What's the release schedule for 5e products looking like?

S'mon · February 25, 2015, 06:09:49 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr;817708Are making your own tables so hard? Just from the 1e/2e explanation of How To, looking at d% and 1d12+1d8, I extrapolated the basics to figure out my own micro tables. Settings can be anything, and thus no batch of example tables would ever suffice. Why do you need example tables to be a pre-fab substitute for your own creativity.

Hell, give me your setting, some parameters, and I can scribble up your encounter tables. I mean, making NPCs are harder than encounter tables. Are you using some weird CR budget calculations?

I did make up a couple tables for 5e - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31182
But I do find it quite a lot of effort, and I don't want to have to make a comprehensive set.
I haven't settled on a setting yet, but probably the Wilderlands - either Arcadian forested hills (Ghinarian hills), or cold/temperate forest, hills and plains (Elphand Lands & Irminsul forest) are a couple possibilities. Also their coasts and nearby seas.

tuypo1 · February 25, 2015, 06:57:19 PM

Quote from: danskmacabre;817737I could be putting the very limited amount of time I have into other things.
I like to use pre-generated encounter tables for various regions for inspiration.
I rarely actually roll on those tables, but I like to look at them to get ideas.
for an adventure, I often pre-generate a few random encounters with some notes anyway if I know what sort of areas the characters are likely to go through. That way the encounters are far more interesting.

If you really mean this, I'd love to give you a series of environments I want random encounters for. I could print it out and stick it in the back of the 5E MM.

this is what i find to encounter tables are a great way to have an easy reference for what a party is likely to encounter in an area i dont actually roll on them i just choose a monster. the info is in the monster entries themselves but i should not have to compile the list myself and the chance of each creature appearing is a good indication of how often they should be encountered

Justin Alexander · February 25, 2015, 07:34:22 PM

Quote from: Skywalker;817453You still can: http://dnd.wizards.com/products/catalog.

Complete tangent: That Tiamat miniature is so ridiculously tiny. It's like it belongs to some alternative product line where all the PC miniatures are the size of ants.

It's a Tiamat for ants.

tuypo1 · February 25, 2015, 07:42:40 PM

wait how are you going to get either Tiamat or Bahamut to fit on your grid

oh wait 5e went theatre of the mind didn’t it

the tiamat looks crap from the front but at other angles its fine

i like the bahamut but i feel that pose would work better for some sort of evil dragon

edit: i have the icons of the realms starter set and the wizards fireball looks great in person it does not really come through on an image

Opaopajr · February 25, 2015, 08:39:48 PM

Quote from: S'mon;817744I did make up a couple tables for 5e - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31182
But I do find it quite a lot of effort, and I don't want to have to make a comprehensive set.
I haven't settled on a setting yet, but probably the Wilderlands - either Arcadian forested hills (Ghinarian hills), or cold/temperate forest, hills and plains (Elphand Lands & Irminsul forest) are a couple possibilities. Also their coasts and nearby seas.

You put a lot of info on your tables. Maybe that's why they feel like more effort? I do give props to the Number Appearing (#A) value, as that helps. The special commentary is a nice touch (% chance, and typical behavior).

Have either of you flipped through Magic the Gathering card sets? A lot of them are thematic, quite easy to flip through, and add according to terrain (land mana type). Since many are roughly analogous to MM creatures, just do some spot stat line editing.

I will say editing down 5e monsters to a stat line is the hardest part.

tuypo1 · March 06, 2015, 10:36:23 PM

speaking of the planes i found this on the wizards website (oddly enough i could not find any direct links to it but the url checks out)

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_67_68.pdf

what that indicates to me is they are going with the idea that each setting is a separate planet on the same material plane or am i missing something here

RPGPundit · March 10, 2015, 12:35:07 AM

Quote from: tuypo1;819174speaking of the planes i found this on the wizards website (oddly enough i could not find any direct links to it but the url checks out)

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_67_68.pdf

what that indicates to me is they are going with the idea that each setting is a separate planet on the same material plane or am i missing something here

I thought it was just that there was a variety of material planes? That was the impression I got from the DMG.

tuypo1 · March 10, 2015, 02:47:54 AM

thats what i thought at first to but then i considered that in the descriptions of the demonweb pits in the fiend folio they used to term worlds to refer to planets.

im thinking its probably separate planes and its just poor wording.

Warthur · March 10, 2015, 02:11:33 PM

I think they're maintaining just enough strategic ambiguity so as to not poop in the cheerios of the Spelljammer fans.

Sacrosanct · March 10, 2015, 02:58:54 PM

Quote from: Justin Alexander;817761Complete tangent: That Tiamat miniature is so ridiculously tiny. It's like it belongs to some alternative product line where all the PC miniatures are the size of ants.

It's a Tiamat for ants.

I don't think it's tiny at all. In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis. Dragons have never been fully to scale.

This is how big she is in comparison to other minis. Those are giants below her, not regular scale PCs. And Kaldarax is freaking huge. That's also a CD case that Cthulhu is standing on.

Skywalker · March 10, 2015, 03:21:23 PM

As posted elsewhere, some of the content from the "Adventurer's Handbook" for the Princes of the Apocalypse campaign has been posted for free of WotC's site: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elementalevil_playerscompanion

Armchair Gamer · March 10, 2015, 03:30:17 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819474I don't think it's tiny at all. In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis. Dragons have never been fully to scale.

A Tiamat the size of 3.5's Colossal Red would be a Very Cool Thing, but I'm not sure the market could bear it. (I know I couldn't afford it, or at least wouldn't pay what it would probably cost. I still have a few regrets about not picking up the AT-AT, though ... )

tuypo1 · March 10, 2015, 11:34:14 PM

Quote from: Warthur;819472I think they're maintaining just enough strategic ambiguity so as to not poop in the cheerios of the Spelljammer fans.

you know i think you might be right

Justin Alexander · March 12, 2015, 02:24:12 AM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819474I don't think it's tiny at all. In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis. Dragons have never been fully to scale.

She appears to be essentially the same size as my Huge 3.5 Dragon miniatures. Maybe my conception of Tiamat is just out-of-sync with the current edition, but she's the Mother of Evil Dragons. I conceive of her as being very, very large.

If she was Kaladrax-sized I'd consider her a little on the small side, but not ant-proportioned.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;819479A Tiamat the size of 3.5's Colossal Red would be a Very Cool Thing, but I'm not sure the market could bear it. (I know I couldn't afford it, or at least wouldn't pay what it would probably cost. I still have a few regrets about not picking up the AT-AT, though ... )

My perception may be biased due to owning a Colossal Red Dragon and the Gargantuan dragons that WotC produced.

crkrueger · March 12, 2015, 03:12:09 AM

She should be the biggest dragon WotC ever made. Also the way she's flying, she looks like Ghidorah. We need the Tarrasque and Oonga to get some Kaiju action going.