View Profile: GX.Sigma - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About GX.Sigma

Basic Information

About GX.Sigma
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Signature


http://johnsrpgblog.blogspot.com/

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,820
Posts Per Day
1.05
Last Post
Sorcerous Origin Bonus Spells Saturday, 9th September, 2017 07:44 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
20
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 25th September, 2018 06:47 AM
Join Date
Sunday, 4th March, 2012
Home Page
http://johnsrpgblog.blogspot.com/
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thursday, 20th July, 2017

  • 09:48 AM - Sadras mentioned GX.Sigma in post Gandalf Initiative...more Mearls Initiative Fallout
    I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge... Look its fairly obvious, the only time we will ever get some clarity on which initiative system is best, is if @lowkey gets off his lazy :]ss and creates a surivor thread for the various initiative systems proposed (Grognard, 5e, Mearl's Greyhawk, @Miladoon's Gandalf, @GX.Sigma's Bilbo and @Ilbranteloth versions along with your compulsory comedic option involving lemon curry).

Tuesday, 30th May, 2017

  • 09:13 AM - Morrus mentioned GX.Sigma in post This is a wiki (collaborative) thread
    This is a demo of a modern internet wiki thread (it's not really wiki, it's same BBcode as the rest of forum, except in a sandbox), It has information so that ANYONE can edit it. I know the posts of ENWorld and quote the users historical, From @Morrus to @Umbran in order xp level. Did you know YOU can start a wiki thread? Yes, you! Start a collaborative project, list, or other thing. Who, me? Yes, you. Use wiki threads for any collaborative post or project. Feel free to edit this one to try it out. Click on the question mark above for more info, or click here -- they take you to the same place, through the power of hyperlinks. Or create your own wiki thread. Click the link to find out how easy it is. As a side note @Yunru's shameless plug, go check out a short rest variant of spellcasting. :cool: :cool: Stay tuned! I may say anything next! *** TESTING... oh wow it really works! -gx.sigma @GX.Sigma is right - BI I like soup. Poodle noodle doodle. How fun! Must watch developments, potentially avec popcorn...! - Grassy Neat! Does this count s as one of my three required posts before I'm able to post links? Let's find out! - Breon @Godfear wanders in, looks around wide-eyed, then slinks back into the shadows to lurk. @TerraDave says go here: SWORD SEEKERS | The Dungeon @PinkRose I don't think this works. @BoldItalic offers suggestion: make this post a WikiWiki - an index of all the wikis so people don't have to hunt for them. Best of the 5e Forum UNEARTHED ARCANA Index 5th Edition OGL Guide The new D&D Reading List- WIKI THREAD! Problems with Tales from the Yawning Portal Dude, where's my car? Creators of new Wikis can add links to their own. Neat. Check out my new free take on the Mystic There is now a wiki index page: http://www.enworld.org/forum/wiki.php You can sort by title, views, or last update. Also, ...

Monday, 28th March, 2016


Saturday, 30th January, 2016

  • 06:35 PM - Big J Money mentioned GX.Sigma in post Why do you hate meta-gaming? (And what does it mean to you?)
    GX.Sigma, innerdude GX, great post! Thanks for all the detail. My definition of "meta-authoring" would be[..]. Metagame (1): noun. "The game around the game." [...] Metagame Knowledge: noun. Information about the metagame[...] Metagame[-ing] (2): verb. To game more effectively (i.e., increase likelihood of winning) by using metagame knowledge[...] When we talk about metagming in TRPGs, we're talking about an extreme form of powergaming[...] Of course, the best D&D players know how to use the metagame to everyone's benefit, but I wouldn't call it "metagaming." Interesting ideas. innerdude, have you seen anyone else use "meta-authoring" or is that your own term to help describe the difference? I believe what you and GX are saying is very similar, if not the same. Essentially, metagaming follows closely to the definition 1 in the OP, and "the act of using metagame knowledge, although not for the purposes of metagaming" would be sometime else entirely. innerdud...

Monday, 7th December, 2015

  • 07:51 AM - empireofchaos mentioned GX.Sigma in post On Lingering Injuries
    So here is my takeaway from this discussion so far: 1) It's good to have lingering injuries in 5e, because healing is so easy (even for the gritty variants), and combat should have consequences. 2) It's a bad idea to tie lingering injuries to crits, because crits happen so frequently 3) It's a good idea to tie lingering injuries to death saves (it's a system that's already defined, and while imperfect, it's easy to use) 4) Recovering from injuries should require more sophisticated magic than just Cure Wounds (depending on the severity of the injury). I've seen some decent crit tables and injury tables (including the one @GX.Sigma proposes above), but I guess I want to get away from having to read detailed tables in the middle of combat. So I propose a fairly simple system that (imo) jibes with the spirit of the 5e rules. When a character drops to 0 HP, roll a d4, and consult the following chart. If the character has failed one death save, roll an additional d4, and if he/she has failed 2 death saves, roll 3d4. Roll Result Remedy to Reverse 1 Stunned 1 rd. after any cure, DC 10 Constitution each subsequent round to reverse (applies to all results below also)* Lesser Restoration 2 Minor Scar (as per DMG)** Lesser Restoration 3 Festering Wound (as per DMG) ...

Thursday, 3rd December, 2015


Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned GX.Sigma in post Warlord Name Poll
    ... ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @HEEGZ ; @Hemlock ; @Henry ; @Herobizkit; @Hussar; @IchneumonWasp ; @I'm A Banana ; @Imaro ; @Iosue ; @Irennan ; @JackOfAllTirades; @jacktannery ; @jadrax ; @Jaelommiss ; @JamesTheLion ; @JamesonCourage ; @JasonZZ; @jayoungr ; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon ; @mellored ; @Mephista ; @Mercule ; @MG.0 ; @MichaelSomething; @Miladoon ; @Minigiant ; @Mishihari Lord ; @Mistwell ; @MoogleEmpMog ; @Mon @MonkeezOnFire ; @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) ; @MostlyDm ; @Mouseferatu ; @MoutonRustique; @Nemesis Destiny ; @neobolts ; @Neonchameleon ; @Nifft ; @nightspaladin ; @nomotog; @n00bdragon ; @Obryn ; @Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamo...

Friday, 17th July, 2015


Friday, 13th March, 2015

  • 04:58 PM - Skyscraper mentioned GX.Sigma in post Looking for Turn Undead alternate rule
    How about just using the "frightened" condition? Interesting option, and simple. GX.Sigma : how would you apply this condition? I see a few options: a) instantaneous effect when the cleric whips out his holy symbol. Then, sub questions: (i) save or no save? and (ii) limited area of effect (e.g. 30') or line of sight? b) continuous effect as of the moment that the cleric holds his holy symbol. Then, sub questions: (i) save or no save? And (ii) limited arear of effect or line of sight? And: requires concentration If it's only an instantaneous effect with an ongoing condition, it means that, say, an undead that enters the room after the turn undead power was triggered, could walk up to the cleric unhindered by this power, even though his undead colleagues are cowering from the cleric?

Thursday, 4th September, 2014

  • 10:45 PM - Sir Brennen mentioned GX.Sigma in post How would you stat a boomerang?
    I like GX.Sigma's throwing limit (much like a crossbow), but I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't return on a hit. Unlike a crossbow, there's nothing keeping you from throwing another one, if you're a fighter with Extra Attack, for example. I'd still rule you can only catch one of them in the round they return, though. If you're a Monk of 5th Level or higher, meaning you have Deflect Missiles and Extra attack, I might rule they would be able make all their attacks with the same boomerang, just for flavor/coolness (without expending the ki point). Of course, they'd have to pick up proficiency with the boomerang as a martial weapon somehow. One nice thing about using a boomerang, is you can take advantage of the curve of it's flight to obscure the point of origin it was thrown from. Although if it comes back to you, that kind of negates that. I've often thought about making a Xena-like chakram weapon for previous editions. In this edition, I might stat it up like the handaxe, but as a martia...
  • 07:13 AM - Connorsrpg mentioned GX.Sigma in post How would you stat a boomerang?
    Umm, I am pretty sure that is what verisimilitude means actually. Well, it is at least how it was spoken about at length in other D&D books of the past, but whatever. Please note I did provide stats ideas too, which GX.Sigma seems to have provided in a better format and I like his interpretation of the having to catch it. But again, I would go with two weapons. 1 light that does less damage and returns. 1 larger, that does more damage but does not return. A boomerang could never return on a hit though - any contact would definitely throw their flight path off. I actually came into this topic with a real interest (and experience, which I am sure no one is really interested to hear) in boomerangs and thought I could help. Sorry, if I focused too much on how they actually work. When writing/playing DMing I always start with 'how would that look in the world?' I am not one to go straight to what would be a cool rule first. I understand if others want their boomerangs to do that, I was just trying to explain their use (assuming several people on here have not used them). I hope it works for your game :)

Friday, 22nd August, 2014

  • 01:51 PM - SigmaOne mentioned GX.Sigma in post DM screen?
    I was going to edit my post after GX.Sigma responded, because I couldn't find a source easily, and didn't want to give out false information. Now I'm glad I didn't because I woke up to a bright and glowing source: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1852-A-look-at-the-Tyranny-of-Dragons-DM-Screen-from-Gale-Force-9

Monday, 18th August, 2014

  • 01:50 PM - Ruin Explorer mentioned GX.Sigma in post I now the DMG isn't out yet, but I'm gonna DM anyway. Thus far, I've noticed that...
    ...systems full of interdependencies (Feats are particularly bad for this), at the other you have a number of indie systems where NPCs/monsters barely exist at all (most older RPGs tend weakly towards the former, most D&Ds are in the middle or nearer the lighter end). 2) Whether the DM wants to have good information on how tough the encounter is likely to be, or whether he doesn't really care, either because he just doesn't care, or because he is willing to fudge if it's problematic. Those are DIFFERENT axes. I can prove this (as much as one can on the internet!). We've all, I think, come across GMs who love ultra-detailed NPC building, but loathe balance-type guidelines, and don't really care about balanced encounters - particularly in games like GURPS or Shadowrun (or 3.XE/PF). Equally, I know that, no matter how simple the system, I value information on how hard an encounter is expected to be. Assuming they are together is just counter-productive! As for the rest of it, as GX.Sigma points out, you seem confused. EL/CR doesn't LIMIT you, it guides you. You can't pretend it's "limiting" you any more than any other PC of DM guidance.

Tuesday, 1st July, 2014

  • 08:19 AM - Echohawk mentioned GX.Sigma in post Am I just blind or something? Related to D&D pdf site.
    Yes, as GX.Sigma notes, WotC seems averse to releasing PDFs of print product that they (or their distributors) still have in stock. None of the core rulebooks (OD&D, 1E, 2E or 3.5E), or adventures (A series, S series) that got the reprint treatment has been released on the DNDClassics site so far.

Tuesday, 27th May, 2014

  • 07:47 PM - gweinel mentioned GX.Sigma in post Weapon and Spell Speed Factor Module
    ...ss the point here. The reintroduction of this rule has not much to do with the realism as much with the game style and the tactics that this rule made available and necessary during 2nde. It has to do with a nostalgia too. Returning now to the content of your post have in mind that the 2nd edition round lasted 60 seconds, so the attack rolls does not represent a single attack but attempts and maneuvers and feints to harm an opponent. If you put two persons one vs one and have them fight for a few seconds then the thing you write might be true but in the context of a minute in a fluid battlefield i can see that someone with a dagger has better maneuvrability and possible to be able to hit first than one with a halbard. In any case this is secondary issue for me. As for the rules I made, I know they are not perfect. As I said they were ad hoc thoughts and I wanted to ask the opinion of the community since i had not the chance play the last playtest packets. Many inputs like the GX.Sigma are actually better than mine although i would prefer it to be more streamlined.

Monday, 28th April, 2014

  • 01:50 AM - pemerton mentioned GX.Sigma in post D&D Next Q&A: 04/25/2014
    I don't see any indication of how they are going to handle the issues of action economy. GX.Sigma seems to allude to the same issue, in characterising the 12 orc encounter as more dangerous than the dragon encounter.

Wednesday, 9th April, 2014

  • 08:06 PM - Mallus mentioned GX.Sigma in post What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?
    I fail to see how you can derive any minimum skill requirements from that. Let's try to derive them, then! Question #1: What do you think a reasonable Difficulty Class range would be for the skill checks involved in making/keeping yourself leader of a hundred or so bloodthirsty, undemocratic pirates? edit: this assumes either 3e or 4e. I've already conceded you can represent the non-combat abilities of a hypothetical pirate lord using a 1st/low-level character in the older editions. Even though, as GX.Sigma pointed out, that's not how the AD&D Monster Manual chose to do it. Question #2: How many hit points, and related combat abilities, would you need to stay alive as the leader a hundred or so bloodthirsty, undemocratic pirates, assuming both external and internal threats?

Sunday, 30th March, 2014

  • 04:15 PM - Warbringer mentioned GX.Sigma in post Should you be able to cut a beholder's eyestalks off?
    The heart of this was the comment by GX.Sigma: do you cut of its heads to slow it down, or attack the body and kill it faster. A simple rule would be when you do damage in a swing that exceeds a set number (threshold), you can either do that damage in hit points or have a called shot for an effect ; alternatively, if you do enough damage in a single attack, the target makes a Fort save to avoid an effect. In my game this target is called "threshold" and is 25% of hit points. The rules also apply when a monster or hero passes through bloody and reaching 0 hit points. The effects in general are slow, blind, sicken, sunder, penalty (disadvantage in next language), suppress special attack, and a couple of others. Simply add to certain monsters special threshold rules, if you want, but no options are instant kill (thats what hit points are for). For the characters, I basically have a wound system that is a damage track that essentially gives the character a complication when "real" damage is taken.

Friday, 21st February, 2014


Wednesday, 19th February, 2014

  • 05:33 AM - pemerton mentioned GX.Sigma in post What a DM has to do in 5E
    ... stone shape etc are part of the game, then hopefully the DMG will talk about how to handle that from the point of view of pacing and preventing excessive caster power from nova-ing. We all know the DM can mitigate anything in D&D with the clever use of story telling, however it can ruin the story or even the play experience of the party. For instance after clearing half a dungeon the party Strength character moves some rubble to block the corridor to the part of the dungeon they haven't explored. Then all of a sudden half way through their extended rest they interrupted by the same kinds of monsters in the dungeon. After taking them out and later clearing the rest of the dungeon they find out there are no other exits and they didn't find any fresh tracks going out. So it breaks their immersion in the game. <snip> the DM has to get more unrealistic to stop them.I don't think it's a given that pacing techniques need be "unrealistic" or immersion-breaking. Someone (I think GX.Sigma) recently posted Rodney Thompson saying something like "In D&Dnext the situation isn't resolved with the encounter, but with the adventure". If that's going to be more than just a slogan, presumably they are going to give guidance on how to handle it. Of course it's a further question whether one wants a game in which the unit of play is the adventure and not the encounter; or which has spells like teleport et al which give the players a degree of mechanical control over pacing. But I think those ships have well and truly sailed!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 74 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 25th April, 2018

  • 02:12 PM - Tormyr quoted GX.Sigma in post Recovering Ability Score Damage
    The Devour Intellect power doesn't make any sense at all. Reducing a character's Int to 0 should represent the complete destruction of their mind. The Intellect Devourer already has a different power that does exactly that. So why even have the Int reduction at all? It should just say "stunned" for whatever duration. Also the flavor text on that page is dumb, but that's beside the point. Why would Intelligence of 0 be the destruction of the mind? At least in 3.5, it was represnted by coma-like state, and in 5e it seems to be represented by the stunned condition. The Devour Intellect action is written that way for a couple of reasons. 1. The stunned condition makes the target incapacitated. This allows body thief to be initiated. Otherwise, it would have to use its claws to knock someone unconscious. 2. The ability score reduction to 0 makes the Intelligence contest be in the intellect devourer's favor without the result being automatic. For the OP: As others have said, ability score damage...

Thursday, 28th September, 2017

  • 06:52 AM - MechaPilot quoted GX.Sigma in post How would you stat a boomerang?
    I'd treat a boomerang as a non-weapon, unable to even serve as an improvised weapon. I know that's not the answer you're looking for, so how about this: Boomerang Martial ranged weapon 75 gp 1d6 bludgeoning damage Returning (range 30/120), light Returning: This weapon returns to you after being thrown (on a hit or miss). Because of the time required to catch it, you can throw it only once when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to throw it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make. In general, I'd agree with a fair amount of that. I think 1d6 is more appropriate for a bladed boomerang (dealing slashing damage) or for a boomerang reinforced and weighted with small metal plates. I'd go with 1d4 for a more standard blunt, wooden boomerang. I think the 75 gp cost is a bit high. I'd probably go with 50 for the 1d6 bladed or weighted version, and 25 for the standard wooden version. I like the range you've given it. I mostly like the returning p...

Wednesday, 13th September, 2017

  • 08:38 AM - corwyn77 quoted GX.Sigma in post House Rule for Subdual, is it fair?
    How about this: Nonlethal attacks have disadvantage. If the attack result exceeds the target's AC by 5 or more, it becomes a lethal attack. Oops. I don't understand why anyone would want a rule where, if they perform really well, the result is the exact opposite of what they intended.

Saturday, 9th September, 2017

  • 02:45 PM - GlassJaw quoted GX.Sigma in post Sorcerous Origin Bonus Spells
    There's no doubt sorcerers need something else. What that something else is is clearly up for debate but origin bonus spells seems like a no-brainer to me. In my world, sorcerers of different origins have completely different spell lists. While I like this idea, it certainly requires more changes to the RAW. Definitely a good way to give sorcerers some much-needed differentiation from the wizard though.

Saturday, 29th July, 2017

  • 04:54 AM - robus quoted GX.Sigma in post Why does WotC put obviously bad or illogical elements in their adventures?
    This is the correct answer to the question posed by the thread title, and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any XP (here, have some on me). To put it another way: Quality assurance has diminishing returns. The closer you get to 100% perfection, the more difficult/expensive it is. There's not much difference between the sales of an 80% product and an 85% product, so making it any better is just a waste. By the time the customer realizes the imperfections, you already have their money. Note also that the artwork and visual design of the 5e books are always very high quality. That's because visuals are a big part of marketing. A big public company like Hasbro will never release a product that is 100% perfect, because the diminishing returns of quality will always impact their profit margin. I don't think this is a bug ask given the modest release cycle.

Thursday, 27th July, 2017

  • 06:09 AM - Hussar quoted GX.Sigma in post Why does WotC put obviously bad or illogical elements in their adventures?
    Let's be honest, though. The reason WotC adventures aren't great is simple: their goal isn't to make great adventures, their goal is to make money. Hang on a tick. While WotC previously has been pretty hit or miss with their adventures, 5e has really seen a turn around on this. I'll hold up Curse of Strahd to pretty much anything. Fantastic module. Although, I'm kinda curious how you make money on producing bad modules.

Monday, 17th July, 2017

  • 05:45 PM - lkj quoted GX.Sigma in post Xanathar's for a specific setting according to Mearls
    I think by "Xanathar's for a specific setting," he meant "a mechanical expansion book, like Xanathar's Guide, but for a specific setting." Implying that Xanathar's Guide itself is not for a specific setting. Ah! That makes a lot more sense. And now, to me, it clearly reads that way. Maybe because I want it to. But, yes, twitter conversations are hard to understand sometimes. AD

Sunday, 16th July, 2017

  • 04:31 AM - pukunui quoted GX.Sigma in post Why are 5e familiars celestial/fey/fiend instead of beasts?
    I think it's to show that they're magical spirits, not normal animals.This. Plus, they're immune to any effects that target beasts (and susceptible to any that target celestials, fey, and/or fiends, like protection from evil and good).
  • 12:25 AM - FormerlyHemlock quoted GX.Sigma in post Alacrity, a new Ability Score
    I know this is a minor point, but why not just call it "Speed"? That's a very clear, well-known, one-syllable word. Because of ambiguity perhaps? Confusion with movement speed? Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app
  • 12:24 AM - MechaPilot quoted GX.Sigma in post Alacrity, a new Ability Score
    Anything that hurts you primarily at first level doesn't matter. Either you luck out and survive, or you die and roll up a new character with different stats. I agree. And, while a -1 penalty to initiative could be deadly to a first level character, there's no guarantee it will be that dangerous. I know this is a minor point, but why not just call it "Speed"? That's a very clear, well-known, one-syllable word. Because "Speed" is already a defined stat measured in feet and not in the 3-20 range of attribute scores. If the attribute were called "Speed" you'd have to deal with questions like "does Ray of Frost reduce your speed by 10 or your speed by 10?"

Thursday, 25th May, 2017

  • 01:47 PM - schnee quoted GX.Sigma in post Building a dungeon that Meta-games
    I like the idea of a living dungeon. The problem is to keep the players from figuring it out until the end. Once they figure it out they can react to it and stop it. Not much different from a lich scrying all the time, a ghost flying through the rooms to spy on them, or a series of halls along the rooms where the BBEG spys through peepholes. Why is that a problem? That sounds like fun to me. Yeah, seconded. If you make those specific mechanics, provide the right information to the party, narrate them in relatively dramatic ways, and even have different floors have different sets of them to overcome, then it becomes a very interesting 'puzzle' overlaid onto the usual things. HUGE flavor. I'm totally going to rip it off.

Thursday, 4th May, 2017

  • 12:11 AM - Tony Vargas quoted GX.Sigma in post Why Are Skeletons Weak To Bludgeoning Weapons?
    Why do we even have the bludgeoning/piercing/slashing distinction in the rules at all? Because the last edition didn't have that distinction, and everything that edition did was wrongbadfun. ;P Seriously, though, it's another attribute which to distinguish one weapon from another, 5e did away with some from prior editions, like threat/crit, so it added one back in. IIRC, in the olden days it wasn't a specific attribute of a weapon that it did a type of damage, it was just implicit. Obviously a mace was a bludgeoning weapon, it didn't have a keyword or property or damage type associated with it, it was just mace. Of course, when you were a kid unfamiliar with the minutiae of pole-arm nomenclature, it was equally obvious that a Lucern Hammer also did bludgeoning damage...

Monday, 1st May, 2017

  • 05:25 AM - Saelorn quoted GX.Sigma in post Why Are Skeletons Weak To Bludgeoning Weapons?
    Right now, my solution to this is just to forget the damage types. Skeletons just have X hit points, and weapons just deal "weapon damage." Any other ideas?If you want to address the underlying reality, then the main benefit of many types of armor is that it spreads the impact out over a larger area, so you just get blunt trauma instead of being cut. If a skeleton was wearing padded leather or anything like that, then an impact from a sword would be just as effective as an impact from a hammer, and you'd be justified in removing their vulnerability. For the record, Treants are resistant to bludgeoning and piercing damage. You're supposed to use an axe against them.
  • 02:49 AM - Giltonio_Santos quoted GX.Sigma in post Why Are Skeletons Weak To Bludgeoning Weapons?
    This is really bugging me. I'm starting a campaign in a post-apocalyptic setting, and I want to use a lot of skeletons. How can I deal with this imbalance? Why would a player use a longsword when a warhammer is exactly the same except for a free "+100% damage to most enemies" property? If you were starting the ice world campaign with enemies vulnerable to fire, you'd probably be thinking about fire bolt being too strong and nobody ever having a good reason to choose poison spray. Just reskin some monsters as skeletons and you're good to go. It saves you the headache of discovering at some point in the future that you'd need different weapon damage types for something else.

Monday, 20th February, 2017

  • 06:29 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    On that note: Ah, I missed that. So, "implicit delay" is a tool the DM can use to resolve actions in a more natural flow. Interesting. I'll put that in. Personally, I'm resistant to the idea of multiple delays because it might make the round feel longer than 6 seconds; have you encountered any problems with that? Are you OK with interrupting spells, or should that not even be a part of these rules yet? OK. I guess that's what I meant, I just wasn't sure how to express it as a rule. This helps. I would recommend against the "Delay" declaration altogether. The point for me, and the reason we initially did away with rolling initiative at the start of a round was to allow things to flow naturally. This includes the process of running the combat itself. I think you'll find that as you start using a system like this, you might be asking what characters are doing, and somebody might not know yet. That's all you need to know. No need to add a "Delay" option as an explicit declaration. O...
  • 05:54 AM - FormerlyHemlock quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    Ah, I missed that. So, "implicit delay" is a tool the DM can use to resolve actions in a more natural flow. Interesting. I'll put that in. Personally, I'm resistant to the idea of multiple delays because it might make the round feel longer than 6 seconds; have you encountered any problems with that? Not that I've noticed. Sometimes I've been surprised to find that a three-round battle has taken us most of an hour, but (1) that occurs in large battle with lots of actors (especially if one player is giving orders to multiple individual NPCs on his side as well as his PC); and (2) most of the time seems to be taken in the action-declaration/deciding phase, with resolution being (I think) pretty fast, which makes the battle itself seem like it's going fast; (3) I can never figure out where all the time went because it seems quick, so my impression of #2 may be off. Note that movies have the same problem(?): a fight with eleven Avengers in it may be "supposed" to take only a minute or so of real t...
  • 05:48 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    I was thinking the exact same thing. Some random ideas on that, in no particular order: If you take damage before you finish casting a spell, you must make a concentration save or lose the spell. You lose the action, but not the spell slot. Or, you do lose the spell slot. Or, the spell misfires and something wild happens. Bonus action spells and reaction spells probably can't be interrupted. Maybe cantrips can't be interrupted? Maybe melee attack spells can't be interrupted? That makes sense. I'll add that to my rules. I use a modification of wild magic that is very similar to this. This is used when concentration is lost, when you suffer damage when attempting to cast a spell, when attempting to cast a spell you haven't mastered yet, or when under difficult circumstances (whispering, partially restrained, with substitute material components, when using a damaged wand (replaces wand of wonder), and counter spells. The Wild Magic Surge table is designed so that in circ...
  • 05:25 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    To be clear, are you disagreeing with my point that declaration/resolution creates a risk/reward transaction that's not present in the core rules? Or are you just talking about the balance issues of melee vs ranged? Good point. As I showed in my examples, this system actually does penalize ranged attacks a bit (if you declare a ranged attack, and then someone gets in front of you, you have to shoot with disadvantage), but not as much as melee attacks. Since 5e does already favor ranged attacks, I've already been thinking of ways to nerf ranged weapons. I think this system might make it easier to bring in some nerfs: Much higher chance to hit things you weren't trying to hit You can't move and shoot in the same round Ranged attacks can be interrupted like spells Or you could handle it more realistically - The speed of an arrow from a self bow is around 100 mph, and a recurve bow about 150 mph. That sounds fast, but consider that a fastball is around 90 to 100 mph. A soccer...
  • 04:58 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    How do you decide whether or not the arrow was nocked and ready to shoot? By the actions and descriptions given both before and during the current round. For example, it's not uncommon for one of my players to indicate that they are going to nock an arrow when they feel that they are in imminent danger. If the party was just ambushed, and the archer hadn't suspected anything or indicated they were nocking an arrow, and this is the first round, then they don't have one nocked. Also, if it's not the first round of combat, if the character is hanging back in order to make ranged attacks, then the assumption is that after each attack they are immediately drawing and nocking the next arrow. Everything flows together.

Sunday, 19th February, 2017

  • 09:32 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted GX.Sigma in post Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]
    What is the difference between these two examples? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that they are exactly the same, except the player in the second example didn't have to go to the effort of actually thinking through the situation in advance. The difference is that condition resolution has a clunkier flow. The DM can't just resolve actions, he has to interrupt himself in the middle of action resolution to add new complexity (solicit additional declarations) in the middle of the round. (Also, there's now a divergence between the character's thoughts and the player's thoughts, because you're pretending the PC saw this possibility coming all along and is ready for it, but the player becomes aware of it only after the character does. That feels clunky to me too; I'd rather make the PCs' thoughts reflect the player's.) Not for me, no thank you. EDIT: After some more thought, it occurs to me that in other situations, it might not be the exact same decision, and maybe CD and CR are not...


Page 1 of 74 123456789101151 ... LastLast

GX.Sigma's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites