View Profile: FrogReaver - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 06:33 AM
    Whack-A-Mole isn't a guaranteed return in all circumstances either. It's only guaranteed in a few very particular cases. 1) Enemies ignore downed allies and don't hit them with AOE's AND 2) No enemies go after you would heal a downed ally before he gets his turn. If those 2 conditions aren't met then whack-a-mole isn't guaranteed.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 05:54 AM
    Whoa.... This thread isn't about whack-a-mole. It's about evaluating whether there's currently a better healing tactic in the game than what the currently accepted best tactic is.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 05:47 AM
    In the future please engage in the actual thread topic. Thanks.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 05:39 AM
    I'll have to think some on your GWF and SS solution but at first glance I'm liking it. Good Job!
    10 replies | 208 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 03:32 AM
    Healing is pretty certain. I mean there's some dice variability but it always works etc. It's not just "hard" fights though. Any given fight the PC's can get unlucky and the enemies lucky. Having in combat healing makes long enough lucky/unlucky streaks to down/kill PC's be much more rare. Yes. But I'm also talking about saving your higher level spells for healing. So for...
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 01:01 AM
    Comparably it is significantly more often than without using my healing tactic. (By the way it's not about probably losing. Any chance that you could lose is taken away with the healing route, whereas those small 5% chances over 30-40 encounters do tend to add up).
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:48 PM
    It might help if you define near death. If defined as very low hp then I disagree. Not risking an ally fall to 0 in battle is a better tactic than slightly more resource efficient strategies. The only time this might not be true is if in your campaign you are constantly having to go on despite being out of resources.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:45 PM
    And this goes right back to my argument in the OP that hp a resource that you may can even save more of in the adventuring day via in-combat offense than in-combat healing. In fact let's assume that is true. The argument I'm making is that the total amount of precious hit points lost in the day is actually less important than how, when and where those lost hps get distributed during the...
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:37 PM
    Why aren't my proposed healing tactics not a way to get a guaranteed return?
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:32 PM
    It's weird that you don't ever engage with my challenges and instead just reassert the conventional wisdom on the matter as if it's a god given fact of gaming. I proposed a particular tactic to in-combat healing. Why is it that you think that tactic won't provide the results I'm claiming it will?
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:28 PM
    D&D is a team game. When you heal your team isn't hitting for 0. Sure, but why take that chance in the first place when you don't have to? It's not mechanically severe. Assuming you enjoyed your character then losing him is a fairly severe consequence.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:19 PM
    Assuming know you have a sure fire 100% guaranteed chance to end the combat then ending the combat is better than healing. That's generally not the case though. There is always a bit of a fog of war if you will. I can attack and try to kill the enemy now, not knowing if I will even hit it, if I will do enough damage to kill it etc or I can guarantee that my injured ally that might be hit and...
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:52 PM
    I choose dex with the ranger because rangers tend to favor dex over strength and dex adds more initiative. Going first is very important in this style of combat
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:18 PM
    I'm not advocating for whack-a-mole healing. I'm advocating for combat healing to be 2-4 big heals in combat per day. I think you are bringing to much prior baggage into my proposal. Nothing I suggested is like MMORPG healing. That's why I propose rocket healing.
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:28 AM
    It's not surprising that that 10 level 1 fighters win out on the 1 level 11 fighter. There's a lot more effective hp there, especially counting 2nd wind. The 8 level 1 fighters around actually do more DPR than the single level 11 fighter. (except on the action surge turn). The important factor with them is that they can theoretically start losing DPR after a few die.
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:20 AM
    I want to assure you that the site is working as designed... Unfortunately the site was never designed for all features of the site work on all platforms that the site can be used on.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:59 AM
    Rapier + Shield. Dueling Style. Hunter's Mark. Horde Breaker. Hex an enemy. Whirlwind Attack every round. Use the horde breaker attack on your hexed enemy if it's not dead. If it is then pick an enemy you already hit. Max Dex. 14-16 con, you pick. He will use level 3 cure wounds provided there are 4 or fewer enemies left and he is below 40 hp. He will recast hunter's mark with the...
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:19 AM
    I invite you to stop thread crapping my threads. You are very bad about arguing about the premise of what I'm asking the thread to be about instead of actually posting positive ideas towards the OP stated goal. That's why I blocked you. That why I asked you not to post in my threads. So please stop thread crapping me. If you insist on posting in my threads despite being blocked at least...
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:06 AM
    Assuming 2 short rests that's potentially 12d8+12*WIS healing per day at level 3. That can easily come out to 72 healing. A non-life cleric at level 3 will only do 8d8 + 6*WIS = 54. Basically it allows you significantly more healing per day than a cleric. That's the issue I have with it.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:20 AM
    You know who would kill them all nearly every time. A level 11 hunter ranger....
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:13 AM
    The initiative boost maneuver is cool. It's very fitting for a number of fighter styles, lucky, intelligent, extremely dexterous. The brutal follow through would be good for a reckless fighter concept. Something that exchanges defense for offense. It would synergize real nice with that.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:06 AM
    Conventional Wisdom dictates that performing the traditional role of in-combat healer is typically a waste in 5e. I'm here to challenge the conventional wisdom. However, this post is meant to be the starting point for that discussion and not the final word. With any analysis I think it's helpful to define what success looks like. In 5e I success is best defined as having no PC deaths. I...
    46 replies | 972 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:36 AM
    I like feats. Feats don't like me. I'm a bit of an optimizer at heart and not having the feat temptation opens up a lot of more interesting doors for me.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    3 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:33 AM
    Humans can also be balanced in setting. Maybe everywhere openly accepts humans but some places doesn't accept dwarves, some not accepting of elves etc. They can also be balanced with magic items. Also: humans are the only race that I know of that can start with 5 different stats at 14 (with point buy) and another at 11. They make great multiclassers if you go this more generalist route.
    17 replies | 597 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:21 AM
    I think multi dice manuevers could have had alot of potential. Though they are not so much what I'm looking for here.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:18 AM
    One thing I do when I try to come up with maneuvers is I try to create 2-3 that work toward a specific theme. Like Defender or reckless attacker or skirmisher etc. I'm not as interested in just adding a bunch of willy nilly manuevers. I would want them to enable the battlemaster to perform combat roles he otherwise doesn't do very well.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:15 AM
    Enabling a combat medic style could be pretty cool. Balance on the ability could be a little tricky. Easiest way would be to limit the ability to once a day per ally similar to the healer feat. IMO
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:12 AM
    Thank you. This thread is not about warlords. The actual inspiration for this thread came from thinking about various way's I've tried to theory craft a defender style PC without without feats. I honestly think maneuvers would work perfectly for that flavor. They likely wouldn't create a better defender than the cavalier but they could be an interesting and compelling take. That got me...
