View Profile: ChrisCarlson - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:49 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    I use the Chase Rules a fair amount and I also see nothing against the rules about bonus action Dash under that system. The limiting factor for the rogue is Constitution here and burning out twice as fast. This is really only a problem though if the rogue is the pursuer rather than the quarry since, unless there is no chance of hiding, the rogue has often successfully escaped at the end of the...
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    1 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:26 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Disappearance 4-2=2 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 23 Figurine of Wondrous Power 22+1=23 Folding Boat 23 Heward's Handy Haversack 21 Horn of Valhalla 25
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:00 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    For what it's worth, the rules also specifically call out a character's or monster's speed as being "short bursts of energetic movement in the midst of a life-threatening situation."
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:14 PM
    You're right and it drives me crazy when I turn up in a game where a DM rolls individual initiative for monsters. Though it's still the same amount of actions to resolve, it really does slow things down because the initiative rolling takes longer and then, if those monsters are interspersed with PCs or other monsters, there's a "gear-changing" that eats up additional time. It really adds up!
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:06 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 8 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Disappearance 8 Dust of Dryness 17-2=15 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26 Folding Boat 26 Heward's Handy Haversack 22
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:53 PM
    The RAW is that like creatures share initiative anyway. It's still 10 creatures on one initiative count, but it's not like you're rolling 10 different initiatives for them, if that's a concern. As for your swarm, it seems a sound idea, but someone better at math than me will have to say if it has parity with the spell as written. But anyway, players have an obligation to pursue the goals of...
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:36 PM
    What Hriston said - most monsters' stuff is just junk. There are some exceptions that I will make an effort to describe, such as a hobgoblin in plate armor or the like. Sometimes I'll describe something resplendent a monster wears that would be damaged in combat and made less valuable in order to set up a challenge for the players to take out the monster without damaging their loot. It makes them...
    20 replies | 633 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:27 AM
    That's basically what my players do. They police themselves for speed and that includes just keeping them on a single target. It's not really about banning the spell BlivetWidget. It's just players realizing that it can slow down play and taking reasonable steps to mitigate that.
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:13 PM
    The mob rules worked fine, but also working in my favor is that the table rule is that if you're the sort of player who can't manage this sort of spell without bogging down the turn, you simply don't cast it. The player has a responsibility here in my view. (Same for summons, pets, etc.)
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 09:20 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    Yes on the double-dash. There tends to be a LOT of movement in my games due to terrain, so it comes up quite a bit.
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:41 PM
    You can resolve by applying the mob rules in the DMG (pg. 250) which foregoes any attack rolls, saving time. Then use average damage.
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    2 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 06:16 PM
    Lol. That’s what I get for posting before coffee!
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:15 PM
    It doesn't matter if you keep track, really. The PCs should be counterspelling everything anyway.
    21 replies | 745 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Istbor's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 02:58 PM
    Yeah, that is certainly a possibility. I think the Gods are trying to distract her, and get around their "no interference" clause in a different way.
    4 replies | 291 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 25 Deck of Illusions 9 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 12 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 4-2=0 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26 Folding Boat 24
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:25 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 10 Dimensional Shackles 21 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 14 Dust of Dryness 16 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 5-2=3 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 10 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Istbor's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 07:06 PM
    Loki I am pretty sure. As he would be calling his daughter pumpkin.
    4 replies | 291 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 06:23 PM
    iserith replied to Languages
    The DMG also has a section on languages in the campaign world planning section that basically tells the DM to figure this out on his or her own according to the kind of setting he or she wants to present.
    9 replies | 371 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:40 PM
    It seems to me all that really matters is whether the player thinks it's fun. If he or she does, carry on, I say. If not, then you can either jointly tinker with the rules to make it less certain, create conditions in the game that accomplish the same effect without tinkering with the rules, or the player can just choose not to have the character hide all the time.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 09:25 PM
    iserith replied to OSR Gripes
    I played Lamentations of the Flame Princess which is one of these old school D&D-esque games. I lost 5 characters in one session. No exaggeration. That's just how it goes.
    231 replies | 8072 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 08:55 PM
    No insult is intended. Certain of your specific objections seem rooted in issues of spotlight management and other issues that are not the fault of the game. I make no judgment as to what you should or shouldn't do in your own game, only that some of your objections are easily solved without modifying the rules.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:54 PM
    Like I said, house rules are fine. Personally, I don't actually care how the player makes the decision in the face of the NPC's attempt to persuade (to continue with that example), but I'm not calling for a roll here as DM. That breaks the rule of players determining what their characters do. The player is free to roll a die to figure out what the character does if he or she wants. Or flip a...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:27 PM
    Magic is the difference. House rules are fine, but the issue in this situation for me is that the players always determine how their characters think and what they do and say. That means there is never uncertainty as to the outcome of the NPC's attempt to persuade and thus no ability check. The outcome is whatever the player says it is. I might, in some circumstances.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:12 PM
