View Profile: ad_hoc - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:47 PM
    The amazing thing we see in the camel graph is that the PHB is selling better now than it was on release.
    7 replies | 382 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:39 PM
    This is a side note but one of the things I think 5e got very wrong was the rules concerning what happens to a character at 0hp. I think they should be conscious but unable to do anything. It's a common trope in action/fantasy movies for characters to be down but watching the action and perhaps saying a word or two. It would keep a player more engaged. Make healing from 0 less jarring as the...
    20 replies | 524 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:41 AM
    This is a new kind of spam bot. It's actually relevant to the forum.
    1 replies | 124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 11:15 PM
    At our table monsters sometimes kill off fallen characters. It depends on the monster. If they are bloodthirsty or savage they might. If they are predators they might be happy with just 1 kill, they aren't there to kill the whole party, just get a meal. If they are smart they know about healing magic. If they are enemies of the PCs they might even be looking to take them down 1 by 1 over...
    20 replies | 524 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 05:01 PM
    There is a really great Ravenloft adventure which uses time travel both for investigative purposes and also problem solving (like in Zelda: A Link to the Past). It takes place in a castle which is shifting through time. Sometimes they are in the past and sometimes in the present (and even possibly the future). They learn about what happened but they can also influence the present through the...
    31 replies | 1311 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    45 replies | 2168 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 09:28 PM
    I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system.
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:51 PM
    I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug. I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy. I don't want all possible character concepts. I disagree with Tony about modelling a 'reasonable range'. We can hit the mark of reasonable with much fewer classes than we currently have.
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 04:57 AM
    That would be a good way to do it. Personally I like how subclasses fill the role of multiclassing and prefer it to your way, but I could live with yours. I think for the popularity of the game it was better that they made multiclassing an optional module rather than something they designed around. Works well for me too as I just don't use it.
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 02:09 AM
    The sun is a very threat to your existence. It wouldn't feel good. But that is beside the point, why a Drow? Why not any of a myriad of other races? 1. To be the centre of attention. 2. To tell a story to a captive audience rather than to create a story with friends. It's just disrespectful. At our table we don't allow any of that sort of thing. You're here to contribute to the group...
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 01:09 AM
    I agree. I think a lot of people are also selfish in character creation. They want their character to be the protagonist rather than part of an ensemble. Not only is that character representing Drow, but the character is also going to be hogging screen time. Backstories only exist if they influence the story. Background traits through Inspiration allow for the backstory to shine...
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 11:47 PM
    I don't like multiclassing for 2 reasons. 1. It is clunky. The game is designed so that at level 1 the class has chassis abilities. Things like armour, weapons, skills, HP, etc. Multiclassing combines 2 chassis together and it is clunky. This leads into #2. 2. I like the strong archetypes that D&D is able to deliver. This is one of the best strengths of the game. Characteristics of...
    83 replies | 2122 view(s)
    3 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 10:57 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    Sounds like a lot of work for WotC and giving people choice when they don't really know what they're choosing might even be detrimental. It might turn off people by making the game look too involved. Part of the release strategy is to avoid that as much as possible.
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 10:19 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    Would people buy 2 starter sets?
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 04:58 AM
    Rules like Flanking destroy tactical depth. It just becomes the default way to get advantage (thus invalidating everything else). 5e just isn't built for it.
    19 replies | 480 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 07:02 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    I agree. I don't think it will be long until 5e outsells all other editions combined. Well for core books anyway. Might need a few more supplements to catch up to that.
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 8th July, 2018, 07:56 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    It absolutely does. D&D has gone mainstream. If people aren't playing it they know people who do. More people are playing D&D than ever, and it's not even close. The 'player base' of 3e and 4e doesn't matter at all. The new non-hobby gamers massively overshadows that player base. If they change editions it will sour people on it. The momentum will be killed.
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    2 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 8th July, 2018, 03:55 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books. I don't think that is possible. D&D stands alone with no consequential...
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 7th July, 2018, 09:46 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    It is. I expect a 5.5e sometime in the far future. Which would be fine. I think the core of 5e is now D&D. 5e is pretty close to outselling all other editions combined. I expect 2018 to be its best year ever as 2017 was.
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 7th July, 2018, 05:05 PM
    ad_hoc replied to 6e? Why?
    We are at least 10 years away. Probably 15-20. D&D is selling better than ever. If movies are successful then they won't want to confuse the core audience which is now people peripheral to hobby games rather than hobby gamers.
    137 replies | 6543 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018, 08:42 PM
    Or you could just not. It's better to make a better game. Being paralyzed by the fear that some players might 'abuse' the game doesn't benefit anyone. Those players will still ruin the game for the groups they are in unless... That is what the entire group finds fun, and then, it's also fine. I think the spell is good for the same reason backgrounds are good. Character backstory doesn't...
    61 replies | 2255 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th June, 2018, 07:28 PM
    Sounds like a Monk of the Long Death from SCAG.
    12 replies | 345 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 16th June, 2018, 06:58 PM
    Nope, I find monsters have a lot of HP already. 1. How many players do you have? 2. How many encounters do you have per long rest? For me: 1. 4 players 2. 4-8 encounters
    40 replies | 1490 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 16th June, 2018, 03:09 AM
    "There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D...4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it." It is an objectively improved game and yet people didn't like it. Okay then.
    42 replies | 1720 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About ad_hoc

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,581
Posts Per Day
0.87
Last Post
4 years of 5E on Amazon: same old same old Yesterday 10:47 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
29
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:22 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 27th July, 2013
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 16th July, 2018


Sunday, 15th July, 2018


Saturday, 14th July, 2018


Friday, 13th July, 2018


Wednesday, 11th July, 2018


Monday, 9th July, 2018


Sunday, 8th July, 2018


Saturday, 7th July, 2018


Friday, 6th July, 2018



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 02:12 AM - Unwise mentioned ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    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.

Monday, 21st May, 2018

  • 01:40 AM - Ilbranteloth mentioned ad_hoc in post As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?
    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?

Monday, 12th February, 2018

  • 05:07 AM - Nevvur mentioned ad_hoc in post How long til you modified 5e?
    ...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 ...

Wednesday, 7th February, 2018

  • 11:15 PM - TheCosmicKid mentioned ad_hoc in post modified ability score calculation
    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.

Sunday, 17th December, 2017

  • 09:40 PM - Gardens & Goblins mentioned ad_hoc in post Desperately need help, trying to catch up to party.
    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?

Saturday, 16th December, 2017

  • 04:25 PM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Dragonborn Breath Weapon vs. Dragonborn Fear
    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.

Tuesday, 12th December, 2017

  • 11:23 PM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Dragonborn Breath Weapon vs. Dragonborn Fear
    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.

Thursday, 7th December, 2017

  • 04:12 PM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    ...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.

Wednesday, 6th December, 2017

  • 05:22 AM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    EDIT: Somehow pulled off a double post.
  • 05:21 AM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    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.

Sunday, 3rd December, 2017

  • 12:06 AM - 24Fanatic365 mentioned ad_hoc in post Why penalize returning from death?
    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. Iím ok with slightly modifying how I play the game dependent on the group Iím 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, thatís the main purpose of the game. Fun. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sunday, 9th October, 2016

  • 10:26 AM - pemerton mentioned ad_hoc in post After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
    ... 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.

Saturday, 8th October, 2016

  • 09:40 PM - Cognomen's Cassowary mentioned ad_hoc in post What's up with Vicious Mockery?
    @ad_hoc It's not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but you skip over consideration of the attack role and saving throw of fire bolt and vicious mockery respectively. Back of the envelope, it looks to me like you're 10% more likely to hit the hill giant with a spell attack than you are to land vicious mockery. Assuming a +4 Cha/Int mod, that's a 75% chance to hit vs. a 65% chance to mock viciously. The attack also has the chance to crit. Thus, average damage when casting fire bolt against the hill giant is 11*0.7+2*11*0.05=8.8. The average damage of vicious mockery is 5*0.65=3.25. When the giant attacks, its first attack has a 65% chance to have disadvantage. 18*(0.3025*0.65+0.55*0.35)=~7.00 damage. You've reduced its damage per round from 19.8 to 16.9, a loss of 14.6%. Relative to casting fire bolt, the player has reduced his or her damage by 63% to reduce the giant's by 14.6%. I've only just roughed this out in the last few minutes, and it's absent of context, and it's only one exampl...

Tuesday, 4th October, 2016

  • 09:31 PM - robus mentioned ad_hoc in post Balancing Investigation checks and player descriptions
    That's a really good example ad_hoc, the PCs get distracted by the shiny loot and don't look any further. The question then has to be why is the loot there - is it to accomplish precisely this effect? The robber thinks they hit the jackpot and won't look further. So without some hint to the PCs that there's more to find they're not going to look. So this seems like something the DM has to illuminate with some narration. For example the lid can seem surprisingly heavy (certainly something they would sense without needing investigation). Or perhaps the lid makes an odd sound as it's lifting like something is sliding around inside. Basically you've got to throw the PCs a bone so they know to investigate further.
  • 12:22 AM - pemerton mentioned ad_hoc in post After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
    ...e.Upthread I distinguished between what the rules of the game permitted or forbade - and in this respect they had very little to say about sex, gender or sexuality, other than the AD&D 1st ed STR limits for women - and the language of, and fiction presented in, the books, which is a signal from the publisher to (what it takes to be) its audience. Just to give one example: despite the fact that the AD&D MM describes dwarves as being "typically deep tan to light brown of skin" and gnomes as "wood brown, [with] a few rang[ing] to gray brown, of skin", I think nearly every depiction of a dwarf or a gnome in an AD&D book, AD&D-era Dragon magazine, etc, shows them as having basically northern European skin tones. Those pictures are not any sort of rule that forbids having brown-skinned dwarves and gnomes. But they send a signal about who is the expected audience. Likewise the move, in 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, from Gygax's "he or she" to an exclusive use of the masculine pronoun. When ad_hoc talks about inclusion, I take the point to be one about changing those signals. That's what I mean when I talk about inclusion. You've obviously been lucky enough to remain completely ignorant of the Social Justice culture that has grown on the internet. May you remain blissfully ignorant of that pack of jackals.I don't want to venture into territory that breaks board rules, so I'll confine myself to this: from your point of view I suspect I'm more of a jackal (though not one with a twitter account) than an ignoramus.

Monday, 3rd October, 2016

  • 11:47 PM - evileeyore mentioned ad_hoc in post After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
    ...first character was female, my second a skinny 'non-traditionally masculine' male, and the third another female (though not particularly feminine). Neither my DM, nor the other players, nor the rules said anything about those choices. ...with either the fighter or the wizard as their class archetype and the random harlot table as a pseudo-pornographic pandering to them; traditionally "feminine" women, with MUs as their archetype, are another (in the AD&D PHB she's called "Filmar, the mistress of magic" - p 7); 1 - You just said wizard was a traditionally masculine role. Now it isn't? 2 - The first picture of Magic-Users in Dungeons & Dragons Men & Magic Volume 1 (1974) shows three scrawny dudes, two of which are 'coded' non-caucasian. the Morgan Ironwolf-type somewhat "masculine" woman is yet another. So because she was depicted as muscular she was "masculine"? I think I've spotted the problem and it isn't with D&D's presentation of sex or gender. And what I think ad_hoc is pointing to is the increased scope of inclusion beyond these sorts of people to include others. So... the people who weren't excluded by the game since day one. You realize the only exclusions that occurred were social in nature? Individual groups* excluding such things in their own games? Yes. * And the RPGA, which officially excluded any mention of sex or sexuality (but in particular homosexuality). There's also not much connection between any of these things and Marxism ("cultural" or otherwise). You've obviously been lucky enough to remain completely ignorant of the Social Justice culture that has grown on the internet. May you remain blissfully ignorant of that pack of jackals.
  • 10:05 PM - pemerton mentioned ad_hoc in post After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
    Being inclusive matters. Not to everyone. To you, most certianly. To me, not as much.Are you saying that you don't care whether or not the way the rulebooks depict the D&D gameworld includes you? Or are you saying that you don't care whether or not it includes others? I ask, because there are some people who have clearly always been included in the gameworld. Traditionally "masculine" white heterosexual men are one such sort of people, with either the fighter or the wizard as their class archetype and the random harlot table as a pseudo-pornographic pandering to them; traditionally "feminine" women, with MUs as their archetype, are another (in the AD&D PHB she's called "Filmar, the mistress of magic" - p 7); the Morgan Ironwolf-type somewhat "masculine" woman is yet another. And what I think ad_hoc is pointing to is the increased scope of inclusion beyond these sorts of people to include others. There seems to be a certain sort of selfishness in setting the boundary of inclusion that one cares about at oneself; whereas it would be a different thing (resignation? indifference?) to be happy with the rulebooks even though the fiction they depict doesn't seem to include oneself. And when posters say they don't care about inclusion it's often not clear which of these two positions they are adopting. If you want to actually destroy D&D go ahead and keep pushing the "progressive intersectionality" cultural Marxism as the core tenet of the game.I don't think it's going to destroy D&D to have characters in the gameworld who don't gender identify; or to have (say) Morgan Ironwolf rather than Conan be the love interest of the princess; or to have halflings wearing cornrows. I have GMed with a black PC (in the sense of belonging to the gameworld's equivalent of the African diaspora...

Thursday, 28th January, 2016

  • 11:01 AM - Connorsrpg mentioned ad_hoc in post Flaws
    ad_hoc Thanks for your input. Re balance, I can see your point, but again, there is no point in going too far either. If the flaws are too negative, then no one will take them. You seem to think gaining a feat from the get-go is too powerful. As seen in other threads, some people even start all PCs with a feat at 1st level. Everyone on our site has so far thought that the flaws are appropriate. RARELY has a major flaw even been taken. You have provided one example, and one I addressed. (And I still feel that there is no need to go to ALL attacks for a major. Restricting your build to avoid said spells etc, is still a restriction, which adds weight to the flaw). Again, of course, with any flaw system, some power gamers might look to exploit it, but try to look to this with an eye to roleplaying too. It is extremely hard to cater to every character combo, but we feel we have a fair mix with fair balance. So, I am interested in what you think re the eg in my last post. Do others see ...

Wednesday, 25th November, 2015

  • 08:03 PM - Shasarak mentioned ad_hoc in post Does Eberron need to be high fantasy?
    Not sure if this is genuine or a joke I'm not getting, but in case of the former... No, MotRD predates Eberron by many years. It's Ravenloft in "Gothic Earth," in the 1800s. What is the joke? Masque is a low magic steam-punk horror, which is what ad_hoc seemed to be asking for.

Monday, 23rd November, 2015

  • 11:11 PM - Noctem mentioned ad_hoc in post November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!
    ad_hoc So although you've been very aggressive towards other posters and so on. You haven't explained what you meant by saying that my houserule nerfs classes and such. Are you ever going to explain or are you just happy making these aggressive statements without feeling the need to actually address them?


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 45 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 15th July, 2018

  • 08:03 PM - MarkB quoted ad_hoc in post How has your DM handled death before and after the party getting the spell Revivify?
    This is a side note but one of the things I think 5e got very wrong was the rules concerning what happens to a character at 0hp. I think they should be conscious but unable to do anything. It's a common trope in action/fantasy movies for characters to be down but watching the action and perhaps saying a word or two. It would keep a player more engaged. Make healing from 0 less jarring as the character wasn't actually fully unconscious and then suddenly back into things. It would also allow for more design space like the Purple Dragon Knight's Rallying Cry getting the PC back onto their feet. A reasonable idea. Would also allow for the occasional "Oh, I have a healing potion in my pack you can use on me" without it being too metagamey.
  • 03:12 AM - Polyhedral Columbia quoted ad_hoc in post CHRONOMANCER: WotC's new meta-setting?
    There is a really great Ravenloft adventure which uses time travel both for investigative purposes and also problem solving (like in Zelda: A Link to the Past). It takes place in a castle which is shifting through time. Sometimes they are in the past and sometimes in the present (and even possibly the future). They learn about what happened but they can also influence the present through the past. I think it works very well. Well said. Time travel has been an especially big feature of Dragonlance. Raistlin's time travel was a key element of the Dragonlance saga. There was a whole 3.5E sourcebook about time-travel in Krynn: Legends of the Twins: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/3252/Legends-of-the-Twins-35?affiliate_id=2126 Mystara has the Comeback Inn - a time machine which takes the characters to and from the Age of Blackmoor. And also The Nexus from the CM6 module, whereby the party can visit any time or alternate world. Timetravel is, or could be, a prominent meta-setting for th...

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 09:42 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug. I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy. I don't want all possible character concepts.Who gets to decide which concepts are "D&D"? I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system. Why? Multiclassing does the job.
  • 09:35 PM - TwoSix quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system. Or just keep treating the fluff as mutable. Same result, but exponentially larger number of fellow players. 90% of the player base doesn't care either way.
  • 08:56 PM - TwoSix quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug. I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy. Sure, and other people want D&D to be a fantasy toolkit. That's why we have a core D&D game with both highly flexible core classes and highly specific ones. But, even if you assume multiclassing, you're still fighting the class-based design with it. As a sort of thought experiment, take 3.5 multiclassing to the logical extreme, make it easier and easier to combine smaller and smaller elements of each class in more and more combinations: eventually the classes are gone, they're just arbitrary headings for lists of abilities. Well, that's pretty much Star Wars Saga, and that was a pretty great system.
  • 06:47 PM - Irennan quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I allow multiclassing if it makes sense lore-wise and world-wise. For example, a Cleric/Warlock is fine, as long as the warlock patron is a servant or an ally of you deity, and if you can come up with a story to justify it. There could also be the whole "an evil entity is trying to claim the character's soul, but the character is trying to escape the consequences of their pact/the entity's infuence by latching themselves onto a good deity" thingy. However, barring extremely pragmatic gods, that stroy would beg the question of why the character is even continuing to channel the evil entity's power. Same thing for a paladin/warlock--your patron and your beliefs have to align at very least. A Bard/Cleric would be awesome for priest(esse)s of deities of arts, beauty, music, etc... Combining classes like Fighter, Rogue, and Monk could even simply represent the character experimenting with different combat tactics in their career. Of course, picking a class mid-game would require a proper story/i...
  • 04:42 PM - Ancalagon quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    That would be a good way to do it. Personally I like how subclasses fill the role of multiclassing and prefer it to your way, but I could live with yours. I think for the popularity of the game it was better that they made multiclassing an optional module rather than something they designed around. Works well for me too as I just don't use it.It is optional!
  • 03:28 AM - Keravath quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I agree. I think a lot of people are also selfish in character creation. They want their character to be the protagonist rather than part of an ensemble. Not only is that character representing Drow, but the character is also going to be hogging screen time. Backstories only exist if they influence the story. Background traits through Inspiration allow for the backstory to shine through. But that's it, 4 things that sum up the character. Everything else about that character is created during play. A player could write an entire novel's worth of backstory for their character and it still wouldn't exist. To all of the viewers (other players) they are just a LG Drow who wants to hog the game by telling everyone about it. ...Instead...make a character who will bolster the story and the other characters. Or in other words, it isn't 1 player's story. Umm ... In my opinion and experience, the only way that one character dominates and gets more "screen time" is if the DM allows i...
  • 03:06 AM - Shiroiken quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    1. It is clunky. The game is designed so that at level 1 the class has chassis abilities. Things like armour, weapons, skills, HP, etc. Multiclassing combines 2 chassis together and it is clunky.I always felt this was a missed opportunity. During the playtest, I had concerns that 5E was going to be unplayable for me and my group (thankfully, I worried needlessly). However, I did spend time using the various playtest material we had to mash together my own version of 5E... just in case. When they mentioned that levels 1-2 were going to be "apprentice tier," that got me thinking. What if the game default started at level 3. You could play levels 1-2, but that would be similar to playing 0 level characters from earlier editions. With this in mind, you could easily set up a workable multi-class system using the 3E model 5E eventually used. Instead of a level 1 fighter getting proficiency in all weapons and armor, they only get some (more than non-warrior type classes, for sure). Clerics worshi...
  • 02:13 AM - cbwjm quoted ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    The sun is a very threat to your existence. It wouldn't feel good. But that is beside the point, why a Drow? Why not any of a myriad of other races? 1. To be the centre of attention. 2. To tell a story to a captive audience rather than to create a story with friends. It's just disrespectful. At our table we don't allow any of that sort of thing. You're here to contribute to the group or you should go write a novel on your own.That's where we'd have to agree to disagree. The sun isn't a threat to their existence, that's just rubbish and saying it's disrespectful is going too far in my opinion.

Thursday, 12th July, 2018

  • 12:11 AM - robus quoted ad_hoc in post 6e? Why?
    Sounds like a lot of work for WotC and giving people choice when they don't really know what they're choosing might even be detrimental. It might turn off people by making the game look too involved. Part of the release strategy is to avoid that as much as possible. Sure - we can agree to disagree :)

Wednesday, 11th July, 2018

  • 11:39 PM - BookBarbarian quoted ad_hoc in post 6e? Why?
    Would people buy 2 starter sets? Since all the first starter set had was an adventure, premade characters, dice, and a condensed version of the rules I could see value in 1/2 to 3/4 of that for my game right now. I like adventures and dice, could easily find a use for new premades, and having a handy copy of the rules never hurts. Oh it also had a nice box that fit my core books, which was neat. I wouldn't mind another one of those either. I think it would work better if it wasn't called starter set. Box set would be fine.
  • 10:32 PM - robus quoted ad_hoc in post 6e? Why?
    Would people buy 2 starter sets? Well some collectors would :) but i certainly think the starter set could be improved a lot so a fresh one could do that whilst also giving a second choice (with a very different adventure) to people wanting to try the game out.

Sunday, 8th July, 2018

  • 06:08 PM - Shiroiken quoted ad_hoc in post 6e? Why?
    I'm not sure about this assertion. Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while. They don't spend money on development, just on marketing and sales. D&D could follow that path, needing only enough sales to new players to cover those costs. As long as they maintained a healthy market share, there would be no reason to create a new edition.Market share isn't enough, it's about profit and profit margin. If D&D doesn't create enough profit at a large enough margin, then something will need to be changed. This happened in 4E, which did fairly well initially, but failed to meet the unrealistic expectations set by either Hasbro or WotC. TSR had a huge amount of the market share during 2E, but still went bankrupt and had to sell to WotC. These are the unfortunate realities of corporate business. If sales really drop, it wouldn't mean putting out a new edition, it would mean dropping supplemen...
  • 04:18 PM - Flakskader quoted ad_hoc in post 6e? Why?
    Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books. I don't think that is possible. D&D stands alone with no consequential competitors. Even when Pathfinder 2 comes out D&D will still beat their sales that month. Then the month after they will be back to being a blip compared to D&D. I'm speaking hypothetically, sorry. That said, the fact there isn't a strong competitor, even if Pathfinder 2 is certainly gaining traction, is one of the main reasons there won't likely be another edition for a while. Besides, I don't think any of us is ready to invest in MORE books and MORE accessories yet! Or have to go through another variation of "But how does Proficiency Bonus work?"

Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018

  • 09:10 PM - lowkey13 quoted ad_hoc in post Would you marry a party member for +2 AC?
    Or you could just not. It's better to make a better game. Being paralyzed by the fear that some players might 'abuse' the game doesn't benefit anyone. Those players will still ruin the game for the groups they are in unless... That is what the entire group finds fun, and then, it's also fine. I think the spell is good for the same reason backgrounds are good. Character backstory doesn't exist until it comes up in game. Backgrounds help that. Ceremony helps to make events in game matter. I could see 2 characters (PCs or PC + NPC) getting married at the end of a campaign just before diving into Hell to combat the forces of ultimate darkness. Ceremony lends weight to that event. As usual, selective quoting implies selective reading; to the extent you wish to make your own point, please do so without misunderstanding mine.

Thursday, 14th June, 2018

  • 08:58 PM - Nevvur quoted ad_hoc in post Your Suspension of Disbelief: SHATTERED!
    Do you have a problem with players making dumb jokes? At our table we make dumb jokes and get sidetracked all the time, but when it comes to actual actions in the game we play it straight. Like you, I find having characters do dumb things in the game for a joke doesn't work. Same with joke characters and sabotaging the scene. It's specifically Monty Python references I have a problem with. Dumb jokes and sidetracking are uncommon in the games I run, as I do bi-weekly games and make a concerted effort to keep my players focused on the game to make the most of our time, but I'm not a heavy handed enforcer when it happens. I just find MP quips particularly grating and immersion breaking at the table, much as I love the troupe itself.

Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 05:59 AM - Saelorn quoted ad_hoc in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    Again, they don't. Please stop.Wrong article. Try this one: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses "The Barbarian: Other Names: Berserker, Gladiator, Viking. The Barbarian is a breed of Fighter focused more on damage than defense." You're just making these things up. I get that this is what you want, but it not being this way by default isn't wrong. There are even optional things in the game called feats that can be used to customize characters.I'm not the one making it up. My player was the one who brought it up, and before that point, I hadn't even thought of it. (I honestly hadn't considered the possibility that anyone would ever want to play a barbarian. It's such an un-civilized class.) Once they mentioned it, though, I was forced to agree; because I've read tvtropes, and I am familiar with the trope. Well if you only play the game at level 20 then, yes, things will be wonky. The game is designed around the sweet spot of levels 5-10.The game goes from 1-...
  • 01:45 AM - Saelorn quoted ad_hoc in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    It just isn't. Feats are an entirely optional part of the game. The rest of the game is not designed around them.I agree that feats are optional. I don't use them in my game. That's why I think it's weird that they buried such an important ability in there. That is also your view of Barbarians and your view of 'hitting hard'. Reckless Attack requires them to use Strength. Barbarians usually have 16+ Strength. That allows them to hit pretty hard.That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion over on tvtropes, which is the source for pop-culture tropes. A barbarian class is supposed to deal a lot of damage. Strength 16 is irrelevant next to the size of the damage die. Power Attack roughly doubles the total damage of the attack. Without Power Attack, the barbarian outputs less damage than the fighter, which is entirely at odds with how these things are supposed to work. The fighter is supposed to be balanced, with the barbarian being more offensively-oriented, and the paladin being the de...

Tuesday, 12th June, 2018

  • 07:57 PM - Saelorn quoted ad_hoc in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    Or maybe, just maybe, it is their 'reckless attack' feature.Reckless attack is designed to work with Power Attack. That's why they have it. If they don't have Power Attack, then the class just has extremely high durability and accuracy; it doesn't actually hit harder. Barbarians aren't generally know for the extreme precision of their strikes. They're supposed to hit hard.


Page 1 of 45 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

ad_hoc's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites