Support NeoGAF

[iirate]

Speaking of Paladins can they still lose powers by morally impossible situations in 5e?

Paladins have been reinvented more than any other archetype in 5th. First, if they are put in a morally impossible situation or simply screw up a little, there's no power loss. Instead, the paladin will usually do something in line with their own tenants to atone(a night in contemplation, fasting, etc.). Their oaths are more what they aspire to now than what they are.

This also means that alignment has gone out the window. All Paladins stand against evil, but there's now room for evil paladins that haven't fallen. There are three oaths outlined in the PHB(Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Vengeance), which are supposed to roughly align with LG, NG, and CG, respectively. Taking one of these oaths means that your character has some good aspects, and being a paladin means that they are devoted to stand against evil of some kind, but neither of these things force you into a good, or even non-evil alignment. Of course, the path of a paladin is overwhelmingly more attractive to good, but they've intentionally left a lot open to the player now.

All of that being said, forsaking your oath entirely will lead to the loss of your Paladinhood. It looks like fallen Paladins(called Oathbreakers now) are going to be outlined in the DMG.

 

[CornBurrito]

Paladins have been reinvented more than any other archetype in 5th. First, if they are put in a morally impossible situation or simply screw up a little, there's no power loss. Instead, the paladin will usually do something in line with their own tenants to atone(a night in contemplation, fasting, etc.). Their oaths are more what they aspire to now than what they are.

This also means that alignment has gone out the window. All Paladins stand against evil, but there's now room for evil paladins that haven't fallen. There are three oaths outlined in the PHB(Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Vengeance), which are supposed to roughly align with LG, NG, and CG, respectively. Taking one of these oaths means that your character has some good aspects, and being a paladin means that they are devoted to stand against evil of some kind, but neither of these things force you into a good, or even non-evil alignment. Of course, the path of a paladin is overwhelmingly more attractive to good, but they've intentionally left a lot open to the player now.

All of that being said, forsaking your oath entirely will lead to the loss of your Paladinhood. It looks like fallen Paladins(called Oathbreakers now) are going to be outlined in the DMG.

Do bards still need to be chaotic? Have they been reworked to be less "master of none" which forced them to specialize in 3e? I want to play a bard that manufactures propaganda for a LE government and my fucking DMs refused because they said bards had to be chaotic. Alignment restrictions were so harmful to player creativity because of terrible GMs.

Also is there anything balancing out the fact that almost all terrible GMs love "critical failure on skill and attack rolls" house rules which widens the gap between casters and mundane classes? Never got why GMs felt it appropriate to have a character lose HP or several turns recovering their weapon because of a rolled 1 in combat. Or my last GM who almost killed a character because she rolled a 1 on a fishing skill check.

 

[iirate]

Do bards still need to be chaotic? Have they been reworked to be less "master of none" which forced them to specialize in 3e? I want to play a bard that manufactures propaganda for a LE government and my fucking DMs refused because they said bards had to be chaotic. Alignment restrictions were so harmful to player creativity because of terrible GMs.

There are no more alignment restrictions in 5e. Also, I'm happy to say that bards look amazing. Less focus on being explicitly musical(which you may love or hate - I love it), full nine levels of casting, the new Bardic Inspiration is great and adds a lot of leader flavor that no one else really has(maybe Cleric/Paladin a little bit, and one path of Fighter touches on Warlord a bit). they can either focus on their skills and casting or combat aptitude. They're still a master of none(except maybe buffing and creature control, not sure if anyone else can do those things better now), but they get to be very good at multiple things. IMO, the new bard is one of the best things about 5e.

Also, Bard/Paladin is now a possible thing, which makes me all kinds of giddy.

Also is there anything balancing out the fact that almost all terrible GMs love "critical failure on skill and attack rolls" house rules which widens the gap between casters and mundane classes? Never got why GMs felt it appropriate to have a character lose HP or several turns recovering their weapon because of a rolled 1 in combat. Or my last GM who almost killed a character because she rolled a 1 on a fishing skill check.

I haven't seen anything to this effect, but I'm assuming that such a section would be in the DMG, were it to exist. Also, it looks like more spells roll to-hit than ever, and they don't get to ignore armor anymore. Casters can't get their spellcasting modifiers(to hit or resist) up to obscene levels anymore, either, so that armor or strong Dex/Con/Will save is a major obstacle for them.

 

[EndcatOmega]

Bards also get to pillage everyone else's spell list with their Magical Learning trait, something that only Warlocks are otherwise able to do reasonably.

 

[Nairume]

Do bards still need to be chaotic? Have they been reworked to be less "master of none" which forced them to specialize in 3e? I want to play a bard that manufactures propaganda for a LE government and my fucking DMs refused because they said bards had to be chaotic. Alignment restrictions were so harmful to player creativity because of terrible GMs.

None of the classes have alignment restrictions now.

They finally realized that it was stupid to take a class based around traditionalist tribal communities and saying "EVERYBODY IS CHAOTIC" because their fighting style is based around getting mad.

Also is there anything balancing out the fact that almost all terrible GMs love "critical failure on skill and attack rolls" house rules which widens the gap between casters and mundane classes? Never got why GMs felt it appropriate to have a character lose HP or several turns recovering their weapon because of a rolled 1 in combat. Or my last GM who almost killed a character because she rolled a 1 on a fishing skill check.

They really can't do anything to stop bad GMs introducing house rules, but they do clearly have critical failure rules in place for certain situations, none of which includes what you are worried about.

Rolling a 1 when making a death save (which you only do if you are already unconscious) is bad, but won't instakill you unless you were already close to death.

Rolling a 1 when casting spells as a Wild Magic Sorceror will cause you to roll on a random magic surge table.

 

[CornBurrito]

There are no more alignment restrictions in 5e. Also, I'm happy to say that bards look amazing. Less focus on being explicitly musical(which you may love or hate - I love it), full nine levels of casting, the new Bardic Inspiration is great and adds a lot of leader flavor that no one else really has(maybe Cleric/Paladin a little bit, and one path of Fighter touches on Warlord a bit). they can either focus on their skills and casting or combat aptitude. They're still a master of none(except maybe buffing and creature control, not sure if anyone else can do those things better now), but they get to be very good at multiple things. IMO, the new bard is one of the best things about 5e.

Also, Bard/Paladin is now a possible thing, which makes me all kinds of giddy.



I haven't seen anything to this effect, but I'm assuming that such a section would be in the DMG, were it to exist. Also, it looks like more spells roll to-hit than ever, and they don't get to ignore armor anymore. Casters can't get their spellcasting modifiers(to hit or resist) up to obscene levels anymore, either, so that armor or strong Dex/Con/Will save is a major obstacle for them.

Sounds good. Worst thing ever was my GM finding some post hoc justification for every alignment restriction no matter what sort of justification I could provide for chaotic good Druids, or lawful bards. As if the alignment restrictions were critical for fame balance and the divine word of god....

I probably wouldn't have hated DnD as much if the players at my school weren't such complete fuckwits.

 

[ThLunarian]

Alignment restrictions are, and have always been, terrible. As far as I'm concerned you can be a lawful good Dread Necromancer in my games if you can justify it.

The only change I'm not happy with is having to choose between a feat and an ability score boost. Otherwise this edition is miles better than 4E. I'll have to play it to determine how it compares to 3.5 and pathfinder though.

 

[CornBurrito]

Alignment restrictions are, and have always been, terrible. As far as I'm concerned you can be a lawful good Dread Necromancer in my games if you can justify it.

Agreed. Sadly the people at my school that run the games simply won't allow any deviation from alignment no matter the justification provided. Same group of people that think 3.5e monks are Mage killers, and love critical failure on attack rolls and skill checks. And same group that allowed wizards to have every spell in their spell book automatically.

 

[EndcatOmega]

The only change I'm not happy with is having to choose between a feat and an ability score boost. Otherwise this edition is miles better than 4E. I'll have to play it to determine how it compares to 3.5 and pathfinder though.

Most feats give an ability score on top of whatever the feat does- Resilient gives you +1 to a stat plus gives you a proficiency in the saving throw associated with that stat, for example. Considering stats cap at 20, it's not too bad.

Same group of people that think 3.5e monks are Mage killers,

I don't really understand why so many people seem to think Monks in 3.5 are OP. Like, is it the fact they get so many (mostly non-synergistic) special abilities?

 

[Nairume]

I don't really understand why so many people seem to think Monks in 3.5 are OP. Like, is it the fact they get so many (mostly non-synergistic) special abilities?

I think it might just be another case where people look at the monk's abilities out of the context of the rest of the core rules and not seeing where there's stuff that either balances it out or outright weakens it.

 

[KittenMaster]

I think the idea comes from their having all three saving throws, evasion, huge movement to reach mage comfort zones, stunning fist targets a bad save, good at grappling...

Doesnt mean all of that they are actually good at their job though.

 

[CornBurrito]

Another semester of school, another semester of GMs with awful house rules and people who are only willing to try/play DnD 3.5e. "Everyone loved tripping in smash brothers. Let's give critical failures on skill checks!"

 

[Mistouze]

Another semester of school, another semester of GMs with awful house rules and people who are only willing to try/play DnD 3.5e. "Everyone loved tripping in smash brothers. Let's give critical failures on skill checks!"

You should start your own group with the cool kids. Play Numenera, Dungeon World or some other cool stuff.

DnD can quickly become a video game only you're doing the RNG with your dice and calculating shit left and right. And that's no fun.

 

[CornBurrito]

You should start your own group with the cool kids. Play Numenera, Dungeon World or some other cool stuff.