    iserith replied to Languages
    There is no call-out in the rules for dialects other than Primordial. So as far as I am concerned, PCs that speak Common can't speak Undercommon, nor can creatures that speak Undercommon speak Common. Personally, I prefer it that way as it gives choice of language relevance and sets the PCs up for needing resources such as spells or NPCs to assist with communication. It's another problem for the...
    9 replies | 371 view(s)
    4 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:58 PM
    I use it and it works well enough. For those unfamiliar with it, it basically splits the challenge into what I call "The 'Tude," "The Chat," and "The Ask." In "The 'Tude," the DM frames the NPC's disposition toward the PCs and establishes the context of the challenge (what's at stake). This is also when players might try to have their characters recall lore about the NPC to garner useful...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:04 PM
    I think they're okay for D&D standards. But almost nobody uses them in my experience because I don't think many DMs actually read the DMG. The rogue isn't being skipped and it isn't really planned though - at least no more than combat where everyone gets a turn. If that doesn't bother you (does it?), why should what amounts to taking turns in a social interaction challenge be bothersome?...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:46 AM
    It just sounds to me like the argument is not so much "Expertise is problematic..." but "Expertise is problematic when I chop away two of the three pillars underpinning the game and things get wobbly." Which doesn't so much sound like a problem with Expertise per se, but the choices the DM has made. I think we agree here? Also there does seem to be an underlying assumption in your post that...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:19 AM
    Really that just argues for the DM to balance the pillars of the game as much as he or she can in my view and to incentivize play to that end via XP and treasure. If the DM is leaning too heavily on any one pillar or incentivizing particular play to the exclusion of others, it's reasonable behavior for players to create and advance characters with particular skill proficiencies and other features...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:09 AM
    "Party balance" in what sense? Why is it bad that this character can do a thing well and others can't? Wouldn't it be the case that this expert won't be able to do other things as well in this or the other two pillars? Also, how is "deception in the hands of a creative player" troublesome? Setting aside that the DM decides whether there is a roll or not in the first place, what's the actual...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:05 AM
    I'm not really "going" anywhere, only checking to see if there's a rough correlation between people who have some kind of issue with the ability check system and playing the game in the very common way I described upthread wherein the players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks. Without taking anything away from your perception of the problem you outline above, could you...
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:53 AM
    Why do you think that is a problem?
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:48 AM
    As opposed to the DM deciding whether there is a roll at all, then what ability check to make and any skill proficiency that applies (per the rules). And in this case I'm not referring to a paradigm where the DM can decide a player-proposed roll is not necessary (e.g. Player: "Can I make an Investigation check to..." DM: "Nah, you just figure it out...").
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:42 AM
    Out of curiosity, if you have a problem with expertise, do you also play the game such that players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks?
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 11:24 PM
    In a practical sense, this means that the rogue will almost always surprise monsters (unless he's traveling with other, less stealthy people) and will almost always have advantage on the attack roll if there's a place to hide in combat. If the rogue is on his or her own, it will also mean that scouting around without being detected will almost always succeed. Personally, if a rogue tries to...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 09:48 PM
    LEFTCOLOR=#333333FONT=VerdanaDaern's Instant Fortress 9/FONT/COLOR Does anyone know how to get rid of all this when quote replying in the app? Such a pain to delete letter by letter on my phone. Edited to remove brackets to show what I’m talking about
    205 replies | 4634 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 08:52 PM
    It works. My entire game is run like that, almost as a one-on-one between myself and one other player (when they're not talking among themselves) for a minute before switching to someone else. If a combat ends without finishing the round, I'll mentally stick to initiative order and call on the people who haven't gone that round to kick off whatever activity is next so that they aren't shorted on...
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Istbor's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 07:28 PM
    Depends on the NPC caster when I DM. Say the once druid who is now a warped evil warlock. Her misty step takes the form of dried dead leaves that slip threw craps or ride a quick breeze to her new location. Stuff like that. I think that can really help to stick a character out for your players, and even get their minds cranking on cool personalized magic. I mean, why should Tenser,...
    9 replies | 481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 04:32 PM
    How long are people taking on their turns? One thing I've noticed at other tables is that players are planning what to do on their turn instead of acting, which is a huge no-no at my table. Your turn is for acting, not for planning or stalling by asking 20 Questions (another common player tactic when they haven't planned off-turn). I think a turn is 30 seconds or less, ideally, which means your...
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:20 PM
    First, ask for them to pay attention, then ask them what about the game isn't holding their attention. From your own observation, what parts of the game are they tuning out on? What can you do to minimize those parts of the game or make them more interesting?
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    6 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 06:39 PM
    Alchemy Jug 5-2=3 Bag of Tricks 4+1=5
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 06:08 PM
    Yes, that's technically a choice.
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 04:54 PM
    I think what gets left off in the last few assertions that are floating about is that, in a game where the DM isn't concerned with any particular conclusion so long as it's fun, exciting, and memorable (even if it's bad for the characters), then said DM isn't also putting them into situations where they have no chance of success. In such games, the players choose to get themselves into those...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    3 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 05:01 PM
    Can they take short rests? If so, they should be able to do 6 to 8 medium or hard challenges with a couple of short rests. If the villain challenge is deadly, then reduce the number of preceding encounters accordingly, perhaps setting it to 4 to 6 medium or hard challenges followed by a deadly encounter. If the players are experienced, this seems doable.
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 04:24 PM
