• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells; Plus UA Returning To Monthly & Sage Advice Returning

Chaos Bolt is the first Sorcerer-only spell. Interesting. What I've read so far looks really good. I like the idea of Ceremony quite a bit, but some of the effects (Investiture!) might be a little overpowered.

Chaos Bolt is the first Sorcerer-only spell. Interesting.

What I've read so far looks really good. I like the idea of Ceremony quite a bit, but some of the effects (Investiture!) might be a little overpowered.
 

Personally, I think you are missing the point of 5e. The point in 5e, as I understand it, is to only use the math when needed, otherwise you use common sense and narration.

And that's just the problem. There's only "DM fiat, especially when there are no consequences for failure" and "d20 roll." Any other kind of math is unsupported and non-idiomatic.

As the DM I would say there is no reasonable chance a STR 10 average dude can beat a STR 18 endo-morph in an arm wrestling contest, thus no check.

But for the Str 16 vs. Str 15 guy, you're likely to feel kind of awkward if you rule that there is no check. I would, anyway. I can invent a check that works--a check that still feels like an arm-wrestling contest--by making the Str 15 guy count his margin of success against DC 16 (opponent's strength) to accumulate inches of success, and the Str 16 guy has to make his rolls against DC 15, and the first guy to 12 net inches wins. I can do that, and it works, but it's actually more awkward to do that in 5E than it would be in AD&D, because 5E has this unified mechanic ("[almost] everything is a d20 roll") which sometimes gets in the way more than it helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


Antonlowe

First Post
Regarding the marriage ceremony.... there are things I would much rather be doing during the first 24 hours of marriage, and none of them involve AC. Well maybe...
 

famousringo

First Post
Not that it matters. You have a 12.5% chance of hitting two targets, and a 1.5% chance of hitting three targets.

Worse than that, since you then have to successfully hit the subsequent targets. Even if you do get a lucky streak it seems like a dice rolling nightmare with all the d6s, d8s and d20s. And keep that table handy if the damage type matters.

Thematically, it's fun, but mechanically it's one of the weakest 1st level blasts and absurdly complicated for how little it does. I know it's hard to come up with novel new mechanics without adding complexity, but I wish they'd at least make an effort to keep things elegant.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I'm trying to remember your background: I think you're returning to D&D with 5e after last having run AD&D, that right? But I can't recall if it was 1e or 2e?

Maybe. The 5E chassis is nice in some ways; But it's also very, very combat-centric to the point where I'm practically inventing my own RPG anyway whenever combat isn't happening.

5E is also very married to uniform distributions and d20 rolls as a resolution mechanism to the point where it feels pretty non-idiomatic to do something as simple as say, "The stronger guy wins the arm-wrestling match." (What, no opposed d20 checks?!) Don't get me started on Perception/Investigation checks either.
It's perfectly 5e-idiomatic for the DM to narrate the result of an action without calling for a roll, especially when there's nothing of importance on the line - but then call for a roll when it matters.
It even fits the odd trope (hero walks in, challenges the big guy to arm wrestle, loses handily; big guy does something mildly villainous, hero proposes a re-match with ending said behavior vs some large stake, this time the hero wins).

I see the objection to the d20 mechanic being a uniform distribution though. 2d10 or 3d6 can be used, instead, to get a normal distribution. Crits become very rare, of course. ;)

Currently the main thing keeping me with 5E is, ironically, the fact that I really like the way warriors function in 5E combat; there are lots of fun tactical options for warrior-types and rogue-types during combat--the whole action/reaction/bonus action thing works out really well for them.
That's more ironic than you know. Yes, compared to 1e AD&D it must look that way, but compared to 3.x, & 4e (and presumably even 2e w/C&T), those tactical options have been pulled back quite a lot.

so 5E functions as kind of a compromise between AD&D and GURPS (with a dash of Shadowrun thrown in at 9th+ level).
I can't find a major fault with that appraisal.
 

I'm trying to remember your background: I think you're returning to D&D with 5e after last having run AD&D, that right? But I can't recall if it was 1e or 2e?

2nd edition. Last played it in 1998 though; it's been a loong hiatus and I've learned a lot since then, so I really need to go back and look at it with fresh eyes.

It's perfectly 5e-idiomatic for the DM to narrate the result of an action without calling for a roll, especially when there's nothing of importance on the line - but then call for a roll when it matters.

I must have been unclear. I didn't say nothing was riding on the result of the arm-wrestling match but everyone seems to be assuming so, so my fault for not clarifying. The most recent arm-wrestling match was against a prideful young nobleman who could possibly be persuaded to join them on their quest, but only if they knocked him off his high horse first. Several d20 rolls later, he was humbled and the players were happy--but as DM, I was very aware of the fact that the happy result was almost pure coincidence and would almost never happen. (The player just happened to roll 1 higher than the NPC, twice.) I'm pretty sure the players wouldn't have been happy if I'd just said, "Nope, he's slightly stronger than you, you lose, have a nice quest." But 5E doesn't really support any other resolution mechanisms either, which is what got me thinking about arm wrestling contests in the first place and how to model them. (Well, that and the fact that I'd previously done lots of thinking about Strength contests at all scales, due to GURPS: GULLIVER.)

And once you're inventing your own mechanical resolution mechanisms, you're halfway to inventing your own RPG. Or at least, it might be just as easy to start with AD&D as a baseline and build from there. I'm still evaluating what 5E and AD&D each bring to the table. So far it seems to me that 5E has more exciting combat but AD&D has better pacing. One question is, is it easier to fix 5E's pacing or AD&D's combat dynamics? 5E's pacing is baked pretty deeply into the system--it would conceivably be easier to import advantage/disadvantage and conditions like prone to AD&D (i.e. replacing various -2 modifiers with disadvantage) than to rewrite all of the 5E classes that are oriented around an "adventuring day" as the unit of play.

Edit: or, you could keep all of the 5E classes as is, just rewrite the way you write dungeons, and just let the chips fall where they may. That's basically what I've been doing so far with 5E but I could ramp it up by adding more monsters that bypass HP (old-style Green Slime) and/or kill you when you hit zero HP, golems that are flat-out immune to spells and to weapons with less than +2 enchantment, mind flayers with 90% magic resistance, save-or-die poison traps, etc. It would basically be "5E PCs in an AD&D dungeon." Might be worth trying.

Also relevant: http://www.gamesdiner.com/2017/02/gurps-next-big-release-gears-up-to-tackle-dungeon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shamurai7

Banned
Banned
Some of these spells are just godawful......
Some of them are very cool.
Cool Spells: Chaos Bolt, Guiding Hand, Hand of Radiance, Puppet, Toll the Dead, Unearthly Chorus, Virtue, and Zephyr Strike.
The others are pretty lame and would be a waste of page space... Even among the good ones their are amateurish rules that bog them down.
Virtue should be ranged, otherwise make it a d6. Zephyr is somehow underwhelming, Puppet using Con is weird, Hand of Radiance should do extra vs undead and fiends and hit 'all' creatures and not just enemies.

I thought these were professional developers? Seems like common sense stuff.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not if it is an extra-dimensional Cauldron*. It would be very mystical to have a Warlck just throwing ingredients into a glowing hole, then they pull out a potion. I would probably add Invocations for it to make special potions, with special reagents. "If you can find Dragon Flesh (Parts of any creature with the 'Dragon' Tag), you can make a Fear Immunity potion that lasts 1 hour. Consumes 1 lb. of the material component.

EDIT: For some reason I wrote "Extra dimensional Dungeon". Fixed.

I like it! Stealing that!
 

dave2008

Legend
And that's just the problem. There's only "DM fiat, especially when there are no consequences for failure" and "d20 roll." Any other kind of math is unsupported and non-idiomatic.

Perhaps by RAW it is not supported, I don't feel that way (as noted below), but I don't stress over RAW anyway. Unless you are talking about using other dice than d20, then yes you are stuck with that. Is there support for degrees of failure or success - is that what your looking for? Again, I am not sure what RAW is on that subject, but the 5e framework definitely supports degrees of success and failure. I am sure there a abilities (definitely monsters, not sure about PCs) that have different consequences if you fail a save by 5 or more than if you fail by less than 5. I intuitively use the same concept when I DM, so saves, hits, and misses often have degrees of success or failure when I play 5e (or 4e or 1e before that).


But for the Str 16 vs. Str 15 guy, you're likely to feel kind of awkward if you rule that there is no check. I would, anyway. I can invent a check that works--a check that still feels like an arm-wrestling contest--by making the Str 15 guy count his margin of success against DC 16 (opponent's strength) to accumulate inches of success, and the Str 16 guy has to make his rolls against DC 15, and the first guy to 12 net inches wins. I can do that, and it works, but it's actually more awkward to do that in 5E than it would be in AD&D, because 5E has this unified mechanic ("[almost] everything is a d20 roll") which sometimes gets in the way more than it helps.

I see no reason to fiat a Str 16 vs a Str 15 contest. Now, if you want the tension of more than one role, just make it more than one role. A system you describe of the set up provided in the DMG: a number of successes before a number of fails. Or simply the first to set number of successes.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top