DnD can quickly become a video game only you're doing the RNG with your dice and calculating shit left and right. And that's no fun.

Except literally nobody in the club specifically organized for tabletop games is interested in anything not labeled "DnD Xedition." I am the only one.

 

[Keasar]

Chairs, chains, pre-generated characters.

That will convince them.

 

[CornBurrito]

Chairs, chains, pre-generated characters.

That will convince them.

lol, I essentially tried that last semester. Nobody wants to hear of it. And for some the draw is creating characters, but they specifically want to make "DND characters" because DND is the only system they've ever heard of.

 

[Armoured Priest]

lol, I essentially tried that last semester. Nobody wants to hear of it. And for some the draw is creating characters, but they specifically want to make "DND characters" because DND is the only system they've ever heard of.

I feel you, dude.

I love D&D/d20 derivatives (right now Pathfinder...though 5th does look pretty good) best, but I also like seeing other systems. Every Gen Con (when I used to have time to go) I would purposefully seek out a new system, and buy as many of the books/supplements as I could get away with on whatever passed for my budget at the time. The trick was getting my group to also try out these with me. Of course I had to GM (not that I mind, but it would have been nice to get to be a player for some of these). Once in a while I could get them to try it out (Shatterzone, and the R Talsorian Fusion game that was based in the Bubblegum Crisis world). We also had a long running MechWarrior campaign that another guy would run.

Mostly, though it was D&D or nothing. I would have liked to try out Story Engine, Everway, and the original version of the Soverign Stone system before its conversion over to being a d20 system.

 

[Woorloog]

How many here who play DnD play it more as an role playing game, not a rule playing game (or vice versa)?
I mean, it often looks like people are more interesting in its combat, challenges, loot, building characters stat-sheets, and whatever else, not in deep roleplaying. (A bit like Diablo or other hack'n'slash games, no one plays it for its story, only for the gameplay, if you allow this slightly flawed analogue.)

We did try DnD but it didn't ultimately suit us as we're more of roleplayers.
Ironically our current system is just about as complicated as DnD has various rules (if including feats and spells, etc.), as it lacks standardization. Gets in the way of fun, IMO, along with our GM's inability to describe things, let alone action (nothing is worse than dry combat in a roleplaying game, i try to spice up my actions but...).

 

[CornBurrito]

How many here who play DnD play it more as an role playing game, not a rule playing game (or vice versa)?
I mean, it often looks like people are more interesting in its combat, challenges, loot, building characters stat-sheets, and whatever else, not in deep roleplaying. (A bit like Diablo or other hack'n'slash games, no one plays it for its story, only for the gameplay, if you allow this slightly flawed analogue.)

We did try DnD but it didn't ultimately suit us as we're more of roleplayers.
Ironically our current system is just about as complicated as DnD has various rules (if including feats and spells, etc.), as it lacks standardization. Gets in the way of fun, IMO, along with our GM's inability to describe things, let alone action (nothing is worse than dry combat in a roleplaying game, i try to spice up my actions but...).

I typically play DND as a rule playing game. I like it for that. But I felt a lot of stuff in 3.5e was restricting, because my DMs enforced alignment rules and also imposed critical failures on skill roles while also calling for skill rolls if we wanted to roleplay doing something our character would be good at.

For roleplaying I like Fate based systems like The Dresden Files RPG and Fate Core. Though apparently DND 5e borrowed a lot of the stuff that made roleplaying fun in Fate.

 

[Mike M]

I'm way more into it for the roleplay aspect of it than the game mechanics of it, personally.

Pre-generated characters seems really odd, to me. I guess I was always cognizant of the fact that it was "a thing" (i.e. I knew that Dragonlance started off as Hickman and Weiss's gaming campaign and they came up with the characters ahead of time and assigned them or something), but... Idunno. I guess I could do it if push came to shove, but I've always had way more fun coming up with my own characters.

 

[krypt0nian]

I honestly feel that roleplay is equally possible regardless of ruleset. We play deep long developed emotional character centered campaigns with Pathfinder. As well as make characters with little regard for optimization, and rather wholly character focused.
We are clear up front with new platers that min/maxing is not only discouraged but ridiculed openly as we are not the group for that. As such, we've found just the best, most creative players, and I feel lucky to toss dice with them.

As for pregens, I can definitely make them work as soon as I find the hook into the character and his/her personality - it's a challenge really.

 

[Mistouze]

Except literally nobody in the club specifically organized for tabletop games is interested in anything not labeled "DnD Xedition." I am the only one.

Your last chance is people outside of your club I guess. Good luck!

 

[ThLunarian]

We are clear up front with new platers that min/maxing is not only discouraged but ridiculed openly as we are not the group for that.

