View Profile: ad_hoc - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 10:48 PM
    I am glad that D&D is a genre of fantasy rather than a generic fantasy game. I think the rule is both important and clear. Like all rules it is easy to play without it. I think you're losing something in your game, but you can do what you want in your game.
    416 replies | 8293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 10:43 PM
    The Thief's 'second story work' is designed for this.
    20 replies | 506 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 04:20 AM
    I think you are downplaying its key component. It is effectively pre-healing. It adds a chunk of HP onto everyone. That makes their survivability go way up. I would much rather have 10 THP before battle than 20 HP healing after. The other thing is how easy healing is to get. Inspiring Leader gives you something few abilities do while Healer gives you something that many classes can do...
    72 replies | 2775 view(s)
    2 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 05:40 AM
    Yeah, the party should be at full HP as often as they can. After each fight is ideal, but certainly after each short rest. Doing otherwise is just inviting a TPK.
    72 replies | 2775 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 05:37 AM
    I think feats should have a great change on play. They should be 'big'. There are certainly a number of weak ones that don't achieve this. The only ones I think are overpowered are SS & GWM. Specifically the -5/+10 bits. I think it is easier to remove Healer than add more cheap healing in the form of healing kits which recover HP. I think potions do that job nicely.
    72 replies | 2775 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 01:23 AM
    In a game with Healing Potions on the common item list I think Healer is just fine. Inspiring Leader is much better than it too. Healer does shine on a Thief Rogue though.
    72 replies | 2775 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 12:16 AM
    Play what you want. It's hard to make a bad character in 5e. Agonizing Blast isn't that great as it costs a precious invocation and Eldritch Blast is just a cantrip. You're fine without it. I suggest checking out Armour of Agathys, Shadow Blade, and Tomb of Levistus.
    37 replies | 1159 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 09:52 PM
    I don't see it that way. It makes the most sense for the Barbarian to be raging the most at their most hated enemy. That's not going to be the wolves or random thugs or whatever attacking them. It's going to be the jerk who is causing whatever it is that the PCs need to stop. When people take Barbarian they expect to rage in every combat. I'm glad that rage is a special thing reserved...
    53 replies | 2015 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:56 AM
    My #1 advice for new players to 5e is to forget everything you know about previous editions. 5e is its own game. If you try to bring in old rules you will confuse yourself. Try playing it for a while too before introducing house rules. It is not as complex or convoluted as it reads. The rules are designed to be intuitive and that guessing at them is usually right. This backfires if your...
    11 replies | 651 view(s)
    3 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:55 PM
    You might want to tackle the problem from the other side first. 1. This is an out of game issue. Everyone at the table should be trying to make everyone else have a good time. If this isn't the case then there is a problem. 2. This sort of thing usually happens when the game isn't challenging enough. Instead of finding challenge in the game the players find challenge through each other. In...
    14 replies | 499 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 05:00 PM
    People are saying it is a 'terrible argument'. And you're supporting them by saying it is 'common sense'. Okay... Trouble finding players is a reason not to play 4e. Trouble retaining players is also a reason not to play 4e. That's relevant to the question of the thread. If it is common sense why get so bent out of shape about it? Just let the comment pass. No need to go on a tirade.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 10:25 PM
    ad_hoc replied to Tortles
    I like Land Druid Tortles. Thematically being an anthropomorphized animal makes you close to nature. Shell+Shield is 19 AC which is better than the 16 AC they are likely to get through dex, armour, shield.
    9 replies | 430 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:34 PM
    There is a difference between: "I think your argument is terrible" and "You know your argument is terrible right?" The latter is attacking my reasoning skills. The assumption is made that it should be obvious that the argument is terrible and phrasing it as a question is a passive aggressive jab.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 08:47 PM
    Torture by the baddies might be okay if it was fantastical enough. The Princess Bride comes to mind here.
    68 replies | 2789 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 07:54 PM
    I didn't say anything about 4e not being good. The poster also didn't say what you quoted. The reply translates to: "you know you're an idiot right?"
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 07:26 PM
    For me, torture has no place in D&D. It's a light hearted game, torture in game would really bother me. I can see it having a place in a game like Vampire: The Masquerade. Even then, it might only really have a place in a Sabbat game.
    68 replies | 2789 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 04:17 PM
    It is against the board rules to insult and provoke others.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 02:44 PM
    3.5 is not the only other edition that can be played. 5e is available and is astoundingly popular. It is much easier to find and sustain a group for 5e than 4e. When asking 'should I play 4e?' that is a factor to consider. This applies not only to 4e but to all RPGs except 5e.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 11:02 PM
    We have the numbers though. We know that 4e was not popular. I didn't say that some people wouldn't like it. Just fewer people will like playing 4e than 5e. That is a factor to consider. It's okay to be okay with it too.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 08:58 PM
    I didn't say it is an absolute. I said it is something to think about. New players are less likely to like it so you may not be able to get a group going. It's a factor.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 03:09 AM
    We have the evidence though. We know that new people have really taken to the game and those people have introduced more people and so on. 5e does really well with non-hobby gamers (and hobby gamers too for that matter). 5e is by far the biggest RPG ever. 4e was, not.
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 02:54 AM
    1. It's probably going to be hard to get a group. 2. It has a much higher barrier to entry than 5e so introducing new players will be more difficult. Regardless of whether you like it, if you like 5e then I think it is wise to continue playing it for the above reasons. There are millions and millions of people playing 5e now, most of whom are new to hobby gaming. I think the worst case...
    245 replies | 10758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ad_hoc's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:59 AM
    If a tree falls in the forest and no PCs are around to hear it... The answer is no. NPCs only exist when their presence is felt by the PCs in some manner. They don't have to be directly on screen for this. 3e had a world simulator mini-game that the DM could play. 5e has done away with it as it doesn't effect at the table play and only serves to bloat the rules and confuse the game.
    44 replies | 1469 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About ad_hoc

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,189
Posts Per Day
1.01
Last Post
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented Monday, 24th June, 2019 10:48 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
29
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:02 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 27th July, 2013
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Monday, 24th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Monday, 17th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Thursday, 30th May, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 01:02 PM - Oofta mentioned ad_hoc in post Why is the shortest lived edition, still one of the most popular?
    As ad_hoc just stated, most popular based on what? I don't know anyone that plays it, and I know quite a few gamers. Now that may be self-selecting because I met most of them through my connection with D&D living campaigns but if it weren't for this message board I wouldn't even know people still played it.

Thursday, 31st January, 2019

  • 02:59 AM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Line Spells / Lightning Bolt
    ad_hoc, I was not assuming anything - this is why I asked the question. However, the previous tokens for the cone above it is showing instances of the same area effect which threw me off. However, that's a good point that it's probably a 10' for the bottom and a 5' wide for the one above it in that diagram. I appreciate the insight. TaranTheWanderer - thanks for this. I was actually asking both and your diagram definitely helped clarify this to me! I appreciate everyone's response to this.

Friday, 7th December, 2018

  • 01:16 PM - Quartz mentioned ad_hoc in post Nightwalker: Really a CR 20?
    I'm in the same boat. At least one player loves to pump his knowledge skills, and can easily make DC25-30 checks. It's a rare day they don't know something about a monster. As ad_hoc said, if the PC can't have known then the check is going to fail. If you want to give some success produce only the most obvious information. You don't have to read out the MM entry just because the PC made a DC 30 check.

Sunday, 18th November, 2018

  • 11:40 PM - MNblockhead mentioned ad_hoc in post Player wants to play a Star Elf, any balance concerns?
    For those who are interested, the player read about the "star elf" or "twilight elf" in some Forgotten Realms book. He had no idea of the mechanics. I created a homebrew race in D&D Beyond based on the suggestions made by ad_hoc , above. After that and some e-mail back and forth, he went with Eladrin instead.

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 09:44 PM - 77IM mentioned ad_hoc in post Ideas for Improving Inspiration
    So to bring this back around to the original topic (which was "how to improve Inspiration" and not "why your particular problem with Inspiration isn't valid")... Our table houserules inspiration to apply whenever it is relevant to a background trait. So just straight up advantage when a trait is relevant to what is happening. ad_hoc: How does this work out, in practice? How do you prevent it from being abused? Like, I could imagine someone with the Ideal of "Survival" wanting to get advantage on every single saving throw... I'm asking because I really want to try this system for my next game. My biggest problem with Inspiration is the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws are very hard to use -- there's too many of them (5 per PC???) and a lot of them are not very well thought-out. Traits in particular are mostly role-playing prompts, and I don't see them motivating consequential actions the way Ideals, Bonds and Flaws might. I'm worried that someone with a Trait of "I always use big words" will do that (which is good) and consistently get advantage on all Charisma (Persuasion) checks (which is over-powered).

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 10:17 AM - Sadras mentioned ad_hoc in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    @ad_hoc Appreciate the detailed reply. I'm not sure I agree with everything but then again I don't feel I have thought through it all either and therefore count myself as ill equipped for a rebuttal. Something for me to look into this weekend and see how I feel about it. :) Just as an aside and why I was asking, no one at our table has dared to use their familiar in combat for the obvious reason that they risk losing it.

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 06:30 PM - Quickleaf mentioned ad_hoc in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    iserith robus ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing. “No, you can’t Help/Work Together because you haven’t said anything that would be helpful in this negotiation. Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?” “No, Bard player, you can’t roll to beat the druid’s Nature check because you haven’t proposed doing anything substantially different. Besides the Druid is the *best* in your party at Nature lore. You might try a new approach?” “No, Sorcerer player, you can’t make a History check here. Because nothing in your background as a native of the forests near Wa...

Tuesday, 28th August, 2018

  • 04:29 AM - Ashrym mentioned ad_hoc in post Guessing - Most and least played classes
    ad_hoc IIRC the WOTC survey way had rangers at 7th spot. I cannot find that old link but http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-results-summary shows: Fighter Cleric Rogue Wizard Paladin Warlock with druid also in last. What I linked earlier is per 100000 and more recent, however. In any case, rangers don't top popularity or end in the bottom.
  • 03:54 AM - Ashrym mentioned ad_hoc in post Guessing - Most and least played classes
    ad_hoc It looks like a good sampling. What is the statistic data for Ranger at 9th?

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 02:12 AM - Unwise mentioned ad_hoc in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    cbwjm The reason I came up with that example is that I actually played a Dwarf from a clan that prided itself on never having been in sunlight. They felt that sunlight would weaken both them and their culture, like it must have done to humans. He of course saw the sun for the first time and fell in love with it and the outside world. I chose deep-dwarf over Drow because it would not have the issues I mentioned above. To me that is the trick, something can be a great story yet shift the view of the world. In my Warhammer campaign example, my players all had great back stories (which they never do normally) but the end result was that it was a group that did not fit in the world at all. ad_hoc I can see where you are coming and agree, but don't have that experience myself. Frankly if they engage in RP or backstory at all I am thrilled, we don't have people competing for the spotlight.

Monday, 21st May, 2018

  • 01:40 AM - Ilbranteloth mentioned ad_hoc in post As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?
    I not only prefer published settings, I prefer published adventures only. I would be very cautious about entering a game with homebrew adventures. Even 3rd party adventures can be very bad so I would want a DM who is picky about what they bring to the table. Can I call that out as an ironic answer for somebody with a handle of ad_hoc?

Monday, 12th February, 2018

  • 05:07 AM - Nevvur mentioned ad_hoc in post How long til you modified 5e?
    ...l" some GMs prefer or require before giving a thing serious consideration for inclusion in their own games. Not that anyone needs WotC's approval to modify the game and have fun doing it, and anyway, custom monsters are some of the lowest-impact form of house rules (again, as I define it). Even so, I'd like to avoid derailing the thread with a debate about semantics. However you and others approach the question and select an answer is fine by me. Clarifications in written responses are appreciated. @Jer: I hope my explanation to Satyrn explains the difference between the thread title and poll question - that is, there's no difference as far as I'm concerned. I did state that rulings on nebulous systems ("situations... that aren't explicit in the rules" in your words) should be excluded. If you feel otherwise, that's fine. I'm not going to try to police the thread, so again, people can answer the question/poll as they see fit. Also again, clarifications like yours are appreciated. @ad_hoc: You wrote that it's impossible not to house rule. Adventurer's League players, in theory, should all be operating under the exact same set of rules. A person who has only ever DMd AL would have a "Never" response if they're abiding by AL guidelines. That's not always the case, of course. However, as defined in the OP, rulings are not house rules (see response to Jer). @redrick: You identified an interesting grey area - codification of a ruling. I feel there's a difference between codification of a ruling and mere consistency with a ruling. DM wiggle room, I guess? Not sure where I would place codification if house ruling is a binary yes/no situation. I'll give it some thought, and perhaps other participants in this discussion can weigh in on the point in the meantime. --- As to my own experiences... Started playing D&D back in the 90's. Didn't get much gaming in '99-'14, then returned to D&D as a DM in Jan '14 with 4e. I gave it about two weeks before I started house ruling and ...

Wednesday, 7th February, 2018

  • 11:15 PM - TheCosmicKid mentioned ad_hoc in post modified ability score calculation
    There are two goals. The first goal is to generate PCs with novel ability scores. I would like to have fewer PCs with good scores in all their important abilities but 8s or 10s in all their non-essential abilities. The second goal is to have a party where the PCs are relatively balanced with one another. I want to prevent what I see as the biggest issue with random ability score generation, where some players roll up super PCs and others get very weak PCs. If the PCs mostly end up with high scores, that's okay, I can adjust the encounters accordingly; same thing if the scores are mostly low. I also like the idea of all the players generating their ability scores as a party during session zero. Though, as TheCosmicKid points out in post#6, creating special rules for it causes some unnecessary problems.Okay, if the collective generation isn't a primary goal, then playing cards would be my suggestion as well. To spell it out in a little more detail than @ad_hoc: build a deck of 18 cards and deal them out into six piles of three. Sum each pile to get your six ability scores. You can tune the deck to get the power level you want. [Three 1s, three 2s, three 3s, three 4s, three 5s, and three 6s] will produce results equivalent to an average 3d6-in-order roll. For arrays that look more like the 4d6-drop-lowest method, there's no perfect deck, but I recommend something like [one 0, one 1, two 2s, two 3s, three 4s, four 5s, and five 6s]. Or if you think using cards instead of dice is just plain wrong for D&D, you can also normalize dice-generated ability score arrays pretty easily. First, pick a target total or point-buy value or whatever other measure of power level you like. Second, create an array using any normal dice method. Third, roll 1d6 to randomly select a score in that array and add 1 (if the array is below the target) or subtract 1 (if it's above). Repeat step 3 until you've reached the target level.

Sunday, 17th December, 2017

  • 09:40 PM - Gardens & Goblins mentioned ad_hoc in post Desperately need help, trying to catch up to party.
    You have created a ....monster :eek: I'm guessing the fighter has.... Defense Style for the +1 AC? And for some reason, folks have missed how Heavy Armor doesn't let you add your Dex bonus to AC. With the +1 magical bonus, and if that assumption is correct then yeah, ok AC 25 Thing is, as ad_hoc alludes to, if something as straight-forward as an AC calculation is so... off from the actual core rules then you're playing in La La land. Lordy knows what crazy rule pretzel readings have been taken with regards to the other characters. Do you have a complete break down of the house rules involved & the other table member's character sheets?

Saturday, 16th December, 2017

  • 04:25 PM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Dragonborn Breath Weapon vs. Dragonborn Fear
    ad_hoc: Hmmm - wouldn't it being treated as basically a 'half-feat' by itself indicate that as a feat in and of itself would be weaker. In addition to those things mentioned above, if the target can't see or hear the dragon born, they automatically save. Between that, getting saves when taking damage causing another save wouldn't you feel that this is watered down enough especially when taking the dragon born race 'as a whole' which seems to be a bit of an under performer? I'm just curious as to what you think.

Tuesday, 12th December, 2017

  • 11:23 PM - Dax Doomslayer mentioned ad_hoc in post Dragonborn Breath Weapon vs. Dragonborn Fear
    Hi, Thanks for the replies! Jalelis - Correct. No +1 stat that normally would go along with it if taking at first level. If they were to take the dragon breath feat, then the extra +1 comes into play. ad_hoc: I'm not clear by what you mean by 'would need to give up a stat bonus'. Are you indicating the standard Dragonborn bonus of +2 Str or +1 CHA or do you mean the additional stat bonus that would come normally come with the feat? If the latter, I totally agree. If the former, I'm curious as to why you feel this would be necessary. From all accounts as it is, the Dragonborn seems to be a bit underwhelming compared to a good deal of other races.

Thursday, 7th December, 2017

  • 04:12 PM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    ...specific does trump the general. the general in this case are the two effects. the specific is when they are combined... the specific rule on what happens when effects are combined. it says ADD TOGETHER not multiply together. Also, the 10' of original movement is not a spell effect so it should not get added twice any more than two effects which increase your AC allow you to count your base AC10 twice. If your proposal is that the individual spell language should trump the specific rule about what happens when spell effects combine, then that rule is practically useless. but again, this is mt take based on the rules presented. Thanks for pointing this out (again). Based on the text under Combining Magical Effects, which I had not read in a while, I would agree that since Step of the Wind is essentially a spell-like effect, the monk in our example would have a jump distance of 40 ft (the original distance + the effect of Step of the Wind + the effect of jump). This goes back to ad_hoc 's ruling all the way at the beginning. I know that some people get combative and hold to their positions when discussing the finer points of rules and rulings, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things especially when someone such as you keeps their head about it. Sometimes I think I have a pretty good picture of how the rules work. Other times, like now, I realize that I missed something. Regardless of the outcome of a discussion, I am better prepared for a ruling at the table, have my reason ready, and move on. Cheers.

Wednesday, 6th December, 2017

  • 05:22 AM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    EDIT: Somehow pulled off a double post.
  • 05:21 AM - Tormyr mentioned ad_hoc in post Super Monk Jumps
    I would love some crouching tiger, hidden dragon, in the game. It would appear the 5E precedence with identical effects is take the strongest one and apply it. Actually, that is a really good point. This would easily fall under the section in the PHB at the beginning of the Spells chapter. In this case, 3x would be the total jump distance multiplier but for a different reason than ad_hoc was mentioning.

Sunday, 3rd December, 2017

  • 12:06 AM - 24Fanatic365 mentioned ad_hoc in post Why penalize returning from death?
    My wife and I play AL at the local game shop, and you may be surprised to know, there are still house rules. A DM is running the game, so how could there not be house rules? Like ad_hoc mentioned above, the way 5e was designed leaves little to no chance that ANY group playing it will not have some form of house rule, or a different way of looking at and interpreting the rules that actually ARE there for us to see in black and white in the core rulebooks. I’m ok with slightly modifying how I play the game dependent on the group I’m playing with at the moment. I just want to spend some time having fun, and D&D is a relatively new way my wife and I have recently discovered for us to do that together. As far as I can tell, that’s the main purpose of the game. Fun. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 60 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 02:52 PM - FrogReaver quoted ad_hoc in post Faerie Fire too powerful
    If you always have high level spell slots available to you, then that is indicative of not being challenged. Level 7 you have 4 level 3+ available. If he just used one per combat that takes him through 4 combats. (Which is getting near the max that most people see in a given adventuring day). However, his chosen spells also last an hour. Due to how combats are spaced out in a longer adventuring day it's very likely that even if he were in a longer adventuring day that he would have the higher level spell slots on most days to meet that challenge. Now if we here a bard as opposed to a Druid - you might have a point.

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 04:11 AM - Xeviat quoted ad_hoc in post Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong
    In a game with Healing Potions on the common item list I think Healer is just fine. Inspiring Leader is much better than it too. Healer does shine on a Thief Rogue though. My thinking is that a party with Healer (Heck, a party with Inspiring Leader too) plays so much differently than a party without it (them), that it makes me wonder about the groups that playtested the 6 to 8 encounters a day. Healer (and Inspiring Leader) adds so much to the day's endurance. That's why I want to "balance" healer by adding basic healing to the healer's kit and then having the Healer feat improve that. I could also limit it to once per long rest and be done with it, it would be a little more balanced then.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 04:12 PM - Joshua Randall quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    And feats enabling the use of a class power?Uhh, multiclassing literally does that. Reserve Maneuver (sort of). etc. Should I play 4e? One thing to consider is whether you are able to form and maintain a group. Why shouldn't the OP consider that?Because it's common sense that if you ask about a game that game out in 2008, and has been unsupported for 5 years, you've already considered the potential lack of players.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 07:39 PM - HJFudge quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    It is against the board rules to insult and provoke others. Oh don't pull that crap. Don't bust out 'everything you like that isnt this is not as good and shouldn't be run' and then when someone says 'um friend, that doesn't make sense and isnt a good argument' cry harrassment and try to shut down dissenting voices, as if you are being personally attacked.
  • 02:49 PM - quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    3.5 is not the only other edition that can be played. 5e is available and is astoundingly popular. It is much easier to find and sustain a group for 5e than 4e. When asking 'should I play 4e?' that is a factor to consider. This applies not only to 4e but to all RPGs except 5e. This is a really terrible argument, you know that right?
  • 01:05 AM - quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    We have the numbers though. We know that 4e was not popular. I didn't say that some people wouldn't like it. Just fewer people will like playing 4e than 5e. That is a factor to consider. It's okay to be okay with it too. Hold up there bubba. 4e was perhaps not as popular as 3.5, but it was still popular. It didn't drop D&D off the charts or turn it into an unknown game. Something being "not as popular as this other thing" does not translate to something being "not popular".

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 03:18 AM - quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    We have the evidence though. We know that new people have really taken to the game and those people have introduced more people and so on. 5e does really well with non-hobby gamers (and hobby gamers too for that matter). 5e is by far the biggest RPG ever. 4e was, not. So? Something being "not the biggest" doesn't mean *random person* won't like it. I mean by your argument we oughtnt to teach anyone any game other than 5E, since all RPGs are less popular than 5E!
  • 02:57 AM - HJFudge quoted ad_hoc in post Should I play 4e?
    1. It's probably going to be hard to get a group. 2. It has a much higher barrier to entry than 5e so introducing new players will be more difficult. Regardless of whether you like it, if you like 5e then I think it is wise to continue playing it for the above reasons. There are millions and millions of people playing 5e now, most of whom are new to hobby gaming. I think the worst case scenario is to introduce a new player to a game like 3e or 4e and have them turned off of RPGs when they may have liked 5e. This is a thing that could happen regardless of edition. You can't really know what a person will like until they try it, after all. Maybe they'd bounce off 5e but love 2e or 3e. You've no way to really know!

Thursday, 2nd May, 2019

  • 02:19 AM - CleverNickName quoted ad_hoc in post How often does your party use a potion of healing
    I use the commonly used Bonus Action to drink one yourself, standard action to administer one to your friend houserule. This is common? First I have heard of it.This is the first time I've heard of it also. The only time I've ever allowed a character to drink a healing potion as a bonus action was when the potion was already in their hand, and they weren't threatened. (Highly situational.)

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 11:16 PM - ParanoydStyle quoted ad_hoc in post Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?
    This is how the game is designed. The real question here is whether a new class is warranted. The game is designed to allow for new subclasses, but the room for new classes is extremely limited. Again, though...that may be how the "game" is designed but I think I just explained I was talking more about the ENGINE than the game. I don't know that it's necessarily how the game engine is designed that the room for new classes is extremely limited: I think that's an artifact of WotC's marketing strategy for the GAME, not a feature of the engine. The real question here is not whether a new class is warranted---NONE of the classes from the PHB will be in what I'm working on so the new classes I'm designing are certainly warranted. The question is if they (all) need sub-classes. Sub-classes make a lot of sense for my Cleric equivalent and my Warlock equivalent, but don't seem to make as much sense for my magic-user, fighter, and rogue classes. Group think is a thing. While the Ranger is the l...

Sunday, 28th April, 2019

  • 05:06 AM - Ark the Pie King quoted ad_hoc in post Way of the Pistol Monk. Is it balanced?
    You should take another look at the Sun Soul. They do better in melee than ranged. Their ranged attack is just a way to attack if they can't get to melee. They can't Stunning Strike with it for example which is a Monk's best ability. They also want to be up close in order to Burning Hands. Fireball comes much later and is again, a back up option. Having a 3rd level spell at level 11+ is nothing special but it is there as an option. I don't understand why a gun subclass would get melee abilities. Mmkay, I see that. I always pictured them as more blasters than anything but you raise a fair point with Stunning Strike But take a look at the video I linked. It's about rule of cool more than anything. I find Gun Kata to be absolutely wickedly awesome and I want to do THAT, and I'm trying to find a way to make it work. Kensei is close, but doesn't quite get me there. Pistol is the closest thing I've found and I want to make that happen. Sun Soul is awesome, and I've got a Sun Soul monk I'm wan...
  • 01:49 AM - Ark the Pie King quoted ad_hoc in post Way of the Pistol Monk. Is it balanced?
    Sun Soul is the subclass to base another ranged subclass from. Yeah I can definitely see the comparison. I think it has more in common with Kensei though for a couple of reasons. Sun Soul really wants to be a ranged blaster, and gets a few interesting AoE options as well. near as I can tell Sun Soul never wants to be in melee if it can avoid it since it's damage really stays the same at any range. Kensei and Pistol both use weapons, lack AoE options, and they both have motivation to try and to weave in and out of melee.

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 09:45 PM - oknazevad quoted ad_hoc in post Amazon Has A D&D Page
    It's too bad D&D is dying. We will never have what the numbers they had in the 80s. Still trying to push that false narrative, I see. Kindly bug off.

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 02:31 PM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    I never said that. Please don't condescend. I am saying that the players are not the DM and should not act like they are. Of course we're playing a game. The rules of that game is that the players declare what their characters are doing. Roll for initiative is not a thing. I didn't think I was being condescending. But if a player thinks combat is imminent and a player asks "Roll for initiative?" I'm okay with it. There are some people who seem to be very adamant that players can't speak in terms of game rules at the table such as stating that they are making a skill check*. I'm just stating that I don't care and meant no offense. *Or should that be ability check applying the proper skill proficiency? Doesn't really roll of the tongue and honestly I've never really understood why that matters either.
  • 12:58 PM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    There seems to be a disconnect here. Striking a statue is a thing a character is doing so that is completely fine. 'Calling for initiative' is not. If someone said "I strike the statue" then I would say, 'ok' and go around the rest of the table to see what people are doing. Initiative may be called at this point, and it may not. It is also possible that the statue doesn't animate until a later time so there continues to be no initiative as it isn't a creature. Players don't know. Well, this is a hypothetical situation that has never happened in my game. But my point is that if the players are entering what they perceive as combat, I would treat it as combat. While I strongly encourage people to speak and declare actions from the perspective of their PCs, I don't really care if players call out game rules at the table. I don't see why it would matter. But I don't want to have this argument yet again. I just don't have a strict "thou cannot acknowledge we are playi...
  • 03:00 AM - Oofta quoted ad_hoc in post Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)
    As for initiative... It is an opposed check to determine who gets to do the thing first. Players don't 'call for initiative'. They just state what they're doing and the DM determines what happens. At my table whenever a scene is set each player is asked what they are doing. They don't respond with metagame terms like 'call intiative' or 'use insight'. They respond with literally what the character is doing. Meh. If they think they're entering combat I see no reason to shatter that illusion immediately. Let them attack the dread gazebo. I can't remember a time I've ever done it but if someone said "I attack" even if there is no enemy combatant I'd consider it. Every once in a blue moon I'll also use initiative just to help resolve chaotic situations. For example if the party is escaping a collapsing building and everybody is doing things more-or-less simultaneously I might go to initiative. Or not. Just depends on what works best for the scene.

Friday, 19th April, 2019

  • 05:23 PM - GreyLord quoted ad_hoc in post The Washington Post Weighs In On D&D!
    Gary Gygax estimated that at the height of D&D there were around 5 million players. Today is peak D&D and it's not even close. Was that 15 million number just for NA? The basic rules may be the answer to the discrepancy with money here. It can be expensive to import books. The point still holds true though. I do not have an official source to quote, but with 2018 being the best year for RPG sales by WotC yet (which could put it between the 65-75 million range) and some ideas out there that it could be upwards towards the 80-90 million range (once again, no sources I can give you so you can say it's my personal course theory with it) 5th edition is doing really well right now. It's on an upwards trend with money and an expanding customer base. With other departments not doing as hot as expected/wanted currently (such as toys, though marvel is still doing great) I do not see why Hasbro would take the risk of making a new edition currently. With such growth (which I'd say is ...
  • 06:05 AM - GreyLord quoted ad_hoc in post The Washington Post Weighs In On D&D!
    40 million. That's more than the population of Canada! It is. In theory, since AD&D was making 100 million dollars in 1992, then the D&D industry should be making 192 million dollars today..AT LEAST. Though, 40 million is greater by at least 1.5 so that would mean WotC should along be making 280 MILLION DOLLARS! Or, if we take the 91 million from around 1990 instead, and apply a 1.6 modifier (if we assume the max of 25 million gamers was in 1991 instead of earlier during the fad, which most likely it was not and the number was lower), then we should get around 278 million to be more precise for that period to be more lenient. 278 Million is quite a jump from 65-75 million (or even 55 million) though it might be on it's way to hit the 80-90 million mark (maybe?). I wonder where the money is going or being reported to? 40 million players is great news...but money is better news (well, for some, others, that many players is better news). Of course, the article may not ha...

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 03:59 PM - Dausuul quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    The opportunity cost of agonizing blast is high. It vastly diminishes the depth and flexibility of your PC in exchange for some extra damage. Oh, come on. It's one invocation slot. It does not "vastly" diminish anything. There is certainly an opportunity cost, but it is hardly "vast." Furthermore, it gives you far more flexibility in using your spell slots - see below. At 5th level they have an average of 6 3rd level spells per day. That is far more powerful than any other spellcaster as 1st and 2nd level spells are much weaker than 3rd level ones. The problem with this is that while you get "gas" far cheaper than traditional casters, your tank is tiny. If you are relying too heavily on your spell slots to do all the work, it is very easy to run dry and find yourself empty at a critical moment. Nor can you concentrate all that firepower where it counts. You cannot assume that every day is going to be precisely average. How many leveled spells are you going to cast per combat? If yo...
  • 12:44 AM - Staffan quoted ad_hoc in post 'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell
    At the end of the day Eldritch Blast is just a cantrip. Doing some extra damage with it isn't going to greatly impact the character's effectiveness. Their spells are what is important in combat. Invocations are very helpful to round them out. Bumping the party's damage up by a few points when it is time to cast cantrips just isn't a big deal. The way I see it, eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast makes the warlock into something of a hybrid between a martial character and a spellcaster. Eldritch blast is roughly on par with weapon attacks (d10+ability bonus with multiples at each tier - slightly more than a longbow, but on the other hand the warlock doesn't get the +2 a dedicated archer gets and can't do Sharpshooter shenanigans), and the limited spells give the warlock a small number of cool things they can do. It's basically what you give someone who says "I want to play something with some cool magic, but not too complicated."


Page 1 of 60 123456789101151 ... LastLast

ad_hoc's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites