View Profile: Hawk Diesel - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Today, 08:26 PM
    The spell seems fine to me. If you need a material component, perhaps a chameloen's scale would work.
    3 replies | 134 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 10:05 PM
    I agree with Sorcerers Apprentice. I actually started trying to do this myself, but it is really tough. Invocations are great, but the warlock needs more than more invocations. Also, I don't think invocations like "Cast X once per day" would be good invocations to keep, otherwise why not just keep spell slots and mystic arcanum? I also agree that Hex and Eldritch Blast should be class...
    15 replies | 615 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 08:25 AM
    Played 4 years of college football and track, and 8 years of rugby post college, with lots of time racking weights. But honestly, very little of any of that training makes me inherently better at knocking down doors, lifting boulders, or tossing people (well maybe a little, as a lifter in the line outs). All my training made me very good at sports and lift specific movements. But outside of me...
    32 replies | 1051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 12:39 AM
    I think the main problem with a versatile fighting style is that from round to round or even encounter to encounter, things don't change enough that switching between one or two hands on a weapon will make any difference. If you don't already have a shield, there's no reason (except attempting a grapple) not to use two hands to maximize damage. If you do have a shield, then dropping it in...
    49 replies | 2036 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 03:58 AM
    I see that you're venting, and maybe it's the way I'm reading this, but I am having trouble understanding the part you disagree with. Is it the restriction? The lore? Or specifically how it is implemented in 5e. Personally, I don't know any DMs (though they likely exist) that would take away player agency and outright prohibit a druid character to wear metal armor. A fire is a bad place to put...
    641 replies | 17988 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 05:08 AM
    I guess before I can really comment, I'm curious to know how your player imagines their animal companion would function. Do they want something that will likely stay out of combat but be more of a supporting role, like a familiar? Do they want a more aggressive and combat-capable companion, like the ranger? Knowing that will help define the design goals you are working with, and improve feedback....
    16 replies | 654 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 06:45 PM
    I suppose that's fair, but there are two classes that would benefit so greatly from TWF that there is no reason they wouldn't do it. The Paladin and the Rouge. For me, the mechanics around sneak attack and smite really make me uncomfortable redesigning general two weapon fighting rules, since there would be little reason not to engage in two weapon fighting. Personally, if a player wants access...
    217 replies | 8940 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 06:11 PM
    Actually, I think the normal two weapon fighting rules should remain the same. For example, it should be a meaningful choice for a rogue to pick between the extra attack, or disengaging. The benefit of making the fighting style specifically grant the benefits above is that it ALSO allows for a bonus action for normal two weapon fighting, but does not require it for a fighter to benefit. So a...
    217 replies | 8940 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hawk Diesel's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 04:05 PM
    Actually, I think you are on to something here. This portion right here should be the Two Weapon Fighting Style. It allows this style to scale as most of the others and it can see use when using action surge. I'm stealing this.
    217 replies | 8940 view(s)
    2 XP
No More Results
About Hawk Diesel

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 24, 1984 (34)
About Hawk Diesel
About Me:
I enjoy playing football, rugby, and I play D&D. I know... weird
Location:
Chicago

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,130
Posts Per Day
0.27
Last Post
New Spell: Vanish Today 08:26 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
52
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:27 PM
Join Date
Sunday, 3rd February, 2008
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

3 Friends

  1. clearstream clearstream is offline

    Member

    clearstream
  2. Eddie Blanton Eddie Blanton is offline

    Member

    Eddie Blanton
  3. geb_thecold geb_thecold is offline

    Registered User

    geb_thecold
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3

Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Saturday, 6th July, 2019


Saturday, 22nd June, 2019


Friday, 21st June, 2019


Thursday, 20th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019


Saturday, 9th March, 2019


Friday, 21st December, 2018

  • 07:12 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Mid- to high-level Wildshape [Moon Druids]
    Hawk Diesel: Thank you but could you please point to specific examples? That is, can you direct me to, for example, Monstrosities of CR 8 or below, with say Int 6 or lower, that would in your mind be unacceptably broken as wildshape forms for a Druid participating in a level 16 scenario, in a way that, say, an Earth or Air Elemental is not at level 10? Official sources only, please. I'm asking since I don't want to turn this discussion into a general "don't do this" thread. I am genuinely curious, however, about what specific abilities you are concerned about, and I remain open to shelving the entire idea if I see that it truly is a minefield best left untrodden.

Tuesday, 11th December, 2018

  • 05:04 AM - Sadras mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Removing Initiative
    I much prefer the no-initiative concept. I actually don't mind the list of options either, but the idea that the "monsters" only act on a miss is a non started for me. Well, I won't scrap the initiative in D&D as that I believe would mess around with spell duration. I don't need or want that headache. And I would keep the monster in the initiative order. What I might experiment with is the monster's additional laundry list of actions on misses or as @Hawk Diesel describes upthread as minor and major moves. One must be careful though as these minor/major moves + legendary actions could make an encounter super deadly.

Saturday, 3rd November, 2018

  • 12:06 PM - clearstream mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Warlock Maledictions
    ...in a turn, you can move that creature in a straight line 10 feet closer to you. Lance of Lethargy (pre-requisite: any malediction) When a malediction you cast damages a creature for the first time in a turn, you can reduce that creature’s speed by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. Repelling Blast (pre-requisite: any malediction) When a malediction you cast damages a creature for the first time in a turn, you can push that creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line. Pushed Malediction feature out one level to address dipping concerns. Doing so is a nerf to level one and two Warlocks, which I assume impacts the first two sessions (DMG suggests, and I find in play, one session to level to 2, and one more to level to 3). Undid nerf to Agonizing Blast, so that it is as stronger than ever! This came out of contemplating cross-class balance, with Ranger archery added to examples to illustrate. Changed on-application effects to "first time in a turn", in line with @Hawk Diesel comments. I don't like changing RAW for small gains, but here I note two benefits - 1) ease of use (subtle differences in application between similar effects can become confused at the table), and 2) I noticed my Warlocks were all over Repelling, but sniffy about Grasp and Lance, and I think this was because applying two or three 10' pushes a turn on one target was so clearly stronger that it made the others non-viable. Looking back at my examples (updated on the first page) this change casts a Warlock as a master of fighting with cantrips. I think other cantrips look fairly castable, compared with Blast.

Friday, 2nd November, 2018

  • 08:35 PM - clearstream mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Warlock Maledictions
    First, do you know all maledictions? You broken them out from Invocations so it's not from that pool (right?) but I don't see anything about picking or number known. If so, it's a big boost to Warlocks - freeing up invocations + lots more options > loss of +CHR damage on later EB beams. Ah. Malediction was thought of as one new class feature, although considering Hawk Diesel comments there could be a case for just giving Warlock some of those invocations with the new feature. If you get all at 2nd it also becomes a nice cherry pick for other classes that might get cantrips. I already see Warlock 1 getting picked up a lot for Hexblade. For classes that get other cantrip boosters adding this on top could be a real boon - not sure if it's overpowered. Well, without also having access to Invocations, as I've written it Malediction itself doesn't do much. It's just a hook into other mechanics. You know - it defines which cantrips the invocations can buff. You can apply multiple at once, right? So you can attack at a greater distance, push, and increase damage, all on the same cantrip. Once per turn on your own turns is the debuff people are talking about, but also the debugff they aren't talking about when your cantrip damages outside your own turn. So Warcaster OAs no longer can push opponents away, a bit of a shame. Applying multiple at once ...

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 05:12 AM - FrogReaver mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    ...ance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). Reading Comprehension Check 3: This Paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons not resembling any weapon. In Conclusion, we know what improvised weapons are and how to handle the 2 categories of them. (Objects similar to weapons and objects that don't resemble weapons). So then let's go over a few questions. 1. Where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object that is similar to a weapon does? It's in the 2nd paragraph. (An improvised weapon that is similar to a weapon can be treated as if it were that weapon) 2. Where is the rule that tells you how how much damage an object that doesn't resemble a weapon does? It's in the 3rd paragraph and it says such a weapon does 1d4. 3. Ultimate question, where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object does that is not similar to a weapon but resembles one? There is no rule on this. @Mistwell , Hawk Diesel Why do you think there is no rule on this?

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 09:02 PM - Satyrn mentioned Hawk Diesel in post The Bullymong: A Symbiotic Player Race
    As an aside: Something about this thread made me realize how I can better model the goliaths in my Borderlands-influenced D&D. I'm already using the goblinoids in place of the bandits, since the hobgoblins can be the "standard" and the goblins the midgets (and it feels more reasonable that some monstrous race could be full of suicidal pyschos), which obvious means bugbears fit as the goliaths. But I hadn't landed on a way to model how the goliaths level up and enter a terrifying berserk rage on a headshot. I don't know what it was about this thread that had me land on it, but I'm gonna make bugbears vulnerable to crits (like, hitting a bugbear with a natural 16+ instead of just 20) and the crit is what triggers the rage. Thanks, @Hawk Diesel, for I don't really know what. :heh:

Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018

  • 04:30 PM - Gadget mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Flesh to Stone spell - why the poor rating
    Hawk Diesel I like your version of the spell, this definitely more potent. Some critiques: This pretty much guarantees ~3 round restraint, no matter the targets resistances or Saves. It could be a little too much to automatically inflict on an Ancient Wyrm/Orcus. This is also a good way to force a foe to burn through their Legendary Resistances, though they may not need to use them to through off the effects, as it is a Con Save. Might it not be better to follow Otto's Irresistible Dance and have the spell Immediately inflict the restrained condition, no save, then force the target to spend an action on their turn to make the initial save? If the target makes the save, then the spell is over, but at least they suffered the restrained condition for a partial round and wasted an action to overcome it. If they fail the save, then perhaps they need to make two saves before they fail two suffer petrification condition for the duration.

Saturday, 24th February, 2018

  • 05:20 AM - CubicsRube mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Expanding reactions in 5e
    Hawk Diesel - thanks! Thatd be really cool. I think wizards and a few other spellcasters dont necessarily meed them as they often have a few reaction spells, but as common in d&d, the martial classes miss out :(

Friday, 19th January, 2018

  • 08:19 AM - Lanefan mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Suggest different wild surge results
    Hawk Diesel - that table looks somewhat like mine, only about 1/5 as long. :) I'll be stealing a few of your ideas, however. One minor note regarding your 57-58 reverse gravity option: reversing gravity for 1 minute such that the target moves away from the ground as if falling would, if outdoors, put the target well into the stratosphere by the time it wore off. Running a 60-second fall through an online calculator (which in fairness I think ignores air resistance) gives a fall distance of slightly under 11 miles, assuming earth gravity. http://www.gravitycalc.com So if you want that result on the table to be flat-out deadly, you have it; but if you don't you might want to chop that duration down. A lot. :) Lan-"the first time I hit this was when I looked at the duration of the 1e-2e Reverse Gravity spell"-efan

Friday, 22nd December, 2017

  • 06:37 PM - CTurbo mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Using NPC Spellcasters
    I completely agree with Hawk Diesel in that not every encounter is winnable, and fighting is not always the answer. Especially at low levels. Choose your fights wisely. Now about NPC spellcasters, I like using them, and to help keep the prep time down, I usually don't prepare a spell list for them. I just cast whatever I think will fit best in that situation. You don't HAVE to follow any spell set when you're DMing. Do whatever you want. This also helps keep options available for you to control the battle if needed. If your party is wiping the floor with the encounter so far, you can attack their weaknesses. If the party is struggling a lot more than you thought, you can attack their strengths. Example, want to go easy on the 21AC fully armored Fighter/Pally? Ranged spell attack or something with a Str save like Lightning Lure. Want to be hard on the 21AC fully armored Fighter/Pally? Upcasted Magic Missile or something with a Dex save like Sacred Flame.
  • 12:32 PM - Gardens & Goblins mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Theme for my bard
    Ah ha! A classic case presenting as 'Character Performance Anxiety'. Friend, as @Hawk Diesel suggests, go with whatever sounds the most fun. Forget the numbers, comparing your character to others and trying to be the best. Simply make something as stylistically awesome as possible and try your best to play it to the hilt. For me, currently, it's a Triton - re-flavoured as a Fishman/Creature from the Black Lagoon - paladin, following the Oath of Conquest and played as a fishman-moustache twirling Spanish Conquistador, hell bent on ransacking the lands of the dry-feet in the name of the Queen, for the glory of his people's faith which is known as The Only Way. Style first. Numbers later. You can always remake/rework what you have with a new character - besides, you'll need a fair few characters made & played to really appreciate what you enjoy and the numbers that might contribute to such enjoyment. Good hunting!

Wednesday, 20th December, 2017

  • 02:07 AM - Gadget mentioned Hawk Diesel in post At my table: Hexblade removed, Pact of the Blade enhanced
    @Stalker0, @Hawk Diesel, I really like the eldritch blast modification for pact of the blade. I have often thought that the blade'locks lacked a decent incentive to actually be in melee combat with all the sweet benefits of EB blast just hanging there, and thought there aught to be an equivalent melee cantrip for pact of the blade. Some more flavor text that explains how the cantrip takes the form of a melee weapon of the caster's choice (but does not change the damage), and you're good to go. This accomplishes a few things: 1) the melee spell attack does not require MAD to be competent in melee (though decent DEX, and to a lesser degree STR, are still desireable). 2) with the EB scaling number of bolts nicely gives the blade'lock scaling number of attacks, there by eliminating the need to take the 'additional attack' invocation. Perhaps and armor proficiency invocation could replace it? 3) Agonizing Blast and...

Saturday, 2nd December, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Failed-saving-throw mentioned Hawk Diesel in post High Level Zealot Barbarians Immortal?
    Hawk Diesel You don't need to multiclass to use a ring of spell storing or many other items. Then the inability for a barbarian to cast spells is also only while the barbarian is raging. It's possible to start a fight, action spell then bonus action rage. Don't know why you would think its not possible for that to happen and not be 1v1? Also on the relentless rage and endurance the way the wording is read I can see an argument being made that it can occur whenever you suffer damage while at 0 HP and still have rage not being broken by dropping unconscious. Also even just the combo of rope trick and the 15th level ability is enough to keep a barbarian unkillable for 40 rounds. Personally have never been in or even really heard of a 1v1 combat lasting that long, travel time in a fight notwithstanding. Then there's the fact that a 3 man party of zealot, wizard and cleric at level 15+ becomes essentially unbeatable with the wizard being able to prep safe spaces, the cleric heal and the zealot ju...

Sunday, 26th November, 2017

  • 09:35 PM - Failed-saving-throw mentioned Hawk Diesel in post High Level Zealot Barbarians Immortal?
    Hawk Diesel Yeahp still only lasts one minute but fighting most bosses 1v1 you essentially have a round leeway at the end that you can use things like the half orcs return to 1 hp, relentless rage, potions etc. That doesn't even consider using safe space tactics like mordenkainen's mansion, rope trick, leomund's hut etc. With this barb you are unkillable for those 10 rounds of combat. That means there's only 1 round every 10 that you need to worry about dying and with proper prep you can have that round completely secured. Just with being a half orc you would have 20 rounds of combat guaranteed. Pretty much all fights will have ended long before that.
  • 09:22 PM - Failed-saving-throw mentioned Hawk Diesel in post High Level Zealot Barbarians Immortal?
    @Hawk Diesel @OzDragon Yes, but let's consider for a moment. 9 times out of 10, a barbarian is going to rage before entering combat. They wade into the fray already carrying the largest pool of HP to soak damage. They got toe to toe with one or more combatants. Let's say 3 rounds in they take a blow that would leave them at or below 0 HP. Barbarians already have an ability to make a special constitution save and instead go to 1 HP. Let's say the barbarian makes that save twice, maybe 3 times (as more attacks hit) before finally failing. We can say 4-5 rounds pass total since the start of combat. Now instead of going unconscious, they can stay up. Yes they can continue to fight and soak up damage, but they have 5 rounds max before they finally succumb. And by the end of it you have to A) hope you have a healer with spells left, B) have a cure wounds potion, goodberry, or healer kit ready, or C) hope you have a cleric with Raise Dead (since the Zealot doesn't need the material cost for the spell). ...

Thursday, 23rd November, 2017

  • 01:27 AM - Eddie Blanton mentioned Hawk Diesel in post Level 20 Capstone Abilities
    Eddie Blanton There are definitely things I like about it, but it also doesn't feel like a capstone. It's definitely useful and within the approximate power level, but it is also a number of distinct abilities that aren't really unified. Most capstones provide a single new ability or enhancement. Those that don't are more thematically linked, such as the Paladin capstones. Sorry I don't have more concrete feedback. I think it's an interesting attempt, but could use some refinement. Hey Hawk Diesel, Here is an updated version of the Ranger capstone I previously presented. I removed the first three features, as they were wildly different, and went with a few more flavorful features instead: Unstoppable Predator At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter. You gain the following benefits: ~ You have advantage on Wisdom checks. ~ Once per turn, when you make an attack roll with advantage and hit a creature, you can treat each damage die as having rolled the maximum value. ~ Magical effects can neither reduce your speed nor cause the you to be paralyzed or restrained. You can spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has you grappled. Being underwater imposes no penalties on your movement or attacks. The thought here is to create a fun and flavorful capstone that's fitting of the Ranger. You can pursue your prey without restraint from even magical means, and you have a supernatural ability ...

Thursday, 16th November, 2017

  • 01:33 PM - pemerton mentioned Hawk Diesel in post The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking
    Hawk Diesel - I don't think I've read the particular threads that prompted this one, so I don't know the exact context - but if you think something is lazy writing, or lazy design, then I don't see what's wrong with saying as much. I mean, you should expect counter-arguments from people who like the stuff, but that's the nature of criticism.
  • 11:27 AM - Lanefan mentioned Hawk Diesel in post The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking
    Bob the wealthy, well-to-do, kindly noble, with a loving wife and doing children. vs. Bob the noble.Yeah, there's certainly a difference between those two - particularly when one takes the wonderful typo in the first line at face value. :) --edit: I have no idea why mention tags aren't working for me. Bah.You have to spell the name right. Hawk Diesel tries to mention you first thing in post 3 but it fails because your name is misspelled... Lanefan


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 30 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 12:50 AM - ClaytonCross quoted Hawk Diesel in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Personally, I don't know any DMs (though they likely exist) that would take away player agency and outright prohibit a druid character to wear metal armor. A fire is a bad place to put my hand, but a DM wouldn't stop me from having my character do it. I had a GM that did. He also felt that applied to weapons even though it didn't say so when I multi-classed rogue so I had find wood from a D&D Quebracho tree (aka Axe Breaker Tree) to make daggers that wouldn't NORMALLY break in combat and use mending to fix them when they did. Add to that my old GM would take my agency away and prevent me from putting my hand in fire and burning myself if it meant that the his story telling went the way he wanted or I would some how benefit from doing so by saving that burning clue in time to solve a puzzle extra. If I would just get burned he would have allowed it and laughed at me for the "stupid attempt". I only mention this to say I understand the OPs points and agree. Your statement that its not a big deal ...

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 05:23 AM - Ohmyn quoted Hawk Diesel in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I see that you're venting, and maybe it's the way I'm reading this, but I am having trouble understanding the part you disagree with. Is it the restriction? The lore? Or specifically how it is implemented in 5e. I'm bothered by everything about it as presented in the PHB, and then again bothered by how poorly it's addressed in Sage Advice. It's written in the PHB without any information or mechanical implications provided, and then when asked why that is, the Sage Advice states it to be a story element, but then words it in a way where you as a player have to ask your DM if you're allowed to break the rules and wear it despite the class restrictions. The issue here is that there's a section for story elements, but this "rule" is listed under the Class Features, and the Sage Advice didn't do a good job of indicating it's not a mechanical restriction. In my experience most DMs prohibit Druids from wearing metal armor for this reason, and even in AL it seems almost universally not allowed. At most a...
  • 04:29 AM - Charlaquin quoted Hawk Diesel in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I see that you're venting, and maybe it's the way I'm reading this, but I am having trouble understanding the part you disagree with. Is it the restriction? The lore? Or specifically how it is implemented in 5e. Personally, I don't know any DMs (though they likely exist) that would take away player agency and outright prohibit a druid character to wear metal armor. A fire is a bad place to put my hand, but a DM wouldn't stop me from having my character do it. Though my choice would also come with the consequence of some fire damage. I see the druid armor restriction in 5e as akin to paladin oaths or the warlock patron. Yes, they offer role play opportunities, and going against your oath or defying your patron may carry consequences, but those consequences may not be immediately clear or well understood. And it may be mechanical (paladin must go oathbreaker, warlock loses its powers), but the consequences don't have to be. That's one of the cool things about 5e. It doesn't always clearly spell out...

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019

  • 07:10 PM - TwoSix quoted Hawk Diesel in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I suppose that's fair, but there are two classes that would benefit so greatly from TWF that there is no reason they wouldn't do it. The Paladin and the Rouge. For me, the mechanics around sneak attack and smite really make me uncomfortable redesigning general two weapon fighting rules, since there would be little reason not to engage in two weapon fighting. Personally, if a player wants access to that style of fighting, I am comfortable with a level dip for it. They are called fighters for a reason, so it makes sense to me that this should be a unique fighter ability. It is admittedly strong for a paladin or rogue due to the accuracy bonuses. There are certainly good reason to gate it behind a fighting style or a feat. Fighting style is just my personal last option, if I'm going to gate it, I'd rather gate it with a feat. Besides, if you have a Barbarian with access to these two weapon fighting rules, with Reckless Attack they would essentially have triple or quadruple advantage. That s...
  • 06:28 PM - TwoSix quoted Hawk Diesel in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Actually, I think the normal two weapon fighting rules should remain the same. For example, it should be a meaningful choice for a rogue to pick between the extra attack, or disengaging. The benefit of making the fighting style specifically grant the benefits above is that it ALSO allows for a bonus action for normal two weapon fighting, but does not require it for a fighter to benefit. So a fighter can do both. That makes sense, but it also locks the scaling aspect behind a level 1 dip into fighter or 2 level dip into ranger, which is something I personally would like to avoid. I like the idea that a barbarian or valor bard or cleric or monk could choose to use BA free dual-wielding without a dip. Ideally, I'd like to see Two-Weapon Fighting Style give a bonus of around 1.5*N damage (N=number of attacks), which is similar in scale to Great Weapon Fighting and Dueling. Edit: I'll be honest, I'm also pretty OK with giving classes that probably want to dual-wield but have superior bonus acti...
  • 04:50 PM - TwoSix quoted Hawk Diesel in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Actually, I think you are on to something here. This portion right here should be the Two Weapon Fighting Style. It allows this style to scale as most of the others and it can see use when using action surge. I'm stealing this. Yea, I was going for a pretty limited remake, with minimum changes to other rules. But that portion of the rule, by itself, is pretty balanced. If I was going for a more broad fix, I'd make that the default rule for two-weapon fighting, and move the bonus action attack into the dual-wielder feat. Edit: Actually, if you make it a broader fix, I'd let the followup attack have stat mod to damage, but only with light weapons. It's equivalent to greatsword with no fighting styles in damage. If the fighting style changes to any one-handed weapon (bumping the d6 to a d8), it's about equivalent to the great weapon style.

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 06:06 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Hawk Diesel in post Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong
    Would you let someone get regenerate or mass heal from a feat? My point was the healer feat is, in effect, giving a spell slot, refreshing on a short or long rest, for every person in your party for the low low cost of a healer's kit. My point was the amount of healing it gets is really high. I've seen it taken twice. I've also seen Inspiring Leader taken once. And I haven't gotten to be in too many 5E games. When I do get a chance to play and not DM, the character I'm planning on making is a Bard built like a Warlord and both of those feats are on my docket to take. Healer gives an amount of power that rests between Magic Initiate and the racial magic feats. Depending on what use of Magic Initiate you compare it to, it may actually fall behind Magic Initiate. (not very many cases, but still) Requiring a specific consumable item to use it is of variable significance, but it hardly breaks the game. Few DMs will just allow infinite healer kits even without the feat, but if they do, so what? Not...
  • 05:48 AM - Xeviat quoted Hawk Diesel in post Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong
    My way of redesigning many feats is indeed to make them scale with level to some degree, so a lot of the feats in the games I run play off proficiency bonus to some degree where there are mechanical benefits. But I do see what you are saying with perhaps it regaining too much HD back. Perhaps I will adjust the bonus regained to a number equal to half your proficiency bonus. Just know you're doubling up on hp gained. People will choose it so that it bumps their con to an even number, so toughness is only giving +1/level over it. Increasing HP healing by HD by +2 would be equal to +1 hp/level, so decide how much better healing should be vs raising the cap.
  • 05:33 AM - Xeviat quoted Hawk Diesel in post Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong
    I have revised Durable as follows: Durable Hardy and resilient, you gain the following benefits: • Increase your Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20. • When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, you add your proficiency bonus to the total of each roll. • When you complete a long rest, you regain a number of additional hit dice equal to your proficiency bonus. That certainly makes it better, but I fear it makes it too good, what with the scaling. It's already scaling per HD, I don't think it needs to scale with proficiency too. And you might as well just have it regain all HD on a long rest at that point, because it's almost there.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 09:35 PM - MechaTarrasque quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    You're missing the point. Does a spellcaster need to cast spells to mitigate the fact that they are using spells? Does a monk take on some handicap for using their martial arts? If a berserker barbarian is basically hamstrung for using the thing that makes them a berserker, then the system is penalizing the player for playing the class as it's meant to be played. No other class ability in the entire game makes you suffer for using your abilities aside from the resource or opportunity costs. Isn't being a monk a handicap in itself? :p I kid, I kid....On the other hand, most casters can still spam cantrips when they run out of spell slots, but when the monk runs out of ki points....not to hijack the thread too much, but maybe the monk would be better served as a caster with the gimmick that they can use an unarmed strike to deliver touch spells (obviously need some more touch spells).....
  • 09:26 PM - Arnwolf666 quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    You're missing the point. Does a spellcaster need to cast spells to mitigate the fact that they are using spells? Does a monk take on some handicap for using their martial arts? If a berserker barbarian is basically hamstrung for using the thing that makes them a berserker, then the system is penalizing the player for playing the class as it's meant to be played. No other class ability in the entire game makes you suffer for using your abilities aside from the resource or opportunity costs. Not all classes and archetypes need to have the same mechanic or resource management. Some prefer it that way. My opinion only.
  • 08:31 PM - MiraMels quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    How are they mitigated? They get advantage on Strength saves and ability checks, but only while raging. With high enough levels of exhaustion, they could mitigate their disadvantage on attack rolls, but only at the cost of making them more vulnerable to attack. Their fast movement only slightly mitigates a speed penalty with 2 levels of exhaustion, but does nothing if you get to the point where your movement becomes 0. You've answered your own question. Rage, Feral Instinct, Indomitable Might mitigates the disadvantage from first level of exhaustion. (And Intimidating Presence makes up for the disadvantage on Charisma (intimidation) checks in a different way.) Fast movement mitigates the speed penalty from the second level of exhaustion. Rage, Reckless Attack, and Danger Sense mitigates the disadvantage from the third level of exhaustion. If you really want to push the envelope, Relentless Rage even lets you try and cope with a halved hit point maximum. Once you hit five levels of exhaustion ...
  • 05:39 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    I am really against the Frenzy ability of the Path of the Berserker. To my knowledge, it is the only ability that results in a detrimental effect in addition to resource expenditure. The only other mechanic that I'm aware of is Haste, but even that only lasts one round after the spell ends. I understand that the ability to make an attack as a bonus action, regardless of the weapon, is a powerful ability. But it should still function mechanically like every other ability. Either it is limited by resource expenditure, action economy, or both. Additionally, Barbarians are already limited in what they can accomplish in the exploration and social pillars of the game (unless those things involve feats of strength). Just one use of Frenzy guarantees that your barbarian character is even worse at those things, making them even more one dimensional as well as a potential detriment to the group. Oh, you guys need to sneak past those guards because you're too injured from the previous fight? Well, it's...
  • 04:45 PM - Zardnaar quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    So... a berserker barbarian using frenzy is more taxing than a spell caster casting any spell above 3rd level? See, this is the thing that gets me. A berserker barbarian could literally frenzy themselves to death, yet a spell caster can cast spells non-stop round after round, and then cast cantrips indefinitely after running out, and there is no explicit exhaustion mechanic tied to that. A high level spellcaster could obliterate a small town with meteor swarm, and it is no more taxing than swinging a dagger. But a barbarian wants to swing that dagger one more time per round... that's the line! A paladin could smite on every single attack until they run out of spell slots, but no exhaustion mechanic there. No penalty for using their signature ability. Hell, a dual wielding fighter can eventually get 4 attacks a round, even a level 5 monk, but Moloch forbid a barbarian to get THREE attacks in a round! You know the 3rd attack at low levels is very very good.
  • 04:33 PM - jaelis quoted Hawk Diesel in post Berserker Barbarians: Wait what?
    How do you build a Barbarian around Dex? Both rage and reckless attack specify that they must be with melee attacks using strength in order to benefit from those abilities. You just don't use those things. I've always been a bit skeptical, but you can read about it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468625-Graceful-Destruction-A-Guide-to-Dex-Based-Barbarism

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 09:52 AM - gyor quoted Hawk Diesel in post Phantom Steed
    Sounds like someone wants to be like Julian from Caverns and Creatures. I'm not familiar with that reference.

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 04:10 PM - jayoungr quoted Hawk Diesel in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    I typically don't worry that much about the distinction between creature or object with regard to spells. How would a spell be able to determine that any better than the caster? It would be like saying a gun or a bullet knows whether it's being fired at a person or a wall. Or, for the sake of a D&D discussion, a bow or a sword knowing this. Now, I can see a case being made for a gun/sword/bow having less effect. There might be only a scratch, for instance, if such weapons were used on a stone wall. But it doesn't stop them from being used. I feel the same way about spells. It doesn't stop them from being used. A magic missile used on a section of stone wall may just mark the surface. But that alone doesn't tell you if the target was a creature. I tend to feel the same. Also, sometimes you want to use spells on inanimate objects--to break down a wall, for example. I would let a magic missile do force damage on a wall in a case like that.
  • 04:04 PM - iserith quoted Hawk Diesel in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    Sure, but heat seeking missiles don't just plummet out of the sky when launched in the absence of targets without a sufficient heat signature. They can still be aimed at a target and destroy that target as intended. They just don't correct course without that thermal input (I imagine. I don't know much about military weaponry). You can certainly make a case for magic missile behaving in this way. But for me, it is problematic because it requires a couple of assumptions: 1) There is a real and objective distinction between what is living and what is not. 2) The magic utilized by spellcasters is able to intuitively or automatically sense this objective trait. 3) If the distinction between living and not living is not objective, then the magic employed by a spellcaster is capable of making these judgments without input from the caster. Meaning magic has a sort of limited artificial intelligence. For me in my games, these assumptions bother me. I typically like to play in worlds that ar...
  • 03:36 PM - robus quoted Hawk Diesel in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    In such a world, it doesn't make sense to have magic innately able to sense and thus define what is alive and what is not. I dunno, there's a bunch of spells that target different types of creatures: living, undead, dead, celestials, demons etc. Magic does seem to be able to distinguish between them?
  • 03:14 PM - robus quoted Hawk Diesel in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    I typically don't worry that much about the distinction between creature or object with regard to spells. How would a spell be able to determine that any better than the caster? It would be like saying a gun or a bullet knows whether it's being fired at a person or a wall. Or, for the sake of a D&D discussion, a bow or a sword knowing this. Magic missiles are much more like heat-seeking missiles though. They are self-guided, but only toward creatures. Given that the darts are created and then directed, if there were no creature targets, I imagine the darts would dance about for a bit and then fizzle out, costing the caster a spell slot.


Page 1 of 30 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Hawk Diesel's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites