ad_hoc
Member

ad_hoc, I was not assuming anything - this is why I asked the question. However, the previous tokens for the cone above it is showing instances of the same area effect which threw me off. However, that's a good point that it's probably a 10' for the bottom and a 5' wide for the one above it in that diagram. I appreciate the insight. TaranTheWanderer - thanks for this. I was actually asking both and your diagram definitely helped clarify this to me! I appreciate everyone's response to this.

I'm in the same boat. At least one player loves to pump his knowledge skills, and can easily make DC25-30 checks. It's a rare day they don't know something about a monster. As ad_hoc said, if the PC can't have known then the check is going to fail. If you want to give some success produce only the most obvious information. You don't have to read out the MM entry just because the PC made a DC 30 check.

For those who are interested, the player read about the "star elf" or "twilight elf" in some Forgotten Realms book. He had no idea of the mechanics. I created a homebrew race in D&D Beyond based on the suggestions made by ad_hoc , above. After that and some e-mail back and forth, he went with Eladrin instead.

So to bring this back around to the original topic (which was "how to improve Inspiration" and not "why your particular problem with Inspiration isn't valid")... Our table houserules inspiration to apply whenever it is relevant to a background trait. So just straight up advantage when a trait is relevant to what is happening. ad_hoc: How does this work out, in practice? How do you prevent it from being abused? Like, I could imagine someone with the Ideal of "Survival" wanting to get advantage on every single saving throw... I'm asking because I really want to try this system for my next game. My biggest problem with Inspiration is the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws are very hard to use -- there's too many of them (5 per PC???) and a lot of them are not very well thought-out. Traits in particular are mostly role-playing prompts, and I don't see them motivating consequential actions the way Ideals, Bonds and Flaws might. I'm worried that someone with a Trait of "I always use big words" will do that (which is good) and consistently get advantage on all Charisma (Persuasion) checks (which is over-powered).

@ad_hoc Appreciate the detailed reply. I'm not sure I agree with everything but then again I don't feel I have thought through it all either and therefore count myself as ill equipped for a rebuttal. Something for me to look into this weekend and see how I feel about it. :) Just as an aside and why I was asking, no one at our table has dared to use their familiar in combat for the obvious reason that they risk losing it.

iserith robus ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing. “No, you can’t Help/Work Together because you haven’t said anything that would be helpful in this negotiation. Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?” “No, Bard player, you can’t roll to beat the druid’s Nature check because you haven’t proposed doing anything substantially different. Besides the Druid is the *best* in your party at Nature lore. You might try a new approach?” “No, Sorcerer player, you can’t make a History check here. Because nothing in your background as a native of the forests near Wa...

ad_hoc IIRC the WOTC survey way had rangers at 7th spot. I cannot find that old link but http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-results-summary shows: Fighter Cleric Rogue Wizard Paladin Warlock with druid also in last. What I linked earlier is per 100000 and more recent, however. In any case, rangers don't top popularity or end in the bottom.

ad_hoc It looks like a good sampling. What is the statistic data for Ranger at 9th?

cbwjm The reason I came up with that example is that I actually played a Dwarf from a clan that prided itself on never having been in sunlight. They felt that sunlight would weaken both them and their culture, like it must have done to humans. He of course saw the sun for the first time and fell in love with it and the outside world. I chose deep-dwarf over Drow because it would not have the issues I mentioned above. To me that is the trick, something can be a great story yet shift the view of the world. In my Warhammer campaign example, my players all had great back stories (which they never do normally) but the end result was that it was a group that did not fit in the world at all. ad_hoc I can see where you are coming and agree, but don't have that experience myself. Frankly if they engage in RP or backstory at all I am thrilled, we don't have people competing for the spotlight.

I not only prefer published settings, I prefer published adventures only. I would be very cautious about entering a game with homebrew adventures. Even 3rd party adventures can be very bad so I would want a DM who is picky about what they bring to the table. Can I call that out as an ironic answer for somebody with a handle of ad_hoc?

...l" some GMs prefer or require before giving a thing serious consideration for inclusion in their own games. Not that anyone needs WotC's approval to modify the game and have fun doing it, and anyway, custom monsters are some of the lowest-impact form of house rules (again, as I define it). Even so, I'd like to avoid derailing the thread with a debate about semantics. However you and others approach the question and select an answer is fine by me. Clarifications in written responses are appreciated. @Jer: I hope my explanation to Satyrn explains the difference between the thread title and poll question - that is, there's no difference as far as I'm concerned. I did state that rulings on nebulous systems ("situations... that aren't explicit in the rules" in your words) should be excluded. If you feel otherwise, that's fine. I'm not going to try to police the thread, so again, people can answer the question/poll as they see fit. Also again, clarifications like yours are appreciated. @ad_hoc: You wrote that it's impossible not to house rule. Adventurer's League players, in theory, should all be operating under the exact same set of rules. A person who has only ever DMd AL would have a "Never" response if they're abiding by AL guidelines. That's not always the case, of course. However, as defined in the OP, rulings are not house rules (see response to Jer). @redrick: You identified an interesting grey area - codification of a ruling. I feel there's a difference between codification of a ruling and mere consistency with a ruling. DM wiggle room, I guess? Not sure where I would place codification if house ruling is a binary yes/no situation. I'll give it some thought, and perhaps other participants in this discussion can weigh in on the point in the meantime. --- As to my own experiences... Started playing D&D back in the 90's. Didn't get much gaming in '99-'14, then returned to D&D as a DM in Jan '14 with 4e. I gave it about two weeks before I started house ruling and ...

There are two goals. The first goal is to generate PCs with novel ability scores. I would like to have fewer PCs with good scores in all their important abilities but 8s or 10s in all their non-essential abilities. The second goal is to have a party where the PCs are relatively balanced with one another. I want to prevent what I see as the biggest issue with random ability score generation, where some players roll up super PCs and others get very weak PCs. If the PCs mostly end up with high scores, that's okay, I can adjust the encounters accordingly; same thing if the scores are mostly low. I also like the idea of all the players generating their ability scores as a party during session zero. Though, as TheCosmicKid points out in post#6, creating special rules for it causes some unnecessary problems.Okay, if the collective generation isn't a primary goal, then playing cards would be my suggestion as well. To spell it out in a little more detail than @ad_hoc: build a deck of 18 cards and deal them out into six piles of three. Sum each pile to get your six ability scores. You can tune the deck to get the power level you want. [Three 1s, three 2s, three 3s, three 4s, three 5s, and three 6s] will produce results equivalent to an average 3d6-in-order roll. For arrays that look more like the 4d6-drop-lowest method, there's no perfect deck, but I recommend something like [one 0, one 1, two 2s, two 3s, three 4s, four 5s, and five 6s]. Or if you think using cards instead of dice is just plain wrong for D&D, you can also normalize dice-generated ability score arrays pretty easily. First, pick a target total or point-buy value or whatever other measure of power level you like. Second, create an array using any normal dice method. Third, roll 1d6 to randomly select a score in that array and add 1 (if the array is below the target) or subtract 1 (if it's above). Repeat step 3 until you've reached the target level.

You have created a ....monster :eek: I'm guessing the fighter has.... Defense Style for the +1 AC? And for some reason, folks have missed how Heavy Armor doesn't let you add your Dex bonus to AC. With the +1 magical bonus, and if that assumption is correct then yeah, ok AC 25 Thing is, as ad_hoc alludes to, if something as straight-forward as an AC calculation is so... off from the actual core rules then you're playing in La La land. Lordy knows what crazy rule pretzel readings have been taken with regards to the other characters. Do you have a complete break down of the house rules involved & the other table member's character sheets?

ad_hoc: Hmmm - wouldn't it being treated as basically a 'half-feat' by itself indicate that as a feat in and of itself would be weaker. In addition to those things mentioned above, if the target can't see or hear the dragon born, they automatically save. Between that, getting saves when taking damage causing another save wouldn't you feel that this is watered down enough especially when taking the dragon born race 'as a whole' which seems to be a bit of an under performer? I'm just curious as to what you think.

Hi, Thanks for the replies! Jalelis - Correct. No +1 stat that normally would go along with it if taking at first level. If they were to take the dragon breath feat, then the extra +1 comes into play. ad_hoc: I'm not clear by what you mean by 'would need to give up a stat bonus'. Are you indicating the standard Dragonborn bonus of +2 Str or +1 CHA or do you mean the additional stat bonus that would come normally come with the feat? If the latter, I totally agree. If the former, I'm curious as to why you feel this would be necessary. From all accounts as it is, the Dragonborn seems to be a bit underwhelming compared to a good deal of other races.

...specific does trump the general. the general in this case are the two effects. the specific is when they are combined... the specific rule on what happens when effects are combined. it says ADD TOGETHER not multiply together. Also, the 10' of original movement is not a spell effect so it should not get added twice any more than two effects which increase your AC allow you to count your base AC10 twice. If your proposal is that the individual spell language should trump the specific rule about what happens when spell effects combine, then that rule is practically useless. but again, this is mt take based on the rules presented. Thanks for pointing this out (again). Based on the text under Combining Magical Effects, which I had not read in a while, I would agree that since Step of the Wind is essentially a spell-like effect, the monk in our example would have a jump distance of 40 ft (the original distance + the effect of Step of the Wind + the effect of jump). This goes back to ad_hoc 's ruling all the way at the beginning. I know that some people get combative and hold to their positions when discussing the finer points of rules and rulings, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things especially when someone such as you keeps their head about it. Sometimes I think I have a pretty good picture of how the rules work. Other times, like now, I realize that I missed something. Regardless of the outcome of a discussion, I am better prepared for a ruling at the table, have my reason ready, and move on. Cheers.

EDIT: Somehow pulled off a double post.

I would love some crouching tiger, hidden dragon, in the game. It would appear the 5E precedence with identical effects is take the strongest one and apply it. Actually, that is a really good point. This would easily fall under the section in the PHB at the beginning of the Spells chapter. In this case, 3x would be the total jump distance multiplier but for a different reason than ad_hoc was mentioning.

My wife and I play AL at the local game shop, and you may be surprised to know, there are still house rules. A DM is running the game, so how could there not be house rules? Like ad_hoc mentioned above, the way 5e was designed leaves little to no chance that ANY group playing it will not have some form of house rule, or a different way of looking at and interpreting the rules that actually ARE there for us to see in black and white in the core rulebooks. I’m ok with slightly modifying how I play the game dependent on the group I’m playing with at the moment. I just want to spend some time having fun, and D&D is a relatively new way my wife and I have recently discovered for us to do that together. As far as I can tell, that’s the main purpose of the game. Fun. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... more or less racist, more or less homophobic, etc. It's about the conception of the gameworld, and thereby of who is (potentially) part of the game, being projected by WotC. It's about WotC's communication to the potential market of D&D players. I seriously doubt anyone who was remotely interested in RPGs was ever stopped by the lack of such a statementIt depends on what you mean by "seriously interested". If the rulebooks give the impression that the gameworld does not contain a certain sort of person, than a real-world person of that type might not become seriously interested, precisely because s/he assumes that the gameworld, and hence the game, is not something for him/her. I certainly know people who are "seriously interested" in movies or TV shows and will choose not to watch ones that have no people of colour in them, because they're sick of engaging with fictional works that they are not invited to imagine themselves a part of. Which, to me, makes doctorbadwolf's and ad_hoc's reports of similar responses to D&D in relation to sex, gender and sexuality very plausible.

I bet few people think 'I want to play a ranged attacking character, what class and feats do I choose for that'. Rather they look at the theme of classes, backgrounds, races, and choose ones and create a character who they think would be fun to play as. Once they decide on their class, then they look at what sorts of weapons, spells, and such that character would use. You'd be surprised, every group has its own dynamic. In my current group we've got a guy who's not big on mechanics. He went to one of those historic recreation towns on his last vacation and got to shoot a crossbow. The experience impressed him so much he decided his next character would be a crossbow user, and the group put our heads together to help him pick the right class for it. Other times we've had someone decide they wanted to play the front line anchor and then shop around for which class offered the style they wanted. So yes, some people look through the book and pick an option they think looks fun. That's ho...

I would argue that EB is not necessary to optimize. It's just a d10 cantrip and invocations are precious. Probably not, but the CharOp consensus is bullish on EB. Which is the point, most people are not plugged into that.

You're discounting the cost of a feat here which is huge. I mean, sure, having another way to avoid OAs that doesn't cost Ki is an advantage. But is it worth a feat? It's a specific circumstance where you have to run past 1 enemy. When you need to run past 3 or 4 to get to your target then Mobile is no good. If you don't need to run past any, then again it doesn't benefit you. The general rule is that if you can attack more than once during an action you can move between attacks. Flurry is an exception as it states you gain 2 attacks immediately after the attack action. Without the word 'immediately' you would be correct. Actually, it says "Flurry of Blows Immediately...you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action." Also, per the PHB, "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks." So, you've immediately spent 1 ki to take a bonus action to attack twic...

The general rule is that if you can attack more than once during an action you can move between attacks. Flurry is an exception as it states you gain 2 attacks immediately after the attack action. Without the word 'immediately' you would be correct. Perhaps I'm being lenient in my interpretation, but I don't read it that way. Although I do see where you're coming from. To me it says that you need to make the attacks as part of the action that triggered it. For example, let's say you are playing a Fighter/Monk. You can't take your attack action, action surge to disarm a trap, and then take your flurry. But you could move, attack, move, attack, move, attack, move, attack, and move. It certainly doesn't hurt anything as far as I can tell, and it has a nice thematic flavor. Like the warrior who rushes through the line of opponents faster than the eye can see, only to have them dramatically collapse afterwards. A classic trope of martial arts movies.

Well, not if you're using Flurry. Both of those need to come immediately after the last attack of the attack action. Personally I'd rather eat an OA from a mook (if it comes to it) and get my full attacks against the target I'm trying to Stunning Strike than take a feat so I can use an attack to avoid an OA. The amount of times that specific scenario will happen is pretty rare. If you need to avoid many OAs then you have a Monk ability for that. If you need defense, you have another Monk ability for that too (Dodge). But, as I said, take the thing you think will be most fun. Maybe that is Mobile, maybe it is something else like Observant which will help you engage with a different pillar. In a vacuum if I had to take a (combat) feat as a Monk I like Alert. Yeah, you do get monk abilities to avoid stuff like this, but ki is a pretty valuable resource at low tier play and you dont want to use it for just anything. Just as well it consumes your bonus action meaning less attacks and less d...

No, Mobile is mostly redundant on a Monk. Bonuses to movement speed decrease in benefit the more movement you have. In order to avoid OAs you need to attack the creature first which means you're probably not attacking the ones you really want. It also doesn't stop creatures from just walking up to you and attack you on their turn. There is benefit to it but it's not worth a feat. You esp. want to use your ASIs for Dex and Wis as they are both important for the Monk. All that said, do what you want. You want to take it? Then take it. Don't mind what other people in the party want you to do. I agree that movement is less good if it's the only thing going for you, but like I mentioned before, we might need to catch a person. I've also used this before to carry our paladin and effectively boost his speed/reposition him. Not carrying a lot of items and him being light are pretty handy. Yes I do have to attack in order to avoid AoO's, but the amount of attacks that monks get as w...

I think the Guardians of the Galaxy template is perfect for a D&D movie. The GotG were a completely unknown C-list comic book property before their movie. The plot is mediocre at best; they're out to get a MacGuffin and stop Mr. Evil Twirling Moustache. It's the dynamics between the characters and fun tone of it that made it good. That's all a D&D movie needs. A party of likeable characters. The first Guardians movie had several things going for it: -Strength of vision. Gunn and crew had a very strong idea for what came out, from the music, to the characterizations, to the humor. A movie with too many competing visions becomes a muddled mess or too formulaic, as in the case of half the movies that get made. -Likeable Characters (and decent actors who like them, too) - No argument there. -A hell of a good editor who knows what the strengths of a certain movie are, what to cut and what makes a story keep moving. I think Guardians either lucked out, or had the resources t...

I'm just making an observation. Water is wet. Ahhhhhh. But wet is not water.

Is your argument that 5e wasn't worded perfectly? That is a given. The game would still be in editing if they were striving for perfection. The rule is fine. The section on Bonus Actions could have been a bit clearer and there could be some clarification text on some abilities like Shield Master. Not my argument, just my observation. And I agree with you that it could have been clearer when written.

He specifically talked about the Attack Action and Extra Attack and stated that you cannot do an action within an action. Being able to move is a special property that applies to the Attack Action. It doesn't allow for doing anything and everything. You can't splice actions in the middle of other actions. You're not taking an action in the middle of another action, you're taking a bonus action. Those are two very different things. The bonus action rule very clearly says that you get to decide when to take the bonus action on your turn, unless there are timing requirements in the bonus action itself.

He specifically talked about the Attack Action and Extra Attack and stated that you cannot do an action within an action. Being able to move is a special property that applies to the Attack Action. It doesn't allow for doing anything and everything. You can't splice actions in the middle of other actions. One could argue that, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." is also an exception to this rule, just like movement is.

Because there is one rule allowing something everything else must be allowed? You're just making things up now. Which is fine of course, you're free to houserule whatever. You're just making the game more complicated than designed. I don't follow. The rule for bonus actions is clear: you choose when to take the bonus action on your turn. JC explains in the video that you can take your bonus action at any point during your turn.

So your position is that you can splice up actions? So if you, say, cast a spell you can perform another action while you are resolving the spell? So cast Magic Missile, fire off one missile, do a bonus action, move about, then fire off the rest of the missiles? You're making the game far too complicated. No, I never said anything like that. First of all, all bolts from Magic Missile strike their targets at the same time. You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several. Based on that, it's entirely reasonable to move, cast Magic Missile, do a bonus action, and then move some more. Or, rearrange those 4 things into any order you like. The perceived complexity here are the multiple attacks from Extra Attack. Given the special rule that says you can break up you...

The Bonus Action becomes available when its requirements are met. Another way to look at it is that you meet the requirements when you use the bonus action made available by the game feature. It's like the game feature gives you the ability to do a cool action-combination, part of which takes your action.

Why do you need to take the 'attack action' at all in the 'fiction'? For your character to shove a creature in the fiction (without the feat's bonus action), you need to take the Attack action. I don't think there's any other action that's suitable for that action declaration. Obviously, your character isn't "taking the Attack action" in the fiction unless s/he is playing D&D! Crawford has explained that it is this way to keep the game flowing. The rules are designed to make combat go smoothly and quickly. I get that, but I don't think a monolithic RAW interpretation is necessary for that. You also don't get a bonus action until a thing gives that action. So you don't have it to use until you've done the attack action. You seem to be referencing this passage from the section on bonus actions: You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action ...

Mearls stated that less than half of gaming groups use feats. I trust the data he has. Where did Mike Mearls say this? The only place I have seen this assertion made is in a thread title here on ENWorld, and the data cited was showing that less than half of characters use feats - in other words, the person creating the thread misinterpreted the data.

Less than half of gaming groups use feats. No. Less than half of characters (on DDB) use feats. We have no idea how many gaming groups use them. In a group which allows feats, not all of the characters will actually have feats; many players will choose the stat bump instead. By definition, in a group which does not allow feats, none of the characters will have feats. So the number of characters who have feats is almost certainly understating the number of groups that allow them.

I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers. I also wondered this....

I'm surprised by how many are playing in tier 4. 5.4% is a lot (even with DoMM out). I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers. Yes, it is possible, and in fact I think that is the most likely explanation for tier 4 being more popular than tier 3. These stats don't distinguish between characters being actively played and characters created as a thought exercise. I bet that if you took that chart and broke it out by level, you would find next to nothing from 17-19 and a huge spike at 20.

I'm surprised by how many are playing in tier 4. 5.4% is a lot (even with DoMM out). I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers. They might go over it in the video linked above, but D&DB has ways to differentiate PCs being played and test cases when they analyze the data. This is likely already correcting for test characters.