Is Abeir ruled by elementals? I thought it was primordials? Though it has never been quite clear to me what makes something a primordial or not. They are not just elementals though. Ubtao and Dendar are primordials.
Alright, so... The concept of Abeir-Toril having been split in two worlds (by Ao, as a way to tell gods and primordials "Stop fighting, kids, here is a second ball") was introduced in 4e, which used the World Axis instead of the Great Wheel. This alternate cosmology was very, shall we say, compressed. There was the Astral Sea, the Feywild, the Mortal World, the Shadowfell, and the Elemental Chaos, plus the Far Realm in its usual "not really part of the rest" position, and that was basically it.
The 4e Elemental Chaos contained locales such as the City of Brass, but also githzerai monasteries and abyssal layers. Most strikingly, creatures such as slaadi and demons were reimagined with the elemental tag in their statblock. It is in this context that primordials were defined as the top dogs of the Elemental Chaos. They were mainly what 5e would likely still consider elementals, but weirder cases like Ubtao and Dendar were also counted among the lot.
The current 5e meaning of "primordial" is, I agree, kind of vague. SCAG lists Dendar as a Great Old One patron, so she is probably not a primordial. My take is that 5e primordials should simply be powerful elementals. Anyway, in my previous post, I said elementals specifically to, well, not have to explain all that (It didn't work, lol) and also to highlight why I would put Abeir in the Elemental Chaos.
Thanks, I am pretty good with 2e lore and decent as far as 5e goes but I skipped the 3e, 4e era so I often draw a blank. And I did notice that they called Ubtao a god in ToA. Will be interesting to see if the new Forgotten Realms books go into this.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
What edition was that?
current edition. its not like every ship has the same speed but 30-40 range is common, i think the fastest is 70. not that they were crazy fast in 2e, 17mph per SR rating(between 1-5 i think) . vs 3-8mph(no SR modifier) in 5e. i get the game logic in that dragons and other flying monsters are slow in 5e as well. so you want those things to not just be easily outrun. it just feels lame to move that slow in your spaceship. At least in 2e 52 MPH easily obtained is stupid fast for a medieval world. 3-8 is like a fit guy running.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
What edition was that?
current edition. its not like every ship has the same speed but 30-40 range is common, i think the fastest is 70. not that they were crazy fast in 2e, 17mph per SR rating(between 1-5 i think) . vs 3-8mph(no SR modifier) in 5e. i get the game logic in that dragons and other flying monsters are slow in 5e as well. so you want those things to not just be easily outrun. it just feels lame to move that slow in your spaceship. At least in 2e 52 MPH easily obtained is stupid fast for a medieval world. 3-8 is like a fit guy running.
All ships being more or less identical speed-wise also presents problems should you actually attempt ship combat: since it means there's no way to escape combat rules as written: you're just trapped forever; maneuver, kite, or run; it all happens at the same speed, and all ships are capable of identical moves.
The bigger one can try gravity shenanigans, you can fire at each other, you can try other creative stuff or just board the other ship. I mean in normal combat most creatures will have a similar speed. What is diffrent here?
The bigger one can try gravity shenanigans, you can fire at each other, you can try other creative stuff or just board the other ship. I mean in normal combat most creatures will have a similar speed. What is diffrent here?
The problem is that it fundamentally locks you into one thing: there's no point in attempting anything with your ship besides "board and kill them": because that's literally the only way the situation CAN resolve, rules as written. YES: a cool DM can "let" you try something else: but that's making the best of a badly thought out system, not the system facilitating something cool happening. Ranged combat in D&D with no cover or maneuvering of any sort or even the interesting twists of spells can be pretty boring: and actually fighting a naval battle in the current rules might be one of the most soul-crushingly boring things to actually resolve at a table; since besides their weapons, ships are just one giant HP pool witha damage threshold: you're just there plinking away at one another. You can't say: shoot to disable the enemy's rigging, or anything tot aht effect; because, again; all ships function basically the same.
It plays fundamentally against the fantasy of ship combat: a pirate brigantine and an empire's navy galleon SHOULD behave differently; likewise a tiny Shrike and a giant Space Galleon SHOULD behave differently in combat. It's part of why vehicle combat in current 5e "feels" so lame: because vehicles have no inertia, no weight, no presence of their own: they're just creatures at a different scale. By that same token: there's pretty much nothing for your crew (IE: party) to "do" besides the one at the helm, rules as written besides fire your weapon and wait for the inevitable boarding action.
Likewise it kind of ruins any fantasy of having your own answer to the Millennium Falcon; you can't have the fastest hunk of junk in the multiverse if all ships behave the same. You can't have a narrow escape from overwhelming odds if your only recourse is "fight or die". Part of the fun of say: Star Wars, Mass Effect, or any other 'space" setting feeling "spacey" is making the open space FEEL "big": and a good part of that is if you don't feel like you can win a fight: point your bow at the void and hit the "jump to warp/hyperspace/FTL/Lint-space or whatever universe equivalent" button.
Put it this way: would Pirates of the Caribbean be anywhere near as interesting or fun to watch if The Black Pearl, HMS Interceptor, HMS Dauntless, The Flying Dutchman, AND Lord Beckett's Endeavour all sailed and fought functionally the same? Would Battlestar Galactica be anywhere near as gripping if the Galactica and the Pegasus were functionally interchangeable? Would Stargate feel nearly as satisfying to watch if the very moment the Tau'ri got our grubby hands on one space ship we were suddenly on equal footing with the aliens? Would Halo's story have nearly as much weight if the UNSC weren't hilariously out-performed by the Covenant's navy; so each and every unlikely victory "feels" amazing as a result?
EDIT: To illustrate my point about how boring a pure rules as written naval battle in current rules would be: let's take 2 hypothetical Space Galleons. Each, between ship and weapons has 600 HP (400 ship + 2(50) for ballistae, +100 mangonel). Weapons have +5 and +6 to hit respectively; meaning to hit the 15 AC of each, you have about a 50/50 shot (little better but close enough). Average damage: 3d10+3d10+5d10 = 11d10 = ~60, divide that in half to account for misses and not hitting the damage threshold (totally possible, especially for the ballistae; I play casters, I've rolled 5d10 and done 12 damage before); ~30. So, rules as written, a purely ranged fight between 2 Space Galleons would last somewhere on the order of 12-13 turns (assuming you're shooting at the hull and not their weapons) of "We fire" "okay that hits, roll damage", "they fire", "okay that hits, roll damage", "Okay we fire", "that misses" etc. etc. Even if we assume near-perfect accuracy and near-max damage; that's still ~4-5 turns... ~6-7 to take out weapons first. And it's not as though you could do anything clever to mitigate this; like weaving into and out of range on a turn because the ranges of these weapons are in the hundreds of feet and your ship... oh yeah: moves at "a guy's brisk jog" per round.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
What edition was that?
current edition. its not like every ship has the same speed but 30-40 range is common, i think the fastest is 70. not that they were crazy fast in 2e, 17mph per SR rating(between 1-5 i think) . vs 3-8mph(no SR modifier) in 5e. i get the game logic in that dragons and other flying monsters are slow in 5e as well. so you want those things to not just be easily outrun. it just feels lame to move that slow in your spaceship. At least in 2e 52 MPH easily obtained is stupid fast for a medieval world. 3-8 is like a fit guy running.
All ships being more or less identical speed-wise also presents problems should you actually attempt ship combat: since it means there's no way to escape combat rules as written: you're just trapped forever; maneuver, kite, or run; it all happens at the same speed, and all ships are capable of identical moves.
You are very right, but in a practical sense, how often do people run? It used to be common in early editions, and I seem to remember DMG advice that some percentage (I can’t remember if it was 5 or 20) of encounters be overpowering to the point that the PCs should flee or die. But in 5e, encounter design is generally assumed that the PCs should be able win a fight once it starts. I’m not trying to argue that philosophy is good or bad. The point is more, characters don’t flee, so there’s not a lot of need for rules support for it.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
What edition was that?
current edition. its not like every ship has the same speed but 30-40 range is common, i think the fastest is 70. not that they were crazy fast in 2e, 17mph per SR rating(between 1-5 i think) . vs 3-8mph(no SR modifier) in 5e. i get the game logic in that dragons and other flying monsters are slow in 5e as well. so you want those things to not just be easily outrun. it just feels lame to move that slow in your spaceship. At least in 2e 52 MPH easily obtained is stupid fast for a medieval world. 3-8 is like a fit guy running.
All ships being more or less identical speed-wise also presents problems should you actually attempt ship combat: since it means there's no way to escape combat rules as written: you're just trapped forever; maneuver, kite, or run; it all happens at the same speed, and all ships are capable of identical moves.
You are very right, but in a practical sense, how often do people run? It used to be common in early editions, and I seem to remember DMG advice that some percentage (I can’t remember if it was 5 or 20) of encounters be overpowering to the point that the PCs should flee or die. But in 5e, encounter design is generally assumed that the PCs should be able win a fight once it starts. I’m not trying to argue that philosophy is good or bad. The point is more, characters don’t flee, so there’s not a lot of need for rules support for it.
See my above post: even if yes, modern 5e parties go-to solution is to fight; the fact that the only practical resolution the rules as written allow for to the situation: "You've encountered a hostile spelljammer in open space" is "board and fight them hand-to-hand" is really just boring and disappointing to someone like me that enjoys the fantasy of a "proper" high-seas or space battle flavour. I don't disagree "fight!" isn't the go-to solution for most 5e parties anyway: I'm saying there's a difference between "it's the normal/preferred option" and "it's the only option the rules practically allow".
Again: a good DM can "facilitate" other options being possible: but that's the DM making those possible instead of the rules. I'm pointing to the fact that this is the only solution the rules as written allow for. Let's say your lawful-dumb Paladin has his way and you want to capture your enemy crew instead... now what? It's not like any existing ships have brigs to keep them in; your two crews just have to go "okay, you beat us... now... we'll both putter away from one another at ~30-40 feet per round until we reach escape distance..."; it feels absurdly unsatisfying.
I think we are just looking for very diffrent things. I dont want wargame-like/boardgame-like tactical naval battles, we had that in 2e, it bored me and my players to death and seemed the antithesis of D&D to us. The normal combat rules in 5e, wich are mostly also used in ship to ship combat, already allow for the neat 3D shenanigans that 2e spelljammer told us we should stay away from, but hey this is space! Its not about the DM allowing something cool, its about the rules not standing in the way of something cool. What we want is fast paced cinematic action packed combat that narrates well, and we certainly had that with this version of spelljammer more than we did with the old one. My players did use cover, lots of battles in asteroid fields, since that was where my pirate ships were lying in ambush. Once they used their own ship hull for cover, by tipping the ship on its side in relation to the attacker, reasoning that their crew was more important than the ship hit points. My players run a lot and do all kind of shenanigans in 5e combat, slugging it out isnt what we are here for, and they did the same in spelljammer with their ship.
If you are going to go rules more narrative you can do that in any system, and just as well in 2e as you did in 5e. But if you want the ability to to a more tactical naval combat, you just can't in 5e.
I think we are just looking for very diffrent things. I dont want wargame-like/boardgame-like tactical naval battles, we had that in 2e, it bored me and my players to death and seemed the antithesis of D&D to us. The normal combat rules in 5e, wich are mostly also used in ship to ship combat, already allow for the neat 3D shenanigans that 2e spelljammer told us we should stay away from, but hey this is space! Its not about the DM allowing something cool, its about the rules not standing in the way of something cool. What we want is fast paced cinematic action packed combat that narrates well, and we certainly had that with this version of spelljammer more than we did with the old one. My players did use cover, lots of battles in asteroid fields, since that was where my pirate ships were lying in ambush. Once they used their own ship hull for cover, by tipping the ship on its side in relation to the attacker, reasoning that their crew was more important than the ship hit points. My players run a lot and do all kind of shenanigans in 5e combat, slugging it out isnt what we are here for, and they did the same in spelljammer with their ship.
So... in other words... "You were right: combat purely rules as written in ship combat for 5e is boring"? Because most of that falls under, as I said before: "The DM let us try something cool": that's the DM being good, not the material on the page facilitating anything exciting happening. If all you want is "the narrative": there are games that have no dice at all; but I didn't buy "my friend makes up a story with our inputs"; we can play that any time for the price of free; I bought "Dungeons & Dragons".
I think we are just looking for very diffrent things. I dont want wargame-like/boardgame-like tactical naval battles, we had that in 2e, it bored me and my players to death and seemed the antithesis of D&D to us. The normal combat rules in 5e, wich are mostly also used in ship to ship combat, already allow for the neat 3D shenanigans that 2e spelljammer told us we should stay away from, but hey this is space! Its not about the DM allowing something cool, its about the rules not standing in the way of something cool. What we want is fast paced cinematic action packed combat that narrates well, and we certainly had that with this version of spelljammer more than we did with the old one. My players did use cover, lots of battles in asteroid fields, since that was where my pirate ships were lying in ambush. Once they used their own ship hull for cover, by tipping the ship on its side in relation to the attacker, reasoning that their crew was more important than the ship hit points. My players run a lot and do all kind of shenanigans in 5e combat, slugging it out isnt what we are here for, and they did the same in spelljammer with their ship.
So... in other words... "You were right: combat purely rules as written in ship combat for 5e is boring"? Because most of that falls under, as I said before: "The DM let us try something cool": that's the DM being good, not the material on the page facilitating anything exciting happening. If all you want is "the narrative": there are games that have no dice at all; but I didn't buy "my friend makes up a story with our inputs"; we can play that any time for the price of free; I bought "Dungeons & Dragons".
No. As I said the rules as written already allow all that cool stuff to happen. I have tried the games you recommend and we werent happy with those, we do like 5e. But 5e is not the best tactical combat sitution there is, I will admit that. It is more narrativism, less gameism or simulationism focused. So since you suggested I try other games I will ask the same of you, if you want combat that can only be played by counting squares and hexes, why not play a system like pathfinder or 3.5? Why not use spelljammer 2e rules ported to 5e? I am glad 5e isnt any of that, we often use maps without a grid and it works well for what we do. I also play Dungeons and Dragons. And I am not saying your playstyle is wrong, but neither is mine. They are just diffrent. The rules as written in spelljammer 5e fit my playstyle. They might not fit yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alright, so... The concept of Abeir-Toril having been split in two worlds (by Ao, as a way to tell gods and primordials "Stop fighting, kids, here is a second ball") was introduced in 4e, which used the World Axis instead of the Great Wheel. This alternate cosmology was very, shall we say, compressed. There was the Astral Sea, the Feywild, the Mortal World, the Shadowfell, and the Elemental Chaos, plus the Far Realm in its usual "not really part of the rest" position, and that was basically it.
The 4e Elemental Chaos contained locales such as the City of Brass, but also githzerai monasteries and abyssal layers. Most strikingly, creatures such as slaadi and demons were reimagined with the elemental tag in their statblock. It is in this context that primordials were defined as the top dogs of the Elemental Chaos. They were mainly what 5e would likely still consider elementals, but weirder cases like Ubtao and Dendar were also counted among the lot.
The current 5e meaning of "primordial" is, I agree, kind of vague. SCAG lists Dendar as a Great Old One patron, so she is probably not a primordial. My take is that 5e primordials should simply be powerful elementals. Anyway, in my previous post, I said elementals specifically to, well, not have to explain all that (It didn't work, lol) and also to highlight why I would put Abeir in the Elemental Chaos.
Expanded 5e Spelljammer Cosmology
Thanks, I am pretty good with 2e lore and decent as far as 5e goes but I skipped the 3e, 4e era so I often draw a blank. And I did notice that they called Ubtao a god in ToA. Will be interesting to see if the new Forgotten Realms books go into this.
There is far more bad than good in it. But you can fairly easily bring the lore back in. Why they decided space ships should have a move of 30 feet until out of the atmosphere ill never get.
What edition was that?
current edition. its not like every ship has the same speed but 30-40 range is common, i think the fastest is 70. not that they were crazy fast in 2e, 17mph per SR rating(between 1-5 i think) . vs 3-8mph(no SR modifier) in 5e. i get the game logic in that dragons and other flying monsters are slow in 5e as well. so you want those things to not just be easily outrun. it just feels lame to move that slow in your spaceship. At least in 2e 52 MPH easily obtained is stupid fast for a medieval world. 3-8 is like a fit guy running.
All ships being more or less identical speed-wise also presents problems should you actually attempt ship combat: since it means there's no way to escape combat rules as written: you're just trapped forever; maneuver, kite, or run; it all happens at the same speed, and all ships are capable of identical moves.
The bigger one can try gravity shenanigans, you can fire at each other, you can try other creative stuff or just board the other ship. I mean in normal combat most creatures will have a similar speed. What is diffrent here?
The problem is that it fundamentally locks you into one thing: there's no point in attempting anything with your ship besides "board and kill them": because that's literally the only way the situation CAN resolve, rules as written. YES: a cool DM can "let" you try something else: but that's making the best of a badly thought out system, not the system facilitating something cool happening. Ranged combat in D&D with no cover or maneuvering of any sort or even the interesting twists of spells can be pretty boring: and actually fighting a naval battle in the current rules might be one of the most soul-crushingly boring things to actually resolve at a table; since besides their weapons, ships are just one giant HP pool witha damage threshold: you're just there plinking away at one another. You can't say: shoot to disable the enemy's rigging, or anything tot aht effect; because, again; all ships function basically the same.
It plays fundamentally against the fantasy of ship combat: a pirate brigantine and an empire's navy galleon SHOULD behave differently; likewise a tiny Shrike and a giant Space Galleon SHOULD behave differently in combat. It's part of why vehicle combat in current 5e "feels" so lame: because vehicles have no inertia, no weight, no presence of their own: they're just creatures at a different scale. By that same token: there's pretty much nothing for your crew (IE: party) to "do" besides the one at the helm, rules as written besides fire your weapon and wait for the inevitable boarding action.
Likewise it kind of ruins any fantasy of having your own answer to the Millennium Falcon; you can't have the fastest hunk of junk in the multiverse if all ships behave the same. You can't have a narrow escape from overwhelming odds if your only recourse is "fight or die". Part of the fun of say: Star Wars, Mass Effect, or any other 'space" setting feeling "spacey" is making the open space FEEL "big": and a good part of that is if you don't feel like you can win a fight: point your bow at the void and hit the "jump to warp/hyperspace/FTL/Lint-space or whatever universe equivalent" button.
Put it this way: would Pirates of the Caribbean be anywhere near as interesting or fun to watch if The Black Pearl, HMS Interceptor, HMS Dauntless, The Flying Dutchman, AND Lord Beckett's Endeavour all sailed and fought functionally the same? Would Battlestar Galactica be anywhere near as gripping if the Galactica and the Pegasus were functionally interchangeable? Would Stargate feel nearly as satisfying to watch if the very moment the Tau'ri got our grubby hands on one space ship we were suddenly on equal footing with the aliens? Would Halo's story have nearly as much weight if the UNSC weren't hilariously out-performed by the Covenant's navy; so each and every unlikely victory "feels" amazing as a result?
EDIT: To illustrate my point about how boring a pure rules as written naval battle in current rules would be: let's take 2 hypothetical Space Galleons. Each, between ship and weapons has 600 HP (400 ship + 2(50) for ballistae, +100 mangonel). Weapons have +5 and +6 to hit respectively; meaning to hit the 15 AC of each, you have about a 50/50 shot (little better but close enough). Average damage: 3d10+3d10+5d10 = 11d10 = ~60, divide that in half to account for misses and not hitting the damage threshold (totally possible, especially for the ballistae; I play casters, I've rolled 5d10 and done 12 damage before); ~30. So, rules as written, a purely ranged fight between 2 Space Galleons would last somewhere on the order of 12-13 turns (assuming you're shooting at the hull and not their weapons) of "We fire" "okay that hits, roll damage", "they fire", "okay that hits, roll damage", "Okay we fire", "that misses" etc. etc. Even if we assume near-perfect accuracy and near-max damage; that's still ~4-5 turns... ~6-7 to take out weapons first. And it's not as though you could do anything clever to mitigate this; like weaving into and out of range on a turn because the ranges of these weapons are in the hundreds of feet and your ship... oh yeah: moves at "a guy's brisk jog" per round.
You are very right, but in a practical sense, how often do people run? It used to be common in early editions, and I seem to remember DMG advice that some percentage (I can’t remember if it was 5 or 20) of encounters be overpowering to the point that the PCs should flee or die.
But in 5e, encounter design is generally assumed that the PCs should be able win a fight once it starts. I’m not trying to argue that philosophy is good or bad. The point is more, characters don’t flee, so there’s not a lot of need for rules support for it.
See my above post: even if yes, modern 5e parties go-to solution is to fight; the fact that the only practical resolution the rules as written allow for to the situation: "You've encountered a hostile spelljammer in open space" is "board and fight them hand-to-hand" is really just boring and disappointing to someone like me that enjoys the fantasy of a "proper" high-seas or space battle flavour. I don't disagree "fight!" isn't the go-to solution for most 5e parties anyway: I'm saying there's a difference between "it's the normal/preferred option" and "it's the only option the rules practically allow".
Again: a good DM can "facilitate" other options being possible: but that's the DM making those possible instead of the rules. I'm pointing to the fact that this is the only solution the rules as written allow for. Let's say your lawful-dumb Paladin has his way and you want to capture your enemy crew instead... now what? It's not like any existing ships have brigs to keep them in; your two crews just have to go "okay, you beat us... now... we'll both putter away from one another at ~30-40 feet per round until we reach escape distance..."; it feels absurdly unsatisfying.
I think we are just looking for very diffrent things. I dont want wargame-like/boardgame-like tactical naval battles, we had that in 2e, it bored me and my players to death and seemed the antithesis of D&D to us. The normal combat rules in 5e, wich are mostly also used in ship to ship combat, already allow for the neat 3D shenanigans that 2e spelljammer told us we should stay away from, but hey this is space! Its not about the DM allowing something cool, its about the rules not standing in the way of something cool. What we want is fast paced cinematic action packed combat that narrates well, and we certainly had that with this version of spelljammer more than we did with the old one. My players did use cover, lots of battles in asteroid fields, since that was where my pirate ships were lying in ambush. Once they used their own ship hull for cover, by tipping the ship on its side in relation to the attacker, reasoning that their crew was more important than the ship hit points. My players run a lot and do all kind of shenanigans in 5e combat, slugging it out isnt what we are here for, and they did the same in spelljammer with their ship.
If you are going to go rules more narrative you can do that in any system, and just as well in 2e as you did in 5e. But if you want the ability to to a more tactical naval combat, you just can't in 5e.
So... in other words... "You were right: combat purely rules as written in ship combat for 5e is boring"? Because most of that falls under, as I said before: "The DM let us try something cool": that's the DM being good, not the material on the page facilitating anything exciting happening. If all you want is "the narrative": there are games that have no dice at all; but I didn't buy "my friend makes up a story with our inputs"; we can play that any time for the price of free; I bought "Dungeons & Dragons".
No. As I said the rules as written already allow all that cool stuff to happen. I have tried the games you recommend and we werent happy with those, we do like 5e. But 5e is not the best tactical combat sitution there is, I will admit that. It is more narrativism, less gameism or simulationism focused. So since you suggested I try other games I will ask the same of you, if you want combat that can only be played by counting squares and hexes, why not play a system like pathfinder or 3.5? Why not use spelljammer 2e rules ported to 5e? I am glad 5e isnt any of that, we often use maps without a grid and it works well for what we do. I also play Dungeons and Dragons. And I am not saying your playstyle is wrong, but neither is mine. They are just diffrent. The rules as written in spelljammer 5e fit my playstyle. They might not fit yours.