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:02 AM
    For me, it just so happens that I mostly play in featless campaigns.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:52 AM
    Let's also nip this in the bud right now. This thread isn't about warlords.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 11:05 PM
    If your just here to crap on the thread request then please leave. Your just being an a-hole by staying and continuing to further crap on it.
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 01:11 PM
    Why is it that virtually everyone ignores the part of my OP where i said donít worry about stepping on other classes toes?
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 07:36 AM
    If he simulated he will get close. If he just used averages then he probably isn't anywhere near the actual average. Could easily be 30-40% off from his stated value if that's the case.
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 07:29 AM
    Barbarian / Rogue - Tanky due to rage damage resistance. Sticky due to high damage OA's powered by sneak attack. It's the only melee build I've found that is mechanically capable of fulfilling the defender style role without feats. Paladin 2 / Hexblade 1 / College of Whispers Bard X - Full caster progression with enough melee damage to wreck face. Essentially rogue scaling + full caster...
    2 replies | 157 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 07:04 AM
    You can't simply take average DPR's to come away with a meaningful comparison.
    60 replies | 2108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 06:58 AM
    Please don't reply to me. Thanks
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 05:39 AM
    What basic Maneuvers would you like to see the Battle Master capable of performing that he is not currently able to. Don't worry about stepping on other classes or subclasses toes. 1. Attack an enemy that attacks an ally as a reaction. 2. Impose disadvantage on an enemy when they make an attack not targeting you (like cavalier marking) 3. Boost AC or cause disadvantage on attacks against...
    72 replies | 2051 view(s)
    3 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 06:33 PM
    Let the feat restore 25% of max hp + con mod. Limit use to once per day per ally.
    11 replies | 432 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 03:05 AM
    Thanks, there's no need for extra attack when you are using booming blade/greenflame blade. Extra attack would yield slightly higher damage at a major loss of flavor. Even then it's only slightly higher damage till you hit level 11.
    21 replies | 572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 01:19 AM
    You won't be able to base attacks on INT but you can do a split 16/16 setup and then go to 18/18 by the time a single stat PC had their stat to 20. To me that solves the stat issues quite easily. After that it would be finding abilities that allow you to magically attack. Pretty much booming/greenflame blade covers this. After that it's getting good defenses. In 5e that's literally...
    21 replies | 572 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 16th June, 2019, 04:19 PM
    Yes and TWF isn't balanced out the gate. It's much to strong early and much to weak later. Fix both and you are a long way to having a fairly balanced TWF style.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 16th June, 2019, 04:16 PM
    Suppose you remove the BA cost from TWF. Now suppose you balance TWF and GWF such that TWF does equal damage to GWF no matter how many attacks are made (without buffs etc). Now consider what happens when the TWF get's a per attack damage buff. He's making more attacks than the GWF so he get's 1 more use of the damage buff per round than the GWF. In short, by removing the BA and balancing...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 16th June, 2019, 12:44 AM
    You'll never balance anything looking at level 1 as the goal. You don't want level 1 to out of whack. But you don't want your analysis to default to those levels or you are missing a lot of context. PVP should never be the test.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 16th June, 2019, 12:41 AM
    I meant by current rules.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 11:34 PM
    Yes.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 11:27 PM
    Just curious, how do your ranger numbers change if the combat goes 4 rounds? Or maybe even 5 rounds?
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 11:12 PM
    it is but Specific context trumps general context.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 11:06 PM
    But it's very important to the context of this thread ;)
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 11:04 PM
    Your rules give the TWF ranger about a 40% damage boost over a duelist. 40% more damage is far greater than +2 AC. Heck at that point he would also have about a 40% damage boost over a similar Greatsword using ranger. IMO, +2 Ac should do between about 10-20% less damage over a same classed PC without +2 AC.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 05:56 PM
    . Then you are flat out ignoring it. No you are attmpting to declare a specific implementation as the only true way despite others pointing out that such an implementation is nearly impossible to balance around without changing way to many things already in the game. If I were building 5e from the ground up I like your suggestion. Iím not. The implementation of a TWF fix should...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 03:10 PM
    I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 03:07 PM
    The issue you seem to be overlooking is that most of the bonus action abilities that scale damage scale by number of attacks. Both Hunter's mark and GWM/SS do. So if you keep the extra attack but remove the bonus action cost: 1. Classes like rangers start never looking at Great weapons or sword and shield again because TWF is better. 2. It also becomes problematic to add in a -5/+10...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 05:51 PM
    Nice dismissive comment. Itís balanced and it works and I even understand it but I donít like how itís written..
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    I've attached a chart detailing the proposed changes below for a fighter and comparing them with some popular fighter builds. 1. Replace the current TWF style with "Gain +1 Damage to all attacks. When you gain extra attack this increases to +2. If you are able to make more than two attacks with an attack action this bonus increases to +3" 2. Keep Dual Wielder feat the same 3. Add a...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    2 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:53 PM
    In a featless game without mod damage to offhand a +1 damage per attack isnít enough to keep up with a GWF style fighter.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 06:40 PM
    Anyone looked at having a feat allow 2 bonus action attacks instead of 1 for twf? If if you take off mod damage from fighting style I think this could work. Mod damage age comes from dual wielded feat. Fighting style adds adds a small amount of Dana age per attack. Might scale up to +2. I donít think adding 1 more attack drastically throws off balance of anything.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 06:28 PM
    You will have proficiency in con saves and a decent ac from either a shield or dragon skin sorc ability. You will also hit enemies with booming blade and move away. Further disincintivising them from going after you. I highly recommend warcaster for this pc as well to further up con saves since you are very reliant on shadow blade. But all in all due to reduced enemy attack rate, good ac...
    37 replies | 1036 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:42 PM
    Use shadowblade spell and booming blade. Take the mobile feat. Rely on hit and run tactics. Would work great as a wood elf for extra speed and dex bonus. Consider starting with a level of fighter or dragon sorcerer for con saves and an ac fix. At level 5 you can do 4d8 +mod damage. And if the enemy moves you will do extra damage. Mobile allows you to move away without oa. You can invest...
    37 replies | 1036 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:29 PM
    Looking at the numbers more closely +3 is to much in high level play for the polearm master vs dual wielded feat case. As such thee cap should be +2 at level 5. This is keeps the damages of the primary 3 combinations in line (about 12% variation max, not including off turn attacks) fighting style only fighting style + extra attack feat fighting style + extra attack feat + -5/+10 feat
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:09 PM
    Unless I note otherwise or am replying to someone about a particular idea then Iím posting a stand-alone idea. The scaling damage is simple. A level 1 fighter with twf style would get +1 damage to both his attacks A level 5 fighter with twf style would get +2 damage to all his attacks. The scaling is basically by #of attack action attacks up to 3 attacks. Sorry if that wasnít clear
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 01:21 PM
    Then youve not done the math. You just seeing big bonuses and screaming. My preliminary results results show that this change puts twf in the ballpark of a gwf when they both pick the style. (In all tiers) if he takes the new dial wielded feat it puts him him in the ballpark of a spear using polearm master in all tiers if he takes the dual wielded and -5/+10 feat I think he will be in...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 12:47 PM
    I don't have time at the moment. But someone might want to evaluate these changes. Move the mod damage to offhand attack to Dual wielder feat Create a new -5/+10 feat for Dual Wielding TWF style now does a scaling damage bonus per attack action attack. Maybe +1 at 1, +2 at 2, and +3 at 3.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 01:18 AM
    You go for it. I like TwoSix implementation better. You don't have to change a blazillion other rules to get it to work.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 12:37 AM
    Is it established that this hypothetical bonus action requires you use the extra damage on your next hit?
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:48 PM
    I rather like this idea.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:35 PM
    On a side note only allowing 1 smite a round doesnít really hurt the crit fishing build much
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:24 PM
    If if you make all those changes then removing twf bonus action should be fine. You might impact other areas of the game. We have just been looking at those changes through the lens of twf thats still a lot of work just to give twf an increasing number of attacks
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:20 AM
    Monks can TWF and still use martial arts. Any magic items that grant a per attack damage bonus start to greatly favor the TWF. Haste would grant 2 attacks (possibly is intentional) Gloomstalker would potentially get a bonus action attack on first turn as well with his ability. Crit Fishining on Paladins or warlocks could be very strong. Personally I'd be most concerned about crit...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Ovinomancer, by the way I can account for multiple enemies etc in my formulas. The only thing I can't implement yet is variable damage dice. My formula is surisingly easy to use. Simply list rounds out. Find first round enemy can be killed and then copy paste my formula in every cell.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:57 AM
    I didn't. I showed my calculations. There was an error in them though. I needed .5 rounds accounted for. That was throwing it off. Now as expected the 1 attack characters and the 2 attack character are killing 5-8 hp enemies at the same rate. So basically disregard the premise of this post as the math around it was incorrect (stupid .5 rounds). But I think it's given me some ideas on...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:24 AM
    You keep saying things like that but it's simply not true. Calculating a weighted average for chance to kill on round (X) results in a value that is the number of rounds to kill. There's no misinterpreting what that means. It means exactly what I'm claiming it means. For comparing 2 different characters chances to kill. The rounds to kill an enemy is a much better metric than...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:18 AM
    Found the error. I needed to account for half rounds.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:01 AM
    I tried that before I posted. It gives an incorrect value of 1.667 rounds. The actual number of rounds is below:
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:42 AM
    It's statements like the one above that make me question whether you really understand what a weighted average is. Weighted averages by definition does take into account EVERYTHING. That's why I'm very puzzled when you make statements like these. My average rounds to kill takes into account rounds 1 to infinity. Your chance to kill by round X only takes into account rounds 1 to X.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 01:17 AM
    I did not. As already mentioned, chance to kill by round X doesn't help with computing average rounds to kill. This figure is the more important one for evaluating the 2 PC's. I account for the killing being done on round 1 in my probability for round 1. I account for the killing being done on round 2 in my probability for round 2. I am simply not interested in the chance the enemy is...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 12:49 AM
    I've already commented on this part. Please let me know if something with the calculation still doesn't make sense to you. Of course an example showing overkill wasn't being cared about in my OP. My argument was that a mechanic other than overkill exists and so there shouldn't be so much focus on overkill (at least until it can reasonably be quantified along with quantifying this other...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 12:40 AM
    The OP stated: 1. Mechanic X exists (where mechanic X is that one attack PC's with equal DPR kill some enemies faster on average than those with multiple attacks) 2. There is the proof mechanic X exists (it was provided in the OP) 3. Because Mechanic X exists, overkill damage isn't the only thing to consider. 4. The fallacy is not that overkill damage exists or doesn't. It most certainly...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:59 PM
    Ovinomancer im still on phone the method to obtain a weighted average is simple Calculate (chance X happens) * X sum each value
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 01:48 PM
    Weighted average of the round you are killing the enemy on. If im looking for that then I literally canít use cumulative percentages as I need to know the exact chance I have of killing an enemy on exactly round X so I can use that value as my weight for round X on a phone so lengthy math discussion is hard. Hopefully that helps
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 01:06 PM
    Ovinomancer i will reply more detail later to find weighted average you donít use cumulative probabilities. Doesnít that affect your analysis?
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 11:18 PM
    No problem. I never have put much stock in overkill. But a big portion of that is no one has actually attempted to quantify it in a meaningful way. I'm close to being able to do so at least for the quasi PC's I'm using that have static damage.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 10:56 PM
    You shouldn't provide silly guesses when you can ask the person that started the thread what brought this on.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 10:55 PM
    Or it was perfectly clear and you were so caught up in how you thought things worked that you just ignored what I was saying. That's not at all what I'm talking about. The point that I'm making is that there are other potentially more important factors at play than overkill. Thus brining overkill into the discussion while ignoring those other potentially more important factors is...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 04:03 PM
    this is is untrue. Iíve provided concrete examples that demonstrate this to be untrue. ive included all that in my counter example proof. Itís like your not listening to what Iím saying... Mans the average of all those situations favors the single attack character in the example I provided. On average he kills the single 5 hp enemy faster. On any given trial he may kill it slower...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    You jumping around a lot. First itís, less balance it in a featless game and a feat based game and with haste. Now you are saying letís forget the rest and just add a feat and remove the bonus action. Thatís some major shifting goal posts man
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:23 AM
    ...I edited your post down to the crux of my issue with it... This is untrue. Please see the explanation below. Equal DPR PC's don't necessarily kill enemies at the same rate. In the first example I posted, on average the 1 attack PC killed the 5 hp enemies faster than the 2 attack PC. ON AVERAGE. Let that sink in. It's a non-intuitive result. On average a PC with the same DPR as...
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:03 AM
    Could something that allows a TWF to attack with his offhand anytime he misses with his mainhand work? It seems thematic and provides a mechanic that scales based on number of attacks. The DPR increase would be between 1 and 2 for most chances ho hit.
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:40 AM
    The case for PC1 and PC 2 vs enemy with 9 hp. PC 1 PC 2
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:29 AM
    Rangers, rogues and paladins all can dual wield just fine. I've used every one of those characters or seen them played in my games. Monks pretty much never dual wield because martials arts, however you don't want monks to turn into always dual wielders either. Removing the bonus action basically makes all those classes listed above be no brainer dual wielders in a featless game. With feats...
    212 replies | 6477 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:22 AM
    Nagol isn't doing anything wrong.
    135 replies | 4142 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About FrogReaver

Basic Information

Age
32
About FrogReaver
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,695
Posts Per Day
3.14
Last Post
In-Combat Healing: How and Why? Today 06:33 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
51
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:54 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 19th May, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Warpiglet Warpiglet is offline

    Member

    Warpiglet
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thursday, 20th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 02:35 PM - Umbran mentioned FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    That why I asked you not to post in my threads. FrogReaver, let us be clear: EN World does not have a strong concept of thread ownership. It isn't really *your* thread. You don't get editorial power. You don't get to say who posts in it, or what they say. Mistwell, that said, you could do to learn to limit how much you lay a wet blanket on other people's ideas. You made a suggestion for a change in direction. That suggestion was rejected. You should probably just move on, rather than argue over it.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 11:29 PM - Blue mentioned FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    FrogReaver, Serious reply, not an "instant naysayer". I'm commenting to improve your calculations so we can get a clear view. I see two things I don't think were taken into consideration and I would be interested in how much or how little they impact the end results. First issue is that overkill is about damage wasted. The calculations shown do not differentiate for the twice-attacker between if the kill is done by the first attack or the second attack. Because if done with the first attack, then there is an additional attack that can be used to start damaging the next. If that's ignored, that's being treated as "overkill" (wasted") damage just like any extra done by the killing blow, but it actual play that is the opposite of overkill, that's damage that can be redirected to another target. Perhaps a better way would be to see how many can be killed in 5 rounds. Or if you want to keep it on killing, then assume 5 opponents and count how many are (statistically) alive each round to ma...

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 04:53 PM - Benny89 mentioned FrogReaver in post Elven Accuracy Samurai Archer vs Xbow master battlemaster analysis.
    ...ving more than 3 is a tiny percent chance. Analysis You will turn about 80% of misses in a day into hits with precision attack. Without elven accuracy the Samarui will turn 25% of his total attacks into additional hits. With elven accuracy it's about 35-40%. This still makes precision attack better and that's without factoring in the difference in going crossbow expertise vs going elven accuracy. So let's do an actual analysis at level 11. BattleMaster 11 vs Samauri 11. I'll assume 6 combats a day that last 4 rounds each. Samauri will be a half-elf with elven accuracy + sharpshooter + 20 dex (uses a longbow) Battlemaster will be variant human with sharpshooter + crossbow expertise + 20 dex (uses a handcrossbow) At level 11 I'm getting that the battlemaster does about 20-30% more damage per day than the Samauri. (That's without crits calculated which will give the samauri a small advantage but not overly much. So maybe 15-25% estimated) Btw. do you have AnyDice math for that FrogReaver? I would like to save that somewhere and also show a friend who asked for it. Thank you!

Sunday, 24th March, 2019

  • 08:55 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?
    "-" is also listed as the weight of a sling. Are you trying to say that the sling has an undefined mass? FrogReaver would say it has 0 mass. It actually has mass but its value is inconsequential to the encumbrance mechanic. Its mass is N/A.

Thursday, 21st March, 2019

  • 01:04 AM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?
    FrogReaver I hate to disagree with you because I often do agree with you but, in this situation, the table in the book doesnít say 0, it instead, has a dash, which I interpret as N/A. So you canít add damage if damage is not applicable to the attack. Now, you could maybe reskin that sucker as a bola...

Saturday, 16th March, 2019

  • 07:41 PM - Satyrn mentioned FrogReaver in post Playing with the Averages - A simplistic approach
    Our DM was thinking about using the average unless it would automatically reduce a character to zero, and then actually roll in those cases to give the character a chance to keep going after the hit. He would also use it for BBEGs, etc. I like the idea that @FrogReaver put forth. What your DM is considering would require that he knows how many hit points the player has left, or would result in the player saying "oh, that takes down" and the DM responding "no, wait; let me roll the dice," then gathering up the dice, etc. I think that it would be more straightforward when a player is dropped to 0, he flips a coin. Heads, he's still up at 1 hp. Tails, he's on his butt at 0. A character with only 1 hit point when he takes damage doesn't get to make the coin flip.

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 09:15 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Bard Faerie Fire in Tier 1
    ... you, Bad, bad charisma save. Someone previously mentioned testing FF against Bane. I think that is a much more interesting comparison than Tashas' or DW, even though one is more buff and the other debuff. You give me 4 orcs, I will cast Bane on 3 of them or all of them if higher level within tier 1. I'm not a maths guy so cannot run the numbers, so this is just my experience, but if you are thinking of playing a Bard, Bane would be my absolute first pick, and then Healing word, and then Disguise self for shenanigans and just add one more for flavour. Ps. I cannot wait to reach a level where I can try Synaptic Static, Bane, Cutting Words and Mockery. That will be a good day indeed! Interesting. Iím a bard newb and I would like to recruit you to peruse this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657398-Bard-Advice-how-much-can-I-dump-combat-stats&daysprune=14 Please help me kit out my bard and help advise me on spells. I will pay you double whatever FrogReaver paid. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Saturday, 23rd February, 2019

  • 05:09 PM - ClaytonCross mentioned FrogReaver in post Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)
    FrogReaver I just want to say I appropriate you actually trying to argue the point even half side ways where others have devolved into personal attacks trying to devalue people instead of debate the information we know. On the point of the question asked. Why are people personally offended by the idea they don't need warcaster to cast a vary small niche of spells instead of considering something like multi-classing and low level paladins getting a better consecration save than resilient(con) for games that are not expected to go higher than 7 and that might inflate those numbers as you pointed out?

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 10:57 PM - MNblockhead mentioned FrogReaver in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    You keep taking about things you ďhaveĒ to do. What you mean is things you ďwantĒ to do. Can we cut FrogReaver some slack on his overly imperative writing style and just agree that a significant percentage of us geeks enjoy discussing statistics? I find his posts on this and other other thread to be, overall, measured and interesting.
  • 03:56 PM - Blue mentioned FrogReaver in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    FrogReaver, I agree with all of your points and I'd like to add another - self selection. Just like ENworld we discuss a lot of points but we're just a subset of all players and not necessarily a representative sample. I hadn't thought at all about the skewing, either from subclass choice level or multiclassing. That's a really good catch. I wish they would release their data on github or somewhere so we could all examine it.

Friday, 8th February, 2019

  • 11:11 PM - squibbles mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip House Rule
    I commented on FrogReaver's proposed changes in an earlier post (summary; the balance is probably fine but I suspect the changes would not be much fun), but have had some further thoughts while continuing to read the thread. To compensate for the lack of scaling cantrips I would reward casters with extra spell slots. I'm leaning toward 1 extra spell slot of each level up to level 6 spells. You would gaub the extra spell slot immediately upon reaching the level where you first gain that spell slot. For example a level 5 Wizard would have spell slots of 5 level 1, 4 level 2, 3 level 3 but his cantrips would not scale. Casters would scale with more spell slots, more powerful spell slots and more powerful spells. So my take is that removing cantrip scaling doesn't go against any of that. The design principle underlying cantrip scaling is that 5e aims for a balanced rate of power acquisition across classes. All the classes get a power spike at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels, usually from multiple features...

Saturday, 19th January, 2019


Friday, 11th January, 2019

  • 02:23 AM - CleverNickName mentioned FrogReaver in post Out Of Combat Action Surge Uses
    What FrogReaver and aco175 said. I'm sure that Action Surges can be used out of combat, they just aren't. A player won't normally want to "waste" the ability trying to force a door or climb over a wall or whatever, because they will want to hang on to that surge for whatever might be lurking behind it. I'm sure our DM could engineer a very specific situation that might force a player to use an action surge out of combat, but it hasn't happened yet. (Or if it has, we have found other ways around it. We're pretty stingy with our per-rest abilities.)

Friday, 14th December, 2018

  • 12:57 AM - Hussar mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    ...e a different cantrip for a different element as you can't switch cantrips. Sure, you could have chosen two ranged damage dealing cantrips - say, fire bolt and ray of frost. But, that comes at a cost as well. One of your very small suite of cantrips is now very often not used because, unless you happen to be fighting something resistant to fire, you're always using Fire Bolt because Fire Bolt deals better damage and reducing something's speed by 10 feet for a round often isn't all that useful. With one first level spell, I can ALWAYS choose different energy types. Outside of something that is immune/resistant to all energy types, it's unlikely that I won't be dealing full damage every time I cast it. With that added bonus that anything that has weakness to a particular damage type is always an option. So, we have a spell that, at most levels, deals as good if not better damage than a comparable cantrip, with considerable added versatility. Again, not seeing the problem. FrogReaver - despite repeated examples being shown, you still have not demonstrated that cantrips are better at dealing damage than even 1st level damage dealing spells, never minding second level ones. Thus, it's pretty clear that game balance is not your concern here. Please, please, demonstrate why you think that cantrips outstrip direct damage 1st and 2nd levels spells and please walk me through how you came to that conclusion because EVERY SINGLE example that's been brought up has shown that cantrips, outside of very corner cases, NEVER out damage 1st and 2nd level spells.

Wednesday, 12th December, 2018

  • 11:13 PM - cbwjm mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    I think folks were thinking that it meant that improved divine smite added another additional d8 when you use divine smite? That looks to be the case. I did a check on sage advice and I think I've found the tweet that FrogReaver was thinking of, or at least the tweet that clarifies that it is only a single +1d8 not +2d8 that Jeremy had originally stated. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/880852301140811777 Removing the sentence should remove that ambiguity. With all of the errata we've had, part of me wonders if I should just rebuy the core books, or at least the PHB. I think I have the 1st or 2nd printing so now, they are quite out of date. They're still useable but I can see there being possible issues when people have different printings.
  • 04:38 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    FrogReaver At this point, I think any further discussion is a waste of time. You continue to act as though no one is addressing your complaint, even though most participants have done so. In response to someone else, you even try to claim that versatility is irrelevant to the complaint. It isnít, and the idea that it is is patently absurd. Versatility is an advantage that level 1 spells have over cantrips. The idea that magic missile using a level 1 slot has to be strictly better, at all levels, than any cantrip, is false. Magic missile (and other level 1 damaging spells) is better than any cantrip is specific situations. You keep saying weird stuff like ďThat would be a valid point if anyone had brought it up but no one hasĒ....but I and others have done so, repeatedly! But you refuse to address it! Instead of nitpicking, shifting goalposts, and trying to condescend to people who absolutely get what youíre saying and disagree with you, why not just...try to engage genuinely with ...
  • 04:26 AM - Thyrwyn mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    FrogReaver said: 1) ďMy reason was that a level 1 spell slot is a resource...Ē ó-this is undeniable; 2) ď...anything which requires a resource should be better than something that does not.Ē ó-on its own, most people, myself included, would agree with this design philosophy. The problem is that your position has nothing to do with 1st level spell slots: itís about 1st level spells, which are not the same thing, and are not included in either of the statements quoted above. Counter-arguments have included A) Cantrips have slots, too - that is a resource, too. See point #2, above B) 1st level spell slots are versatile, and can be used to cast a greater array of spells as needed. Cantrip slots cannot be changed. Versatility is better than unchangeable. C) The value of a 1st level spell slot decreases at a greater rate than the value of the cantrip slot. A Wizard will gain 2 cantrips over their entire career, but 20 additional spell slots. Take any spell caster that has exhaus...

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 06:55 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    OverlordOcelot I think you're making this out to be a big deal when it isn't. When I dm, I play the opponents in a way that would be logical to their motives and their intelligence and their tactical and arcane knowledge guides the kind of decisions I make for them. I, personally, donít change an action based on what a player does unless I feel it makes sense to change the action. Smarter opponents with knowledge of PCs abilities will change tactics more often to adapt while stupid enemies might keep slugging away. I donít change tactics based on ooc info. If I can help it. You are free to do it any way you like. FrogReaverďYou keep on ignoring that Spreading damage around is useful in itself. Ē Actually, Iím not arguing for or against this. I didnít touch on that point at all. But itís probably true that it can be useful, especially if a DM uses dodge as a guide to attack someone other than the person dodging. (I assume thatís what you mean by spreading the damage, unless Iím misunderstanding. An enemy sees someone is hard to hit so they choose to attack someone else thus spreading the damage around.)

Friday, 9th November, 2018

  • 07:45 AM - ClaytonCross mentioned FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    ... is better to use from people with different intent not qualifying that intent to each other. On topic. Ranged and Melee both have similar weapons with 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10 dice with the same 1-5 bonus to hit and damage and both have feats with -5 to hit for +10 damage. So I am not sure that "to hit" or damage be it average or max are normally distinctly different enough to matter. You can argue Greatsword vs a Hand crowsbow and a Heavy crossbow vs dagger but really its the classes that make those weapons matter for damage and to hit more than the weapons themselves. A monk with dagger, a rogue with a hand crossbow, a fighter with heavy crossbow, a barbarian with great sword etc. So if we are talking about range vs melee the tactical advantage of reach for defense and offense it what makes ranged better. When you start talking about party composition, enemies, and classes... your not talking about ranged vs melee any more your just jumping into scenario testing. I think the heart of @FrogReaver 's original post is under appreciation and general consideration of melee character's contributions to a group. That said, I generally don't care about melee vs ranged as a rogue as either is generally more important to the group as scout, a wizard as combat manipulator, and I really feel like when melee characters are under appreciated its not for the melee fighting style its more for a lack of out of combat utility which can often be fixed by the player finding a party role. Example, Grog on critical role was not just the Berserker Barbarian he was also the groups quartermaster and many of best moments of Critical Role that involved Grog were not his combat triumphs but when he made party members trade party goods in comical ways. Don't get me wrong he put down the damage at times and he struggled to be in the fight bring a melee weapon to a ranged fight but I feel like it was the out of combat role that really made the best moments. I see this in my group too and it does not just e...

Monday, 22nd October, 2018

  • 10:35 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    Ganymede81 The way I understand him, FrogReaver is placing priority on how an object looks visually to determine whether the damage an object might deal when used as an improvised weapon can be similar to a given weapon when used as a basis for comparison. In his arguments he has made it clear that (for some reason) the force a weapon / object-used-as-an-improvised-weapon might deal can be similar, but that this characteristic cannot be considered when determining if an object resembles a weapon. And so while he has admitted that a mace and a shield could produce a similar force, they would not deal similar damage in a D&D 5e game because they do not look enough alike to resemble each other, which I take to mean that they do not visually resemble each other (despite the fact that they clearly do resemble each other when other qualities outside of visual characteristics are considered, especially those characteristics that are most valuable when assessing the deadlines of weapins and objects being used as weapons). So while he adm...


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 03:36 PM - Blue quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    With any analysis I think it's helpful to define what success looks like. In 5e I success is best defined as having no PC deaths. As you say, in-combat healing has a very different goal than out-of-comabt healing, which is usually "to heal sufficiently with the most efficient use of resources". However, when it comes to in-combat healing, I have a different measure of success that what you propose, which by nature encompasses it* but also asks more. (* Except at Tier 1, where insta-death is more likely.) "Minimize actions lost due to adverse conditions such as consciousnesses." So this expands healing from just HPs, and it also gives a goal for how much healing. It also adds in an interesting, somewhat gamist, prioritization. A PC who goes soon after the cleric (soon = without foes between them) can always be stood up to not lose an action, while one who has a lot for foes after the cleric before their next action (perhaps in the next round) needs to be kept farther from zero ...
  • 07:04 AM - Tony Vargas quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    . Suppose you use a high level heal spell in a scenario where the PC wouldn't have actually been downed if you didn't use it. What's the downside? You no longer have that high-level slot to spontaneously cast a high-level spell that could win that encounter - or the next one, or obviate some other challenge. The only real downside is you risk being in a situation later that day where you end up needing that slot and you don't have it. Its a very real downside to the caster. Generally speaking when managing risk for something extremely important you want to minimize extreme downsides even if it costs a little more overall. That's the foundation the insurance industry is built upon. Well then, it must be Evil.
  • 05:29 AM - CapnZapp quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    I proposed a particular tactic to in-combat healing. Why is it that you think that tactic won't provide the results I'm claiming it will? I have definitely not challenged you on your strategies or refuted them. Please read what I wrote, instead of focusing on what I don't write.
  • 05:26 AM - CapnZapp quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    (Keep in mind this about a large 1 action in combat heal vs trying to cast low level healing spells every round (I agree those aren't worthwhile) I've found that at higher levels, even an 70 hp Heal isn't all that. Yes, my players have used it for good effect in combat - they cast it on the party Barbarian, which effectively doubles the healing (because a raging barbarian takes half damage). But this also points to how in-combat healing has been nerfed in 5E. In 3.0 Heal healed ALL damage. In 3.5 Heal healed 150 damage. In 5E Heal heals 70 damage. (Not coincidentally my players only found 5E Heal worthwhile when they could effectively cast it as an 140 hp Heal...) A good first remedy if one likes in-combat healing, where one party member focuses on keeping her allies alive (and buffed, and not debuffed) would be to double the effects of any healing spell. In order to not simply prolong combat (by allowing a party to punch above their weight-class now that their hit points will last much l...
  • 03:23 AM - Dausuul quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    Why aren't my proposed healing tactics not a way to get a guaranteed return? They are not a guaranteed return because you can't be certain they will in fact make the difference between "teammate on the ground" and "teammate up and fighting" for at least 1 round. That is the virtue of the "whack-a-mole" strategy: If there are no enemies between you and your teammate in the initiative order, you know with 100% certainty that your healing spell will purchase at least 1 round of actions for your teammate. And if there are enemies between you, you know that, and you don't cast the spell in the first place. However, an investment does not need guaranteed returns to be a good investment. It just requires a risk premium: The greater the uncertainty of the payoff, the bigger that payoff must be to justify the risk. Mass cure wounds cast by a Life cleric is a great example: If you do it when the entire party has taken some heavy hits, you have a good chance of purchasing 2-3 rounds' worth of actions (one ...
  • 01:19 AM - Saelorn quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    Comparably it is significantly more often than without using my healing tactic. (By the way it's not about probably losing. Any chance that you could lose is taken away with the healing route, whereas those small 5% chances over 30-40 encounters do tend to add up).Nothing is certain. Everything is just a probability. I concede that there are some difficult fights where in-combat healing can be the difference between success and failure. For any given fight, there's a certain percent chance that you'll succeed without in-combat healing, and a greater percent chance that you'll succeed with in-combat healing. What I'm not convinced of, is that the increased chance of success that you gain from in-combat healing is sufficient to make up for the increased risk of running out of resources over the course of a day. Aggressive healing will increase your chance of making it through the first five fights of the day, but when you start to hit your limit, that earlier aggressive healing might mean that ...
  • 12:35 AM - Saelorn quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    I'm arguing that there exists a tactic whereby you can give up very few in-combat actions during the day and you will greatly improve your chances of not losing battles even though your overall resources expended in the die may be slightly increased from said tactic.Theoretically, sure, but how often is the party in a position of losing a battle if they don't go all-out with their high-throughput but low-efficiency tactics? That's a pretty small window, where the party will probably lose if they're playing too conservatively, but probably win if they're more aggressive. That would be difficult to contrive, even if you were really trying.

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 08:21 PM - Tony Vargas quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    Success under conventional wisdom is almost universally based on the idea that the adventuring day is a marathon and that the only way to lose is to exhaust your resources to fast. Thus, tactics that minimize resource usage by using your resources to maximum numeric effect (such as the classic whack-a-mole healing) are very highly regarded. I'm not sure I agree that's what's going on: It may be more a matter of casters having better things to do with their high level spells than heal up a damage sponge significantly, rather than just stand him up with a low-level slot, tempting the monster to waste another round knocking him down again. Yes, the damage sponge may lose actions or get killed, but you can always wring him out on the next short rest or just get a new one. (oh and that trick about putting a sponge in the microwave to disinfect it - doesn't work on damage sponges, can even get a little messy) We do want to use our resources in ways that maximize their numerical effectivenes...
  • 04:44 PM - dnd4vr quoted FrogReaver in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    I choose dex with the ranger because rangers tend to favor dex over strength and dex adds more initiative. Going first is very important in this style of combat Actually, it isn't that big a difference. After the first turn, combat is always you-go-they-go. Anyway, with loses replacing deaths each turn here are the results: A DEX 20, CON 16, 103 HP, AC 19, rapier-and-shield-wielding Hunting-Mark-Horde-Breaking-Whirlwind-Attacking 11th-level Ranger averages: Without enemy flanking: 15.55 kills (sd 5.01). Complete kills (all 8 targets) in one round: 0.635% With flanking: 9.6 (sd 3.45). Complete kills (all 8 targets) in one round: 0.365% And, in case you want to know, without replacing the 8 original fighters, the above ranger defeats them all 99.85% of the time (approximately ;) ). It is only about 1 in 650 fights or so he would lose.
  • 03:11 PM - CapnZapp quoted FrogReaver in post In-Combat Healing: How and Why?
    Thoughts? While there certainly is nothing wrong with a game encouraging combat healing, the 5E devs went another route. That is, 5E was deliberately tweaked to limit combat healing. I wouldn't go into why, since that's not what you want this thread to be about. What you *do* want to discuss can be one out of two things, as far as I can see: 1) How to make combat healing work given the current game, no changes made. Unfortunately here I have no suggestions, so I'll simply leave you to it. 2) How to tweak the game's parameters so in-combat healing is once more a thing. Be sure to tell me if this is the case. As for whack-a-mole, I detest the way the game is currently set up to encourage you to do Healing Word on just-fallen allies, making you huge savings in surplus damage. I had to add as a house-rule that you count negative hit points (down to -10). This significantly hampers the whack-a-mole tactic, since a first level slot's worth of Cure Wounds or Healing Word is not enough to reliably t...
  • 02:35 PM - Umbran quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    That why I asked you not to post in my threads. FrogReaver, let us be clear: EN World does not have a strong concept of thread ownership. It isn't really *your* thread. You don't get editorial power. You don't get to say who posts in it, or what they say. Mistwell, that said, you could do to learn to limit how much you lay a wet blanket on other people's ideas. You made a suggestion for a change in direction. That suggestion was rejected. You should probably just move on, rather than argue over it.
  • 01:41 PM - dnd4vr quoted FrogReaver in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    Rapier + Shield. Dueling Style. Hunter's Mark. Horde Breaker. Hex an enemy. Whirlwind Attack every round. Use the horde breaker attack on your hexed enemy if it's not dead. If it is then pick an enemy you already hit. Max Dex. 14-16 con, you pick. He will use level 3 cure wounds provided there are 4 or fewer enemies left and he is below 40 hp. He will recast hunter's mark with the other spells as needed. Max dex won't help AC beyond +2 anyway since Ranger's are limited to medium armor. I think you'll find the lower AC will hurt quite a bit (max 15 + 2 dex +2 shield would be 19). With Hunter's Mark and Hex both being bonus actions and concentration spells, Hunter's Mark would be better. Of course, with either one you can only select one enemy and after he is dead, only change to a new target via the bonus action if he was never hit and lost concentration. But since Ranger's lack proficiency in Con saves, he will lose concentration 30% of the time (need 7 or better to save with CON 1...
  • 04:42 AM - dnd4vr quoted FrogReaver in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    You know who would kill them all nearly every time. A level 11 hunter ranger.... Spec out the options and I'll let you know. :-)
  • 03:46 AM - Eubani quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    Enabling a combat medic style could be pretty cool. Balance on the ability could be a little tricky. Easiest way would be to limit the ability to once a day per ally similar to the healer feat. IMO I think the limited number of dice you have and the need to use them for other maneuvers balances out things enough. Lets face it Wis + SD healing once or twice a rest is not going to trump those poor magical healer at all. In fact I think some non magical healing would allow more class choice and make low magic games more accessible.
  • 01:25 AM - Tony Vargas quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    For me, it just so happens that I mostly play in featless campaigns. If I'm not running 5e under AL, I see no reason to opt into feats, myself.

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019

  • 01:25 PM - delph quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    Why is it that virtually everyone ignores the part of my OP where i said donít worry about stepping on other classes toes?Becose it's Battlemaster manouver or not. You can't get another manouver just you dip in another class
  • 06:23 AM - Tony Vargas quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    Is there anything else you can think of that's missing? While I think maneuvers are great improvement in some areas... Ok, one area... OK, it's just the name, "exploit" was pretty lame, and cynical jargon-squating... like Tier and Core were, also, and Inspiration, in 5e. But, less cynically: I really think the battlemaster could have had more maneuvers that enable more different styles of fighters. The Battlemaster essentially presents itself as a replacement for the Warlord, every 4e/E fighter but the Slayer (that's the Champion) & EK (it was a Dragon build of the Essentials Knight), and the non-casting Ranger. You're talking close to 1000 "exploits" that could be mined for maneuvers.... If... if the game could implement them as simply... if the combat sub-system left room for them to be meaningful... if they could be powered up profoundly enough to balance with casting... ... so, not really. There should be ones for protector fighters, defender fighters, grappling fig...
  • 05:48 AM - Mistwell quoted FrogReaver in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    What basic Maneuvers would you like to see the Battle Master capable of performing that he is not currently able to. Don't worry about stepping on other classes or subclasses toes. 1. Attack an enemy that attacks an ally as a reaction. Sentinel feat. My fighter has this. Particularly effective feat with Polearm Master. 2. Impose disadvantage on an enemy when they make an attack not targeting you (like cavalier marking) Goading Attack already does this. 3. Boost AC or cause disadvantage on attacks against you This is a bard ability.

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 03:19 AM - Garthanos quoted FrogReaver in post Intelligent Blademaster Swordmage from 4e, how might I build him for 5e.
    Thanks, there's no need for extra attack when you are using booming blade/greenflame blade. Extra attack would yield slightly higher damage at a major loss of flavor. Even then it's only slightly higher damage till you hit level 11. Ah thanks yes flavor is definitely more important in that regards.
  • 03:03 AM - Garthanos quoted FrogReaver in post Intelligent Blademaster Swordmage from 4e, how might I build him for 5e.
    You won't be able to base attacks on INT but you can do a split 16/16 setup and then go to 18/18 by the time a single stat PC had their stat to 20. To me that solves the stat issues quite easily. After that it would be finding abilities that allow you to magically attack. Pretty much booming/greenflame blade covers this. After that it's getting good defenses. In 5e that's literally about using heavy armor or attacking with dex. In either case you should be covered here. It is kind of a work around but for functionality sake and not exactly the right flavor, but Dex it would need to be You need a way to shield allies. There's not many abilities that work here. The abjuration Wizard's ward is about the most notable. So that's what I would aim for. Finally you need a way to damage enemies that attack you. You need hellish rebuke or something similar for that. So basically what you need IMO, a fighter 1-4 multiclass with abjuration wizard X that takes the booming blade cantrip, use...


FrogReaver's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites