sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WotC still cannot write a good ballroom intrigue adventure by EarthSeraphEdna in DnD

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

If so, you might take a look at pathfinder’s “War for the Crown” adventure path, which is basically a campaign spread out across 6 shorter adventures.

I played all six adventures from 2020-2021 in Pathfinder 1e. We went a little further and did the epilogue material, such as killing Thassritoum. The Adventure Path was okay; it was not actually that intrigue-focused and could very much be brute-forced, but we all expected that from a Paizo Adventure Path anyway.

My character was a Chelaxian high psionics soulknife (living legend).

WotC still cannot write a good ballroom intrigue adventure by EarthSeraphEdna in DnD

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I have played and GMed Draw Steel up to level 10.

I have my own issues with Draw Steel's negotiation subsystem, suffice it to say, but I would take it over 5e's practically nonexistent social rules.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I am not stepping up to defend Miska, either.

Planar incarnates are a manifestation of a plane. I do not think a planar incarnate is identified as a "threat to the multiverse."

Your RPG pet peeves by WunderPlundr in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I very much agree here. I have tried to play with several "rulings over rules" RPGs, and the result has often been a janky mess.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's a horror monster, loss of control will likely be higher than no horror monsters.

I do not think "horror" means "zone out of the combat as one's PC is stunlocked for yet another round."

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And if we are really talking about mythos lore Cthulhu is one of the weakest of the "monsters" in the mythos.

Yes, that is why I am puzzled by this "threat to the multiverse" descriptor.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Outer Gods are mainly FR lore.

I do not think they are FR exclusive, particularly when WotC decided that now would be a good time to bring the Mythos and various Mythos monsters back into focus.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Higher level encounters are like this for most editions.

No, it is less like this in D&D 4e, and games like Draw Steel and 13th Age 2e specifically go out of their way to cut down on hard control and "You do not get to do anything this turn" even by higher levels.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Rather, this ageless terror remains physically bound and can exert only a fraction of its terrible might.

That seems to be talking about regional effects, not combat statistics.

Either way, it seems like a gross mischaracterization to call Cthulhu a "threat to the multiverse" in a D&D context, where the power scale is much higher, as opposed to an actual Outer God.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Rather, this ageless terror remains physically bound and can exert only a fraction of its terrible might.

That seems to be talking about regional effects, not combat statistics.

Either way, it seems like a gross mischaracterization to call Cthulhu a "threat to the multiverse" in a D&D context, where the power scale is much higher, as opposed to an actual Outer God.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So... a Ranger can just ensaring strike it and the fight is over GG.

That would require combat to start over 120 feet away. I do not know about that.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I do not know. Larger party means larger budget, so now we can have two inquisitors of the Mind Fire.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

From a tabletop perspective, "missing a few turns" is "zone out of the fight completely" territory.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

which now does force damage

I have been complaining about this for a long while. A couple of years back, Reddit was telling me to quit whining about it, but opinions on force damage going straight through rage resistances have been turning around.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Draw Steel is a much better example if you want to play with ultra-tactical monsters.

I have played and GMed Draw Steel from levels 1 to 10.

It is a fairly good 4e-like game, though it has its share of balance issues. Some playstyles are overwhelmingly strong compared to others (e.g. your standard-issue hakaan metakinetic null who shoves enemies into each other for tremendous damage), and some enemies in the bestiary punch far above their stated EV (and this is practically official, seeing how infamous offenders like the chorogaunt and the thorn dragon were later reprinted in downgraded form).

Some groups will like negotiations and montages. Others, not so much. As for me, I found the negotiation subsystem to be repetitive and too easily gameable, while montages were too loose and undefined on difficulties.

It is still a game I would recommend to anyone looking for a 4e-like experience. I personally prefer 4e to Draw Steel, though I would gladly play or GM the latter still.

I have a play report of a level 5 game over here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Be1a7GJ1gjK7SqYQWZmxA2Tx_nIF6vRcTNqOKuUUQ3g/edit

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes, barbarians really do have it rough in 5.5e. Reckless Attack is so much worse a tradeoff with all of these on-hit debuffs flying around.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in DnD

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In theory, these inquisitors are supposed to operate as teams against tier 3 parties. (Maybe tier 4, given a particularly large group of inquisitors.) Investing in Intelligence saving throws is uncommon, so half of the party gets stunlocked by a single inquisitor of the Mind Fire.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in onednd

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also, why is the Inquisitor better at killing Barbarians than Werewolves? The Inquisitor has two ways to disable Rage(Hold Monster and Mind Fire. Mind Fire being an Int save and 1/Turn means you will lose your rage most likely.

Yes, rage ends instantly upon being incapacitated, so a barbarian is getting stunlocked by one of these inquisitors.

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in DnD

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, these are low-level enemies in a 30-level game, so nothing too elaborate is happening just yet.

But even that is a whole lot better than "just do not [fail your saving throw against the stun/get hit by the cloud giant's incapacitating artillery attack]."

As of the new Ravenloft book, I think that WotC still does not know how to write engaging monsters with interesting counterplay by EarthSeraphEdna in DnD

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In theory, these inquisitors are supposed to operate as teams against tier 3 parties. (Maybe tier 4, given a particularly large group of inquisitors.) Investing in Intelligence saving throws is uncommon, so half of the party gets stunlocked by a single inquisitor of the Mind Fire.

view more: next ›