D&D and Tabletops RPGs V7: Yes you can talk about tabletops other than D&D - Games

[QUOTE=TectoImprov;53184107]Some people here might be interested in knowing that Paizo is developing a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. [url]http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest[/url][/QUOTE] Looks like they’re cribbing some things from 5e this time around.

Last session I proceeded to kill a "giant rat king", two gnolls and a dire badger in unarmed combat all in one combat. I felt bad for the GM because it's his first campaign, but then I thought about it and felt less bad. We arrived into his throne room and without the ability to reflex save we're instantly dunked into a magic 20 foot pit where the king keeps his pet, a dire badger. Except this badger was bigger and meaner than it should have been. It was described as large and was in a permanent state of rage. I guess it was supposed to be a boss fight that required team work? This came right after the GM's magic door puzzle was "solve these 5 riddles and if you answer wrong, you die." I wasn't impressed, it killed half of the party because three of the riddles had multiple answers but he wanted a specific one, the cleric got lucky on his guess and I just knew the riddle. I was less unimpressed when the room right after the magic door was a magical pool capable of resurrecting the dead. But I was still not impressed and was pretty much just praying that this campaign gets better. Anyway, this thing takes a slash at the cleric, because naturally we're flatfooted, basically stunned, oh and did I mention also level 1 and this is our first quest? So this is fucking bad, but it gets worse, the cleric is hit because the thing's stats have to be like fucking 20+ due to rage and it being large, it could probably take a 10 and still hit, it was bad. Anyway, the cleric gets lucky and is just reduced to 0 hp. Nice, first round KO. Even better, the rat king and his two body guard gnolls are shooting crossbows down at us, because they got to go next. Well next turn would have been the cleric, but he's down for the count so the first party action is actually mine. I managed to convince the GM through RP and some good rolls earlier that I was able to insert tinder twigs into the corks of pints of oil, light them with my candle and throw them like fire bombs. This of course wasn't the end of my master plan at the time, 1d6 of fire damage per round isn't really that much to write home about, but when the people hit by it are standing on the edge of a 20ft fight pit shooting crossbows down at you, it's good enough to bring them to your level apparently. So I take my free action to tell the rat king he can either give up or I will destroy everything he loves, no this isn't a bluff, no it isn't an intimidation, I'm just giving him the opportunity to see the error of his ways. Part of my monk philosophy is I have to give combatants a fair chance to give up before I fuck their shit. Anyone who surrenders is treated properly, etc. I figured this was fair enough considering the circumstances. He doesn't surrender, I roll a nat 20 on my throw. They fall down, the fire is put out by falling apparently, and I've bought another round of combat without being mistaken for a living quiver. Now the next important thing here is that I have to get in on this badger, because it'll 1-hit the poor sorcerer and probably the rogue too. I get into threatening distance of the badger, assuming one is capable of being a threat to a badger that may as well have completed a Russian Olympics training program. That's my entire turn, not bad, maybe I could get an attack of opportunity if it moves to attack the squishier characters. Sorcerer? She launches a magic missile at a gnoll and deals 4 damage. Good enough. The rogue? She takes her time arguing that she can crawl into the badger's den tunnel and hide in the same turn. The GM concedes and she literally spends the rest of the combat sitting in this fucking hole, doing [I]nothing[/I]. She doesn't try to stabilize the cleric, doesn't try to flank the badger for sneak attack damage, no no, she hides in the tunnel the badger fucking came from. Next turn comes around, the badger slashes at me and somehow misses. I decide to grapple the badger, because I have nothing better to do than give up and die so I can roll a new character who can min-max their way into surviving this god awful campaign. Guess who's now successfully grappled to a giant bear of a badger? Me. Guess who fucking pins said badger? Me. Guess who manages to come through in the clutch to save the day? Not the rogue. The sorcerer casts a colour spray or whatever the fucking level 1 spell is that fucking stuns everything in a cone. Guess who is the only person to pass their saving throw? Me and somehow a fucking gnoll. So we just bought a second round of not being fucking dead as the gnoll shoots his crossbow at the sorcerer and misses. Anyway, good news being I manage to argue that the badger is now helpless and someone, which ends up being me, can coup de grace the fucking badger and pulp its stupid fucking head. The rogue argued the rules of coup de grace with me here, instead of joining in so she could be the one to fucking do it, whatever only a bit salty, saying that I shouldn't be able to maintain my grapple and do a full round action. The GM actually sides with me here and decides that with flury of blows and the whole monk training jazz that I can do it, but for this specific occasion, because the rogue is so adamant about it and made good points, I have to roll a nat-20 to make it happen. Cunt. I'm literally only here trying this because your stupid ass refused to participate in the combat, don't get fucking impatient with my apparently lengthy turn when I'm trying to save the party. So I roll the dice, middle of the table, across the map... Nat... Mother-Fucking... 20... Fuck you. I uppercut the badger so hard its head literally fucking explodes. Works for me. Sorcerer does their best to help and actually manages to kill the Gnoll with a really good crossbow shot. This leaves two enemies, the rat king and the other gnoll. Combat is basically over, the remaining gnoll and rat king are a combination of stunned, blind and knocked out. So I walk over and beat them to death with my fists before they come to. Dungeon over, and you know what we got out of this entire dungeon? 50 gold, and a suit of scale mail each. I might have to multi-class into cleric. Or maybe try and rush into psionics and argue my way into getting those source books cleared with the GM. His level 1 is too OP for this party.

Finished the continent map for my D&D world on which everything that has happened in 2 years of playing has taken place. The players have pretty much not been outside of Sorenthorn haha, but I have everything else thought out pretty much: [t]https://i.imgur.com/c565VYe.jpg[/t]

What program do you use for mapping?

I drew most of it first as a hand-drawn map, but then traced it all and added more information in Illustrator and then applied some colour correction etc. in photoshop.

[QUOTE=Smeetin;53185166]Finished the continent map for my D&D world on which everything that has happened in 2 years of playing has taken place. The players have pretty much not been outside of Sorenthorn haha, but I have everything else thought out pretty much: [t]https://i.imgur.com/c565VYe.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I see you're following in the long and storied fantasy mapping tradition of fucking around with the British Isles

Unfortunately ya... totally an accident though, I just started drawing borders and that's how it worked out haha. The continent itself is supposed to be about the size of Mainland Europe however, and it is essentially the "New World." Several different Old World powers have colonized it and it has a cultural and climatic diversity similar to the eastern hemisphere of the real world.

Do people have an opinion on armour layering? I've got this GM who says I can strip my Mail down to a mail shirt, but I'm not wearing cloth armour underneath the mail shirt (as you would do in real life, as is arguably described in the fluff of heavier armour, and as is easily coverable in the cost of heavier armours) (he also has ideas on full plate also being usable as half/breast plate, but that's quite outside the price range right now, he's also suggested I can upgrade chain to splint for the difference, which I believe makes much sense) Rules wise, you'd just use the best ac of anything that hasn't screwed you over by some other armour. So if a monster with 15 natural armour and +2 dex wore ring mail, you'd use the 15 natural armour but wouldn't use the dex because the ringmail stops you. [I]In the monster's defence it looks cool and he doesn't have the metaknowledge that dictates how armour works in DnD[/I]. But then later on when you've got magic armour, there's a bit of madness. Forgetting about mithral, which explicitly describes that you can wear some pieces as potential underwear and is thus a nice fallback when you'd best not wear something heavier/more overt or want comfort, there's everything else. For example, could one wear efreeti mail beneath +2 plate, or anything adamantium with anything that has a higher AC that would [I]technically[/I] fit together. (honestly it's rather upsetting that there's no given examples of mithral/adamantium enchanted with other properties like +1/2/3, a spell effect, or xanathar's glorious smoldering effect. The stuff exists in pathfinder. There's that brief and vague description of drow gear that makes it sound like things stop being adamantine in sunlight)

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53180371]You should add WoD and the Star Wars games to the starter sometime, elowin, considering they're the other two games in the 'big 5'.[/QUOTE] Yeah World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness was already on my to-do list, just hadn't gotten around to it until today. Is Star Wars really all that big around here though? There was a little burst of popularity for a year or two after release but I haven't noticed people talking all that much about it since.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53186114]Do people have an opinion on armour layering? [/QUOTE] Well considering armour in DnD isn't layerable for good reason, it's a concept that doesn't apply. The way we interpret the book is that your suit of armour contains everything that makes that outer layer work. So like in real life, you'd have a gambeson > chain > plate, or gambeson > plate. And TBH thank god, the combat in DnD is already kind of meh most of the time, having to calculate armour layering and shit would be too much complexity for it, you'd have to add hit locations, etc. Or it'd be fucking irritating because you'd have to add a bunch of little fractions to AC. Lets take chain mail for example: It adds 5 AC in SRD. That means that the entire outfit of chainmail: mail chausses, hauberk, gauntlets, gambeson, padded chausses, boots of whatever kind, all add up to 5 AC. So we're looking at having to spread 5 AC across a minimum of 6 items, but wait, DnD doesn't have helmet stats outside of fluff text, but we're going to need one because of our new armour layering system, so make it 8 items for a padded hood and mail coif. So 5 AC distributed across 8 items is .625 AC per item if you spread it evenly. Realistically you'd probably say that the chainmail hauberk and chasses should provide more AC than the rest of the items, but here lies the problem, a chain shirt, a light armour, gives +4 AC too. And padded armour, which would be basically a gambeson set, only gives +1. So for balance we'd have to assume that across the chain hauberk we get +3 AC minimum (chain shirt comes with a helmet so, almost a problem there), and across the gambeson and other padded equipment we end up at +1 AC total. This is a problem here though, and that's we have now account an entire 1 AC across at least 4 items, padded armour doesn't come with mail chausses, gauntlets, or helmets. So you see our attempt to even quantify the current system to a layered system is fucked from the get go. You could make a new system, but to be even close to SRD balanced you'd have to make shit have +0.25 AC and I can guarantee you'll get fucking annoyed very quickly adding all those little increments and dealing with rounding for armour. Plus that opens up problems with players stacking dumb shit in lighter slots to avoid encumbrance, which will happen if you're not careful. I can probably find a way to swing just as much AC from a full armour set as just wearing an extra pair of gloves, gauntlets and some properly layered helmet slot stuff. TL;DR: DnD is not a game for layering armour. Play something that has hit locations and is designed from the ground up for armour layering.

I think you're imagining that way more complicated than I was considering. You have One AC, pick your best, dex modifier would be tied to the heaviest thing you're wearing.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53186642]I think you're imagining that way more complicated than I was considering. You have One AC, pick your best, dex modifier would be tied to the heaviest thing you're wearing.[/QUOTE] That's how it's been done since forever, though the assumption was that most armors WERE layered already. Plate mail isn't JUST the metal plates - it's the hauberk and arming vest beneath as well, for instance. Partial armor doesn't necessarily have to lose AC, but it could cause (in 5e) disadvantage on checks since it's not properly fitting. Other editions might apply a penalty to various checks, instead. Some games, like WHFRP, DO use layered armor but it's core to the system... and wearing plate armor without it's lesser components is a really shitty idea. It's super heavy, not THAT protective, and costs a ton.

Exactly. If you're just making it for fluff then that's basically already how DnD works. A barbarian's plate armour might just be a few metal plates riveted to his leather loincloth, and that's considered full coverage plate armour. The AC system assumes you have a full, comprehensive set of armour regardless, and that's just how much it cares. If you want to change the armour layering you have to change how AC works or get needlessly complex with how you apply penalty to not wearing the full set, which defeats half the point of layering. You could easily boost AC to unrealistic levels from just wearing some helmet, hoods and a few pairs of gloves, round the AC up when applicable, and whoah, suddenly you've got a better dex bonus than someone wearing armour but the same AC. You have to implement that kind of complexity at the core, you'd have to change how AC works on a mechanical level, and that means changing how combat works to some degree as well. I'm not making it needlessly complex, that's the nature of adding such a system to a trpg and having it actually work. Armour layering is a feature that 110% has to apply from the core mechanics up. Shit even wh40k RPGS don't fully stack armour layers, they just say that only the highest AP piece counts (hence why the fuck would you wear more and needlessly encumber your self?). It's a balance thing mostly but there are a few games that do proper armour layering that add cumulative to AC. I think even Shadowrun only lets you stack certain pieces and you only get non-AP bonuses in most cases IIRC.

Alright but the idea is something along the lines of "it'll be bad to wear full plate here,either for rp or that disadvantage'll screw me" and then you strip down to a chain shirt or cloth armour, (or that bit of mithril beneath the cloth armour) and then be all "Ahoy, I'm still decently armoured and this wasn't me doffing to don more, but just doffing" But then there's magic gear. Let's say you've got multiple armours that have different effects but if you were doing some super-accurate-IRL simulator you should be able to wear them all at the same time because they fit nicely underneath eachother and mostly don't need atunement. What do you do?

I've only just gotten into 5E but I've always thought it's a bit of a shame that there isn't armour locations, it can provide more variety to combat, and more exciting loot as well, instead of armour +1/2/3 you could something like, gloves of lock picking with slightly less armour to balance +2 to lock picking or something not to say you can't do that already but it would make life easier.

Magical items already account for that, actually. Even if you can physically fit 20 rings on your fingers, you can't make use of them all at once. Magical interference or however you wanna swing it.

Also magic armour allows you to replace stuff for boots/gauntlets/helmets and you'll still get the full protection. Which I think is rp strange, but from a gameplay standpoint it's very good. I Do lament the unlikelyness of finding a full set of armour that has all the enchanted parts built in (the belt of giant strength totally matching the [I]gauntlets[/I] of climbing and swiming and the levitation boots being made of the same adamantine as the rest... and of course the dread helm is essential and needs to match the rest) In my games I'll knock the price off for Armour if you've already got parts (like the gauntlets of ogre power) you already want to use.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53186755]What do you do?[/QUOTE] I cry, because adapting the dnd system to this hypothetical makes me cry just thinking about it. Personally I'd rule that at some point collecting too much magical energy in one place is probably a bad idea and [I]interesting things[/I] might roll their way into happening. DnD is really not a system that can be made more realistic, it's hard to add big feature changes to it without it becoming a spreadsheet and fine print simulator due to how much stupid shit can go on. We don't need another Mekton, that game already exists, we don't really need another.

Been reading on Rifts and it seems so dope, but I feel like it'd be a pain to get people to try something different apart from D&D or Pathfinder.

[QUOTE=Dubeard;53187596]Been reading on Rifts and it seems so dope, but I feel like it'd be a pain to get people to try something different apart from D&D or Pathfinder.[/QUOTE] Assuming the ultimate edition and not first edition, I'd play Rifts. Shit I played a campaign of Reichstar once, different systems are always fun.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53187603]Assuming the ultimate edition and not first edition, I'd play Rifts. Shit I played a campaign of Reichstar once, different systems are always fun.[/QUOTE] Ultimate yeah. Unfortunately I can't run/join a game for a long long time.

[I]Genesys[/I] is cool.

[QUOTE=Dubeard;53187596]Been reading on Rifts and it seems so dope, but I feel like it'd be a pain to get people to try something different apart from D&D or Pathfinder.[/QUOTE] Rifts is literally flanderization: the game.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53186114]Do people have an opinion on armour layering? I've got this GM who says I can strip my Mail down to a mail shirt, but I'm not wearing cloth armour underneath the mail shirt (as you would do in real life, as is arguably described in the fluff of heavier armour, and as is easily coverable in the cost of heavier armours) (he also has ideas on full plate also being usable as half/breast plate, but that's quite outside the price range right now, he's also suggested I can upgrade chain to splint for the difference, which I believe makes much sense) Rules wise, you'd just use the best ac of anything that hasn't screwed you over by some other armour. So if a monster with 15 natural armour and +2 dex wore ring mail, you'd use the 15 natural armour but wouldn't use the dex because the ringmail stops you. [I]In the monster's defence it looks cool and he doesn't have the metaknowledge that dictates how armour works in DnD[/I]. But then later on when you've got magic armour, there's a bit of madness. Forgetting about mithral, which explicitly describes that you can wear some pieces as potential underwear and is thus a nice fallback when you'd best not wear something heavier/more overt or want comfort, there's everything else. For example, could one wear efreeti mail beneath +2 plate, or anything adamantium with anything that has a higher AC that would [I]technically[/I] fit together. (honestly it's rather upsetting that there's no given examples of mithral/adamantium enchanted with other properties like +1/2/3, a spell effect, or xanathar's glorious smoldering effect. The stuff exists in pathfinder. There's that brief and vague description of drow gear that makes it sound like things stop being adamantine in sunlight)[/QUOTE] D&D 5e basically has one armor 'slot' and you can only use one piece of armor and its properties. If you [i]were[/i] to layer stuff over one another, ie, put on chainmail over leather armor for whatever reason, I'd just say that the heavier armor takes effect and the other armor does nothing additional. So if you were to wear efreeti chain under +2 plate, I'd say the efreeti mail basically does nothing, and that not even it's special abilities work because they're counteracted by the plate. Does it make sense? No, but these rules are here so that people don't go crazy trying to minmax wearing 6 necklaces and 10 rings looking like Rick Ross.

I think 5e has a much better weapon table than previous editions. It's simple, refined, there's no bullshit crit modifiers or double weapons... but it's still imperfect. I would make these minor changes. -Greatclub should do a d10. (rational-It's inferior in every way to a staff, and [I]needs[/I] to have better damage than the other simple weapons because it's Two-handed/heavy) -Morningstar should be versatile to match Lsword/Baxe (they're same in cost and such) -The flail should either follow that and be versatile, or have it's own special rule (+1 against shields/cover, can be used to trip people like a shove attack, something) -Sling should be a d6, at least. A d4 might be fine if you were hunting birds. -The "pike" should be the lance, d10+reach, the actual pike should be "disadvantage within 5ft, +10 reach" and then someone could throw in some cool rules about speed/charging affecting these weapons. -Repeating crossbow for 1d4 damage, 30/120, 7lb, simple, essential for your wuxia needs. -The shortsword has many advantages over the scimitar, that's obviously [del]racism[/del]/because it's way more stylish, but the bigger bumber is that a bunch of classes don't get scimitars when they get Sswords ([I]I'm thinking of monk,monk and monk, but there's probably another dude too[/I]) -Trident could be 2d4 rather than 1d8, or it could give advantage against creatures two sizes smaller. -Net would be worthwhile if it's use didn't eat up all your other attacks. Shield wise, in keeping with the themes (low AC) of 5e, a +1 buckler'd be simple and swell, and a pavise that protects +2 but could be deployed as 3/4 cover or held in a way to give all archers in a direction disadvantage... that'd work. Thoughts?

I don't think you need to change that much. It's all balanced fine. Stuff like a 'greatclub' or 'sling' are primitive, and SHOULD be worse than a sharp arrow or bolt. 1 handed weapons that aren't finesse should all have versatile, imo. The thing about the weapons of 5e is that they rely more on feats to give them distinction than the weapon itself. Shield mastery, polearm mastery, flail master, ect - all do things that should have simply been things any fighter could do already, as fighter features or just basic uses of the weapon/shield. Changing most weapons without regard to the feats is fine if you ban feats, but are you really going to do that? It'd probably be better to cut down what little is left of the weapon table and give them more generic names, like 'light weapon' for short sword, and then say it is either piercing OR slashing OR bludgeoning when purchased (so it can serve as a blackjack, too), and do the same for other classes of weapons. More specific stuff, like lassos, nets, and the like can be made special, but most weapons don't need a separate statblock in 5e. There's no reason for a trident to work different than a spear, for a great club to be different than a great sword, save the damage type.

Between moving houses, I've written a Genesys conversion for Vampire the Requiem 2e. I'm currently typing it up since I don't have any Internet I'm eager to see vampire played with a ruleset that isn't hot dogshit followed by 15 dice being thrown under your feet. Y'know, if this conversion is any good.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;53190342]Between moving houses, I've written a Genesys conversion for Vampire the Requiem 2e. I'm currently typing it up since I don't have any Internet I'm eager to see vampire played with a ruleset that isn't hot dogshit followed by 15 dice being thrown under your feet. Y'know, if this conversion is any good.[/QUOTE] There's some significant work being done on that front on the Genesys general on /tg/ also, if you didn't know.

[QUOTE=Chronische;53190385]There's some significant work being done on that front on the Genesys general on /tg/ also, if you didn't know.[/QUOTE] I'm posting on multiple fronts, Genesys is a very young game and I'm trying to spread the good word wherever I can.

[QUOTE=Chronische;53190027]I don't think you need to change that much. It's all balanced fine. Stuff like a 'greatclub' or 'sling' are primitive, and SHOULD be worse than a sharp arrow or bolt. 1 handed weapons that aren't finesse should all have versatile, imo. .[/QUOTE] Greatclub's just unreasonably bad. Compare these two: Greatclub 2 sp 1d8 bludgeoning 10 lb. Two-handed Quarterstaff 2 sp 1d6 bludgeoning 4 lb. Versatile (1d8) From a gameplay standpoint, this is stupid. There's no incentive to get this weapon over anything else since another weapon is objectively better. Furthermore, if you increased the damage to a d10, it'd still be a lesser weapon than all the martial weapons (Great weapons still do more damage, Polearms have reach, everything else isn't heavy) From a realism standpoint, this is still stupid. Primitive =/= ineffective. The weapon's as "heavy" as a maul and almost as top-heavy. You don't want to be hit with that. Slings IRL were the fucking nightmare. Lead ovals of death were slung at such speeds that people looked like they suffered from small explosions. Maybe it's a d4 if you get a couple or rocks, but forged heads should do far more. I don't like most of the weapon specific feats. polearm mastery should just be something you have if you've got proficiency. Some stuff like Crossbow mastery/dual wielder's cool and should remain, but most of it's not really something you'd wanna spend a feat on.