    Make clear the risks and trade-offs inherent in the challenge, then let the players make their own decisions. Err on the side of giving "too much" information rather than too little. Use whatever contrivances you can think of to impart that info in a way that makes sense in context. Perhaps a grizzled veteran adventurer faced such a challenge before and made the mistake of doing battle with the...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:52 PM
    Time is an important resource in my adventures. It's yours to waste, but much like wasting hit points or spells, there may be consequences. In many cases, the longer you give the villain to prepare or complete his or her goals, the harder things get. To some extent, that may be desirable from the player's perspective as it potentially means more XP, but that must be weighed against the likelihood...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:17 PM
    Alchemy Jug 10 Bag of holding 6-2=4 Bag of Tricks 6 Carpet of Flying 4+1=5
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 01:04 AM
    It's not that it's complicated - it's just that it's more transactions per turn or round which necessarily takes longer than just the one, even with very capable players. Turn after turn, combat after combat, it adds up. An important part of DMing in my view is sharing the spotlight, that is, making sure that the PCs have more or less the same time in the spotlight over the course of the session....
    22 replies | 930 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:36 AM
    I think the biggest concern above all is: How much are your minions going to bog down the game? Because, frankly, they will, at least to some degree. In a game like mine which runs fast, it's very noticeable. When a player in my game wanted to play a necromancer, he had the good sense to ask me for my opinion on how many undead he could have at one time. I told him "When the game slows down...
    22 replies | 930 view(s)
    2 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 12:57 PM
    Alchemy Jug 15 Bag of Holding 14-2=12 Bag of Tricks 6 Carpet of Flying 10+1=11
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 06:07 PM
    XGtE has a section on awarding magic items over the course of a campaign. There's a sidebar in that section that reveals the expected number of Treasure Hoards the PCs will uncover. You could perhaps base Individual Treasure rolls on those numbers, either following them exactly or by multiplying by some factor then seeding them among your NPCs and monsters. There are a number of random...
    18 replies | 897 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 03:01 PM
    Alchemy Jug 16 Bag of Holding 13-2=11 Bag of Tricks 11 Carpet of Flying 14+1=15
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • jodyjohnson's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 07:45 PM
    Roll 4d6 drop anything over 18 was what we used for years in AD&D. And we still TPK'd between 5-8 level.
    67 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 06:45 PM
    Alchemy Jug 17 Bag of Holding 16-2=14 Bag of Tricks 15 Carpet of Flying 15+1=16
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 07:31 PM
    I don't even understand the objection that is being voiced. The play loop and adjudication process is for all and sundry to see right there in the rules of the game. It's not like we made it up. If there's an objection to it, take it up with Wizards of the Coast, I guess.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    2 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:07 PM
    Alchemy Jug 20 Bag of Holding 12-2=10 Bag of Tricks 19 Broom of Flying 8+1=9 Carpet of Flying 17
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 11:23 PM
    The determination of whether a task has an uncertain outcome and the meaningful consequence of failure, which precedes the introduction and use of the game mechanics (ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, etc.), is DM fiat which is enshrined in the rules via the play loop and adjudication process. Fiat is inescapable in this rules system. It is the first resort.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 07:35 PM
    Change "should" to "could" and I think you got it.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Istbor's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:49 PM
    I mean... I see a lot of Clerics. Two of them currently in my home group. Tempest and War. Both are pretty happy with their characters. I am not sure I have seen a 5e group yet without a Cleric.
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:38 PM
    I just say when a target has cover and what kind and the player says "Okay" and acts accordingly. I do my best to make that apparent well before the attack is declared by working it into my description of the environment. That way, there's no surprises.
    28 replies | 1095 view(s)
    5 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:18 PM
    As I mentioned upthread, many DMs in my experience jump to the mechanics before they give much consideration to the play loop and adjudication process which comes first. If someone draws a blade - initiative! If someone tells a lie - deception! But this is skipping an important part of the DM's role and, frankly, it shows in their resulting play experience.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Istbor's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:05 PM
    Understandable. I am talking more to the, let's pull it out with a pliers or, getting hit by a car and thinking playing D&D right after is a good idea.
    43 replies | 1780 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 04:19 PM
    Right. That section specifically says the play loop applies to all situations in D&D 5e and does call out combat as being a bit more structured but otherwise follows the same pattern. See also DMG page 237 wherein the specific process the DM follows to determine if some kind of roll is appropriate is laid out. That being, the task's outcome has to fall somewhere between impossible and...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:03 PM
    Thanks for your input. Edit: yeah, you’ve confused my called shot rule for my checkmate rule. They’re not the same rule.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    Harzel: What Ovinomancer said.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:09 PM
    Alchemy Jug 20 Bag of Holding 18-2=16 Bag of Tricks 19 Broom of Flying 16+1=17 Carpet of Flying 18
    413 replies | 14549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:53 AM
    I don't have experience with public games, but I have run a lot of pickup games with random players on Roll20. As well, my regular group and some other groups in which I play each have a pool of players they use to fill five seats per session. This is actually a very good setup because it means fewer scheduling hassles. If the DM can run the game, there's enough players in the pool to fill out at...
    11 replies | 480 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:51 AM
    None of my players have assassin characters. I’ll agree there doesn’t need to be a special checkmate rule. Certainly not in every game at every table. You reckon I might have a reason to use it in my own home games, or nah?
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:24 AM
    Not a solution for what? Did I claim to have “fixed the game for all tables across time and space and play style.” Jaysus, you guys.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:48 AM
    I think if you’ve asked for or signed on to a game with greater than normal lethality then you’re on-board with that outcome as a possibility.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 12:31 AM
    I see. So if we cast sleep on the orc, we’d all be in agreement that orc would be uniquely vulnerable. But there’s a gray area between that definite candidate for checkmate and an orc who is not a candidate for checkmate that you’re calling fiat. I suppose the defining line for me would be whether or not a defense against the attack were reasonably possible/effective. Natural armor might be...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 11:49 PM
    Didn’t take any position on Holds. I have no wizards or sorcerers in any group at the moment. What is a “fiat threshold?”
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 11:38 PM
    I don’t think the DM who doesn’t let something work is a jerk. Same for the one who doesn’t apply the rules due to reasons. I think the biggest jerk DM thing is when they decide my actions for me.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 11:35 PM
    Invisibility is helpful but IMO it does not, on its own, satisfy “target is totally unaware of you.”
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:56 PM
    Well, if I were in your shoes, I would use pregen characters at 3rd level and forget advancement altogether. I would not run any kind of continuing story or adventure path. Probably best to stick to a dungeon/monster of the month setup. And I’d have very clear win/lose conditions proposed up front. Maybe even points so you could declare a monthly “winner.” Or have all the viewers vote on...
    11 replies | 480 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:32 PM
    Yeah. They wanted combat to be faster, more dangerous, and more deadly. So I made it faster and deadlier. Now they’re careful when engaging enemies, pickier about where they hold positions, weighing whether to risk an opportunity attack for their action or take the safe play and use the withdraw action. They usually aren’t just standing around exchanging whacks. There’s a lot of...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:08 PM
    They could. And the same might happen to them too. In practice it isn’t as go-to as it seems. At least not in my games so far. They’ve decapitated some zombies and did cut the sting off a Wyvern, though.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:05 PM
    I’ve got 3 games going right now with these rules in play. Works fine.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:51 PM
    The same way I adjudicate most other actions. You’ve got a fighter or whoever that wants to chop off an opponent’s limb with their weapon. That’s a clear enough goal and approach for me to know what check to ask for and what DC to set. I’ll ask for a weapon attack versus the target’s AC because that most closely approximates what’s happening in the narrative. Now this isn’t just a hit, but a...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:34 PM
    Yeah, I agree that you could and that it wouldn’t be too much fun. You might do it if you’re short of time and want to expedite some of the game play to hit a solid end. But I don’t think you’re forbidden from bypassing HP simply because HP exists. I mean, there’s no real rule in place to cut the sting off a giant scorpion, either, but that doesn’t mean it should be impossible.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:25 PM
    I addressed it upthread a bit. As a guideline, I sometimes compare the damage of the attack to the target’s constitution score. When the damage equals or exceeds the target’s constitution score, the target has to make a death saving throw. That typically covers exceptionally tough creatures well-enough for my use. However, it is equally reasonable to say “you’re never gonna dagger a dragon’s...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:22 PM
    You’ve ignored the caveat that there is no reasonably effective defense. Pointed crossbows don’t inhibit or prevent an effective defense. Your failure to imagine a good use for the rule doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Your insistence that all uses of the rule are DM-screwjobs doesn’t mean they are.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:03 PM
    I think my last example of sneaking up on an unwary NPC suggests an answer to that question. If you sneak up on someone who isn’t on guard duty (or perhaps is on guard duty but is otherwise distracted) and approach them such that they are unaware of your presence, a simple Dexterity (Stealth) check may well be sufficient to get you into a knife-at-throat position. How about in-combat?...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 07:31 PM
    A rule is not a system. Was that in dispute? Rule adds nothing to the rope bridge scenario. Again, not really important. My claim was that the rope bridge scenario qualified, not that it was impossible to resolve by any other application of the rules. Finally, it does address the knife to the throat scenario, at the time the knife applies to the throat. The prerequisite is that you must...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 07:08 PM
    You summed up your opinion by calling me a liar. I am not a liar. Here is the rule I use: “When you create circumstances to defeat an enemy such that there is no reasonably effective defense, that enemy is defeated.” For examples, I use the knife-to-the-throat case, the avalanche-over-a-cliff case, and the unwary-NPC-who-is-totally-unaware-of-your-presence case.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:44 PM
    NPCs can take called shots too. I didn’t argue they couldn’t. NPCs can try to checkmate a PC. I didn’t argue they couldn’t. NPCs can try to douse themselves when they’re on fire. I didn’t argue they couldn’t.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:36 PM
    On the lava bit, the "improvising damage" rules in the DMG pegs "wading through a lava stream" as 10d10 damage and "being submerged in lava" as 18d10 damage. The latter seems appropriate for a fall into a lava pit.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:32 PM
    You won't ever catch me making a realism argument in D&D of any edition. What I will argue is that it's the DM's call on what mechanic to use to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome and I can make the case for either ability checks or attack rolls here (and have). While it's reasonable behavior in my opinion for players to treat a DM's ruling as precedent, I think it's a simple matter to point...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:05 PM
    Man, come on. If I have a house rule about checkmate scenarios and I give you an example of one I consider to be a checkmate scenario, isn’t it a little bit unfair to argue that example doesn’t meet my criteria? I mean, “here’s an example of the sort of thing I’m talking about” and you respond “no it’s not.” I feel like I’m probably an expert on my own darn opinion.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:01 PM
    Yeah, I meant “causality” and typed “consequentialism.” +1 internet point for you. The rest of your point seems to take issue with “things act like they do in the real world,” which isn’t a position I’m taking as an absolute truth in all circumstances. I couldn’t possibly be taking that position in a game that includes dragons and magic spells. If the game world circumstances are that you...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 05:46 PM
    I think fairness and consistency in the application of the rules is an important goal for the DM. That said, I think arguments about parity of their application between PCs and NPCs being paramount is legacy thinking that hasn't held water since D&D 3.Xe. So unless you're talking about that edition specifically, I can't take seriously any such argument for D&D 4e or D&D 5e.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
More Activity
About ChrisCarlson

Basic Information

About ChrisCarlson
Location:
Los Angeles
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

State:
California
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,215
Posts Per Day
0.87
Last Post
Just had an awful AL con weekend Thursday, 8th June, 2017 06:21 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
7
General Information
Join Date
Wednesday, 16th September, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

7 Friends

  1. AaronOfBarbaria AaronOfBarbaria is offline

    Member

    AaronOfBarbaria
  2. Bawylie Bawylie is offline

    Member

    Bawylie
  3. iserith iserith is offline

    Member

    iserith
  4. Istbor Istbor is offline

    Member

    Istbor
  5. jodyjohnson jodyjohnson is offline

    Member

    jodyjohnson
  6. OB1 OB1 is offline

    Member

    OB1
  7. Valdier Valdier is offline

    Member

    Valdier
Showing Friends 1 to 7 of 7
My Game Details
State:
California
Country:
USA
No results to show...

Tuesday, 12th April, 2016

  • 07:29 PM - lowkey13 mentioned ChrisCarlson in post Rolled character stats higher than point buy?
    ...ustrated by the following. Imagine a hypothetical world with the following: An infinite number of people generating characters. Now, in this world, people roll 3d6 in order. Imagine the following scenarios: 1. After their rolls, they discard all characters with less than a 14. 2. During their rolls, they add 1 to each dice (maximum of 6). 3. After their rolls, they "top up" any ability that is less than 14. How are the outputs (what you are interested in) different? How does the initial method of rolling matter? Now, contrast that with a different method of generating the ability scores prior to transforming them. To put it a different way, if you were to shoot all the men under 6' 3" in the world, or you were to shoot all the men under 6' 3" in the NBA, it might be pedantic or trivial to say that in both cases you end up with very tall people. But despite your lack of interest in the subject, it is still interesting (and probably doubly so if you, unlike Goliath ChrisCarlson are a short person).

Thursday, 17th March, 2016

  • 05:08 PM - iserith mentioned ChrisCarlson in post So 5 Intelligence Huh
    I'd just declare the action invalid and remove it from play. That way the other players don't have to deal with a silly narrative. I think it's important not to get caught up in the silliness of the example and to keep in mind what ChrisCarlson said above. I don't care what the action declaration is - the same process of determining certainty or uncertainty and narration applies regardless of what it is. Some are saying "you can't declare certain things given a particular ability score" (or "your action declaration is invalid" or "I'm going to insert this extra step to determine if your action declaration is valid") and I don't buy that.

Wednesday, 17th February, 2016

  • 01:54 AM - Hussar mentioned ChrisCarlson in post Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink
    ...it okay to play a Battlemaster/Mastermind that not only grants advantage on an attack, but also grants extra attacks during combat (albeit a limited number of times per short rest) but a Warlord based on similar mechanics with a healing ability cribbed from the Healer Feat is a no go? Like I said, if it's not the mechanics and it's not the flavour, then what's the problem? Start a baseline character class called warlord. At 2nd level he gains some sort of "healing word" effect that grants healing to allies a limited number of times per short rest. At 3rd level, you branch off into two (or three) subclasses - Inspirational focuses on buffing with a minor in action granting and Tactical focuses on action granting with a minor in buffing. Poof, end of problem. Granted, I don't know how the Bravura warlord works, I didn't have that book, and, frankly, I don't care. Someone else can deal with that one. After months of agitating and threadcrapping, what is your goal here ChrisCarlson? What do you want to see or not see happen? If your goal simply you don't want to see warlords in the game, then fine, don't play one. Easy peasy. Why are you spending all this time telling people what they shouldn't play?

Thursday, 11th February, 2016


Friday, 29th January, 2016

  • 07:32 PM - jacktannery mentioned ChrisCarlson in post I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.
    ...class doing the same thing, or perhaps granting advantage, isn't breaking anything. Those three elements are enough to hang a class around. I'd probably go with a rogue chassis, replacing sneak attack which increases every other level, with a small suite of at will effects which increase, probably on a similar curve. The two subclasses focus on Int or Cha respectively and the Int warlord focuses on adjusting action economy while the Cha warlord focuses more on buffing. I'll have to spend some time writing this up. I think this post really sums up for me what a 5e martial support class could and should be. It moves away from porting a 4E warlord directly into 5E, and instead focuses on creating a 5E-mechanics martial support class. I think it is viable, I would love to play with it, and I think 5E is a good enough game system to be able to include it without damaging anything. I'd love for a martial support class like this to be created by the developers in some fashion. ChrisCarlson, I don;t understand why you are so adamantly against this entire notion. I fully understand that you don't feel a 4E warlord is appropriate for 5E, and Hussar expressed similar reservations in the OP. However, that's not what he's talking about in the post I've quoted above. He's articulating a 5E martial support class. And it would be optional, not reverse-engineered into the DMG/PHB so it would never affect those groups who don't want it; only create opportunities for those who do want it. Surely this is good for 5E and D&D.

Wednesday, 27th January, 2016

  • 11:48 PM - Hussar mentioned ChrisCarlson in post I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.
    ChrisCarlson - This horse has been well and truly beaten to death. EVERY single one of your "don't tell my PC what to do" things EXIST IN 5e. Battle masters can force you to take extra movement. They can force you to make extra attacks. Paladins force you to take saving throw bonuses. Bards force you to regain HP faster. Masterminds force you to have advantage on attacks. So, why would it be problematic to have any or all of those things in a Warlord character? The only reason I can see for your "no warlords" schtick is because it's from 4e. Because, the thing is, almost everything that warlords HAD in 4e EXISTS in 5e. Just not in a single class. So, you hate 5e that much?
  • 10:08 PM - mellored mentioned ChrisCarlson in post I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.
    ChrisCarlson did you object to the flavor of the marshal?

Wednesday, 20th January, 2016

  • 11:50 PM - Hussar mentioned ChrisCarlson in post I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.
    One does have to wonder, ChrisCarlson, what your end goal in these threads are. Obviously you don't want a warlord, but, this is a forum for those who want to discuss a potential warlord. It's been shunted off to its own ghetto precisely because of people endlessly threadcrapping and cluttering up the main discussion forum. I asked a fairly specific question and got a pretty specific answer. Is there room for a warlord? Yup, while a 5e warlord would draw from different niches than the 4e warlord, there are certainly enough spaces for a non-magical tactical character. What's your goal here?

Saturday, 9th January, 2016

  • 03:13 AM - EzekielRaiden mentioned ChrisCarlson in post Warlord Name Poll
    ChrisCarlson Sounds to me like a case of duelling strawmen. Straw the First: There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a situation where every single other player completely ignores any benefits provided to them by a particular fellow-player. Straw the Second: Everybody who plays absolutely must always play as a team player or they're a horrible person. Oddly, I don't actually see the second strawman present in either Mellored's argument or Mr. Vargas's. Both seem to have come from your posts, or your (re)interpretation of others' posts.

Saturday, 10th October, 2015

  • 03:38 AM - pukunui mentioned ChrisCarlson in post Last D&D Survey Results In! Plus What's Up With The Ranger?
    ChrisCarlson: The ranger from the 08/02/13 packet had Favored Enemy as the subclass choice (with the two options being Dragon Slayer or Horde Breaker). It also had Expertise dice - it would be nice if rangers could just have Expertise in, say, Survival and Nature in general, rather than having Expertise in any Intelligence- or Wisdom-based skill check so long as they're in their favored terrain. That's just too fiddly and conditional. As for Natural Explorer, the 08/02/13 ranger didn't get it until 5th level, and it made it so you and your companions could move at twice the normal rate while in "aboveground environments". It also made it so you couldn't become lost. It also increased the ranger's scouting range and foraging results. No mention of only being able to do these things in specific terrain types. Their 20th level capstone ability was also pretty good: Terrain Superiority gave them advantage on attack rolls and saving throws made in "aboveground, wilderness environments". As an...

Sunday, 27th September, 2015

  • 12:09 AM - El Mahdi mentioned ChrisCarlson in post For the Record: Mearls on Warlords (ca. 2013)
    http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/laugh.png ChrisCarlson laughed at this post http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/laugh.png admcewen laughed at this post I don't understand what you're trying to communicate as concerns my question/post. Would you be so kind as to explain it please? ChrisCarlson admcewen

Thursday, 24th September, 2015

  • 03:01 AM - pemerton mentioned ChrisCarlson in post How many fans want a 5E Warlord?
    ...h me (eg by just ignoring a class that is clearly not designed for them)? As to my "vague and shifting" rationales for disliking temp hp: they're a mechanic that in my view adds nothing to the game and generate irritating corner cases. For those who think of hp as meat, what are temp hp? An extra layer of meat sandwhiched on? Conversely, if being pepped up can make your meat somehow tougher before the event, why can't it do so after the event? In other words, I don't understand how non-magical temp hp fit with a hit-point-loss-and-gain-corresponds-to-biological-processes outlook in a way that non-magical hp recovery doesn't. I also don't see how the psychic damage type fits into this model in a way that non-magical hp restoration doesn't, but that's probably a separate point. I don't think you'll find any objection to the class in a UA or a supplement (I hope not)- I just don't think people want another core class.I think that at least three posters in this thread - ChrisCarlson, Elfcrusher, and Imaro - are objecting to the warlord existing in UA or some other 5e supplement. why not <snippage> Design your desired class (homebrew) and play it in your campaign? See how it works! Playtest it. If it's a good concept, distribute it. Get grass roots support. Maybe something similar will be in a supplement.I think that's one of the points of this thread, and the Warlording the Fighter thread.

Thursday, 17th September, 2015

  • 08:25 PM - Eric V mentioned ChrisCarlson in post How many fans want a 5E Warlord?
    ChrisCarlson, You never pointed out why his logic is flawed either. You can't. Perhaps there were indeed other words besides "fallacy" he used that you thought "fancy." A quick skim of his post reveals nothing that would be considered such.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Thursday, 8th June, 2017

  • 07:16 PM - Zene quoted ChrisCarlson in post Just had an awful AL con weekend
    Hello, Zene. My name, as my handle would strongly imply, is Chris Carlson. I am one of Strategicon's board members and Operations Coordinator for the entire show. First, I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize for the terrible time you had at our event. I would also appreciate it if you would let me know more details, via PM is fine if you prefer. Names of the DMs you had problems with (especially the inappropriate jerk) being my priority at this time. I take these things very seriously. I would like to address this with my AL department heads and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. For anyone. If you'd also be willing to give me your real name, and or badge number if you still have it, I'd appreciate it. Again, privately is totally fine. PM me, please. I'd like to discuss this further with you and maybe even be able to offer some form of remuneration for your trouble. Chris Carlson Operations Coordinator Strategicon Chris, thanks so much for the outreach. I wil...

Thursday, 22nd September, 2016

  • 02:32 PM - hejtmane quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    I'm also a bit confused. The original poster is one of those who has repeatedly expressed a clear opinion that warlocks are only ever going to take EB, the supporting feats for EB and spam it all day long. How does doing that make it a complicated class? Seems pretty straight forward and blandly simply to me. His opening post says some new players may not know they are almost required to do this*. That is a totally different issue than claiming a class is complex (or not). (*I disagree that taking EB, and the associated invocations, are required at all to play a fun and effective warlock. But that's a different topic.) Personaly Warlock comes off as a Fighter Champion I mean how complicated is it really you get your invocations most people see that oh Cantrip + chrisma means better damage sold and take that with some exceptions other than that oh I got all these spells I can cast opps I have no slots left ok I use EB durr; oh wait I got this invocation oh I used that have to wait for long...

Saturday, 7th May, 2016

  • 02:39 AM - pemerton quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    I'm saying that the person who made the character, if they chose options interesting to them, is going to have a character that is "good" to them. It's the perspectives from outside that seem to be saying, "That's a bad character by my perspective." I've seen posters on this board give examples of players building characters that didn't perform as expected, mostly because of the mechanical considerations (action economy, rest economy, etc) that are central to the complexity of D&D as a system. The complexities mean that D&D is not transparent. It's not just a matter of, say, writing your biggest number next to the word sword or firemage on your character sheet.

Friday, 6th May, 2016

  • 05:03 PM - Khisanth the Ancient quoted ChrisCarlson in post Why is "Frost Brand" rarer than "Flame Tongue"?
    Well, I suppose there's that. But really... who doesn't love fried chicken! Sword +1, Poultry Fryer. This longsword is +2 and inflicts an additional 2d6 fire damage against creatures with a natural fly speed. Any flying creature killed by this sword is fried to perfection and tastes exactly like chicken.
  • 03:19 PM - Arial Black quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    Not being susceptible to disadvantage is different from gaining advantage to negate potential disadvantage. So when Eagle Sight allows you to ignore disadvantage for dim light, any potential source of advantage would remain. Even in dim light. My bad! I was AFB when I commented, and was thinking that the ability granted advantage, rather than saying that dim light doesn't grant disadvantage like it usually does.
  • 08:04 AM - pemerton quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    Possible examples? Because I still don't see it. What "ranged combat" feature(s) aren't able to impart ranged combat benefits such that the player finds they were actually duped into taking something that fails to perform as advertised? Same goes for melee. Or whatever.Well, I believe that in the case of the warlock there can be complexities around hand management eg two weapon fighting and a casting focus; or using a two-handed ranged weapon and a focus. There can also be complexities around, say, not understanding whether your build (in terms perhaps of spell selection, feat choice, CON score etc) is going to be able to maintain spell effects while being hit in combat. To know what counts as a good chance of succeeding on concentration checks, for instance, requires having more than just a casual knowledge of the rules. Even when it comes to spell selection, it is not always easy to know whether (say) a given cantrip is likely to be effective or not. Consider, say, True Strike. For many peo...
  • 01:31 AM - pemerton quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    if you don't know what you're doing then it's easy to end up with a character that is just plain bad, with very few mechanical options to contribute both in and out of combat compared to other casters. Are you saying one could theoretically take things (class features, spells, etc.) they have no desire to use, then complain that they are useless? Because the only way to make an undesirable character (warlock or otherwise), AFAICT, is to take things you don't want or have no interest in.I think it is possible, in D&D, to make a "bad" character without choosing things you have no interest in. Besides feartheminotaur's points about compatibility between choice and what actually emerges in play, there is another possibility: namely, that the player (especially if inexperienced) gets the maths and/or action economy wrong. That is, s/he tries to build a character who is effective in a certain respect (say, ranged combat or melee combat or whatever) but due to a poor grasp of how the game's relativel...

Thursday, 5th May, 2016

  • 07:40 PM - Dausuul quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    Not being susceptible to disadvantage is different from gaining advantage to negate potential disadvantage. So when Eagle Sight allows you to ignore disadvantage for dim light, any potential source of advantage would remain. Even in dim light. Very good point. However, this is only helpful for Perception checks, since AFAIK nothing else gets disadvantage from dim light to begin with.
  • 11:25 AM - CapnZapp quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    That's a table problem, not a system problem, IMO. If you take things that interest you, and the DM ignores your desires to interface with those interesting choices, I do not consider that 5e's fault. YMMV. The "fault" here is the lack of flexibility. There's no need to start yet another round of "nothing wrong with the rules, you just have a bad DM" Has it occurred to you that a good ruleset makes it difficult to be a bad DM...?

