log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E WotC Shares Theros Table of Contents

Russ Morrissey

Comments


log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
Ugh - that is not what I am talking about. I don't know if people are being obtuse or I am horrible at explaining. What ever it is, you either don't get what I am saying or are just trying to push my buttons or something. I am tired of trying to explain and clarify - you (the collective you) win!

EDIT: I have to try one last time. A magic sword that can cut through anything its blade touches can cut through 1" of steel, but it can't cut through 36" of cheese (in one stroke) because the blade doesn't touch the last 6" of cheese. Does that help explain what I am talking about?
Sure, you're arguing that properties of space (the length of the substance) are less malleable in fantasy than properties of materials (the hardness of steel versus cheese). I can understand why that would feel true for many flavors of fantasy.
 



dave2008

Legend
Sure, you're arguing that properties of space (the length of the substance) are less malleable in fantasy than properties of materials (the hardness of steel versus cheese). I can understand why that would feel true for many flavors of fantasy.
No, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there are properties of space and scale to consider, that is all. It is up to the individual fantasy to determine how malleable those are.
 

I can't believe i am doing this, but I can't help myself. That is not my premise. My premise is simply one of scale. A Huge red dragon is significantly smaller (10-50 times smaller) than Godzilla.
So what? It's still to big to hack through it's neck or reach it's heart with a single sword blow. Killing a monster in D&D is not hacking through it's skin. Hit points are not meat. Maybe when the fighter kills Godzilla he carves a tunnel though it's flesh until he reaches it's heart, or he climbs up it's body, slices through it's eyeball, swims through it's aqueous humour, and uses a his shield to hammer the sword through the back of the eye socket into the brain. Combat in D&D is abstracted and you can fluff it any way you like.
All I am trying to say is the the effects of an action against a thing of one scale can be different on things of a different scale. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that if I take an action against a twig (throw it lets say) I should expect the same action (with nothing changing on my part) to have the same effect on a tree. They are similar objects, but at much different scale.
In D&D a halfing can have more hit points than a giant. They are similar things that differ only in scale, but the small thing is harder to kill than the big thing. Your comparison is meaningless, hit points are not size.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Magic swords are not limited in killing power by the length of their blades.

That sounds kind of erotic now I think about it.

Maybe a 3 foot magic sword CAN cut through 30 foot of cheese in one stroke. It is after all, magic.
If you have to come up with a specific exception to what he is saying, because magic swords don't as a general rule do that, you've lost the debate. You are acknowledging that he is correct by doing so.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So what? It's still to big to hack through it's neck or reach it's heart with a single sword blow. Killing a monster in D&D is not hacking through it's skin. Hit points are not meat. Maybe when the fighter kills Godzilla he carves a tunnel though it's flesh until he reaches it's heart, or he climbs up it's body, slices through it's eyeball, swims through it's aqueous humour, and uses a his shield to hammer the sword through the back of the eye socket into the brain. Combat in D&D is abstracted and you can fluff it any way you like.

In D&D a halfing can have more hit points than a giant. They are similar things that differ only in scale, but the small thing is harder to kill than the big thing. Your comparison is meaningless, hit points are not size.
Hit points in D&D are also not not meat. They are both as you need them, but eventually they are meat. This is explicitly true in 5e.

"When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

And...

"An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester
Hit points in D&D are also not not meat. They are both as you need them, but eventually they are meat. This is explicitly true in 5e.

"When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

And...

"An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
Right, that's the "bloodied" concept from 4e - until that point in the encounter, HP represent your luck and skill in glancing off the blows or avoiding a injurious hit. After that point, you're injured in some way, and when you get to 0 HP, you're in an extremely dangerous injury that could kill you (or alternatively, knocked out if the attacker decided so).
 

dave2008

Legend
So what? It's still to big to hack through it's neck or reach it's heart with a single sword blow. Killing a monster in D&D is not hacking through it's skin. Hit points are not meat. Maybe when the fighter kills Godzilla he carves a tunnel though it's flesh until he reaches it's heart, or he climbs up it's body, slices through it's eyeball, swims through it's aqueous humour, and uses a his shield to hammer the sword through the back of the eye socket into the brain. Combat in D&D is abstracted and you can fluff it any way you like.
Sure, but I wasn't talking about D&D or even a game.

However, a Huge read dragon neck is probably small enough to hack through. Its neck is less than 10 feet long and is probably less than 3 feet thick ;)
In D&D a halfing can have more hit points than a giant. They are similar things that differ only in scale, but the small thing is harder to kill than the big thing. Your comparison is meaningless, hit points are not size.
Again, I wasn't talking about D&D or a game, I was talking about the size and scale of things in general and how they might be applied to fantasy creatures and situations. I am not trying to create a game mechanic for Godzilla in D&D.

Since you failed to answer my honest question I assume you are not conducting this conversation in good faith. I am done with it.
 

However, a Huge read dragon neck is probably small enough to hack through. Its neck is less than 10 feet long and is probably less than 3 feet thick ;)
Not an ancient dragon, check the illustrations, ancient dragons have a neck about as thick as the person fighting it is tall - i.e. about 6 feet.

If you check out the BG3 trailers, the gith (who are on average taller than humans) are riding dragons whose necks are not much thinner than they are tall. And those dragons aren't ancient.

A three foot thick neck would be a small dragon.
 

dave2008

Legend
Not an ancient dragon, check the illustrations, ancient dragons have a neck about as thick as the person fighting it is tall - i.e. about 6 feet.

If you check out the BG3 trailers, the gith (who are on average taller than humans) are riding dragons whose necks are not much thinner than they are tall. And those dragons aren't ancient.

A three foot thick neck would be a small dragon.
You still don't get it - that's OK. I'll move on.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
Potentially, you could cut through 95cm of skin by continuously hacking at the same point with your 75cm sword. At some point of course, that means your hand and arm are also now inside the skin thickness.

That's all assuming piercing or slashing damage. I wonder if bludgeoning damage could do enough to actually impact Godzilla...

Maybe you can just make Godzilla have 1000 hp, 30AC, Invulnerable to non-Magic weapons, Resistance to Slashing and Piercing...
 

Let's move on. This is going nowhere.

So, the bard's level 3 abilities are okay. Silver Tongue is extremely useful and exploitable. Permanent 10 or above for any Deception or Persuasion roll.
Unsettling words is useful, but I don't really see why this subclass gets it.

Any thoughts?
 



Okay, first, the Bard College of Eloquence. The D&D team has said that this bard is meant to be a "philosopher" type from Greek history, like Plato or Aristotle. The UA and current subclass is very different, but fairly similar in theme. Here are the abilities compared:

First, the previous level 3 abilities of the Eloquence Bard. The UA eloquence bard could expend a bardic inspiration to speak to any creature and have them understand you for the next 10 minutes. The other UA level 3 feature was being able to cast calm emotions an amount of times per long rest equal to your charisma modifier without expending a spell slot. The current abilities are that if you roll a 9 or lower for a Charisma (Persuasion or Deception) check, the number rolled on the dice automatically becomes a 10. We have a few abilities like this already, but only for Rogues, IIRC. The next ability is that as a bonus action, you may give an enemy a negative bardic inspiration, and they roll the dice and subtract it from the next saving throw they make before the start of your next turn.
So, these abilities changed a lot at this level. They definitely made the subclass at this level feel more "evil" than it was before. Just the fact that they're super good at Deception, which is normally linked with bad people, Persuasion, which can be used for bad purposes, and can subtract bardic inspiration from enemies? This just all sounds negative, instead of the positive disney princess that this subclass was before, with speaking to squirrels and calming angry crowds of people.

Second, the previous 6th level ability. This ability let you use bardic inspiration to harm or heal creatures. You could hurt an enemy with psychic damage, and give them disadvantage on the next saving throw they make before the end of your next turn. (This ability is kind of similar to the now 3rd level ability Unsettling Words, but was better and more useful.) The new 2 sixth level abilities are to have your bardic inspiration stay on an ally for 10 minutes, with them using it round after round, but only if they use it for an ability check, saving throw, or attack roll AND the roll fails. (This is similar to part of the previous level 14 ability) The second level 6 ability is the ability to once per long rest or until you expend a spell slot to regain it, talk to up to 5 creatures at a time and have them understand you, no matter the language. (This is like the previously level 3 ability, but no longer requires bardic inspiration, and instead requires spell slots to do it multiple times a day.)
This subclass no longer feels as evil! You can speak with bunnies (but they can't speak back), can make sure your bardic inspiration never go to waste if you place them on the right person, and be a very good support character.

Third, the last level of these subclass features, level 14. (Wow, bard subclasses really are starved for abilities, and the jump from level 6 to 14 is a long haul) So, the previous ability was to make it so your bardic inspiration doesn't get wasted on failed attacks, saves, and checks. It additionally gave you the ability to move a successful bardic inspiration dice to another ally an amount of times equal to your Charisma modifier per long rest. The new ability is the exact same as the second part of the previous level 14 ability.
Now, this ability got significantly smaller than it was in the UA version, but it's for a good reason. They were making sure you could make the best use out of you bardic inspiration at lower levels.

Most of the changes to this subclass were moving around abilities to different levels, fixing small parts of abilities to balance them more, and changing how often you could use those abilities. I am upset they got rid of the Calm Emotions for free ability, but the replacement for that is probably more useful, and a lot more abusable (I don't think that's a positive, but I'm not sure).

Any thoughts on this? Did I get anything wrong?
 

Parmandur

Legend
Wow, bard subclasses really are starved for abilities, and the jump from level 6 to 14 is a long haul
Bards definitely have their power budget firmly set more in the core Class features, more than Subclass.

The Level 3 changes seem brilliant, giving this Bard reliable talent for Persuasion and Deception makes this the ultimate face character: putting Expertise on these two Skills means the Eloquence Bard is unmatched for social interactions.
 

Yes, they are very good at social interaction. At level 17+ with expertise in Persuasion and Deception, and combined with this ability, the lowest number you should be able to get with a +5 to Charisma would be a 27. That's kind of ridiculous.
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top