See I don't like this. Min/maxing and heavy roleplay are not mutually exclusive. Some people like playing a dominating badass. It can even create roleplaying tension if the group of characters feels intimidated by this dude who comes in just wrecking shit.

If the DM feels like it would compromise the integrity of the story he wants to tell then that's one thing, but openly ridiculing someone because of how they want to build their character is bad form IMO

 

[CornBurrito]

See I don't like this. Min/maxing and heavy roleplay are not mutually exclusive. Some people like playing a dominating badass. It can even create roleplaying tension if the group of characters feels intimidated by this dude who comes in just wrecking shit.

If the DM feels like it would compromise the integrity of the story he wants to tell then that's one thing, but openly ridiculing someone because of how they want to build their character is bad form IMO

Especially when you need to either min max (to some degree) or have a GM willing to fudge encounters in order to feel competent in DnD. You wont be contributing much of anything as an Orc wizard with 12 in Intelligence.

 

[embalm]

How many here who play DnD play it more as an role playing game, not a rule playing game (or vice versa)?
I mean, it often looks like people are more interesting in its combat, challenges, loot, building characters stat-sheets, and whatever else, not in deep roleplaying. (A bit like Diablo or other hack'n'slash games, no one plays it for its story, only for the gameplay, if you allow this slightly flawed analogue.)

We did try DnD but it didn't ultimately suit us as we're more of roleplayers.
Ironically our current system is just about as complicated as DnD has various rules (if including feats and spells, etc.), as it lacks standardization. Gets in the way of fun, IMO, along with our GM's inability to describe things, let alone action (nothing is worse than dry combat in a roleplaying game, i try to spice up my actions but...).

I've been running a D&D 5e group for a few weeks now and we love the new rules for our style of play. We are pretty big role players, but got some new people that really enjoy some of the tactical combat, and I enjoy the mix up. We probably do about 2/1 roleplay/battle ratio, but battles are pretty fast paced which is great.

Here's some examples from our last session encounter by encounter:

1. They roleplayed out the return from the last mission, turned in quests, met the new party member(a priest of storms), and decided on next quest. One party member holds a cursed dagger that keeps trying to convince him to kill the rich party member and horde treasure, they decide to seek out a way to remove the curse, which involves tracking down a Dragon.
2. Ogres in the Night: We setup miniatures for this battle. Two beefy ogres for a level 4 party could be fun and deadly. The group takes some hits, but win the day... err night... investigation of the ogres show symbols of Baphomet carved into them.(Hints for future dungeons)
3. Unlucky Goblins: The same night goblins wander too close to camp, the Ranger is on watch, Goblins are his favored enemy, woods his favored terrain, he snipes them down and chases them away. No minis, a few rolls and all roleplay.
4. Wild River: The party has to cross a raging river, the woods are being warped around the presence of the Dragon, so they decide to travel several extra days and avoid the raging part of the river. All roleplay.
5. Spider's Web: The alternate route placed them in spider infested portion of the woods. They have high enough perception to spot all the web traps and avoid or burn what they need too. They draw the few spiders out and we roleplay them sniping them out of trees as they trigger the webs with sticks. They run into a bloated dead spider and light it on fire. This unleashes several spider swarms. We bust out miniatures since describing where the webs are is hard.
6. A dying Treant wonders through the forest, away from the corruption, they escort him and heal him until he decides to root down. They leave him and venture on to the dragon. All roleplay.
7. Near the dragon's lair they find lumberjacks carving wooden idols as tribute to the beast. All roleplay as they talk and skill checks. This odd behavior makes the Ranger suspicious, he attacks the lumberjacks.
8. Big nasty battle... Miniatures for battle between lumberjacks, dragon, and party.

Overall we roleplay a lot.

I love table top war games, so if I have a combat I try to have some kind of tactical twist to it.
If I run a battle heavy session I make sure to combine some battles to lose less time to initiative rolling and setup.
We use a lot of skill checks, I think players like to show off the things their characters are good at and it makes those choices seem more important if they get to use them.

 

[embalm]

See I don't like this. Min/maxing and heavy roleplay are not mutually exclusive. Some people like playing a dominating badass. It can even create roleplaying tension if the group of characters feels intimidated by this dude who comes in just wrecking shit.

If the DM feels like it would compromise the integrity of the story he wants to tell then that's one thing, but openly ridiculing someone because of how they want to build their character is bad form IMO

I agree with this. My group has two MinMaxers and two new people who just kind of turned a simple idea into a character.
I also want to say that a lot of DMs struggle with balancing fun between players when some are MinMaxers and others are not. So I understand the concern.

Let the players who embrace the story get their own subplot that leads to an item specifically for that character. It does two things encourages more character roleplay and starves the minmaxer of items for the moment balancing out the party.

*As a DM I encourage min/maxing. I enjoy tossing the harder encounter at the party, and will aid all players in getting the biggest bang for their buck. Nothing is ever forced though.

 

[CornBurrito]

How is Pathfinder's balance compared to core DND 3.5?

 

[iirate]

How is Pathfinder's balance compared to core DND 3.5?

Not meaningfully different. There's some classes that got buffed and some that got nerfed, but the general pecking order is the same.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

Not meaningfully different. There's some classes that got buffed and some that got nerfed, but the general pecking order is the same.

Mostly true, but keep in mind almost every single class got a lot of new stuff(even just from the core rule book). Sure, rogues are still mediocre compared to others, but they get a bunch of new stuff compared to 3.5 rogue(and thats just in the core rule book).

 

[CornBurrito]

Not meaningfully different. There's some classes that got buffed and some that got nerfed, but the general pecking order is the same.

Sucks to hear that. Oh well. I will still play a Paladin and just hope my GM bothers to make me relevant.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

Sucks to hear that. Oh well. I will still play a Paladin and just hope my GM bothers to make me relevant.

No idea what paladin was 'ranked' in 3.5, but in PF you shouldn't have a problem as long as your gm isn't making all your enemies neutral, thanks in part to smite getting a huge buff. It now last till the target is dead or you rest, which even comes first, instead of for 1 attack. And you can also skip the mount the ability to add magical bonuses to your weapon for a few minutes per day, for those times you aren't fighting evil.

 

[CornBurrito]

No idea what paladin was 'ranked' in 3.5, but in PF you shouldn't have a problem as long as your gm isn't making all your enemies neutral, thanks in part to smite getting a huge buff. It now last till the target is dead or you rest, which even comes first, instead of for 1 attack. And you can also skip the mount the ability to add magical bonuses to your weapon for a few minutes per day, for those times you aren't fighting evil.

Paladins were ranked pretty low in 3.5. Mostly because all the melee classes (except the guys in Tome of Battle) were ranked low and couldn't compete with full or half casters even at low levels. This DM seems to think Pathfinder made the game more balanced in terms of having mundane characters stronger for longer and still having them somewhat relevant at later levels.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

The divide is much smaller now, for sure, but the mythical perfect wizard player will still come out ahead, theoretically. In my experience though, no one actually plays a full caster that well and generally if the people you are playing with are decent people they will at least choose not to ruin everyone's fun. That said, I still wouldn't suggest being caught without a full arcane caster(despite 4 of the 5 party members having some kind of magic... those this may also have to do with some of use having ridiculous builds(by which I mean the INT focused bard)), we lack one in our current campaign and it is very much a noticeable loss.

 

[CornBurrito]

Good to know. I actually just got a message from the GM and he says he is more likely to run GURPS than Pathfinder. Uh I have no experience with GURPS. How complicated is it and what is a good online resource for it?

 

[Mike M]

Good to know. I actually just got a message from the GM and he says he is more likely to run GURPS than Pathfinder. Uh I have no experience with GURPS. How complicated is it and what is a good online resource for it?

I have some minimal experience with GURPS. In general, it seems less complex than DnD, at least when it comes to gameplay where you're rolling dice to resolve actions. GURPS lite can be downloaded for free.

 

[ThLunarian]

I've dabbled in GURPS some. Creating a character is INCREDIBLY daunting. It's a point-build system rather than a character class system, which means you have to pick and choose every single trait, ability, etc that you have. There are templates you could use, but the temptation is always there to tweak them into oblivion (at least for me). Also the magic system in that game is kind of a mess.

It's also based on a 3d6 system rather than a d20 system, which means all rolls skew toward the middle rather than being completely random. This, I think, is a benefit. Also, the only dice you need for the game at all are d6's, which reduces complexity a little bit.

I've found that GURPS works much better as a system if the DM makes premade characters and you're only doing one-off sessions rather than a full-blown campaign. Your mileage may vary.

 

[krypt0nian]

Compiled 5E "Sage Advice" from Mearls and Crawford!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...e-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VA0e2mNvCnJ

General Questions

Is it true stats including racial bonuses cannot be above 18 at lvl1? max is 20. -M.
Any chance you will give pointers for 4e classes out of 5e? EK is not qutie Swordmage. we're planning for conversion guides later this year -M.
Can a Barb2/Lock3 retrain an invocation into Pact Blade? (ie: is 5th level 5th level? or 5th warlock level? also, retrain rules) up to the DM - depends on group expectations. -M
The pixie was size Tiny in 4e. Do you see Tiny being a possibility in 5e, or would they become Small for a PC race? I think it's still Tiny, but the way we treat size in 5th makes it a pretty small issue for most classes. -M
The halfling lucky doesn't specify only the number on the die. So it only works on a roll of 1 after modifiers? should specify natural 1. -M
what would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action? yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action. -M
How does the term 'per turn' work? Could a PC who can make an attack 'per turn' make an attack on everyone elses turn? yes, though you'd still need to use your action or reaction. -M
hiding: attacking w/ ranged it says you give away your location, does this cancel hiding? Doesn't say you are "seen" or "heard". Yes, others are aware of you. -M
Can a low-init character ready an action, then take that action if legit triggered by a high-init character in the next round? yes. -M
Is choosing a subrace required or optional?. Not 100% clear. it's required - you're a step behind without one. -M
Was the "Dueling" fighting style intended to support a shield? "Dueling" doesn't scream "shield" at me. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, spellcasting focus, or free hand. -J
Mask of the Wild differs from Skulker. Restricts to natural light obscurity. Trouble adjudicating. Can you advise? Mask of the Wild lets a wood elf try to hide when lightly obscured by anything in nature: the dim light of dusk, fog, etc. -J
Can an Action be a Bonus Action? i.e Can a Bard use a BA to grant Bardic Inspiration and an action to cast Healing Word? Actions and bonus actions aren't interchangeable, so that bard could use Bardic Inspiration or healing word, not both on a turn. -J


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...rs-Mearls-Crawford#.VA0e2mNvCnJ#ixzz3CgrdMz3u

 

[ElectricThunder]

13th Age in Glorantha is off to a rocketing start and looks primed to be the next project to bang out some serious numbers for their bit of art and detail laden goodness:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/416625372/13th-age-in-glorantha

 

[ElectricThunder]

The amazing powers of Sweden yet again escape into the wider worlds---this time in English for Mutant: Year Zero 30th Anniversary Edition $55-80 pre-order seems loaded up pretty proper:

http://www.modiphius.com/mutant.html

Coming this winter, Mutant: Year Zero is a post-apocalyptic role-playing game, published by Modiphius Entertainment and developed by the Swedish games studio Free League Publishing, under license from Paradox Entertainment.
Picture
Of course the world ends. It was always just a question of time. When it’s all over, Earth is still. Nature invades the ruined cities. Winds sweep through empty streets, turned into graveyards.

Yet life remains. In the Ark, a small settlement on the edge of a dead town, the People live. You are the spawn of humanity, but not human anymore. You are twisted funhouse images, mutated freaks. Your bodies and minds have incredible powers, but you are unstable. Fragile. None of the People are over 30 years old.

Except the Elder. Your leader, but not like you. One of the Old People. He has always warned you: Stay on your guard, stay in the Ark, or the Rot will get you. Or worse. So far, you have obeyed him. Chased off every stranger who came close to the Ark. Few dared to go out into the Zone. That is what the Elder calls the outside world.

But the safe days are over. Food is running scarce, and the fight for what’s left is turning violent. You hunger. Factions are forming, bosses on top and slaves on the bottom. In the middle, fixers who try to turn a profit from anyone and everyone. And the Elder is dying. You’re on your own now.

It’s time to venture out. To explore the Zone, to search for artefacts, for knowledge. To build, grow the land, seek out others, create a new civilization on the ruins of the old. Seek your origin. Maybe, one day, you will find Eden of the legends, the Old People’s haven in the middle of hell. That’s where salvation and truth await, the stories say.

Maybe it’s all bullshit. It doesn’t matter. You have no choice. This is the beginning.

This is Year Zero.

Mutant: Year Zero goes back to the origins of the Mutant franchise: role-playing after the Apocalypse. In this game, you play as one of The People - heavily mutated humans living in The Ark, a small and isolated settlement in a sea of chaos. The outside world is unknown to you, and so is your origin.

The 256 page full colour hardcover core book contains everything you need for hundreds of hours of play:

-A fast and effective character generation system, using archetypal roles such as the Crusher, the Gearhead, the Fixer, the Dog Handler and the Chronicler.
-Unstoppable but highly unpredictable mutant powers, such as Flame Breather, Insect Wings, Human Magnet, and Pathokinesis.
-A skill and conflict system that makes you push yourself to the limit, and beyond. The rules system highlights two main themes: mutation and resource management. Every bullet counts!
-Rules for developing the Ark (“base building”) and exploring the Zone (“gridcrawling”).
-A rich story generation system, helping the GM instantly create threats to the Ark as well as locations and events in the Zone.
-An illustrated bestiary of humanoids, mutated monsters and Zone phenomena.
-An extensive collection of artifacts for the characters to find in the Zone.
-Five complete and ready-to-use “Special Zone Sectors”. These are scenario locations with NPC’s, backstory and suggested events. These Special Zone Sectors, which each come with an illustrative map, can be placed anywhere in the Zone by the GM.
-A campaign outline, called “The Path to Eden”, including backstory, NPC’s, player handouts, and a campaign finale described in detail.

 

[Keasar]

So glad to see more these games come out of my country for the rest of the world to see. Sadly the classic Mutant: Undergångens Arvtagare (The heirs of the apocalypse) will never be seen as an English edition, cause those books had atmosphere so it dripped off their pages. Haven't had a chance to read Year Zero yet though, but have heard good things about it.

