Best Version of DnD?

[etherial]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-uncanny-resurrection-of-dungeons-and-dragons

 

Fascinating New Yorker article on D&D. I suggest you stop once you reach the history lesson, though. CW: Mazes and Monsters.

[etherial]

10 hours ago, Unruly said:

I find it very different to give a bonus to someone for being able to do something well than to penalize someone for not being able to. That would be like penalizing a fighter for not playing tactically by giving them a penalty to hit and amping up the damage they take rather than just letting the rules stand as they are. But to sit there and go "You get a -5 to your diplomacy check because you just said 'I try to convince the sheriff to help us' rather than giving me an impassioned speech and a reasoned argument about why he should help" is a bunch of crap. And I've seen that happen.

Applying a penalty seems pretty ridiculous to me. You don't penalize a player for being unable to cast spells. If the player and character have wildly different abilities, use the dice, that's what they're for. If I'm playing a moron, I'll ask the GM permission to roll Into to see if they can come up with my brilliant idea. If I fail, I'll just say something stupid that helps the other players come up with the idea. If I'm playing a Diplomat and have no social foo, it's my character's stats, not mine, that determine success or failure.

[Sylverthorne]

10 hours ago, Unruly said:

It's right up there with how my friend disallows monks because they're "Oriental" rather than European medieval. It doesn't matter that I wasn't going to be playing a freaking Shaolin monk and wanted to play a drunken bar brawler, because the class name is monk my whole character idea was invalidated in his eyes. His response was to play a Fighter that just didn't use weapons. Yep, and deal 1d4 damage no matter what, and never have the ability to damage anything with resistance to non-magical damage, and to ignore half of my class features because they require a weapon.

 

I also disallow the monk class (and most of the Oriental flavoured stuff) because people have a habit of going for the Shaolin monk instead of Friar Tuck.. or a bare-fist brawler of any other type, and it just doesn't quite fit. It works sometimes, usually when the player has a good story - a good explanation - for the selection. But it has to be explained, or I'm going to be giving people the side-eye and probably saying 'no'.

 

That having been said, if someone comes to me and says, 'I want to play this brawler-type character, and the class that fits it best is monk', I would probably let them do it. Especially in a system that doesn't include a better fitting class. Depending on the character, and the player, I might even waive the alignment restriction. >.>

[Paradoxical Mouse]

2 hours ago, etherial said:

Applying a penalty seems pretty ridiculous to me. You don't penalize a player for being unable to cast spells. If the player and character have wildly different abilities, use the dice, that's what they're for. If I'm playing a moron, I'll ask the GM permission to roll Into to see if they can come up with my brilliant idea. If I fail, I'll just say something stupid that helps the other players come up with the idea. If I'm playing a Diplomat and have no social foo, it's my character's stats, not mine, that determine success or failure.

But what if the player attempts to roleplay the conversation and says something that would normally make the conversation fail? Should the DM leave the DC as it was, or make the DC for being convinced higher to account for the fact that the NPC they were trying to convince was insulted by the player's in character remark?

[TheAuldGrump]

21 hours ago, Doug Sundseth said:

Didn't say that Inspire Courage was weak; it's very useful, especially for a large group. So is Prayer.

 

The problem is that it is boring. IME, the bard is about the third-best character at nearly anything he wants to do. He's not as good a fighter as a cleric (because of armor), he's not as good at area control spells as either a real arcane caster or a cleric, he's no better at skills than a Wizard or Rogue, and only a bit better than a Ranger (though Bardic Knowledge is very useful), he's a very poor healer, because he doesn't have bursts and has to give up very limited known spells to have any healing at all.

 

What he's really good at is being the face, but that's only a mechanical advantage for what is mostly a role-playing thing. If your bard's player is bad at talking, the character isn't even going to face well.

 

All of this is significantly mitigated by taking the bard as a cohort. He can still sing almost as well as if he were two levels higher. He can do emergency healing almost as well (including being the wielder of the CLW wand). He can cast most sorts of buff spells pretty well (the two-level penalty isn't all that significant there). He still gets bardic knowledge. And nobody is stuck with just singing and doing utility stuff.

 

Now, if you have a player who is a really good face himself and really wants to play that sort of character, a bard may be perfect. The mechanical advantages will synergize with his natural talent and a good talker can have fun and help the group without being all that useful in combat. You have to have the player skill just like you can't be a decent wizard player without being the kind of person that really likes thinking ahead about what spells to memorize for the day and treating every encounter as an exercise in limited resources.

 

I don't dislike bards, but I don't much like them as PCs. They don't have enough significant choices in way too many encounters. And I've seen players too often get really frustrated with running them.

Wait - you are saying the the bard class is bad because people that do not like playing bards shouldn't play bards?

 

I... hate to tell you this - but that is the case for all classes.

 

People that do not like playing wizards shouldn't play wizards, people that do not like playing clerics shouldn't play clerics, etc..

 

I do not expect wizard players to cast spells, I do not expect cleric players to turn undead, and I do not expect bard players to sing. (In some cases... it might be best that they not.)

 

I have run a game where the party bard was played by an opera singer. (For the record - she was the skinniest woman that I have ever met.) I used to annoy her boyfriend by talking opera with her - one of the few people that she knew who could. (And had a nice conversation about opera buffa. I lean more to the light end of opera.)

 

Giving a bonus for actually singing... much as I might enjoy that, my general answer is 'no'. Much like I do not allow my SCA players to get a bonus by pulling out their rattan weapons and having at. (Except in Baron Münchhausen....)

 

If you are saying that bard is a bad class because you don't like the class - talk to the hand, the ears ain't listening.

 

The thing is that most of the people that do play bards are doing so because they want to play bards - the GM is not grabbing their character sheets and sketching in a lute.

 

As for monks... it very much depends on the game and the monk - if one of the kids wants to play a monk in the pirates game? Have at! The party picked him up at some open port or another.

If I am running a game in Sherwood Forest, and the player wants to be a Taoist monk... uhm, no. They want to play Friar Stone?

Him, I can make room for. (Yeah - a tetsubo is an eastern weapon - but a great club is a great club.)

 

In game, when that figure was used in the Serpent's Skull, he had a predilection for psylocybin mushrooms - and was a multiclassed monk/druid. It is always the druids that go after the 'shrooms, man....

 

The Auld Grump

[Doug Sundseth]

6 minutes ago, TheAuldGrump said:

Wait - you are saying the the bard class is bad because people that do not like playing bards shouldn't play bards?

 

No, I'm saying that in my experience most of the people who think that playing a bard will be fun for them are wrong and will want to change classes or leave the campaign pretty quickly if they make that choice. This is not true to the same extent for most other core classes, though it is for many non-core classes.

 

I'm also saying that bards are not as mechanically good for a group that cares about that as many other classes.

 

Both of those are in response to what I perceive to be claims I disagree with.

[TheAuldGrump]

6 minutes ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

No, I'm saying that in my experience most of the people who think that playing a bard will be fun for them are wrong and will want to change classes or leave the campaign pretty quickly if they make that choice. This is not true to the same extent for most other core classes, though it is for many non-core classes.

 

I'm also saying that bards are not as mechanically good for a group that cares about that as many other classes.

 

Both of those are in response to what I perceive to be claims I disagree with.

Honestly, I have been much more likely to encounter that with a wizard or a cleric - and even that was more in the 2nd edition and earlier. (Math allergies. )

 

Off hand, I cannot think of a single bard player that did not like playing the class in either the games that I have run or the games that I have played in. (In truth - I was probably the most likely to play the bard. And in 1st edition AD&D, they were downright broken.)

 

The Auld Grump

[TheAuldGrump]

That's annoying - Elfwood is gone...

 

I was going to link to some of Fredrik Andersson's Tales of the Bard comics.... (Elven bard... who is a complete ditz.)

 

The Auld Grump

[Doug Sundseth]

2 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

Honestly, I have been much more likely to encounter that with a wizard or a cleric - and even that was more in the 2nd edition and earlier. (Math allergies. )

 

Off hand, I cannot think of a single bard player that did not like playing the class in either the games that I have run or the games that I have played in. (In truth - I was probably the most likely to play the bard. And in 1st edition AD&D, they were downright broken.)

 

The Auld Grump

 

Fair enough; probably a difference in groups. My group is almost entirely semi-articulate scientists, engineers, and programmers, so we have a different set of problems. For that matter, I'm not much worried about what an experienced player will choose; they'll either pick something they like or deal with it fairly well if that doesn't happen. New players are the much bigger problem for me.

 

A new player with a bard who might already be having problems stepping out of his own character and into the character on the sheet can find pretty much everything about being a bard bad. Useful in combat, but mostly by saying, "I keep singing" followed by "I roll a 14 to hit, oh well", useful in social encounters, but mostly by saying "I roll a 26 on my Diplomacy" once every 15 minutes or so, and not really the best at anything but skills that might not be used in a particular game. By contrast, a barbarian gets to act like a dolt in social encounters without much penalty or shame (and often lots of fun for the whole party), and gets to hit many things for much damage in combat encounters. Better player engagement, especially for a new player.

[PaganMegan]

8 minutes ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

Fair enough; probably a difference in groups. My group is almost entirely semi-articulate scientists, engineers, and programmers, so we have a different set of problems. For that matter, I'm not much worried about what an experienced player will choose; they'll either pick something they like or deal with it fairly well if that doesn't happen. New players are the much bigger problem for me.

 

A new player with a bard who might already be having problems stepping out of his own character and into the character on the sheet can find pretty much everything about being a bard bad. Useful in combat, but mostly by saying, "I keep singing" followed by "I roll a 14 to hit, oh well", useful in social encounters, but mostly by saying "I roll a 26 on my Diplomacy" once every 15 minutes or so, and not really the best at anything but skills that might not be used in a particular game. By contrast, a barbarian gets to act like a dolt in social encounters without much penalty or shame (and often lots of fun for the whole party), and gets to hit many things for much damage in combat encounters. Better player engagement, especially for a new player.

I have seen Grump playing a barbarian.

 

His barbarian had the highest charisma in the party.

 

As a bard, he sings. Bonus or not. As a barbarian, he sings. As  paladin, h sings.

 

Why should bard be any different?

[TheAuldGrump]

22 hours ago, PaganMegan said:

I have seen Grump playing a barbarian.

 

His barbarian had the highest charisma in the party.

 

As a bard, he sings. Bonus or not. As a barbarian, he sings. As  paladin, he sings.

 

Why should bard be any different?

 

 

I blame Tolkien.... Even his dwarves sing.

 

***

 

Thinking about a mechanic for Sam's campaign - either a modifier or a series of alternate encounter tables - as her heroes clear the dungeons, the area gets safer - and eventually a town forms, after the mine is cleared. (The Cruel Dwarf Mines - where some of the campaign background can be found and/or ignored. Duergar and fire giants used to share an empire - the chaotic races rebelled, and shattered that empire - driving the civilized races south and west. To the far north and east is the nascent hobgoblin empire - who were part of that rebellion, but now want an empire of their own. The duergar and the fire giants were driven onto another continent.)

 

One idea is to just give some of the random encounters labels - an encounter table might have a heading for Cruel Dwarf Mines as a subtable - and that table to be ignored when the mines are cleared. So the ones that are labeled Cruel Dwarf Mines will become No Encounter when the mine is cleared.

 

This does not mean that all the raiding monsters are from the dungeons - the dungeons also support, supply, and/or fund raiders.

 

The mine is still functional, and will become the basis of the town forming.

 

The other idea is to have a modifier for each active dungeon, with that modifier going away as each dungeon is cleared.

 

The Auld Grump

[BlazingTornado]

Re: social, roleplay vs rollplay: I won't judge people who prefer rolling for all the social things but I do like to actually roleplay, and actively encourage my players to do the same. I won't put so much pressure on a player that they'll feel like they're at the most stressful job interview of their lives... We're all friends at the table, or at least we try to be. Just kills the immersion to just go "I roll persuasion/diplomacy"... I'm not going to put you on the spot but give me something, even if it takes you a few minutes. Even if you're just quoting something from a movie or novel. Even if not a full in-character speech at least some approach, describe to me what your character intends to say. That at least gives me an angle of what you're going for and how that particular NPC would react to such words or such an approach. But again, that is my preference and if you're happy with diplomacy rolls, I'm not going to hate you or judge you or tell you your fun is wrong.

And yes I am a socially awkward loser but amongst people getting into their characters I'm not afraid to try and actually play a charismatic elf of noble blood.

 

Re: Monks and kung fu. Nope, definitely not one of those guys who thinks playing a monk means playing an eastern martial artist. But obviously the class is monk and the flavor, at least in 5E, involves a lot of "monastic traditions" so there needs to be some physical training and meditation involved... but I feel it's just as good to play a Franciscan monk who carries a quarterstaff and fights like an Irish boxer.

[Unruly]

On 10/25/2017 at 1:26 PM, Sylverthorne said:

 

I also disallow the monk class (and most of the Oriental flavoured stuff) because people have a habit of going for the Shaolin monk instead of Friar Tuck.. or a bare-fist brawler of any other type, and it just doesn't quite fit. It works sometimes, usually when the player has a good story - a good explanation - for the selection. But it has to be explained, or I'm going to be giving people the side-eye and probably saying 'no'.

 

That having been said, if someone comes to me and says, 'I want to play this brawler-type character, and the class that fits it best is monk', I would probably let them do it. Especially in a system that doesn't include a better fitting class. Depending on the character, and the player, I might even waive the alignment restriction. >.>

 

5e actually got rid of the alignment restrictions on everything, and we were playing a 5e game at the time, so that wasn't even part of his problem. It was just a one shot, and I wanted to play a dwarven "brewmaster" that thought the best way to become better at brewing his own beer was by traveling the world drinking everyone else's. And because he was a drunken lout that frequented the worst bars in the towns he went to, he got in fights all the time. And so, through years of bar fighting, he got to be pretty dang good at delivering a beat down with his hands, feet, forehead, and teeth. But because the class name was "monk" my friend wouldn't let me do it.

 

I ended up playing that character in another friend's game, and he was a blast. In fact, he ended up being the guy that kept things moving. Who else knows how to get information out of a bunch of lowlifes than a guy who spent the last 40 years in the same shady dive bars that they tend to frequent? Especially when he can hold his own in the inevitable 4-on-1 after he asks the wrong questions and then finishes it up by waterboarding one of the guys with some rotgut ale.

 

At one point I flavored his finishing blow on a guy as a flying headbutt followed by going Mike Tyson on the guy's nose...

 

I can understand not allowing certain things because they don't fit with the theme you're going for. For instance, I tend to prefer sword and sorcery style games where firearms don't exist. So say that someone wanted to play a Pathfinder Gunslinger in such a campaign with the whole point being that they wanted to have a gun. I wouldn't allow it. However, if they wanted to rework the Gunslinger as using a custom crossbow and we basically just reskinned it as such, I'd have no real problem. The crossbow would still have the same failure mechanics as firearms, and they could still use all their Grit abilities and everything, but it wouldn't be a gun.

[Unruly]

5 hours ago, BlazingTornado said:

Re: Monks and kung fu. Nope, definitely not one of those guys who thinks playing a monk means playing an eastern martial artist. But obviously the class is monk and the flavor, at least in 5E, involves a lot of "monastic traditions" so there needs to be some physical training and meditation involved... but I feel it's just as good to play a Franciscan monk who carries a quarterstaff and fights like an Irish boxer.

 

See, it was a Way of the Open Hand Monk, which is basically just a martial artist. The Open Hand Technique is basically just knowing how to trip, shove, or stun someone. Wholeness of Body is essentially that scene in just about every action movie where the hero gets beat up, stands up, wipes the blood off his mouth, and is seemingly unfazed. Tranquility is basically just good situational awareness.

 

Quivering Palm is about the only thing that gets kind of hard to interpret outside of Eastern martial arts, because it's essentially Kenshiro's ability in Fist of the North Star. But even then, it's not some major Wuxia style stuff like what you get if you went Way of Shadow or Way of the Four Elements instead.

 

I'm not going to deny that it's not a perfect fit, but compared to "play a fighter that doesn't use weapons" a monk makes for a far better tavern brawler.

 

Edit: wow. Autocorrupt turned "every" into "velvety" for some reason...

Edited October 27, 2017 by Unruly

[Sylverthorne]

1 minute ago, Unruly said:

 

See, it was a Way of the Open Hand Monk, which is basically just a martial artist. The Open Hand Technique is basically just knowing how to trip, shove, or stun someone. Wholeness of Body is essentially that scene in just about velvety action movie where the hero gets beat up, stands up, wipes the blood off his mouth, and is seemingly unfazed. Tranquility is basically just good situational awareness.

 

Quivering Palm is about the only thing that gets kind of hard to interpret outside of Eastern martial arts, because it's essentially Kenshiro's ability in Fist of the North Star. But even then, it's not some major Wuxia style stuff like what you get if you went Way of Shadow or Way of the Four Elements instead.

 

I'm not going to deny that it's not a perfect fit, but compared to "play a fighter that doesn't use weapons" a monk makes for a far better tavern brawler.

 

Yar. I mean.. in Pathfinder, you have some choices. Too many, for some people's liking, I know. I enjoy the flexibility, myself....

One of Pathfinder's hybrid classes is the brawler; essentially takes the mystic foofaw out of the monk and gives them some of the fighter's advantages.

Or you can archetype a fighter.. I seem to recall a bare-fist archetype existing for a lot of classes, come to think of it. I managed to set up an effective weaponless rogue once... there's some neat things you can do with rogue talents in PF. That was amusing, given the character's appearance and the company she kept, no one expected her to haul off and be capable of knocking some poor sucker out in one blow.

 

But for systems that don't give you that flexibility, or something like it? The monk will probably fit better than the fighter, even if you have to rename and re-flavor a few of the special abilities. I don't know from 5e, and haven't tried building a character out of the SRD for that kind of thing (I usually start simple, if I'm mucking with a system I'm not familiar with, and making a brawler out of a monk or fighter isn't simple to my mind), but ... speaking from the GM's perspective, your friend was limiting himself. Especially for a one-shot. That's my opinion, mind; and may be taken with however much salt is needed. ^^;