TheRPGSite

I've come to a conclusion about 5e: I hate to love it.

Let me tell you, my fellow bagpiping, hairy-legged skirt-wearing men/women, authoritatively why. And this will sound like a contradiction to a lot of my previous posts about game-balance (this where I play my crackling recording of me saying Game Balance is Bunk... now gtfo my lawn)... But after a lengthy discussion with myself as witnessed by a lone witness, 5e has reminded me that our D&D-loving tribe, splintered and torn after the bloody edition-wars of yore, are still feeling the pain.

5e solves a *lot* of problems that were introduced to the game in 3.x/4e. Nothing annoyed the shit out of me more than LFQM (well that's what I'm going with right now to justify my point. I'm sure other things annoyed me just as much). Now I want you all to hear me out on this...

Whilst I claim that "Balance" is not necessary. I mean to say that in terms of the game, everyone shouldn't be the best at everything all the time and the system can balance things on its own conceits free of class options etc. For example if you play Talislanta, sure you can be an Ahazu warrior which is a combat-monster-killing-machine, but you're likely to be an illiterate slave in terms of anything else. So creating a one-trick pony in that game is balanced by all the other stuff you'll be excluded out of. But hey... how about those four-arms!

So in 3x - in particular, the idea of non-casters getting these Feats as expressions of how your PC does their "thing" - seemed good on the surface, but the real issue is that they're locked into these internal trees that in terms of bang-for-the-leveling buck, go nowhere. They're literally dismantling abilities that you could do in 1e/2e and piecemealing it back to you in breadcrumbs as some kind of reward, and/or hiding the real beneficial shit behind Feats that were mechanically worthless (Feat tax).

Meanwhile casters could get spells that pound-for-pound were *far* more powerful than any Feat... since by their very nature they scaled. And it cost them nothing to accrue more.

This also fueled this irritating trend in creating character-builds free of context by players that causes my eyes to itch. St. Gygax never intended for the gamecurve to exceed 10th. That's why you got name level at 9th (depends on your class) right? RIGHT. This 20-level non-sense was just that. The math behind the game didn't support it.

A curious thing happened to me, during this time I was writing a lot for Dragon and running my own long-term 3.x game... I discovered 7th's Sea's d20 game "Swashbuckling Adventures" - and those PrC's in there were exactly what I wanted. Now before everyone starts screaming "that shit was totally OP!!!" I submit... my simple question... Compared to WHAT?

Fighters/Rogues/Non-casters in general now had these cool PrC's that frontloaded a *shitload* of feats and special abilities to mostly non-casters benefit. They deviated from the "standard" Save progressions in the PHB as well. But they made my hesitant players realize their characters concepts with gusto. My casters were terrified, but then realized that it didn't impact their characters at all. Why should it?

I tried sneaking some of these ideas into a lot of my articles for Dragon, and some of the books I did. But I *always* got this pushback from, surprisingly the same people that complained about the same shit I did, that it was *TOO* powerful.

So to this, again, I submit, compared to WHAT? A wizard/druid/cleric?

When I discovered Fantasy Craft - I realized this was what I wanted. The layout of the book sucked, but the system was insanely sturdy, I could take-or leave what I wanted by design (so I didn't have to use the narrative-stuff) and the gap between classes was reduced down to nearly nothing - and no one felt like they got jipped. I never looked back.

Enter 5e
So 5e lands, and they give us the skeleton of the system, which for me is fine. They put the reins firmly in the hands of the DM, give general guidance on how to use their new/old mechanics. However, obvious nods to 3.x/4e still get in the way of things. There is still the stink of casters being comparatively more useful than non-casters, which isn't the sole problem, it's that I can't easily use 5e as given to create the things my players want to play and feel mechanically and thematically on par.

Too many things tied to level progression in an odd way. Too little consideration to the non-caster classes in terms of what purpose they serve other than to be cardboard-cut outs kneeling in homage to Sacred Cows (looking at you Ranger).

Yet I feel perfectly fine fixing things by doing my own thing. But even when talking about tweaking the newly beefed up Feats just a notch, I've heard the cries of "POWERCREEP!!!" come barreling at me.

Spoiler

Let me give you an example -

Tavern Brawler
Tavern Brawler Accustomed to rough-and-tumble fighting using whatever weapons happen to be at hand, you gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes
• Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
• When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.

Here is a Feat I created meant for my gladiatorial arenas. I don't let PC's just take these kinds of feats "just because" - there needs to be a rationale in your background for starting PC's or it has to be earned in-game.

Pankration
Trained in the ancient art of physical unarmed combat emphasizing striking and grappling, you have honed your body through a rigorous training regimen into a both a weapon of strength and physical beauty.

• Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You are proficient with grappling and unarmed strikes.
• Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
• When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target. You double your Proficiency bonus to Grapple attacks or to Escape a grapple
• You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.

So some have asked - why would you ever take Tavern Brawler over Pankration then? My response is - do you think a professional Pankrationist is a probably a better fighter than say... an accomplished Tavern Brawler? Now I know for some people that sounds like "fluff-rhetoric" - but I'm being serious. You *could* argue that these things are reflective of "level" as a show of skill. I would disagree. The differences are there. Small but significant.

I say that some skills (or in this case Feats) are representative of *more* than just character-levels. But yes, I agree my Pankration Feat is representative of a collection of abilities that is assumed to require more training than being a "Tavern Brawler" and therefore a bit more heft - and I tried to reflect that.

But let's assume you even buy this line of reasoning (or don't) - the real question to me remains: if this is OP, I still submit the original question - compared to what? The crazy miracles that casters can do? Not really.

So I went a bit further... take this assumption - I like fighting styles. So I started porting over fighting styles from 7th sea and making them into Feats.

Three Circles Fencing
A school of fencing thought to come from Eshpurta in Amn, teaches supreme control and awareness of ones immediate surroundings. Masters of the Three Circles are feared on the streets of Amn's dueling circles as they are said to be impossible to take unawares and avoid blows with preternatural ease while delivering deadly strikes in return. The Three Circles school is primarily light, one handed weapons by tradition, but can be used with any proficient melee weapon.

• The First Circle - With a Ready action you cannot be taken by surprise nor can opponents gain Advantage on you by attacking from cover or by outflanking you. If an opponent misses an attack action directed at you, you may take a Reaction to attack that opponent.
• The Second Circle - If an opponent moves within 5-feet, you may use a Bonus action to make an attack on them even if they use the Disengage action.
• The Third Circle - Spending a Movement action, you may flurry your blade to ward off incoming attacks and gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Now keep in mind the caveat - you can't just choose these Feats because they exist. I enforce getting these either through Faction rewards, or as part of character generation which assumes a lot of background stuff you'll have to own in the game.

And now... I think I feel more comfortable using 5e. It doesn't feel so anemic for non-casters. I've been messing around with 5e since it came out, and I always felt like it was this palace of potential coolness but the columns were like an inch-short.

Am I alone in this?

My inner pedant cries, but for the most part I see where you are coming from.

(Pedantry in the form of:
- Improvised weapon proficiency? paradox in rule terms.
- Grappling proficiency? doesn't exist. it's a contested attribute(skill) check, and the attribute(skills) open up in contest defender's case.
- Ready action consumes one's action and reaction to allow triggered response outside one's turn, until start of one's next turn. Thus there's no reaction left to use "in response." Also being outside one's turn also precludes usage of one's movement, so that cannot attach to Ready as well.
etc...)

But ignoring that, yes, you're looking for room within the structure to power up or down the framework to suit the needs of your table's campaigns.

And it seems like you found it in Feats! Congrats.

I myself found it in reintroducing old rules from previous editions that power things down. Casting interruption beyond concentration, Fog of War initiative, spell school opposition, tighter control on free spells per level, replacement of Sneak Attack feature with original Backstab, etc.

I found feats a poor kludge from the beginning — after my first few forays into 3e disabused me of my enthusiasm. So I leave them off. I find Backgrounds far more useful and manageable a tool for my thematic tailoring. If the class needs more thematic widgets beyond that, I feel the archetype templates work way better in getting my idea into fruition.

But it's good to see you happy! :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;882671My inner pedant cries, but for the most part I see where you are coming from.

(Pedantry in the form of:
- Improvised weapon proficiency? paradox in rule terms.
- Grappling proficiency? doesn't exist. it's a contested attribute(skill) check, and the attribute(skills) open up in contest defender's case.
- Ready action consumes one's action and reaction to allow triggered response outside one's turn, until start of one's next turn. Thus there's no reaction left to use "in response." Also being outside one's turn also precludes usage of one's movement, so that cannot attach to Ready as well.
etc...)

But ignoring that, yes, you're looking for room within the structure to power up or down the framework to suit the needs of your table's campaigns.

And it seems like you found it in Feats! Congrats.

I myself found it in reintroducing old rules from previous editions that power things down. Casting interruption beyond concentration, Fog of War initiative, spell school opposition, tighter control on free spells per level, replacement of Sneak Attack feature with original Backstab, etc.

I found feats a poor kludge from the beginning — after my first few forays into 3e disabused me of my enthusiasm. So I leave them off. I find Backgrounds far more useful and manageable a tool for my thematic tailoring. If the class needs more thematic widgets beyond that, I feel the archetype templates work way better in getting my idea into fruition.

But it's good to see you happy! :)

ACTUALLY... I do a lot of that stuff you mentioned too. The irony here is all of these "oldschool" rules are mostly on casters, and it still doesn't really impact their play or power as much as make them more attentive to how they go about doing those things.

And that's a good thing.

A little more about Feats...

I'm totally with you on the Kluge-factor. The problem with 3.x/PF Feats and their implementation is that they were too anemic from the get-go. If you consider the idea that they should be the non-caster version of spells, albeit metaphorically, then they should theoretically be radically meatier.

There has been this conditioning that's happened to the playerbase that started with 3.x that has continued until now in the design of 5e that system-mastery is a real thing. It's less emphasized in 5e, but it's still there if only as a nod. I feel like with the current edition, it's like they're trying to ween people off of 3.x/4e but yet they left enough in there to keep the addiction alive.

TL/DR - 5e is the Methadone of 3.x/4e-Heroin

Quote from: tenbones;882651And now... I think I feel more comfortable using 5e. It doesn't feel so anemic for non-casters.

I've played from 1 to 13 in 5e so far, and only in the last few levels (11+, 9+ at a pinch) do the casters seem equal to the non-casters. At levels 1-4 the casters seem distinctly weaker; at 5-8 the casters can match the non-casters if there are only 1-2 encounters that day and the casters pull out their big guns. I expect by 17th level the caster(s) may be noticeably superior. Overall balance is good, but if I actually ran 6-8 encounters per day I think the casters would still seem underpowered even at high level.

It's very unlike 3e/Pathfinder, where casters dominated from 5th level, and totally dominated from 11th.

Quote from: tenbones;882676ACTUALLY... I do a lot of that stuff you mentioned too. The irony here is all of these "oldschool" rules are mostly on casters, and it still doesn't really impact their play or power as much as make them more attentive to how they go about doing those things.

And that's a good thing.

A little more about Feats...

I'm totally with you on the Kluge-factor. The problem with 3.x/PF Feats and their implementation is that they were too anemic from the get-go. If you consider the idea that they should be the non-caster version of spells, albeit metaphorically, then they should theoretically be radically meatier.

There has been this conditioning that's happened to the playerbase that started with 3.x that has continued until now in the design of 5e that system-mastery is a real thing. It's less emphasized in 5e, but it's still there if only as a nod. I feel like with the current edition, it's like they're trying to ween people off of 3.x/4e but yet they left enough in there to keep the addiction alive.

TL/DR - 5e is the Methadone of 3.x/4e-Heroin

:rotfl: Love the methadone comparison.

Anyway, I love me some attentive players. So it's good to hear our experiences from returned old-skool caster rules had similar effect. Not scientific by any stretch, but ancdotal reference that certain rule designs have repeatable effects.

I totally agree with you on the issue: Feats don't pack enough punch vs. Whole New Spell Lists.

However, though they are not great spell replacements, I also think they pack too much expectation in a single swing to really be design manageable. It's "wait X levels to hope Y feat replaces the equivalent of Z level spells available." It's a losing proposition in my opinion.

That leads to the Wuxia Magic Weapon issue, where to keep a modular repertoir like spells you dance the line where the martial classes "fly" and "shoot lightning." You can tie it to weapon or level progression, but that still gets into redesigning other people's settings with more "magic widgets" than they wanted to bother with.

The next problem is you don't want to make everything Class Feature based because then you create questions whether anyone can attempt to do something, even if poorly.

So even though Fighter Expertise and Battlemaster tactics are beautiful templates to fill with your own "mini-feats" and "spells," you get the recurring Thief Skills-like questions (can I climb walls? can I move silently? can I feint? can I parry?).

At that point just know you can never make everyone happy except yourself — and most players at your table likely don't care, they think you deliver a good game anyway.

If I was to expand things I might do what I just saw on Doom & Destiny video game, where every class gets Power Points as slots to equip passive buff and spell/skill widgets. At any point of downtime they can shift out and in newly purchased Powers, as long as they don't exceed their Power Points. Then instead of Fighters having to stay locked with, let's say... Fighter Expertise!, they could switch out during downtime in preparation for a new area.

But that brings its own problems.

My biggest advice would be for people to expand the generic Equipment, Skill, and Combat uses. Instead of WotC putting out more spells, perhaps a few more creative uses for Medicine skill or Vehicle tool usage, Rogue-worthy exploration equipment (and how Rogues are just better with them), and Fighter-worthy combat tactics (and how Fighters are just better with them).

If they included things like Advanced Combat Tactics under the Combat chapter, with things like Shield Wall, or Wolf Pack, or Polearm Formations — and suggestions for their numerical/status value — you could see some really interesting things. Basically 5e could use a Complete Handbook Fighter, and likely CH:Thief, to bring on more equipment, skill, and combat widgets into the fold.

But that's unlikely, so it's DIY. :idunno:

I'm enjoying 5e, even up to the beginning of the third tier. I think the concentration mechanic alone brings casters down quite a bit, although there are specific issues still (e.g., Guidance mostly, but cantrips in general). It's not so tightly wound that you can't change things you don't like. (I do notice that the columns are often not 100 feet tall when I want to cast Call Lightning. :( )

Quote from: Opaopajr;882729:rotfl: Love the methadone comparison.

Anyway, I love me some attentive players. So it's good to hear our experiences from returned old-skool caster rules had similar effect. Not scientific by any stretch, but ancdotal reference that certain rule designs have repeatable effects.

I totally agree with you on the issue: Feats don't pack enough punch vs. Whole New Spell Lists.

However, though they are not great spell replacements, I also think they pack too much expectation in a single swing to really be design manageable. It's "wait X levels to hope Y feat replaces the equivalent of Z level spells available." It's a losing proposition in my opinion.

That leads to the Wuxia Magic Weapon issue, where to keep a modular repertoir like spells you dance the line where the martial classes "fly" and "shoot lightning." You can tie it to weapon or level progression, but that still gets into redesigning other people's settings with more "magic widgets" than they wanted to bother with.

The next problem is you don't want to make everything Class Feature based because then you create questions whether anyone can attempt to do something, even if poorly.

So even though Fighter Expertise and Battlemaster tactics are beautiful templates to fill with your own "mini-feats" and "spells," you get the recurring Thief Skills-like questions (can I climb walls? can I move silently? can I feint? can I parry?).

At that point just know you can never make everyone happy except yourself — and most players at your table likely don't care, they think you deliver a good game anyway.

If I was to expand things I might do what I just saw on Doom & Destiny video game, where every class gets Power Points as slots to equip passive buff and spell/skill widgets. At any point of downtime they can shift out and in newly purchased Powers, as long as they don't exceed their Power Points. Then instead of Fighters having to stay locked with, let's say... Fighter Expertise!, they could switch out during downtime in preparation for a new area.

But that brings its own problems.

My biggest advice would be for people to expand the generic Equipment, Skill, and Combat uses. Instead of WotC putting out more spells, perhaps a few more creative uses for Medicine skill or Vehicle tool usage, Rogue-worthy exploration equipment (and how Rogues are just better with them), and Fighter-worthy combat tactics (and how Fighters are just better with them).

If they included things like Advanced Combat Tactics under the Combat chapter, with things like Shield Wall, or Wolf Pack, or Polearm Formations — and suggestions for their numerical/status value — you could see some really interesting things. Basically 5e could use a Complete Handbook Fighter, and likely CH:Thief, to bring on more equipment, skill, and combat widgets into the fold.

But that's unlikely, so it's DIY. :idunno:

We're on the exact same wavelength. I'm not 100% satisfied with using Feats alone. I'm eyeballing the heft that Fantasy Craft uses - like giving its weapons features (which 5e does too, though not as expansively). I do think 5e needs those Complete Splat Books too. I'm not one of those guys that complains about "bloat" as long as I have what I need to run the games I want. Having too little... that's a larger problem.

Small note.

According to the errata and revised PHBs. The entry in the weapons table for unarmed strikes is removed. And unarmed Strikes entry page 195.

QuoteMelee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed
strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or
similar forceful blow (none of which count
as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike
deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 +
your Strength modifier. You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes."

Quote from: tenbones;883054We're on the exact same wavelength. I'm not 100% satisfied with using Feats alone. I'm eyeballing the heft that Fantasy Craft uses - like giving its weapons features (which 5e does too, though not as expansively). I do think 5e needs those Complete Splat Books too. I'm not one of those guys that complains about "bloat" as long as I have what I need to run the games I want. Having too little... that's a larger problem.

Well this could be a good place to spin off the conversation!

DIY Advanced Combat & Exploration Tactics

Design Goals
- Expand Generic Actions through new Equipment, Equipment & Skill/Tool finesse, and Combat Cooperation.
- These are usually not restricted access to any class.
- These usually provide benefits for classes familiar with mundane (not-magical) solutions.
- They may partially step on toes of some less wondrous spell effects.


Anything else you'd add? Otherwise I'm ready to brainstorm some ideas!

Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

This also reveals in following rounds any illusions disrupted by physical contact in the blast, including invisible things (or creatures), as the dust either goes through and doesn't coat them or exposes their silhouette. It takes three [Use an Object] actions to thoroughly brush off enough glittering dust so as to not reveal yourself, affecting Stealth rolls with Disadvantage in Light Obscurement. (Some GMs may want to use the glittery floor coating for further tracks, Survival (WIS) checks.)

Rogues are supremely adept in this equipment and may attempt two alternate uses:
a) Whips accurately the glitter towards the known eyes of targets within the blast. Succumbing targets receive Blind condition for two round instead of one. Creature has to have known and accessible eyes for this to work.

b) Snaps the glittery dust in a fine spray, catching enough air to linger before settling to earth. Heavy Obscured Area lasts for two rounds instead of one. Moderate and greater breezes in the area (15+ mph) can disperse this faster as GM determines.

I like that.

Let's not forget a lot of obvious weaponry that exists that could benefit from the use of classic ideas. I miss "Weapons of Quality". I'm toying with the idea that a "Weapon of Quality" can be forged to include some specific thing like:

Finesse, Reach, Thrown, Versatile etc.

Whips that can grapple?

That opens the door to all the asian-weapons which would have interesting qualities. Kusarigama, Lajatangs etc.

You'll have to refresh me on "weapons of quality" values; is this a 3e thing? Is that like fine or exquisite workmanship from 2e, almost being like a +1 sword? (Fine is +1 on either atk or dmg, exquisite is on both; due to non-magical status they need to be maintained.)

If it means expanding traits on weapons, I'm sorta all for that. However there are explicit conceits in the current Equipment Chapter that should be heeded, like Light Weapons not exceeding 1d6 dmg and the like. Also, I think it's ok to walk away from known traits into "Special," like lance and net — because we shouldn't rely on trait keywords due to concern of unintended cascading effects.

For example, I think Whips should grapple. But I think it should say Special under trait. And then explain why the rule is specific to the whip, such as "they should roll at Disadv after the first Grapple contested check to maintain the grapple." Thus it's not a regular grapple, which may matter for other things.

In this way changes are localized. Discrete rules and integrated rules have differing advantages. In this DIY case, it is easier to study effects in isolation better than fashion whole new global traits.

So what did you have in mind for the next creation? Shield Wall? Something where Protection Fighter Style shines?

Quote from: Opaopajr;883253Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

I like the Glitter Bomb and the general idea of non-casters having special uses for equipment, but the blinding effect is odd; I can protect myself from being blinded by having allies with fewer HPs standing behind me in the area of effect? How do they suck up the glitter that would otherwise go in my eyes?

Quote from: rawma;883437I like the Glitter Bomb and the general idea of non-casters having special uses for equipment, but the blinding effect is odd; I can protect myself from being blinded by having allies with fewer HPs standing behind me in the area of effect? How do they suck up the glitter that would otherwise go in my eyes?

Well, that's a carry-over of two conceits:

1) Increasing Hit Dice being a shorthand for how capable an opponent is. And it works roughly parallel with both monsters and demi/human PCs and NPCs. This was before the days of CR and still works comparably well.

2) Spells rarely being wholly outclassed by mundane means — and (the hosed 5e version of) Color Spray only does 6d10+2d10 per spell level, and Blinds for one round. Also the spell does no Heavy Concealment which can be great or inconvenient depending on tactics.
-----

Now, I did toy with the idea of just making it an automatic blinded success within area effect, due to Heavy Concealment. And I also chewed on whether to make it a save. But in the end it is easier to work with those two above conceits and the already useful spell template from Sleep, Color Spray, et al.

Reasoning:

The spell template is great for circumventing attributes outright; any additional lessening of modifier reliance is a great thing. Yes, it penalizes more backrow squishy than frontrow martial classes due to HP targeting. This, too, is a good design thing, as it is coherent in mechanics' relation to setting.

Further, automatic blinding of any target within area of effect is just gross. That's stuff for taking out dragons and demigods through sheer numbers and glitter tonnage. However, tying blindness to *only* remaining within the same spot seems contextually nearsighted — that shit gets everywhere, so why not in the eyes?, especially when thrown at you. Thus there should be a lasting (even if minor) condition result possible regardless whether you move out of the area later.

Looking at the other options for decision making which targets succumb, using the Hit Die one covered several bases on avoiding specific targets who should avoid succumbing to the tactic. It allowed highly experienced (HP) targets, large and tough monsters, and mid-level frontrow martial classes (higher base Hit Die), a chance to avoid, or ignore outright.

High HP from high leveled makes sense because it means they likely would recognize such an attack, and the instinctual defense, from finally enough experience.
High HP from martial class Hit Die makes sense from assumed early exposure of the tactic up-close...
High HP from large size or tougher monster makes sense because the creature is likely larger, or more armored (nictating membranes?), or resilient that makes it such a ordeal to encounter...

That's my logic behind the design. I am open to other solutions, however. I am curious which avenue I have yet to exhaust.

Quote from: Opaopajr;883487The spell template is great for circumventing attributes outright; any additional lessening of modifier reliance is a great thing. Yes, it penalizes more backrow squishy than frontrow martial classes due to HP targeting. This, too, is a good design thing, as it is coherent in mechanics' relation to setting.

My complaint is that it penalizes "frontrow martial classes" who are alone, not having had the foresight to bring along minions of the same class with fewer hit points. Consider a 20 HP character: walking alone, affected 97%+ of the time; walking 10 feet in front of four 15 HP characters, never affected because the maximum roll has already been exhausted by blinding them. How does that work?

It works for spells like Sleep because one can imagine the magic rising like water level, and thus overrunning the weaker characters first (no matter where they are in the area of effect), who then drain off some of the magic before it can affect others. For the physical effect of throwing a glitter bomb, it should affect the closest targets first, not in order of HP totals.

Every justification works for magic, "because magic." I rarely dwell long on its justifications unless I have something like "school" or "theory" to work with.

The logic, again, traces back to HP being an abstracted measure of combat resilience. It is a mix of conditioning, battle readiness, experience, luck, and so on.

Yes, it would affect the lower 15 HP targets before the 20 HP target, and that's it working as intended.

Yes, it would work almost 100% on a solo 20 HP target, and again that's it working as intended.

This is not regular dust (or sand, or dirt) thrown into one's eyes. This is not a regular attack. It is an advanced item attack, represented by such "disposable powder" costing a whole gold piece.

Similar products like Caltrops and Ball Bearings work 100% in their area of effect regardless of character — unless they take the proper precautions. And they too are emblamatic of an advanced item attack, costing a gold piece per use. Their threshold for viable effect remains long after a round or two, far longer than this item.

You need to exceed 60 HP to completely avoid succumbing to this while alone. This expects a higher battle-hardened-ness (as in greater familiarity with close-to-mid range danger), or extra allies to possibly buy you luck by them failing first. (Like when outrunning a bear has better chances with more allies/victims in tow.) This also keeps the item's viability from being wholly forgettable after the first few levels.

No, your concern is exactly about design as I intended. But it's useful to spell out such design thought for others. So thanks for this exchange. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;883561Every justification works for magic, "because magic." I rarely dwell long on its justifications unless I have something like "school" or "theory" to work with.

But there's less freedom to hand wave for non-magical equipment.

QuoteYes, it would affect the lower 15 HP targets before the 20 HP target, and that's it working as intended.

Yes, it would work almost 100% on a solo 20 HP target, and again that's it working as intended.

But I'm still mystified as to how the back rank of lower HP targets protect the 20 HP target. Is the glitter more attracted to lower hit point creatures or what?

QuoteSimilar products like Caltrops and Ball Bearings work 100% in their area of effect regardless of character — unless they take the proper precautions. And they too are emblamatic of an advanced item attack, costing a gold piece per use. Their threshold for viable effect remains long after a round or two, far longer than this item.

I'm not claiming this item is too powerful or too weak; only that it doesn't seem consistent with actual physics. (OK, yes, that also applies to lots of other things in D&D. I get what HPs represent and I'm OK with it. This just seems a gratuitous introduction of a counter-intuitive element.)

Caltrops and Ball Bearings call for Dexterity saving throws (avoidable by moving half speed); that seems better, whether or not you put a randomly rolled limit on how many HPs a creature might have to be affected. For the glitter bomb, it might be better to require a Constitution saving throw (which correlates with higher hit points as well), and also accepting disadvantage by protecting your eyes to avoid the blinding effect (if you have reason to expect a glitter bomb).

Quoteextra allies to possibly buy you luck by them failing first. (Like when outrunning a bear has better chances with more allies/victims in tow.) This also keeps the item's viability from being wholly forgettable after the first few levels.

Outrunning a bear, sure; avoiding a bear's initial attack through allies ten feet farther from the bear? Maybe, if more hit points means looking less tasty to a bear. But why is glitter more attracted to weaker characters?

Caltrops and ball bearings remain viable into the second tier of adventuring levels; even characters with proficiency in Dexterity saving throws can miss a DC10, let alone a DC15, saving throw. Give the expert user the opportunity to add proficiency to the DC and they're even better.

QuoteNo, your concern is exactly about design as I intended. But it's useful to spell out such design thought for others. So thanks for this exchange. :)

I like the glitter bomb in general, but the mechanic specified encourages weird tactics, like trying to isolate a single target with the glitter bomb to be sure of having the blinding effect on that target, or bringing extra characters behind to protect against its effects.

The "physics" is the intangibles attached to HP, including experience, luck, etc.

It hits lower HP first because their intangibles succumb first. You're rationalizing it from the direction of "glitter getting sucked into their eyes," instead of the reverse "their eyes are less familiar with such an attack." That's why HP works better, IMO, than CON saves and the like. Being physically healthier (or whatever such stat) shouldn't make such a difference from level 1; the item should only be overcome through lengthy exposure to danger, hence tied to increased HP through levels.

You're tapping into the intangibles of battle, particularly veteran experience, as a design resource.

Quote from: rawma;883698I like the glitter bomb in general, but the mechanic specified encourages weird tactics, like trying to isolate a single target with the glitter bomb to be sure of having the blinding effect on that target, or bringing extra characters behind to protect against its effects.

Why would those be weird tactics? :)

Isolating a target for a strong blast effect is good tactics. Greater chance for the individual to run out of luck and succumb. Also having allies to raise your luck to survive a strong blast effect makes sense, too.
:)

I am interested in continuing this thread of design. My current bete noir is representing Formations. Part of me is curious to tap Ready Action as a source, without it becoming overwhelming or over-costed.

I am going to need criticism to hammer out my weaknesses and biases!

Rough Draft - Formations:

Formations can occur in or out of combat. They require everyone who chooses to cooperate to stand with a Leader -- that person will become the Formation's initiative during a turn. If started within combat this requires each participant in the formation - except for the Leader - to move into Formation and use a Ready Action (consuming their action and reaction) to "obey the Leader" during the Leader's acting turns (starting possibly next turn, depending on how high the Leader's initiative is in turn order).

Those persisting in Formation may wave away their turn to assume the same Ready Action again as above during their next turn. This allows autonomy to leave at any time, while also speeding up resolution for those continuing.

You gain certain benefits while retaining a Formation, as explained therein per Formation.


Properties of Formations:

Participants in Formations retain autonomy to leave at any time, to be done so by expressing one's desire to the GM at the top of the next turn.

Participants retain their Movement action, Bonus Action (if any), and One Interact with the Environment action. These still can only be used on their participant's original initiative. These may be directed by the Leader, but direction can only be given during the Leader's own turn and in only 6 second bursts of communication. Feel free to time them and watch the attempt to coordinate.

Formations often have a minimum number and maximum number of participants to be effective.

Formations, particularly more powerful yet complex ones, often have a shape and or coherence allowance.

Formations break when a simple majority of participants as needed for a minimum split off, break coherence, or fall in battle.

The basic trigger available to all Formations is Dash, so the Leader can move or reshape the Unit as Speed allows all during the same initiative.


Formations & Classes

Some classes work better with certain Formations than others.

Several martial classes work exceedingly well with Formations, and may even regain the usage of either their Action or Reaction for additional synchronized benefits.

Be mindful when designing benefits for Formations as it is a multiplier effect.

OK, first foray into a Formation after the foundation has been established. Let's see how this works.

This is a template with obvious places for expansion, like class and tier benefits. I wanted to clarify where to put benefits and costs so that it makes life easier for DIYers later. This one is actually open to spellcasters in the future, and even supports the odd Wizard grabbing a shield and running in formation.

Formation — Shield Wall

Requirements
Participation: Ready Action triggered to Leader's Command on Leader's initiative.
Minimum Participants: 4
Required Gear per Participant: Shield
Coherence: Maintain continuous chain within 5' of each other at the start of the Leader's turn.

Leader Commands
Dash, Disengage, Dodge, and special Attack-Shove.

Formation Benefits
Half Cover bonus of +2 AC to each participant.
Bonus Action Shield Wall Attack.
LC - Special Attack-Shove.

Bonus Action, Shield Wall Attack: non-heavy, non-two-handed, non-ammo weapon physical attack, add combat modifiers as normal. (Does not work in conjunction with feats, abilities, & features that require an Action, such as "Extra Attack.") Bonus Actions, like movement and one free interact with the environment, go on the individual's own initiative.

Special Attack-Shove: Use the best of the participants' Athletics (STR) and Proficiency Bonus, along with Advantage, in the contested roll. May shove 10' instead of 5' if successful and target is smaller than the formation.

Class Benefits
Fighters: retain Attack as a Leader Command option, and can be ordered separately to Attack as the rest of the formation follows another leader command.

Rogues: retain Use an Object as a Leader Command option, and can be ordered separately to Use an Object as the rest of the formation follows another leader command.

...

Tier Benefits
Second Tier: Leader Command Casting a Spell opens, only if all participants are the same class, shield proficient, and using the same spell at the same spell level.

Second Tier: Leader Command Attack and Use an Object open, but are restricted to the same attack target and usage of the same item (as available).
...

Quote from: Opaopajr;883949Why would those be weird tactics? :)

Isolating a target for a strong blast effect is good tactics. Greater chance for the individual to run out of luck and succumb. Also having allies to raise your luck to survive a strong blast effect makes sense, too.
:)

Do you use miniatures or in some way actually pin down where characters are? The mechanic only makes sense to me if there's some sort of quantum mechanical uncertainty over who is where.

Hiding behind tougher characters is a normal defensive tactic. Shooting at a character who is behind someone can be harder, and well worth choosing an angle with a clear line of sight. But arranging to stand in front of weaker characters to improve one's defense makes no sense. Choosing an angle for a glitter bomb that avoids characters in the background (whether deploying it from farther away or moving to the side so that the main target does not have anyone behind) to make the attack more effective makes no sense.

Quote from: rawma;884860Do you use miniatures or in some way actually pin down where characters are? The mechanic only makes sense to me if there's some sort of quantum mechanical uncertainty over who is where.

Hiding behind tougher characters is a normal defensive tactic. Shooting at a character who is behind someone can be harder, and well worth choosing an angle with a clear line of sight. But arranging to stand in front of weaker characters to improve one's defense makes no sense. Choosing an angle for a glitter bomb that avoids characters in the background (whether deploying it from farther away or moving to the side so that the main target does not have anyone behind) to make the attack more effective makes no sense.

:confused:
And now you lost me. The effect is akin to saves in that it checks who succumbs regardless of position. Whether you are in the front or the back with the highest HP gives you no additional advantage.

It is only the "quantified unquantifiables" — such as worldly experience and luck — necessary for games that helps protect you from the effect.

The effect checks succumbing for those with lesser experience with close range tricks & tactics. Now that can be anything the game uses where progression through experience occurs. What HP check does differently than Saves is that it checks a different intangible value, using attacker's than defender's success.

In 5e, Saves are a bit wonky. Where you don't progress on most saves over time, you can front-load save advantage by better early attributes. The gradual +2~+6 PB advantage on two saves over time looks weak to the -4~+5 Attr Mods on all saves affecting you immediately.

In practice this means, outside Feats and Class Attr Raises, Saves are very WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). This is quite different than save progressions during TSR era of the game, where class and level advantages were more prononced in Save progressions. This becomes a design element challenge if you want to focus on the intangible benefits of becoming a veteran over time.

Stragely enough, HP checks from Sleep and Color Spray spells recreate a remarkable likeness to Breath Saves of yore. And further, they didn't complicate their binary matters with Save/Fail partials; it was either on or off, dependent on how many whose luck and experience were in the way. It's a great "grenade simulator" as there's little else besides luck and experience as to the rhyme or reason why blasts and shrapnel take out who they do.

Quote from: Opaopajr;883253Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

Quote from: Opaopajr;884944:confused:
And now you lost me. The effect is akin to saves in that it checks who succumbs regardless of position. Whether you are in the front or the back with the highest HP gives you no additional advantage.

So perhaps we need a concrete example. I recall approaching the necromancer near Red Larch in the early Princes of the Apocalypse play; because of the zombies we encountered, we theorized that the necromancer had 3rd level spells and therefore possibly Fireball, and we were not high enough level to take that lightly. My wizard's bat familiar preceded us, and we thus chose a space and formation that was most conducive to avoid dying from multiple Fireballs (although the necromancer turned out not to have that spell).

So, imagine a party of perhaps 3rd level characters being approached by two zombies in a 20 foot wide corridor with the necromancer ten feet behind them. Suppose that a single party member is able to be behind the necromancer undetected (whether by Misty Step, Invisibility, stealth, being a Warlock's imp familiar, or something else) armed with a glitter bomb. And the area looks something like this, with the NPCs advancing to the left (with most of the party somewhere ahead in that direction):

       
.........    M=mage, Z=zombie
..Z.M1.3.    1,2,3 = points from which to launch the glitter bomb
..Z.2....    one space is a five foot square
.........
The players hope to blind the mage, making their advance easier and perhaps negating the mage's Shield spell by gaining advantage on attack rolls. Without this, depending on the dimensions of the space, a bad initiative roll might mean two well targeted Fireballs on almost all of the party before the mage can be defeated. It's a good plan, but how does the character behind the mage launch the glitter bomb?

1. A natural approach; come up directly behind the mage and launch it at point blank range (toward the left of the diagram), hoping for enough effect to blind the mage. But a fifth level mage (as a PC) has 22 hit points plus CON bonus (and probably 23 without CON bonus from 5d8 given the Mage HP listed in the Monster Manual for NPCs), while a zombie has 22 hit points, so the zombies in the cone of effect are able to "suck up" the blinding effect, leaving the mage able to step aside and cast Fireball.

2. The character can advance to point #2 and aim the glitter bomb cone toward the top of the diagram; only the mage is hit and is probably blinded.

3. The character can hang back and launch the glitter bomb cone toward the left of the diagram; the zombies are too far away to be affected, so the mage alone is hit and is probably blinded.

Do you not see why I am bothered that the glitter bomb is more effective from an odd angle or farther away? In #1, how could the presence of the two zombies actually protect the mage? The physical nature of the attack and its cone shape suggests that the mage at point blank range should be more likely to be affected.

I understand that, for a given roll, a target with more HPs will be protected by the benefit of the experience, luck and training that led to the greater HPs. It's the "lowest HPs first even if they're farther away" rather than "nearer targets first" that bothers me. (Since HPs are strongly affected by CON bonus, you still haven't entirely removed the effect of ability bonuses, though.)

I agree with your points about saving throws in 5e; I worry about how it's going to play in 5e when most DCs are 17+ and player characters still have few bonuses for saves (that is, over time your chance of saving goes down, because the casters are adding to their single spell casting ability and thus DC while the defenders can only benefit one save per feat/ability increase).

Ah, now I see. And yet — having played with throwing powder (colored and otherwise) — what you describe in that example is actually closer to how thrown powder acts. (I don't recommend this anymore, especially indoors, now knowing more about the explosive dangers of fine powders.)

You seem to presume a more consistent stream of powder emanating from one point. It's actually way more irregular than you are presuming, especially with regards to who ends up blinded and coughing when they leave. Someone may end up with more powder streaks on them, yet be the only one of a group who got away from the blast not blinded or coughing.

It's counter-intuitive and strange at first, I know, but it's how I saw it actually work from childhood shenanigans (it's a miracle I'm still alive it seems).

Also remember, within the area of effect is Heavy Obscurement. So everyone within is effectively blinded. That means everyone, zombie and necromancer alike, are blinded from position 1 unless they: a) leave the area, b) wait for the effect to end, or c) have another Sense besides visual sight.

I think you may have forgotten that the blinded effect you are talking about is an extra blinding effect. It's a lingering blindness as you leave the area. Everyone gets blinded in the area, but only a few succumb to blindness even if they leave.

Quote from: Opaopajr;885036Ah, now I see.

Ah, now I have explained.

QuoteYou seem to presume a more consistent stream of powder emanating from one point.

For me, it follows from the description as a cone, which emanates from its point in 5e, and I think thus implies my interpretation (but as with many things in 5e is subject to widely varying interpretation). The effect you describe would in my opinion be better represented in 5e as a 10 foot cube (although for spells that is also supposed to emanate from a point on one face, it still seems less directional).

QuoteAlso remember, within the area of effect is Heavy Obscurement. So everyone within is effectively blinded. That means everyone, zombie and necromancer alike, are blinded from position 1 unless they: a) leave the area, b) wait for the effect to end, or c) have another Sense besides visual sight.

I think you may have forgotten that the blinded effect you are talking about is an extra blinding effect. It's a lingering blindness as you leave the area. Everyone gets blinded in the area, but only a few succumb to blindness even if they leave.

I changed midway through typing my example from a 10 foot wide corridor in order to make moving from the area a likelier strategy for the mage (and I also discovered I had misremembered the Shield spell, which does not require seeing the attacker to use and so is not itself negated by blindness). So quoting the earlier description was really for my benefit, as it turned out.

Well, a cube could be useful shape. Scattered powders don't follow much of a reliable shape after the initial scatter, so any one shape is as representative as another. I will say that after the first few seconds the dust cloud rapidly diffuses out into an amorphous blob and a see-through patchwork, so Heavily Obscured period is very short. So starting cubes do seem a touch weird from my experience, as that's kinda hard shape to initially throw.

However the reasoning behind it is I rather like the effect reaching 15' out but without becoming a possibly overpowering 15' cube (or sphere). It mimics the range of Color Spray, so it is not overshadowing the spell. And it keeps a tight range so stepping out of the Heavy Obscured effect is quite easy.

But at this point it feels this exchange is like navel gazing design polishing, getting away from what I feel is a far more fruitful open design space exploration. Maybe you can experiment with different blast shapes and give a report what works best! (I strongly discourage experimenting fine powder fights indoor, though. Outside, like a holiday like Hinduism's Holi festival of color, should be fine.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;885198Well, a cube could be useful shape. Scattered powders don't follow much of a reliable shape after the initial scatter, so any one shape is as representative as another. I will say that after the first few seconds the dust cloud rapidly diffuses out into an amorphous blob and a see-through patchwork, so Heavily Obscured period is very short. So starting cubes do seem a touch weird from my experience, as that's kinda hard shape to initially throw.

:idunno: Just trying to work with what 5e provides. Lowest hit point first still feels off, outside of magical effects that might plausibly gravitate to weaker creatures. I do have to remember to supply my next low level NPC patrol with a flock of sheep to help fend off the Sleep spell; "counting on sheep to stay awake" for the win! :)

Lance Haverdale (I think that is his name), a 2e writer, compiled the 2e arms and equipment guide and complete book of x equipment into a pdf that I downloaded a few years ago.  I don't think this is available anymore.  Would something like this be of interest to the OP?

Quote from: rawma;885668:idunno: Just trying to work with what 5e provides. Lowest hit point first still feels off, outside of magical effects that might plausibly gravitate to weaker creatures. I do have to remember to supply my next low level NPC patrol with a flock of sheep to help fend off the Sleep spell; "counting on sheep to stay awake" for the win! :)

Heh, you'll be surprised the chaos that spell can cause from poor player judgment. Had more than one player try to target the largest mass of creatures but forget that some friendly casters or recently "bounced" PCs to 1 HP were the first to suffer. People still get greedy and forget that it affects friend and foe.

5e really turned Sleep from an auto-win encounter spell into being strongly mitigated by mook numbers or densely urban environs. With the either friend or foe blast, unconscious condition rules (lack of PHB coup de grace), and ease to shake allies out of sleep with an action, Sleep took a massive power hit. It's actually a good thing in retrospect. Mooks actually serve a purpose again, it's great!
:D

Quote from: Teazia;885680Lance Haverdale (I think that is his name), a 2e writer, compiled the 2e arms and equipment guide and complete book of x equipment into a pdf that I downloaded a few years ago.  I don't think this is available anymore.  Would something like this be of interest to the OP?

You know, it might? But tenbones has mentioned before on this site his sizeable AD&D 2e collection, so he may already have it. That said, I am sure it could be a great brainstorm resource for this topic.

Why don't you throw some nifty weapon or equipment ideas from there and see if we can't 5e-ify them?

Equipment Traits

Tool using sapient beings have mastered the more physically adept beasts of their environments by not only mitigating personal risk to themselves through tools, but also negating those beasts' natural mobility advantages through tools as well.

When you cannot run, swim, burrow, or fly as well -- or at all -- as the common beasts surrounding your natural world, how does the society of a sapient species hope to keep up, let alone thrive, in such a competitive environment? Tools, and lots of 'em.

So tools that mess with mobility -- nets, nooses, hooks, and barbs -- are very much part of the sapient tool users' arsenal in competing with their environment. And often these same tools double utility during combat with other sapient tool-using creatures, especially when magical means come in to mimic mobility advantages.

(An overdue equipment gap for several editions, in my opinion. This is the big solution against flight, swim, burrow, and high move Speed. And this solution is older than human written history. Flying spellcasters and magical creatures are toned way down when they cannot escape out of martial range so easily.)

New Equipment Trait

HOOKED & BARBED
Many of the PHB Equipment List weapons can have variants with the Hooked or Barbed trait. They often trade out their damage for lower damage die. But in return they are specialist tools that exploit this trait to deny mobility to such advantaged opponents. It is completely expected for more than a few combatants to have a spare specialist tool in case to counter such mobility advantages.

Hooked - the weapon can make a special melee attack that uses one of the attacker's attacks, which for the most part works like Grapple in the PHB. However, the target of this grapple rolls their check at Disadvantage, even in their attempts to break free. The Grapple does only 1 damage if it hits. It invokes Disadvantage by seeking any easy exposed means to ensnare (fur, clothes, armor) thus not targeting AC.

Common Weapons with Hooked trait: several polearms, like Guisarme and Fauchard, Gaffs, Meat Hooks, Sickles, Sais, etc.

Barbed - like a hooked trait except for ranged weapons. The target rolls with Disadvantage during grapple checks against this weapon. The range weapon can be thrown or a launched missile, but can only limit mobility as long as there is an attached tether (rope, twine, wire, chain, etc.). This trait does not normally affect the range or attack roll. 'Hooked' using the barbed weapon's Grappling attack does only 1 damage when it hits.

Most barbed weapons are sold with a tether equal their Max Range plus 30'. This commonly provided tether also can only hold a max tensile weight roughly equal to the average weight of a medium sized creature. These tether do add up in weight and thus are not carried in abundance on one's person.

Heavier tethers are made and sold, easily up to Gargantuan and larger sized creatures with tensile strength capable to the task of, if not restraining and reeling in, at least maintaining and eventually exhausting the creature so attached. Such tethers often cost much more, and bringing down such larger targets requires a coordinated team. But bring down horses, even elephants, for taming, let alone hunting down whales, is very much within the scope of barbed and tethered weapons success.

Common weapons with the Barbed trait: harpoons, tridents, fishhooks, barbed arrows, tethered darts, etc.

Here is a link to file for review purposes.  There are some internal links in the pfd that are broken.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7962461/Compiled%20Equipment%20by%20Lance%20Hav.pdf

Pathfinder also has their Ultimate Equipment book that may be of some use as well.

Hey now... Thanks! :)

Just the arrow section alone has some useful variants with rule tidbits to build upon. A massive project, but this makes a nice cross-reference for 5e conversion.