|
Post by ilina on May 27, 2017 20:54:16 GMT -8
i mean that a CR 7 faerie Packs more magical punch than a CR 7 Dragon. i mean relative to equivalent challenge ratings against equivalent level parties, the faerie has more punch per challenge rating than a dragon. outsiders and fey might not have Bahamut of Tiamats challenge rating, but by the time Tiamat becomes a level appropriate encounter, the fight will feel a lot easier for its relative level in relation to that faerie that kicked your ass many levels ago.
Tiamat could probably slaughter a faerie, only because there is a lot less high CR Fey, but if you were to take a fey of Equivalent CR to Tiamat or Bahamut, like say Titania, Titania would be a far more dangerous magical threat for the same challenge rating in a system that grossly empowers spellcasting and other limited supernatural resources.
i'm not trying to say a pixie is scarier than Tiamat, but a pixie is scarier than a juvenile dragon, and titania is scarier than Tiamat. because what Tiamat has is bloated numbers, while Titania has a mountain of nasty conditions that are basically roll a ludicrous saving through or end up permanently screwed somehow.
a CR 7 fey will eat more PC resources to counteract and overcome as an obstacle than a CR 7 Dragon will. Titania will eat more PC resources than Tiamat. essentially, by the time you are the right level to challenge Tiamat, you are swimming in levels and magic items you didn't have when some faerie nearly wrecked your party a lot closer to the early levels.
i know a pixie can't keep up with Tiamat. but a hypothetical Titania would make Tiamat Shiver, despite having Tiamat's challenge rating.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on May 27, 2017 23:13:19 GMT -8
Jesus Christ. How did this thread turn into an argument about which non-existent, completely fictional creature is scarier?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 28, 2017 0:25:50 GMT -8
Jesus Christ. How did this thread turn into an argument about which non-existent, completely fictional creature is scarier? I know, right? But it was said and it needed a response because I draw the line at Half-Nymphs and DragonBorn and Half-Dwarves and Half-Halflings (definitely those) and Fey Touched as PC races. Seriously, Fey touched PC's, Fey touched as in King Arthur being touched by the Fey as integeral to his manifest destiny. I can see it now: "I'd like to introduce the Party: Grimlock the master lockpick, Bayern the Barbarian from the Dersert Wastes, Tinkershite our Elvish Mage and Arthur 'The Once and Future King' - yeah he doesn't need to roll savingthrows, or track his HP really, 'cause you know, 'once and future and all that'" ilina: Tatania isn't really part of the 'standard' DnD 'verse, nor is Oberon or Puck - she is first mentioned in 1992 in Monster Mythology, an optional splat book and then again in PlaneScape, thus setting specific (i.e. PlaneScape is only relevant if you choose to accept it, it isn't an underlying assumption of all DnD worlds). Besides I'll see your Shakespeare's Tatiana and raise you an Elbereth* and a World Serpent* (wyrm). Ilina, I get it, 'you have fanboy penis' over faeries and sylphs and nymphs etc etc, I 'get fanboy penis' over the Arthurian Legends and Druidic Wyrd but I don't think it should be catered for, beyond the level it already is, in the core of DnD. (Don't get me started on how sanatised the Druids are in core DnD, nothing like having the PC's invited by the kindly old local Druid to witness a good Wickerman Burning to set the 'proper' tone**) Aaron * Tolkien and Norse Myth respectively ** yep, I did that - including kindly old Druid being buck naked and adorned with ritual paints etc for the ceremony . . . "then they place your prisoner, who admitted his guilt, bound into the Wickerman and after <insert ritual exposition> they set light to wickerman. You hear the screams of your former prisoner as the smoke and flames envelop him, all the attending villagers (also mainly buck naked) are smiling and cheering at another successful sacrifice to guarantee the coming harvest". PC's : "WTF....". That was MY Hommlet.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 29, 2017 22:16:56 GMT -8
Jesus Christ. How did this thread turn into an argument about which non-existent, completely fictional creature is scarier? "Jesus Christ" ISWYDT....
|
|
RelativeDimension
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 10
Preferred Game Systems: Any
Currently Playing: D&D5, Fantasy Hero
Currently Running: Shadowrun
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by RelativeDimension on May 31, 2017 21:29:47 GMT -8
I am fairly new to the forums, but I wanted to chime in on this one.
I had to go back to the beginning, because this thread seemed to alter in purpose. When it comes to D&D, I don't think the game needs a cleric, or certain classes. We've been playing a 5th edition version of Spelljammer for a while, and we have been doing just fine with my cleric as the main tank if you will. Until my nephew joined up, our party consisted of a Cleric, Bard, Wizard and Druid. No real fighter types there, yet we did just fine.
In previous games, we did just fine without a Healer. It just meant approaching situations a bit more carefully and with more thought. The GM provided us with healing potions, but not so many that we had extra HP pooling on the floor. We still had to be very careful with our strategies.
The right GM can tailor a D&D game for a single player or two, and not punish them for the lack of any specific classes. When there's a problem with the lack of a certain class, it's typically the GM and possibly the players, and not so much the system.
Onto some of the later comments. I've played Basic (Rules Cyclopedia), AD&D (first and second), 3.0/3,5, 4th, and 5th. And I must say that in general, I think 5th is the best edition so far. Having said that, I will still play other editions, and even recommend other editions to people, based on what style of game they want, what campaign settings, complexity of rules, etc. Just because I think 5th is the best so far, doesn't mean I think the others aren't good systems. Even 4th edition did something well (introduced a lot of people to gaming, specially video gamers).
Anyway, just my opinion and observations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 23:34:36 GMT -8
The right GM can tailor a D&D game for a single player or two, and not punish them for the lack of any specific classes. When there's a problem with the lack of a certain class, it's typically the GM and possibly the players, and not so much the system. This is the backwards thinking that D&D installs in its community. The problem is NEVER with the system, but instead heaped on the people running and playing the game, according to people who defend D&D. The game is meant to run a certain way. It assumes that certain roles will be filled. It's not the GM's fault for not being able to rebalance the game. This game was sold to them as a working whole, not something they'll need to rework and balance should their plays lack certain roles. Healing is the one everyone brings up all the time, but try leaving out some of the other roles as well. No magic in the party. No knowledges in the party. No one able to overcome physical obstacles (through magic or mundane means). All of these things would require major changes in the game, none of which the books prepare you for in the slightest. None of the published adventures are going to spare a second to address your party of missing X role. I do lay this fault firmly at the feet of the system and the people who think that 'anything' will work just as well. No, it won't. You won't get the same outcome as the group who bothered to cover their bases. Its the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on May 31, 2017 23:50:14 GMT -8
This is the backwards thinking that D&D installs in its community. The problem is NEVER with the system, but instead heaped on the people running and playing the game, according to people who defend D&D. The game is meant to run a certain way. It assumes that certain roles will be filled. It's not the GM's fault for not being able to rebalance the game. This game was sold to them as a working whole, not something they'll need to rework and balance should their plays lack certain roles. I mean, do you have any evidence for that assertion? What way is the game meant to run? How is it conveyed explicitly though text and implicitly though design? What roles does it assume you'll fill? Why are those roles necessary? We frequently have no magic in our parties. We're running Curse of Strahd without a dedicated healer and the closest thing to a magic user would be our artificer, who is a 1/3 caster. And Strahd details tons of hooks on how to guide though the party though the castle regardless of party composition. I'm really failing to see your point here. Most road blocks in a game are narrative in nature. If you don't have a rogue in your party, you go hire a dude to open your locked chest. You don't have the chest vanish into dust because the party composition isn't right. Narrative roadblocks can solved narratively. Again, the constraints of a narrative on a party isn't the failing of a system, it's a failing of a narrative. That's the same in any game system. A party of Street Samurai gangers isn't going to get the same result that a crack team of Black Trenchcoats composed of a Mage, Decker, Rigger, and Sammy. Shadowrun is not a poorer game because party choice guides the ways in which the narrative develops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 1:00:52 GMT -8
This is the backwards thinking that D&D installs in its community. The problem is NEVER with the system, but instead heaped on the people running and playing the game, according to people who defend D&D. The game is meant to run a certain way. It assumes that certain roles will be filled. It's not the GM's fault for not being able to rebalance the game. This game was sold to them as a working whole, not something they'll need to rework and balance should their plays lack certain roles. I mean, do you have any evidence for that assertion? What way is the game meant to run? How is it conveyed explicitly though text and implicitly though design? What roles does it assume you'll fill? Why are those roles necessary? We frequently have no magic in our parties. We're running Curse of Strahd without a dedicated healer and the closest thing to a magic user would be our artificer, who is a 1/3 caster. And Strahd details tons of hooks on how to guide though the party though the castle regardless of party composition. I'm really failing to see your point here. Most road blocks in a game are narrative in nature. If you don't have a rogue in your party, you go hire a dude to open your locked chest. You don't have the chest vanish into dust because the party composition isn't right. Narrative roadblocks can solved narratively. Again, the constraints of a narrative on a party isn't the failing of a system, it's a failing of a narrative. That's the same in any game system. A party of Street Samurai gangers isn't going to get the same result that a crack team of Black Trenchcoats composed of a Mage, Decker, Rigger, and Sammy. Shadowrun is not a poorer game because party choice guides the ways in which the narrative develops. Yeah, D&D's structure as a game of attrition is well known. So much so that people can tell you what mix of encounters the average adventuring day is supposed to be composed of. That whole structure is dependent on being able to predict average damage, healing, etc. If you decide to have no healer, than that math that they use to design adventures flies out the window. Similarly, any mechanics that are using a gating mechanism won't unlock if you don't have access to them. So unless the designer planned multiple routes (which the players actually are able to discover) you get giant bottlenecks. The concept that you can just hire what you lack is somewhat laughable in many settings. Where are you going to find an 8th level wizard who wants to leave his tower and come help you? Further, will you know you need him in advance? Often dungeons aren't located in the town square, so enjoy walking back to wherever that guy lives so that you can get him to solve a problem that may have needed immediate attention. Unless your GM hands out infinite time along with free healing potions, you're probably going to fail any time you run up against the clock when you need to go hire outside help. Reguarding shadowrun, you are correct. Its not a better game than D&D in this reguard. It has some of the problems that D&D has, but worse. Attrition is not one of thm though, as the game can be much more lethal than D&D. I've never played in a game of Shadowrun where we were expection 8 fights of any consequence in a single day.
|
|
|
Post by zoomfarg on Jun 1, 2017 2:07:38 GMT -8
Something within me--something dark, some kernel of self-loathing--urges me to jump in the middle of an argument about D&D.
For Steven and Lowkeyoh:
FWIW, I read parts of the free dose of D&D. The players' book offered:
1. Character classes are strong in different areas.
2. The "best party" uses those strengths to cover for each other's weaknesses.
3. Four "most typical classes" (one of which was cleric)
To be fair, there's no explicit "should". But there's a pretty heavy-handed implicit one in "best". But... Best at what? The players' book mentions main activities of adventurers: puzzles, talking, battle and loot.
Looking at the GMs section, we find a bunch of monsters and math homework about balancing combat encounters, and how to balance "adventuring days" with encounters. There's some stuff about loot, nothing about puzzles, and nothing about talking. It's mostly all combat stuff. And nothing useful about making any of it interesting/fun/whatever. It's just a reference manual.
Also, the players' book actually says that everyone wins if everyone has a good time, even if you die and fail quests.
Make of all that what you will.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Aug 13, 2017 6:43:27 GMT -8
Hit points!
As this week's episode (20:01) reminded me
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 13, 2017 9:36:06 GMT -8
Even the books over multiple editions offer advice for running and all warrior party or an all wizard party, for example.
D&D isn't meant to be run in one particular way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 16:04:20 GMT -8
Even the books over multiple editions offer advice for running and all warrior party or an all wizard party, for example. D&D isn't meant to be run in one particular way. I'd say 4e, for all its issues, tried to take direct steps towards the 'well, SOMEONE has to be the cleric!' debate that crops up by adding in Second Wind and healing surges. Whether it worked or not, it was built in. Is there a 'preferred' or assumed 'best' party composition? Possibly and probably. And I think that directly links back to the wargame heritage. "We don't know what we're going to face, and I have X points. I'm going to spread stuff around to maximize strengths and close any weaknesses". Especially in a campaign as adverserial as Gygax's. He even had written how, as DM, he'd deliberately counter any PC preperation. Pit traps. So they get ten foot poles... so then the doors had ear worms to 'getcha' for listening at or undead in the next room. D&D can absolutely be played with all-warrior or all-wizard, but I think, as was pointed out, certain maths are assumed into things. But I think that's on the DM and players to decide and agree on what the world or setting is like. No magical healing? Okay, we need to definitely tread lightly. Tons of magic? Go all out. And again - as has been brought up millions of times, certain game systems represent certain themes or settings or ... 'feel' better than others. #ramble
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Aug 14, 2017 18:54:35 GMT -8
5th Edition D&D Assumes
Sneaky Guy Fighty Guy Healer/Support Guy Blasty Guy Ranged Guy Social Guy
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 15, 2017 1:09:04 GMT -8
5th Edition D&D Assumes Sneaky Guy Fighty Guy Healer/Support Guy Blasty Guy Ranged Guy Social Guy Only if you assume it does. See ericfromnj's post above. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 15, 2017 1:20:59 GMT -8
A 'typical' PC party is not 'every' PC party. For brevity and convenience the rules present a 'typical' party as comprising all the base classes - mainly to inform, and contrast, how those classes operate NOT to be confused with the actual running of a campaign. All cars have four wheels and goes brmmm A Porsche has four wheels and goes brmmmm Therefore a Porsche is a car A Mini Moke has four wheels and goes brmmmm Therefore a Mini Moke is a car But not all cars are equal. For some a real car is a Porsche, for those other deluded souls a Mini Moke is (apparently) more practical - and also a real car (there is, I believe, an entire circle of Hell dedicated to those people) So it is with PC parties - they should suit the campaign, not the game, and the campaign should suit the party, not the game. That's the difference between an MMO and a TTRPG - no hard coding or restrictive AI, just good old human imagination and flexible thinking Aaron
|
|