|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 15, 2016 17:27:58 GMT
Ok, DM Mitch, "versing" is not a word. You can't say, "when they are versing eachother". I've been trying to break one of my kids out using this word for YEARS now. He also says "thing" all the time, as if we all know what he's talking about. "Where's that thing from yesterday?" What "thing"? Use its name! We have nouns for a reason! |
|
|
|
Post by DM Mitch on Mar 15, 2016 17:58:27 GMT
Never...ever...ever expect me to use proper grammar. I'm too far gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 15, 2016 20:42:22 GMT
#MurderHole While I know it is this:  But for the life of me can't stop thinking it's this:  So yeah, there is that, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on Mar 16, 2016 4:17:25 GMT
Here's another one for the surprise. Just when they think the fight ended, add something else!
The best way I pulled this off was in a difficult-deadly encounter where my 3rd level PCs witnessed the royal carriage and a dozen guards hit by a fireball in a busy street. The brave guard captain (knight statistics) crawled up from the wreckage and was confronted by six black-clad figures that emerged from the alleyways (4 thugs) and rooftops (2 spies) to finish off anyone still alive. The PCs heroically interfered, and fended off/killed the attackers. The remaining enemies fled the scene after a few of their comrades were incapacitated.
The knight then turned to check the wreckage of the burning carriage. One of the wounded and slightly charred guards recovered and limped over to the group. I gave them a DC20 perception check, which they failed.
"Let me give you a hand with that, sir." the wounded guard said as he plunged his swords into the knights' back. Being an assassin, the attacks were automatic critical hits. The knight gave a gurgling gasp as he crumbled to the ground, leaving our brave heroes awestruck in the face of an assassin (an actual assassin from the MM).
Roll for initiative again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 4:58:33 GMT
 Verbification is totally a legitimate process, and has resulted in many common words in the English language. Verbifying a preposition (versus = against) is more uncommon than nouns and adjectives, but still happens. I'd put money on "versing" being added to official dictionaries within the next few years. Anyway, as to the podcast... Lots of good ideas in there, and many of them I already use. One thing the guys didn't mention (to the best of my recollection) is mastering the system. It's not so much about making combat more interesting as making it less not interesting. Interrupting the combat to consult rules is a serious drain on the flow and pace of a dramatic situation. The quickest way to master the combat mechanics is to run them entirely on your own. Make an entire party, and run them against entire groups. Use a variety of classes and monsters across a variety of levels and CRs. I also want to strongly second describing the hits and misses. I personally don't recommend having the players describe their own hits, except death blows. They don't know how many HPs the monsters have (in theory), and it can be a little weird if they're repeatedly stabbing someone in the lungs and it's not slowing down. However, I'm happy to let them embellish on the death blows! |
|
|
|
Post by DM Mitch on Mar 16, 2016 12:59:15 GMT
Calvin & Hobbes for the win
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 16, 2016 14:38:47 GMT
I'd put money on "versing" being added to official dictionaries within the next few years. NOOOOOOO!! |
|
|
|
Post by DM Mitch on Mar 16, 2016 15:15:08 GMT
I'd put money on "versing" being added to official dictionaries within the next few years. NOOOOOOO!! Yes! With a citation of; See Dungeon Master Block Podcast Ep68 |
|
|
|
Post by robosnake on Mar 16, 2016 19:42:15 GMT
So, theater of the mind is the best, but one of the big challenges is area of effect for spellcasters. I took a look at the guidelines that the DMG gives (I think it's the DMG - I don't have my copy handy to check) for how many people are hit by a given area of effect from a spell. I took the average number of targets hit for each common area of effect, and then made these into random dice-rolls to represent the ebb and flow of battle without a battle mat, assuming the spellcaster is maneuvering to hit as many people as possible, but that they are all scrambling out of the way of any incoming spells. Anyway, I posted a table of area of effect dice-rolls for number of targets hit to use in theater of the mind combat - here it is: doughagler.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/dd-5e-area-of-effect/Comments are welcome. I've used this table in my game already, and as long as the players understand this is how we're determining the number of targets hit by a spell, they seem happy with it. It isn't going to satisfy those who really want to use a battle grid and minis, but theater of the mind style combat won't satisfy them to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by catcharlie on Mar 16, 2016 21:35:58 GMT
Personally, I've never understood Theater of the mind for battle, TotM is what you do for RP for the rest of the session, so battle is nice to be able to see everything and use tactics and the stats of skills and stuff. I've tried it once (and seen/heard it a couple of times) and it was very confused and temperamental, maybe it was the DM.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 16, 2016 21:44:46 GMT
Personally, I've never understood Theater of the mind for battle, TotM is what you do for RP for the rest of the session, so battle is nice to be able to see everything and use tactics and the stats of skills and stuff. I've tried it once (and seen/heard it a couple of times) and it was very confused and temperamental, maybe it was the DM. This is all about what you know/your preference. I enjoy TotM for everything, because it allows flexibility and keeps everyone focused on each other's words, rather than on the mat and minis. For me, playing a tactical minis game is very different from playing a tabletop role playing game. I know there's not too much difference to a lot of people, but there is to me. My group and I are discussing our next campaign, and what we want it to be. Their main complaint about D&D: combat took too long. We used minis and a grid at the vehement request of one player. I explained that there were two reasons we had long/a lot of combat. One was that everyone was new to roleplaying, and combat is easy to RP. Two is that D&D is geared, mechanically, toward complex, frequent and prolonged combat. Minis and grid encourages this even more. Things get tactical. I think I'm going to need to have some private discussions with each of my players regarding what they want the table to feel like. There are a couple very strong voices, saying very different things, and I want to hear what the quiet ones have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by catcharlie on Mar 16, 2016 22:04:31 GMT
I suppose for me I don't like the uncertainty of TotM, 'Am I close enough to hit him', 'Have we killed all the monsters', 'I thought I was close enough to him', 'I didn't know there was a monster there', with minis so many questions are removed, it not 'can I do this' it's 'I'm going to (try to) do this'.
I'm quite visual so not having minis my mind tends to wander or I forget what is/was there, also I like to plan (or at least try to plan) a little bit ahead which Minis help with.
I've heard with Minis the RP goes out the window, but surely that the fault of the players/DM, unless you want a tactical minis game.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 16, 2016 22:15:41 GMT
I'm quite visual so not having minis my mind tends to wander or I forget what is/was there, also I like to plan (or at least try to plan) a little bit ahead which Minis help with. I've heard with Minis the RP goes out the window, but surely that the fault of the players/DM, unless you want a tactical minis game. The "visual" thing is my player's issue as well, the one player who really, really fought for us to use a grid. He draws himself diagrams now that we play EotE (which has nice non-grid mechanics regarding range and such). As to RP going out the window being the fault of the players/DM, I'd say yes and no. Certainly, skilled and determined role players can still have interesting RP while using a grid. However, one thing I've learned through playing in new systems is that mechanics encourage play style. In the same way, a grid and minis encourages tactical thinking, micro combat planning, and a lot of counting squares. Theater of the mind encourages loose interpretations of range and AOE spells, and imaginative tactical thinking. I encourage my players to tell me details about the environment. The tricky piece is finding a balance with players who have a tendency to game the rules a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 16, 2016 22:21:53 GMT
My current table is very combat heavy, but it works for them, so I don't plan on changing it anytime soon. However, I have had some theater of the mind games though that were very enjoyable. The cost factor is definitely an element that factors immediately into the theater of the mind idea, and of course the space reduction on maps, minis, etc. The other interesting bonus that comes inherently from TotM, not that it doesn't exist with a map/mini game, is that the players tend to ask more about what is around them and what they see. They need a clearer picture about the room and how they can interact with it. It can be done, but certainly needs to be what the players want because it is very different from maps/minis.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 16, 2016 22:26:11 GMT
So, theater of the mind is the best, but one of the big challenges is area of effect for spellcasters. I took a look at the guidelines that the DMG gives (I think it's the DMG - I don't have my copy handy to check) for how many people are hit by a given area of effect from a spell. I took the average number of targets hit for each common area of effect, and then made these into random dice-rolls to represent the ebb and flow of battle without a battle mat, assuming the spellcaster is maneuvering to hit as many people as possible, but that they are all scrambling out of the way of any incoming spells. Anyway, I posted a table of area of effect dice-rolls for number of targets hit to use in theater of the mind combat - here it is: doughagler.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/dd-5e-area-of-effect/Comments are welcome. I've used this table in my game already, and as long as the players understand this is how we're determining the number of targets hit by a spell, they seem happy with it. It isn't going to satisfy those who really want to use a battle grid and minis, but theater of the mind style combat won't satisfy them to begin with. I like that table. Checked the numbers via napkin math, as the numbers aren't complex and I agree completely with your target and die choices. The dice addition is an interesting one, but one that I really like. The randomness makes things a bit more intriguing, while giving a slight edge to the player if they were to decide to go the random route. (i.e. 30' cone = 3 targets = 1d6 which averages 3.5) If I were to use this system I would definitely push towards the players using the dice rather than the set number of targets. The only potential downside is an addition roll needed while resolving spells. |
|
