View Profile: jaelis - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 04:44 AM
    I suspect that someone who wants to play a bladelock would not feel satisfied subbing in eldritch blast.
    17 replies | 480 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:31 PM
    My house rule is 1/day, 2/day starting at level 11. No complaints, but then, no barbarians in the party either ;)
    53 replies | 1743 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:33 PM
    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
    53 replies | 1743 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:09 AM
    Well thats what you get when you dump Int
    53 replies | 1743 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 08:18 PM
    I agree the 4e universe setup was pretty good, but so is Eberron and a lot of the old 2e settings. I like them better than the FR-centered lore of 5e, but I don't really feel like they are "gone." Still easy to use if you want. I actually kind of liked the more-or-less setting neutral take of 3e in that regard. I do miss the lore associated with prestige classes/paths in 3e/4e. That was a nice...
    77 replies | 2672 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:36 PM
    I have to agree: mechanics and everything else aside, the idea of spell preparation is pretty central to my concept of the wizard class.
    26 replies | 993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 12:45 PM
    Unfortunately, rarity isnt always a great proxy for the desirability of a magic item, so breaking disputes useing an item count wont always be satisfactory. An auction system would probably be fairer, if a formal mechanism is truly needed.
    14 replies | 443 view(s)
    2 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:30 PM
    The main way overkill comes into play is when there are multiple opponents, so that there is another target that the overkill damage could have gone too
    135 replies | 3905 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:21 PM
    Compare that to a 4 hp opponent. Better, compare to a whole range of opponent hp and see who does better on average across the range.
    135 replies | 3905 view(s)
    2 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 10:22 PM
    jaelis replied to Tortles
    As Dave says, you don't need to restrict yourself, any race can be fun with any class. But if you are into optimizing, the Str bonus goes well with fighter, barbarian and paladin. The shell AC might be particularly useful for a barbarian.
    9 replies | 384 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 03:09 PM
    That seems quite reasonable, but your OP includes a much broader statement that "the rules of 5th edition D&D encourage keeping a bad guy alive and then torturing him for information." If that isn't something you are setting out to defend, you might not want to include it.
    68 replies | 2415 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 02:45 PM
    I have not found torture to be at all prevalent in my games. I think perhaps this depends on who you are playing with?
    68 replies | 2415 view(s)
    2 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:25 PM
    Let us call this nonsense "catoblepasta." Like copypasta, but gazing at it requires a death save.
    33 replies | 1092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 12:34 PM
    AGH, IT BURNS
    33 replies | 1092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 11:18 PM
    OK man, bring it.
    33 replies | 1092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 01:50 AM
    I wonder if it would be clearer if they physical and magical attacks instead of weapon and spell attacks.
    10 replies | 419 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 09:29 PM
    Like you saw, the errata clarifies that an unarmed strike is not a "weapon," simple or otherwise. This works pretty well. The weirder thing to me is improvised weapons, which I think are again not, technically, weapons.
    10 replies | 419 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 06:14 PM
    I think, "nah." Offer me a sword that does +10 damage once per day vs one that does +1 damage 10 times per day, and I'll take the the +1 version.
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:16 PM
    Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though.
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:02 PM
    My concerns are: - low level fighters and rangers - high level fighters - classes that don't get TWF style I'd like to address all those issues. It is true that paladin etc get better at level 11+ where the extra damage kicks in. But a lot of play happens at levels 5-10. (And just to say, even at level 11, the GWF pally can do 35.7 per round, while TWF does 34. I don't have a problem...
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 03:12 PM
    So you feel that the +2 AC from the shield is fairly balanced by the opportunity to have added effects? (Like what?)
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 02:32 PM
    Here's what get's me. I agree that, with the fighting styles, the level 5-10 GWF and TWF fighters are balanced OK. But from 1-4 the TWF is considerably better, and from 11+ the GWF is better. So you could say, fix 11+ separately, and you don't care about 1-4 because it's over quickly. As for other classes: paladins, war/tempest clerics, valor bards and barbarians don't get the TWF style,...
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 01:49 PM
    Congrats, you have discovered the reason that cone spells actually have a range of "self" :)
    157 replies | 157775 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 12:50 PM
    Level 11+ fighter?
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 11:35 AM
    I changed it to: you can attack with both weapons simultaneously, as one attack with combined damage. But if you choose to attack with only one weapon, you can later attack with the other as a bonus action. So with two short swords and extra attack, you could attack twice for 2d6 + stat, or three times at 2d6+stat, 1d6+stat, 1d6 (no stat). That balances the damage, keeps some flexibility, and...
    187 replies | 4628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 08:12 PM
    Perhaps, but that doesnt really seem to be the point of the listed ability? It is supposed to help you resist pain, not perform tricks that make it look like you are resisting pain. Anyway it annoys me when something with real benefits like yoga is presented as if it were some kind of scam. But obviously that isnt actually relevant here, either way.
    9 replies | 456 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 12:10 PM
    Erg. You know, none of those things is actually painful if done correctly.
    9 replies | 456 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Monday, 27th May, 2019, 02:52 PM
    How do you figure? Still have to touch the target, right? Oh, I must have looked it up on an off-brand site. Range is 30 ft. Still tougher for burial and hedged prison though...
    5 replies | 409 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 01:11 AM
    I think you all are missing the forest for the trees here.
    19 replies | 782 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 06:06 PM
    First, what is wizard writing? Second, a scientist would presumably be literate in whatever languages they speak, just like anyone else. I dont think they should have any special language benefits. Unless they are a linguist, but I was picturing more of the physical sciences here.
    29 replies | 2559 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 05:07 PM
    The only reasonable answer is, ask your DM. If you are in a burning building, presumably the DM has already decided how much damage the flames would do if you entered a burning space. That seems like the value to go with. In the torch example, I could see basing it on the torch damage or on what you think the burning fuel would otherwise do. There doesn't have to be a universal answer.
    14 replies | 610 view(s)
    2 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 08:49 PM
    If you agree that they can touch your body, beyond just your hand, then what is your argument for mirror image working?
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 08:40 PM
    I like the image of you holding your daughter by the hand, and her floating above you like a balloon, unable to touch your arm or body :)
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 08:12 PM
    I guess the issue is that if I try to hold even a child's wrist with one hand and they try to get away, I cannot stop them without using more of my body than just my hand. I have done that experiment plenty of time with my kids. Therefore, if a player told me they wanted to grapple a creature using only their hand while keeping the rest of their body out of contact, I would simply say it doesn't...
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 08:00 PM
    But you are just assuming that holding my wrist is a grapple. If you don't assume that then there is no reason to apply the grapple rules. It is not an unreasonable position, but it just says something about what you think a grapple means. If you replace "holding my wrist" with "touching my shoulder" then you could make the same argument, but you wouldn't because I doubt you think touching my...
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 07:45 PM
    Good point
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 07:32 PM
    Well that's the question, does it require a Strength check to make someone let go of your wrist? Does it matter if you are using your whole body and they can only touch you with that one hand? The rules don't get into that level of detail.
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 06:33 PM
    I don't think so. 1d8 seems reasonable :) But the DMG might have something to say about it too.
    14 replies | 610 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 06:20 PM
    Personally, I wouldn't let you use the clothing as fuel. But if they are standing on something flammable, sure. I agree with iserith that the create bonfire mechanic seems applicable.
    14 replies | 610 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 06:13 PM
    While it is true that grappling doesn't restrain, I think it is debatable whether it is as simple as grabbing someone's wrist. Arguably it would be hard to keep hold of someone if you only had them by one wrist. I usually picture it as a bit more than that.
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 04:47 PM
    I would rule that since you are touching the grappled creature, it can indeed rely on a sense other than sight. But I don't think the rules are clear cut about it, so you'd have to see what your DM thinks.
    32 replies | 1116 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 01:56 AM
    I think that if your PHB spontaneously combusts, WotC will replace it for free :)
    18 replies | 769 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 01:55 AM
    Do you want to count ethereal?
    19 replies | 568 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 12:25 AM
    Don't forget gaseous form :) Hmm, so in this hierarchy, a ghost can carry things. That does seem to be how it works, but I'd never appreciated it.
    19 replies | 568 view(s)
    1 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 04:55 PM
    I think of it as a speed thing... you could swing a sword slowly through a ghost and not affect it, but swinging quickly causes damage by disrupting the ether or something. Similarly I'd play that if a wall fell on a ghost, it would take damage.
    19 replies | 568 view(s)
    2 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 02:00 PM
    I agree with you on that. People get excited about the "army of sims" exploit, but even if you play the spell as straightforwardly as possible, it is still astonishingly powerful. IMO the spell should be something like: only at-will abilities, all damage is halved, and the sim has a max of like 20 hp. It would still be a great spell even with no combat utility at all, because it is ideal for...
    24 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 06:10 PM
    It surely depends on the type of imprisonment. Hard to see why it wouldn't work with chains, hard to see how it would work with hedge prison or burial. I'd rule based on whether you can be in range of the target, and whether you can get the fingernail clippings etc. One edge case would be the gem prison, if you already had the clippings and were possessed of the gem. Does the imprisoned figure...
    5 replies | 409 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dwayne's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 11:38 AM
    I can't wait to finish this race and post the final work. I have to say this one race has more done with it than some of the others, due to the fact of the interaction of the different genders. But keep in mind i made this to have those 6 genders for a reason, and only I know why and none of you have even gotten close to it. But how can you your caught up in facts and real world science when this...
    95 replies | 5928 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Saturday, 18th May, 2019, 12:03 AM
    Magic missile and simulacrum. MM is reasonably useful for nearly any character. Simulacrum lets you break the game. The chance of getting to use simulacrum optimally is probably low, but it you do then its the best.
    20 replies | 846 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jaelis's Avatar
    Friday, 17th May, 2019, 01:37 PM
    jaelis replied to Capturing Souls
    That's not really what sequester does, it puts a (willing) creature in suspended animation and hides it away. AFAIK the gemstone trapping is part of imprisonment in 5e?
    10 replies | 491 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About jaelis

Basic Information

Date of Birth
July 26, 1969 (49)
About jaelis
About Me:
Physicsy
Location:
C'ville

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,553
Posts Per Day
0.62
Last Post
The Final Bladelock Friday, 14th June, 2019 04:44 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:10 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 13th February, 2008
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. dwayne dwayne is offline

    Member

    dwayne
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 14th June, 2019


Wednesday, 12th June, 2019


Tuesday, 11th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019


Saturday, 8th June, 2019


Thursday, 6th June, 2019


Wednesday, 5th June, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thursday, 23rd May, 2019

  • 09:20 PM - Oofta mentioned jaelis in post Incorporeal Movement
    That too is a confusing part, because the ghost is only resistant to weapon attacks. So it is semi-solid so that a sword *can* damage it. I'm with jaelis on this one. The fact that an incorporeal creature is slowed to half speed walking through a sword means that it is interacting with it, just not as much as a normal (corporeal) creature.

Friday, 21st December, 2018

  • 08:30 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned jaelis in post Dispute about Rings of Elemental Command
    I don't know if this is helpful but, in previous editions, it differentiated "Elementals of the plane to which the ring is attuned can't attack or even approach within 5 feet of the wearer. If the wearer desires, he may forego this protection and instead attempt to charm the elemental (saving throw applicable with a -2 penalty to the die). If the charm fails, however, total protection is lost and no further attempt at charming can be made, but the secondary properties given below will then function with respect to the elemental." and "Creatures, other than normal elementals, from the plane to which the ring is attuned attack with -1 penalties to their attack rolls" (emphasis mine) Which leaves me to believe that, if they are trying to make it similar to how it's been traditionally, jaelis has the correct interpretation.

Wednesday, 4th July, 2018

  • 04:17 AM - Maxperson mentioned jaelis in post Would you allow this?
    ...ying that, to refer to both the role-playing and the other thing as role-playing is to confuse the term. Okay, great, but who here said that they were both roleplaying? Not me. I've been telling you that they were different for quite some time now. He's doing two distinct things: role-playing, and something else. He's making decisions as his character would make them (which is role-playing), and he's inventing details about the setting beyond the purview of what his character can actually control (which is a different activity, that is not role-playing). The distinction is important to maintain, since the whole reason I would disallow the scenario in question is because of the something else. I run games where players only role-play, and never do that other thing. Without having sufficient language to distinguish between the two, there is no way to get my point across. Agreed, but in this thread this is a problem of your own devising. I don't recall anyone but you and perhaps @jaelis confusing the two, and I think you confused him with your responses to me. :p

Saturday, 23rd June, 2018

  • 02:40 AM - mrpopstar mentioned jaelis in post Super Simple Armor
    jaelis this gives back to the rogue (because I don't truly harbor Dex any ill will), captures everything a boil down needs to capture for me, takes most everything offered for consideration in the thread into account, and gets buy-in from Saelorn, so, I'm feeling pretty good about it. :) I'll update the first post to reflect my thinking. Most burning question: Should things be listed as "light masterwork armor" or "masterwork light armor" ? Armor Armor Class (AC) Strength Stealth Light Armor 11 + Dex modifier -- Disadvantage Light Masterwork Armor 12 + Dex modifier -- -- Medium Armor 14 + Dex modifier (max 2) -- Disadvantage Medium Masterwork Armor 15 + Dex modifier (max 2) -- -- Heavy Armor 16 Str 13 Disadvantage Heavy Masterwork Armor 18 Str 15 Disadvantage Shield +2 -- --

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 11:06 PM - Gardens & Goblins mentioned jaelis in post College of Glamour - Mantle of Inspiration movement fluff
    It says it "enthralls your allies with vigor and speed." So, they momentarily become faster. It's the same dodging ducking and weaving, essentially. Good call - so yes, a burst of speed ninja-like speed. And as jaelis suggests, perhaps the enemy are distracted, at least enough to miss their attacks of opportunity. I'll mix them - playing it/portraying it as surge of otherworldly energy the energises friends and offset foes. Thank you good people!

Monday, 7th May, 2018

  • 04:30 PM - Gadget mentioned jaelis in post Question on Illusory Dragon, Sickening Radiance, and Maddening Darkness spells
    ...th True Sight as having successfully made the investigation check and having advantage on the save vs Breath. Sickening Radiance - The wording of the spell indicates that the creature only needs to make a saving throw when it enters the spells area the first time or starts in the area to avoid damage, exhaustion, and negation of invisibility benefits. Does that indicate that the creature can travel through the spells area without needing to make more saving throws to avoid taking any further damage or levels of exhaustion. Is that correct? Yes, if they made the first ST when entering the area or starting their turn there, and they have enough movement to make it outside the area of the spell by the end of the their turn. Maddening Darkness - It states that "light created by spells of 8th level or lower can't illuminate the area." But the Sunburst spell states that "This spell dispels any darkness in the area that was created by a spell." Which takes precedence. I think jaelis has the right of it here. Since Sunburst is instantaneous, it can dispel the Madding Darkness without illuminating the area. This is a nice compromise between two equal level spells as targets within the Madding Darkness area will not be subject to the Sunburst effects, but the Madding Darkness will be dispelled.

Saturday, 31st March, 2018

  • 12:19 AM - Kobold Boots mentioned jaelis in post Greataxe, greatsword, and a little math
    I hate this suggestion for 5e. Maybe for a new rpg but not for D&D IMO Considering it's an amalgam of 1e, and 3e with the exception of the single damage die and use of feats for real effects, I chuckled at this. I do respect your tastes and opinion though. Just know that any solution that keeps different weapons at different damage die isn't going to solve the issue. Averages won't change. Single base damage die with character skill will. Especially since the larger base damage die doesn't prevent any weapon from doing 1 point of damage. Far more interested in @jaelis 's opinion.

Thursday, 29th March, 2018


Wednesday, 28th March, 2018

  • 02:20 PM - Coroc mentioned jaelis in post The best solution for longswords
    jaelis #220 I disagree partially, Yaarel has at least found a solution for the Dilemma by houseruling it. Let us formulate the key Points of the Topic one more time: 1. Long sword wielded 2 handed (versatile) is inferior to other 2 handed weapons especially for GWM, unless of course you are using a shield from time to time. 2. Elves and Rogues are per Default proficient in Longsword but both are often Dex heavy, which makes Finesse Qualities of 5E redundant/ in oposition to this proficiency. So we want to resolve that as Close to RAW as possible: For 1. i see no easy way out, other than those fluff houserules i did post in several postings above. (Remember fluff does not alter game mechanics) For 2. and staying Close to RAW the only solution i see is give rogues and elves rapier proficiency instead of Long sword (ok rogues already got that). For those arguing that i take away something by this, keep in mind that no elf warrior is barred from putting Points in strength an...

Monday, 26th March, 2018

  • 08:54 AM - Coroc mentioned jaelis in post The best solution for longswords
    jaelis #158 6 Pounds is the weight of a 16th century bidenhaender = greatsword of the Landsknechts (Length up to 6 ft) A normal Longsword (for 2 handed use) would not exceed 3-4 Pounds, especially if designed to be used 1 handed occasionally. Still both are not Finesse weapons, and a very unfitting weapon for slim elves except you want to imagine your character looking like those grotesque comical figures in some MMORPGs aka "where is the sword running with the gnome?"

Friday, 23rd March, 2018

  • 03:02 PM - Coroc mentioned jaelis in post The best solution for longswords
    jaelis except Gygax did not define the Longsword other than with its stats though and the case is resolved really easy: introduce a arming sword / side sword / broadsword aka sword which is 1 handed only and does 1d8 slashing. And no it does not Need to have Finesse, but it will not hurt the game Balance if you allow it. Of course your elves or rogues get proficiency with it. Keep the longsword as it is and rename it bastard sword. Rename Great sword as Long sword. That way you are historically accurate and did not hurt anything in terms of game balance or availability. I really agree on armor though: There ain't no such thing like leather armor, especially studded leather armor, and ring mail is not a thing to exist. There was an armor called Cuirboulis or so which was hardened by oil cooking, very thick breastplate made of leather, but your nowadays Heavy metal / Gothic / BDSM Outfit is just fashion Accessoire, which got nothing to do with armor and will never work as such. In f...

Thursday, 8th March, 2018

  • 06:37 PM - lowkey13 mentioned jaelis in post Disintegrate Vs. Druid
    Oh. No. Not this thread again. :) jaelis has already, and correctly, noted that this was addressed in Sage Advice, so there's that. The more interesting question is WHAT POWERS OF NECROMANCY DOES IT TAKE TO BRING BACK THE DUSTED DRUID AFTER TWO YEARS??!!??!!

Sunday, 4th March, 2018

  • 07:48 PM - Harzel mentioned jaelis in post Teleport and Detect Thoughts
    I would not let Detect Thoughts result in anything better than "Seen Casually"; if Salida is indeed concentrating to 'help' the wizard see the location, then I'd say at least "Viewed Once", and probably "Seen Casually". As jaelis noted, Salida having an object from Omu could avoid the question entirely, although it would be nice to allow the wizard to feel clever for thinking of using Detect Thoughts.

Thursday, 1st March, 2018

  • 07:19 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned jaelis in post Distract drop invisibility?
    ..., usually with a weapon, and a monster makes such an attack with a body part unless otherwise called out. In other words, it's a different logical basis for argument and not a reductio of the one used for attack and invisibility. The purpose of this is to say 'see, I can twist things, too!' The problem is that those making the attack argument are not twisting anything -- they are saying that the exemplary definition of attack in the rules is not exclusive, and they refer to past iterations of the rule to show agreement with their thinking. Which set of supporting evidence are you using for melee attacks? But, even that said, I really don't see a huge problem with allowing a dragon (or dragonborn) to use their breath weapon as an OA. I don't see anything that breaks, it's flavorful, and it punches up those abilities in ways I actually like (dragonborn breath attacks are weak, and dragons can always stand to be more terrifying). My comment, while you're correct I didn't believe jaelis would play that way, wasn't facetitous in that I really don't have any problem whatsoever with that ruling, and I might even use it myself with some more thought. The Mirror Image discussion started with me saying I have not issues with Magic Missile interacting like that. Both of these example show that even attempting to reductio ad absurdum the problem doesn't actually lead to absurd outcomes. They may not be outcomes you like, but they're not absurd.
  • 06:32 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned jaelis in post Distract drop invisibility?
    Well I would encourage you to talk to others about how they read it, and maybe tweet JC, and see how many people have a "twisted" reading. Point being, you're trying to disparage the your opposing side and then walking away. What kind of impression do you think that leaves people? Disparage? I'm sorry, but jaelis said he was intentionally twisting words to make his argument, and you were agreeing with him, so how can I disparage you for saying that you were doing what you said you were doing?! Seriously, I'm at a loss, here.

Thursday, 15th February, 2018

  • 10:48 PM - SkidAce mentioned jaelis in post Draft Rune Magic Feat
    jaelis , here is the final(tm) version. :D Rune Magic Feat Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell You gain the ability to inscribe a spell with the range of touch or self into a rune as a ritual (10 minutes). You may only have your spellcasting modifier number of runes active at a time. Any unused inscribed runes expire after a long rest. Spend a spell you have prepared to bind it to a rune. You must supply any required material components, and the spell must have a casting time of one action. You can later activate the rune as a bonus action. You may choose a creature other than yourself when you create the rune. That creature can use an action to activate the rune by touching it or speaking its name aloud. In either case, the creature must be within 10 feet of the rune, whether it is inscribed on an object or a surface. The activating character makes all decisions about how the spell behaves, but it uses your spell DC, attack modifier, and level for...

Wednesday, 14th February, 2018

  • 07:42 PM - SkidAce mentioned jaelis in post Draft Rune Magic Feat
    Revision jaelis Rune Magic Feat Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell You gain the ability to inscribe a rune as a ritual (10 minutes). You can have your spellcasting modifier of runes at a time. Spend a spell you have prepared to bind it to a rune. You must supply any required material components, and the spell must have a casting time of one action. You or a person you designate can later activate the rune as an action (bonus?), just as if you had cast the spell. The activating character makes all decisions about how the spell behaves, but it uses your spell DC, attack modifier, and level for resolution. If you are level 5+, you can scribe a rune as a trap, in which case it functions exactly like a glyph of warding (at level 3) I don't want a rune scribed onto an item to be any harder for a character to use than a potion or scribed scroll, so I do not prefer attunement to be involved. Its also okay to be a "little" powerful, as its not for publication.
  • 03:58 AM - SkidAce mentioned jaelis in post Draft Rune Magic Feat
    jaelis My goal is to create a mechanism by which one time use runes can be put on places, weapons, armor, other people etc. So like a "Cure Wounds" rune cast on the fighter that can be activated later as needed. Or a "Fog Cloud" cast in a hallway as a minor "trap". I thought using Glyph of Warding as a template would reduce rules bloat. Back to the drawing board.
  • 01:41 AM - mrpopstar mentioned jaelis in post Homebrew cantrips
    jaelis these are fun spells!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 58 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 05:01 AM - Xeviat quoted jaelis in post The Final Bladelock
    Just go with whatever matches your image of the concept better. I prefer when a good concept is backed up by good rules. Also, a blade pact warlock has to spend another limited resource to get booming blade/greenflame blade, and if they're doing that they might as well grab shillelagh instead of one of them. Magic Initiate or multiclassing is costly. I suspect that someone who wants to play a bladelock would not feel satisfied subbing in eldritch blast. I could write it as "1d12 damage, no weight, one-handed, finesse weapon. You gain an extra attack with it at 5th, 11th, and 17th level". Sure, some people might dip for it, but people do 2 warlock level dips for Eldritch Blast.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 11:27 PM - Prakriti quoted jaelis in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Compare that to a 4 hp opponent. ...such as kobolds, a common low-level enemy. There, the multi-attacker has a chance to kill two kobolds in one round, whereas the single-attacker can only ever kill, at most, one. Edit: I see FrogReaver accounts for this in his original post, and the "fallacy" in the title is somewhat misleading. He admits that the issue is more complicated than I gave him credit for.
  • 11:24 PM - FrogReaver quoted jaelis in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Compare that to a 4 hp opponent. Better, compare to a whole range of opponent hp and see who does better on average across the range. I already derived the general case for who is better and who is worse for those PC's. It was in the OP. hp values 1-4 favor PC 2. values 5-8 favor PC 1. values 9-12 favor PC 2. values 13-16 favor PC 1. etc.

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019


Tuesday, 4th June, 2019


Monday, 3rd June, 2019

  • 12:00 AM - 5ekyu quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I think, "nah." Offer me a sword that does +10 damage once per day vs one that does +1 damage 10 times per day, and I'll take the the +1 version.But thats not the options. The goals seem to be to get the twf pally on PAR dsmage eise from DPR plus also leaving the smite. So seems more like kinda looking to get the +1 ten times and also have the +10 option. That's why isolating DPR and comparing between classes, balancing that and dismissing the smite riffs is such faulty logic.

Sunday, 2nd June, 2019

  • 06:28 PM - Oofta quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though. I have considered the TWF paladin option myself simply for the additional nova damage. Smite twice on the same round (or three times if hasted)? Could be fun against the BBEG. I don't really care if it "balances out", but when my vengeance paladin wants to he could get VENGEANCE!!! :mad: So that would work for me. On the other hand, simply allowing two weapon fighting style for a paladin (or other classes) would also balance it out for me.
  • 04:28 PM - 5ekyu quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though.See, here we go, "if you value nova damage"... Blinders are funny things. Does nova damage matter at all, even enough to be counted? I would think "yeah". But if the point we are trying to make is that TWF pally needs help, maybe then we decide "nah, not really." Would you be ok then if the change to TWF pally was "we adjust the base dsmage up to match base pally eith GWF but you lose smite?" I mean, if smite arent eith counting then losing thrm is not worth fussing over, right? This is where blinders come into play, the smaller and smaller you drive down the focus, the more isolated the case, "let's look at DPR figuring only a few pi...
  • 04:11 PM - 5ekyu quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    My concerns are: - low level fighters and rangers - high level fighters - classes that don't get TWF style I'd like to address all those issues. It is true that paladin etc get better at level 11+ where the extra damage kicks in. But a lot of play happens at levels 5-10. (And just to say, even at level 11, the GWF pally can do 35.7 per round, while TWF does 34. I don't have a problem with that, just pointing out that TWF doesn't pull ahead to make up for levels 5-10.) Rogues I think are good as is, except that I think the TWF style makes it too advantageous to multiclass. Are you including smite in those pally numbers? If so, how much? An extra attack per round from TWF can for a pally deliver like up to 6d8 extra smite damage alone. Cannot do it forever of course. But again you have a lot of opposing examples there - class by class differences. Classes that dont get the fighting style yet still are choosing between say 2h weapons and two light weapons have festures generally built in...
  • 03:47 PM - Quartz quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    So you feel that the +2 AC from the shield is fairly balanced by the opportunity to have added effects? (Like what?) Like Sneak Attack, Battlemaster maneuvers, additional damage from magic weapons, smites, greater distribution of damage ...
  • 03:43 PM - 5ekyu quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Here's what get's me. I agree that, with the fighting styles, the level 5-10 GWF and TWF fighters are balanced OK. But from 1-4 the TWF is considerably better, and from 11+ the GWF is better. So you could say, fix 11+ separately, and you don't care about 1-4 because it's over quickly. As for other classes: paladins, war/tempest clerics, valor bards and barbarians don't get the TWF style, which means TWF is no good at all past level 5. Rogues don't get TWF style, but want it so bad they are kind of handicapped if they don't dip into fighter for it. Monks can't really use TWF at all, which means they are handicapped if they don't use a staff or spear until their martial arts damage gets good enough. Rangers I think probably work the best, since they spend the most time in the configuration where TWF is reasonably balanced. That's why I think a more fundamental fix is better than a class-specific tweak.So, now to be clear, to you the problem with TWF is how bad it us for the non-fighter clas...
  • 02:37 PM - Quartz quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Level 11+ fighter? The TWF still gets a guaranteed extra attack with the opportunity of added effects. BTW if you assume a 20 stat at 11th level the Duellist is doing 3d8 + 6 + 15 for an average of 34.5 damage and the TWF fighter is doing an average of 4d6 +20 or 34 damage. No, TWF does not need tweaking.
  • 02:16 PM - 5ekyu quoted jaelis in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Level 11+ fighter?Yes, it is possible the 11+ level fighter needs improvement, but not TWF.
  • 02:00 PM - FarBeyondC quoted jaelis in post Let's list the "broken" spells
    Congrats, you have discovered the reason that cone spells actually have a range of "self" :) Also, why the widen spell metamagic (which is what you would actually use to alter the size of those aoes) doesn't exist in 5e.

Saturday, 1st June, 2019

  • 05:56 PM - Len quoted jaelis in post Yoga & trivia profs?
    Erg. You know, none of those things is actually painful if done correctly. Yes, and yoga teaches you how to do them correctly.

Monday, 27th May, 2019


Friday, 24th May, 2019

  • 08:33 PM - tglassy quoted jaelis in post Grappling with Mirror Image
    I guess the issue is that if I try to hold even a child's wrist with one hand and they try to get away, I cannot stop them without using more of my body than just my hand. I have done that experiment plenty of time with my kids. All that proves is that their Dexterity (Acrobatics) or Strength (Athletics) check beat your Strength (Athletics) check. My daughter is 6. I can grab her with one hand, lift her off the ground and hold her over my head, even if I grab her by the wrist (I wouldn't do that, of course, it'd hurt her.) A character with a 20 strength can do the same to someone who weighs 300 lbs. One hand, lift them off the ground. You're grappled. Period. To rephrase the question because apparently details get in the way, if my character has a 20 strength, and grabs someone by the vest and lifts them off the ground, hand outstretched, and has Mirror Image on so that it looks like four different people are lifting him in the air by the same point, can the target automatically k...


Page 1 of 58 123456789101151 ... LastLast

jaelis's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites