View Profile: ad_hoc - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 06:41 AM
    Players do if for no other reason than the workload of it. The DM already has a lot to do.
    25 replies | 786 view(s)
    2 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 06:57 PM
    Barkskin is one of the most concise and straightforward spells in the game. It is perfectly clear how it works. It's just not as powerful as people want it to be.
    72 replies | 12188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 06:29 PM
    This is common? First I have heard of it.
    42 replies | 1388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 06:35 PM
    We use as many as we need to get back to full health for the next encounter. So that's 0 if we're taking a short rest, but multiple if not. Gold isn't useful to have if we're all dead.
    42 replies | 1388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 12:14 AM
    I don't see the difference. This question is nonsensical to me.
    53 replies | 2731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 10:49 PM
    This is how the game is designed. The real question here is whether a new class is warranted. The game is designed to allow for new subclasses, but the room for new classes is extremely limited. Group think is a thing. While the Ranger is the least liked class, the majority of 5e players still like it just fine. Something has to be least popular, that doesn't mean it is bad.
    53 replies | 2731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 28th April, 2019, 05:01 AM
    You should take another look at the Sun Soul. They do better in melee than ranged. Their ranged attack is just a way to attack if they can't get to melee. They can't Stunning Strike with it for example which is a Monk's best ability. They also want to be up close in order to Burning Hands. Fireball comes much later and is again, a back up option. Having a 3rd level spell at level 11+ is...
    16 replies | 677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 28th April, 2019, 01:00 AM
    Sun Soul is the subclass to base another ranged subclass from.
    16 replies | 677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 06:47 PM
    It bothers me that the site is presented as a 'wiki'. It's just a collection of anonymous house rules.
    16 replies | 677 view(s)
    2 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 01:36 PM
    I never said that. Please don't condescend. I am saying that the players are not the DM and should not act like they are. Of course we're playing a game. The rules of that game is that the players declare what their characters are doing. Roll for initiative is not a thing.
    54 replies | 1736 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 05:56 AM
    There seems to be a disconnect here. Striking a statue is a thing a character is doing so that is completely fine. 'Calling for initiative' is not. If someone said "I strike the statue" then I would say, 'ok' and go around the rest of the table to see what people are doing. Initiative may be called at this point, and it may not. It is also possible that the statue doesn't animate...
    54 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 02:05 AM
    As for initiative... It is an opposed check to determine who gets to do the thing first. Players don't 'call for initiative'. They just state what they're doing and the DM determines what happens. At my table whenever a scene is set each player is asked what they are doing. They don't respond with metagame terms like 'call intiative' or 'use insight'. They respond with literally what the...
    54 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019, 04:09 AM
    If you're making a class and can't think of any subclasses for it, then you should probably be making a subclass.
    53 replies | 2731 view(s)
    2 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd April, 2019, 04:31 AM
    ad_hoc replied to D&D Guide
    You feel like you have a lot to teach the D&D community. Okay, but why do you think you have the answers? Why do you think you have it figured out? What is your background which makes you so confident? D&D is both a very complex game, but more importantly, a non-competitive one that it is very hard to analyze. In competitive games there will be many people with different viewpoints who...
    16 replies | 1050 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st April, 2019, 08:19 PM
    The problem with these sorts of house rules (incl. Flanking) is that they diminish other sources of advantage and disadvantage in the game. Cool ways of interacting with the environment and creating special circumstances just don't have the same impact when the player can just choose to gain advantage. Same with spells which grant advantage, they're just not special anymore. Even if you...
    24 replies | 823 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About ad_hoc

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,165
Posts Per Day
1.02
Last Post
When it comes to mounts, familiars, and minions, who gets to control them at your table, the player or the GM? Friday, 10th May, 2019 06:41 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
29
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:58 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 27th July, 2013
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Friday, 17th May, 2019


Wednesday, 15th May, 2019


Tuesday, 14th May, 2019


Friday, 10th May, 2019


Sunday, 5th May, 2019


Friday, 3rd May, 2019


Sunday, 28th April, 2019


Friday, 26th April, 2019


Wednesday, 24th April, 2019


Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019


Saturday, 20th April, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 01:02 PM - Oofta mentioned ad_hoc in post Why is the shortest lived edition, still one of the most popular?
    As ad_hoc just stated, most popular based on what? I don't know anyone that plays it, and I know quite a few gamers. Now that may be self-selecting because I met most of them through my connection with D&D living campaigns but if it weren't for this message board I wouldn't even know people still played it.

Thursday, 31st January, 2019

  • 02:59 AM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Line Spells / Lightning Bolt
    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.

Friday, 7th December, 2018

  • 01:16 PM - Quartz mentioned ad_hoc in post Nightwalker: Really a CR 20?
    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.

Sunday, 18th November, 2018

  • 11:40 PM - MNblockhead mentioned ad_hoc in post Player wants to play a Star Elf, any balance concerns?
    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.

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 09:44 PM - 77IM mentioned ad_hoc in post Ideas for Improving Inspiration
    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).

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 10:17 AM - Sadras mentioned ad_hoc in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    @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.

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 06:30 PM - Quickleaf mentioned ad_hoc in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    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...

Tuesday, 28th August, 2018

  • 04:29 AM - Ashrym mentioned ad_hoc in post Guessing - Most and least played classes
    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.
  • 03:54 AM - Ashrym mentioned ad_hoc in post Guessing - Most and least played classes
    ad_hoc It looks like a good sampling. What is the statistic data for Ranger at 9th?

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. 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


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 59 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Thursday, 2nd May, 2019

  • 02:19 AM - CleverNickName quoted ad_hoc in post How often does your party use a potion of healing
    I use the commonly used Bonus Action to drink one yourself, standard action to administer one to your friend houserule. This is common? First I have heard of it.This is the first time I've heard of it also. The only time I've ever allowed a character to drink a healing potion as a bonus action was when the potion was already in their hand, and they weren't threatened. (Highly situational.)

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 11:16 PM - ParanoydStyle quoted ad_hoc in post Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?
    This is how the game is designed. The real question here is whether a new class is warranted. The game is designed to allow for new subclasses, but the room for new classes is extremely limited. Again, though...that may be how the "game" is designed but I think I just explained I was talking more about the ENGINE than the game. I don't know that it's necessarily how the game engine is designed that the room for new classes is extremely limited: I think that's an artifact of WotC's marketing strategy for the GAME, not a feature of the engine. The real question here is not whether a new class is warranted---NONE of the classes from the PHB will be in what I'm working on so the new classes I'm designing are certainly warranted. The question is if they (all) need sub-classes. Sub-classes make a lot of sense for my Cleric equivalent and my Warlock equivalent, but don't seem to make as much sense for my magic-user, fighter, and rogue classes. Group think is a thing. While the Ranger is the l...

Sunday, 28th April, 2019

  • 05:06 AM - Ark the Pie King quoted ad_hoc in post Way of the Pistol Monk. Is it balanced?
    You should take another look at the Sun Soul. They do better in melee than ranged. Their ranged attack is just a way to attack if they can't get to melee. They can't Stunning Strike with it for example which is a Monk's best ability. They also want to be up close in order to Burning Hands. Fireball comes much later and is again, a back up option. Having a 3rd level spell at level 11+ is nothing special but it is there as an option. I don't understand why a gun subclass would get melee abilities. Mmkay, I see that. I always pictured them as more blasters than anything but you raise a fair point with Stunning Strike But take a look at the video I linked. It's about rule of cool more than anything. I find Gun Kata to be absolutely wickedly awesome and I want to do THAT, and I'm trying to find a way to make it work. Kensei is close, but doesn't quite get me there. Pistol is the closest thing I've found and I want to make that happen. Sun Soul is awesome, and I've got a Sun Soul monk I'm wan...
  • 01:49 AM - Ark the Pie King quoted ad_hoc in post Way of the Pistol Monk. Is it balanced?
    Sun Soul is the subclass to base another ranged subclass from. Yeah I can definitely see the comparison. I think it has more in common with Kensei though for a couple of reasons. Sun Soul really wants to be a ranged blaster, and gets a few interesting AoE options as well. near as I can tell Sun Soul never wants to be in melee if it can avoid it since it's damage really stays the same at any range. Kensei and Pistol both use weapons, lack AoE options, and they both have motivation to try and to weave in and out of melee.

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 09:45 PM - oknazevad quoted ad_hoc in post Amazon Has A D&D Page
    It's too bad D&D is dying. We will never have what the numbers they had in the 80s. Still trying to push that false narrative, I see. Kindly bug off.

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 02:31 PM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    I never said that. Please don't condescend. I am saying that the players are not the DM and should not act like they are. Of course we're playing a game. The rules of that game is that the players declare what their characters are doing. Roll for initiative is not a thing. I didn't think I was being condescending. But if a player thinks combat is imminent and a player asks "Roll for initiative?" I'm okay with it. There are some people who seem to be very adamant that players can't speak in terms of game rules at the table such as stating that they are making a skill check*. I'm just stating that I don't care and meant no offense. *Or should that be ability check applying the proper skill proficiency? Doesn't really roll of the tongue and honestly I've never really understood why that matters either.
  • 12:58 PM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    There seems to be a disconnect here. Striking a statue is a thing a character is doing so that is completely fine. 'Calling for initiative' is not. If someone said "I strike the statue" then I would say, 'ok' and go around the rest of the table to see what people are doing. Initiative may be called at this point, and it may not. It is also possible that the statue doesn't animate until a later time so there continues to be no initiative as it isn't a creature. Players don't know. Well, this is a hypothetical situation that has never happened in my game. But my point is that if the players are entering what they perceive as combat, I would treat it as combat. While I strongly encourage people to speak and declare actions from the perspective of their PCs, I don't really care if players call out game rules at the table. I don't see why it would matter. But I don't want to have this argument yet again. I just don't have a strict "thou cannot acknowledge we are playi...
  • 03:00 AM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    As for initiative... It is an opposed check to determine who gets to do the thing first. Players don't 'call for initiative'. They just state what they're doing and the DM determines what happens. At my table whenever a scene is set each player is asked what they are doing. They don't respond with metagame terms like 'call intiative' or 'use insight'. They respond with literally what the character is doing. Meh. If they think they're entering combat I see no reason to shatter that illusion immediately. Let them attack the dread gazebo. I can't remember a time I've ever done it but if someone said "I attack" even if there is no enemy combatant I'd consider it. Every once in a blue moon I'll also use initiative just to help resolve chaotic situations. For example if the party is escaping a collapsing building and everybody is doing things more-or-less simultaneously I might go to initiative. Or not. Just depends on what works best for the scene.

Friday, 19th April, 2019

  • 05:23 PM - GreyLord quoted ad_hoc in post The Washington Post Weighs In On D&D!
    Gary Gygax estimated that at the height of D&D there were around 5 million players. Today is peak D&D and it's not even close. Was that 15 million number just for NA? The basic rules may be the answer to the discrepancy with money here. It can be expensive to import books. The point still holds true though. I do not have an official source to quote, but with 2018 being the best year for RPG sales by WotC yet (which could put it between the 65-75 million range) and some ideas out there that it could be upwards towards the 80-90 million range (once again, no sources I can give you so you can say it's my personal course theory with it) 5th edition is doing really well right now. It's on an upwards trend with money and an expanding customer base. With other departments not doing as hot as expected/wanted currently (such as toys, though marvel is still doing great) I do not see why Hasbro would take the risk of making a new edition currently. With such growth (which I'd say is ...
  • 06:05 AM - GreyLord quoted ad_hoc in post The Washington Post Weighs In On D&D!
    40 million. That's more than the population of Canada! It is. In theory, since AD&D was making 100 million dollars in 1992, then the D&D industry should be making 192 million dollars today..AT LEAST. Though, 40 million is greater by at least 1.5 so that would mean WotC should along be making 280 MILLION DOLLARS! Or, if we take the 91 million from around 1990 instead, and apply a 1.6 modifier (if we assume the max of 25 million gamers was in 1991 instead of earlier during the fad, which most likely it was not and the number was lower), then we should get around 278 million to be more precise for that period to be more lenient. 278 Million is quite a jump from 65-75 million (or even 55 million) though it might be on it's way to hit the 80-90 million mark (maybe?). I wonder where the money is going or being reported to? 40 million players is great news...but money is better news (well, for some, others, that many players is better news). Of course, the article may not ha...

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 03:59 PM - Dausuul quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    The opportunity cost of agonizing blast is high. It vastly diminishes the depth and flexibility of your PC in exchange for some extra damage. Oh, come on. It's one invocation slot. It does not "vastly" diminish anything. There is certainly an opportunity cost, but it is hardly "vast." Furthermore, it gives you far more flexibility in using your spell slots - see below. At 5th level they have an average of 6 3rd level spells per day. That is far more powerful than any other spellcaster as 1st and 2nd level spells are much weaker than 3rd level ones. The problem with this is that while you get "gas" far cheaper than traditional casters, your tank is tiny. If you are relying too heavily on your spell slots to do all the work, it is very easy to run dry and find yourself empty at a critical moment. Nor can you concentrate all that firepower where it counts. You cannot assume that every day is going to be precisely average. How many leveled spells are you going to cast per combat? If yo...
  • 12:44 AM - Staffan quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    At the end of the day Eldritch Blast is just a cantrip. Doing some extra damage with it isn't going to greatly impact the character's effectiveness. Their spells are what is important in combat. Invocations are very helpful to round them out. Bumping the party's damage up by a few points when it is time to cast cantrips just isn't a big deal. The way I see it, eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast makes the warlock into something of a hybrid between a martial character and a spellcaster. Eldritch blast is roughly on par with weapon attacks (d10+ability bonus with multiples at each tier - slightly more than a longbow, but on the other hand the warlock doesn't get the +2 a dedicated archer gets and can't do Sharpshooter shenanigans), and the limited spells give the warlock a small number of cool things they can do. It's basically what you give someone who says "I want to play something with some cool magic, but not too complicated."

Friday, 12th April, 2019

  • 09:37 PM - Gradine quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    Eldritch Blast is no better than other good attack cantrips. A cantrip that is top-tier out of the box, and can easily be upgraded to deal 50% more damage at level 2 (improving to 90% at higher levels), is in fact much better than other attack cantrips. People online also over exaggerate the effectiveness of certain abilities. Sometimes destiny writes itself
  • 09:37 PM - TwoSix quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    Most people make choices based on what they think is cool and what suits their character first, only considering power secondarily. People online also over exaggerate the effectiveness of certain abilities. Eldritch Blast is no better than other good attack cantrips. Rangers have other good spells. Etc. Actually, if anything this particular data set shows me that D&D Beyond users are actually pretty savvy, optimization-wise, with their choices. Healing word is more popular than cure wounds for the classes that have it, for example. (Except druid, which has optimization reasons to eschew Healing Word.) Eldritch Blast is, by far, the most popular cantrip for warlocks, and has a bigger margin of selection than any other cantrip for any other class. That's a group that's making smart power choices, not flavor choices.
  • 09:29 PM - Dausuul quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    Eldritch Blast is no better than other good attack cantrips. A cantrip that is top-tier out of the box, and can easily be upgraded to deal 50% more damage at level 2 (improving to 90% at higher levels), is in fact much better than other attack cantrips.

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 11:53 PM - D1Tremere quoted ad_hoc in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The character doesn't use insight though. They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action. I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception. "I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed. 1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+. 2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not. 3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill. This isn't how I see it for whatever that is worth. A player uses insight in one of two occasions, they are actively curious about a subjects intentions (such as questioning a subject), or a subject is actively attempting to deceive them (as a DM may call for an insight check if they think the PC...
  • 11:45 PM - Mort quoted ad_hoc in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The character doesn't use insight though. They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action. And can insight resolving the action result the PC sussing out a lie? I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception. Ok "I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed. But that wasn't the question. 1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+. 2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not. 3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill. Again, it seems you're arguing about a different question than I am asking. I'm not asking if the player gets to declare an insight check. The question is does the insight skill (which e...
  • 10:32 PM - Mort quoted ad_hoc in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    I said no because you don't use insight. You perform an action and the DM determines the outcome which may involve making a Wisdom (insight) check. Hmm - that's still using insight. Who determines whether the check is needed isn't actually relevant to the question.

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 04:38 AM - FrogReaver quoted ad_hoc in post RAW: Can druids wear studded leather?
    The blacksmith must make the rivets. Doesn't matter. We are determining if it's a metal armor. Not if metal is contained in the armor. So the question stands, would you go to the tanner looking for studded leather or the blacksmith? If the answer is the tanner then it's not a metal armor. If the answer is the blacksmith then it's metal as he's the only metal worker around.

Friday, 22nd February, 2019

  • 03:12 PM - Parmandur quoted ad_hoc in post Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)
    I'm not saying 0 people do that. I'm just saying that of the 15+ million 5e players, those who do are in a distinct minority. This is not to say it's wrong, but it is relevant to talk about when we're talking about statistics and why people are doing what they're doing. I think so many Rangers and Rogues have Sharpshooter because the players want their characters to be sharpshooters. I think the same is true of War Caster. Their characters are 'war casters' so they take the War Caster feat. As for mechanics, I bet not wanting to play the weapon juggling game of dropping and picking it back up again is a big selling point because that isn't heroic. Yeah, it's pretty commonsensical.


Page 1 of 59 123456789101151 ... LastLast

ad_hoc's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites