Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    So the announcement got delayed, but Amazon leaked the title and it’s “The Explorer's Guide to Wildemount,“ which implies an officially supported Critical Role campaign setting. I’m glad they’re expanding setting support, but I can’t say I’m excited for this one personally.
    From one hand, I must say that I do feel that Mercer does deserve that recognition, and that by making such a product they do draw a lot of interest to their products. CR did a great job at bringing D&D to life to many people, and they are the reason that I've managed to get my current D&D players into playing after years of hiatus from D&D.

    On the other hand, there are other settings which deserve it more- Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun and even a proper Ravenloft setting guides already have their fans, some of which really eager to see them brought to 5e. Heck, Nentir Vale deserves it more. Mystara deserves it more. I get that CR is very popular, and as such the setting is also very popular, but classics should get the respect they deserve.

    Now, it is worth to mention that we got Ravnica before we got Eberron- so maybe WotC try to mix some new settings between the old ones,and the concept of an homebrew setting slowly rising to become an official one through fan support is awesome- but still...


    My Homebrew Signature

    "And all our knowledge is, Ourselves to know"- An Essay on Man

    I now blog in here

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LostLight View Post
      From one hand, I must say that I do feel that Mercer does deserve that recognition, and that by making such a product they do draw a lot of interest to their products. CR did a great job at bringing D&D to life to many people, and they are the reason that I've managed to get my current D&D players into playing after years of hiatus from D&D.

      On the other hand, there are other settings which deserve it more- Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun and even a proper Ravenloft setting guides already have their fans, some of which really eager to see them brought to 5e. Heck, Nentir Vale deserves it more. Mystara deserves it more. I get that CR is very popular, and as such the setting is also very popular, but classics should get the respect they deserve.

      Now, it is worth to mention that we got Ravnica before we got Eberron- so maybe WotC try to mix some new settings between the old ones,and the concept of an homebrew setting slowly rising to become an official one through fan support is awesome- but still...
      I get it. With 5e’s explosion in popularity, driven in large part by streamed games, with critical role being one of if not the biggest and best known, there is probably more demand for the setting of Critical Role than there is for classic settings. Especially when you take into account the fact that a lot of old timers won’t actually buy 5e versions of classic settings, since they already have all the setting material. I recognize that this is a better business move than updating Darksun again or whatever, but it doesn’t excite me personally.


      Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post

        I get it. With 5e’s explosion in popularity, driven in large part by streamed games, with critical role being one of if not the biggest and best known, there is probably more demand for the setting of Critical Role than there is for classic settings. Especially when you take into account the fact that a lot of old timers won’t actually buy 5e versions of classic settings, since they already have all the setting material. I recognize that this is a better business move than updating Darksun again or whatever, but it doesn’t excite me personally.
        Bingo. I don’t watch CR, but my 5e group will be super excited about this and it makes total financial sense.


        Freelancer (He/His Pronouns): CofD - Dark Eras 2, Kith and Kin, Mummy 2e, Oak Ash and Thorn, Contagion RMCs; Scion - Mysteries of the World

        CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (TBA) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf (WIP)

        Comment


        • I fell off of CR pretty hard. While this feels like a smart play, I don’t know how many people were exactly starving to play in Wildemount themselves; it’s a show for a reason, and the setting is hardly what sees praise. Between that, the dubious need for another classic-ish high fantasy setting when the Realms is already your flagship, and Matt’s spotty history with mechanics (stop designing player options with debilitating drawbacks! nothing else in 5e does that!), I’m really not feeling excited for this at all.

          I /am/, however, snickering at this being the 4e pantheon’s way back into published canon, as CR used them with the names filed off + a particular Pathfinder goddess.


          Remi. she/her. game designer.

          Comment


          • Yes, a perhaps overly-cynical answer would be that it really doesn't matter if this setting is different enough from your run-off-the-mill D&D setting or if its rules are good. People are going to buy it because of the brand name.
            Last edited by Morty; 01-13-2020, 06:44 AM.

            Comment


            • Matt made a statement on reddit addressing all the vitriol this release is sure to receive. It’s really a sad state of affairs when the announcement of a new officially supported setting needs to be accompanied by an apology letter from the author, but Matt Mercer sure is a class act for being so humble in the face of such hate.

              Here’s a link to the statement: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment...to_wildemount/


              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                Matt made a statement on reddit addressing all the vitriol this release is sure to receive. It’s really a sad state of affairs when the announcement of a new officially supported setting needs to be accompanied by an apology letter from the author, but Matt Mercer sure is a class act for being so humble in the face of such hate.

                Here’s a link to the statement: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment...to_wildemount/
                It really is. Sadly, I know the Planescape online communities are going to be particularly vitriolic, even though this actually means there is one more setting Planescape can draw on when it is released.


                Freelancer (He/His Pronouns): CofD - Dark Eras 2, Kith and Kin, Mummy 2e, Oak Ash and Thorn, Contagion RMCs; Scion - Mysteries of the World

                CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (TBA) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf (WIP)

                Comment


                • So, a while back I posted about a piecemeal armor system I had been working on, and then cryptically declined to share the details because I had aspirations of selling it on DMsguild. Well, I no longer think I’m very likely to do that, and frankly the system is in need of actual play testing, so if anyone is curious, please check it out over on ENworld (link). I am open to feedback based on initial impressions, but experiences based on actual play will be more useful to me, as I have overthought it to death at this point and really just need to see it in action. One thing that has been made clear to me is that shields need work, so I plan to give them another pass before I hand this over to my players.


                  Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                  Comment


                  • The Wildemount book has a very strange spread of mechanical content: three new subclasses (two of which are for Wizard), 20ish new monsters, and then info on the Vestiges of the setting. Seems a little light of crunch, which is fine by me but sure to make some folks grumpy.


                    Remi. she/her. game designer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by atamajakki View Post
                      The Wildemount book has a very strange spread of mechanical content: three new subclasses (two of which are for Wizard), 20ish new monsters, and then info on the Vestiges of the setting. Seems a little light of crunch, which is fine by me but sure to make some folks grumpy.
                      There was also mention of magic weapons that grow stronger with their wielders. I loved that concept from Weapons of Legacy back in 3.5, so I’m interested to see how it’s handled here.


                      Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post

                        There was also mention of magic weapons that grow stronger with their wielders. I loved that concept from Weapons of Legacy back in 3.5, so I’m interested to see how it’s handled here.
                        I think that those are the Vestiges- as that's what they do, having three stages of "awakening"


                        My Homebrew Signature

                        "And all our knowledge is, Ourselves to know"- An Essay on Man

                        I now blog in here

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                          So, a while back I posted about a piecemeal armor system I had been working on, and then cryptically declined to share the details because I had aspirations of selling it on DMsguild. Well, I no longer think I’m very likely to do that, and frankly the system is in need of actual play testing, so if anyone is curious, please check it out over on ENworld (link). I am open to feedback based on initial impressions, but experiences based on actual play will be more useful to me, as I have overthought it to death at this point and really just need to see it in action. One thing that has been made clear to me is that shields need work, so I plan to give them another pass before I hand this over to my players.
                          On first glance, I'm not sure I see the purpose behind the armor chart. Or rather, I see what you're trying to do, I just don't think the system is built for this. Price differences between anything that's not plate are irrelevant, so it's just a matter of slightly different AC and stealth disadvantage. Of course, "you shouldn't do what you're trying to do" isn't very constructive criticism, so take it for what you will. And I am intrigued by the idea of shields giving cover.

                          There doesn't seem to be a straightforward 1d8 axe, and a mace is just worse than a longsword... insofar as damage types and the versatile tag matter, which they usually won't. The greataxe and greatsword still teeter on the brink of being identical. A versatile finesse weapon is curious, but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile without some kind of versatile fighting style - you can just use a rapier and have one hand free for a shield or something else, while doing the same damage.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Morty View Post
                            On first glance, I'm not sure I see the purpose behind the armor chart. Or rather, I see what you're trying to do, I just don't think the system is built for this. Price differences between anything that's not plate are irrelevant, so it's just a matter of slightly different AC and stealth disadvantage. Of course, "you shouldn't do what you're trying to do" isn't very constructive criticism, so take it for what you will. And I am intrigued by the idea of shields giving cover.
                            No worries. I appreciate you giving it a look even if it’s not to your liking. It’s actually intended to produce very similar results to what’s possible by RAW at similar prices. It’s largely an aesthetic change, so if you don’t like or don’t care about the aesthetic, it makes sense you wouldn’t see much point in it, and that is still valuable to know. The other purpose with the armor changes is to make increasing Dexterity the main way for heavy armor users to improve their AC and acquiring better armor proficiency and raising Strength the main way for light and medium armor users to improve their AC.

                            Originally posted by Morty View Post
                            There doesn't seem to be a straightforward 1d8 axe,
                            I’m not sure why there would need to be a 1d8 axe. Longsword will do 1d8 slashing damage in one hand if that’s what you’re looking for. If you’re looking to fight with an axe, battle axes work great for strength-based dual wielding or pairing with a buckler, greataxes are very effective two-handed damage dealers, and poleaxes are good reach weapons.

                            Originally posted by Morty View Post
                            and a mace is just worse than a longsword... insofar as damage types and the versatile tag matter, which they usually won't.
                            Indeed, a mace is worse than a longsword (and a warhammer for that matter). It’s also cheaper, and it does a different damage type, so it can be worth bringing as a backup to your longsword.

                            Granted, if you run 5e monsters RAW, damage type almost never matters. However, for the campaign I am planning to use this revision in, I will be using almost entirely custom monsters. For the campaign in question, my goal is to capture the sort of puzzle-encounter feel from games like The Witcher 3, where monsters are very tough but have special weaknesses or tricks that can be learned and exploited to level the playing field.

                            Originally posted by Morty View Post
                            The greataxe and greatsword still teeter on the brink of being identical.
                            I didn’t see any particular reason to change this. The Greatsword does 0.5 more damage per attack on average and can be used to do piercing damage, while the greataxe is a fair bit cheaper. Seems reasonable enough to me. Poleaxes stand out a bit more from greatswords if you want to reskin one as like a daneaxe rather than a halberd or a pollaxe. I deliberately went for fairly generic names to leave that possibility open, with the estoc being the exception since “thrusting sword” sounded kinda bad.

                            Originally posted by Morty View Post
                            A versatile finesse weapon is curious, but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile without some kind of versatile fighting style - you can just use a rapier and have one hand free for a shield or something else, while doing the same damage.
                            Note that there is no one-handed 1d8 finesse weapon (e.g. a rapier) in this table. It was a conscious choice to have finesse weapons cap out at 1d6 one-handed or 1d8/2d4 two-handed. This, coupled with the changes to the armor table, are meant to make Dexterity less offensively potent but more defensively potent than Strength, for all martial characters. The versatile finesse weapons (estoc and war knife) work great for rogues when paired with a dagger, allowing the rogue to attack with the weapon in two hands on turns when they’ve used or plan to use cunning action, or in one hand and with the dagger as a bonus action on turns when they don’t.

                            Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate it!
                            Last edited by Charlaquin; 01-13-2020, 08:08 PM.


                            Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                              Indeed, a mace is worse than a longsword (and a warhammer for that matter). It’s also cheaper, and it does a different damage type, so it can be worth bringing as a backup to your longsword.

                              Granted, if you run 5e monsters RAW, damage type almost never matters. However, for the campaign I am planning to use this revision in, I will be using almost entirely custom monsters. For the campaign in question, my goal is to capture the sort of puzzle-encounter feel from games like The Witcher 3, where monsters are very tough but have special weaknesses or tricks that can be learned and exploited to level the playing field.
                              So, kind of like this video by Zee Bashew?



                              Comment


                              • Acrozatarim was theorizing a Forged in the Dark game for crews of witcher-types if you wanted to bounce ideas off each other.
                                Last edited by nofather; 01-14-2020, 02:10 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X