage 3 damage per hit. They could also instead grant themselves temporary hp every time they use a sword mage or blade singer only spell. They could be restricted to studded leather armor (AC 12 I think) and then just have resistance vs. physical non-magical damage. Instead of having the fighters ability to use weapons, maybe they pick a certain set of weapons or are restricted to certain weapons and learns spells they can use to enhance those weapons for a few rounds at a time. Adding magic elemental damage to your weapon each round would be nice. Adding a chance to cause a condition is also nice. There are a lot of things they can do with a gish class that they don't seem to understand.

When they put out the original Sorcerer in the play test it was supposed to be a gish, getting light weapon and armor usage as well as some limited spells. The problem was they didn't understand that, the particular kind of gish they made needs to be as good as a fighter when using their weapon and as good as a wizard when using their spells. Instead they made them about 70% as good on any given round as either the fighter or the wizard. This made it a completely inferior class with lots of decent fluff. Now if they had included spells like magic weapon, flame blade, and haste on their list, then it might have worked out as about equal. Instead they put damage spells like fireball and burning hands. Its one of the things I like to point out when I say the developers have trouble with the math.

[Envyus]

Its one of the things I like to point out when I say the developers have trouble with the math.

This is a horrible example because they got rid of it and are doing something different. Added on a different group is doing redoing the math.

[Kurald Galain]

your falling into one the fallacies of 3e, that is its ok to be OP in category A if your bad at category B. this is only the case when A and B are very similar. being good at melee attacks but bad at range is good. being bad at defenses but too good at offenses is not and breaks things.
And why is that? The "glass cannon" has been a common character type for ages. Perhaps you don't like a character with less than optimal defenses, but that doesn't mean that nobody else should be allowed to play one.


Added on a different group is doing redoing the math.
Are you saying that WOTC hired a new design team to fix 5E's math issues? And your source for that is?

[Lokiare]

This is a horrible example because they got rid of it and are doing something different. Added on a different group is doing redoing the math.

That it happened in the first place shows they aren't clear on how the math works or even why it works.


And why is that? The "glass cannon" has been a common character type for ages. Perhaps you don't like a character with less than optimal defenses, but that doesn't mean that nobody else should be allowed to play one.


Are you saying that WOTC hired a new design team to fix 5E's math issues? And your source for that is?

They mentioned in an article or interview that they had people looking at the math, but that could mean the same people are looking at it as were looking at it from the start.

[captpike]

And why is that? The "glass cannon" has been a common character type for ages. Perhaps you don't like a character with less than optimal defenses, but that doesn't mean that nobody else should be allowed to play one.


the problem with a glass cannon class is that you only feel the penalty if you die. in every other situation you are better then a normal class.

who would be better, a wizard with 1hp who can cast wish as many times as he wants, or a fighter with 1,000hp who can only do 1d4 damage on hit?

[1337 b4k4]

who would be better, a wizard with 1hp who can cast wish as many times as he wants, or a fighter with 1,000hp who can only do 1d4 damage on hit?

The fighter every time.

[captpike]

The fighter every time.

so...you like being useless then?

[Sartharina]

the problem with a glass cannon class is that you only feel the penalty if you die. in every other situation you are better then a normal class.

who would be better, a wizard with 1hp who can cast wish as many times as he wants, or a fighter with 1,000hp who can only do 1d4 damage on hit?Actually, a 'glass cannon' affects an entire playstyle - it comes into play whenever there's anything as simple as a threat of death. A glass character needs to divert resources to not putting themselves in danger. Unless a DM coddles them.

A fighter gets good passive defenses from his armor, feats, class features, and superior stats. A swordmage with inferior AC and passive defenses than a fighter makes up for that deficiency with active defenses, through temporary buffs, targeted debuffs, and control effects.

Also - a Fighter/Wizard IS a "True Gish", especially in D&D Next.

[1337 b4k4]

so...you like being useless then?

Sorry, but how is a fighter with 1000 HP useless? The wizard dies the first 10' pit he comes across, the first surprise round he loses, the first time he comes up against multiple enemies and the first time he slips up in his wording of the wish. Also, since we're talking next here, the wizard using wish for anything other than duplicating another spell loses the ability to cast all spells until they complete a long rest and their STR drops to 3 for 2d4 days. So yeah ... fighter every time.

[Envyus]

the problem with a glass cannon class is that you only feel the penalty if you die. in every other situation you are better then a normal class.

who would be better, a wizard with 1hp who can cast wish as many times as he wants, or a fighter with 1,000hp who can only do 1d4 damage on hit?

The Fighter because the Wizard will die right away.

[Envyus]

That it happened in the first place shows they aren't clear on how the math works or even why it works.

So it's impossible to improve or get a better understanding of what they want. :smallsigh: There is no point in talking to you anymore. You can't see anymore then one path.

[captpike]

Actually, a 'glass cannon' affects an entire playstyle - it comes into play whenever there's anything as simple as a threat of death. A glass character needs to divert resources to not putting themselves in danger. Unless a DM coddles them.

A fighter gets good passive defenses from his armor, feats, class features, and superior stats. A swordmage with inferior AC and passive defenses than a fighter makes up for that deficiency with active defenses, through temporary buffs, targeted debuffs, and control effects.

Also - a Fighter/Wizard IS a "True Gish", especially in D&D Next.

sigh, no a fighter/wizard can pick from one round to the next to be a bad wizard or a bad fighter. that is the problem D&D had with making the gish work pre-4e, one that 4e fixed and one that they showed they did not learn from when they put out the sorc in the playtest.

a gish is NOT someone who wears armor and casts wizard spells in melee. a character who does that is called an idiot because casting wizard spells from range is better.

when a fighter 5|wizard 5 is objectively as powerful and useful as a wizard 10 or a fighter 10. and when the fighter 5|wizard 5 plays in a way that is different from the wizard 10 or a fighter 10 on a round to round basis. then we will have a working gish using the muliticlass system not before then.

a swordmage like that could work, the AC would have to be close to the fighter, no more then 2 less.

[Sartharina]

sigh, no a fighter/wizard can pick from one round to the next to be a bad wizard or a bad fighter. that is the problem D&D had with making the gish work pre-4e, one that 4e fixed and one that they showed they did not learn from when they put out the sorc in the playtest.

a gish is NOT someone who wears armor and casts wizard spells in melee. a character who does that is called an idiot because casting wizard spells from range is better.

when a fighter 5|wizard 5 is objectively as powerful and useful as a wizard 10 or a fighter 10. and when the fighter 5|wizard 5 plays in a way that is different from the wizard 10 or a fighter 10 on a round to round basis. then we will have a working gish using the muliticlass system not before then.

a swordmage like that could work, the AC would have to be close to the fighter, no more then 2 less.Not all wizard spells are better from range - especially not emanations focused on the caster, or require a range of Touch. And, Fighters are useful at range as well with bows, and spells allow an Arcane Archer to work. Furthermore, spellcasting in Next doesn't provoke OAs, so there's no disincentive. And, you can still wear heavy armor anyway and cast spells as a Fighter/wizard - all you end up missing out on are extra attacks (Other front-line classes get along just fine with only two attacks/round, anyway), which can be offset by intelligent spell usage.

Furthermore - spell slots and the levels of such are determined by character level, not class level.

[Envyus]

sigh, no a fighter/wizard can pick from one round to the next to be a bad wizard or a bad fighter. that is the problem D&D had with making the gish work pre-4e, one that 4e fixed and one that they showed they did not learn from when they put out the sorc in the playtest.

a gish is NOT someone who wears armor and casts wizard spells in melee. a character who does that is called an idiot because casting wizard spells from range is better.

when a fighter 5|wizard 5 is objectively as powerful and useful as a wizard 10 or a fighter 10. and when the fighter 5|wizard 5 plays in a way that is different from the wizard 10 or a fighter 10 on a round to round basis. then we will have a working gish using the muliticlass system not before then.

a swordmage like that could work, the AC would have to be close to the fighter, no more then 2 less.

Once again they removed the Sorcerer and redid it that is a bad example.

[captpike]

Once again they removed the Sorcerer and redid it that is a bad example.

the problem was that they should have know beforehand that it was a bad idea,it was one of the classic problems with 3e. the fact they thought it was ok means they lack a basic understanding of the game.

[Envyus]

the problem was that they should have know beforehand that it was a bad idea,it was one of the classic problems with 3e. the fact they thought it was ok means they lack a basic understanding of the game.

Are you Lokiare's sock puppet because you are saying exactly what he did. Also once again they took it out and changed it. Honestly the fact that you can't accept that ideas can be improved on or changed makes you a horrible judge.

[captpike]

Are you Lokiare's sock puppet because you are saying exactly what he did. Also once again they took it out and changed it. Honestly the fact that you can't accept that ideas can be improved on or changed makes you a horrible judge.

they can be changed, but the way they did it could not work, and in fact is obvious to anyone with a good understanding of the problems of 3e that it could not.

[Lokiare]

So it's impossible to improve or get a better understanding of what they want. :smallsigh: There is no point in talking to you anymore. You can't see anymore then one path.

Yes, I see the path where people make obvious mistakes and don't try to include other play styles. We'll see in a few months when the starter set comes out and then a few months after that when the full game comes out.


Are you Lokiare's sock puppet because you are saying exactly what he did. Also once again they took it out and changed it. Honestly the fact that you can't accept that ideas can be improved on or changed makes you a horrible judge.

Why do you assume I have a sock puppet. Besides me and them disagree in other threads. The problem here is that we are correct to point out the problems that indicate a lack of understanding of how the game works and you seem to want to defend them no matter what. In fact I'm challenging you right here to name one thing that you think they have done wrong in 5E. If you can't do it, you might be a fanatical follower and not have any objectivity.

I'll do just the opposite. I'll name several things they did right in 5E:

1. The magic item fluff system with minor powers is awesome. I might have to steal this for my 13th age games and my 4E games.
2. The idea of using (dis)advantage to get rid of tons of situational modifiers is brilliant.
3. Giving fighters maneuvers than can use to make an option filled character.
4. Toning down some of the spells and allowing them to pick which spells to cast at any given time from their prepared spells.
5. Backgrounds
6. Some of the down time mechanics
7. Monsters with recharge powers and interesting attack modes
8. Some of the legendary monster mechanics (mirroring 4E solos).

That's 8 things off the top of my head that I like about 5E. Some of them they didn't take far enough and others they messed up in the implementation, but overall those things got the right idea.

[Envyus]

Yes, I see the path where people make obvious mistakes and don't try to include other play styles. We'll see in a few months when the starter set comes out and then a few months after that when the full game comes out.

8. Some of the legendary monster mechanics (mirroring 4E solos).

That's 8 things off the top of my head that I like about 5E. Some of them they didn't take far enough and others they messed up in the implementation, but overall those things got the right idea.

I am not going to say anything I like nor will I state anything I dislike because I want to wait until we know whats in the final product.

I dislike people ignoring what was stated and assuming stuff before everything is known.

What I will say is that the Legendary Monster mechanics from just the preview are much better then solo's. And I honestly don't get how you like the 4e solo's more.

[Sartharina]

I am not going to say anything I like nor will I state anything I dislike because I want to wait until we know whats in the final product.

I dislike people ignoring what was stated and assuming stuff before everything is known.

What I will say is that the Legendary Monster mechanics from just the preview are much better then solo's. And I honestly don't get how you like the 4e solo's more.

THat's not what he wa saying. He was saying he liked the legendary monster mechanics, and I think the second part was him saying it as it's great for singling out monsters as 'solos", as opposed to 3.5's hit-and-miss strategy of assuming that any creature of CR 3 or 4 higher than the party could be used as a solo.

I'm going to have to look over my playtest packets again to see what a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 brings to the table compared to a Wizard 10 or Fighter 10.

[da_chicken]

I'm going to have to look over my playtest packets again to see what a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 brings to the table compared to a Wizard 10 or Fighter 10.

For mage: Blur, blink, haste, shocking grasp (decent with haste), shield, mirror image, magic weapon. An Enchanter gets some pretty fantastic abilities for someone planning to run into melee. You only really give up higher spell levels, which, granted, is pretty huge.

For fighter: You're getting equipment proficiencies, HP, a couple front loaded abilities, and probably basic maneuvers. You're giving up, well, more of the same. If you can swing it, ranger or paladin seems better because at least that adds half levels to your casting.

I don't know, being able to run around in full plate with blur and shield seems pretty nifty. I think I'd probably still rather be a rogue/mage (illusionist), though.

[Lokiare]

THat's not what he wa saying. He was saying he liked the legendary monster mechanics, and I think the second part was him saying it as it's great for singling out monsters as 'solos", as opposed to 3.5's hit-and-miss strategy of assuming that any creature of CR 3 or 4 higher than the party could be used as a solo.

I'm going to have to look over my playtest packets again to see what a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 brings to the table compared to a Wizard 10 or Fighter 10.

I'm saying that the parts they stole from 4E I like, while I do not like the random interruptions where the DM gets to use actions between turns. To me I can see this playing out at a number of tables:

Player "Ok, I know its bypassed 3 of my saving throws from spells now, so I'm going to drop my Hold Monster spell on it so we can easily kill it, oh and it'll take falling damage."
DM "Not so fast, it uses a legendary action to fly out of range. Ha Ha."
Player "What? That's cheating, its breaking the action economy. If it has to cheat to win, then I'm not playing this game. I'm going back to 3.5E/4E/Pathfinder."

[da_chicken]

I'm saying that the parts they stole from 4E I like, while I do not like the random interruptions where the DM gets to use actions between turns. To me I can see this playing out at a number of tables:

Player "Ok, I know its bypassed 3 of my saving throws from spells now, so I'm going to drop my Hold Monster spell on it so we can easily kill it, oh and it'll take falling damage."
DM "Not so fast, it uses a legendary action to fly out of range. Ha Ha."
Player "What? That's cheating, its breaking the action economy. If it has to cheat to win, then I'm not playing this game. I'm going back to 3.5E/4E/Pathfinder."

I don't see that playing out at any table anywhere. First because DMs and gaming groups are hard to come by, and I think most people play with friends. Second because nearly every monster cheats in some way by doing things the players can't at levels the players couldn't dream of. Third because if the DM wants to break the "action economy," he just adds more monsters. Fourth, because if the DM cheats to "win", the game just ends. This is what people mean when they say, "The DM can't cheat."

Solo monsters are one of the worst designs from 4E. Solo monsters were like fighting a dozen ogres through a doorway: a ton of HP to grind through and not a lot of attacks back. The basic design of a solo monster is broken, because it's one or two actions have to keep up with 4x move minor standard from the PCs. That's why solos turned into bullet sponges. You hit them with enough CC to render them impotent and then spend the next 20 rounds grinding down the remaining 900 hp. Solo monsters were supposed to be raid bosses, and there's a reason most raid bosses are immune to CC, can end debuffs, and can do multiple attacks at once.

[captpike]

Solo monsters are one of the worst designs from 4E. Solo monsters were like fighting a dozen ogres through a doorway: a ton of HP to grind through and not a lot of attacks back. The basic design of a solo monster is broken, because it's one or two actions have to keep up with 4x move minor standard from the PCs. That's why solos turned into bullet sponges. You hit them with enough CC to render them impotent and then spend the next 20 rounds grinding down the remaining 900 hp. Solo monsters were supposed to be raid bosses, and there's a reason most raid bosses are immune to CC, can end debuffs, and can do multiple attacks at once.

this is why the later solo's were made differently, but it was a hard thing to do right.

you want control to be useful, but not overpowering, you want enough actions to threaten the party but not so many they will just die.

there is no reason they cant be done well, but they need to follow rules, even if those rules are different. it was one of the things I had been hoping 5e would spend a good long while working on and testing.

for example you could give all solo's a second standard action at init+10 or something, that would be a step in the right direction. if they just give a solo a floating standard action however that would be bad it would break too many things.

[1337 b4k4]

for example you could give all solo's a second standard action at init+10 or something, that would be a step in the right direction. if they just give a solo a floating standard action however that would be bad it would break too many things.

Luckily, nothing they wrote about how legendary monsters are going to work implied they'd get a free floating standard action. Lokaire's scenarios exists only within his own head.

[Lokiare]

Luckily, nothing they wrote about how legendary monsters are going to work implied they'd get a free floating standard action. Lokaire's scenarios exists only within his own head.

Nope, sorry. I've tried it out and my players had that exact response. Many players will have that response and it hearkens back to when DMs would alter the world just to win a combat with the players back in 1E and 2E. Back then we called it bad DMing or Tin God or something along those lines, now they've gone and built it right into the rules.

Also, did you read the write ups and articles on legendary monsters? They literally get extra actions between turns that the DM can invoke at any time between other creatures/characters actions.


I don't see that playing out at any table anywhere. First because DMs and gaming groups are hard to come by, and I think most people play with friends. Second because nearly every monster cheats in some way by doing things the players can't at levels the players couldn't dream of. Third because if the DM wants to break the "action economy," he just adds more monsters. Fourth, because if the DM cheats to "win", the game just ends. This is what people mean when they say, "The DM can't cheat."

For some play styles the tin god DM style is fine, for those of us that like to play with our ability to reason past obstacles, the 'gotcha' style of DMing is a quitting offense. Some of us like rules that not only make sense, aren't skewed to let the DM trample all over the players, for exactly the reasons you quote. If the DM wants to 'cheat', all they have to do is invoke rule 0 'rocks fall, you are all dead'. The legendary creatures rules invokes the sense that the DM isn't following the same rules as the players. For this reason many people will not like them.


Solo monsters are one of the worst designs from 4E. Solo monsters were like fighting a dozen ogres through a doorway: a ton of HP to grind through and not a lot of attacks back. The basic design of a solo monster is broken, because it's one or two actions have to keep up with 4x move minor standard from the PCs. That's why solos turned into bullet sponges. You hit them with enough CC to render them impotent and then spend the next 20 rounds grinding down the remaining 900 hp. Solo monsters were supposed to be raid bosses, and there's a reason most raid bosses are immune to CC, can end debuffs, and can do multiple attacks at once.

That's because at first they didn't know what they were doing, later on they started adding things like auto removal of action denial effects at the end of a round and saves at the beginning. Once that was in place along with area attacks and off turn actions, and the reduction of hp, solo's played fine.

[1337 b4k4]

Nope, sorry. I've tried it out and my players had that exact response.

Sorry you tried what out? The unpublished legendary monster rules? Where? How did you come by them?



Also, did you read the write ups and articles on legendary monsters? They literally get extra actions between turns that the DM can invoke at any time between other creatures/characters actions.

I did. And they do get and I quote:


Legendary creatures have a set of bonus actions they can use between their turns.

That is distinctly different from:


if they just give a solo a floating standard action however that would be bad it would break too many things.

and


Player "Ok, I know its bypassed 3 of my saving throws from spells now, so I'm going to drop my Hold Monster spell on it so we can easily kill it, oh and it'll take falling damage."
DM "Not so fast, it uses a legendary action to fly out of range. Ha Ha."
Player "What? That's cheating, its breaking the action economy. If it has to cheat to win, then I'm not playing this game. I'm going back to 3.5E/4E/Pathfinder."


The Q&A session recently, clarified further that the Legendary Actions are a specific set of actions, not simply a "free turn".

Edit
--------------------

It's also worth noting that the "action economy" realistically should change when you're switching from a 5 on 5 fight to a 5 on 1 fight. Imagine if you were designing an RPG with the battle system set up so that 1 PC was regularly taking on 5+ monsters at once. Wouldn't you design the system such that said PC had more times to act in a given turn?

[Jeivar]

Sooo why are the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual and the DM's Guide being release so far apart?

[1337 b4k4]

Sooo why are the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual and the DM's Guide being release so far apart?

According to Mearls, to give them more time to edit each book before publication.

Edit
---------------

And for reference, per Mearls' twitter, they have a short lead time between finalizing and publishing and distribution, as they're still doing minor tweaks and writing thr forward for the PHB. Apparently they do all their printing in the US rather than in China.

[Jeivar]

According to Mearls, to give them more time to edit each book before publication.

Edit
---------------

And for reference, per Mearls' twitter, they have a short lead time between finalizing and publishing and distribution, as they're still doing minor tweaks and writing thr forward for the PHB. Apparently they do all their printing in the US rather than in China.

Thanks. And oops, I posted in the wrong thread.

[Lokiare]

Sorry you tried what out? The unpublished legendary monster rules? Where? How did you come by them?

Mearls gave out the finalized version minus some math tweaks in an article. I tried them out and showed them to my players and asked them what they would do when I pulled the out of turn action stuff and they gave that response. You seem to have missed the article. He goes into details even giving an example monster and lair.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130617

He notes it isn't the final version of the monster at the end of the article but in later articles they say they are pretty satisfied with the response to it, which means no major changes.


I did. And they do get and I quote:



That is distinctly different from:



and




The Q&A session recently, clarified further that the Legendary Actions are a specific set of actions, not simply a "free turn".

From the article:

"Legendary Creatures Ignore Your Silly Action Economy: Legendary creatures are infused with such powerful magic and innate might that they move and think on a different level than other creatures. A dragon's mind is simply different, allowing it to move and react with supernatural speed. The necromancer armed with the wand of Orcus sees time and the cosmic order with a different eye. She peers into the source code that runs the universe and enters a higher state of being.

Legendary creatures have a set of bonus actions they can use between their turns. This is a bigger point of emphasis than in 4th Edition. We learned that creating a dynamic interaction between a solo monster and the characters goes a long way toward making such battles dramatic and tense."

From the PDF:

"Legendary Actions

The dragon gains four legendary actions at the end of each of its turns. It can use these actions at any time between then and the start of its next turn, when any unused legendary actions are lost. The dragon can use the actions in the following ways, each of which expends a number of the actions:
2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

Quite clearly they can take these actions anytime between the end of its turn and the next and in the article Mearls clearly says 'screw you' to the action economy on purpose.




Edit
--------------------

It's also worth noting that the "action economy" realistically should change when you're switching from a 5 on 5 fight to a 5 on 1 fight. Imagine if you were designing an RPG with the battle system set up so that 1 PC was regularly taking on 5+ monsters at once. Wouldn't you design the system such that said PC had more times to act in a given turn?

No the action economy should stay the same. Simply giving a creature a way to lessen the effects of conditions or recover from them much quicker and the ability to hit multiple targets for the same damage and effects as a single creature is enough.

For instance take a look at the 4E beholder:


Beholder
Large aberrant magical beast
Level 9 Solo Artillery
XP 2,000
HP 392; Bloodied 196 Initiative +9
AC 23, Fortitude 21, Reflex 22, Will 22 Perception +11
Speed 0, fly 4 (hover) All-around vision, darkvision
Saving Throws +5; Action Points 2

All-Around Vision
Enemies can't gain combat advantage by flanking the beholder.

STANDARD ACTIONS
Bite • At-Will
Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); 14 vs. AC
Hit: 2d8 + 8 damage.

Eye Rays • At-Will
Effect: The beholder uses two of the following eye rays, using each against a different target. This attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.
1. Charm Ray (charm): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Will; the target is dominated until the end of its next turn.
2. Wounding Ray (necrotic): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Fortitude; 2d10 + 6 necrotic damage.
3. Sleep Ray (charm): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Will; the target is immobilized (save ends). First Failed Saving Throw: The target is knocked unconscious instead of immobilized (save ends).
4. Telekinesis Ray: Ranged 10; +14 vs. Fortitude; the beholder slides the target up to 4 squares.
5. Slowing Ray (necrotic): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Reflex; 3d6 + 5 necrotic damage, and the target is slowed (save ends).
6. Brilliant Ray (radiant): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Will; 1d6 + 5 radiant damage, and the target is blinded (save ends).
7. Terror Ray (fear, psychic): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Will; 2d8 + 5 psychic damage, and the beholder pushes the target its speed.
8. Petrifying Ray: Ranged 10; +14 vs. Fortitude; the target is petrified (save ends). Aftereffect: The target is immobilized (save ends).
9. Death Ray (necrotic): Ranged 10; +14 vs. Fortitude; 2d8 + 10 necrotic damage. If the target is bloodied before or after the attack, it is also dazed (save ends). First Failed Saving Throw: The target is dazed and weakened (save ends both). Second Failed Saving Throw: The target dies.
10. Disintegrate Ray: Ranged 10; +14 vs. Fortitude; 1d8 + 5 damage, and ongoing 10 damage (save ends).

Eye Ray Frenzy • Recharge 6
Requirement: The beholder must be bloodied.
Effect: As eye rays above, except the beholder makes three eye ray attacks.

Central Eye • At-Will (1/round)
Attack: Close blast 5 (enemies in the blast); +12 vs. Will
Hit: The target cannot use encounter or daily attack powers until the end of its next turn.

Random Eye Ray • At-Will
Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it.
Effect (No Action): The beholder uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy.

Str 18 (+8) Dex 20 (+9) Wis 15 (+6)
Con 18 (+8) Int 19 (+8) Cha 20 (+9)
Alignment evil Languages Deep Speech

You'll note the Random Eye Ray power which is "(no action)". This means even if it has a condition on it that denies actions it still can use at least one eye ray. You'll also note that it can use 1-4 eye rays on any given turn regardless of what is going on around it. This is all within the rules as players have access to reactionary powers that are "(no action)" around the level that they encounter this creature.

I'm sorry but Tin God DMing is just bad design.

[1337 b4k4]

From the PDF:

"Legendary Actions

The dragon gains four legendary actions at the end of each of its turns. It can use these actions at any time between then and the start of its next turn, when any unused legendary actions are lost. The dragon can use the actions in the following ways, each of which expends a number of the actions:
2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

Quite clearly they can take these actions anytime between the end of its turn and the next and in the article Mearls clearly says 'screw you' to the action economy on purpose.

And none of that amounts to a free floating standard action or Player: "I cast hold monster" DM: "LOL NOPE! Dragon flies away. U mad bro?". The legendary actions are limited to specific things and they have defined times they can occur (in this case, between turns). Which is pretty much exactly what I said before.



No the action economy should stay the same. Simply giving a creature a way to lessen the effects of conditions or recover from them much quicker and the ability to hit multiple targets for the same damage and effects as a single creature is enough.

Because nothing says fun like having all of your powers and abilities nerfed so that they are not effective against the boss. After all DR and immunities were such highly loved features of 3e. That's so much better than effectively allowing the single boss monster to act as multiple monsters. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against immunities and DR in principle, but the current D&D paradigm sucks because it specifically encourages going nova. When the boss only gets to act on their turn, and they have a crap ton of resistances and multiple attacks all on that one round, it becomes a game of hitting and wearing the boss down as much as you can before they get their turn. It turns into a cycle of Nova -> Boss hurts everyone -> Nova -> Boss hurts everyone -> Heal -> Boss hurts everyone -> Nova etc etc etc



I'm sorry but Tin God DMing is just bad design.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Sartharina]

Players screw up the action economy as well. Those rules allow the creature to compete with the party instead of getting dogpiled between its actions. There are also restrictions baked into the actions themselves (They can only take the actions at the start/end of a turn, invalidating your "The dragon flies away" argument) - IT might go something like:

"Alright, my turn... and..."
"...Actually, just before your turn, the dragon flies up, trying to get out of your current spellcasting range"
"Oh, that's okay, I can just move forward to here, getting him back into range, and cast "Hold Monster" now." - or "Dang... well, I move over to Fighter, cast Dimension Door instead, and move to this ledge in the top of the lair. Now he can't get out of range, and the Cleric and Rogue should be able to get him if he tries running back to the ground"

Legendary Actions are actions taken between turns, not in the middle of them.

[captpike]

2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

the problem with these is how much they can screw up you just before your turn. this would not only make the encounter take alot longer.

you could no longer plan you turn before hand. it also could make it really hard to have any kind of group stratagy. not to mention how easy it would be for it to kite you given how much it could move.





No the action economy should stay the same. Simply giving a creature a way to lessen the effects of conditions or recover from them much quicker and the ability to hit multiple targets for the same damage and effects as a single creature is enough.


at least at the later levels I have to disagree here, having something like a second standard action helps alot, and can be a good thing to use with stages. so long as the standard action is NOT on the creatures normal turn, something like init+10. ideally with at least one PC between it and his normal turn.

[1337 b4k4]

2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

the problem with these is how much they can screw up you just before your turn. this would not only make the encounter take alot longer.

you could no longer plan you turn before hand. it also could make it really hard to have any kind of group stratagy. not to mention how easy it would be for it to kite you given how much it could move.


Personally I might have gone with a quarter move for the move action. On the other hand, it is a gorram dragon. What the heck are you doing fighting it out in the open where it can move freely? Which I think might be something of the point too. We are talking about legendary creatures after all. If all it took to knock them down was having enough staying power (or commoners) then they wouldn't quite be legendary.

[captpike]

Personally I might have gone with a quarter move for the move action. On the other hand, it is a gorram dragon. What the heck are you doing fighting it out in the open where it can move freely? Which I think might be something of the point too. We are talking about legendary creatures after all. If all it took to knock them down was having enough staying power (or commoners) then they wouldn't quite be legendary.

I don't want to die everytime I fight and dragon that is not in a cave, I want at least a way to kill him if I am jumped, him being able to move twice his speed offturn makes that not possbile

[1337 b4k4]

I don't want to die everytime I fight and dragon that is not in a cave, I want at least a way to kill him if I am jumped, him being able to move twice his speed offturn makes that not possbile

Then you should be fighting non legendary dragons. They talked about this before. Legendary monsters are supposed to have something like 3 stat blocks. There's the normal block for the monster itself. Then there's the set of legendary moves if this is supposed to be a legendary fight. And finally there's the list of lair moves for if you're fighting the legendary creature in it's lair.

Fighting random dragons that are jumping you should probably not be legendary fights. And let's be completely honest here, if your DM is playing the dragon intelligently, even without legendary actions if it's an open field, they're never getting within range anyway except to swoop by and blast you with a breath weapon. Seriously it's a giant lizard with 150' flying move and a rechargeable breath attack with an 80+ foot range. Standing still in a field while you paper cut it to death is just a dumb dragon.

Yeah yeah I know "support all the play styles". So when your DM wants to support the play style of "unintelligent dragon" then they won't use the legendary move that allows your dragon to move about. Problem solved.

[Sartharina]

2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

the problem with these is how much they can screw up you just before your turn. this would not only make the encounter take alot longer.

you could no longer plan you turn before hand. it also could make it really hard to have any kind of group stratagy. not to mention how easy it would be for it to kite you given how much it could move.They can't screw up anything more before your turn than multiple foes acting on different initiative counts can, which is the point. And want to know the solution to "Kiting"? Longbows. Longbows work wonders.

[captpike]

They can't screw up anything more before your turn than multiple foes acting on different initiative counts can, which is the point. And want to know the solution to "Kiting"? Longbows. Longbows work wonders.

so your solution is to tell all melee classes to suck it? that they are not allowed to fight solo's? if I was playing a fighter I might as well not be there if all I can do is pick up a longbow and not use any of my cool maneuvers, feats or powers on him.

the difference is that you know the init order, you know when things can move you can never know when the solo will. all they have to do to fix this is say "at init+[whatever] the solo can move its speed" but that would in fact require both intelligence and forethought. something lacking in 5e

[da_chicken]

2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

the problem with these is how much they can screw up you just before your turn. this would not only make the encounter take alot longer.

you could no longer plan you turn before hand. it also could make it really hard to have any kind of group stratagy. not to mention how easy it would be for it to kite you given how much it could move.

Personally, I find that exciting. A BBEG should be a walking, talking monkey wrench to the PCs plans. Even round to round.

Obligatory circle strafing video (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-circle-strafe/).

[captpike]

Personally, I find that exciting. A BBEG should be a walking, talking monkey wrench to the PCs plans. Even round to round.

Obligatory circle strafing video (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-circle-strafe/).

throwing a monkey wrench into PC's plans is good, this disallows PCs from even having them to start with.

they need to have at least some level of predicability, not to mention some reason why every solo wont just kite every party ever.

again being able to move its speed at a set init would do what they want while not disallowing planning.

it also means that melee classes will never work on solo's they might as well not be at the table. this is just as wrong as every solo having an anti-magic field around themselves.

[Sartharina]

so your solution is to tell all melee classes to suck it?Yes, because "Melee Classes" don't exist.

Also, the ability to move out-of-turn doesn't give them immunity to Opportunity Attacks, so a monster that spends its out-of-sequence turns running instead of fighting is eating an extra attack from each melee character it tries to run from, instead of dishing out an attack.

[captpike]

Yes, because "Melee Classes" don't exist.

Also, the ability to move out-of-turn doesn't give them immunity to Opportunity Attacks, so a monster that spends its out-of-sequence turns running instead of fighting is eating an extra attack from each melee character it tries to run from, instead of dishing out an attack.

yes yes they do, if I am rolling up a melee rogue, and I spend my very very valuable feats on making me deadly with a dagger then I don't want to be told that I am not allowed to fight, or that I have to use a bow instead of what I rolled the character to do.

given you can only do one OA per round, and that solo's are likely to have reach anyway I don't think that is a big deterrent.

solo's would have so much speed that unless you had very very long range or were lucky enough to be able to corner him you would have to rely on range attacks, so in this "game for everyone" you exclude any melee character from doing anything meaningful in boss fights.

again you might as well have anti-magic on solos, after all if would make them harder, and wizards can always use bows.

[Lokiare]

Players screw up the action economy as well. Those rules allow the creature to compete with the party instead of getting dogpiled between its actions. There are also restrictions baked into the actions themselves (They can only take the actions at the start/end of a turn, invalidating your "The dragon flies away" argument) - IT might go something like:

"Alright, my turn... and..."
"...Actually, just before your turn, the dragon flies up, trying to get out of your current spellcasting range"
"Oh, that's okay, I can just move forward to here, getting him back into range, and cast "Hold Monster" now." - or "Dang... well, I move over to Fighter, cast Dimension Door instead, and move to this ledge in the top of the lair. Now he can't get out of range, and the Cleric and Rogue should be able to get him if he tries running back to the ground"

Legendary Actions are actions taken between turns, not in the middle of them.

If you read it carefully, it gets to take a half move 'at the start or end of another creature's turn.' literally on their turn right after they declare their actions the DM can say "nope sorry, it moves out of range."


2 actions — Regain the use of Acid Breath.
1 action — Move at half speed at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Make a tail attack at the start or end of another creature’s turn.
1 action — Detect all hidden creatures within 50 feet"

the problem with these is how much they can screw up you just before your turn. this would not only make the encounter take alot longer.

you could no longer plan you turn before hand. it also could make it really hard to have any kind of group stratagy. not to mention how easy it would be for it to kite you given how much it could move.

at least at the later levels I have to disagree here, having something like a second standard action helps alot, and can be a good thing to use with stages. so long as the standard action is NOT on the creatures normal turn, something like init+10. ideally with at least one PC between it and his normal turn.

Yes, and one play style is literally "using party tactics to overcome obstacles". So something like this is just a big middle finger to that kind of group.

Whereas the 4E style solo that can be weakened, but not locked down by conditions and overcome by strategic means is exactly what the tactical players are looking for.

[Kurald Galain]

If you read it carefully, it gets to take a half move 'at the start or end of another creature's turn.' literally on their turn right after they declare their actions the DM can say "nope sorry, it moves out of range."

Seems to me that when I declare my first action, it's no longer the start of my turn.

[Lokiare]

Seems to me that when I declare my first action, it's no longer the start of my turn.

The start of your turn is the beginning. Note that it doesn't say 'between turns' or 'before they declare their actions'. Either way, its still a 'screw you' to players that like to overcome things with tactics and like consistent rules that everyone follows.

Edit: My main point here is that 5E is catering to a few narrow play styles.

[1337 b4k4]

The start of your turn is the beginning. Note that it doesn't say 'between turns' or 'before they declare their actions'. Either way, its still a 'screw you' to players that like to overcome things with tactics and like consistent rules that everyone follows.

Ok, now you're being intentionally obtuse. By convention, the end of your turn is when you're done declaring actions and everything is resolved and conversely the start of your turn is before actions are declared. The reason they specify at the end of a turn or the start of a turn is to establish the hard bounds and probably to interact with effects that begin or end on the start or end of turns. If they said "between turns" you'd argue that any point in the turn cycle is always "between turns"


My main point here is that 5E is catering to a few narrow play styles.

If you want predictable battles where the boss follows an explicit pattern and doesn't move around a lot, it's not like your DM can't just ignore that particular legendary move.

[Sartharina]

way, its still a 'screw you' to players that like to overcome things with tactics and like consistent rules that everyone follows.
"Consistent rules everyone follows" do not exist in ANY D&D edition. Every monster has its own rules. In 4e, we had recharge mechanics for monsters but not players, while only players got Dailies. Every single power in D&D 4e 'broke the rules'. As did every feat and class ability in 3e (Except for those lousy "+1"s)

Legendary creatures have a special set of rules they have to play by that happen to give them better off-turn action economy to compete with a band of player characters - and it's a hell of a lot better than having them simply be a cuisinart of natural weapons and nova alphastrikes that we got in 3e. It opens up new tactics to fight them, not destroys tactics. Each legendary action has an opportunity cost - if a Dragon recharges its breath weapon, it cannot get as many off-turn attacks or move as swiftly. If it spends an action moving, it's not bitchslapping the party wizard with its tail, and probably eating an Opportunity Attack from the party fighter. (Though it might be moving to position to do so - whoever's up next can take action to change that). The only problem I have with the wording is that it seems to allow the dragon to take its legendary actions back-to-back.

[da_chicken]

The start of your turn is the beginning. Note that it doesn't say 'between turns' or 'before they declare their actions'. Either way, its still a 'screw you' to players that like to overcome things with tactics and like consistent rules that everyone follows.

Wait, what? Where does it say you declare your actions before your turn starts?

[captpike]

even if they use the same convention as 4e for start and end of turn it still means solo's can move their full speed between turns. that causes alot of issues, the biggest of which is that they can simply tell melee characters "no" to doing anything in the fight.

yes solo's need to be able to take on a party, but they need to do so in a way that still lets parties plan, and does not neuter whole groups of classes.

[Sartharina]

The ability for them to move their whole speed is not the problem you're trying to make it into.

Other characters are capable of moving twice their own speed in a round, too.

Also - parties can STILL plan on how to take out a solo - they just need to take its off-turn abilities into consideration. If you can't plan around that, you can't plan at all.

[captpike]

PCs can move twice their speed on their turn, if they do nothing else whatsoever.

solo's can do that, AND move twice their speed offturn.

the best strategy would be to move their speed just after their turn ends, then move back just before it starts again. and to move just in range. so that you would never be able to melee them. even ranging would be a problem if they could go behind something.

I don't want to play a game where I spend almost every round double moving.

in practical terms it would also mean they would go off map every round, making you redraw it very often.

[1337 b4k4]

solo's can do that, AND move twice their speed offturn.


One legendary monster can do that. Nothing says that every legendary creature will have move capabilities as a legendary action.




the best strategy would be to move their speed just after their turn ends, then move back just before it starts again. and to move just in range. so that you would never be able to melee them. even ranging would be a problem if they could go behind something.


Actually, as I mentioned before, since we're talking about dragons, the optimal strategy is to stay well out of range and blast the hell out of the party with it's 80+ foot breath weapon.



in practical terms it would also mean they would go off map every round, making you redraw it very often.

Which means in reality, it won't be an issue since DMs aren't going to redraw the battle map that often.

[Sartharina]

PCs can move twice their speed on their turn, if they do nothing else whatsoever.

solo's can do that, AND move twice their speed offturn.

the best strategy would be to move their speed just after their turn ends, then move back just before it starts again. and to move just in range. so that you would never be able to melee them. even ranging would be a problem if they could go behind something.

I don't want to play a game where I spend almost every round double moving.

in practical terms it would also mean they would go off map every round, making you redraw it very often.If they move their speed just after their turn ends, they eat an Opportunity Attack if they're a melee creature. And then the person who attacked can charge or move up, attack, or move to a more advantageous position. And, everyone else can choose to move to cut off any escape routes so it CAN'T stay out of melee range. And, most Legendary Creatures are in Lairs, which dramatically restrict their kiting ability anyway.

[captpike]

If they move their speed just after their turn ends, they eat an Opportunity Attack if they're a melee creature. And then the person who attacked can charge or move up, attack, or move to a more advantageous position. And, everyone else can choose to move to cut off any escape routes so it CAN'T stay out of melee range. And, most Legendary Creatures are in Lairs, which dramatically restrict their kiting ability anyway.

"when facing boss creatures you MUST fight them in a lair or you will die" is very very bad design. such decisions should be up to the DM not the system.

not to mention that its kind of counter intuitive to want to fight solo's in their places of power instead of luring them outside. why would a dragon hand out in a cave if he could more easily fight outside?

I dont consider one OA to be any kind of deterrent to a solo, and most such creatures would almost certainly have reach anyway. and probably a good movement speed.

keep in mind that he would be able to move his speed to and away the party offturn. if he wanted to use part of his real move to get even further away he could easily do so, meaning he would be more then one move from the closest PC, let alone the furthest one.

[Sartharina]

"when facing boss creatures you MUST fight them in a lair or you will die" is very very bad design. such decisions should be up to the DM not the system.

not to mention that its kind of counter intuitive to want to fight solo's in their places of power instead of luring them outside. why would a dragon hand out in a cave if he could more easily fight outside?

I dont consider one OA to be any kind of deterrent to a solo, and most such creatures would almost certainly have reach anyway. and probably a good movement speed.

keep in mind that he would be able to move his speed to and away the party offturn. if he wanted to use part of his real move to get even further away he could easily do so, meaning he would be more then one move from the closest PC, let alone the furthest one.You can either fight them in their lair, or you can, y'know... lure them into a trap? A party of 4 can easily lock down a boss (You can't move through a hostile target), and they don't have the atrociously high staying power of a 4e solo, either - and they don't need it, either.

You also answered your own question - You fight a boss that knows you can beat it in its place of power to keep it from running away. A beast will fight you in its place of power like its lair instead of running away to protect its hoard, bed, family (If it has one), charge (If it's a guardian), and to ensure it has the highest chance of ending the threat on its life permanently.

[captpike]

the problem is that when your as moble as the solo they quoted you should not make your home anywhere you cant use your mobility. it would be better in every way to fight the PCs just outside then in a cave (unless you have a epically large cave)

[1337 b4k4]

the problem is that when your as moble as the solo they quoted you should not make your home anywhere you cant use your mobility. it would be better in every way to fight the PCs just outside then in a cave (unless you have a epically large cave)

Exactly. Which is why you fight the dragon in their lair, because it's easier for them to fight you in the open. Tactics. It's the same reason the assassin sneaks into the king's bed chambers to kill him instead of attacking him in court or on the road when he's traveling. Sneaking into the bed chamber has high risks, but it also provides entrapment. Same with sneaking into the dragon's den.

[captpike]

Exactly. Which is why you fight the dragon in their lair, because it's easier for them to fight you in the open. Tactics. It's the same reason the assassin sneaks into the king's bed chambers to kill him instead of attacking him in court or on the road when he's traveling. Sneaking into the bed chamber has high risks, but it also provides entrapment. Same with sneaking into the dragon's den.

sure if every solo is a dire lemming, but a solo with an int of over 2 would not do that, it would be like living in a castle made of balsa wood soaked in kerosine, it would be safer to live out in a field somewhere.


NOTE TO SELF: make a dire lemming boss fight....

[Envyus]

I think Lokiare's points about Legendary's should be ignored at this point. He is clearly trying to interpret it in the worst way possible just to support his argument.

[1337 b4k4]

sure if every solo is a dire lemming, but a solo with an int of over 2 would not do that, it would be like living in a castle made of balsa wood soaked in kerosine, it would be safer to live out in a field somewhere.

Only if all your solos are nothing more than XP fodder for your PCs. If they're living breathing creatures with intelligence and ambitions, they would likely find living in the middle of a field to be rather non-conducive to the sorts of things they normally do. Or to put it another way, living in your home reduces the number of tactical options that you would have should a band of 5 miscreants decide to barge in a slaughter you. Presumably, despite this fact, you will continue to live in your home and not move into a multi thousand square foot reinforced concrete empty warehouse with one way exits every 5 feet.

[captpike]

Only if all your solos are nothing more than XP fodder for your PCs. If they're living breathing creatures with intelligence and ambitions, they would likely find living in the middle of a field to be rather non-conducive to the sorts of things they normally do. Or to put it another way, living in your home reduces the number of tactical options that you would have should a band of 5 miscreants decide to barge in a slaughter you. Presumably, despite this fact, you will continue to live in your home and not move into a multi thousand square foot reinforced concrete empty warehouse with one way exits every 5 feet.

um why? when you can move at 4x the speed of anything else why would you live in a small cave? your best advantage is speed and that advantage goes away in a small cave.

in what way does it decrease the options? if I was an adventurer in 5e I would be confused if I heard of a dragon in a cave, I would think it must be like, the dumbest dragon ever. Or it must be so hurt it cant fly or something. so I would go after it, but I would know the better dragons are on mountain tops in shallow caves, or who never stay in the same place twice.

[Envyus]

if I was an adventurer in 5e I would be confused if I heard of a dragon in a cave, I would think it must be like, the dumbest dragon ever. Or it must be so hurt it cant fly or something. so I would go after it, but I would know the better dragons are on mountain tops in shallow caves, or who never stay in the same place twice.

Dragons would never do this. Moving from place to place would be far too annoying to them. Remember they horde treasure and having to move their hordes would be tedious and annoying and leaving it in an open area would make it easy for some thing to steal stuff from them.

Dragons also live in different places. Reds do like mountains but the rest prefer different places. Blues hang out in deserts and canyons, Greens live in forests, Blacks make their homes in swamps and Whites prefer tundras. Also almost all Dragons are super arrogant unless they have had near death experiences with Adventurers most would thing the little wingless ones are little to no threat.

[Knaight]

um why? when you can move at 4x the speed of anything else why would you live in a small cave? your best advantage is speed and that advantage goes away in a small cave.

You don't get rained on in small caves. You don't get snowed on in small caves. Things you bring to your caves stay in pretty decent condition. So on and so forth. Unless you specifically live a life where defensibility of your home is likely an issue (and many don't), these are nice perks.

[D-naras]

I think this just turns Legendary monsters into puzzles. So the dragon can move circles around the party. This means that the party must come prepared with a way to restrict its movement, whether by magic or other trap, same as they would come prepared to take acid damage. Plus, if the dragon is unable to fly, he can only move 30 ft off-turn which is just enough for a character that was adjacent to it to reach it again.

[1337 b4k4]

um why? when you can move at 4x the speed of anything else why would you live in a small cave? your best advantage is speed and that advantage goes away in a small cave.

in what way does it decrease the options? if I was an adventurer in 5e I would be confused if I heard of a dragon in a cave, I would think it must be like, the dumbest dragon ever. Or it must be so hurt it cant fly or something. so I would go after it, but I would know the better dragons are on mountain tops in shallow caves, or who never stay in the same place twice.

Because most creatures (and people) don't go through life expecting to be slaughtered and building their homes around that expectation. What reason does a 1000 year old dragon have to expect that a band of 5 mid-day snacks is going to cause them harm? Seriously did you buy and choose your home based on it's tactical and defensive positioning in case a roving band of adventurers decides to come kill you?

[da_chicken]

um why? when you can move at 4x the speed of anything else why would you live in a small cave? your best advantage is speed and that advantage goes away in a small cave.

Because "cave" doesn't mean "ground floor apartment; treasure bed is first door on the left; please wipe your feet".

It means an opening on a sheer cliff of solid ice. It means an illusory wall concealed with a magic aura makes the entrance look like a regular wall. It means an entrance that leads to a bottomless chasm 100' across with gale force winds buffeting the entire depths with the lair on the far side. It means a submerged cave in the middle of a swamp or lake that leads to a 300' submerged tunnel finally leading to a lair. It means a room in a caldera wall whose entrance is covered by magma. It means an enclosed chamber accessible only by gaseous form and kept hospitable with a bottle of air.

I'm going to be unhappy if there aren't more options for dragons in the MM. The ones in the bestiary in the playtest packet I have are not much more than wyverns with breath weapons. Not even standard spellcasting? I am disappoint.

[Lokiare]

I think Lokiare's points about Legendary's should be ignored at this point. He is clearly trying to interpret it in the worst way possible just to support his argument.

I think Envyus's points about Lokiare should be ignored at this point. He is clearly trying to interpret it in the worst way possible just to support his argument.

About the rest. Please read the lair article. The dragon I linked to can disappear into pools of swampy murky water and pop up somewhere else in the lair as well as making the water slosh out and grab characters and drag them under. Now combined with the ability to move 60+ feet between turns and 30-60 feet on the dragons turn this means the dragon only pops up uses its breath weapon, then goes back down and disappears and then next round it recharges its breath weapon and repeats the process. That's nearly a guaranteed TPK right there.

Imagine a red dragon that could dive into burning tar and do the same thing in its lair.

I mean legendary creatures are great if you want to TPK a party or make players mad, but that's about it.

Instead of that, they should just do this for legendary creatures:

1. Make saves at the start of their turn to resist effects. Condition that don't normally allow a save get a save at disadvantage.

2. Effects have to build up and be layered on to have full effect. For instance an effect that causes the creature to become paralyzed would instead make it slowed (move or attack, but not both). An effect that grants disadvantage would instead grant a -2. If the creature took 2 paralyzation effects, then it would become paralyzed. To be fully balanced each effect would require 4-5 stages.

3. Give it enough hp to be equivalent to 5 regular foes. Give it average defenses for the same.

4. Give it attacks and traits that are equivalent to 5 regular foes such as area attacks, or reactions that are full attacks. Melee creatures can have 'sweeping' attacks that hit all adjacent enemies. Ranged creatures should be able to make multiple attacks (the same way a high level fighter can) or hit areas with their attacks.

Alternatively instead of 1 through 4, break each of its attack and move actions down into a separate initiative number and have conditions only affect one initiative number at a time. If you want you can even have the different initiatives disappear as damage thresholds are met.

There are many ways within the rules to make solo's work. They are choosing the one way that alienates a particularly popular play style.

[Sartharina]

I think Envyus's points about Lokiare should be ignored at this point. He is clearly trying to interpret it in the worst way possible just to support his argument.

About the rest. Please read the lair article. The dragon I linked to can disappear into pools of swampy murky water and pop up somewhere else in the lair as well as making the water slosh out and grab characters and drag them under. Now combined with the ability to move 60+ feet between turns and 30-60 feet on the dragons turn this means the dragon only pops up uses its breath weapon, then goes back down and disappears and then next round it recharges its breath weapon and repeats the process. That's nearly a guaranteed TPK right there.

Imagine a red dragon that could dive into burning tar and do the same thing in its lair.

I mean legendary creatures are great if you want to TPK a party or make players mad, but that's about it.Only if the players are complete idiots who demand victory over encounters be handed to them, instead of paying attention and using the resources they have available to win.

[Lokiare]

Only if the players are complete idiots who demand victory over encounters be handed to them, instead of paying attention and using the resources they have available to win.

Nope. One of the major kinds of fun requires the players to see their choices and know what they are ahead of time for strategic planning. Making a game that depends on manipulating the DM into allowing some kind of improvisation does not make this kind of player happy. So again 5E is catering to a very specific play style and leaving others out in the cold.

Also there is no strategy that can be used to win that fight. Its a guaranteed TPK. Once you enter the water you drown and the dragon gains all kinds of bonuses and advantages. If you hold your actions and wait for the dragon to surface, it will simply use the water to drag you under. If you try to engage it, it will move away through its watery tunnels. If you try to trap it, it will move to another tunnel. There is literally no way to win. Especially with its legendary actions. You hold your action ready to attack, well guess what the dragon just breathed on you using its out of turn actions and then used another legendary action to go back under the water where it waits its actual turn out playing 'drag the murder hobo under water'.

[D-naras]

We all know that when the game comes out, players like you and me that frequent rpg forums will figure out how to beat anything in any monster manual ever. More casual players will have Legendary fights with Legendary monsters that they are going to remember for a long time. Yes they will be hard and possibly lethal but that is part of the fun. Yes, some DMs will TPK their parties by accident, others will ignore the legendary action rules and turn these fights in to cake walks. I personally, don't see the difference with a Legendary dragon having some awesome out of turn options and a 3.5 dragon with 5 natural weapons, flight, blindsense, superb saves, tons of hp AND spells. If anything, Next's dragons seem both easier to run and more awesome (or special) than older edition's dragons. I do think that their kiting ability is too much but hopefully that will be changed (say by simply allowing it to move 30ft at most) by the time the game comes out.

Regarding its lair abilities, these are simply annoying and not meant to do any real harm. DC 10 saves all around, some healing for the dragon and easier breath recharge, which costs the same legendary actions to the dragon by the way. 1 action to enter a pool, another to recharge.

In addition to all that, the dragon can be manipulated. It's right there next to its stat block:
Arrogance.In the dragon’s mind, it is the strongest creature in any interaction, even when it isn’t. Any obvious slights against it provoke vitriol and usually violence.
So the dragon is moving around like the energizer bunny? The barbarian can easily call it weak and cowardly and a good DM will skip moving that turn to slap the barb around.

[captpike]

In addition to all that, the dragon can be manipulated. It's right there next to its stat block:
Arrogance.In the dragon’s mind, it is the strongest creature in any interaction, even when it isn’t. Any obvious slights against it provoke vitriol and usually violence.
So the dragon is moving around like the energizer bunny? The barbarian can easily call it weak and cowardly and a good DM will skip moving that turn to slap the barb around.

first that is fluff that can will change between DMs and worlds, in some worlds dragons might be humble and known for their tactical minds. and that would be ignored.

its why you should not use fluff to balance crunch. fluff changes too much.

and personalty I would say even in a world with arrogant dragons that kind of tactic would only work if the dragon was stupid. you don't get to be an old dragon by straying from tactics that would not only guarantee a win, but do so at no cost to you. that kind of thinking would get you killed fast.

[D-naras]

first that is fluff that can will change between DMs and worlds, in some worlds dragons might be humble and known for their tactical minds. and that would be ignored.

its why you should not use fluff to balance crunch. fluff changes too much.

and personalty I would say even in a world with arrogant dragons that kind of tactic would only work if the dragon was stupid. you don't get to be an old dragon by straying from tactics that would not only guarantee a win, but do so at no cost to you. that kind of thinking would get you killed fast.

