View Profile: FrogReaver - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 06:26 PM
    Your not really talking about ranged vs melee you are talking about crossbow expertise and sharpshooter being much to strong. Leave those out. They donít have any real place in a melee vs ranged discussion unless you are trying to point out that some extreme builds are so much better than others that the generalization changes when you start talking about them.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 06:23 PM
    gold is for out of combat purposes and to gate some early game gear. Beyond that your character should be using gold to accomplish something he wants to do. Start a church, bribe a guard, donate to the poor, start a horse farm, build a library, etc. Gold is to influence the world around you.
    760 replies | 84192 view(s)
    2 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:51 PM
    1). A mixed group of enemies cannot all focus fire without taking OAís from at least some of the melee PCís. If they choose to do that then melee damage ends up being much higher than ranged. The reason Iíve focused attention on spreading damage is because itís the most obscure reason having melee could be better. Once itís established that spreading damage is a good strategy everything else...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:24 PM
    Iíve used the dodge action in most every fight we have had. Thatís a lot. Excessively too much would be trying to use it nearly every turn.
    34 replies | 726 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:19 PM
    Agreed. It is more fun. But it is not only more fun but also a better strategy.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:11 PM
    Not what I was saying. We were discussing enemies focus firing the party. The only real way that gets accomplished is if the enemies take OAís. This increases melee character damage significantly. If the enemies donít take OAís to get in the position to focus fire then damage gets spread around. Itís a catch 22 for the enemy team.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 03:00 PM
    I canít disagree there but dodge is useful regardless of monster AI is my point.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 02:27 PM
    @smbakereq If you donít want to see what I have to post you are welcome to block me. The issue isnít you starting the other thread. The issue is you keeping on claiming that your suggestion to start this thread is why it was started. Thatís false. You had been called on that mistake twice already before you came in here and said it again. At some point repeatedly taking credit for something...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 02:53 AM
    While we are talking fighting styles... I wish there was a mobile fighting style that helped with OA's or gave extra movement.
    44 replies | 858 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 02:19 AM
    Yep, by no means were the lists I provided exhaustive. If foes start taking OA's then melee greatly increases the amount of damage they are dealing. Thus melee is now doing significantly more damage than their ranged allies in this scenario. Ranged can always focus fire at least till a melee gets up to them. Then they typically start having to take an OA to do so after that which...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 02:03 AM
    Good thread. Now I'm thinking of characters I want to play. I think I've figured out my next cleric personality. A cleric that constantly tries to push the boundaries of what his God will let him get away with and always tries to justify the things he does by the letter of his gods tenets/commands/etc.
    35 replies | 798 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 01:54 AM
    Maybe he doesn't allow multiclassing?
    44 replies | 858 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 01:51 AM
    There's not a lot of difference between ignoring and refusing to comment on the primary point I've been going on about since I've started this thread... But you finally id comment on it so I'll forgive and drop the issue. Most importantly and most amazingly, you found my point to be valid and correct after you finally took the time to consider and comment on it. Way to go TaranTheWanderer ...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 01:37 AM
    Really check the timestamps. You can clearly see I started this thread before your request on the thread I started about melee vs ranged and that I have mentioned this fact both there and on the thread you started about dodging today. I guess it will take you another 24 hours before you notice them. Once you finally take the time to get up to speed you can come back and apologize.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:28 PM
    How the heck are you still missing my thread about the dodge action that I started yesterday BEFORE you even asked me to
    34 replies | 726 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:26 PM
    A feat / asi is stronger.
    44 replies | 858 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:24 PM
    Alternatively you could homebrew a few feats that would allow some very warlords abilities and the fighter could focus on them.
    14 replies | 534 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:37 PM
    Be a battle master fighter. Prioritize charisma. Use inspiring leader and the rally maneuver and the positioning maneuver and the maneuver that lets an ally attack in place of you. That covers most things the 4e battlemaster could do. You canít do them as often. Throw on 2 levels of mastermind rogue if desired and that should cover the concept though itís still not as satisfying as if the...
    14 replies | 534 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:59 PM
    Iíll respond more in depth later but what tactics do a mix of melee and range allow if not the ones iíve been talking about?
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:10 PM
    You keep on ignoring that Spreading damage around is useful in itself. All your arguments are against dodging preventing damage. Itís not always good at preventing damaging. But it is either good at preventing damage or spreading damage around. Both of which are team wins.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:45 PM
    Monsters donít have to know what a spell does to want to avoid the heavily armored guy that can cast spells
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:38 PM
    In my opening post I talked about the worst case with dodge where the enemies donít target the dodging pc. The conclusion was that dodge can still be better in such situations so that damage is spread around on the team more evenly even though a greater amount of total damage will be taken by the team.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 PM
    I agree with this and would add that more importantly, the point that I keep on making that the dodge action can be less efficient in terms of total party hp lost in a fight and still be a better strategy as it causes the damage to be spread around in a less deadly way.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:45 AM
    The tactic you describe of letting PC's fall before healing them is a fine resource preservation strategy but it does greatly increase the chances for PC death. In my experience resource starvation is typically not an issue. Instead people dying to focused damage while more than half the team sits at full hp is a bigger issue.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    3 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:40 AM
    Assuming a balanced group of ranged and melee I would think that having all the melee characters charge forward and dodge could make a very good engaging turn. If the enemies split evenly across the melee characters, pick 1 that the ranged party members support by attacking his enemies while he helps attack them and the other PC's dodge. Clear each PC 1 at a time until it's mop up time on the...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:32 AM
    Let's take the stereotypical party, fighter (let's say great weapon), rogue (uses a mix of ranged and melee), wizard, cleric (sword and shield) The rogue goes first. He readies an attack for when an ally and become adjacent. The wizard goes and firebolts the closest enemy. The Fighter moves adjacent to the closest enemy. The rogue fires possibly killing it. The fighter then takes the...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:30 AM
    In case you missed it I started a thread on it 2 and a half hours ago.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:13 AM
    I can't think of a party composition it's not going to be useful for. Yep, that's one of the most effective places for dodge, tight corridors and doorways. But dodge is still useful, even in a wide open field.
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:07 AM
    Yep. Focus fire is still a good strategy. It's even good with party members occaionly dodging. I totally agree. That is the crux of my analysis that even though dodging in the worst case causes the party to take more damage that the damage being able to be spread out if much more significant to party success than the increased amount of damage they take from killing enemies a little...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:36 AM
    So let's have a discussion about the dodge action. How useful do you think it is? Do you think most players undervalue it? I do. The dodge action typically causes one of 2 outcomes. It can greatly reduces the damage the dodging PC takes from attacks. It can cause damage to be spread out to other party members. Why can these be better outcomes as opposed to just trying to kill enemies...
    67 replies | 1450 view(s)
    3 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:07 AM
    If you have a team with 4 or 5 PC's then stopping your attacks to be more defensive doesn't stop the enemies from being killed as the rest of your party can potentially attack and kill them. Simply not true. This also is untrue. You are not factoring in teammates. I'm not saying you should always dodge. But it definitely should have a much larger role than you envision.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 13th November, 2018, 08:28 PM
    Nothing inherently stops you from being 30-60 ft away and killing things as quickly as possible. The only defensive option a melle vs ranged really has over the other is a shield. While a great defensive boost (if being used) itís not like it makes them that much more survivable than a ranged character.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 13th November, 2018, 06:34 PM
    You might be surprised how much more effective the party is if your ranged characters play about 30-60ft away from the melee ones as opposed to much further and flat out running away when enemies chase them. Itís not ranged itself that is the problem but the play style most adopt when using ranged. Do that and the party will be more effective and you will have your interesting decision...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    2 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 13th November, 2018, 06:20 PM
    You crazy. I use dodge all the time. Itís absolutely amazing
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 10th November, 2018, 06:41 PM
    Easy advantage + elven accuracy might do it?
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 9th November, 2018, 02:26 AM
    No tweaks are needed. All you need to do is stop thinking about individual contributions and instead think about team dynamics. Spreading damage out over more of the team saves lives and that's what melee allows. Focus fire is also very useful and much easier to achieve with range. You want a good mix of range and melee in order to keep allies from being focused while being able to focus...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 9th November, 2018, 02:00 AM
    What I keep saying is that in general melee either has better defense or does more damage or both when compared with ranged. Melee has that advantage as well as the advantage where damage is more likely to be spread over more party members than concentrated on fewer. I propose that those advantages make melee greater than or equal to ranged. If melee was merely equal to ranged in terms of...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 02:30 PM
    The maul part lost me... but more importantly the claim is t to take an all melee party. The claim is that you need 2-3 melee characters in a normally sized party because the fewer melee characters you have the more likely they will die.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 01:40 PM
    But ranged is only individually better. It isn't better for the group. It leads to fewer melee characters getting damage spread out between them which makes each melee character more likely to die.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 01:35 PM
    CE + SS + Precision definitely counts as an exception to the general discussion. It can function as a defacto melee character with just slightly lower AC than most pure melee characters. It loses out on OA's as well but does enough damage that nothing should want to ignore him that can reach him and you can place yourself in a position where a few enemies can reach you but not all. He can play...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 05:01 PM
    Ignoring accuracy as you try to always do is a fools errand.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 04:58 PM
    I agree about the combination possible with sharpshooter being better than the combos possible with gwm. That said we arenít really focused about sharpshooter but about melee vs ranged.
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 03:45 AM
    Sure it wasn't them that won the fight by keeping the blame things off you?
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 03:39 AM
    That's what kiting is... #1 Not having any other character in attack range does tend to focus enemy attacks on the guy in their range. #2 It's not really true that multiple melee characters allow for easy focus fire. OA's and melee ally positioning tend to keep most melee focus firing from occurring. Also it's much easier for a DM to justify the melee guys attacking both available...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 03:15 AM
    When I first started 5e I wanted everything to be against book enemies etc so I could get a feel for what worked and didn't in the PHB. Now that I'm experienced I'm happy to face whatever is thrown at me. Sometimes players what that to be able to get a feel of the game better. After a while they don't care what monsters and what abilities they have that the DM throws at me. Most importantly,...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 03:09 AM
    But my point is that you can say my character is does more damage, has more uptime, gets attacked less etc but all that falls apart when you play on a team with at least 1 melee character. At that point the party is much better off if the party doesn't play like you describe your ranged character playing. The melee character will eventually end up dead as he's the only one taking virtually ALL...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    2 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 6th November, 2018, 09:59 PM
    I think most of us here have jumped aboard to ranged is superior to melee in 5e bandwagon and for good reason. Good ranged characters typically have: #1 Higher Initiative #2 Better ability to focus fire on enemies #3 Nearly the same damage output as melee builds #4 Ability to kite enemies / kill them before they get into their effective ranges There's probably some unmentioned...
    123 replies | 3913 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 08:15 PM
    It's too much. Though I could see such an ability being balanced as a main subclass ability of some new subclass IF it also included some stipulation that you had to make concentration saves each turn you tried to maintain 2 spells at once and that once you fail you lose either 1 or both spells.
    60 replies | 1724 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 08:01 PM
    I disagree with your choices for comparison but since you said "ish" i'll let it slide. Yep, agonizing is flat out better for damage than toll. However, toll leaves open your invocation slot while still outputting decent damage. This allows for more utility or defense. A concerning downside to hex is concentration and the ease in which a warlocks concentration can be broken. The...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 12:22 PM
    Here's my take. For most of a warlocks career, Hellish Rebuke does just about as much damage as hex. So when it comes to comparing EB + Hex + Agonizing Blast the more accurate comparison would be Toll the dead + Hellish Rebuke. Honestly the only real difference comes out to agonizing blast coupled with multiple attacks. In fact, any more I tend to prefer Hellish Rebuke to Hex even when using...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 03:53 PM
    A dragon sorcerer using firebolt at level 6 does just a little lower at will damage than eldritch blast up until level 11 but has overall better spell options and more spells overall and gets even better spell options by level 11.
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 03:51 PM
    Eldritch blast + hex doesnít even out pace a PHB hunter ranger (without feats) in ranged attack damage till level 11. Maybe we should stop focusing so much on level 11+ or 17+ and look at where the majority of people play games. Youíll usually find that dips and the OP at level 20 damage comparisons melt away and what you think of as the strongest based on that limited level 20 viewpoint...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 02:01 PM
    How strong would it be to change agonizing blast from charisma modifier damage per attack to tier * cha mod damage once per turn when you deal damage with an attack or can trip?
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 31st October, 2018, 05:06 PM
    Iím sorry but 7th level wizard spell shouldnít have the same effect on a high level enemy as a 2nd or 3rd.
    49 replies | 1643 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 31st October, 2018, 03:09 PM
    Game isnít fun for wizards when everything can guarantee it passes the save. Better to give enemies more chances To end save effects. And have them impact some actions but likely be gone before the next normal enemy turn
    49 replies | 1643 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th October, 2018, 05:27 PM
    Anyways the problem with solo creatures is the turn system. Solution is to give them multiple turns. Legendary actions help with that but donít give extra saves like A while additional turn would.
    49 replies | 1643 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 29th October, 2018, 07:41 PM
    Not really. You canít control the players or their characters. That you think you can no matter doesnít make sense
    49 replies | 1643 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 29th October, 2018, 07:26 PM
    Itís hard to push players into risking their characters lives to be heroes when they donít want to.
    49 replies | 1643 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 06:37 PM
    I agree they didnít intend that. Thatís a good reason not to play that way. Sometimes what someone intends is not what they do or say. In this case they clearly stated in no ambiguous terms that an improvised weapon that doesnít resemble a weapon does 1d4. I agree they didnít intend this but their intentions donít change RAW
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 06:33 PM
    I can actively employ it to hit my enemies. This wielding.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 05:43 PM
    I can wield an apple seed in one hand. That bit of sophistry doesnít resolve the seemingly poorly thought out 5e improvised weapon rules.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 05:41 PM
    Iím just saying what the rules say. Maybe itís the rules you dislike. Me Iím fine hiuseruling all those things because I like house rules.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 05:12 PM
    Words have meaning. Saying an improvised weapon that doesnít resemble a weapon does 1d4 means exactly what it says. Thereís no way around that. An apple seed doesnít resemble a weapon and so will do 1d4 damage. Ruling otherwise is a house rule. Iím all for that house rule but letís call things what thy are.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 05:09 PM
    Improvised weapons are defined in the first paragraph. Please refer there for what qualifies. Hint it doesnít say dms decision.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 04:56 PM
    I agree but It definitely crosses over into house rule territory when the actual rules are being ignored no matter how much sophistry is trying to be applied.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 03:46 PM
    Not talking about whether itís a good rule. Itís a terrible rule but I donít see a way to get fancifully step around the RAW on this and stay out of house rule territory. Do you?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 01:42 PM
    Side point. How much damage does hitting someone with an Apple seed do? It does not resemble a weapon. So it would do 1d4 damage by rule?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 11:50 PM
    Focusing on your definition for #2 A few points. I find it interesting that you are using resemble and similar as synonyms above. You are using those two words to mean exactly the same thing (something I claimed the rules were doing a long time ago). I also find it interesting that you are defining degrees of similarity and using that to make your "ruling" when the rules never mention...
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 11:23 PM
    I still have no idea why saying Mistwell didn't work.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 06:07 PM
    I do have two questions to those who say that a shield is similar to a mace. 1. Do you allow the attack to be made with proficiency bonus (with no feats) 2. If you donít allow proficiency bonus why donít you?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 03:58 PM
    I will reply when I can get on my computer. Properly replying on phone is difficult.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 05:09 AM
    Rules Text: Reading Comprehension Check 1: This paragraph defines what an improvised weapon is. Reading Comprehension Check 2: This paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons similar to weapons. The answer is that you use such objects as if it were that weapon (with a special note about proficiency bonus being able to be applied to make sure that isn't...
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 04:41 AM
    You do know what context is right?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 04:20 AM
    I've been having my tempest cleric make predictions based on the weather. He takes everyday weather events as a sign from the gods. We were out on the plains deciding whether to pursue the other group of our enemies that were retreating or to head back to our village. The wind was blowing toward the direction of the enemies so I voted to pursue. We pursued them and handily defeated them. ...
    15 replies | 495 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 03:32 AM
    Just because you can twist something into saying something it doesn't say does not make it an interpretation. There's plenty of gray area in the rules. I totally agree. This is not one of those places.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 01:42 AM
    And I truly believe everyone got fixated on the one sentence in the PHB rules section about damage being a d4 if the object doesn't resemble a weapon and that everyone forgot to take the context of the section in consideration.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 11:18 PM
    I think thatís a reasonable conclusion for all involved.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 10:44 PM
    If I wanted to say visually I would have said visually. That's obviously a silly position. Instead I said physically similar.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 10:42 PM
    I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post. So Thank You! I agree with you that this part is about proficiency. The part about damage starts in the next paragraph but it's still all under the same section. So reading comprehension and context would dictate that since this part talks about physical similarity of objects to a weapon (aka club to...
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 10:32 PM
    Then you don't understand what I'm saying either
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 10:31 PM
    Then you don't understand what I'm saying
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 09:28 PM
    Explain how that isnít clearly talking about an object physically similar to a weapon.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 09:24 PM
    The rule says: Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GMís option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus Itís clearly talking about objects that are physically similar to weapons. Donít you agree?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 09:08 PM
    So if you attack with a sword and then with a shield on your turn with extra attack then do you get the dueling bonus?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 08:54 PM
    This may have been touched on earlier. For those that believe attacking with a shield is like attacking with a mace, does the duelist fight style apply?
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 08:11 PM
    You usually slam the head of the mace into someone. You usually slam the edge of the shield into someone. Itís a different arm motion to attack with them. The only thing similar is the force.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 07:37 PM
    No. You are applying the resemblance to the shield. Iím applying it to the force.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 07:33 PM
    A shield is not used like a mace either. So I donít know what your going on about
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 22nd October, 2018, 07:05 PM
    Nothing to do with that. A shield does not resemble a mace. The force a shield can apply resembles the force a mace can apply. But the rules donít talk about forces. They talk about object 1 resembling object 2.
    167 replies | 3621 view(s)
    1 XP
More Activity
About FrogReaver

Basic Information

Age
31
About FrogReaver
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,073
Posts Per Day
2.41
Last Post
Is Ranged really better than Melee? Today 06:26 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
51
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:29 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 19th May, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Warpiglet Warpiglet is offline

    Member

    Warpiglet
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Thursday, 15th November, 2018


Wednesday, 14th November, 2018



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 06:55 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    OverlordOcelot I think you're making this out to be a big deal when it isn't. When I dm, I play the opponents in a way that would be logical to their motives and their intelligence and their tactical and arcane knowledge guides the kind of decisions I make for them. I, personally, donít change an action based on what a player does unless I feel it makes sense to change the action. Smarter opponents with knowledge of PCs abilities will change tactics more often to adapt while stupid enemies might keep slugging away. I donít change tactics based on ooc info. If I can help it. You are free to do it any way you like. FrogReaverďYou keep on ignoring that Spreading damage around is useful in itself. Ē Actually, Iím not arguing for or against this. I didnít touch on that point at all. But itís probably true that it can be useful, especially if a DM uses dodge as a guide to attack someone other than the person dodging. (I assume thatís what you mean by spreading the damage, unless Iím misunderstanding. An enemy sees someone is hard to hit so they choose to attack someone else thus spreading the damage around.)

Friday, 9th November, 2018

  • 07:45 AM - ClaytonCross mentioned FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    ... is better to use from people with different intent not qualifying that intent to each other. On topic. Ranged and Melee both have similar weapons with 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10 dice with the same 1-5 bonus to hit and damage and both have feats with -5 to hit for +10 damage. So I am not sure that "to hit" or damage be it average or max are normally distinctly different enough to matter. You can argue Greatsword vs a Hand crowsbow and a Heavy crossbow vs dagger but really its the classes that make those weapons matter for damage and to hit more than the weapons themselves. A monk with dagger, a rogue with a hand crossbow, a fighter with heavy crossbow, a barbarian with great sword etc. So if we are talking about range vs melee the tactical advantage of reach for defense and offense it what makes ranged better. When you start talking about party composition, enemies, and classes... your not talking about ranged vs melee any more your just jumping into scenario testing. I think the heart of @FrogReaver 's original post is under appreciation and general consideration of melee character's contributions to a group. That said, I generally don't care about melee vs ranged as a rogue as either is generally more important to the group as scout, a wizard as combat manipulator, and I really feel like when melee characters are under appreciated its not for the melee fighting style its more for a lack of out of combat utility which can often be fixed by the player finding a party role. Example, Grog on critical role was not just the Berserker Barbarian he was also the groups quartermaster and many of best moments of Critical Role that involved Grog were not his combat triumphs but when he made party members trade party goods in comical ways. Don't get me wrong he put down the damage at times and he struggled to be in the fight bring a melee weapon to a ranged fight but I feel like it was the out of combat role that really made the best moments. I see this in my group too and it does not just e...

Monday, 22nd October, 2018

  • 10:35 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    Ganymede81 The way I understand him, FrogReaver is placing priority on how an object looks visually to determine whether the damage an object might deal when used as an improvised weapon can be similar to a given weapon when used as a basis for comparison. In his arguments he has made it clear that (for some reason) the force a weapon / object-used-as-an-improvised-weapon might deal can be similar, but that this characteristic cannot be considered when determining if an object resembles a weapon. And so while he has admitted that a mace and a shield could produce a similar force, they would not deal similar damage in a D&D 5e game because they do not look enough alike to resemble each other, which I take to mean that they do not visually resemble each other (despite the fact that they clearly do resemble each other when other qualities outside of visual characteristics are considered, especially those characteristics that are most valuable when assessing the deadlines of weapins and objects being used as weapons). So while he adm...
  • 06:04 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    ...as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus. An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. Emphasis mine. Nowhere in the entry does the official RAW say what damage an improvised weapon must do, but that the damage assigned is strictly the DM's discretion. It does provide an example to measure against as a benchmark, stating that an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage. However, it does not specify whether that is meant to be visible resemblance (your example of a kitchen knife versus a greatsword) or functional resemblance (a shield being able to be used in similar fashion and to similar effect as a club). So I'm sorry FrogReaver, but this is not a matter of house rule versus RAW. This is a merited interpretation of the rules, since it clearly states that the DM determines the appropriate damage. It does not state that all objects that are not directly in 1-to-1 correspondence to existing weapons must deal 1d4 damage, nor does it strictly clarify how the rules define "resemblance" in regards to an object compared to a weapon.
  • 04:22 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    FrogReaver, it seems you have gotten hung up on the mace thing. I think what all epithet was getting at was that since the edge of a shield can focus energy into a smaller space, much like the flanges of a mace, that it was not unreasonable to have a shield deal more damage than a 1d4 club. He made the comparison between a 1d6 damage club and a 1d8 damage mace, and stated that because the primary difference between the two is that the mace has those flanges that concentrate force, it was the reason that it deals more damage. Thus a shield, with a similar force concentrator, would deal more more damage (1d6) than a typical improvised weapon of similar size might deal (1d4).

Wednesday, 17th October, 2018

  • 10:15 AM - pemerton mentioned FrogReaver in post I was right about Shield Master
    Note that you make an attack with the action, which means before you even make an attack, you've taken the attack action. "Ah, but you have to make the first attack immediately" you go to say? Clearly not, since you can take the attack action, then move, then make the first attack.I don't have much at stake in 5e rules interpretation, but I didn't find yours persuasive. (Which is not to say that I agree with what Jeremy Crawford and FrogReaver seem to be saying - read on!) When you take the attack action, you make an attack doesn't imply that the making of the attack is separate from and subsequent to taking the attack action. Here's an example sentence to illustrate the point: When you brush your teeth, you move a toothbrush about and across the surface of your teeth so as to remove foreign substances from them. That doesn't mean that the moving of the toothbrush is distinct from the brushing of the teeth. Rather, the former is one constitutive element of the latter. I would suggest that, in the case of an attack action, the same is true - making an attack is constitutive of taking the action. With regard to the movement example - f you take an action that includes more than one weapon Attack, you can break up your Movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a Fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an Attack, mov...

Tuesday, 17th July, 2018

  • 02:56 PM - OB1 mentioned FrogReaver in post I hate death saves. Propose your solution.
    FrogReaver My house rule for this is that you no longer drop unconscious at 0 HP. Instead, players roll a death save when they reach 0 HP or take damage while at 0 HP, gaining a level of exhaustion on a failure (I also added a few exhaustion levels and fiddled with the order, and allow spending half your level in hit dice after a short or long rest to remove a level of exhaustion, but won't get into those details here). I don't think the you like how this creates a "death spiral", but for me, it's encouragement to stay away from 0 HP in the first place and allows for cinematic moments when they do. Looking at some of the suggestions and feedback in the thread, another solution came to mind. Curious as to your thoughts on this frogreaver. When you reach 0HP or take damage while at 0 HP, make a death saving throw. On a success, you are unconscious and stable at 0 HP, awaking with 1 HP in 1d4 hours if not otherwise healed. On a failure, you die. However, PCs are not like regular folk. Wh...

Saturday, 14th July, 2018

  • 06:29 AM - pemerton mentioned FrogReaver in post Would you allow this?
    Oh my. This is amusing. You're talking about invisible as "unseen," while the person you're talking to (and everybody else, I think) was talking about invisible as the sort of effect you get from the invisibility spell or a Klingon cloaking device. No wonder you and Max are talking past each other.Someone (maybe FrogReaver?) upthread posited that the suggestion in the OP was as absurd as a fighter declaring that s/he turns invisible. My response to that was that a fighter turning invisible equals making a DEX/Stealth check. In 4e that is literally true - a successful Stealth check makes you invisible. (As per the rules that I have already quoted twice upthread.) In 5e it is not literally true, but the effect of being hidden is that you go unnoticed, which in a wide range of scenarios achieves the same outcome as turning invisible. (Not all - bags of flour are better for spotting people who are using an illusion effect to be unseen; peeking around a corner is better for spotting a person using the furniture to be unseen; using a Helm of Telepathy is better for spotting a person using a charm spell, like the 4e Eyebite, to be unseen.) I also made the point that, in 4e, there are utility powers that a rogue can use which have their effect described as "you are invisible", and presumably in 5e the same...

Tuesday, 12th June, 2018

  • 03:54 PM - Sadras mentioned FrogReaver in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    @FrogReaver, from my experience GWM used by a BM-Wizard under the effects of Enlarge, Shield and Haste - is a powerful combo. How well that compares to other combinations of damage dealing characters/classes I cannot say - for a number of factors. If I had to vote on it, I would say slightly overpowered but not a big deal. These days I find the spell Haste to be more troublesome.

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 11:55 AM - Coroc mentioned FrogReaver in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    Saelorn CapnZapp I think you both exagerate a bit, Saelorn, when you state that in your campaign the GWM got a good Magic greatsword, making him theoretically even better at what he should do best, but otoh stating that now the more a shield wearer would be more use of the Party, why is that so? Do you Count Magic weaponry as a + on secret intimmidation rolls? And Capn no one denounces the context! - related value of These feats. Still a +2 to your main Attribute is valuable also and it is of use in many more situations. Unless the Party always survives or has infinite methods of resurrection the GWM out dpr the rest of the gang but dying every Encounter is no gain for the Group. Otoh FrogReaver s table a few Posts up clearly Show the trend: GWM (and SS) the active -5/+10 part, it is best versus low AC. And that is relatively independant of mob Level because of BA (ok it will get shifted a bit with higher Levels) At Level 1 doing +10 vs a goblin who instantly perishes is impressive. At higher Levels whether you take out 17 or 27 of the 400 HP Dragon is no big gain, more important is to take it out somehow before he hits the Party with his breath weapon for a devastating 3rd time. And in that Scenario a defensive fighter rules. I did not Analyse exactly what fighter / barbarian build is the base for Frogs table but it does not matter since it is a General rule solely based on statistics. Again, you can neither reliable count in Advantage or even bless every fight. If any of those two is a constant resource then your DM is doing it wrong. And even if it is a constant resource, it only shifts the numbers, either it would also be effective for the defensive fighter makin...

Monday, 9th April, 2018

  • 05:17 AM - Ancalagon mentioned FrogReaver in post Might&Magic: the linear fighter and the exponential wizard
    FrogReaver ... did you read the article? Ok, let's try this another way. A high level fighter is really good at fighting. But he could be replaced by 2-3 lower level fighters. They too can fight, but not as well. But if you have a lot of them, they make up the difference. A high level caster can do things a bunch of apprentices cannot do, period.

Sunday, 1st April, 2018

  • 03:27 AM - mellored mentioned FrogReaver in post Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
    FrogReaver Is this is good enough to count as "healing" to you? Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.

Monday, 12th March, 2018

  • 04:40 AM - Zardnaar mentioned FrogReaver in post The Problem With At Will Attack Granting
    [QUOTE=MoonSong;7365740]The biggest proof against at-will attack granting causing problems is that I've gotten plenty of feedback about the Path of Hearth Noble, and none of it even says it is a problem, some have even told me it was a little on the weak side. FrogReaver, Zaar/QUOTE] Noble doesn't really fit the 5E design paradigm and you have sacrificed everything to enable it and added restrictions.
  • 04:24 AM - MoonSong mentioned FrogReaver in post The Problem With At Will Attack Granting
    The biggest proof against at-will attack granting causing problems is that I've gotten plenty of feedback about the Path of Hearth Noble, and none of it even says it is a problem, some have even told me it was a little on the weak side. FrogReaver, Zaardnar

Monday, 12th February, 2018

  • 06:52 PM - steeldragons mentioned FrogReaver in post Sorcerer spell chains
    So, here, Blue , FrogReaver , Quickleaf , et al ...this is how I'm envisioning/thinking/dreaming this up as I run through it -in play- in my head... The Sorcerer HD, Proficiencies, Equipment all that crap is all the same (for now, though I'd seriously consider adding light armors and simple weapons, but warlocks already get that, don't they? So maybe not. ANYwho, for this/now, let's say it's all the same). Proficiency Bonus is the same (as every other class). Level . . Spell Points . . . . . . Features . . . . . . . . Spells Known . MM Known . Cantrips . 1st - 2nd - 3rd - 4th - 5th - 6th -7th .8th .9th 1st . . . . . . 2 . . . . Spellcasting, Sorcerous Chain . . . 2 . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 2 2nd . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . Metamagic . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 2 3rd . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . Arcane Sense . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 2 -- 2 4th . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . ASI, Metamagic . . . . . ....

Saturday, 10th February, 2018

  • 09:12 PM - Lanefan mentioned FrogReaver in post Double Monster Damage - Half Monster HP
    Which is why I like Double Monster Damage, without the Half Hit Points, because it means: 1) Fighting "monsters" becomes significantly different than fighting people Would it? Perhaps a clarification from FrogReaver might help: by "monsters" do you mean any opponent the PCs are fighting (even including other PCs if it comes to that) or are you thinking only of monsters as in non-human-ish creatures? EDIT: And there it is a few posts above, posted while I typed this. :) 2) Players are forced to choose: use tactics or flee 3) The DM has to work a little harder to make the combat interesting, so it doesn't boil down to "ha, my numbers are bigger than your numbers."Anything that encourages these developments is always good. :)

Wednesday, 24th January, 2018

  • 10:46 AM - Morrus mentioned FrogReaver in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    How about you go somewhere else? Completely inappropriate. You're not 5. Don't post in this thread again, please. (Both FrogReaver and Elfcrusher, who are discussing general US politics rather than a tweet about D&D, please leave the thread.)
  • 07:21 AM - Enevhar Aldarion mentioned FrogReaver in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    So I guess Elfcrusher and FrogReaver really want to get this thread closed with arguments about racism.....can you guys get back on topic or take it to another website?

Sunday, 21st January, 2018

  • 10:21 PM - Nevvur mentioned FrogReaver in post Are powergamers a problem and do you allow them to play in your games?
    @FrogReaver You can also engage in those tactics with feats and multiclassing enabled, and I believe the disruption caused by combining them is greater than dealing solely with the tactical choices you describe. Yes, a standard rogue can kite, but one with CE and SS is going to be more effective (or disruptive) when doing so, for example. A determined powergamer will find a way to play the game the way powergamers be playin', and if that means engaging in the tactics you describe, I'm fine with that. We differ in our opinions about what's harder to manage as a DM. As I see it, most combats are about HP attrition, so I view very high DPR feat/multiclass builds as more problematic. Kiting doesn't come up enough in actual play for me to stress over, and I've been DMing long enough to expect spellcasters to make the battlefield weird with magic. Not much to do about paladins saving their smites unless the DM feels like house ruling class features, which I largely avoid. Still, I'd rather have a no f...

Wednesday, 13th December, 2017

  • 06:22 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned FrogReaver in post Xanathar's Healing Spirit is 10d6 healing to the whole party out of combat?
    ...ise can sometimes make it so that only a roll of 1 can fail on some checks, it might as well just say ďyou automatically succeed on all checks with this skill. Clearly, therefor, expertise is broken.Ē * (note that I said ďfewer/noĒ, recognizing that the dice make it uncertain how much healing the party will get, and the vagaries of combat make it uncertain if that amount of healing will be enough) Because there is a significant difference between ďhas a chance toĒ and ďdoes, automatically and without chance for failure to do soĒ. However, a spell that did guarantee full health, with a casting time that precluded its use in combat, wouldnít be a huge deal, as long as itís at least 2nd level. If it has a combat useful function, it would depend on that to determine what level it should be. Healing Spirit, at worst, could be said to be too powerful for 2nd level. Iíd consider moving it to 3rd level, at the highest. It saves the group some HD. That isnít a big deal. edit: also, as FrogReaver points out, it would have to scale with up-casting, in order to be even kind of vaguely analogous.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...

Thursday, 15th November, 2018

  • 06:32 PM - Zardnaar quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    Your not really talking about ranged vs melee you are talking about crossbow expertise and sharpshooter being much to strong. Leave those out. They donít have any real place in a melee vs ranged discussion unless you are trying to point out that some extreme builds are so much better than others that the generalization changes when you start talking about them. Its what it generally comes down to. Without feats the styles are a lot loser in effectiveness and whats better will vary by the situation. With feats ranged is always better if you focus on it enough with the exception of magic weapon drops.
  • 05:45 PM - Li Shenron quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    So let's have a discussion about the dodge action. How useful do you think it is? Do you think most players undervalue it? I do. The dodge action typically causes one of 2 outcomes. It can greatly reduces the damage the dodging PC takes from attacks. It can cause damage to be spread out to other party members. Why can these be better outcomes as opposed to just trying to kill enemies faster? Let's first talk about the notion of team success. I consider team success to be when no party member dies. If someone died the team ultimately failed even though the game goes on. So with the mindset of team success it's fine for the team to take a bit more total damage as long as that damage is distributed more evenly over the whole team. More evenly distributed damage on the PC team tends to lead to fewer deaths even when higher amounts of total damage are dealt with. Assuming dodge's worst case is spreading damage around while also causing the party to take more damage as opposed to p...
  • 12:00 PM - smbakeresq quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    Really check the timestamps. You can clearly see I started this thread before your request on the thread I started about melee vs ranged and that I have mentioned this fact both there and on the thread you started about dodging today. I guess it will take you another 24 hours before you notice them. Once you finally take the time to get up to speed you can come back and apologize. Donít have to check the time stamps. I said I didnít see it. I was in court, then in court, then in court again, then on a break took a quick look, typed my thread on word on the phone while waiting in a Nursing Home, then posted it, then saw my client in a nursing home, discussed with his doctor his hospice arrangements, then went back to the office to tell his family of his situation then had to run to court before I went to happy hour, typing on my phone. So no I wonít apologize to you. I acknowledged that I didnít see it and said so. My business and clients and their dying relatives (I am an attorney) tak...
  • 11:33 AM - clearstream quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    So please try to understand that my claim relies on a catch 22. The enemies get to make the decision but that decision always results in melee characters either causing the damage to be spread around more or dealing significantly more damage than ranged PC's because the OA's the enemy team starts taking to try and focus fire. It seems like you are saying that melee party members will either be able to spread damage taken or deal significantly more damage than their ranged comrades because those will be provoking OAs and somehow stop them focus-firing. Is that right? To paraphrase Yoda, there is no "try and focus fire": there is only "focus fire". Taking OAs might end up with the ranged character out of the fight, but it won't have any impact on their target selection. I think a ranged character normally should be prepared to take an OA in order to return their full round of fire. The bigger problem for ranged is being dog-piled when several melee foes get close enough. This depends greatl...
  • 09:00 AM - Rya.Reisender quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    In my opening post I talked about the worst case with dodge where the enemies donít target the dodging pc. The conclusion was that dodge can still be better in such situations so that damage is spread around on the team more evenly even though a greater amount of total damage will be taken by the team. While it might be true that Dodge is still useful, this is also about motivating players to use it, which is stronger if they can actually directly see how useful it is. In fact, my whole point was that the way you DM determines strongly how your players play.
  • 03:01 AM - TaranTheWanderer quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    There's not a lot of difference between ignoring and refusing to comment on the primary point I've been going on about since I've started this thread... But you finally id comment on it so I'll forgive and drop the issue. Most importantly and most amazingly, you found my point to be valid and correct after you finally took the time to consider and comment on it. Way to go TaranTheWanderer So dodge is useful because it can spread damage out. Dodge is also useful as it can prevent a heck of a lot of damage. So ultimately no matter what the enemy does when you dodge there is a useful outcome! The only remaining thing to discuss is comparing a party member dodging to a party member attacking and how that effects team success. What's your opinion there? I was neither refusing nor ignoring your points. And it's probably not that amazing that I agreed with you...I wasn't ever disagreeing with you. In any case, I got side-tracked trying to explain my own point(s) and there's been lot...
  • 03:01 AM - James Grover quoted FrogReaver in post Fighting Styles vs Feats, which is better?
    Maybe he doesn't allow multiclassing? Yeah, I am seriously considering not allowing it. Looking at the way it has worked since 3E and how often I have seen people dip for min/maxing reasons, I am not fond of just letting people do it. I have already voiced to my players that if they plan to multiclass, I have to see it in role-playing before I'll let them just take a level. For instance, if a Fighter wanted to take a level of Monk, he had better start being friendly/ learning stuff from the Monk before he levels up.

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 05:54 PM - TaranTheWanderer quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    Monsters donít have to know what a spell does to want to avoid the heavily armored guy that can cast spells Correct. That is using 'in-character' knowledge to make tactical choices. Which is fine. Some enemies might not make that same assumptions. And Heavily armored guys who cast spells are not he only people who can do the dodge action, though. That said, being all 'dodgey' is probably pretty obvious and if your DM is always going to avoid the dodging PC then it's the best tactic to avoid getting hit, but not your best tactic as a tank. So then it comes down to how well your players can read their DM.
  • 02:49 PM - Blue quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    I think most of us here have jumped aboard to ranged is superior to melee in 5e bandwagon and for good reason. Good ranged characters typically have: #1 Higher Initiative #2 Better ability to focus fire on enemies #3 Nearly the same damage output as melee builds #4 Ability to kite enemies / kill them before they get into their effective ranges #5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range. #6 Better fighting style for applying damage. #7 Similar/better feats then melee (depending on weapon choice) #8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks. #1 More melee characters better spreads damage around. Spreading damage around saves lives. This is accomplished both by proximity and the threat of opportunity attacks. #2 Opportunity attacks can cause significantly more damage if enemies choose to take them. #3 Typically higher AC or other damage reduction abilities so even if they are being attacked they tend to last longer than their ranged brethren #4 Slightly...
  • 09:53 AM - clearstream quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    So let's have a discussion about the dodge action. How useful do you think it is? Do you think most players undervalue it? I do. The dodge action typically causes one of 2 outcomes. It can greatly reduces the damage the dodging PC takes from attacks. It can cause damage to be spread out to other party members. Why can these be better outcomes as opposed to just trying to kill enemies faster? Let's first talk about the notion of team success. I consider team success to be when no party member dies. If someone died the team ultimately failed even though the game goes on. So with the mindset of team success it's fine for the team to take a bit more total damage as long as that damage is distributed more evenly over the whole team. More evenly distributed damage on the PC team tends to lead to fewer deaths even when higher amounts of total damage are dealt with. Assuming dodge's worst case is spreading damage around while also causing the party to take more damage as opposed to p...
  • 06:25 AM - Seramus quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    #2 I am advocating that dodging more often than is currently done is a more effective strategy than is commonly believed.My group uses dodge frequently. Usually when they lure the monsters back to a choke point and the tank can block a doorway or narrow passage, or station themselves over difficult terrain combined with forced movement to make melee enemies attack the tank or waste their turns trudging through the terrain. The only downside to their heavy use of tactics is often letting runners escape.
  • 03:41 AM - Saelorn quoted FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    I can't think of a party composition it's not going to be useful for.Based on what I've heard around these boards, I can't imagine that spreading the damage around would be something that you want to incentivize, if you have a lot of Healing Words available and only rarely have short rests in which to spend your hit dice. If you can't take advantage of free healing from hit dice, then you might still want the enemies to attack a tank that's low on HP, because higher AC and overflow negation will reduce the amount of healing magic required in the long run. The same would be true if you're using a combination of healing variants which reduce the rate of natural healing, such as to mimic the effects of earlier editions.
  • 03:19 AM - smbakeresq quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    IThen your in no place to say how useful it actually is. You have nearly no experience with it and there's no evidence that you have even attempted to analyze it in respect to a party success as opposed to individual contributions. BTW I think you have done zero analysis either, just some personal experiences. You also have not kept statistics or done anything on how it relates to party success either, you just want to argue since you left feels is hurt. So like I said start a thread on dodge usefulness and greatness and how much it contributes to party success to voluntarily do nothing on your turn except move. Include a section on how it balances out to do nothing except raise your personal AC against other actions that help win fights through damaging the enemy or incapacitating them or supporting the party through spells or prones or pushes, things like that. Since this about the dodge action, not dodge for free or as a bonus action you can leave those out.

Tuesday, 13th November, 2018

  • 10:17 PM - clearstream quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    The only defensive option a melee vs ranged really has over the other is a shield. While a great defensive boost (if being used) itís not like it makes them that much more survivable than a ranged character. Shield + Defense style perhaps, +3 AC. Or Rage for Resistance. The party might want damage to fall on the Barbarian (if there is one) as healing put into them is doubled. An option for ranged characters is to carry a shield and one-handed weapon, ready to step in if needed. Mechanically, they could even stow their bow at the end of each of their turns, ready to make the switch.
  • 10:17 PM - smbakeresq quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    You crazy. I use dodge all the time. Itís absolutely amazing What really stops attacks is killing or completely incapacitating the enemy. Anything that doesn't involve that increases potential damage to you. The thread is about melee vs range and mostly about martial pcs, their actions are better spent making all their attacks on the enemy to get their damage across. You are a melee PC (definition of the thread) so you need to get what you do (damage in most cases) over as fast as possible. Its more efficient to trade HP (a resource that is easily replenished) then use an action to possibly avoid being hit. Dodge would only have use for a martial melee PC if it would be assured to lead to more damage the next round then this round and the next round combined otherwise its the same damage just a round later. To me its only of use to avoid a certain death, then it has value if you would be down and then not revived the next round to act again. There are few situations that it woul...
  • 06:47 PM - Elfcrusher quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    You might be surprised how much more effective the party is if your ranged characters play about 30-60ft away from the melee ones as opposed to much further and flat out running away when enemies chase them. Itís not ranged itself that is the problem but the play style most adopt when using ranged. Do that and the party will be more effective and you will have your interesting decision points. Itís a win win. stop playing ranged for self preservation and start playing it in a way to enhance team survivability. (Thatís not done by standing back firing while allies take all the hits) No, that's wrong. That's like saying that the casters should get in there and hit things with their staves in order to distribute damage. The best way to enhance team survivability is to stand back and kill the thing as quickly as possible. Dead enemies don't do damage (usually...) Our tanks have more health, higher AC, and all kinds of damage mitigating abilities. How on earth would putting the squi...

Monday, 12th November, 2018

  • 12:04 PM - clearstream quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    All in all I think these factors should cause us to reevaluate ranged superiority over melee superiority. Thoughts? Opinions? Relating to this question, I've been pondering Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. I believe it is highly justified to make Sharpshooter apply to heavy ranged weapons, just as Great Weapon Master applies to heavy melee weapons. Were that so, it can't stack with the Hand Crossbow bonus attack: forestalling the most egregious use. A residual question in my mind is if "Once-per-turn" is justified for Sharpshooter? Especially given a desire to avoid unnecessary change. Here are two tables - 103052 This shows the expected (average) and maximum (average) damage given one round in isolation, where everything triggers (GWM cleaves, Warlock hexes, etc). Expected is multiplied only by the expected accuracy at that tier. Maximum assumes 100% of attacks hit and crit. 103053 This one shows a potentially more plausible scenario over a five round combat, where GWM cleaves some of th...

Friday, 9th November, 2018

  • 06:25 PM - Elfcrusher quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    So it sounds like your main concern in the argument isn't the damage of ranged, its the true "range" of ranged. For example in 3e many ranged benefits fell away at 30 feet (Sneak Attack, Point Blank Shot). On the other hand, 5e imposes greater penalty for "moderate ranges". For 3e with your composite bow you suffered a -2 to attack rolls from ranges 110 - 215. In 5e, starting at 150 you suffer disadvantage, which is a bigger penalty in most cases. Now 5e starts to win out more at lower ranges, but I find those ranges just don't occur the vast majority of the time. I skipped 3e and 4e, so comparisons to those games don't mean much to me. Nor do I really care...I'm focusing on what it feels like to play this game. And my beef is more than just the "range of ranged", it's "damage with no downside". Just as one example, your melee may have to spend a round taking the Dodge action. Or a million other things that might reduce their damage. The archer...just stands there and cranks out max dam...
  • 01:42 PM - clearstream quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    melee either has better defense or does more damage or both when compared with ranged. Melee has that advantage as well as the advantage where damage is more likely to be spread over more party members than concentrated on fewer. ...typically melee characters do more damage and have more defense than ranged ones. We might be in greater agreement than appears on the surface. Here you point out that melee has better defense or (ignoring CEx/SS silliness) does more damage, or both. A direct comparison could be a Defense style, sword-and-board Battlemaster, with an Archery style, longbow Battlemaster. Sword-and-board will have +3 AC over the archer, all else being equal. Their damage is approximately the same, ignoring feats. Same number of attacks, same 1d8 die for the weapon. This would seem to assert that +3 AC = 150' range. It is clear then that damage + range is worth more than damage alone. As well as +3 AC, the melee doesn't suffer disadvantage when in close. So the ranged damage, co...
  • 07:03 AM - ClaytonCross quoted FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    But ranged is only individually better. It isn't better for the group. It leads to fewer melee characters getting damage spread out between them which makes each melee character more likely to die. So with the topic of "Is Ranged really better than Melee?" - You agree that a solo ranged character is better than a solo melee character do to melee limitations - You agree that a Ranged only group is better than an Melee only group do to tactical advantages for ambush, spreading forces to make them harder to attack, action economy of being able to attack from the start of combat, and dealing with flying enemies. I will also agree that no one really makes groups of all melee or all ranged as a plan. Sure someone could and in that case ranged would be better but I have never seen it. Your only argument is party composition is better with more melee is better because they spread damage to increase survivability. I believe this CAN be true but is not always. For example, I am playing in 2...


FrogReaver's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites