D&D 5E Delve from Bob World Builder and Others

[Zaukrie]

I'm kind of both liking and hating how gamist the knowledge checks are for the monsters.....like, I get it, that's what players want to know....but it seems off fluff wise and role playing wise to me. Gotta think about this. The layout is good, though. I still think A5e does it best.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm kind of both liking and hating how gamist the knowledge checks are for the monsters.....like, I get it, that's what players want to know....but it seems off fluff wise and role playing wise to me. Gotta think about this. The layout is good, though. I still think A5e does it best.

By its very nature, it's also the most 5E book I've seen for Shadowdark as well. If you look in the core rulebook, most monsters have one special thing, unless they're super-high level or variants of a broader category.

But Delve is hardly alone in that: Quite a few Shadowdark third party books I've picked up have clearly been written through a 5E lens, or are maybe even full-on 5E conversions.

I suspect, over time, we'll see people doing less of this as they understand the still relatively new system better.

 

[Zaukrie]

Like the Stoneborn quite a bit.

that was, overall, a preview that worked. I had no interest in this until I looked at the preview.

 

[JValeur]

On the upside, I always appreciate previews for these kinds of projects. they let you get an idea of what sort of design is being done, how the book will look and so on. So kudos.

There is a pretty big flaw in the oozing kobold 5E design, though: it blinds an opponent on a total roll of 15 or better (with a +5, so better than a 50% chance), regardless of whether that hits and with no save. That just breaks how 5E works. it isn't well done.

Sorry for reviving this thread, but I stumbled across it and had to jump in and defend our work a bit

But first – thank you so much for even showing enough interest to carefully look through the sample. I'm J. A. Valeur, founder of Eventyr Games and Bob's partner on DELVE. I designed the oozing kobold, so I'll give you the logic behind the design decisions.

1. In 5E stat blocks, whatever comes after the "Hit:" only happens on a hit, so if the kobold doesn't hit, it doesn't matter if it rolls a 1 or 19, the effect won't happen – just like you wouldn't have the target roll a Con save vs Poison damage if it isn't hit by the assassin's dagger.

2. I agree, the "rolled 15 or higher on the attack roll" is a bit ambiguous and could be phrased better. Generally, 5E will always refer to dice roll + bonuses as "the result", while "the XXX roll" refers to only the die roll itself. Often, however, 5E wording often includes a "on the dX" to minimize the ambiguity, which we could have done as well – and, based on the feedback here, probably should have (so thanks to your feedback, we'll have time to correct that in the final book!)

3. As for the not having a save part, that is intentional. It's a 1-turn blind that has a 30% (or 50% with advantage) of happening – it's the sort of situation where having to roll constant Con checks will be annoying, while this is easy for the GM and the players to remember. Blinded is not nothing, but most of the time it's just disadvantage on attack rolls (albeit for spellcasters, it can make it impossible to case specific spells) – and it's just one round.

All that to say, thank you for your feedback and your interest in DELVE! We've updated the sample to make things a bit clearer Appreciate it!

 

[Reynard]

Sorry for reviving this thread, but I stumbled across it and had to jump in and defend our work a bit

But first – thank you so much for even showing enough interest to carefully look through the sample. I'm J. A. Valeur, founder of Eventyr Games and Bob's partner on DELVE. I designed the oozing kobold, so I'll give you the logic behind the design decisions.

1. In 5E stat blocks, whatever comes after the "Hit:" only happens on a hit, so if the kobold doesn't hit, it doesn't matter if it rolls a 1 or 19, the effect won't happen – just like you wouldn't have the target roll a Con save vs Poison damage if it isn't hit by the assassin's dagger.

2. I agree, the "rolled 15 or higher on the attack roll" is a bit ambiguous and could be phrased better. Generally, 5E will always refer to dice roll + bonuses as "the result", while "the XXX roll" refers to only the die roll itself. Often, however, 5E wording often includes a "on the dX" to minimize the ambiguity, which we could have done as well – and, based on the feedback here, probably should have (so thanks to your feedback, we'll have time to correct that in the final book!)

3. As for the not having a save part, that is intentional. It's a 1-turn blind that has a 30% (or 50% with advantage) of happening – it's the sort of situation where having to roll constant Con checks will be annoying, while this is easy for the GM and the players to remember. Blinded is not nothing, but most of the time it's just disadvantage on attack rolls (albeit for spellcasters, it can make it impossible to case specific spells) – and it's just one round.

All that to say, thank you for your feedback and your interest in DELVE! We've updated the sample to make things a bit clearer Appreciate it!

This is going to sound weird, but I think it is a great Shadowdark ability. And that underscores important differences between the two systems.