I agree with you regarding fluff, but maybe, just maybe, this edition of DnD has better rules for interacting with NPCs and those written there are there to guide players. Fluff can be ignored but so can all rules, like Legendray actions. Though, honestly, I am not convinced that the Personality, Goal, Ideal and Flaws of an NPC can be ignored so easily. If I remember correctly, there were rules that gave actual crunch benefits to appealing to an NPC's Goals, Ideals or Flaws like advantage/disadvantage to charisma rolls and such.

[captpike]

I agree with you regarding fluff, but maybe, just maybe, this edition of DnD has better rules for interacting with NPCs and those written there are there to guide players. Fluff can be ignored but so can all rules, like Legendray actions. Though, honestly, I am not convinced that the Personality, Goal, Ideal and Flaws of an NPC can be ignored so easily. If I remember correctly, there were rules that gave actual crunch benefits to appealing to an NPC's Goals, Ideals or Flaws like advantage/disadvantage to charisma rolls and such.

even if such rules both exist and are good, they would have to include an option on the dragon to use if you take away its [arrogance]

[D-naras]

even if such rules both exist and are good, they would have to include an option on the dragon to use if you take away its [arrogance]

That can be easily done by providing us with a list of all goals/ideals/flaws available with a short description of each and saying that all NPCs must have at least one goal, ideal and flaw. At least legendary monsters should, since I assume they don't pop up on random encounter tables to be cannon fodder. At least that's what I got with the lair and lair location rules...

[Sartharina]

Taking away [arrogance] from the statblock is just as legal as taking away Legendary Actions, or anything else along those lines. Rules are rules, regardless of whether they're "Fluff" or "Crunch", and making such a distinction and dismissing the first out-of-hand is a player-side fault.

[captpike]

Taking away [arrogance] from the statblock is just as legal as taking away Legendary Actions, or anything else along those lines. Rules are rules, regardless of whether they're "Fluff" or "Crunch", and making such a distinction and dismissing the first out-of-hand is a player-side fault.

the problem being is if you are balancing the creature with [arrogance] then there needs to be a way to take it away and still have the creature work.

something like the listed dragon would only be killable if it was both arrogant and stupid. if that is how its made, that having [arrogance] means its stupid and easy to manipulate, and its therefore more powerful then it otherwise would be then the system needs to A lay that out clearly and B provide me a way to take [arrogance] away and still be able to fight it.

[Sartharina]

the problem being is if you are balancing the creature with [arrogance] then there needs to be a way to take it away and still have the creature work.Only if there also needs to be a way to take away the dragon's "breath Weapon" and make it work, or take away its "Vulnerability X" and make it work, or take away its restrictions on legendary actions away and make it work, or take away its HD and still have it work, etc.

[Lokiare]

Only if there also needs to be a way to take away the dragon's "breath Weapon" and make it work, or take away its "Vulnerability X" and make it work, or take away its restrictions on legendary actions away and make it work, or take away its HD and still have it work, etc.

Actually no. Its more likely that someone will change the personality of the dragon than it would be for them to change hard and fast rules. Not only that, you assume that most or all DMs will play the dragon like that. For instance if I were the DM and a player started taunting and insulting the dragon, it would just use its out of turn actions right before its turn starts to come to the insulter grab them and then use its out of turn actions to drag them under and drown them. Which is also what the lair stuff does when it drags you under the water. Even if the character has water breathing or some other thing like that grappling a dragon underwater is suicide.

[D-naras]

Actually no. Its more likely that someone will change the personality of the dragon than it would be for them to change hard and fast rules. Not only that, you assume that most or all DMs will play the dragon like that. For instance if I were the DM and a player started taunting and insulting the dragon, it would just use its out of turn actions right before its turn starts to come to the insulter grab them and then use its out of turn actions to drag them under and drown them. Which is also what the lair stuff does when it drags you under the water. Even if the character has water breathing or some other thing like that grappling a dragon underwater is suicide.

Where are the grapple rules?

[Sartharina]

Where are the grapple rules?Somewhere in the combat section, though we don't know exactly what they'll entail.
Actually no. Its more likely that someone will change the personality of the dragon than it would be for them to change hard and fast rules. Not only that, you assume that most or all DMs will play the dragon like that. For instance if I were the DM and a player started taunting and insulting the dragon, it would just use its out of turn actions right before its turn starts to come to the insulter grab them and then use its out of turn actions to drag them under and drown them. Which is also what the lair stuff does when it drags you under the water. Even if the character has water breathing or some other thing like that grappling a dragon underwater is suicide.The personality is no less a hard and fast rule than any other part of the dragon.

[captpike]

The personality is no less a hard and fast rule than any other part of the dragon.

the personality is just fluff and will change between settings, and DMs. while you COULD change the rules, most DMs would not because it would be a pain and would often be pointless.

they should not assume the fluff stays the same in every use of the game, that way it takes minimal change for everyone to use it.

[Sartharina]

the personality is just fluff and will change between settings, and DMs. while you COULD change the rules, most DMs would not because it would be a pain and would often be pointless.

they should not assume the fluff stays the same in every use of the game, that way it takes minimal change for everyone to use it.The personality is NOT "just Fluff", and "just Fluff" is not casually discardable. Rules are rules, regardless of whether they're fluff or crunch. If you change rules, you're changing rules (Which is perfectly valid). The [arrogance] is no more or less changeable than any other part of the statblock.

[Lokiare]

The personality is NOT "just Fluff", and "just Fluff" is not casually discardable. Rules are rules, regardless of whether they're fluff or crunch. If you change rules, you're changing rules (Which is perfectly valid). The [arrogance] is no more or less changeable than any other part of the statblock.

Actually in their latest monster article they pretty much tell us that the fluff is mutable. They in fact go to pains to keep the fluff and crunch separate for exactly this reason.

[captpike]

The personality is NOT "just Fluff", and "just Fluff" is not casually discardable. Rules are rules, regardless of whether they're fluff or crunch. If you change rules, you're changing rules (Which is perfectly valid). The [arrogance] is no more or less changeable than any other part of the statblock.

except that when when I play dark sun, eberon or forgotten realms the rules stay the same. everything from spells to longswords work the same way. (there might be small changes, like arcane defileing, but you dont have a dozen pages of small and large rule changes)

fluff does not, elves are NOT the same fluff wise in all three settings. the system has to be flexible enough to handle this without breaking down. otherwise you get punished for using anything other then the default setting.
rather then being easy to play in any setting I want with no rule changes, I might have to spend hours upon hours bending the system to my will.

[Knaight]

except that when when I play dark sun, eberon or forgotten realms the rules stay the same. everything from spells to longswords work the same way. (there might be small changes, like arcane defileing, but you dont have a dozen pages of small and large rule changes)

fluff does not, elves are NOT the same fluff wise in all three settings. the system has to be flexible enough to handle this without breaking down. otherwise you get punished for using anything other then the default setting.

If actual rules are made for what you're calling fluff, then said rules actually would chance to accommodate. Take a look at Aspects, from Fate - it's pretty much the core of this working. Keys from The Shadow of Yesterday are even better, but Fate has the benefit of being free.

[captpike]

If actual rules are made for what you're calling fluff, then said rules actually would chance to accommodate. Take a look at Aspects, from Fate - it's pretty much the core of this working. Keys from The Shadow of Yesterday are even better, but Fate has the benefit of being free.

the problem is they would need rules for every personalty type, AND rules for how to rebalance creatures that were balanced by their personalty.

even if they could pull it off, it would be alot of work, and it could never be enough becuase there are too many personality types. it makes more sense to just leave fluff for the DMs to do.

[Knaight]

the problem is they would need rules for every personalty type, AND rules for how to rebalance creatures that were balanced by their personalty.

That's funny, because this has been done before without that. I'm not inclined to take this statement seriously, given the obvious counter evidence in the form of actual, complete games which can handle this, and in multiple ways at that.

[captpike]

That's funny, because this has been done before without that. I'm not inclined to take this statement seriously, given the obvious counter evidence in the form of actual, complete games which can handle this, and in multiple ways at that.

what game is it that has rules for every type of personalty in existence? rules that not only tell you how creatures would act so you could, by following only RAW, have a [humble] dragon, or a [Vain] dragon?
and would even have mechanical effects of all of these?

keep in mind that in order for this to work you would have to have the rules as set in stone as the combat rules, so if 10 DMs run a [humble] dragon its run very similarly, the same tactics used against it would work. meaning it would not be up to the DM whether a taunt would work against such a creature, but the rules.

even if such a system even could exist (which I doubt) it would mean that you could no longer RP, everything would be codified, nothing would be up to the DM anymore, if the rules say an [arrogant] creature would attack after a taunt of at least Lv5 severity then it would.

and of course you would have to have it be complicated enough to handle EVERY personalty type on the planet, and do so in a way simple enough to use on the fly.

[Knaight]

what game is it that has rules for every type of personalty in existence? rules that not only tell you how creatures would act so you could, by following only RAW, have a [humble] dragon, or a [Vain] dragon?
and would even have mechanical effects of all of these?
Fate comes to mind here. Burning Wheel does as well.


keep in mind that in order for this to work you would have to have the rules as set in stone as the combat rules, so if 10 DMs run a [humble] dragon its run very similarly, the same tactics used against it would work. meaning it would not be up to the DM whether a taunt would work against such a creature, but the rules.
Fate meets this. Burning Wheel mostly meets this, in that the rules provide the dragon with an incentive to act in a particular way.


even if such a system even could exist (which I doubt) it would mean that you could no longer RP, everything would be codified, nothing would be up to the DM anymore, if the rules say an [arrogant] creature would attack after a taunt of at least Lv5 severity then it would.
That's funny, because neither of the two systems listed have this issue.


and of course you would have to have it be complicated enough to handle EVERY personalty type on the planet, and do so in a way simple enough to use on the fly.
Fate is a pretty rules light game. Burning Wheel isn't, but these parts (the Belief-Instinct-Trait system) aren't the complicated part.

Seriously, you aren't going to convince me of this. Your argument is basically that multiple games I've actually played can't exist, on the basis of you not knowing how to implement the sort of mechanics that make it work - with what I strongly suggest is a background containing D&D, D&D offshoots, and maybe some other really traditional games.

[captpike]

Fate comes to mind here. Burning Wheel does as well.


Fate meets this. Burning Wheel mostly meets this, in that the rules provide the dragon with an incentive to act in a particular way.


That's funny, because neither of the two systems listed have this issue.


Fate is a pretty rules light game. Burning Wheel isn't, but these parts (the Belief-Instinct-Trait system) aren't the complicated part.

Seriously, you aren't going to convince me of this. Your argument is basically that multiple games I've actually played can't exist, on the basis of you not knowing how to implement the sort of mechanics that make it work - with what I strongly suggest is a background containing D&D, D&D offshoots, and maybe some other really traditional games.

sigh please try reading what I wrote not what you wanted me to write.

I am not talking about an "incentive to act in a particular way" I am talking about RULES that say it MUST act a certain way, rules iron clad enough to make up for the fact that the combat rules for the creature are overpowered.
so a dragon could be as god-like as the quoted one, but because it is [arrogant] its fine, because its easy to trick.

and you could change out the keyword to something that would fit your campaign (meaning you would need as many keywords as there are personalty types), and there would be a very simple conversion, something you could do on the fly.

the system would have to be flexable enough to still be able to use that dragon if it was [humble] or [wise]. and there would have to be RULES, not guidelines or suggestions or "the dragon is stupid and arrogant", but hardcoded rules that everyone can follow and BY RAW make up for the fact that creatures are too powerful or too weak.

I am not talking about an alignment type system, I am talking about a system that would have to be as complex as combat, and much more flexable.

meaning something like
PC1: "dragons are [arrogant] right?"
PC2: "ya, at least a 3, maybe a 4 if they are older"
PC1: "I use a taunt, I get a 6"
DM: "ok your taunt is enough to make it ignore good tactics for this round and attack you for its turn"

anything less and the system will break down unless you use the default fluff (that dragons are arrogant to the point of stupidity). because if you don't you will just die.
if they do that for alot of creatures then the game basicly forces you to play the creatures how they want you too, not how you want to. you would have to remake every dragon if you want them to be anything but stupidly arrogant.

[Knaight]

I am not talking about an "incentive to act in a particular way" I am talking about RULES that say it MUST act a certain way, rules iron clad enough to make up for the fact that the combat rules for the creature are overpowered.
so a dragon could be as god-like as the quoted one, but because it is [arrogant] its fine, because its easy to trick.
You mean like the ones I explicitly said exist in Fate? Those rules? Burning Wheel specifically doesn't fit here, and I pointed that out, but that's one of two examples.


and you could change out the keyword to something that would fit your campaign (meaning you would need as many keywords as there are personalty types), and there would be a very simple conversion, something you could do on the fly.
Sounds like Fate Aspects. Though they are frequently phrases instead of words.


the system would have to be flexable enough to still be able to use that dragon if it was [humble] or [wise]. and there would have to be RULES, not guidelines or suggestions or "the dragon is stupid and arrogant", but hardcoded rules that everyone can follow and BY RAW make up for the fact that creatures are too powerful or too weak.

I am not talking about an alignment type system, I am talking about a system that would have to be as complex as combat, and much more flexable.
Again, Fate has this. Burning Wheel also has much more than an alignment type system, in that you come up with beliefs, instincts, and traits that define a character, and it is through the interactions of these that you get Artha, which is a combination of experience and reserve power.


meaning something like
PC1: "dragons are [arrogant] right?"
PC2: "ya, at least a 3, maybe a 4 if they are older"
PC1: "I use a taunt, I get a 6"
DM: "ok your taunt is enough to make it ignore good tactics for this round and attack you for its turn"

anything less and the system will break down unless you use the default fluff (that dragons are arrogant to the point of stupidity). because if you don't you will just die.
if they do that for alot of creatures then the game basicly forces you to play the creatures how they want you too, not how you want to. you would have to remake every dragon if you want them to be anything but stupidly arrogant.
How about:
PC 1: Dragons are arrogant, right?
PC 2: Yeah. "No, I am the best!" is a typical aspect.*
PC 1: Okay. I spend a Fate point to tag the "Not one is my peer" aspect, to draw the dragon in close due to it's own invincibility. I then use my action to shoot it. +6** roll.
GM: OK, that beats its defense by 2**. It takes a minor condition.

Fate is a free system. I recommend reading it, rather than claiming that it somehow can't exist.

*You don't actually need to know the specifics to that level.
**These are sizeable in Fate. The die curve is only 9 numbers, and it's heavily curved.

[Sartharina]

Invoking rules does not invalidate roleplay, which you seem to think is the case, CaptPike.

In D&D Next, something like this is "Alright, I appeal to the dragon's arrogance with a roaring boast and challenge to its prowess."
And there are rules that say "Alright, you can make a Charisma check against its wisdom, at advantage."
"Alright! beat it by 2!"
And then the DM narrates, "With the effectiveness of your taunts, the dragon turns its attention to you. Against its better judgement, it abandons its murky lake and tunnels and barrels toward you to take you on one-on-one!"

It gives mechanical oomph to fluff (Which are rules), mental stats, and personality traits. It no more 'makes roleplaying impossible' than havign rules for attack modifier and defenses makes roleplaying as a swordsman impossible. There are some situations where a character's personality would override the Hivemind of Greatswords and their Flawless Strategic and Tactical Coordination.

[Kurald Galain]

Again, Fate has this. Burning Wheel also has much more than an alignment type system, in that you come up with beliefs, instincts, and traits that define a character, and it is through the interactions of these that you get Artha, which is a combination of experience and reserve power.

That sounds interesting. I think that Fate is now on my mental list of games to play, and several steps higher than 5E.

[Lokiare]

Invoking rules does not invalidate roleplay, which you seem to think is the case, CaptPike.

In D&D Next, something like this is "Alright, I appeal to the dragon's arrogance with a roaring boast and challenge to its prowess."
And there are rules that say "Alright, you can make a Charisma check against its wisdom, at advantage."
"Alright! beat it by 2!"
And then the DM narrates, "With the effectiveness of your taunts, the dragon turns its attention to you. Against its better judgement, it abandons its murky lake and tunnels and barrels toward you to take you on one-on-one!"

It gives mechanical oomph to fluff (Which are rules), mental stats, and personality traits. It no more 'makes roleplaying impossible' than havign rules for attack modifier and defenses makes roleplaying as a swordsman impossible. There are some situations where a character's personality would override the Hivemind of Greatswords and their Flawless Strategic and Tactical Coordination.

That's not how that works.

You can use charisma to bluff it into believing something or you can appeal to its arrogance with an opposed check, but that doesn't change its intelligence level. If you played the creature to its intelligence it would still use its out of turn actions by running up grabbing the taunter dragging them back to the water and then use its next set of actions to drag them under. It doesn't suddenly become stupid or honorable. Its still a conniving evil dragon.

[Sartharina]

That's not how that works.

You can use charisma to bluff it into believing something or you can appeal to its arrogance with an opposed check, but that doesn't change its intelligence level. If you played the creature to its intelligence it would still use its out of turn actions by running up grabbing the taunter dragging them back to the water and then use its next set of actions to drag them under. It doesn't suddenly become stupid or honorable. Its still a conniving evil dragon.I'm sorry, but you're assuming a creature is acting in a rational and intelligent manner in a situation that precludes rational thought. And it DOES become 'stupid', because that's what emotional reactions do.

[captpike]

I'm sorry, but you're assuming a creature is acting in a rational and intelligent manner in a situation that precludes rational thought. And it DOES become 'stupid', because that's what emotional reactions do.

any creature that stupid would not have lived that long.

[Sartharina]

any creature that stupid would not have lived that long.
On the contrary, most dragons ARE strong enough that, while 'suboptimal', it's still brutally effective. Dragons are powerful even without trying to fight like cowardly kobolds - and the resulting carnage is usually enough to dissuade anyone else from trying to one-up the beast.

[captpike]

On the contrary, most dragons ARE strong enough that, while 'suboptimal', it's still brutally effective. Dragons are powerful even without trying to fight like cowardly kobolds - and the resulting carnage is usually enough to dissuade anyone else from trying to one-up the beast.

it only takes once to be dead. if you have more then 12 int then you would not stop a strategy that would be a guarantee of victory, for one that you may or may not survive.

not to mention that such an ongoing strategy would NOT stop some people from wanting to fight it, some would hear of this stupid dragon and then rush to it before others heard of it.

and of course this is the problem with using fluff to balance combat power. you see arrogance and play the dragon like a moron, so its balanced, I see non-moron intelligence and play it smart and everyone dies.

we need rules that work for everyone, not just people like you.

[Sartharina]

it only takes once to be dead. if you have more then 12 int then you would not stop a strategy that would be a guarantee of victory, for one that you may or may not survive.

not to mention that such an ongoing strategy would NOT stop some people from wanting to fight it, some would hear of this stupid dragon and then rush to it before others heard of it.

and of course this is the problem with using fluff to balance combat power. you see arrogance and play the dragon like a moron, so its balanced, I see non-moron intelligence and play it smart and everyone dies.

we need rules that work for everyone, not just people like you.
Have you ever seen a nerd try to fight?

Intelligence has absolutely no bearing on in-combat behavior. As soon as a creature finds itself in combat, its brain shuts down - there's no time to think. What it would affect is pre-battle preparations.

[captpike]

Have you ever seen a nerd try to fight?

Intelligence has absolutely no bearing on in-combat behavior. As soon as a creature finds itself in combat, its brain shuts down - there's no time to think. What it would affect is pre-battle preparations.

for someone who has no knowledge, training or ablity to fight yes, intelligence would often not be helpful.

however we are talking about a DRAGON, what your saying is that we should assuming all dragons are incompetent at fighting.

I think we should assume anything the players are fighting is competent at fighting.

[Lokiare]

Have you ever seen a nerd try to fight?

Intelligence has absolutely no bearing on in-combat behavior. As soon as a creature finds itself in combat, its brain shuts down - there's no time to think. What it would affect is pre-battle preparations.

Actually, you need to look into martial arts and medieval re-enactments. A lot of intelligence goes into fighting from making split second decisions about which tactic to use, to quick thinking and using your environment around you. Basically anyone that fights often will also think while they fight.

[D-naras]

Well the dragon in question has 12 Int, so it's not particularly bright, and even if it fights suboptimally, which in the dragon's case means using its legendary actions to tail-slap people and recharge its breath weapon, it can still wreck a typical party's day. Assuming sub optimal tactcs, the dragon will fire his breath weapon each round for an average of 18 * the number of characters hit acid damage, and tail-slap twice for an average of 10 damage plus prone or pushed with reach. So if the dragon acts "stupid" it really want show that much since it will know people around like acid soaked pinatas while any group of followers will run away due to its frightful presence.

[Lokiare]

Well the dragon in question has 12 Int, so it's not particularly bright, and even if it fights suboptimally, which in the dragon's case means using its legendary actions to tail-slap people and recharge its breath weapon, it can still wreck a typical party's day. Assuming sub optimal tactcs, the dragon will fire his breath weapon each round for an average of 18 * the number of characters hit acid damage, and tail-slap twice for an average of 10 damage plus prone or pushed with reach. So if the dragon acts "stupid" it really want show that much since it will know people around like acid soaked pinatas while any group of followers will run away due to its frightful presence.

12 int is above average. If it had a 10 int, that would be just average which would still have a decent chance of knowing what its doing. Also look at the stats for animals they have low int and wis but are still able to fight cleverly and cunningly due to instinct.

Other than that, you are right on. The legendary dragon mearls cooked up will almost certainly TPK a party and will still have a good chance of TPKing a party that comes completely prepared with anti-acid and water breathing.

[Thrudd]

for someone who has no knowledge, training or ablity to fight yes, intelligence would often not be helpful.

however we are talking about a DRAGON, what your saying is that we should assuming all dragons are incompetent at fighting.

I think we should assume anything the players are fighting is competent at fighting.

Exactly. This is why even the weakest of monsters and animals have better to-hit chance than most common people. They survive mostly by fighting in one way or another. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, a dragon has only survived by ferocious cunning and terrifying prowess, however you want to interpret that in game terms. In D&D, their base attack bonus or HD based to-hit table is one way this is represented.
A creature or person that spends its life fighting will be able to think, after a fashion, in combat. It will have honed reflexes, instincts, as well as an ability to process what is happening and react in a way that people who rarely experience that sort of adrenaline cannot (it is a practiced skill). Also, how do we know dragons, or any other monster, have anything like adrenaline? Maybe magical beasts physiology does not have a chemical process that forces them to choose between higher brain functions and survival instincts. Perhaps a dragon can both fight ferociously to defend its life and make intricate plans and problem solve at the same time.

[D-naras]

12 int is above average. If it had a 10 int, that would be just average which would still have a decent chance of knowing what its doing. Also look at the stats for animals they have low int and wis but are still able to fight cleverly and cunningly due to instinct.

Other than that, you are right on. The legendary dragon mearls cooked up will almost certainly TPK a party and will still have a good chance of TPKing a party that comes completely prepared with anti-acid and water breathing.

That was in response to cartpike's:

it only takes once to be dead. if you have more then 12 int then you would not stop a strategy that would be a guarantee of victory, for one that you may or may not survive.

Also, I am ok with that. It's a freaking legendary dragon. It has to be deadly, it has to be capable of a TPK and it has to take more preparation than bringing a few potions of acid resistance and waterbreathing. A legendary monster should be the final boss in a quest-line, not just an enemy the DM can spring on you because the session got boring.

[captpike]

Also, I am ok with that. It's a freaking legendary dragon. It has to be deadly, it has to be capable of a TPK and it has to take more preparation than bringing a few potions of acid resistance and waterbreathing. A legendary monster should be the final boss in a quest-line, not just an enemy the DM can spring on you because the session got boring.

a creature being able to TPK you is one thing, it being a guarantied TPK is something else.

[D-naras]

a creature being able to TPK you is one thing, it being a guarantied TPK is something else.

I didn't see anything in the dragon's write up that it wins always, for ever. I assume a level 10 party with proper resources and an idea of what they are going to face will stand a decent chance at victory. All martial characters have at least 2 attacks by that point and spellcasters sling 5 level spells.

[captpike]

I didn't see anything in the dragon's write up that it wins always, for ever. I assume a level 10 party with proper resources and an idea of what they are going to face will stand a decent chance at victory. All martial characters have at least 2 attacks by that point and spellcasters sling 5 level spells.

see above regarding the dragon's off-turn speed.

it could pop up before its turn (either out of water or, from far away, or from around a corner) attack, then hide again.

or it could grab you and drag you under water.

or simply kite you with its speed, 3x yours at least

[Sartharina]

You keep mentioning its intelligence as something infallible. As someone who spends a lot of time around intelligent people, something seems to hold itself true - Intelligence is an indicator of a person's capacity for idiocy. The smarter someone is, the dumber their mistakes tend to be (This is reflected in D&D 3.5, as well - A fighter might be able to fall on his sword, or pick a fight with something better at fighting than he is. A wizard, with all his superhuman intelligence, can accidentally soultrap and banish himself to another plane of existence to be tortured for an eternity.)

A highly-intelligent dragon with [Arrogance] as a personality trait/flaw that allows someone to taunt/goad it into doing something incredibly stupid like giving up a surefire strategy to spends the turns bleeding out knowing exactly what he did wrong, asking himself [i]what the hell was I thinking?, calling himself an idiot, then dying because of a stupid, very plausible mistake.

[Lokiare]

see above regarding the dragon's off-turn speed.

it could pop up before its turn (either out of water or, from far away, or from around a corner) attack, then hide again.

or it could grab you and drag you under water.

or simply kite you with its speed, 3x yours at least

Yeah, the rules for movement and attacks in 5E allow for something to use part of its move attack and then use the rest of its move again. So basically it can pop out of a pool spew acid on the party, and then move back into a pool of water and disappear out of attack range. Because the dragon can move its speed on its turn, then right before and right after using its legendary actions move its speed (2 legendary actions before and 2 after) no players could keep up unless they were mounted on hasted eagles or something. Its literally unbeatable.

[captpike]

You keep mentioning its intelligence as something infallible. As someone who spends a lot of time around intelligent people, something seems to hold itself true - Intelligence is an indicator of a person's capacity for idiocy. The smarter someone is, the dumber their mistakes tend to be (This is reflected in D&D 3.5, as well - A fighter might be able to fall on his sword, or pick a fight with something better at fighting than he is. A wizard, with all his superhuman intelligence, can accidentally soultrap and banish himself to another plane of existence to be tortured for an eternity.)

A highly-intelligent dragon with [Arrogance] as a personality trait/flaw that allows someone to taunt/goad it into doing something incredibly stupid like giving up a surefire strategy to spends the turns bleeding out knowing exactly what he did wrong, asking himself [i]what the hell was I thinking?, calling himself an idiot, then dying because of a stupid, very plausible mistake.

so the only way to beat a dragon is hoping it acts stupid, even though it is really smart?

you may run it that way but I doubt that would be common, nor even if it was should that be the way the system is balanced

[1337 b4k4]

so the only way to beat a dragon is hoping it acts stupid, even though it is really smart?

you may run it that way but I doubt that would be common, nor even if it was should that be the way the system is balanced

No, the way to beat the dragon is to have tactics that amount to something more than "run up and paper cut it to death"

[Kurald Galain]

so the only way to beat a dragon is hoping it acts stupid, even though it is really smart?

That depends. What spell level has the lowest save-or-lose spell in 5E? A workable strategy would be to spam that until the dragon fails his save.

[captpike]

That depends. What spell level has the lowest save-or-lose spell in 5E? A workable strategy would be to spam that until the dragon fails his save.

O joy another game where fighters and rogues become caddies...



No, the way to beat the dragon is to have tactics that amount to something more than "run up and paper cut it to death"
"insult it" is not a tactic, its the worst way possible to balance an encounter.

[Lokiare]

O joy another game where fighters and rogues become caddies...


"insult it" is not a tactic, its the worst way possible to balance an encounter.

Exactly. Its not as if you can hold your actions until it pops up, because it can just stay down in the water and have the water grab you and drag you under and then grapple you one at a time until the whole party is gone.

If the only way to defeat it is to insult it and somehow make it stupider than the common people that know not to rush taunters, then many many DMs will not play it that way and they will end up with massive TPKs in 5E. For the most part this is more proof that 5E is aimed at a very narrow group of people.

[1337 b4k4]

If the only way to defeat it is to insult it and somehow make it stupider than the common people that know not to rush taunters,

What if we made it a class feature that you could use once each short rest and called it "Come and Get It"


Edit
----------

By the way, didn't you just argue in another thread that a band of 20 commoners could defeat a dragon in 5e? How did we go from that to "so lethal they're a guaranteed TPK every time"

[captpike]

What if we made it a class feature that you could use once each short rest and called it "Come and Get It"



creating an opening and trying to trick something to coming closer is one thing.

using an insult to completely change something tactics from guarantied victory, to suicidal defeat is something else.

[Dr.Starky]

If you're a big badass dragon that lives on the the final floor of a big badass lair, then you would be pretty hard to kill even if you're using sub-optimal tactics. It would make perfect sense for an overconfident dragon to live for that long until the adventures show up.

[captpike]

If you're a big badass dragon that lives on the the final floor of a big badass lair, then you would be pretty hard to kill even if you're using sub-optimal tactics. It would make perfect sense for an overconfident dragon to live for that long until the adventures show up.

no it would not.

if you are stupid enough that one insult makes you bare your own throat then you would hardly still be alive.

nor should the game be build on every dragon acting like that, even if that is the default.

[Sartharina]

no it would not.

if you are stupid enough that one insult makes you bare your own throat then you would hardly still be alive.

nor should the game be build on every dragon acting like that, even if that is the default.They only bare the inside of their throat, which isn't as dumb as it sounds because said inside of the throat is guarded by sharp, pointy teeth and a huge jet of fire or caustic acid coming after it.

If the dragon tries to hide in the water while parts of the party hold their action, the rest can start filling the water the dragon's hiding in with Quickrete (Or something else)

[captpike]

They only bare the inside of their throat, which isn't as dumb as it sounds because said inside of the throat is guarded by sharp, pointy teeth and a huge jet of fire or caustic acid coming after it.

If the dragon tries to hide in the water while parts of the party hold their action, the rest can start filling the water the dragon's hiding in with Quickrete (Or something else)

so the only ways to kill the dragon are A) hope its a massively arrogant idiot B) carry hundreds of pounds of poison or something you can dump into the water.

how about a way to O I don't know kill it with spells and swords and stuff? is that not what the entire combat system is about?

[1337 b4k4]

so the only ways to kill the dragon are A) hope its a massively arrogant idiot B) carry hundreds of pounds of poison or something you can dump into the water.

how about a way to O I don't know kill it with spells and swords and stuff? is that not what the entire combat system is about?

You do kill it with swords and spells and stuff. You just need some tactics that extend beyond "run up to the dragon and hit him with sharp pointy things while he doesn't move and attacks us and hope his hp runs out before ours.

[captpike]

You do kill it with swords and spells and stuff. You just need some tactics that extend beyond "run up to the dragon and hit him with sharp pointy things while he doesn't move and attacks us and hope his hp runs out before ours.

insulting it is not a tactic, its stupid. anything that would be threat to the PCs should know better then to not only rise to an insult but do so in such a way that guaranties its death.

not to mention that it forces DMs to play the dragon that way, or they will TPK the party. rather then giving a neutral stat block to the DM and letting them tailor the attitudes of the dragon to the situation and the setting.

[Sartharina]

so the only ways to kill the dragon are A) hope its a massively arrogant idiot B) carry hundreds of pounds of poison or something you can dump into the water.

how about a way to O I don't know kill it with spells and swords and stuff? is that not what the entire combat system is about?No, it's not what the combat system is about. Maybe for Heroes & Honor, but this is Dungeons & Dragons (4e was a great RPG, but it wasn't really D&D). Combat is swingy, swift, and brutal - better avoided than embraced unless you rig a fight in your favor (The loss of Gold-to-XP is something that's taken a lot from D&D). If you want a more forgiving playstyle, change the rules up.

[captpike]

No, it's not what the combat system is about. Maybe for Heroes & Honor, but this is Dungeons & Dragons (4e was a great RPG, but it wasn't really D&D). Combat is swingy, swift, and brutal - better avoided than embraced unless you rig a fight in your favor (The loss of Gold-to-XP is something that's taken a lot from D&D). If you want a more forgiving playstyle, change the rules up.

4e WAS D&D said so right on the cover.

the bolded is true in some system sure, but no reason that has to be true for 5e.

the problem with that kind of system is that it forces you into certain playstlyle. if you want to live you have to be cowards you run from fights. I rather have a game that gave me options or I dont know was a "game for everyone".

[Lokiare]

4e WAS D&D said so right on the cover.

the bolded is true in some system sure, but no reason that has to be true for 5e.

the problem with that kind of system is that it forces you into certain playstlyle. if you want to live you have to be cowards you run from fights. I rather have a game that gave me options or I dont know was a "game for everyone".

Exactly. 5E seems to be geared to a very narrow play style rather than being a game for every popular play style of D&D.

[1337 b4k4]

insulting it is not a tactic, its stupid. anything that would be threat to the PCs should know better then to not only rise to an insult but do so in such a way that guaranties its death.

No, insulting the dragon is not in and of itself tactics. Exploiting the fact that dragons are arrogant, however, is a tactic.



not to mention that it forces DMs to play the dragon that way, or they will TPK the party. rather then giving a neutral stat block to the DM and letting them tailor the attitudes of the dragon to the situation and the setting.

The DM has a neutral stat block. It lists all the things the dragon can do. It's up to the DM to decide how they're going to play the dragon. D&D 5e, by giving dragons the trait of arrogant, no more forces DMs to play dragons susceptible to taunting any more than it, by giving dragons high (or above average INT) requires DMs to play dragons that are so intelligent and so combat focused that they build their lairs in open fields so that whenever a band of adventurers happens by, the dragon can kite them all day long.

See the problem to me appears to be that your artificial barrier between rules and fluff makes it difficult for you to see the stat block as anything other than absolute law of the land. I read a dragon's stat block and fluff the exact same way, default information for gauging how dragons were intended to work within the system. When I see a list of powers, it tells me what a dragon is capable of. When I see a list of traits, it tells me how a dragon operates and how it thinks, and when I see a list of flaws, it tells me what the designers expected to be the dragons weak points. But none of it, from the AC, to the HP, to the number of attacks, to the traits, to the stats are set in stone. They're all mutable as much as I want, however I want because they all have the same weight in making a "dragon". It seems to me, that you want a bright line between "must never change because it will break things" rules for dragon and "completely optional and pointless, heck you probably shouldn't even read this" fluff for a dragon. That is not, has never been (save for perhaps slightly in 4e) and likely never will be how D&D works.


Edit
---------------


4e WAS D&D said so right on the cover.

And North Korea is a democratic people's republic, it says so right in the name. Look, whether or not D&D 4e was "D&D" or not, arguing that it was because it said so on the box is a very weak argument.

Edit 2
---------------

In fact, a likely reason WotC was spending so much effort trying to find out what people thought was "iconic" about D&D is precisely because so many of their customers and ex-customers didn't think 4e was "D&D"

[captpike]

No, insulting the dragon is not in and of itself tactics. Exploiting the fact that dragons are arrogant, however, is a tactic.



The DM has a neutral stat block. It lists all the things the dragon can do. It's up to the DM to decide how they're going to play the dragon. D&D 5e, by giving dragons the trait of arrogant, no more forces DMs to play dragons susceptible to taunting any more than it, by giving dragons high (or above average INT) requires DMs to play dragons that are so intelligent and so combat focused that they build their lairs in open fields so that whenever a band of adventurers happens by, the dragon can kite them all day long.

See the problem to me appears to be that your artificial barrier between rules and fluff makes it difficult for you to see the stat block as anything other than absolute law of the land. I read a dragon's stat block and fluff the exact same way, default information for gauging how dragons were intended to work within the system. When I see a list of powers, it tells me what a dragon is capable of. When I see a list of traits, it tells me how a dragon operates and how it thinks, and when I see a list of flaws, it tells me what the designers expected to be the dragons weak points. But none of it, from the AC, to the HP, to the number of attacks, to the traits, to the stats are set in stone. They're all mutable as much as I want, however I want because they all have the same weight in making a "dragon". It seems to me, that you want a bright line between "must never change because it will break things" rules for dragon and "completely optional and pointless, heck you probably shouldn't even read this" fluff for a dragon. That is not, has never been (save for perhaps slightly in 4e) and likely never will be how D&D works.

if the stats were made well then yes I could simply ignore any fluff and it would work. but the stats were not made well, the dragon is so powerful that only by making it stupid is it killable.

the stat block will only be neural when I can slap any personalty I want on it and it will still work as an opponent in my game. that is not true of the dragon, if I make it smart (or even just not a moron) it will TPK the party.

the reason you separate fluff and crunch is because you CAN change fluff without changing anything else, so I can change the dragon's fluff and that is all I have to change.

[1337 b4k4]

if the stats were made well then yes I could simply ignore any fluff and it would work. but the stats were not made well, the dragon is so powerful that only by making it stupid is it killable.

the stat block will only be neural when I can slap any personalty I want on it and it will still work as an opponent in my game. that is not true of the dragon, if I make it smart (or even just not a moron) it will TPK the party.

the reason you separate fluff and crunch is because you CAN change fluff without changing anything else, so I can change the dragon's fluff and that is all I have to change.

http://www.tuckerskobolds.com ... change the fluff, change everything.

[captpike]

http://www.tuckerskobolds.com ... change the fluff, change everything.

so you want everyone to play dragons your way, or they have to spend the time to remake the entire stat block

and this is true for EVERY CREATURE. you want fluff and crunchy so intertwined that I cant just put a human minon on the field and call it a dragonborn minon. I have to change its stats and mechanics.

how about we make a game that everyone can play and septerate the fluff and crunch, you can use the default fluff all you want, I can change it all I want. we both win.

[Lokiare]

No, insulting the dragon is not in and of itself tactics. Exploiting the fact that dragons are arrogant, however, is a tactic.

And some DMs will TPK the party when they try to taunt the dragon into coming to them. Because in those DMs games Dragons are not 3 int animals, but instead 12-14 int creatures that have survived for 100's of years fighting off adventure parties. Again 5E seems to be catering to a very narrow play style.


The DM has a neutral stat block. It lists all the things the dragon can do. It's up to the DM to decide how they're going to play the dragon. D&D 5e, by giving dragons the trait of arrogant, no more forces DMs to play dragons susceptible to taunting any more than it, by giving dragons high (or above average INT) requires DMs to play dragons that are so intelligent and so combat focused that they build their lairs in open fields so that whenever a band of adventurers happens by, the dragon can kite them all day long.

See the problem to me appears to be that your artificial barrier between rules and fluff makes it difficult for you to see the stat block as anything other than absolute law of the land. I read a dragon's stat block and fluff the exact same way, default information for gauging how dragons were intended to work within the system. When I see a list of powers, it tells me what a dragon is capable of. When I see a list of traits, it tells me how a dragon operates and how it thinks, and when I see a list of flaws, it tells me what the designers expected to be the dragons weak points. But none of it, from the AC, to the HP, to the number of attacks, to the traits, to the stats are set in stone. They're all mutable as much as I want, however I want because they all have the same weight in making a "dragon". It seems to me, that you want a bright line between "must never change because it will break things" rules for dragon and "completely optional and pointless, heck you probably shouldn't even read this" fluff for a dragon. That is not, has never been (save for perhaps slightly in 4e) and likely never will be how D&D works.

And that's a fine play style for you and your group. Its also a very narrow play style. See if they designed the monsters stats well and made it work for us, it would automatically work for you, because you just use the mechanics as guidelines anyway.


Edit
---------------



And North Korea is a democratic people's republic, it says so right in the name. Look, whether or not D&D 4e was "D&D" or not, arguing that it was because it said so on the box is a very weak argument.

4E was D&D because the company that owns the copyright made it D&D. So legally it is D&D. from a fan perspective it was D&D because it sold really well for 2+ years and people came from 0E and 1E and skipped over 2E and 3E because they didn't think they were D&D but tried 4E and realized it brought back that old school feeling of D&D that the super deadly 2E and over the top unbalanced 3E didn't have. In other words everyone has opinions. There is no actual definition of what is and isn't D&D except a bunch of individual opinions.


Edit 2
---------------

In fact, a likely reason WotC was spending so much effort trying to find out what people thought was "iconic" about D&D is precisely because so many of their customers and ex-customers didn't think 4e was "D&D"

Personally I think they were riding the 40 year nostalgia wave that all early childhood products have around 40 years after they are first introduced. That and they don't appear to have a clue about how their own game works.

[1337 b4k4]

4E was D&D because the company that owns the copyright made it D&D. So legally it is D&D. from a fan perspective it was D&D because it sold really well for 2+ years and people came from 0E and 1E and skipped over 2E and 3E because they didn't think they were D&D but tried 4E and realized it brought back that old school feeling of D&D that the super deadly 2E and over the top unbalanced 3E didn't have. In other words everyone has opinions. There is no actual definition of what is and isn't D&D except a bunch of individual opinions.


Ok, this I'm going to need a citation for. I've seen a lot of opinions on D&D, and a lot of people who got into D&D at various points and then went on to play 4e. I don't think I have ever once seen someone who played 0e and 1e, but skipped 2e and 3e then switch to 4e and say it had "old school feeling"

[Lokiare]

Ok, this I'm going to need a citation for. I've seen a lot of opinions on D&D, and a lot of people who got into D&D at various points and then went on to play 4e. I don't think I have ever once seen someone who played 0e and 1e, but skipped 2e and 3e then switch to 4e and say it had "old school feeling"

It was all over the WotC forums. Just do a www.startpage.com search and use terms like "D&D 4E old school feel"

[1337 b4k4]

It was all over the WotC forums. Just do a www.startpage.com search and use terms like "D&D 4E old school feel"

Yeah, how about you provide the citation. The first few pages of searching turn up a lot of "can 4e be old school" and "how can I make 4e feel more old school" but no results of "I played 0e and 1e and decided that 2e and 3e were way to complicated and not old school enough and then I picked up 4e and holy cow it was awesome and totally old school"

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, how about you provide the citation. The first few pages of searching turn up a lot of "can 4e be old school" and "how can I make 4e feel more old school" but no results of "I played 0e and 1e and decided that 2e and 3e were way to complicated and not old school enough and then I picked up 4e and holy cow it was awesome and totally old school"

I think it was just the marketing department. Ever since WOTC owned the rights to D&D, they've tried to market every single edition and sub-edition as being "old school". That literally includes 3E, 3.5, 4E, 4.4, as well as 5E; so according to them, every edition is older-school (old-schooler?) than the previous, meaning that 5E is now the equivalent of negative-two-point-five-E :smalltongue:

[1337 b4k4]

I think it was just the marketing department. Ever since WOTC owned the rights to D&D, they've tried to market every single edition and sub-edition as being "old school". That literally includes 3E, 3.5, 4E, 4.4, as well as 5E; so according to them, every edition is older-school (old-schooler?) than the previous, meaning that 5E is now the equivalent of negative-two-point-five-E :smalltongue:

Oh sure, I'd buy hearing that from the marketing department. I'm calling out the (what I perceive as exceptional) claim that people who played D&D 0e and 1e, and who skipped 2e and 3e because they "weren't D&D" suddenly switched to 4e and found it to be "D&D and old school" just like their 0e and 1e games. Of all the opinions and claims I've heard of 4e, that is one I've never heard until Lokaire claimed people did it for 2 years. Now if he's claiming that was his experience, then that's fine, but

a) He should be clear about that, rather than claiming some nebulous "people"
b) He should be aware that his experience appears to be a very small minority (at least of the minority of people who express their opinions online)

[Lokiare]

Yeah, how about you provide the citation. The first few pages of searching turn up a lot of "can 4e be old school" and "how can I make 4e feel more old school" but no results of "I played 0e and 1e and decided that 2e and 3e were way to complicated and not old school enough and then I picked up 4e and holy cow it was awesome and totally old school"

It took me a minute but I did turn up this:

http://rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/01/4e-d-is-oldest-school-old-school-game.html

It sums up the idea. Many people played 0E, 1E, and 2E RAW and found 4E to be a wonderful throw back to the same feel. Those that house ruled those editions with whole notebooks of changes did not.

Edit: For reference some people did not use miniatures in 0E and 1E even though in 0E it was assumed you were using the rules with the Chainmail war game set and in 1E everything is given in inches and you had different sized fireballs for whether you were inside or outside. Also fireballs in closed areas would spread out to cover the same square footage as when they were out in the open which was one of those fiddly rules that 4E reminded people of when they played.

[Kurald Galain]

It took me a minute but I did turn up this:

http://rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/01/4e-d-is-oldest-school-old-school-game.html

Yeaaaaah... only no.

That's a ten-line blog post with little specifics, followed by several responses stating they strongly disagree, followed by the original poster pointing out he wasn't serious.

So if you wanted to prove that "many people" consider 4E to be old-school, well, you've just proven the opposite.

[Dr.Starky]

This thread looks pretty off-topic.

[Lokiare]

Yeaaaaah... only no.

That's a ten-line blog post with little specifics, followed by several responses stating they strongly disagree, followed by the original poster pointing out he wasn't serious.

So if you wanted to prove that "many people" consider 4E to be old-school, well, you've just proven the opposite.

Really, because the OP in that link said it was 'half-serious' meaning they said something they actually believe in a joking manner. Then some of the commentators agree, some don't. It proves the point though. There are people that went from 1E to 4E because the play styles are similar (if you play 1E RAW).

[1337 b4k4]

Really, because the OP in that link said it was 'half-serious' meaning they said something they actually believe in a joking manner. Then some of the commentators agree, some don't. It proves the point though. There are people that went from 1E to 4E because the play styles are similar (if you play 1E RAW).

Are you reading the same link we are? The OP stated in their follow up comment:


Of course, the complex-simple rules distinction is important and is behind my choice of old school rather than 4E or 3E systems for play.

And the only other comment there that's complimentary to 4e is the last one, which still points out how very different 4e and 1e are. None of them are examples of players skipping 2e and 3e and landing on 4e as "old school like 1e"

[da_chicken]

This thread looks pretty off-topic.

No thread stays on topic past page 3 unless it's a "post random crap that suits the title" thread like the demotivator thread.

[Lokiare]

Are you reading the same link we are? The OP stated in their follow up comment:



And the only other comment there that's complimentary to 4e is the last one, which still points out how very different 4e and 1e are. None of them are examples of players skipping 2e and 3e and landing on 4e as "old school like 1e"

So they agree that 4E is like 1E with slightly more complex rules. Technically if you go back and read 1E their rules are way more complex than 4E's rules, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Sartharina]

The only thing that 4e has in common with OD&D is that it's a wargame with a bit of roleplaying added. Except not really.

[da_chicken]

The only thing that 4e has in common with OD&D is that it's a wargame with a bit of roleplaying added. Except not really.

That's the point the blog is trying to make.

The OP comes across as heavily disparaging of 4E, to me. It says that if OD&D came about because wargamers decided to add a bit roleplay between tabletop combats, then 4E is the most old school RPG there is. If you happen to roleplay a bit between combats and want to call that an RPG, then 4E and OD&D are about the same.

He later says he's just riffing on the criticism that 4E is all combat rules so it must be a hackfest, but since he also says he prefers the old school systems, that leads me to believe he's completely truthful when he says he's just talking about the irony of both OD&D and 4E suffering the same criticisms. If you look through the rest of his blog, it seems clear to me he doesn't run 4E. He runs OD&D and appears to be against complex mechanics. This guy has no reason at all to like 4E. I think he'd play Microlite20 before 4E.

I think OP is someone who plays OD&D, hears a lot of flack over the past 30 years that OD&D is old school and bad and just a wargame because it's all combat rules, and then when 4E is released, the ostensibly a new, modern RPG is heavily criticized as just a wargame because it's all combat rules. The fact that 4E is also simultaneously criticized as "not D&D" is where he finds the irony: the rules-heavy, gamist, combat monstrosity that is 4E gets the same criticisms that his little simulationist white box game. And the former gets called "not D&D" when it suffers the same criticisms from the same people that criticize OD&D!

The guy is condemning his critics by revealing the hipocrisy of their criticisms, not championing 4E.

[rlc]

Will D&D Next go back to allowing player templates?

[da_chicken]

Huh? All classes have templates (or "paths") now. They're just no longer optional.

Or did you mean 3e style racial or creature type templates?

[captpike]

I think he means like applying a templates and becoming a half-devil or something.

[Psyren]

I think it was just the marketing department. Ever since WOTC owned the rights to D&D, they've tried to market every single edition and sub-edition as being "old school". That literally includes 3E, 3.5, 4E, 4.4, as well as 5E; so according to them, every edition is older-school (old-schooler?) than the previous, meaning that 5E is now the equivalent of negative-two-point-five-E :smalltongue:

I have to stop reading your posts at work because then my coffee goes everywhere :smallbiggrin:



a) There is no penalty in the rules against players in armor swimming, unlike other editions. If you wanted to houserule it, there are armors that provide disadvantage on stealth checks due to being weighty and clunky. You could easily apply this disadvantage to swimming and justify it IMO. That would be a houserule on your part, but the rules do not say anything about it.

So anyone can swim in full plate as easily as they could naked?

I feel like we need to start a dysfunctional rules thread - 5th edition :smalltongue:

[1337 b4k4]

So anyone can swim in full plate as easily as they could naked?

I feel like we need to start a dysfunctional rules thread - 5th edition :smalltongue:

Eh, you have to remember that the absence of a given rule does not imply support for the most illogical handing of the case that rule would cover. D&D Next doesn't have rules for playing baseball in full plate, that doesn't mean that you can play baseball in full plate as well as someone in a baseball uniform. And even with it's minimal rules, you are penalized for swimming in heavy armor since heavy armor reduces your speed and swimming halves that. It's just not a strong simulation.

[Psyren]

D&D Next doesn't have rules for playing baseball in full plate, that doesn't mean that you can play baseball in full plate as well as someone in a baseball uniform.

Neither do 3e/4e - but they do include info to help you figure it out. (And amusingly, in those systems with the right build you could play baseball in full plate as well as someone unarmored. Just ask any Dwarven team!)

5e seems to be saying "wing it" - which is fine if consistency between tables is not a goal they're aspiring toward, but I'm not certain that rules-light is the right direction for D&D to take when other systems do rules-light better already.


And even with it's minimal rules, you are penalized for swimming in heavy armor since heavy armor reduces your speed and swimming halves that. It's just not a strong simulation.

Right away you're pointing out a place where the player and DM could end up arguing. Player says he's already penalized and so should be able to swim, DM says he shouldn't be able to swim at all. Then you get to the other members of the party - if one of them jumps in to save the armored guy who fell overboard, how strong does the ally have to be to save him? If the spellcaster wants to summon something to pull him to safety, will he need a celestial orca, or will the less powerful but cheaper celestial dolphin be sufficient? If the only way to save him is to get him out of his armor, is it quicker to peel it off him piece by piece or just break it off?

3.5 can answer all of these questions - that's a big part of its appeal.

[da_chicken]

Right away you're pointing out a place where the player and DM could end up arguing. Player says he's already penalized and so should be able to swim, DM says he shouldn't be able to swim at all. Then you get to the other members of the party - if one of them jumps in to save the armored guy who fell overboard, how strong does the ally have to be to save him? If the spellcaster wants to summon something to pull him to safety, will he need a celestial orca, or will the less powerful but cheaper celestial dolphin be sufficient? If the only way to save him is to get him out of his armor, is it quicker to peel it off him piece by piece or just break it off?

3.5 can answer all of these questions - that's a big part of its appeal.

The point is: Don't point at the playtest packet and complain that the rules are incomplete and will cause problems. It's a playtest. It's intentionally incomplete. Wait until you have the full set of rules and then feel free to complain.

I played in the original Diablo II beta test. You know what the highest demand items were? Three socket weapons, skulls, and sapphires. Everybody was convinced that a weapon with 2 skulls and a sapphire was broken. And it was. Through the first three regions of the game. Not three acts. Regions. Like not even to The Forgotten Tower. Just Blood Moor, Stony Field, and Cold Plains (IIRC).

[rlc]

I think he means like applying a templates and becoming a half-devil or something.

That. I know about paths/backgrounds.

[Psyren]

The point is: Don't point at the playtest packet and complain that the rules are incomplete and will cause problems. It's a playtest. It's intentionally incomplete. Wait until you have the full set of rules and then feel free to complain.

I'm not "complaining" - I'm pointing out an interaction that I found amusing. Whether they fix it or not (or deem there is nothing to "fix" since they are intentionally going for a rules-light approach) doesn't especially matter to me either way, it'll still be funny.


I played in the original Diablo II beta test. You know what the highest demand items were? Three socket weapons, skulls, and sapphires. Everybody was convinced that a weapon with 2 skulls and a sapphire was broken. And it was. Through the first three regions of the game. Not three acts. Regions. Like not even to The Forgotten Tower. Just Blood Moor, Stony Field, and Cold Plains (IIRC).

I played release D2 extensively prior to Lord of Destruction and I can tell you that Pskulls and Psapphires were still very high in demand even post-beta. Once LoD dropped, runes quickly eclipsed them of course, but they were still currency before that.

(This statement doesn't make much sense either - what determines a weapon's usefulness are its base stats, not what you socket in it. Skulls leech a percentage, not a fixed number, unless that was different in beta - but that still wouldn't affect release behavior.)

[da_chicken]

I played release D2 extensively prior to Lord of Destruction and I can tell you that Pskulls and Psapphires were still very high in demand even post-beta. Once LoD dropped, runes quickly eclipsed them of course, but they were still currency before that.

(This statement doesn't make much sense either - what determines a weapon's usefulness are its base stats, not what you socket in it. Skulls leech a percentage, not a fixed number, unless that was different in beta - but that still wouldn't affect release behavior.)

You're still not understanding how limited the beta was. It was a beta to test Battle.NET. Enemy levels stopped at about 3-4, making it functionally impossible to get over about level 8. Class was limited to Barbarian. There was no way to get anything better than a chipped rune. Most people run past the portion of the game that was available.

[Psyren]

You're still not understanding how limited the beta was. It was a beta to test Battle.NET. Enemy levels stopped at about 3-4, making it functionally impossible to get over about level 8. Class was limited to Barbarian. There was no way to get anything better than a chipped rune. Most people run past the portion of the game that was available.

But my point is that when D2 was eventually released they were proven right - Sapphires and Skulls were indeed the most high-demand gems (with Ptopazes coming in third.) So it's not like the beta was painting this vastly different picture than what the completed game would look like; rather, betas tend to be indicative overall. And that dynamic stayed until LoD.