View Profile: TwoSix - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:50 PM
    Honestly, I don't think the 5e designers were up to the task. Everytime I hear them talk about 4e I'm amazed by how little they get the appeal of 4e.
    55 replies | 1038 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:39 PM
    I see. So TTRPG systems and play are not objective things and cannot be analyzed empirically and anyone that attempts to do so is a big jerk? Is that pretty much the gist? Following from that, youíve just wasted my (and others) time with a rhetorical request to evaluate 5e that you obviously had no interest in engaging with. Feels bad. Please donít make such requests, get sincere...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:52 PM
    * The ďLight ClockĒ in Torchbearer and how all of the other game mechanics are integrated perfectly with it and how, working in concert, they bring home the intended play experience (cognitive space inhabited, mood, theme, pace). * Same thing goes for Blades in the Dark with its holistic integration of all of its system machinery which engenders bold, devil-may-care scoundrels, each uniquely...
    44 replies | 1560 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:10 PM
    I donít know what the point of this response was. It doesnít engage with anything Iíve said. You wonít me to...say that I donít know what Iím talking about? Huh? Further, itís a claim about me that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. What claim from ignorance do you think that Iím making that isnít backed by evidence and wonít stand up under scrutiny? If youíre looking for an example...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:00 AM
    I'm afraid this will sound like damning with faint praise, but it is the result of an honest evaluation that comes from running and playing 5e. Much like Fate, I consider 5e to be a really well designed game that excels at a style of play I have very little interest in. 5e excels at GM led and mediated storytelling where the emphasis is on resolving the adventure that is put in front of the PCs...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 08:03 PM
    Which is why I regularly encourage people to play more and different types of games. And I also regularly recommend people (at least in my life) be willing to have the self-awareness and humility to say ďI donít know.Ē I donít understand this modern phenomena of being unwilling to simply recognize that you donít know what you donít know. There are lots of things I donít know...even in the...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 10:35 PM
    If you've never been a grappler, it will be a little bit difficult to attempt to convey things conceptually, but Chess (which I suspect you've played or at least had exposure to) should suffice. Look at grappling (Brazillian Jiu-jitsu in particular) as a series of decision-trees where your opponent is imposing ever-progressing catch-22s upon you as they control you (takedown > deployment of a...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 09:13 PM
    Forbidden Rules is the supplement that has the most variant rules in it...might be something in there.
    7 replies | 292 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 04:15 PM
    So not a fan of Dark Souls, I take it? :)
    38 replies | 1442 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 04:00 PM
    My posts on this subject over the years (and in this thread) involve pretty intensive analysis on why resolution procedure/GMing technique/reward cycle/play ethos/PC build setup (a) objectively provides a different experience than(b) in many different areas (from table handling time to distribution of authority to intraparty balance to party: obstacle balance to cognitive workload and on and on)....
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 03:15 PM
    U Weíre complicated animals who live complicated lives. And these games, all of them, are complicated, relatively speaking. Nothing is ever one thing. But I think the line of evidence that I love running something like Dogs, something like 4e, while having many times more experience (and just as much enjoyment) with Moldvay Basic and AD&D1e is a pretty strong one.
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:03 PM
    Iím not Campbell, but Iíll throw some words at this from GMing perspective. Its definitely true that most people almost surely enjoy the experience of games they like, and through their affinity they develop or have a natural aptitude for better play. Humans have pretty extreme neurological diversity, so I would say that itís trivially true that cognitive predispositions and mental...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 05:23 AM
    I agree. The GM's primary role in TTRPGing (outside of a few instances) is (a) to know what adversity is relevant to this particular play and (b) bring that adversity to bear against the PCs in the imagined space in the most interesting/compelling/challenging/provocative (and these will be contingent upon the game) way possible. Above I mentioned a Dogs play excerpt. The adversity I...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 04:13 AM
    FrogReaver I think you are starting from a faulty premise. You are assuming that game mechanics cannot meaningfully contribute to play despite having no direct experience of games where the rules are meant to supplement role play. We play these games because we value what they have to say about human nature and how people interact with each other. They help us form mental models of who our...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 03:57 AM
    In some game no one gets to decide if a mechanic is invoked or not. In Apocalypse World if a character attempts to do something in the fiction that triggers a move the mechanics must be applied. One of the things a GM must always say is Always Say What the Rules Demand.
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 11:59 PM
    Jim McGarva has a perfect catch-phrase for this sprinkled throughout the Strike (!) rulebook, which is basically a riposte to all of the stuff we heard about with genre-incoherent drift in 4e: "DON'T DEMAND NONSENSE!" One such quip is on fictional positioning and permissible action declarations: If I'm running Dogs and the player thinks someone is under the thrall of demonic...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    3 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:19 PM
    TwoSix replied to Double Dash
    If you move at 90 feet per round, precisely how long does it take to get to Flavor Town?
    117 replies | 3102 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:40 PM
    TwoSix replied to Double Dash
    If there's anything more fun than casting Haste on a Monk so they can triple-Dash at double speed, I don't know what it is.
    117 replies | 3102 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:27 AM
    Can you explain more what you mean about not being sure about incentives? Not sure about incentives interfacing with the decision-tree in a moment of thematic choice? Incentives that push back against the impetus to establish a win condition for a scene/arc or create extra obstacles to that win condition in exchange for advancement? Something else? Paragraph 1 Response: That makes...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:59 AM
    I would hope this would be obvious, but a system which in no way constrains GM narration is offering nothing of value. It says nothing. Provides nothing. It has no teeth. If a die roll does not constrain GM narration what is the point except empty ritual?
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:55 AM
    I personally do not really care. I am not really interested in testing characters. I'm more interested in character exploration. Sometimes that means putting them through the crucible, but sometimes it does not. My own litmus test is if a scene will tell us something meaningful about a character. What's required is for everyone (GM included) to play with integrity and not put their creative...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 05:45 PM
    It would make them stronger; I don't know if it would make them too strong. Although I'm coming from the standpoint that I don't consider the PHB baseline to be super balanced anyway.
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:24 PM
    I have no problem believing that lexical purity is important to long-lived elder races in a fantasy world where words in ancient languages are one of the keys to eldritch power. I have a lot more trouble with the idea that all orcs or all gnolls speak the same language. I would assume that most of those humanoid languages, much like Common, are pidgins with a lot of borrowed words from local...
    33 replies | 1041 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 12:10 AM
    Both 4e and PF2 (or at least the playtest) have some class description, followed by a lot of rectangular boxes, and those boxes have small blocks of rules text organized by number. I think this is a laughably small issue that will become magnified because aesthetics matter. To my mind, the greatest sin of 4e was presentation; the books were well done as a reference but felt sterile, only...
    38 replies | 1442 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:30 AM
    So I've skimmed the recent bits of the thread. In a follow-up post, I'm going to relay a recent PC:PC social conflict in Strike (!) and invite folks to chime in on how they perceive this anecdote (a) contrasts with gameplay where social conflict isn't formalized and (b) there are neither mechanical feedbacks nor PC build components involved. But first, I want to post some text from Strike (!)...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:27 PM
    I would be more than willing to discuss the merits of Exalted 3e elsewhere. It is a fundamentally different game that I feel delivers on the promise of previous versions of the game. Here I would like to focus on social mechanics, their effects, and implications.
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 06:29 PM
    Let me start off by saying I do not like viewing game mechanics through the lens of necessity. No mechanics are actually necessary. Anything can be resolved through consensus. That's what the online freeformers do. However, sometimes consensus is like boring and stuff. I'm going to start with an example of a system that I consider to have the most impact on player agency of the games I like to...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:53 AM
    I have already spoken on how social mechanics can serve as an immersion tool to help players feel what their characters should be feeling in the moment. Another crucial function can be to deliberately welcome the wholly unwelcome. It introduces outcomes which no one at the table would deliberately choose, but are nonetheless compelling. Vincent Baker calls this the fundamental purpose of RPG...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:53 AM
    B/X D&D as a wonderfully tuned focused sandbox dungeon crawling game that provides clear guidance on how to play is one of the better designed role playing games ever made. It does what it does very well. It's character options are remarkably well balanced (better than any edition barring 4e). I say this as someone who did not have the joy of playing or running B/X until the 4e era. My opinions...
    75 replies | 2844 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:56 AM
    I'm going to say something I expect will be controversial here. If I am playing or running a game that is supposed to be more character focused I absolutely do make aesthetic judgments of other players and I expect the same in kind. We should all be invested in each others' characters - be fans of them. For that to happen players should play their characters as if they were real people with...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 11:28 PM
    I run two versions of D&D; 4e and Moldvay Basic. So the answer is while D&D 4e can scratch an itch similar to Mouse Guard, Cortex+ , Dungeon World, and Mouse Guard, it and Moldvay Basic can't reproduce Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Dread, Blades in the Dark, Torchbearer, My Life With Master, Sorcerer, and Star Wars like Strike (!) and Scum and Villainy. Because system matters.
    88 replies | 3151 view(s)
    4 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 03:59 PM
    Basically, what it says in the topic. If I had a house rule that said the following: "Every source of advantage gives you one advantage. Every source of disadvantage gives you one disadvantage. Advantages and disadvantages cancel. If you have any advantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every advantage and take the highest roll. If you have any disadvantages left over, roll an extra...
    37 replies | 932 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 03:46 PM
    I'm not sure if they're still ahead, but they definitely lose a decent amount of damage. The paladins loses 1d8+stat at 11, and the barbarian loses 3+stat, and the fighter loses 2xstat. Making GWM/SS and smites be less valuable is probably a good thing from a game design perspective, but it's still a solid nerf to martial attacks. You'd probably want to nerf cantrips, and especially...
    48 replies | 1767 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:56 PM
    Well, I started playing with 2E, so it would be tough for me to still be playing OD&D. :) But yes, any decision made on preferences like class is a valid argument. It might not be a compelling argument for most people, but it makes sense as an aesthetic preference.
    123 replies | 7433 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:50 PM
    My argument is simply that "what's core" shouldn't matter. "What's available" should be the metric used to make the decision. If your favorite classes aren't present in PF2 in 2019, and you don't want to switch because they aren't there, that's fine. If your favorite classes are available in an expansion book in 2020, and you still don't to switch because they didn't make those classes in...
    123 replies | 7433 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 11:48 PM
    I disagree that 5e is more flexible. I attribute most of its success in being wonderfully tuned to the predominant play pattern first established with Dragonlance and refined by 1990s games like Vampire, Shadowrun, Legend of the 5 Rings, etc. GM creates an elaborate plot for players to play through. Along the way they get to express their predefined awesomeness at controlled points, but never...
    88 replies | 3151 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 11:30 PM
    Although I fought the label at first I have found that I'm fairly immersion focused as a player. Mechanics that help me feel the pressure of social expectations, emotions, and weight of character beliefs only serve to aid in immersion. I'm not a huge fan of mechanics that dictate behavior, but ones that impact success and failure like strings in Monsterhearts or Conditions and Influence in Masks...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 07:12 PM
    Like Tony Vargas said, giving up damage to do X is basically a lost cause. (That's why Battle Master Manuevers are all "spend a die to do X AND add damage.) If you're looking at more broad systemic changes, something like allowing advantage and disadvantage to stack could be relevant in a battle maneuver system. Every time you gain an advantage or disadvantage, you gain +1 d20 to the roll....
    48 replies | 1767 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 06:19 PM
    Sure; you could certainly argue that all of the multiclass archetypes are already cross-class archetypes, so it should be easy to add more. They'd just be of the type "Replace Class Feat X with options from this different pool of Feats." But the fact that there are fixed class features means that alternate class features that are specific replacements of those fixed features will no doubt be...
    123 replies | 7433 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:23 PM
    Oh, sure, using that as an attack against the system as a whole is absolutely a crappy argument. (Just like "But it doesn't have druids or bards" was a crappy argument against 4e.) But "I don't find a lot of the features of the new system that compelling, especially when my current edition has a lot more options, so I'm not enthused to switch" is valid.
    123 replies | 7433 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:02 PM
    The boon/bane system is very clever. One subtlety I like is that there a quite a few features that let you add a bonus effect if you take a bane or multiple banes on the roll. Since the most valuable boon is always the first one (because it adds about 3.5 to the roll, whereas later boons only add 1 or less than 1), this lets you trade out excess boons to gain bonus effects.
    47 replies | 3296 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:46 PM
    I agree with that in principle, but it's a valid argument in terms of not wanting to make a switch in 2019, when one edition has the options already and one will only have them in the future. I mean, losing out on currently existing options is a pretty valid argument against making any almost any edition switch.
    123 replies | 7433 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:39 PM
    No. That was easy.
    224 replies | 5898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:42 PM
    Yea, in my own groups, counterspell is cast and hope for the best, we don't have spell ID rules. So hitting 4th and 5th level spells (a fairly broad swath of spells) is a noticeable boon. Sure. Having a reserve of spells to pull out when the situation demands it is obviously the single biggest benefit to playing a caster. But it's not like having a counterspell available is an either/or...
    42 replies | 1340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 06:06 PM
    Yea, the initial goal of the proficiency levels was to open up new abilities. A lot of feats and abilities were tied into having expert or master or legendary level of proficiency in a skill. But playtesters in general didn't respond well to increasing proficiency without noticeable increases in the die roll modifier.
    198 replies | 13064 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:09 PM
    I don't disagree with your overall point (PF is overall much better than 3.5), but it does have the same "Angel Summoner vs BXM biker" issues; the people who play Pathfinder simply ignore it or embrace it and play Angel Summoners. :)
    39 replies | 1540 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:55 PM
    The Paizo developers stated specifically early in the playtest that they want moderate to high level heroes to be able to take down hundreds of low-level enemies without being threatened; it was the particular flavor of high fantasy they wanted. You can certainly fault them for the design goal (it's not an aesthetic I particularly favor), but the decision to add +level to all proficient...
    198 replies | 13064 view(s)
    6 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:42 PM
    That's interesting, because to my mind, I'd rather have the warlock do it. Auto-upcast, the warlock doesn't have as many high-leverage spells as the sorc/wiz, and burning a short rest resource rather than a long. I mean, ideally, if you have a sorc/wiz and a warlock, I'd rather see both of them have it. But that might be because I've been hit by high level casters too many times. :)
    42 replies | 1340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:53 PM
    Yea, the warlock was a replacement character, so I already had a pretty good sense of what would synergize strongly. But I think we all know that optimizing to your specific party and DM is the first rule of practical optimization. Sure. I was preparing to drop it as soon as I got a magic weapon, it just never actually.... happened. (Thanks, DM!) Situational swapping of invocations and...
    42 replies | 1340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Depends on party composition, really. We had an open hand monk in the party, so prone and stunned enemies were extremely common. And it would be more common on boss fights, since the monk would burn 5 ki a round if necessary to get the stun to stick. Personally, I only took EA and GWM. PAM is a boost, of course, but I found triple advantage attacks, especially combined with hexblade...
    42 replies | 1340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 03:47 AM
    Scene framing isn't really part of play though. The play exists once a scene has been framed. Framing -> Play -> Framing -> Play. What's important is that player decisions are based on solid ground during the moment of play.
    198 replies | 13064 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 06:52 PM
    This is where these conversations get so unwieldy. I mean...how is this question even conceived? OF COURSE THEY DO. If the point of play is (a) competitive integrity and (b) autonomy and expression of agency in decision points (and it is in this case; Gamism)...well, in any_activity where these things are the apex play priority, the legitimacy of (a) and (b) utterly depends upon win/loss...
    198 replies | 13064 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 05:07 PM
    Feeling prophetic, might delete later....idk.
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 09:37 PM
    .. / - .... .. -. -.- / .. - / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. / .-- --- .-. -.- / ..-. .. -. .
    25 replies | 770 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 09:19 PM
    I don't know if I'd go that far. It's the only class that can leverage Elven Accuracy and GWM together, for example. Considering how ridiculously common gaining melee advantage is in most party compositions, it's a pretty strong combination. I'm probably biased because I played a half-elf hexblade for about a year, but it's been my favorite character so far mechanically. It's not the king...
    42 replies | 1340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 08:12 PM
    Looks fine to me. Rogue with 16 Dex and rapier = 4.5 + 3 + 3.5 = 11 damage before hit rate. Fighter with 16 Str/Dex and longsword/rapier = 4.5 + 3 + 2 = 9.5 damage before hit rate.
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 01:40 AM
    Only very, very tacitly following this thread, but this caught my eye in a "what in the world...?" sort of way. I think this may in fact be a source of dissonance that you and I have in some of these conversations, particularly where it pertains to The Forge and, more specifically, "system matters." The most fundamental core mechanic of VtM and White Wolf games is "The Golden Rule" or...
    198 replies | 13064 view(s)
    4 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 09:41 PM
    I would to, but he only mentioned it in a tweet when he was discussing his own house rules for two-weapon fighting a year or two ago. Edit: Found the tweet. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1014222138268573696?s=12
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 08:06 PM
    Ask and ye shall receive. https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L7MxaZV26WwHwzaP-eD
    60 replies | 2003 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 07:34 PM
    Neophilia is a thing. :) If given a choice between an older option and a new option, I'll usually go for the new. Plus, barbarian is one of those options that can so obviously be consolidated under fighter that it's harder to justify in a list of "only 6 classes".
    60 replies | 2003 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 07:17 PM
    Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Mystic, Warlock, Wizard. Wizard is magic driven by knowledge and esoteric techniques. Subsumes artificer and bard. Warlock is magic provided and controlled by pacts with supernatural entities. Subsumes clerics and shaman types. Mystic is internal, often psychic magic. Subsumes monk and sorcerer. Fighter subsumes barbarian. Rogue subsumes ranger. Warlord...
    60 replies | 2003 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 02:46 PM
    Throwing the 13 into Cha would also allow for a 2 level dip in paladin for some casters that don't normally have access to it, like druid or wizard. Not saying it's optimal, because it isn't, but those kind of stats open up options that you wouldn't normally consider in a point-buy game.
    15 replies | 686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 01:49 PM
    Well, for Strength users, at least. There are no light, finesse simple weapons in core, so a Dex dual-wielder would be limited to 2d4. That being said, that's one of the reasons I've never liked the "add the weapon's damage" together approach. It also doesn't give the feel of making more attacks (an important aspect to retain, per Mearls discussing survey responses), and it interacts oddly...
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 03:55 AM
    Good post. I think one of the big problems we have in this sort of discussion relates to your first paragraph. There is a common refrain shared by a lot of TTRPG players that people (in this case their PCs) possess a level of cognitive continuity and coherency, or a lack of disunity among the various mental states and hardware that we all inhabit/deploy simultaneously, the sum of which...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    5 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 02:27 AM
    Yea, that 13 in your quaternary stat really opens up a lot of interesting dip options. If you're leaning caster, I'd definitely lean towards a cleric 1/wizard X. VHuman, grab Resilient(Con) and start with 18 Int, 18 Con, and 16 in Str or Dex, depending on what domain you grab.
    15 replies | 686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 01:42 AM
    Wouldn't having multiple enemies in your face make shield better, not worse? You're getting +5 AC to a whole bunch of attacks, then, not just one.
    21 replies | 856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 10:58 PM
    I'd play that subclass. Has a solid hook.
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 09:07 PM
    I'm still going with the fix I suggested in the other thread. No bonus action cost. If you use a weapon in each hand, if an attack with main hand misses, you can make a followup attack with the off hand weapon. Off hand weapon attack doesn't get mod to damage (except with fighting style). Raises overall damage by increasing accuracy instead of the damage value. No extra hits gained, so...
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 11:59 AM
    Any game that encourages the GM (myself) to covertly or overtly subordinate player decision-points or action resolution mechanics (and through it the integrity of player decision points) to their personal conception of what play trajectory should look like. So much of late 80s through mid 90s TTRPG design. Iíve run many of these games or sat in on them, so itís probably too late for that.
    111 replies | 8385 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:16 AM
    Every time I think I'm out...
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 11:01 PM
    TwoSix replied to BECMI for 5e?
    Yea, but then you get the obvious demands for multiclassing, which I think is still illegal in some states.
    35 replies | 1657 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 07:39 PM
    <Raises hand> It's a corny bit of flavor with no real balance impact, and it makes multiclassing with a druid way more complicated than it has to be. I ignore it in my own games, and it should go the way of the "ex-paladin" rules from 3e.
    641 replies | 18251 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:58 PM
    Yea, I agree, assigning the method to individual systems isn't really correct. Except for a few modern games, most game designers probably haven't even considered the question. I don't even think it's uniquely the GM's purview as to what method is used (although they hold considerable sway, and will end up as the final arbiter if they decide to be). Even as a player, you have the opportunity...
    724 replies | 20284 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:34 PM
    It's a class type in Final Fantasy. Instead of having a normal spell progression, it learns spells by being the target of those spells.
    6 replies | 383 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:20 AM
    Heh. The entire time I was playing FFXIII, I kept thinking those party roles would be better for 4e than the actual 4e roles.
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:13 AM
    Yea, that makes it a lot easier...anything resembling a "Blue Mage" type caster is pretty much impossible to do. I could see it having features like maintaining concentration for the caster that targets them with spells, or maybe giving out metamagic style buffs to cast spells. Almost like a magical warlord.
    6 replies | 383 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 09:28 PM
    I think it's pretty clear. You think having absolute agency over your character's mental state is an important organizing principle of RPGs. It isn't. You have agency to narrate reactions as to how your character might react to externally imposed mental states, but not absolute agency as to refuse to accept them. I know you don't agree with this, but let's be clear: That's your hangup. ...
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 02:18 PM
    And I think of it as "My ability to play a warlord in no way inhibits your ability to play a grump who doesn't find people inspiring." Just like if you're a paladin who doesn't want a necromancer to cast buffs on you, because they're dark magic or something.
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 11:32 PM
    That's a tough class to design, as you'd have to make rulings for how every spell interacts with your character. Or are you simply creating a menu of abilities based on common spells? Do you actually need to be exposed to spells to gain your abilities?
    6 replies | 383 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 11:27 PM
    Sure. I don't have an issue with people who choose to create complications in the service of story; I have an issue with players who feel their character concept is going to force conflicts they don't want to have, but for some reason can't simply change their concept to fit. Hey, if you want to play a character who doesn't accept heals or buffs because there's something about the other...
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 10:27 PM
    Yep. I've had characters leave the party because they've had a difference of opinion. Not a big deal. I seem to remember a lot of discussion around "is it bad roleplaying if I let god of cleric A heal me when I worship god B" back in the day. "I don't want to be inspired by a smart or charismatic character" feels like the same kind of tryharding.
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 10:08 PM
    2E, 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.
    67 replies | 2049 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:46 PM
    Maybe this isn't what you intend, but "I don't like being told what my character thinks" comes across as "I'm not going to accommodate your concept by being flexible with my character concept." As I said, that doesn't fly in my games. If you want to play the ranger that hates orcs in a party with a half-orc, we work out how we want to approach it before play starts. Maybe they want the tension...
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 04:25 AM
    What do we call it when the GM subordinates the players' decision-points and/or the resolution mechanics' attendant outcomes to said GM's preconceived metaplot? And that's fine. But call it what it is. In fact, if you and your players are looking for that play experience, then being honest about what it is, openly analyzing the machinery of it, and getting better at deploying it should be a...
    59 replies | 2605 view(s)
    3 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 09:22 PM
    I'll be perfectly honest, building your characters on some sort of island with no reference to other players isn't some kind of estimable position to hold. My players can and have altered their conception of and overall play of their characters to complement other PC's, both in session zero and during the campaign. Our game is all the better for it. Any one character's overall presence and...
    286 replies | 10918 view(s)
    4 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:39 PM
    I love the smell of committee design in the morning.
    352 replies | 12557 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:41 AM
    I'm trying to remember when we've had a consensus here about anything.
    232 replies | 10033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:41 PM
    It does, yes.
    101 replies | 3137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:59 PM
    I support several 5e patreons, but they're all oriented around providing hard mechanical crunch. New classes, new subclasses, new races, new feats, new spells.
    27 replies | 1048 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:00 PM
    It really depends on what tier you're intending to play to. If the game is primarily going to be Tier 1-2, than buffing up your melee attack makes sense. If your primary focus of play is Tier 2-3 or higher, than it probably isn't worth it to spend the feats or multiclass dips just to give yourself a better at-will option. A few other ways you can buff up the cleric at low levels: 1) Hill...
    101 replies | 3137 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About TwoSix

Basic Information

Age
40
About TwoSix
Introduction:
DM or player
About Me:
Experienced gamer looking for any roleplaying game, up for playing or DMing in the Central NJ area.
Location:
Lawrenceville, NJ
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Lawrenceville
State:
New Jersey
Country:
USA
Game Details:
Player or DM looking for anyone interested in any roleplaying game. Love to try new systems.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
6,327
Posts Per Day
0.99
Last Post
Experiences running Shadow of the Demon Lord? Thursday, 18th July, 2019 09:13 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:34 AM
Join Date
Friday, 18th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

4 Friends

  1. Campbell Campbell is offline

    Member

    Campbell
  2. clearstream clearstream is offline

    Member

    clearstream
  3. Manbearcat Manbearcat is online now

    Member

    Manbearcat
  4. Nytmare Nytmare is offline

    Member

    Nytmare
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
My Game Details
Town:
Lawrenceville
State:
New Jersey
Country:
USA
Game Details:
Player or DM looking for anyone interested in any roleplaying game. Love to try new systems.
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Wednesday, 17th July, 2019



Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 01:18 AM - FrogReaver mentioned TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Yeah that. Also, if you look at later designs, The Warlock's Eldritch Smite from Xanathar's, are limited to once per round. Since Eldritch Smite grants the prone effect, I may want to buff my nerfed Holy Smite. You go for it. I like TwoSix implementation better. You don't have to change a blazillion other rules to get it to work.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 05:23 PM - lowkey13 mentioned TwoSix in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    Speaking of clerics and warlocks, I do miss the old days when role playing had an effect on your character. Meaning, if clerics didnít follow the guidelines set by their god, they wouldnít have spells granted. Similar to how if paladins and rangers strayed, they lost their abilities. Since then, the game feels like the role playing fluff is completely divested from the class, where each class is now just a box of stats and the role that class is inspired by doesnít matter; where role playing doesnít matter if you donít want. Bingo. That's what I meant when I wrote the following- So I would make that a more general comment- I want a more tight integration of fluff and mechanics. To make it explicit. A lot of players have the TwoSix philosophy (that D&D is just a bunch of mechanics that you mix and match to make your own concepts). Which is a fine way to play- but I prefer to have a tight integration of fluff and crunch; the RPing and the mechanics should feed on each other, not be divorced from one another. But my view, looking at 5e, is clearly not the prevalent one.

Sunday, 9th June, 2019

  • 01:46 AM - 5ekyu mentioned TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    TwoSix ""To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter." Another point for Mr, my ideal "fix" would be to not drive for identical or close enough to not matter outputs gor radically different choices. Instead my preference would be for radically different choices to produce radically different outcomes. Outside of white rooms now, there are significant differences in builds based around TWF and gwf for instance. The consolidation under dex is likely one of the bigger ones when rsnge gets into play too. But, for me, as z for instance of how my mind eorld, instead of trying to find ways for dagger-dagger to duplicate the hard hitting but lower odds of a hit outputs for maulers, I would rather see them get options yo evdn furb increase the better chances of getting hits. So maybe you get an option for that off- hand dagger bonus action to give you advantage on your stac...
  • 12:16 AM - 5ekyu mentioned TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    TwoSix "To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter." I would from a design perspective take issue with the champion fighter bring described as a neutral use case for an all classes feature. Fighter is the one class that effectively scales its tier-3 and tier-4 damage by means of direct extra attacks. Fighter is the one class that represents several of its level gains in feats - and success to certain feats often features in these moarDPR discussions. Fighter is also one of a minority few that get fighting styles. Fighter is also at least arguably a class built around sustained "non-nova" output so, some of the "one more swing" potential is muffled by that as well. Those make using the fighter as the baseline for balancing changes to the two-weapon-fighting feature *not* at all by a long shot a neutral choice. Seems to me that unless these "fixes" only apply to ext...

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 01:41 PM - Elfcrusher mentioned TwoSix in post Should I play 4e?
    Yes, we did. Maybe it's because I never played casters but I honestly can't remember; however I think I agree with @TwoSix who said that back then it was all exciting.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019

  • 08:03 PM - Cadmius Clairmonte mentioned TwoSix in post The highest sustained DPR build I could make
    @TwoSix I went to look for sage advice wording on twinning eldritch blast, and on twitter Crawford says that if a spell is able to target more than one creature with its casting, then it is not eligible for being twinned. By definition, eldritch blast can target more than one creature when you hit level 5, since you can use one missile on two different creatures. Because of this, you can't twin eldritch blast when you hit level 5. You can of course still quicken it though.
  • 03:12 PM - Mistwell mentioned TwoSix in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    ...e restrictive than Extra Attack, but since you can Infuse a magic weapon for yourself if you need it and it counts as Extra Attack for multiclassing purposes, Iíd call the current Artificer a martial by this definition. I donít see any reason spellcasting via subclass needs to be 1/3 progression. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and give them half-casting via their subclasses. As long as thereís one that gets something else, like extra Infused Items, or a more powerful pet, or bonus ASIs like the Fighter and Rogue get. Anything, really, as long as thereís an avenue for playing a non-casting Artificer. Of course, I know it wonít happen. They didnít give us an option for non-casting rangers, theyíre not going to do it for Artificers. But as long as this thing is still in play testing, Iím going to keep giving the feedback that I and others want a non-spellcasting option for the class. Weird. The quote has my name. But I didn't write what you're responding to? Maybe it was TwoSix ?
  • 03:11 PM - UngeheuerLich mentioned TwoSix in post The highest sustained DPR build I could make
    ... make really sure they've checked their work. It would usually take Fighter 11 to pull that off. The other problems with your build is that your stats are invalid, assuming point buy, and that you can't take a warlock multiclass with a 10 Cha. Granted, you can certainly get a 20 Dex by level 12, but you're wasting one of the best features of Hexblade by doing so, and your AC and spell attacks suffer by the stat split. I don't want to dissuade you from building cool characters, and the concept is certainly an effective and fun one. But stuff like "best sustained DPR build" or "best nova DPR" are pretty much already solved problems, and the threshold to find something competitive with those builds is very high. I think it would have helped if you adressed the OP after my quote so it he notices it and it does not sound as if you are adressing me. If there is no space in the name, it is easy. I am not sure how to use the following mention with the name of the op correctly. TwoSix

Tuesday, 7th May, 2019

  • 02:58 AM - OlegRu mentioned TwoSix in post Help me with good RP/Optimization balance for Half-Elf (probably)Valor Bard (archer?)
    So from reading all of the replies, here are my follow-up ideas/questions for you guys - @Zardnaar, @TwoSix, @Mistwell, @Tony Vargas, @Treantmonklvl20 I'll format this to go by topic: Is there something you'd recommend outside an archer bard that would fit my char's style (maybe some simple-type multiclass I mentioned in the OP or something else)? Also, is a ranged bard preferable to keep him safer due to lower defense/HP and for spell concentration? Ability Scores: Cool so I'll probably take the STR10 DEX16 CON12 INT10 WIS12 CHA16 then. (I care about strength as I'd like to have decent athletics score and wisdom, again, for the skills) Although, I'm a bit worried regarding the CON - I've seen a lot of talk that it's important - for concentration I think? So in order to avoid issues casting, I should equip just a sword if I'm not using ranged at the moment, not the shield? (and keep shield around just in case, but I'm not sure when I'd use it) For armor, yeah I don't want penalties to stealth as I'd like my char to be able to sneak around in the wilderness camouflaged or hide place...

Sunday, 13th January, 2019

  • 10:42 PM - FrogReaver mentioned TwoSix in post The Mechanical Impact of -5/+10
    Nah, it's the auto-hit part that makes it complicated. It's why either end becomes a static increase. You start way to many posts out with no. TwoSix was correct in this instance. When you have an expanded crit range it gets very complicated as 19's can crit but don't auto hit. You are correct in that when crit damage boost and auto hit both occur on a 20 only that the damage increase cancels out and no one has disagreed with that.

Tuesday, 8th January, 2019

  • 09:52 PM - clearstream mentioned TwoSix in post An Unearthed Arcana I would like to see - mechanical fixes
    I cut out the rest to save space, but I think that's a great idea. Now, to the question above. Are we going to come to a consensus about a given fix like GWM, or would we have like 5 different fixes for it in the document? If we are going with the former, I would recommend the following. A thread where the potential fixes are noted and discussed, followed by a thread where people vote on poll containing those fixes. 1 vote per person, and the top vote getting goes into the document. The lengthy explanations for each fix would be stated in the OP of that voting thread. Good idea. Something like that could very well advance the conversation. I'll take a pause and then come back with a new thread for collating "proud nails", matched by one on reddit to cast a wider net. With then perhaps a survey for the community to rank them. So it seems like there could be some sense of convergence around @TwoSix and @Sword of Spirit suggestions. I'd prefer WotC got onto it, but I can see that a community project could be pragmatic, and maybe influence what comes along down the line. How might we create that cabal?

Saturday, 3rd November, 2018

  • 01:34 AM - pemerton mentioned TwoSix in post Worlds of Design: What Makes an RPG a Tabletop Hobby RPG?
    4E was a good example of this. There were just a ton of changes from prior editions, and many of the changes were in the direction of pushing players towards miniatures and maps and the power cards just pushed people towards the obvious conclusion of minis game/CCG influences. I noticed longtime players thinking this way and becoming more like they were playing that kind of game, being much more focused on their characters enumerated powers.I believe spell cards were published for AD&D. And for as long as I can remember, players of spell casters in RPGs would address situations by reviewing the spells they had available. This relates to my post in reply to TwoSix: the idea that the player of the AD&D caster is engaging the fiction when reviewing a spell list (because in the fiction the PC has memorised spells) while the 4e player is only engaging the mechanics (because in the fiction the PC doesn't have all these rationed powers) rests on a very thin/veneer idea of the fiction. It's not actually engaging and changing the shared fiction.

Tuesday, 30th October, 2018

  • 06:14 PM - epithet mentioned TwoSix in post Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?
    ... If we wanted to play in Middle Earth, and more than half of the players wanted to play dragonborn but the DM said "sorry, it doesn't fit the game", are you seriously arguing that that DM is saying "my way or the highway"? ... I would submit to you that if more than half of the players want to play dragonborn that y'all don't actually want to play in Middle Earth. Although... if among the refugees from Laketown were a number of women who were pregnant when Smaug's blood rained upon Esgaroth and tainted the Long Lake, their children born thereafter might carry some legacy of the dragon, even if they don't look like D&D dragonborn. I can see using the dragonborn crunch even if the dragonborn fluff is inapplicable. Edit: Dammit, TwoSix!

Saturday, 20th October, 2018

  • 09:59 PM - Satyrn mentioned TwoSix in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Except nobody is arguing that the DM can't change the fluff. :) Hey, I'm not arguing anything. It's just my life's mission to point out this fact repeatedly when discussing gods in 5e. Well, it's more like one of my life's continuing side quests. My life's mission is to top the Laughs columns. I'm almost there. I'm topping the Laughs Given by quite a wide margin over Tony Vargas and I'm closing in on him for Laughs Received. Once I catch him, its just TwoSix and . . . . . . lowkey13. Sigh That one's gonna take a while.

Friday, 19th October, 2018

  • 01:21 AM - Imaro mentioned TwoSix in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Dunno who you are implying. Certainly not me. Got any specifics you'd like to put on the table? I believe pemerton's general approach to gaming is characterized by the setting not being the DM's but instead the groups... I believe Manbearcat is similar in his tastes and well TwoSix pretty much said it was his preference when he responded... but I wasn't sure since I haven't interacted directly with him as much as the other two posters I listed. I honestly don't know what your general approach is though I will admit you seem very pro-player entitlement and much less enthusiastic about anything that maintains or establishes DM empowerment. No. Why would it? The basic premise is that the DM has 100% of the power. Using backgrounding means that the DM now has 99.99% of the power at the table. That tiny sliver that the DM is prevented from bringing into the forefront of play is also off the table for the player as well. But, when the DM brings something up in game, it's not background is it? It's foreground. And, even by this mechanic, would now be fair game. Exactly the same way as if a player did the same thing. Well first let me reply in the same way you did... when you say DM control is 100% whose game are you speaking about here, certainly not...

Thursday, 18th October, 2018

  • 12:39 PM - Xetheral mentioned TwoSix in post I was right about Shield Master
    ...s a specific exception that overrides the general rule, and Shield Master does not do that. Some people read it differently because it's possible to disagree on what the general rules are. For example, the combat mechanics are abstract, and in an abstract system I don't see any reason to assume that the statements "you cannot do two different actions simultaneously" and "once you start one action you need to complete it before you can start another action" are true. Instead, I interpret the applicable general rule as the one in the book that says that the timing of bonus actions is up to the player unless otherwise specified. I don't consider implied timing (such as via the use of an if/then statement) to qualify as "specified". Therefore I read Shield Master as leaving the timing of the bonus action up to the player. (Note that I would consider implicit timing to qualify as "specified" if failure to do broke the system, because that would create a much stronger inference. As TwoSix explained above, however, leaving the bonus action timing of Shield Master up to the player can't break anything.) Your reading is certainly valid. I'm just trying to answer your question as to how it's possible to read it differently.
  • 12:36 AM - pemerton mentioned TwoSix in post I was right about Shield Master
    What would have worked best is if they eliminated the use of a bonus action for the shove entirely. Just have it say, "Once per turn on your turn if you hit a creature that is no more than one size larger than you with a melee attack, you do damage as normal, and as part of that same successful attack you can make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you can either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you." That way you still have your bonus action, and there are no timing questions.That's what I take it to mean (subject to the suggestion from epithet and TwoSix that's come out upthread): taking the attack action means taking an attack, but doesn't require finishing taking all those attacks.
  • 12:11 AM - pemerton mentioned TwoSix in post I was right about Shield Master
    The shield bash requires the attack action, regardless of other considerations. If you don't have the Shield Master feat, the shove takes the place of an attack, so any way you parse it a character who makes a shove has taken the attack action.Thanks, that's what TwoSix said also.

Wednesday, 17th October, 2018

  • 03:44 PM - pemerton mentioned TwoSix in post I was right about Shield Master
    ...geably in these sorts of contexts, so - without more to suggest that it matters - I wouldn't treat this as significant. (Eg 4e is full of these sorts of stylistic but - from the rules point of view - meaningless variations which are simply the produce of different writers at different times.) The obvious concern with "if you make an attack" is that it allows multiple uses - which get coralled by the general limit on bonus actions, but nevertheless is an unsettling implication especially in a "specific beats general" ruleset. So I think it's easy to see why they didn't go with that. My own view remains that taking the attack action can't occur independently of making an attack roll, any more than brushing your teeth can take place independently of moving your tooth brush - in both cases the latter is not the totality of the former, but is an essential constituent of the former occurring. To me, that therefore implies that the bonus action must come after that first attack. But TwoSix's clever (if in some sense unsatisfying) argument about the practical irrelevance of policing the bonus vs non-bonus action in the event that the non-bonus action doesn't come to pass offers a pratical gameplay reason to expand the reading the natural language would otherwise suggest. My final interpretation would be driven by balance concerns - ie is it too strong to get to do your shove for all your attacks rather than some - but I'm not going to try and work that out (certainly not in the context of this thread!, and I don't think I'm competent to attempt it at all).
  • 03:21 PM - pemerton mentioned TwoSix in post I was right about Shield Master
    ... it can't be nested. The "on your turn" bit isn't a trigger, it's just a reminder of the scope.I guess I don't find the contrast between "scope" and "trigger" very helpful for understanding or parsing these rules. I mean, I feel that I could deploy that distinction to say that the "scope" of the Shield Master bonus action is a turn in which the Attack action is taken - and that action is taken (although not necessarily fully resolved, if I have an Extra attack) as soon as I attack on my turn. And now there's no "nesting". Conversely, I feel like I can insist that Cunning Action does have a trigger - to wit, when you take a turn in combat. (Ie I can't take the bonus action, effectively doubling my speed, in ordinary movement situations.) And now there is nesting. You can't simply assume people will reach a conclusion that fits your definition of reasonable or rational.Of course not. But I can put forward what I think are good or bad reasons for various interpretations. Until TwoSix provided me with the reasoning not far upthread, it seemed pretty clear to me that the attack action has to be taken to trigger the bonus action; but the inherent oddity of extra attack within the game together with the movement example makes it pretty clear to me that one takes the attack action by making an attack on one's turn, and then the exra attacks play out in a rather flexible way, which if it can include 15' of movement can probably include a bonus action as well. So if this gets characterised as "nesting" well I just don't see what the problem is. Nesting doesn't seem to be a concept that occurs in the rules, or that one needs to explain or apply the rules. It seems to be an external concept introduced for the sake of tidiness. Can a rogue who is Dashing as part of a cunning action drop something as s/he moves (but not at the beginning or end of the move)? I assume so - the rules don't contain a notion of "nesting" that makes me doubt it. I should add - the oddness ...


Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
No results to display...

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 06:08 PM - jgsugden quoted TwoSix in post Double Dash
    If there's anything more fun than casting Haste on a Monk so they can triple-Dash at double speed, I don't know what it is.A hasted monk gets double their movement on each move action and can take their normal move and dash with their bonus (using Step of the Wind), Action, and Haste Action. If it is an Aaracockra monk with a 50 base speed that has +30 movement from being a high level monk, that means they can travel ((50+30)X2)X4=640 feet in a round. That is 72 MPH, roughly. It is also not going to break anything as many characters of that level can instantaneously relocate themselves via teleportation in most situations. There are a few oddball exceptions where it becomes a huge deal (my Aaracokra spellcasting pirate that flys around with improved invisible and blasts things from a huge distance certainly gets a lot out of his high speed), but for the most part it is essentially the equivalent of what shadow monks get at 6th level - unlimited conditional teleportation.

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 07:46 PM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    It would make them stronger; I don't know if it would make them too strong. Although I'm coming from the standpoint that I don't consider the PHB baseline to be super balanced anyway. PHB baseline is definitely not balanced. In another discussion elsewhere, we identified Hex/Hunter's mark and other per hit effects to potentially get in the way of rebalancing efforts. You can rebalance the Fighter perfectly and then have a Ranger or Bladelock come in and mess it up; also, balanced fighter can break the monk, and at least one way of balancing the fighter makes TWFing the option for high level Barbarians.
  • 01:37 AM - Tony Vargas quoted TwoSix in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    Both 4e and PF2 (or at least the playtest) have some class description, followed by a lot of rectangular boxes, and those boxes have small blocks of rules text organized by number. I think this is a laughably small issue that will become magnified because aesthetics matter. Did you notice the remarkable visual similarity between 4e & PF1 monster stat blocks? With the shading and all? Most obvious difference was purple instead of green.

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 07:18 PM - 5ekyu quoted TwoSix in post Break this House Rule: Advantage(s) can stack
    Basically, what it says in the topic. If I had a house rule that said the following: "Every source of advantage gives you one advantage. Every source of disadvantage gives you one disadvantage. Advantages and disadvantages cancel. If you have any advantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every advantage and take the highest roll. If you have any disadvantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every disadvantage and take the lowest roll." Are there any feats/spells/class features that would be totally broken (either unbalanced or unusable) with that house rule?I see no way it breaks the game. But "breaks the game - yes/no" is for me necessary to pass for a house rule but not sufficient. If it breaks the game, it wont be added. But it needs more than that to be considered. Do, what is the goal you are seeking to achieve? What play problems led you to look for a house rule? Why did this specific rule out-shine the other options to deal with that in-play issue? What were the other opti...
  • 03:44 PM - Flamestrike quoted TwoSix in post Break this House Rule: Advantage(s) can stack
    Basically, what it says in the topic. If I had a house rule that said the following: "Every source of advantage gives you one advantage. Every source of disadvantage gives you one disadvantage. Advantages and disadvantages cancel. If you have any advantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every advantage and take the highest roll. If you have any disadvantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every disadvantage and take the lowest roll." Are there any feats/spells/class features that would be totally broken (either unbalanced or unusable) with that house rule? My Shadow Sorcerer would love this rule. Shadow Hound (bonus action) + Heightened Spell (no action) + Save or Suck spell (action) = tri-disadvantage (3 saves, take the lowest). Hilariously if the target was Lucky (the feat) they could then roll an extra d20... and take the highest of the 4 rolls! That's one lucky SOB.
  • 06:02 AM - FrogReaver quoted TwoSix in post Break this House Rule: Advantage(s) can stack
    Basically, what it says in the topic. If I had a house rule that said the following: "Every source of advantage gives you one advantage. Every source of disadvantage gives you one disadvantage. Advantages and disadvantages cancel. If you have any advantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every advantage and take the highest roll. If you have any disadvantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every disadvantage and take the lowest roll." Are there any feats/spells/class features that would be totally broken (either unbalanced or unusable) with that house rule? Crit Fishing. Faerie Fire + Prone + Greater Invisibility + Oath of Vengance + Reckless attack feature would result in a very high crit chance. I'm not sure if it's enough to break anything but that's where my concern would lie.

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 09:06 PM - Xaelvaen quoted TwoSix in post Break this House Rule: Advantage(s) can stack
    Are there any feats/spells/class features that would be totally broken (either unbalanced or unusable) with that house rule? To directly answer the question, I don't believe so - other than as @Dausuul mentioned with saves. We use Net Advantage/Disadvantage as well, but each 'point' after the first just gives a stacking +1/-1. So if you have 3A and 2D, you just get Advantage. 5A and 1D, you get Advantage, with a +3 modifier on the roll. This -slightly- breaks Bounded Accuracy, but makes the extra Advantages feel worthy. We tried it with a player rolling 3 or more dice, but it just felt to really not be worth the bookkeeping.
  • 05:20 PM - MoonSong quoted TwoSix in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    My argument is simply that "what's core" shouldn't matter. "What's available" should be the metric used to make the decision. If your favorite classes aren't present in PF2 in 2019, and you don't want to switch because they aren't there, that's fine. If your favorite classes are available in an expansion book in 2020, and you still don't to switch because they didn't make those classes in the core book, that's a crappy argument. It all depends on context, it isn't a clear cut black and white issue. In this particular context doesn't matter that badly. But for example, in 5e what's core and what isn't does matter. I still can't have an aasimar divine soul in AL for example, because neither is core! Core matters, some DMs play with core-only. Some groups demand core-only. Core classes/races receive more attention from devs. Core shapes in what way the edition will unfold. By the end of 4e sorcerers had barely started to come on their own, but core classes had nowhere else to go, so they ne...
  • 05:15 PM - Tony Vargas quoted TwoSix in post Break this House Rule: Advantage(s) can stack
    Basically, what it says in the topic. If I had a house rule that said the following: "Every source of advantage gives you one advantage. Every source of disadvantage gives you one disadvantage. Advantages and disadvantages cancel. If you have any advantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every advantage and take the highest roll. If you have any disadvantages left over, roll an extra d20 for every disadvantage and take the lowest roll."It'd get silly, I suppose, but also self-limiting, as the marginal impact of each additional die would decline. More simply, you could figure "Net" adv/dis, that is, have multiple sources of Advantage & Disadvantage cancel, leaving you with net Advantage (whether x1 or x10) or Disadvantage, but just resolve that normally, with one extra die. Either way, you'll have people stretching for more Advantage for themselves, more Disadvantage for the other side, with no upper limit, but with diminishing returns.
  • 09:20 AM - CapnZapp quoted TwoSix in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    I mean, losing out on currently existing options is a pretty valid argument against making any almost any edition switch. I assume you're still playing OD&D then? In other words, no it isn't [emoji846]
  • 03:15 AM - Remathilis quoted TwoSix in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Oh, sure, using that as an attack against the system as a whole is absolutely a crappy argument. (Just like "But it doesn't have druids or bards" was a crappy argument against 4e.). I want to agree with you here, but I think it's apples and oranges. Pathfinder is including all the core classes from the Core Rulebook plus alchemist. That means that the same types of characters you could make using just core rules in PF1 are all makeable in PF2. Sure, there is no gunslinger, witch or summoner, but those were add on classes in PF1 as well. However, it took 4e 3 years and 3 PHBs to reproduce the 11 base classes in the 3e PHB. And thanks to basing class choice on power source, it meant new classes like warden, invoker, warlord, and warlock got prioritized over bard, druid, sorcerer, and monk. The smartest thing 5e did was attempt to get all the default D&D classes into the PHB. Some of them were subs for other classes, and I'm not getting into the battle master/warlord debate, but at least...

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

  • 11:13 PM - CubicsRube quoted TwoSix in post 3 Favorite Things About Your Favorite System
    The boon/bane system is very clever. One subtlety I like is that there a quite a few features that let you add a bonus effect if you take a bane or multiple banes on the roll. Since the most valuable boon is always the first one (because it adds about 3.5 to the roll, whereas later boons only add 1 or less than 1), this lets you trade out excess boons to gain bonus effects. Yeah i love this part. Once you have a few boons you start doing called shots, or driving attacks or other maneuvers. It also makes you more resilient to banes which i like. "Sure I'm poisoned, it's dark and that monster is horrifying, but I'm a pro! I can handle this!"
  • 06:05 PM - Aldarc quoted TwoSix in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    But "I don't find a lot of the features of the new system that compelling, especially when my current edition has a lot more options, so I'm not enthused to switch" is valid.Agreed, and that is certainly what a lot of people who were playing 3.X when PF1 came out did. What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens. It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.
  • 05:16 PM - Aldarc quoted TwoSix in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    I agree with that in principle, but it's a valid argument in terms of not wanting to make a switch in 2019, when one edition has the options already and one will only have them in the future. I mean, losing out on currently existing options is a pretty valid argument against making any almost any edition switch.I think that's fine to wait then, but I don't think that determines the quality of the edition. There were a number of tables that were still finishing their games of 4e and PF1 past 2014 before switching to 5e (my own table included). It would seem silly to argue that this would represent a valid indictment against 5e.

Tuesday, 9th July, 2019

  • 08:53 PM - Esker quoted TwoSix in post Optimize a single class warlock
    Sure. But again, I'm not arguing that the warlock should have it instead ofthe wizard or sorcerer (or bard with Magical Secrets), I'm arguing they should both have it but the warlock should be the first choice to cast it. I would mostly agree with that. I'd say Abjurer > Bard > Warlock > non-Abjurer Wizard or Sorcerer
  • 07:39 PM - zztong quoted TwoSix in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    Yea, the initial goal of the proficiency levels was to open up new abilities. A lot of feats and abilities were tied into having expert or master or legendary level of proficiency in a skill. But playtesters in general didn't respond well to increasing proficiency without noticeable increases in the die roll modifier. Observations at my table during the playtest were that "expert" characters were frequently overshadowed by "amateur" characters. The Ranger was frequently overshadowed by the Cleric in the wilderness, for instance, because of ability scores. Adjusting the proficiency bonus made it more likely the Ranger would equal the Cleric... yeh, didn't fix the problem. Gatekeeping certain "must have in the party" abilities doesn't work either, as those abilities might not be present in any particular party. I think there are too many levels in the proficiency system to act as a gatekeeper for abilities, leaving pretty much only a mathematical gain to be realized for the various proficie...
  • 07:32 PM - Tony Vargas quoted TwoSix in post POLL: What edition of D&D did you most recently play/run?
    I don't disagree with your overall point (PF is overall much better than 3.5), but it does have the same "Angel Summoner vs BXM biker" issues; the people who play Pathfinder simply ignore it or embrace it and play Angel Summoners. :)That's "BMX Bandit," he's the star of the show, so get it right... ;) But, yeah, just "pick a Tier and everyone stick with it" works. So does E6.
  • 07:02 PM - Esker quoted TwoSix in post Optimize a single class warlock
    That's interesting, because to my mind, I'd rather have the warlock do it. Auto-upcast, the warlock doesn't have as many high-leverage spells as the sorc/wiz, and burning a short rest resource rather than a long. I mean, ideally, if you have a sorc/wiz and a warlock, I'd rather see both of them have it. But that might be because I've been hit by high level casters too many times. :) The auto-upcast helps if and only if the spell you're countering is 4th or 5th level, otherwise it's inefficient; though if you don't get a way of identifying the spell before countering it, then the other casters have to guess what slot level to use anyway. This is one of those things that depends on the DM; there are suggested rules for ID-ing spells in XGtE, but I don't know how many people use them. The bigger part of the argument against warlock being the primary counterspeller for me is that they are set up to spread their spells evenly throughout the day, which to me means about one spell per encoun...
  • 05:44 PM - Jer quoted TwoSix in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    The Paizo developers stated specifically early in the playtest that they want moderate to high level heroes to be able to take down hundreds of low-level enemies without being threatened; it was the particular flavor of high fantasy they wanted. I get that. In fact I'm a fan of adding +level (or +fraction of level) to things in general for level-based systems - it's not only an easy mechanic to explain, it also makes character level matter and it makes it easy to keep threats scaled appropriately if everyone is adding the same number to things. What I don't get is combining that with a scale of 5 levels of proficiency - it feels like two mechanics that solve the same kind of problem in two different ways have been combined together. It also seems like it would lose some of the elegance that adding +level to things gets you. Though maybe it plays differently than it reads.
  • 04:33 AM - FrogReaver quoted TwoSix in post Optimize a single class warlock
    Depends on party composition, really. We had an open hand monk in the party, so prone and stunned enemies were extremely common. And it would be more common on boss fights, since the monk would burn 5 ki a round if necessary to get the stun to stick. Agree, open hand monks have that effect. They are melee advantage machines. Great build if you know one of them will be in your party! Personally, I only took EA and GWM. PAM is a boost, of course, but I found triple advantage attacks, especially combined with hexblade curse, caused enough crits and takedowns to fill up a large number of available bonus actions. And as others mentioned, EA gives you a level 4 Cha 18 that's useful for both melee attacks and eldritch blast. I can see that, especially with the monk in the party. Pact of the Blade lets you use great weapons with Hexblade, no invocation needed. Invocations are a little tight, but as you mentioned above, none of them are so amazing that they're must takes. I had AB, the...


TwoSix's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites