Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902949Has everyone passed along their feedback to them?

When the questionnaire/survey for this UA article comes out, I will fucking hammer the whole thing, in the ratings (Strongly Dislike) and the Comments section.

Most of the weapon mastery feats look kind of meh. Lots of small fiddly bonuses, like they went in with a design mandate to make sure the feats actually didn't do anything
In spite of that, the sword one might be OK for rogues, given that it may help get sneak attack off on opportunity attacks.

The 'fell handed' one is..interesting. Seems like they're trying to test out pushing Advantage in new directions. I have an issue with the ability that deals [Str mod] on a miss when you have disadvantage, since overall the chance to-hit is then better than a 'normal' attack roll - two dice so same as if you'd had Advantage. Drives me crazy math-wise, despite [Str mod] being so little damage no one actually cares.

The tool use abilities are kind of cool and thematic, but I don't think I'd generally want to spend a whole feat on one, even with a +1 thrown in; feats are so rare its too big a resource cost for something so specialized.

You know, after running a year-long campaign (as the GM) and playing as a character for the past couple of months, has revealed some stuff that I don't like about D&D. At least, ways in which I'd house rule it, or hack it.

As a player, I'm finding how surprisingly frustrating it is how often I fail skill checks, even with a +8 to my roll. It also really sucks not having Inspiration. As a Rogue, getting caught off-guard, getting reduced to nearly zero hp in the first round and without any weapons drawn (and unable to do sneak attacks) made my character fucking useless. Because of the turn economy, I simply could not maneuver items and interact with the environment enough to survive, even with Cunning Action. Every fight has been like this.

I think that 5e is really close, but not quite there yet. The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class. Like, Fighters get a point of inspiration on a roll of 1 or 20 to hit, and can use a point to max out their damage roll. That sort of thing.

Quote from: Necrozius;903055I think that 5e is really close, but not quite there yet. The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class.

You could try the Hero Point rules on page 264 of the 5e DMG, and if you have the 3e Eberron campaign guide you can pilfer its ideas for unusual uses of Hero Points. I used them in 3e and got positive results.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903059You could try the Hero Point rules on page 264 of the 5e DMG, and if you have the 3e Eberron campaign guide you can pilfer its ideas for unusual uses of Hero Points. I used them in 3e and got positive results.

The 5e UA PDF on conversion for Eberron has rules for using Action Points. In fact Eberron's AP are the inspiration for the Hero Points.

QuoteAction Points
The Eberron campaign setting introduced this concept to reflect characters who are larger-than-life heroes destined for great things. Action points allow a player to add a bonus on any d20 roll so that characters can dodge or at least mitigate the effects of bad luck. This rule inspired the “Hero Points” optional rule presented in chapter 9 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
You start with 5 action points at 1st level. Each time you gain a level, you lose any unspent action points and gain a new total equal to 5 + half your level.
You can spend an action point whenever you roll a d20 to make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw. You don’t have to decide until after you make the roll and learn if it succeeded or failed. If you spend an action point, roll a d6 and add it to your d20 result, possibly changing a failure into a success. You can spend only 1 action point per roll.
In addition, whenever you fail a death saving throw, you can spend an action point to make it a success.

Quote from: Necrozius;903055The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class. Like, Fighters get a point of inspiration on a roll of 1 or 20 to hit, and can use a point to max out their damage roll. That sort of thing.

I have been toying with the idea of sacrificing the holy d20 and using 2d10 instead. Dis/Advantage would then be 3d10, discard highest/lowest. And maybe things like Battlemaster abilities would trigger when rolling doubles.

Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;903178I have been toying with the idea of sacrificing the holy d20 and using 2d10 instead. Dis/Advantage would then be 3d10, discard highest/lowest. And maybe things like Battlemaster abilities would trigger when rolling doubles.

Then you run into new problems. The bell curve and the fact you have a range of 19 now instead of 20. The peak of a 2d10 is 11 with a 10% chance and the far ends of 2 and 20 are a 1% chance. Best/Worst 2 of 3d10 really skews things. The peak, instead of being at the end, is instead about 4 short, making advantage and disadvantage less useful.

Youd have to overhaul the rest of the system to accomodate the curve, otherwise things not going to play as well. Especially for skill checks as higher difficulties are going to get really hard to succeed now.

Yeah, I kind of figured that it would not be a quick fix, and definedly not something I would try mid-campaign anyway. I don't see the bell curve in itself as a bad thing, but modding the system to fit seems like too much hassle for a slight improvement.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;903024When the questionnaire/survey for this UA article comes out, I will fucking hammer the whole thing, in the ratings (Strongly Dislike) and the Comments section.

I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

I, too, fill out those surveys. I think we're fairly on the same wavelength, Opaopajr in terms of our discussions - though we might emphasize things slightly differently. Do you see *any* indication that WotC is making any attempts at moving in the directions of your feedback? I suspect that your results are probably the same as mine.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Thing is, those tactics you listed?  They're not really worthy of a feat.  The Shieldwall for examples is designed for mass battles, something most Fighters (who are part of a 4-5 man crew, where they're the only soldier and often the team's only weapons worker, which is less than they usually need for a good wall) will not be using during a dungeon.  

As for sand in the eye?  Improvised Action, roll to hit, target needs to make a Dex save to avoid it.  If the target fails the saving throw, it is Blinded (as per the condition in the PHB) for 1d4 (or whatever) rounds.

And barbs and hooks?  What exactly do you want them to do?  Aid in disarming?  Advantage.  Do extra damage?  Adds a +1 to damage on a punch (if armour) or on a shield swing (if on a shield.)

Those 'tactics' are too small to be in a Feat, they're too specific as per WoTC's design statement for them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Who says you cant throw sand in someones eyes? Make a stat check. apply disadvantage on the target if they fail a DEX check.

Jesus Christ why do we need a god damn RULE FOR EVERYTHING?

You two boo-hoo-hoo like absolute morons about fixing a "problem" that doesnt exist.

Y'know, what might be good?  A new version of Malhavoc Press' Book of Iron Might, namely the Combat Maneuvers section, where you could build what type of move you wanted, clip a wing and bring the Dragon down?  Done.  Blind someone?  Done.  Bludgeon and stun them?  Done.  You could design them for a premade list, or if you memorized it, build 'em on the fly.

I LOVED that book.  I need to get me another copy of it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903374Thing is, those tactics you listed?  They're not really worthy of a feat.  The Shieldwall for examples is designed for mass battles, something most Fighters (who are part of a 4-5 man crew, where they're the only soldier and often the team's only weapons worker, which is less than they usually need for a good wall) will not be using during a dungeon.  

As for sand in the eye?  Improvised Action, roll to hit, target needs to make a Dex save to avoid it.  If the target fails the saving throw, it is Blinded (as per the condition in the PHB) for 1d4 (or whatever) rounds.

And barbs and hooks?  What exactly do you want them to do?  Aid in disarming?  Advantage.  Do extra damage?  Adds a +1 to damage on a punch (if armour) or on a shield swing (if on a shield.)

Those 'tactics' are too small to be in a Feat, they're too specific as per WoTC's design statement for them.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FEATS, I AM TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING ON TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT ADVICE!

Clearer?

Look, I think Improvised Action is great and not lading the game with more widgets is important. BUT by now previous editions and other games had moved into emulating strat&tactics and equipment through new spitballed rules. Things that would work on various scales, not just the ludicrous assumption that all tactics must be battlefield sized in scope, and all future non-magic equipment are shrugworthy ad hoc.

However see where we are right now? Everything is leaning heavily towards new spells, BM maneuvers (hmm, sounds eww?), and ever-inflating magic items (the AL ones that obviate game challenges are pretty nuts, like whip of party feat: alert, goggles of nightvision, etc.). What sort of incentive is there to create setting-referential generalized solutions when you can skip to system-referential exceptional solutions?

As for hooks and barbs, like nets and lassos, they helped humanity subdue higher speed land, let alone air, and sea creatures, often several times the size of a human. The use is obvious -- it strains fliers, runners, and swimmers messing with their maneuver game. Yes, it's a "flying wizard killer" because you just need a hook or so to lock them in range and  bring them into submission.

Quote from: Omega;903381Who says you cant throw sand in someones eyes? Make a stat check. apply disadvantage on the target if they fail a DEX check.

Jesus Christ why do we need a god damn RULE FOR EVERYTHING?

You two boo-hoo-hoo like absolute morons about fixing a "problem" that doesnt exist.

Look, don't play stupid, you were also in the topic with tenbones and I. That went over issues of providing tactical examples as baselines in design. Sand in the eye would be base example for future powder-based attacks.

However when I MADE AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A NEW POWDER-BASED EQUIPMENT IN THAT VERY SAME TOPIC I HAD TO RELY ON ALREADY-MADE SPELL DESIGN. Which gets into other design questions, such as 'am I stepping on the toes of spells unnecessarily?', and 'if I am cribbing from spells, and 3/4 of the classes can cast spells, why don I just make another spell?', etc. And this speaks of nothing about party coordination creating tactical advantages.

 There is an obvious design gap here -- and for new and old GMs alike "*shrug* ad hoc Improvised Action covers everything!" is AN INADEQUATE ANSWER. Some of us want to design things without ending up falling back to the same "fuck it! make it a system-referential solution, the players want to ignore the setting anyway and there's little suggestions on how to fashion one's own gear that would remain compliant with the system's assumed paradigms." We want to stop walking the same irritating path of the last two editions.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FEATS, I AM TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING ON TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT ADVICE!

Clearer?

No, it's not.  I'm not exactly sure what you want that won't end up being too focused and fiddly.  Like the old 3.x Feats were.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392Look, I think Improvised Action is great and not lading the game with more widgets is important. BUT by now previous editions and other games had moved into emulating strat&tactics and equipment through new spitballed rules.

And every time they do, players complain about complexity.  This isn't the only board that does it, and it's not just the grognards who do.  The more they add, the harder it becomes to not make something overpowered.  Combat and Tactic and that 2e Races book are a perfect example of trying to expand a game and suddenly losing control of the rules they laid out.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392Things that would work on various scales, not just the ludicrous assumption that all tactics must be battlefield sized in scope, and all future non-magic equipment are shrugworthy ad hoc.

However see where we are right now? Everything is leaning heavily towards new spells, BM maneuvers (hmm, sounds eww?), and ever-inflating magic items (the AL ones that obviate game challenges are pretty nuts, like whip of party feat: alert, goggles of nightvision, etc.). What sort of incentive is there to create setting-referential generalized solutions when you can skip to system-referential exceptional solutions?

OK, I've not seen anything of this sort, where'd you get that information, so I can read it for myself and see how ridiculous it is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392As for hooks and barbs, like nets and lassos, they helped humanity subdue higher speed land, let alone air, and sea creatures, often several times the size of a human. The use is obvious -- it strains fliers, runners, and swimmers messing with their maneuver game. Yes, it's a "flying wizard killer" because you just need a hook or so to lock them in range and  bring them into submission.

Which are all highly specialized pieces of gear that often weren't used outside of a mass combat, or hunting for specific prey on a highly specific piece of terrain, like an ocean.  A lot of the bigger monsters in D&D require siege level gear to take down.  And are often not exactly what PC wills be usually doing, as they don't gather up in teams of 20+.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392There is an obvious design gap here -- and for new and old GMs alike "*shrug* ad hoc Improvised Action covers everything!" is AN INADEQUATE ANSWER. Some of us want to design things without ending up falling back to the same "fuck it! make it a system-referential solution, the players want to ignore the setting anyway and there's little suggestions on how to fashion one's own gear that would remain compliant with the system's assumed paradigms." We want to stop walking the same irritating path of the last two editions.

No, YOU think there's a design gap, and seemingly want to make the game more complex and system heavy as 3.x was.  Which frankly, is unnecessary, as Pathfinder can easily scratch that itch.  But if you don't want to play PF, then steal what you want from it and fit it to work in 5e, which isn't as hard as you're implying.