View Profile: Ristamar - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Today, 07:02 AM
    As a DM, I prefer to roll Deception vs Passive Insight if I feel an NPC may be giving signs (s)he's not being entirely truthful or genuine. If a PC presses or revisits the NPC's deceptive key points or has information/evidence that could help expose deception, I may roll with disadvantage or grant advantage to their Passive Insight, respectively. In short, it's not a skill that players have...
    24 replies | 450 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:22 AM
    Some ideas that never made it to print (College of Satire from UA and the Acrobat from Mearls' Happy Fun Hour), but nothing official.
    47 replies | 1263 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Monday, 18th March, 2019, 04:53 PM
    That's basically how Crawford explains it. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/15/net-attack/
    133 replies | 2356 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Friday, 15th March, 2019, 02:23 PM
    I tune in to Critical Role for 5 to 10 minutes every week as I "channel surf" through the D&D Twitch content to see if any play styles or productions pique my interest.
    90 replies | 3313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Monday, 4th March, 2019, 02:24 AM
    By RAW, I don't believe there are any skills that always require sight. Even Perception can sometimes solely rely on hearing without visualization. As such, I think any DM could comfortably rule that evasive tumbling around an enemy requires sight in most circumstances.
    17 replies | 7992 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 11:27 PM
    Understood, no worries. My response was more in tune with epithet's original suggestion. I'm also not a fan of disarming components for similar reasons, but I won't argue the point as I've said my peace.
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 10:19 PM
    I expect a caster to not have to worry about getting disrupted every encounter by potent ranged attackers. I recognize that since we're now steeped in hypothetical scenarios and white room theorycrafting, no one is going to change their current stance. I'll bow out of this thread for those still interested in furthering productive discussion of the original topic.
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 10:03 PM
    Don't forget the occasional Bard with Counterspell.
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 09:11 PM
    A 30' Misty Step typically isn't going to make the caster safe from ranged weapons, and minions are largely inconsequential* (that's why they're minions). Also, you've now made Shield a must prepare spell for Wizards (granted, it's already a popular choice, I believe). Shield won't help Clerics or Druids, though. *EDIT: I'm not dismissing the usefulness of minions in an encounter, but I am...
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 08:18 PM
    I appreciate the sentiment behind this line of thought, but there is always an inherent danger in having to simply "make it up," particularly as it relates to a universal capacity to disrupt casters. If the made up rule is effective and consistent in any capacity, it becomes a de facto strategy to shut down mid-to-high level casters. Given your scenario above, a savvy party would gladly keep...
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 02:33 AM
    The 5e equivalent of "don't move or I'll shoot" is the initiative roll.
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Saturday, 2nd March, 2019, 08:17 PM
    The arguments revolving around semantical triggers and timing are largely irrelevant. The designers have stated it was a deliberate decision to not allow casting interruption aside from Counterspell. You're free to create houserules around that limitation, but it does circumvent the intent of the basic rules.
    197 replies | 5524 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ristamar's Avatar
    Tuesday, 26th February, 2019, 10:14 PM
    Suggested Add: One thing I like about the D&D Beyond character sheet that I don't often see on other sheets is Passive Wisdom (Insight).
    5 replies | 311 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Ristamar

Basic Information

Date of Birth
August 16
About Ristamar
Location:
Pennsylvania

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,426
Posts Per Day
0.23
Last Post
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth? Today 07:02 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:06 PM
Join Date
Sunday, 20th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. ronin ronin is offline

    Member

    ronin
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 23rd March, 2019


Wednesday, 20th March, 2019


Thursday, 14th March, 2019


Sunday, 10th March, 2019


Saturday, 9th March, 2019


Friday, 8th March, 2019


Tuesday, 5th March, 2019


Monday, 4th March, 2019


Sunday, 3rd March, 2019


Saturday, 2nd March, 2019


Thursday, 28th February, 2019


Friday, 22nd February, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 1st February, 2019

  • 03:45 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Ah, I see why you find the Sage advice confusing. This spell does not "deprive you of you ability to take actions". It causes you to "spend your action retching and reeling". I.e. you still have an action, but you have no choice over what you do with it. It's a compulsory vomit action. It's fairly clear if you look at the wording of the spell - specific beats general. Disagree. "the creature spends its action that turn retching and reeling." Hence the creature has wasted its action or, put another way, it is deprived of taking real actions outlined in the PHB. Hence no bonus action per PHB rule that Ristamar quoted.

Thursday, 3rd January, 2019

  • 04:52 PM - clearstream mentioned Ristamar in post Magic Missile and Death Saving Throws
    If you want to go by the sage advice and would demand separate concentration check for each missile, then I would rule the same for death saves and would rule if 3 of 5 missiles are enough to bring character to 0, then the excessive 2 would incur death saves. Also @Ristamar. At first I felt the same way. The reason I came to believe that RAW entails otherwise is the wording "If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure." It is clear that the missiles hit simultaneously, so if I ask the question "How many missiles caused damage while the character had 0 hit points remaining?" The answer is "None! The missiles all hit simultaneously, while the character had positive hit points remaining." For a cast of the spell whose missiles hit a character simultaneously at a time when that character is already at 0 hit points, the situation is different. The missiles still hit simultaneously, still deal damage separately, but now they satisfy the RAW "while you have 0 hit points". Taken together, those accurately satisfy both the RAW and the related Sage Advice. A hesitation is that it might seem more intuitive to treat the missiles as dealing damage one at a time... which has been clarified as not being the case: they're...

Wednesday, 17th October, 2018

  • 05:49 PM - pemerton mentioned Ristamar in post I was right about Shield Master
    I really don't understand why some people insist they understand the rules better than the people who professionally wrote and interpret said rules. <snip> But if you think you have greater claim on understanding and interpreting the RAW than Jeremy Crawford you're sadly mistaken.This isn't true for poetry, and it isn't true for legislation - both of which have received far more attention as objects of interpretation than RPG rules - so I don't see any reason to think that it would be true of the 5e rules. The "rules as written" say that the bonus action is enlivened when you take the attack action. What counts as taking the attack action? Contra Yunru, I think that you must make an attack to take that action. Contra Ristamar, I see no good reason to think that taking that action requires having taken all your attacks (eg if I am playing an 8th level fighter and delcare an attack-move-attack, when do I take the attack action? To me the answer seems to be at the start of that sequence). Jeremy Crawford no doubt has his own opinion, but I don't see where he wrote it down in the rules!

Saturday, 29th September, 2018

  • 11:26 PM - MarkB mentioned Ristamar in post Damage at 0 hp / Massive damage clarification?
    as Ristamar says. But don't feel bad, I never noticed that until this thread, too. Me neither. I literally checked the rules in the PHB before answering, and still managed to gloss over the final sentence. Thanks for the correction Ristamar.
  • 07:34 PM - Satyrn mentioned Ristamar in post Damage at 0 hp / Massive damage clarification?
    Here's an oddity, though. The Instant Death rule only applies when an attack reduces you to 0 hp - which can't happen if you're already there. If that second attack hits, and deals damage equal or higher than the character's maximum hit points, it will not be instantly fatal. At most, it will instantly inflict two failed Death saves due to being a critical hit, leaving the character with one more remaining before death. as Ristamar says. But don't feel bad, I never noticed that until this thread, too. And Quickleaf, are you essentially asking if everything in a multiattack counts as a "single" attack?

Tuesday, 25th September, 2018

  • 01:26 PM - Maxperson mentioned Ristamar in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    What is the difference between "who goes first me or you" as a dex contest between multiple people and an initiative check? In a contest the high roller would go, and nobody else would get a turn. Initiative doesn't work that way. Everyone gets to go, because it's not an opposed check. You are splitying haors to construe an absence. I wasn't splitting hairs at all. There is a very big difference between only one person getting to act and nobody else getting a turn(contest), and everyone getting to go and simply using a dex check to establish order(initiative). See the link provided by @Ristamar. Jeremy Crawford established that I am correct here, though I really didn't think he would have to rule on something so clear.

Thursday, 20th September, 2018

  • 04:08 PM - iserith mentioned Ristamar in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Found some time thanks in no small part to Ristamar. Which I'm happy about because I didn't want you to think I was just ignoring the effort you put into this post. @iserith: Well, at least I think I understand where you are coming from now. I had totally misunderstood the thrust of your argument, hence your confusion over why I was talking about rail roading. I had thought you were standing on the principle of player agency. In fact it seems more the case now that you explain yourself is that you are standing on the principle of the rules are the rules, and ought to be followed strictly as written. So all my discussion about process loops, player agency, and railroading was only tangential to the point you were trying to make. Ok, I get that. And for the record were I to try to run 5e, I would certainly endeavor to play it by the rules at least until I understood what the rules were trying to accomplish, and what they were really good at and what they were not so good at. Good policy. It certainly is the case that writer's ...

Thursday, 25th May, 2017

  • 09:43 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Ristamar in post Spending time [Encounter pacing and Resting restrictions]
    Ristamar posted the following idea in your thread- http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?551362-Resting-and-the-frikkin-Elephant-in-the-Room/page17#post7122123 It is similar to the idea posted by AngryDm, but it uses a carrot, instead of a stick, approach. It gives increasing bonuses (XP) for each encounter. In your prior thread, I noted that the crux of the issue is identified in the AngryDM's post- specifically, time. This is an issue that has existed in all D&D editions, to a greater or lesser extent (arguably 4e didn't have it as bad, because it used a more balanced/gamist framework, but it still existed). There are a number of different solutions, it's just a question of finding out the one that works for your table.

Wednesday, 9th March, 2016

  • 02:03 AM - Aura mentioned Ristamar in post Was I in the wrong?
    ...ial judge, and instead take a more adversarial role, as championed by some posters. Which leads us to: The Gaming Style discussion: So some have contended that the DM's actions are justifiable within certain gaming styles. This discussion is sufficiently involved I'm not going to take a position on said styles. However, I will point out assuming some specific gaming style in defense of the DM's actions isn't relevant unless we have good reason to believe the group actually plays in said style. Not only are we lacking for any evidence of the sorts of styles they speak of, but the very fact the DM's actions caused disagreement is a good indicator that the opposite is true. If they shared whatever gaming style is required to attempt to justify the DM's actions, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Note to @Ilbranteloth - I am not against any one of these particular styles, but I am against assuming their relevance to this discussion, for the above reasons.) As an aside, I think Ristamar made an excellent comment when discussing the sorts of gaming styles people are invoking. They are really the sorts of things that should be understood by the group as a whole, and discussed, if necessary. Have a discussion about it, hash out the pro's and con's, etc. Even if everyone can't perfectly agree, knowing what others (particularly the DM) thinks is useful.

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Ristamar in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...erbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon ; @mellored ; @Mephista ; @Mercule ; @MG.0 ; @MichaelSomething; @Miladoon ; @Minigiant ; @Mishihari Lord ; @Mistwell ; @MoogleEmpMog ; @Mon @MonkeezOnFire ; @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) ; @MostlyDm ; @Mouseferatu ; @MoutonRustique; @Nemesis Destiny ; @neobolts ; @Neonchameleon ; @Nifft ; @nightspaladin ; @nomotog; @n00bdragon ; @Obryn ; @Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamonium87 ; @Paraxis ; @PaulO. ; @Pauln6 ; @Pauper ; @payn; @pemerton ; @peterka99 ;@ Pickles III ; @Pickles JG ; @pkt77242 ; @pming ; @pogre; @PopeYodaI ; @Prickly ; @procproc ; @Psikerlord ; @Psikerlord# ; @(Psi)SeveredHead; @Quickleaf ; @Raith5 ; @raleel ; @Ralif Redhammer ; @Raloc ; @Ranes ; @RangerWickett; @Ratskinner ; @redrick ; @Rejuvenator ; @Remathilis ; @Ristamar ; @RolenArcher; @Roland55 ; @RPG_Tweaker ; @Rune ; @Rygar ; @Sacrosanct ; @Saelorn ; @Saeviomagy; @sailor-Moon ; @SailorNash ; @Saplatt ; @Satyrn ; @Shades of Eternity ; @shadowmane; @sheadunne ; @Shasarak ; @shidaku ; @shintashi ; @Shiroiken ; @SigmaOne ; @sleypy; @sleypy01 ; @SpiderMonkey ; @Staccat0 ; @Staffan ; @steeldragons ; @steenan @STeveC ; @strider13x ; @Strider1973 ; @Sword of Spirit ; @Talmek ; @TerraDave; @TheCosmicKid ; @The_Gneech ; @TheHobgoblin ; @The Human Target ; @the Jester; @The Mirrorball Man ; @The Myopic Sniper ; @ThirdWizard ; @Tia Nadiezja ; @Tinker-TDC; @Tonguez ; @Tony Vargas ; @Tormyr ; @TrippyHippy ; @tsadkiel ; @tuxgeo ; @twigglythe Gnome ; @TwoSix ; @Uchawi ; @Ulorian ; @UnadvisedGoose445 ; @UngeheuerLich; @Us ; @Valmarius ; @Warbringer ; @was ; @wedgeski ; @Wednesday Boy ; @Wik ; @WillDoyle ; @Winterthorn ; @Wuzzard ; @Xeviat ; @Yaarel ; @Yunru ; @Zalabim ; @Zansy; @Zardnaar ; @Zeuel ; @ZickZak ; @ZombieRoboNinja ; @ZzarkLinux

Friday, 9th October, 2015

  • 03:31 AM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Ristamar in post Social Challenges & Political Conflicts
    ...uch wood costs, and you need to pay property taxes annually, and the house will get termite-eaten or bear-infested if there isn't someone living in it, and by the way you can make it larger or smaller, etc. There's three levels of detail you can play at: 1.) Full verisimiltude based on real-world expert knowledge of the specific problem domain (treehouse construction vs. road construction). 2.) Rough abstractions based on general type of activity (construction vs. politicking). 3.) Handwaving based on whatever is quickest, just to get the activity out of the way before returning to more interesting activities ("okay, you build a treehouse"). #3 needs no rules. Rules for #1 would be redundant and unnecessary except in corner cases (such as inventing a detailed treatment procedure for a disease which does not actually exist in real life). If #1 and #3 cover your interests, great! Scenario #2 is a bit lacking in 5E at the moment from my perspective. I'm sympathetic to those who, like @Ristamar, are "glad there are not established rules for economic, political, and social conflict and interactions." I even agree that it's a good thing WotC didn't try to create such rules, both because it would waste space in the DMG and because WotC always does a bad job at those kinds of things (see the Mass Combat rules for example). However, unlike Ristamar, I also see potential value in providing rules to my players so that they can act with more agency and predictability (more on this in a second), and whether that means me making up rules myself and creating handouts for the players, or importing rules from other systems, or buying third-party products that I consider to be of high quality, the result is the same: my players will have rules available to them. About predictability and agency: the end goal is for players to be able to put themselves into the game world and consider decisions the way their characters would, by thinking things through. Without rules you have to rely on the...

Sunday, 2nd August, 2015

  • 07:37 AM - pemerton mentioned Ristamar in post A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
    why roll?For the same reason you might roll to see if a PC can bash down a dungeon door to get to some treasure - if they succeed then the story goes one way, and if they fail then it goes another. <snip> If the PCs fail the roll then they have to find some other way to pursue the story. Or, indeed, they can abandon it, in which case it wasn't the dice that made that choice. <snip> there are many potential fun adventures out there, where the choice of which one actually plays out dependent on emergent gameplay. If the Cleric identifies the icon right away you get one particular story; if the Cleric doesn't then you get a different story - which may well be just as much fun.It seems to me that there are a few things going on here. Some of what I am about to say I think might be a rehash of some of Ristamar's points, but I'll have a go anyway in my own words. First, to me there is one important difference between the "open door" roll and the knowledge check. The "open door" roll is not, typically, determining backstory. Rather, it is determining an ingame causal process: does the character hit the door hard enough to open it? Most combat rolls are like this too. But the knowledge check is determining backstory, namely, "Does my PC know this fact?" The earliest example I can think of like this, in D&D, is the theif's Read Languages skill. As Gygax explains on p 20 of his DMG, This ability assumes that the longuage is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable. In other words, the Read Languages roll isn't adjudicating the results of something the thief is attempting in the fiction; rather, it's randomly determining a question of backsto...

Friday, 31st July, 2015

  • 02:27 AM - pemerton mentioned Ristamar in post A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
    ...n the player.Delericho's comment provoked a similar response in me as it did in iserith. The uncertainty that I want the dice to foster is not epistemic uncertainty among the players as to what the GM's backstory is, but rather metaphysical uncertainty among the whole table as to what the outcomes of play will be. One stark way to draw the contrast is this: Using dice to keep the story secret from the players is consistent with the game being a total railroad. Whereas using dice in the way that iserith describes - to determine what actually occurs in the fiction as a result of the players' action declarations for their PCs - is antithetical to railroading. The thing is that I don't find simply examining our hypothetical religious icon (or searching a room, or discerning lies, or many of these other things) interesting in and of themselves anyway. What's interesting is what the PC does with the information, or lack thereof, once that's been resolved. I tend to agree here with Ristamar and Agamon - if it's purely random, and the players haven't actually staked anything, then why roll? The GM can just download whatever backstory s/he thinks is interesting and then the players can declare actions in response. No doubt, as you say in a post after the one I've quoted, the events that result will be different if the players do or don't know the GM's backstory, but what is the point of the player not knowing that backstory? To me, "I want to roll Religion" lacks the necessary context of the character's goal and approach which makes it easier for the DM to narrate the result of the adventurer's action or to establish uncertainty. The player is effectively saying the action - whatever it is because it's certainty not clear in that offer - is uncertain by default.Here are a couple of actual play anecdotes that (I think) bear on this. In the first session of my ongoing Burning Wheel campaign, the action started in the town of Hardby, with the PC wizard Jobe wandering...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 22nd March, 2019

  • 04:41 PM - Traycor quoted Ristamar in post Casting Begins Soon For D&D Movie?
    I don't think there's any chance in hell the upcoming D&D movie will be based on Dragonlance. That being said, if a DL movie is ever slated to be a bedrock for a potential franchise, I think "The Legend of Huma" would be a great place to start. It doesn't require an ensemble cast, there's no pressure/expectation for a sequel, and it would provide a core foundation of lore and history that's continually referenced in the Chronicles. I don't think it will be DL either. Just noticed that some commenters were thinking "male Lead" meant this would not be an ensemble movie. Jumanji had The Rock as the lead, but it wasn't just about him. I imagine the same will hold true here. From old articles, we seem to be getting a FR movie (most likely). Because we don't have a director, it is very unlikely that this is an obscure storyline. Chances are they pulled out the big guns and went Drizzt or Baldur's Gate with a part of the IP that has a large fanbase. In the articles about the legal battles a ...

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 09:27 PM - Benjamin Olson quoted Ristamar in post Critical Role's Kickstarter Breaks $1,000,000 In About An Hour!
    Orion has been embroiled in other controversies after his break with Critical Role. Good point; you are very right. I was focusing on things I wouldn't have to look up details for and that seemed more directly relevant to his time with critical role or the Tiberius character, but he definitely did some sketchy stuff after parting ways with the show.

Sunday, 3rd March, 2019

  • 10:32 PM - TaranTheWanderer quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    I expect a caster to not have to worry about getting disrupted every encounter by potent ranged attackers. I recognize that since we're now steeped in hypothetical scenarios and white room theorycrafting, no one is going to change their current stance. I'll bow out of this thread for those still interested in furthering productive discussion of the original topic. Well, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not sure that straight up doing damage with a ranged weapon is going to be able to be able to disrupt a spellcaster. It's just as unlikely as shooting the fighter with an arrow is going to disarm his weapon. If a player says, "I want to ready to prevent that guy from casting a spell" I will respond with, "sure, what do you do?" Shooting them won't cut it. (no pun intended) Casting Silence might, if the triggering spell has a verbal component. Using a skill to disarm their material component might, if it has a material component. Readying to shoot will simply do damage right be...
  • 10:21 PM - dnd4vr quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    Don't forget the occasional Bard with Counterspell. Bard? What is a bard? No, but seriously, we don't play bards... we kill bards. ;)
  • 10:01 PM - dnd4vr quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    A 30' Misty Step typically isn't going to make the caster safe from ranged weapons, and minions are largely inconsequential* (that's why they're minions). Also, you've now made Shield a must prepare spell for Wizards (granted, it's already a popular choice, I believe). Shield won't help Clerics or Druids, though. *EDIT: I'm not dismissing the usefulness of minions in an encounter, but I am assuming the front line combatants will be able to protect a back line mobile Rogue, or at least or delay their impact for a short period of time. Yeah, and clerics, druids, and archetype casters can't Counterspell either. Basically, if you don't have a Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard in your party, you can't really hope to stop an enemy spellcaster from casting his spell.
  • 09:59 PM - TaranTheWanderer quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    A 30' Misty Step typically isn't going to make the caster safe from ranged weapons, and minions are largely inconsequential (that's why they're minions). Also, you've now made Shield a must prepare spell for Wizards (granted, it's already a popular choice, I believe). Shield won't help Clerics or Druids, though. You still would have used shield if they didn’t ready and just chose to attack. M And if misty step won’t protect you from readied attacks, it won’t protect you from normal attacks. And if your minions are worthless, then you are screwed. The readied action didn’t make this less challenging, it was already not very challenging to start with. Are you expecting to go through an encounter without using a single defensive spell?
  • 08:51 PM - epithet quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    I appreciate the sentiment behind this line of thought, but there is always an inherent danger in having to simply "make it up," particularly as it relates to a universal capacity to disrupt casters. If the made up rule is effective and consistent in any capacity, it becomes a de facto strategy to shut down mid-to-high level casters. Given your scenario above, a savvy party would gladly keep a rogue around (perhaps with Expertise in Arcana) to constantly keep attacks readied when facing a potent spellcaster. It's not difficult to find a way for the rogue to obtain advantage, so there's often going to be sneak attack damage added to any readied attack. If this same strategy was applied against the PCs, I doubt it'd be enthusiastically embraced by the players. It's not as bad as all that. If they set a rogue up to use this strategy, the rogue will lose an action as the wizard uses a disengage action, then casts misty step to somewhere safe and then the other minions in the fight will close...
  • 08:38 PM - TaranTheWanderer quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    Thanks! I won't quote your long post but only say that I got ninja'd. I think what you described is what I've been trying to get across. I appreciate the sentiment behind this line of thought, but there is always an inherent danger in having to simply "make it up," particularly as it relates to a universal capacity to disrupt casters. If the made up rule is effective and consistent in any capacity, it becomes a de facto strategy to shut down mid-to-high level casters. Given your scenario above, a savvy party would gladly keep a rogue around (perhaps with Expertise in Arcana) to constantly keep attacks readied when facing a potent spellcaster. It's not difficult to find a way for the rogue to obtain advantage, so there's often going to be sneak attack damage added to any readied attack. If this same strategy was applied against the PCs, I doubt it'd be enthusiastically embraced by the players. It's not as bad as all that. If they set a rogue up to use this strategy, the rogue w...
  • 05:40 AM - 5ekyu quoted Ristamar in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    The 5e equivalent of "don't move or I'll shoot" is the initiative roll.Yeah pretty much. But it seems some GMs assume characters are frozen and immobile and silent except on their turns.

Wednesday, 27th February, 2019

  • 01:25 AM - dnd4vr quoted Ristamar in post Character Sheet review
    Suggested Add: One thing I like about the D&D Beyond character sheet that I don't often see on other sheets is Passive Wisdom (Insight). Thanks. Consider it added. :)

Tuesday, 19th February, 2019

  • 11:38 PM - MechaTarrasque quoted Ristamar in post True Seeing and Nystul's Magic Aura
    Truesight alone (the ability) trumps Mind Blank, but Mind Blank foils True Seeing (the divination spell). https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/729773528283779073 That is interesting. Although you could cast dispel magic on someone who had the True Seeing spell (they might get a little suspicious if they were about to meet "Bob the Dwarf" and this happens) and I don't think "natural" true seeing is adversely affected by an antimagic field like the TS spell, so there is some sense there....

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

  • 08:39 PM - 5ekyu quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    True, and I'm not disputing that. The bonus action timing intent has been a mess, though it's been clarified repeatedly at this point (and people can take it or leave it). My contention was with the start and end of an action as a game unit being hard to discern. It's not. It's usually fairly obvious, IMO.Yeah, me too. Shield Master is what it is and after all those old tweets and tweet-versals they clarified in the latest combo of errata and sage compendium... 1 Shield master requires the attack action, not the intent of the attack action. 2 All previous and future tweets are unofficial - only sage advice compendium and actual rules are official. They chose to not put indivisible actions into either of those sources with the errata and compendium. They even chose to officially be to a GM to let timing specific bonus action reverse the order - EK cantrip melee attack for example. None of which leads to the indivisible action kerfuffle still being a thing, to me.
  • 05:46 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    As a stand alone passage, no, probably not. Within the larger context of all the action and movement rules, I don't think it's a big leap to make. Sure. So when it comes to whether you can take a bonus action like misty step between attacks granted by the extra attack action, it seems to me that given the larger context of action and movement rules that allowing for misty step and other bonus actions between attacks is not a big leap to make. In fact until JC changed his mind not a single person in all of 5e ever beleived bonus actions were not usable between attacks granted by extra attack.
  • 05:24 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    I agree that it isn't hard coded in the text except for very specific cases (casting times beyond "1 action", for example). But given all the rules regarding the use and timing of actions and movement, there is generally a clear context to make a logical inference. Within the fiction, the result of an action may have an ongoing effect (e.g dodging attacks until your next turn), but as a piece of the game economy, it's typically over the instant you use it unless otherwise specified. I tend to agree. Though take a close look at the dodge action. Does it's text lead to a clear logical inference about when the action ends? When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn...
  • 04:33 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    They are, they just don't contain whatever magical keyword(s) you're hung up on (I assume it's my use of "instantaneous" and not the action effects). Being purposefully stubborn or obtuse doesn't change the meaning of the text. Unless there's a revelatory passage or hidden subtext elsewhere in the rules regarding movement "before and after your action" that I'm overlooking. If so, then please enlighten me. Right you can move before and after your action. Now please show me where the rules state when any action ends. You see the point is that if you don't actually know when an action ends then you can't determine if you are still allowed to move on your turn. I'm not claiming there isn't an end to an action. I'm claiming the rules leave that end undefined.
  • 02:11 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    It's mostly self evident from the text. I say mostly because the Attack Action ambiguity regarding Shield Master could have been avoided with better writing. To be more specific, one only has to look at the rules for movement that you already quoted: You move before and after your action. The Attack action is the obvious exception. Mostly self evident = they aren't in the rules.
  • 05:34 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    The Attack action ends after you make your last attack or choose to forfeit any extra attacks in order to do something else (e.g. Shield Master bonus Shove attack, cast a spell, etc.) The Dodge action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the start of your next turn. The Disengage action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the end of your turn (you can move freely given you have movement to spend). The Ready action is instantaneous, the potential effect (one reaction keyed off a trigger) may last until the start of your next turn. Can you cite PHB for this info?

Wednesday, 13th February, 2019

  • 08:14 PM - Ancalagon quoted Ristamar in post Rule question: Temporary HP and concentration checks
    Yes. Damage to temporary HP is still damage. Is this an opinion or do you actually know?
  • 02:28 PM - Yunru quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Yet an object that is a valid target for a melee weapon attack may not be a valid target for a spell attack. Movement between attack rolls is another area in which they differ. I'm not arguing that they aren't incredibly similar. But there are some explicit differences.That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon. Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially
  • 02:08 PM - Yunru quoted Ristamar in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Which is a moot point. Resolving weapon attacks and resolving spell attacks have some commonality, but they are not identical.It's not, it's resolving an attack, period. "Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."


Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Ristamar's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites