View Profile: TwoSix - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Today, 04:20 AM
    It always felt to me like there wasn't usually much choice in the matter. If you're playing a frontliner with Heavy Armor Proficiency, you're probably going to go Str. Otherwise, you're probably going Dex unless you have a compelling reason not to. (Like a barbarian.) A tweak that could nudge people into Str builds would be to raise the AC bonus of medium armor by 1, but lower the allowable...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Today, 04:11 AM
    Dual Wielder (updated 16-Jun) You are a savant of weaponry. You are able to use any combination of weapons in unconventional yet effective ways; you gain the following benefits: -When you take the Attack option, if you are wielding a one-handed melee weapon in each hand, and if you miss with an attack, you may make a second followup attack with the weapon in your other hand. You do not...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:47 PM
    That makes sense in a theoretical context. But what BA currently exists in 5e that is better than a weapon attack with a -X/+X rider attached? (Specifically, for any class not a full caster?) The only optimized high level build in 5e that doesn't use it is a sorlock using Quicken. My takeaway is a little different. The primary factor that keeps heavy weapons and archery above any other...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 04:54 AM
    It's a lot harder to care about the Healer feat in a game that has the Healing Spirit spell in it.
    72 replies | 2239 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 04:48 AM
    Okay, trying an alternate approach. This rework of Dual Wielder enables a lot of builds that didn't previously work, by tying together Dual Wielder with GWM and SS. It also enables round by round switching between shield and weapons as needed, so it also synergizes with Shield Master if desired. Dual Wielder You are a savant of weaponry. You are able to use any combination of weapons in...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 07:37 PM
    Well, yea. It's one of those cases where their multiple criteria that are valid considerations, but might be mutually exclusive. I'm mostly just trying to lay out all the relevant criteria and see how many of them can be addressed by any one set of fixes. I agree that GWM is the superior feat, both in terms of efficacy and in design (the proc-based BA is quite fun.) I think my issue is...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:45 PM
    Let's fight anyway! Dork. :) If you allow non-light weapons baseline, that brings dual-wield and great weapon into a virtual tie. (6.85 to 6.89 at 65% hit rate.) Great weapon does better as AC drops, DW better as AC increases. At really low ACs, it actually becomes worthwhile to drop one longsword and switch the other to 2H, which is kind of awesome. (Just as a personal thing, I'd love...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 05:57 PM
    I'm a little torn on these. I value the idea of making just a single change to one feat to validate the concept. The cascading effect is certainly real. I don't think the balance of the current game is sacred (if a rule change makes rogues and monks a little better, or paladins a little worse, I'm not going to cry about it), but I don't want to invalidate already present rules content in my...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 02:07 PM
    Ok, so I understand your position. So I guess I just have a few questions/thoughts: 1) Why can’t Aptitude Bias run the other direction (as so many do); overestimating the importance of a honed Skill-set or natural affinity? 2) In the last several years on these boards, we’ve seen a LOT of instances of people who are articulate, well-read, tenured GMs struggle significantly in one or both...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 10:26 PM
    Citing the above, I want to make sure I've captured your position before I attempt to move the conversation forward. To do so, I'm going to also cite the below from me: Is your position that I (and others) have a blind spot for the gravity of the amplification effect I cite above (or further still, that it is indeed a causal effect) because of natural ability/decades of honing the crafts...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 10:19 PM
    Yea, this is more of a list of possible criteria to hit, not really a proposal yet. I'm still debating. I'm starting to go back to the beginning of this discussion, and I'm thinking that there should be some baked in scaling in the base rule, no style or feat required. Turn the fighting style into a small damage bonus (like Dueling), and use the DW feat to enable the BA attack (to parallel...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 08:28 PM
    What about this? 1) The base rule stays as-is. Two light weapons, you gain a possible BA of a no stat-mod light weapon attack. 2) The fighting style lets Extra Attack classes use two weapons to do about equal damage to heavy weapon users, no BA required. if your class/subclass gives you a better BA, great. If not, you can use the dual-wield bonus action. This keeps things equivalent...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 08:17 PM
    Double post.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 07:28 PM
    The former. my color scheme is default text on black background of that helps (I’m computer incompetent so that is the best I got).
    24 replies | 367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 07:21 PM
    YOU ARE CORRECT SIR Invisible text in other thread and linked thread.
    24 replies | 367 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 07:09 PM
    The text in the bottom quote is visible to me.
    24 replies | 367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 05:59 PM
    I'd say agnostic, using those terms as defined. I tend to draw my own settings use a pretty broad brush, to leave room for the player's ideas. But I generally have a small-c catholic "Church" that does the classic fantasy genre temple things, that's a fixture in most areas under human control. It tends to exist in some tension with nature worshippers (elves and other fae adjacent...
    27 replies | 807 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:33 PM
    One of my players is playing one now, and he does a great job playing up the different aspects and signs. It's kind of at the point where I hope he makes a poor pact because he does such a good job making the character super creepy when he's semi-possessed.
    77 replies | 2682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:03 PM
    That's not bad. It puts the "+mod on BA attacks" back into feat territory, to go along with PAM and XBE. Moving the -X/+Y into a separate feat would make it so you need 2 feats for every combination of -X/+Y and a reliable BA attack, which is appealing. (PAM/GWM, SS/XBE, DW/New feat) Maybe for the scaling bonus, do something that gives a die bonus, rather than a flat increase? A die...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:45 PM
    Can't do that for this case, because the damage expression is different. Without the fighting style, the off hand damage is 11.5 avg per attack. Assuming base accuracy 65%, not counting crits, it's 52.7 > 50.0 > 45.0 for PAM/GWM > DW > GWM only. I think I need to adjust the fighting style. I didn't really want to, but it scales too well and is too good compared to Dueling/GWF. Maybe...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:05 AM
    I'm still running some numbers, and the numbers go up and down a little based on the target's AC, but generally the DW Champ 15 has about a 45% chance to crit per attack, and over a 90% chance to get at least one crit. A DW Champion/Rogue might do some really good damage! Edit: Ehh, Champion DW with Elven Accuracy still does less damage that a standard GWM Champion. It is close, though. It...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:23 AM
    If you think of one, let me know. I would guess Hexblade something something, or maybe a crit-fisher. I tried a Vengeance Paladin with Hunter's Mark up, but it's not any better than PAM in that case. Most of my calculations showed that GWM and SS scale much better as accuracy bonuses stack up (once your hit w/ advantage gets into the 95% range). So doing something like permanent...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 10:48 PM
    I'm not sure what your "rend" suggestion is doing, or what your intention is as to how it coexists with my suggestion. Are you stating it as "Once per round, if you have hit with at least two different weapons, the second attack does an additional +5 damage."? Or is it intended to be any two attacks while dual-wielding? That's the closest I can get to figuring it out. Assuming low...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 08:08 PM
    I don't use them, but I imagine they're popular because they provide an upfront way to define the setting that the players can immediately recognize. You can write "dwarves dislike and distrust magic" 50 times in your campaign gazetteer, but a rule that says "dwarves can't be wizards or sorcerers because they dislike magic" really communicates the concept to the players in a way they'll...
    77 replies | 2682 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 06:31 PM
    No worries! Just to draw on the well-covered cleric/warlock example, that sort of contradiction doesn’t happen in my game because clerics and warlocks don’t exist. Gods exist, and magical entities that grant powers exist, but how a character relates to them is entirely driven by their concept. They might use sorcerer as a base for their “priest of god of fire” concept, or Druid for their “I...
    77 replies | 2682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 06:04 PM
    I'm flattered! But yea, the only real point of distinction I would draw is that it's not matter of "not roleplaying", it's that the roleplaying I do isn't bound by the flavor and the restrictions in the book. I have no problem running a cleric as a follower of a god, or they might just be a trained healer. As an example, in Eberron, I use cleric mechanics for House Jorasco all the time, and...
    77 replies | 2682 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 05:41 PM
    Nah. I've run the numbers pretty thoroughly. Factoring in Reactions is meaningless, as this doesn't impact them. A first level PC might get 3 attack "rolls", but since one of them can only occur on a miss, the amount of nova damage that could be applied via on-hit effects remains the same. A 5th level fighter with the Dual Wielder, Crossbow Expert, or Polearm Master all have the same...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:36 PM
    I think the fault line here is going to be if you answer “yes” to the below two questions, and pretty much all iterations possible of good/bad/mediocre on either side of the balance. I would have to answer “yes” to all of them because I neither conceive nor have I experienced anything approximating a tight (or even shabby) coupling between the two. I’m like most people; good at some...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:23 PM
    This is my current approach. In the interest of parsimony, I'm going to restrict changes to the dual-wielder feat, and not try to drop the bonus action. Instead, I've put scaling into the dual-wielder feat. Dual Wielder changes -Remove the +1 AC bonus. -Add "Whenever you take the Attack action while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, whenever you miss an attack with a weapon in...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:28 AM
    Nah. There's plenty of other fantasy heartbreakers that do that. D&D should be a toolkit. Sturdy skeletons, with loose fitting skin that's easy to reskin. If there's arguments that clerics and warlocks can't multiclass, you've already bound the story to the class too tightly.
    77 replies | 2682 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:32 AM
    To make sure I'm getting this right, are you saying that a Monk's extra Martial Arts Attack and Flurry of Blows should also be removed from the bonus action?
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 08:41 PM
    I feel like there is a teeny tiny excluded middle between MAXIMUM TERSENESS (SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY) and exposition economy (while still managing the key components of dramatic device) :)
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 08:31 PM
    This is so much more entangled than I ontrmdrf. EDIT - (Lol how about INTENDED. My phone autocorrected to ontrmdrf. Makes sense). Ok, let me pose a simple question. Is it possible to be very good at conflict framing (a) and resolution (b) yet be mediocre in words usage on the journey from a to b? Is the inverse possible (poor at framing and resolution but beautiful prose/oratory)?
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 08:07 PM
    lowkey13 I think you’re more or less saying what I said in my initial post in this thread: Framing and understanding of dramatic device (arc composition and pacing, tropes) are fundamentally tethered. Insofar as they are (and they are), if one wants to fold “understanding and deftness in deployment of dramatic device” into “literary”, then we’re going to have a (self-imposed imo)...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 06:53 PM
    Couple things: 1) In the spirit of this thread, I was trying to demonstrate that the framing of the creature is hierarchically more important than the words used to depict it (though again, they matter...they’re just lower in the hierarchy). 2) If you aren’t thematically framing a “bogeyman” as a bogeyman, then it seems pretty apt to point out that the situation the PCs are confronted with...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:20 AM
    Your threads suck! And you're terrible! And we hate you! More stuff!
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 07:35 PM
    You could, but you certainly don't have to, depending on how the new mechanic is implemented.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 07:16 PM
    No worries. If your saying that conversation with some pals while you're at dinner is different than TTRPG conversation, then sure. TTRPG conversation is structured such that it produces an evolving gamestate and the participant experience that goes with that. The former does have structure, but its more etiquette and cue-driven (so different in some ways, similar in others) and its purpose...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    3 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 04:53 PM
    The problem with that approach is that once you make it advantage, it doesn't stack with everything else that grants advantage. (What's the benefit to a barbarian with Reckless Attack, for example?) And it doesn't really map to the narrative of using two different weapons. (What if your main hand weapon is a flametongue, and the off-hand weapon is a dagger of venom?) It would be a slight...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:55 PM
    I haven't been following this thread. I'm assuming the above contrast or dichotomy you're trying to draw is something essential to this thread? But if you're looking for an answer (insofar as I'm even remotely capable of inferring what you're looking for from this scant bit)...how about... Probably both? It seems to me that if a bogeyman creature of folklore with specific thematic...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:22 PM
    So the Qallupilluit is quintessential bogeyman mythology. For bogeyman mythology to be thematically potent, it has to have some way to hook into the PC's childhood or folklore, otherwise, its just another creepy monster. So this is actually the perfect example where a GM's deftness of framing is hierarchically the apex currency in the purchase of a great gaming moment. "Your little...
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:16 PM
    That's not bad. With that rule, you could leave the fighting style alone, since it would scale about as well as dueling. And the accuracy bonus would go well with a change to the Dual Wielder feat that adds a -X/+2X mechanic. Edit: Checking a bit more, I really like how that looks. No feats, just fighting styles, 2H is a little ahead, about 1.2-1.5 dps per attack at tier 1. DW scales...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:58 PM
    Oh, absolutely. Level 3 fighter features are almost all damage increases, or damage+utility. Any feature that lets you swap an attack should have a return that's, at-worst, equivalent damage to one fighter attack and situationally even stronger. Likewise, since they are fighters, you don't want a feature that's encouraging them to give up all their attacks every round, since that takes away...
    34 replies | 1136 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:29 PM
    For the test case "When you take the Attack action using a light melee weapon in each hand, you gain one free attack with the off-hand weapon that does not gain ability modifier to damage", I think it would push rogues and monks into dual-wielding for a featless game, yes. I'm personally OK with that. Rangers and paladins would probably dual-wield for tier 1, but tier 2 would make heavy...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:07 AM
    Considering that only one out of four of those classes will sometimes dual-wield right now, that certainly seems like a strong argument to remove the bonus action. Especially considering that 3 of those 4 classes should really be commonly dual-wielding, at least by trope.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 03:36 PM
    I'd see an Int fighter as making a lot of studied, precise strikes, and working with their allies to make coordinated attacks. Maybe features like "Sacrifice one of your attacks to identify a target's weakness. The target is vulnerable to the next attack that targets them." or "Sacrifice one of your attacks and choose one of your allies. The next time that ally takes the Attack action, they...
    34 replies | 1136 view(s)
    3 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    Absolutely. I'd also like to hit those aspects while also keeping the fighting style as a small scaling bonus, like Dueling and GWF are, and not make the usage dependent on the fighting style. Barbarians should certainly be viable dual-wielders without a Fighter dip.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:11 PM
    Didn’t forget, simply not worth mentioning something everyone knows. Your base attack chance would have to be at a sub 50% chance for the eDPR to be close to even. What the best damage builds are is a solved problem, it’s not really up for debate. The better question is does the dual-wielding style provide some utility that isn’t obvious, and I haven’t seen that demonstrated yet.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 08:37 PM
    Mike Mearls said in a tweet last year that the majority of playtesters preferred that dual-wielding give extra attacks; rules that simply combined damage expressions into a single attack rule didn't "feel" like dual-wielding. Fundamentally, bonus actions are valuable when they're utilized correctly, a mid-level GWM/PAM barbarian's bonus action of 1d4+16 or a SS/XBE fighter's bonus action of...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 08:26 PM
    Outside of Tier 1, I haven't really seen rogues dual-wielding. They're either using a rapier and using Booming Blade, or are doing hide + snipe with a crossbow, or have MCed with Fighter or Ranger and have 2 attacks already. If anything, I'd like to see more incentive for a rogue to dual-wield.
    36 replies | 1238 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 10:55 PM
    I was riffing off the OP's suggestion, which was to give one off-hand attack with no stat modifier for each main hand attack, with no BA cost. 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 think it's OK to have some subclasses that favor either great weapon or two...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 06:27 PM
    I have trouble getting too worked up by an article that calls Fortnite an MMORPG in the very first sentence. Also, "trippers" is not a thing. Although I'll give them props for the spiked chain reference.
    6 replies | 289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 02:03 AM
    Cast hex or hunter's mark, you'll feel better. :)
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 12:00 AM
    General rule change: You gain one extra off-hand attack with no stat modifier for every main hand attack during the attack option. Fighting Style change: When you are wielding a melee weapon in each hand, your off-hand attacks do +1 damage, and you gain +1 AC. Dual wielder feat: No change.
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 11:26 PM
    I would start by using the 2e Spells and Magic rules. I would also grab the Air domain, so you can be pretty fly for a rabbi.
    20 replies | 806 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 08:02 PM
    Once you're past tier 1, you really need a caster or two in a fight to keep in interesting.
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 07:59 PM
    Big 4 + Paladin and Warlord seem to have a big lead. Maybe just a core 6 is needed?
    29 replies | 1116 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 06:59 PM
    Last time I checked, even with these changes you still can't use GWM or SS with two-weapon fighting, so the balance concerns are pretty moot. I mean, you can already do one extra attack with two-weapon fighting, and that doesn't break anything. For pretty much every class (everyone other than 11+ fighters), this suggested rule would give you one more extra attack over the current rule, and...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 03:16 PM
    Personally, in my games we have never tortured a prisoner. We just call it enhanced Intimidation checks.
    68 replies | 2435 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 06:05 PM
    That's interesting. If you extrapolate that argument, that's an argument that the modular resolution systems in 1e and 2e are actually a more pleasing system. That's not a dismissal; considering that a lot of people express fondness for 1e and 2e, I wonder if differing resolution systems is an underlooked aesthetic preference.
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:56 PM
    You can't quantify it. That's why "best damage build" and "strongest character" aren't synonymous. It's the same reason the basketball player with the highest scoring average or the baseball player with the highest OPS doesn't usually win MVP. There's more aspects than offense. But, just like in basketball and baseball, offense is easier to quantify than defense, so we end up talking...
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:51 PM
    Sure. I mean, giving advantage to someone who has advantage already isn't that synergistic. :) I'm just saying that if you're going to give advantage to any one attack, it should be the rogues. Not merely to enable the sneak attack, but to make sure it lands. Giving the rogue's 3d8+5d6+5 sneak attack (assuming shadow blade/booming blade) a 20% greater chance to land is better than giving...
    10 replies | 441 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 04:18 PM
    A rogue benefits the most from a single grant of advantage (i.e. the advantage is on the next attack.) If it's a full round of advantage, it would benefit the character with a lot of attacks +GWM/SS the most. Monk + a GWM/SS character work really well together. A 5th level monk can force 4 Con saves a turn if needed to stun someone, giving a full turn of advantage to everyone. An elven...
    10 replies | 441 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 04:08 PM
    I shall keep calm and do so. :)
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 02:14 PM
    Excellent analysis! My takeaway from this is: 1) In the most common situation, one attack per round with advantage, archer fighters and rogues are pretty similar in damage. 2) Fighters scale better with full round advantage, a fighter against a disabled boss is going to turn it into a pincushion. 3) Fighters lose less when they don't have advantage, although rogues have multiple...
    12 replies | 835 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 01:50 PM
    Even a straight hexblade is really, really good. I played in a game where the DM used the flanking=advantage rule, so it was obviously easy mode, but Shadow of Moil is also easy mode advantage twice per short rest (3 times at level 11). Elven Accuracy + Great Weapon Master + Lifedrinker is giving you near Barbarian levels of offense, Shadow of Moil is great defense, and you still have an...
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 12:23 PM
    Well, we were all 30 years younger back then and weren't overstimulated by the Internet; everything seemed more exciting. :)
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:44 AM
    You talk about excluding people as if it is a fundamentally bad thing. It's part of basic human socialization to have expectations and boundaries.
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 01:12 AM
    Attitudes and expectations matter. I am fine with role playing that aims higher in the literary sense or is more casual. What is fundamental to me is that we are all involved in the process as creative peers and everyone's contributions are valued equally. Also that everyone is expected to contribute. Also that contributions move play forward and demand action from other players (GM included).
    1468 replies | 38601 view(s)
    3 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 12:46 AM
    Yea, the crit rate was based on the assumption of having Hexblade Curse up and having crit be on 19-20. 1-(18/20)^3 = 27.1%. I played a hexblade with elven accuracy for a fair stretch, so I got real familiar with the tri-advantage math. I generally assume about a 55-60% base chance hit rate, which would work out to be about 91%-93% hit rate with tri-vantage. Rounding to 90% covers a...
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 11:53 PM
    I mean, if you think Tide of Iron and Thunderwave are pretty much the same, but Fire Bolt and a longbow attack are categorically different, I just.....I don't know, man.
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 11:41 PM
    Heh, it's funny, but I remember when the Book of Nine Swords came out for 3.5, and seeing all the special "maneuvers" for fighters in the classic 9-level spell framework. I thought, "Oh, they're using the spell format for fighting types. The spell format for D&D is iconic, that makes perfect sense!" That was the point when I expected 4e to use a harmonized framework for "spells" that all...
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 11:29 PM
    A sorcerer just leveled, and got a new spell.
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:43 PM
    If we're in the weeds for "How I would have done 5e", I would have combined sorcerer and warlock. Full caster, gain sorcery points for metamagic or more spell slots. Demonic pact and feytouched would have been origins. Metamagic options and invocations would be pulled from the same pool. I would also have added some sorcerer-only spells that lasted 24 hours and gave an invocation-like...
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:26 PM
    I mean, I'm not going to self-nerf, but I would trade the spellbook for metamagic and the spells known of a sorcerer, yes.
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:23 PM
    Hmm. Thematically, it would be an inborn power that doesn't require esoteric study to channel and isn't granted by an external entity. Channelers from Wheel of Time, maybe? Some of the Knights Radiant from Stormlight Archive? (Although they might be viewed as more warlock-y). Hey, that's not true. You could also have a brass dragon as an ancestor. Or a gold dragon! (Xanathar's helps,...
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:10 PM
    I'm not exactly sure the source books, but those are abilities from the Thief of Legend epic destiny, the Dark Wanderer epic destiny, and the Hordemaster epic destiny (this one is from Dark Sun, that I remember).
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:04 PM
    You are absolutely correct, I misspoke (mistyped?). You would need to quicken EB, not twin it.
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:00 PM
    Well, I can only speak to my own experiences. I've played a sorcerer from level 5 to level 16 over 2 years and about 30 sessions. I'm also currently playing a wizard in one of my games. There are times when I've appreciated the breadth of rituals available to me as a wizard. I've certainly appreciated arcane recovery. Swapping spells is nice, but it hasn't prevented me from having times...
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:39 PM
    If you're looking for a scene-based, action adventure game with fantastic thematic richness/genre coherency and a Magic the Gathering sort of tactical depth...D&D 4e is quite literally the_best_game in the TTRPG market for that experience. Strike(!), Mouse Guard, Cortex+ are all fantastic scene-based, action-adventure games, but they don't offer the overall tactical depth that 4e has (though...
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:29 PM
    For better, but yes, I agree.
    127 replies | 4390 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 06:59 PM
    No worries. As a general assumption for damage builds, you'll generally have a 16 in your attack stat for Tier 1, an 18 somewhere in Tier 2, and a 20 by tier 3. Fighters a little earlier, builds with heavy feat investment might be delayed. Using feats in generally a prerequisite for really high sustained damage builds, as you'll almost always need either the Sharpshooter or the Great Weapon...
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 05:44 PM
    Weird, I associate cheeseburgers in my area with Five Guys, which seems problematic with AssBarbs.
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 05:42 PM
    Some reasons why Wizards are somewhat overrated compared to Sorcerers: 1) The difference in spells prepared versus spells known isn't actually that large. From levels 1-11 (i.e. the majority of most games), the difference is the wizard's Int mod - 1. (Wizards get Level + Int mod, Sorcerers get Level +1). An extra 2 to 4 spells is noticeable, but it's not an overwhelming difference. 2)...
    124 replies | 7426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 05:02 PM
    Pretty sure Asslock teams up pretty well with an AssPal, but playing with an AssBarb can be a painful combination.
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:21 PM
    It certainly feels like you've answered your question in the inital post, then! 4e doesn't sound like your cup of tea.
    201 replies | 8147 view(s)
    2 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:57 PM
    Apologies, I took your location field to mean something else.
    127 replies | 4390 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:27 PM
    Out of curiosity, are you looking for books specifically, or are you looking for content? Because the amount of good electronic content dwarfs the amount of good physical content.
    33 replies | 1122 view(s)
    1 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:22 PM
    Yea, that was my quote listed under your name. I'm sure Charlaquin can fix it in the morning (since it's midnight in Australia.)
    127 replies | 4390 view(s)
    0 XP
  • TwoSix's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:19 PM
    I edited to improve the clarity of the point.
    42 replies | 1501 view(s)
    1 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
6,225
Posts Per Day
0.98
Last Post
Improving Two-Weapon Fighting Today 04:20 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:43 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 offline

    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

Monday, 17th June, 2019


Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019


Wednesday, 12th June, 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 didn’t follow the guidelines set by their god, they wouldn’t 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 doesn’t matter; where role playing doesn’t matter if you don’t 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, I’d call the current Artificer a martial by this definition. I don’t 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 there’s 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 there’s an avenue for playing a non-casting Artificer. Of course, I know it won’t happen. They didn’t give us an option for non-casting rangers, they’re not going to do it for Artificers. But as long as this thing is still in play testing, I’m 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...

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 05:26 AM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    It always felt to me like there wasn't usually much choice in the matter. If you're playing a frontliner with Heavy Armor Proficiency, you're probably going to go Str. Otherwise, you're probably going Dex unless you have a compelling reason not to. (Like a barbarian.) A tweak that could nudge people into Str builds would be to raise the AC bonus of medium armor by 1, but lower the allowable Dex bonus to (max 1). With point buy or standard array, if you have to drop a 14 into Dex to get max armor, you might as well just get it to 16 and use Dex as your attack stat. But if you only had to drop a 12, it's a lot easier to justify raising Strength instead. This would mostly impact classes like ranger, medium armor clerics, and valor bards. I've been hating on medium armor for a while, and this sounds good. I think you could split the mediums into the light mediums (no stealth penalty) with 14 Dex Max and heavy mediums with 12 Dex Max. Make it so medium armor is +1 AC over light armor...

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 06:11 PM - CapnZapp quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    That makes sense in a theoretical context. But what BA currently exists in 5e that is better than a weapon attack with a -X/+X rider attached? (Specifically, for any class not a full caster?) The only optimized high level build in 5e that doesn't use it is a sorlock using Quicken. The icing on the GWF cake is having the BA available for magic items or spells. You are correct in assuming "an attack" is high on the list, but so is bonus dashes, teleports or whatnot.
  • 06:08 PM - CapnZapp quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    The primary factor that keeps heavy weapons and archery above any other fighting style is that they have access to the key -5/+10 mechanic. This roughly doubles base damage per attack, and is easily mitigated by commonly available accuracy bonuses (advantage, especially.) What wouldn't I have paid to have this quote back during those lonely fights against the unwashed masses claiming GWF wasn't unbalanced...
  • 04:19 PM - FrogReaver quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    That makes sense in a theoretical context. But what BA currently exists in 5e that is better than a weapon attack with a -X/+X rider attached? (Specifically, for any class not a full caster?) The only optimized high level build in 5e that doesn't use it is a sorlock using Quicken. My takeaway is a little different. The primary factor that keeps heavy weapons and archery above any other fighting style is that they have access to the key -5/+10 mechanic. This roughly doubles base damage per attack, and is easily mitigated by commonly available accuracy bonuses (advantage, especially.) Give every common fighting style access to this mechanic (as is the primary goal of my proposed feat in post 159), and the differences are small enough that class and subclass features become key in deciding which path to pursue (as well as aesthetic preference based on character concept, which is always important to prioritize!) I'd be perfectly happy to run some numbers of suggested Tier 3-4 builds that ...

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 05:08 AM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong
    It's a lot harder to care about the Healer feat in a game that has the Healing Spirit spell in it. I can care about two things at the same time. LOL. I'm starting to think the game really exects us to heal up to full with each short rest. LOL.

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 06:40 PM - CapnZapp quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I'm a little torn on these. I value the idea of making just a single change to one feat to validate the concept. The cascading effect is certainly real. I don't think the balance of the current game is sacred (if a rule change makes rogues and monks a little better, or paladins a little worse, I'm not going to cry about it), but I don't want to invalidate already present rules content in my game (to say nothing of the copious amounts of homebrew I use). The second point is more interesting, and something I keep flip-flopping on. My major argument against removing the BA via feat is this. Every serious martial damage build leverages either feats, or sorcerer metamagic, to gain a weapon attack bonus action. (SS/XBE BM fighter, PAM/GWM barbarian or paladin, PAM/GWM Hexblade w/ Darkness&DS, Blasting Sorlock) So why take away a sought after feature via feat, when most martial builds are seeking to add it? I'd argue it's better to utilize the feat to change the scaling of the Attack action...

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 11:39 PM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Yea, this is more of a list of possible criteria to hit, not really a proposal yet. I'm still debating. I'm starting to go back to the beginning of this discussion, and I'm thinking that there should be some baked in scaling in the base rule, no style or feat required. Turn the fighting style into a small damage bonus (like Dueling), and use the DW feat to enable the BA attack (to parallel PAM and XBE). Add in a feat to allow one-handed weapon damage to scale, much like GWM. This would benefit both DWers and SnBers. The "followup attack on a miss" concept might be a good concept for the base rule. Less max damage than a 2H weapon, but more consistency. Honestly, I was getting ready to fight and then what you said seems really interesting. 2d6+3 at 65% hit is 6.85 with crit. 1d6+3, reroll miss (without ability mod) at 65% hit would be 5.2575 with crits. Leaving the ability modifier on would up it to 5.94, which is still lower than great weapon but not significantly so. It fits into ...
  • 09:42 PM - Hussar quoted TwoSix in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    One of my players is playing one now, and he does a great job playing up the different aspects and signs. It's kind of at the point where I hope he makes a poor pact because he does such a good job making the character super creepy when he's semi-possessed. Heck, when I played a binder, I looked forward to making bad pacts, to the point where I'd just stop rolling and declare that I made bad pacts. It was more fun.
  • 09:05 PM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    What about this? 1) The base rule stays as-is. Two light weapons, you gain a possible BA of a no stat-mod light weapon attack. 2) The fighting style lets Extra Attack classes use two weapons to do about equal damage to heavy weapon users, no BA required. if your class/subclass gives you a better BA, great. If not, you can use the dual-wield bonus action. This keeps things equivalent in featless games. 3) The Dual Wielder feat buffs up the dual-wield BA to be competitive with PAM and XBE in games with feats. A feat that gives damage scaling to one-handed weapon users is added. My questions/issues: 1) Still costing a BA for no gain, except for the rogue and other characters that stack on hit effects (raging barbarian). Is this okay to you? If the BA was only to split damage (fighting two opponents), I might be more inclined. 2) How are you proposing this? I'm sure you're not saying Action equal to GWFer, bonus action for more? 3) I'm down with this. Personally, I hate that Sharp Sh...
  • 10:14 AM - Quartz quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    DW: 2 attacks x [ 0.6975 hit rate x [4.5 (LS average) +4 (Str) + 2 (rage) + 5 (DW)] + 0.3025 (chance to proc followup attack) x 0.6975 hit rate x [4.5 (LS average) + 2 (rage) + 5 (DW)] ] This bit seems to be incorrect. You should fully calculate the probability before applying the damage. The calculation for each attack in the Attack action should be (1 - (1 - 0.6975)^2)) * 15.5) or 0.91 * 15.5 = 14.08 so the damage is (2x 14.08) + 8.02 =36.12 eDPR. And yes, Gaudere's Law probably does apply. BTW if you really want to cheese out, run the numbers for the 11th level Paladin with one level each in Fighter and Barbarian. Suggestions: the re-roll be made without Advantage and only once per turn. BTW pity the poor Duellist with a shield and spear and Shield Mastery and Polearm Mastery. Either she uses the Bonus Action to gain Advantage or for the butt attack given by PAM. All for - combat-wise - a base of 1d6 + 2 damage (2d6 + 4 at 5th level) and +2 AC. It really shows the power of d...
  • 02:34 AM - Fenris-77 quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    If you think of one, let me know. I would guess Hexblade something something, or maybe a crit-fisher. I tried a Vengeance Paladin with Hunter's Mark up, but it's not any better than PAM in that case. Most of my calculations showed that GWM and SS scale much better as accuracy bonuses stack up (once your hit w/ advantage gets into the 95% range). So doing something like permanent advantage + Elven Accuracy won't really help either. Although I might try a crit-fishing Champion 15 to see what the numbers look like. Dex Melee with the -X/+X mechanic isn't currently in the game, so it's worth putting it through its paces. This is really the key to this whole idea IMO, I agree that Dex probably should have a -X/+x option, or at least something like it. I think the Champion would be a good test though. If you're fishing for crits you might actually want a reduced chance to hit and a reroll, although advantage does already have that mostly covered. I'd be interested to see if TWF with out pe...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 09:23 PM - Quartz quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Factoring in Reactions is meaningless, Note my suggestion about the Rend. as this doesn't impact them. A first level PC might get 3 attack "rolls", but since one of them can only occur on a miss, the amount of nova damage that could be applied via on-hit effects remains the same. That's not correct: The PC gets an extra chance to hit with DW, so to not do damage, both must miss. For example, with a 50% chance to hit with each attack, you have a 75% chance of hitting with one. P(Do Damage) = 1 - (P(Miss) x P(Miss)) Again, nah. Assuming a world in which martials have access to GWM and SS, the -X/+X mechanic is necessary. It lets attacks scale better with both accuracy and on-hit effects. The minus is factored in by requiring two attacks to hit. Again, if you have a 50% chance to hit, then you only have a 25% chance of both attacks hitting. P (Rend) = P(Hit) x P(Hit). This is mitigated somewhat when you have more than one attack in your Attack action. Now, running...
  • 07:03 PM - lowkey13 quoted TwoSix in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    No worries! Just to draw on the well-covered cleric/warlock example, that sort of contradiction doesn’t happen in my game because clerics and warlocks don’t exist. Gods exist, and magical entities that grant powers exist, but how a character relates to them is entirely driven by their concept. They might use sorcerer as a base for their “priest of god of fire” concept, or Druid for their “I serve a malevolent demon bound to a tree” concept. And Paladin for the "Die in a fire" concept?
  • 06:12 PM - lowkey13 quoted TwoSix in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    I'm flattered! But yea, the only real point of distinction I would draw is that it's not matter of "not roleplaying", it's that the roleplaying I do isn't bound by the flavor and the restrictions in the book. I have no problem running a cleric as a follower of a god, or they might just be a trained healer. As an example, in Eberron, I use cleric mechanics for House Jorasco all the time, and just say their powers come from their dragonmark. Also, in the games I run, classes are purely a mechanical construct. They don't exist in the fiction. Even the PHB classes are pretty much just a starting point. People come to me with their concepts and we tweak the class structure to fit. The players can't assume that a spellcaster has a certain kind or number of spells, because every NPC is different. Now, if you view the roleplaying restrictions in the PHB as part and parcel of the challenge in playing the class, that's fine, but I disagree. My players come up with pretty wacky restrictions o...
  • 05:12 PM - lowkey13 quoted TwoSix in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    Nah. There's plenty of other fantasy heartbreakers that do that. D&D should be a toolkit. Sturdy skeletons, with loose fitting skin that's easy to reskin. If there's arguments that clerics and warlocks can't multiclass, you've already bound the story to the class too tightly. See, I disagree. And that's fine! Personally, I think that 5e, by moving in the direction of a toolbox, is going in the wrong way. And allowing Clerics and Warlocks to multi-class together? That will just result in fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! And you don't want that, do you? What are you, a cat person?
  • 04:49 PM - Quartz quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Dual Wielder changes -Remove the +1 AC bonus. -Add "Whenever you take the Attack action while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, whenever you miss an attack with a weapon in one hand, you may make an additional attack with the weapon in your other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack, unless that modifier is negative. This attack does not trigger any other attacks if it also misses." That's a bit OTT. A first level PC with DW and TWF gets up to four attacks (Action, failed Action, Bonus, and Reaction). You might want to restrict the bonuses that can be applied, like Smite and Sneak Attack, or drop the last effect. -Add "Before you make an attack with a one-handed melee weapon you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +5 to the attack's damage." I'm not sure that this should be in the DW Feat - it doesn't fit. I do like the idea of extra damage and I think you migh...
  • 01:30 PM - Fenris-77 quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    To make sure I'm getting this right, are you saying that a Monk's extra Martial Arts Attack and Flurry of Blows should also be removed from the bonus action?Not necessarily. Maybe the first. Someone who agrees that TWF should not take a bonus action would also agree that the monks additional MA attack shouldn't take a bonus action. Flurry of blows could probably stay a BA though, at least in my books.

Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 07:47 PM - Xeviat quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    You could, but you certainly don't have to, depending on how the new mechanic is implemented. Eh, the monk could use a damage boost at high levels. Heh.
  • 04:47 PM - 5ekyu quoted TwoSix in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    That's not bad. With that rule, you could leave the fighting style alone, since it would scale about as well as dueling. And the accuracy bonus would go well with a change to the Dual Wielder feat that adds a -X/+2X mechanic. Edit: Checking a bit more, I really like how that looks. No feats, just fighting styles, 2H is a little ahead, about 1.2-1.5 dps per attack at tier 1. DW scales better with ability mod, though. The fighting style is a little better than GWF, and a little worse than dueling at low levels, and about equivalent at high accuracy and a +5 ability mod. Tested around a few different versions of the -X/+2X rule, I like -3/+6 the best for dual-wielding. It puts dual-wielding about 2 DPR per attack ahead in moderate accuracy situations and no disadvantage, but GWM jumps ahead by about 1-2 DPR in advantage situations, and scales better with more accuracy (Like bless and Elven Accuracy). On hit bonuses scale better for dual-wielding, as you would expect from the greater ac...
  • 01:36 PM - Blue quoted TwoSix in post Fighter subclasses for every ability score
    I'd see an Int fighter as making a lot of studied, precise strikes, and working with their allies to make coordinated attacks. Maybe features like "Sacrifice one of your attacks to identify a target's weakness. The target is vulnerable to the next attack that targets them." or "Sacrifice one of your attacks and choose one of your allies. The next time that ally takes the Attack action, they may make one additional attack that has advantage." A Wisdom fighter I would see as being more defensive. Sacrifice attacks to gain additional reactions, which can be used to make parries. ... Since so much of the fighter's power is baked into the Extra Attack (2) ability for tier 3, I'd argue that making subclass features that can sacrifice one or more attacks is a good way to broaden a subclass power budget without making the overall build more powerful. This is interesting - using attacks as a resource because the Fighter excels at that. I have some worry about when tey just have Extra Att...


TwoSix's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites