-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Playtest report - can 22 goblins defeat alcohol?
- Thread starter Majoru Oakheart
- Start date
KesselZero
First Post
I would agree that the Guardian theme's shield ability isn't meant to be used to protect the guy who has the ability. I can see both sides about the RAW but I would rule based on assumed intent there.
As for intoxication, I didn't notice it before but I do think it's an issue for the wizard. Maybe the rule becomes something like "You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and creatures have advantage to saving throws against effects you cause."
Regarding the reaction rules, obviously they need to be clarified. I also spent some time working out these rules because of the L&L article that suggested using a reaction would spend your next turn's action. Where I came down is that there are only two reactions mentioned in the playtest (someone correct me if I'm wrong): the Guardian's ability, and readying an action. The Guardian ability wouldn't use your next turn's action, since it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it should, and it's situational enough (you have to be within five feet of an ally who's getting hit) that it won't come up constantly and thus be spammed and broken. It never got used in my playtest, frex. This would actually also be an argument against it being usable on the Guardian himself: in that case he could use it every single turn almost guaranteed, making it very powerful.
Readying an action, on the other hand, wouldn't use your next turn's action, but rather your current turn's action. That is, it would work like it has in 3e and 4e-- instead of taking an action this turn, you "save" it for later in the round, then when it goes off your place in the initiative order drops to that spot. I believe this is even addressed in the playtest packet. So readying an action lets you take a reaction if the definition of reaction is "doing something on someone else's turn," but it's really just a readied action as we know and love them. I expect we'll see more powers that grant reactions in the future, some that use up next turn's action (Opportunity Attacks, perhaps) and some that don't.
As for intoxication, I didn't notice it before but I do think it's an issue for the wizard. Maybe the rule becomes something like "You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and creatures have advantage to saving throws against effects you cause."
Regarding the reaction rules, obviously they need to be clarified. I also spent some time working out these rules because of the L&L article that suggested using a reaction would spend your next turn's action. Where I came down is that there are only two reactions mentioned in the playtest (someone correct me if I'm wrong): the Guardian's ability, and readying an action. The Guardian ability wouldn't use your next turn's action, since it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it should, and it's situational enough (you have to be within five feet of an ally who's getting hit) that it won't come up constantly and thus be spammed and broken. It never got used in my playtest, frex. This would actually also be an argument against it being usable on the Guardian himself: in that case he could use it every single turn almost guaranteed, making it very powerful.
Readying an action, on the other hand, wouldn't use your next turn's action, but rather your current turn's action. That is, it would work like it has in 3e and 4e-- instead of taking an action this turn, you "save" it for later in the round, then when it goes off your place in the initiative order drops to that spot. I believe this is even addressed in the playtest packet. So readying an action lets you take a reaction if the definition of reaction is "doing something on someone else's turn," but it's really just a readied action as we know and love them. I expect we'll see more powers that grant reactions in the future, some that use up next turn's action (Opportunity Attacks, perhaps) and some that don't.
Last edited:
Mattachine
Adventurer
I think the strange Intoxicated condition will go away or be changed with the next rules test. The current version is kinda silly.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
I hope it stays the same. The only thing I want to change is forcing the Wizard to make an attack roll for all of his attack spells (including that magic missile), so that getting drunk before every combat isn't an optimal strategy for him, and granting all incoming attacks advantage so that the Kobolds and Goblins have a better chance of slipping some damage through his drunken haze.
It makes sense the way it is. Being drunk makes you clumsy and stupid, so you have disadvantage on anything you try to do. But it also makes you floppy and halfway numb, so you roll with the punches and don't feel the pain.
Casting Spells while drunk are you?
Excellent, just wait here while I go and get that Wild Magic table...
eamon
Explorer
This. Or that you simply have to make a Con save to be able to cast at all.
Even though I don't think intoxicated will make (it's too wonky), it's certainly a fun one to have in the playtest
.
Sadras
Legend
I sympathise with you as a DM, I have been there before for MANY years. I have a decent group now thankfully that dont destroy my adventures!
But one thing I can say, the group of friends of mine that roleplayed similar to yours, well they left the most memorable DnD moments for me.I also didnt really have to plan much with them - they were so chaotic and just plain wrong that half the session was spent dealing with the problems they created within the adventure (getting chased by the law, releasing monsters, causing mayhem at merchant stalls, putting their friends in danger...etc)
But please, please post an update. I miss those days, sometimes and your playtest was a hoot!
