|
1 year ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 9:15PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2008
|
So I just ran this for a group of people who typically play LFR.
We had 4 people. Ever class but the fighter was represented. Most of the combat was grid based with only ToTM used in a fighting retreat after launching a coin that the mage cast light on into the kobold common area.
Players thoughts:
Theif - Hated it. He said he might as well just played as the fighter since he didn't do any more damage and had to hide on his turn to gain advantage. He didn't like being a skill monkey.
Wizard - In the first combat he had burning hands prepared and sleep. For the rest of them it was only Sleep as his 3 prepared spells. No spell was better.
Cleric of Pelor - Hated it the least of the bunch. Isn't to bothered by the system as long as he had fun. He missed a lot though so that didn't help. Wasn't as big of a healbot as I had though.
Cleric of Moradin - Hated it. Missed a bunch. Only got to use his guardian theme once. Meat shield of the part. Took tons of damage. Healed himself a lot. Most of the time he only healed himself for 1 hit point. (Short rest healing as well as HD healing)
DM - Was okay. Seemed way to easy for enemies to get advantage while hardly any attacks the player used to get advantage. The monsters stat block should have just been copied into the adventure text since all init and save throws are needed. Had to keep checking between the two.
The trap in the kobold area was also good. Hinderance to the players as well as a boon once they fought around it and opened it from the inside for a big number of kobolds to tumble to their death.
I modified the rats to be similar to a swarm in 4e. Each had 6 hit points and did 6 damage. One hit did 1 damage to the rat and left with with 5 HP/5 damage.
They did seem to enjoy stripping everything and selling it back in town for much more then they would have gotten just looting kobold gold.
Most everyone hated the -20 to surprise. Most would change it so the surprisers gain +20, or possibly +10.
The enemies were quite samey after a while (40+ 2 hp kolbods /yawn)
A few good points were brought up. How would the modularirty change the monsters. As well as how to keep player power levels relatively even. Everyone just delayed for the Wizard to sleep everyone then just mopped up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:58AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2012
|
The current iteration of the rules does not support grid based fight in my opinion. Next time try focusing more on the ToTM, many of the problems you listed are not present there (especially the part with 40 monsters of the same tipe).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:07AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
Theif - Hated it. He said he might as well just played as the fighter since he didn't do any more damage and had to hide on his turn to gain advantage. He didn't like being a skill monkey.
I definitely agree. I just posted my game report, and I made this exact point. The rogue is strictly worse than the fighter in combat, because he has to spend an action every other round just to be ALMOST as good as the fighter is all the time.
The monsters stat block should have just been copied into the adventure text since all init and save throws are needed. Had to keep checking between the two.
Also agreed. I keep the bestiary open on my computer while running the game so I can check ability scores.
The enemies were quite samey after a while (40+ 2 hp kolbods /yawn)
I have noticed this as well. Each type of monster seems to have one special ability (goblins gain advantage while they outnumber their enemy, gnolls gain extra damage when attacking someone who has two enemies by them, etc), but not all types of monster have this ability, and I don't know that it's really enough to distinguish them from each other. The monsters are becoming generic bags of AC and hit points.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 1:44PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
The rogue is not worse than the fighter because when he does attack he gains advantage (at least for his sneak attack) and he gains the extra 1d6 of damage. As he levels, he'll be gaining 1d6 extra sneak attack damage per level. By 3rd level he'll deal +3d6 sneak attack damage, and presumably by 8th level he'll do +8d6 (They will probably have to slow down the progression or cap it at some point).
Very soon, I'm sure that there will be rules that give attacking from behind (flanking) an advantage. When this is the case, the rogue will have more attacks from advantage, thus he'll be gaining his sneak attack damage on more attacks. We played using this house rule - any attack from behind gains advantage. The rogue was the star of our games! Our rogue player loved his mix of abilities.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:13PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
Very soon, I'm sure that there will be rules that give attacking from behind (flanking) an advantage. When this is the case, the rogue will have more attacks from advantage, thus he'll be gaining his sneak attack damage on more attacks. We played using this house rule - any attack from behind gains advantage. The rogue was the star of our games! Our rogue player loved his mix of abilities.
I'm sure your rogue did love it when you made him much more powerful than the rules state he is. Who wouldn't? The present posters are playing the game as is, however, and noting that they are lacking.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:21PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
The rogue is not worse than the fighter because when he does attack he gains advantage (at least for his sneak attack) and he gains the extra 1d6 of damage.
Assuming both the rogue and the fighter have advantage at 1st level...
The fighter is attacking with a +6 to attack and 2d6+7 damage on a hit, with 3 damage on a miss.
The rogue is attacking with a +5 to attack, and deals 2d6+3 damage with the dagger, OR 1d8+1d6+3 damage with the sling. As you can see, even considering ideal circumstances, the rogue's numbers don't even reach the fighter's.
Mathematically, the rogue is strictly worse at killing things than the fighter, because the rogue must only attack every OTHER round in order to get this close to the fighter.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:36PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
Yeah the problem is some people have given the rogue advantage on flanking, which with the ease of movement is practically every round. Other DMs have just really allowed it when hidden, and pretty easy to hide every other round. And others have made it very tricky for the rogue to hide, so they might get it once a combat.
That leads to a vastly different power level and experience and yet all are probably valid ways to play under the current rules. The rogue more than any other character needs to go back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 3:41PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
Yeah the problem is some people have given the rogue advantage on flanking, which with the ease of movement is practically every round. Other DMs have just really allowed it when hidden, and pretty easy to hide every other round. And others have made it very tricky for the rogue to hide, so they might get it once a combat.
That leads to a vastly different power level and experience and yet all are probably valid ways to play under the current rules. The rogue more than any other character needs to go back to the drawing board.
But if that's the case, then isn't it just working as intended? Aren't the DMs just 'improvise'-ing?
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with it, mind you. What I am saying is that this may be the way it is intended to work in the 'Theater of the Mind' approach to system rules. I am worried that this is the way the designers actually want it to work!
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 3:43PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
Good points all around.
This also my be a problem with the rules for Advantage / Improvising. As DM, I feel that the core rules as written give me the ability to grant Advantage more liberally. To me, attacking from behind would always grant advantage for anyone. That needs to be clarified.
There is also a trade off for rogue. He can't be as good as a fighter because he has other abilities that a fighter doesn't have. If he is as good as a fighter then the fighter players will complain.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 4:25PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
I am worried that this is the way the designers actually want it to work!
Could well be, I remember I use to enjoy playing a gnome fighter/thief in 2nd, and even with the same DM the chance of getting a sneak attack varied significantly from session to session. It just wasn't a predictable ability. This mirrors that edition pretty well.
|
|
|