 

[CornBurrito]

Your last chance is people outside of your club I guess. Good luck!

A miracle occurred. I have three or four dedicated players for a Fate Core campaign. I probably made the skill list too narrow (15 skills instead of the default 18) but the players and I are excited about the setting.

Setting is a world where humans gained magic and it caused widespread destruction and chaos. So now in the future magic is heavily regulated by the government, and if you are caught using magic in unauthorized ways they will capture you and make you unable to use it forever. And there are dragons because one of the players demanded there be dragons. So I will probably have them be either creatures born of magic or creatures that that brought the magic.

 

[Bogus]

Glad I found this thread! My friends and I recently started a Pathfinder campaign this summer. We only meet about once a month (usually on a Sunday) for a 6-8 hour session. Many beers are typically involved, and we have a ton of fun. I prefer the relaxed atmosphere and the decent-sized breaks between sessions, because it allows me more time to get a handle on how to build my character, both in terms of stats and in terms of story. Plus it's tough to find open slots in everyone's schedules.

Thankfully our GM is super knowledgeable about the game, as well as flexible in regards to house rules and such. We're all there to have fun, after all. It's why I would rarely if ever consider playing with people I don't know, given the number of horror stories I've read about terrible GMs.

To add to one of the conversations on this page: I do like the concept of "fumbling" or "critical failure" on attack checks. In our group, if a natural 1 is rolled (automatic miss), we roll again to confirm a fumble -- just like a confirmation roll on a critical strike. If the confirmation roll (plus any modifiers) is also a "miss", then our GM gets creative and records a fumble of some kind. Usually they're narrated as unpredictable acts of nature beyond the character's control. So fumbles become rare oh-shit moments that allow for tense situations without making players feel like their heroes are complete buffoons.

Fumbled skill checks are trickier, and we only apply the rule there on a case-by-case basis. It wouldn't make much sense to fumble a Knowledge-Local skill check, for example (you're convinced that you remember completely incorrect info? the mental stress gives you an aneurysm?), but I could definitely imagine what a fumbled Climb check might involve (you not only slip from the rope, but you sprain your ankle when you hit the ground and get a penalty to your speed for a couple of days).

All in all I understand why a lot of folks aren't fans of fumbling -- I mean, who wants to fail? -- but I like having the risk, so long as it's rare.

 

[CornBurrito]

Glad I found this thread! My friends and I recently started a Pathfinder campaign this summer. We only meet about once a month (usually on a Sunday) for a 6-8 hour session. Many beers are typically involved, and we have a ton of fun. I prefer the relaxed atmosphere and the decent-sized breaks between sessions, because it allows me more time to get a handle on how to build my character, both in terms of stats and in terms of story. Plus it's tough to find open slots in everyone's schedules.

Thankfully our GM is super knowledgeable about the game, as well as flexible in regards to house rules and such. We're all there to have fun, after all. It's why I would rarely if ever consider playing with people I don't know, given the number of horror stories I've read about terrible GMs.

To add to one of the conversations on this page: I do like the concept of "fumbling" or "critical failure" on attack checks. In our group, if a natural 1 is rolled (automatic miss), we roll again to confirm a fumble -- just like a confirmation roll on a critical strike. If the confirmation roll (plus any modifiers) is also a "miss", then our GM gets creative and records a fumble of some kind. Usually they're narrated as unpredictable acts of nature beyond the character's control. So fumbles become rare oh-shit moments that allow for tense situations without making players feel like their heroes are complete buffoons.

Fumbled skill checks are trickier, and we only apply the rule there on a case-by-case basis. It wouldn't make much sense to fumble a Knowledge-Local skill check, for example (you're convinced that you remember completely incorrect info? the mental stress gives you an aneurysm?), but I could definitely imagine what a fumbled Climb check might involve (you not only slip from the rope, but you sprain your ankle when you hit the ground and get a penalty to your speed for a couple of days).

All in all I understand why a lot of folks aren't fans of fumbling -- I mean, who wants to fail? -- but I like having the risk, so long as it's rare.

The bigger issue for me is that critical fumbles then only impact mundane characters. Why do people want to reward magic users even more than they already are? Personally I either avoid games that make the poor balance even worse, or just play only magic users at those tables. Don't see why I should be punished so that the GM can artificially create a "tense" moment which should come anyway from challenging combat even without dumb house rules.

This also has the effect of making melee classes weaker as they level up because more attacks per turn equals more chances for fumbles.

 

[ElectricThunder]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasgames/feng-shui-2-action-movie-roleplaying-game-by-robin Well, this new edition of Feng Shui is is no danger of doing poorly on KS it would seem---always nice to see crazy things loaded up with personality succeed.

Not unlike this either really:

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...t-of-77-a-funky-1970s-tabletop-role-playing-g

 

[Bogus]

The bigger issue for me is that critical fumbles then only impact mundane characters. Why do people want to reward magic users even more than they already are? Personally I either avoid games that make the poor balance even worse, or just play only magic users at those tables. Don't see why I should be punished so that the GM can artificially create a "tense" moment which should come anyway from challenging combat even without dumb house rules.

This also has the effect of making melee classes weaker as they level up because more attacks per turn equals more chances for fumbles.

That's a good point. I haven't played a magic user before so I'm a little hazy on how they work and how well they're balanced compared to mundane classes. From what I understand, don't casters have to make concentration checks when they cast spells? A fumble could come into play there, but maybe they don't have to make concentration checks as often as mundane characters make attack checks (especially at higher levels). I wonder if a magic user could logically "fumble" when an opponent beats their spell check by a certain threshold (whereupon the magic user would need to roll to confirm the fumble, similar to a mundane character).

That being said, given the rarity of fumbles with our rules (I was wrong, the confirmation roll has to also be a 1 to confirm a true fumble, so they're even less common -- a quarter of a percent chance on any given attack), they don't bother me much. I'd assume a mage would have fewer mishaps over time when casting spells compared to a fighter in the thick of combat, except when under duress or direct threat. They're not on the front lines, after all.

If the rest of the game balance doesn't make up for it, then I agree, melee fumbles should be thrown out to compensate. I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder's balance to know for sure. If it ends up becoming a huge problem, it'd be worth addressing with our GM.

 

[KittenMaster]

From what I understand, don't casters have to make concentration checks when they cast spells

Spellcasters only need to roll "fail chance" if they are attacked or an enemy has spell resistance, or if it's part of the spell itself.

 

[Bogus]

Spellcasters only need to roll "fail chance" if they are attacked or an enemy has spell resistance, or if it's part of the spell itself.

Gotcha. Makes sense! I found this table on Paizo's website, which seems to go into a little more detail as to when a caster would need to roll a d20 on a spell check:

Since natural elements like weather and motion already play a role, I could see this being expanded to apply to other non-threatening situations -- in order to balance out melee fumble chances.

 

[CornBurrito]

That's a good point. I haven't played a magic user before so I'm a little hazy on how they work and how well they're balanced compared to mundane classes. From what I understand, don't casters have to make concentration checks when they cast spells? A fumble could come into play there, but maybe they don't have to make concentration checks as often as mundane characters make attack checks (especially at higher levels). I wonder if a magic user could logically "fumble" when an opponent beats their spell check by a certain threshold (whereupon the magic user would need to roll to confirm the fumble, similar to a mundane character).

That being said, given the rarity of fumbles with our rules (I was wrong, the confirmation roll has to also be a 1 to confirm a true fumble, so they're even less common -- a quarter of a percent chance on any given attack), they don't bother me much. I'd assume a mage would have fewer mishaps over time when casting spells compared to a fighter in the thick of combat, except when under duress or direct threat. They're not on the front lines, after all.

If the rest of the game balance doesn't make up for it, then I agree, melee fumbles should be thrown out to compensate. I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder's balance to know for sure. If it ends up becoming a huge problem, it'd be worth addressing with our GM.

Reading most sites magic users are significantly more useful and powerful than melee users.

You still also don't address the fact that your melee classes now get worse and worse over time because more chances to attack means more fumbles.

Honestly this is why I avoid DnD and Pathfinder. Impossible to find a group that doesn't go even more out of the way to make melee and skill classes less relevant. Why even bother using climb checks when I can avoid the chance of a critical failure and cast fly.

So your fighter can fight, but gets worse at it over time. Meanwhile the wizard can summon monsters, polymorph, dimension door, grease,fly etc... all of which have in and out of combat utility.

DnD and Pathfinder are notorious for their atrocious balance between mundanes and magic users. I don't think your DM is as knowledgeable as you think.

 

[KittenMaster]

Since natural elements like weather and motion already play a role, I could see this being expanded to apply to other non-threatening situations -- in order to balance out melee fumble chances.

Melee characters would still be at risk for fumble in pretty much every combat situation as opposed to the occasional harsh environment the wizard may endure (and I'm pretty sure there are spells to counter turbulent situations as well).

 

[CornBurrito]

Melee characters would still be at risk for fumble in pretty much every combat situation as opposed to the occasional harsh environment the wizard may endure (and I'm pretty sure there are spells to counter turbulent situations as well).

Meanwhile a caster only gets 1 spell a round usually. A melee fighter gets more and more attacks as he levels up. So casters have a static and rare risk of rolling a fumble, while fighters get higher and higher chances of fumbling as they level up.......

Oh and skill users get less benefit as they level up because no matter how much they invest in their skill they can fumble.

So basically even if applied to wizards it still hurts them the least.