Wednesday, 4th May, 2016

  • 10:08 PM - Satyrn quoted ChrisCarlson in post Need advice: Making Religions, Not Just "Here's The Gods. Pick One"
    Just spitballin' here... What if you devised a homebrew system that treated each available faith similarly to backgrounds? In that, they provide one or more "ribbon features". These would help guide/describe the characters, because of how/why they are drawn to (and/or identify with) a particular faith? Example: So someone closely identifying with an agricultural deity/faith could have a natural gift of a green thumb. Or is the salt of the earth type (gets along well with the peasantry). Or any number of other things that may go towards explaining why they connect so well with that faith. An excellent idea. I created feats that provided religious-flavored powers in 3e, with the flavour text providing a little bit of info for the players. So my advice is this: whatever info you create for your religion, present it to the players in chunks they will actually consume, and provide hooks for all characters to embrace your religious creation. Even if a player passes on these options they will still ...
  • 09:01 PM - RotGrub quoted ChrisCarlson in post Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, & Revenant
    Thanks for clarifying. I just wasn't sure if maybe using the term differently than I'm accustomed. All good. And, yeah, I totally get how 4e is right up your alley. It scratches that same itch when I play it. I'm a huge proponent that people should play whatever system/edition works best for their proclivities. And there's nothing wrong with that. To my surprise I recently discovered that Rotgrubs are considered unfair by some purists. Of course, I'm perfectly happy role playing a miniature giant space hamster while my fighter is waiting for a res... :)
  • 08:20 PM - RulesJD quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    I'm wondering how bear totem's resistance equates to doing more damage or helping party utility? As for lasts longer, I've found shortening the length of a fight by hitting harder (and more often) helps alleviate the need to "last longer". *snip* Interesting. Are you sure? *snip* I have no doubt that this proposed totem barbarian, with two top-tier combat feats, "wrecks" a berzerker barbarian using only their 3rd level frenzy feature. You are absolutely correct. 1. Please, I'm begging you, read the actual posts you're responding to. It would save us both the time and effort. Resistance = don't care about getting hit from non-BPS damage sources = more Reckless Attack. Reckless Attack + GWM = biggest damage boost in the game. Your Frenzy Barb is getting tagged with Drow Warrior poison blades and can't go Reckless (or if they do will drop significantly quicker which = 0 DPR), while the Totem Barb doesn't care nearly as much. Damage Resistance = more Reckless Attacking. Additionally,...
  • 07:42 PM - RotGrub quoted ChrisCarlson in post Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, & Revenant
    To what "playstyle" are you referring, exactly? Not sure if there is a name for it, but it's a playstyle that is very heavy on the miniature wargaming side of things coupled with MMO concepts.
  • 04:52 PM - RulesJD quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    I'm still waiting for you to define "equal/better", remember? Truer story. You've hinted before than you attend Strategicon. Have we met? I feel like your particular flavor of debatery is somewhat familiar to me. PM me your name so I can tell if we've ever met at one of my cons. You know my name, its right there in my handle... Are you aware that bear totem's benefits only function while the barbarian is in their rage state? I just want to make sure. It seems like you are giving the impression it's an always-on feature. Or, are you saying that your totem barbarian manages to always have rage going? If so, let me know who your LA DM is because they are laughably bad. 1. Does more damage, lasts longer, provides more party utility, literally every category of judging a character's mechanics. This isn't difficult, you're just avoiding the fact that you have zero argument and zero build. 2. We haven't. 3. Nope, it's not always on, but that's a zero-sum argument because if Bear totem barb i...
  • 03:53 PM - RulesJD quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    We had a set-piece encounter with a red dragon a while back where the half-orc totem barbarian was one of about half of us to fail the initial fear save. But he never succeeded on recovering for the rest of the battle, failing every round to shake it off. And having failed that initial check beyond thrown weapon range, and that being all he had, he basically sat out the fight in the back of the cavern. Sucked to be him. True story. You haven't posted a Frenzy Barbarian build yet that you claim is equal/better than Bear Totem. True story. Also, if you're playing ToD + RoT and not seeing heaps of elemental/poison damage, please tell me who your LA DM is because they are laughably bad. ToD and EE campaigns alone make Bear Barb the by FAR superior choice if only for the ability to care less about Reckless Attack on enemies with Poison/Elemental damage riders. Cultists/Assassins, Dragon Breath weapons, Mage spells, etc.
  • 11:28 AM - CapnZapp quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    So you want the berzerker to take a feat that is less useful to them than it would be for the totem guy I have never said this. Stop putting words in my mouth. The only arguments you discuss are the straw men you set up yourself. When you change that, and start analyzing the real choices instead of attacking the person, I'll get back to you.

Tuesday, 3rd May, 2016

  • 10:16 PM - RulesJD quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    What an odd assertion to make. Are you sure? Clearly you do not have me on ignore, because you can see and respond to me. So I'm not sure how you've missed all my posts in this thread. I believe you may not fully grasp the debate as it stands. Because, lose how, exactly? And what parameters are you using to establish this opinion of yours in the first place? Your claims are unsupported and ephemeral. Because you clearly struggle with reading comprehension: I realize that people have various preferred role-playing styles, and value different non-mechanical aspects of characters. This isn't a thread about that. This is intended to be a thread about raw, by the book, standard assumptions, subclass effectiveness comparisons. Since you also fail as basic math, the average benefit of Advantage/Disadvantage across the D20 spectrum is ~4.3. It changes with what number you need to roll to succeed, but a 10/11 is taken as the average. Simplified (and per PHB impact on passives, taking into account au...
  • 07:43 PM - RulesJD quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    So you want the berzerker to take a feat that is less useful to them than it would be for the totem guy, but it's somehow a ridiculous example to tell the lore bard to take the same feat the valor bard would find useful? And you don't see the double-standard in your thinking? I suppose, farewell to you as well, good sir. You've posted nothing. You can literally optimize your Frenzy barb however you want with whatever feats you want (Point Buy 27/Official feats obviously) and it will still lose to the Totem barb outside of anything except an encounter with no non-BPS damage and nowhere that goes more than 1 fight per long rest.
  • 06:45 PM - Elfcrusher quoted ChrisCarlson in post Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?
    IMO, this is not only irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, it muddies it in the trying. What does druids and poison spray have to do with your assertion that warlocks need not only take EB, but AB to go with it. I think he was saying that a warlock using poison spray as his damage filler is metaphorically pretending to be a druid, but badly. He wasn't comparing a non-EB warlock to a PS-spamming druid. If that makes sense. Good lord did I just defend Zard?
  • 05:30 PM - CapnZapp quoted ChrisCarlson in post Berserker - How does it really compare to Totem Warrior?
    Sounds more like apples to pears, if ya ask me... Your artificial hamstringing is no different than requiring a valor and lore bard to both take the Charger feat and expect a fair comparison. Not cool. No. Again you reply by conjuring up ridiculous examples, instead of taking my methodological advice to heart. You are wasting everybody's time. Good bye.


Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

ChrisCarlson's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites