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

Basic Information

About discosoc
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
799
Posts Per Day
0.57
Last Post
No Spell-less Ranger in the Near Future Saturday, 9th September, 2017 09:00 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
11
General Information
Last Activity
Monday, 16th April, 2018 12:15 AM
Join Date
Sunday, 20th September, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Thursday, 6th July, 2017

  • 05:02 AM - Wiseblood mentioned discosoc in post Is "perception" even a good concept?
    discosoc I don't think perception is a good concept/mechanic. Posts so far have been giving advice on how to use it or implement changes to style so that its more/less potent I guess. I think that it is too vague, too important and is essentially a skill tax. Have you seen a party that did not have anyone proficient in it? Have you seen a party where almost everyone or in fact everyone has proficiency? It has been given the same importance a healing or melee. Perception is the constitution of skills, it's the second skill you pick.

Tuesday, 4th April, 2017

  • 05:44 AM - Satyrn mentioned discosoc in post What Am I In For With This Party?
    Well, that poor paladin's gonna be taking quite a beating. I'm guessing hes gonna be using all his healing on himself (and some on the rogue) On second thought, there's a decent chance that it's the swashbuckler that's gonna be soaking up all the healing. That's actually the way it is for my swashbuckling, breastplate-wearing gnome battlemaster. The paladin with his full plate and shield is significantly longer lasting. What keeps me from soaking up his lay on hands is my second wind and lots of superiority dice spent to Parry.* Your warlock swashbuckler doesn't have any of that damage mitigation, as far as I can tell. *Also, as mentioned by discosoc, the warlock swashbuckler looks like the only one in the party with mostly short rest refresh features. He may be outvoted on resting if the group is the sort to push on with disdain for the concept of the 5 minute workday. My group is rather like that - and I'm rather glad that my paladin teammate is also a warlock so that half the group has a need to take a lunch break.

Wednesday, 29th March, 2017

  • 09:54 PM - DEFCON 1 mentioned discosoc in post Subclasses not tied to a class?
    The only conceptual issue I see is that if you were to do this, you aren't actually creating subclasses. You aren't creating a flavorful offshoot of a class, you are creating a whole new flavor that you're tacking on to any number of actual classes. The subclasses of the Rogue have been flavorfully made to be rogues. That's what they are. They aren't fighters, they aren't barbarians, they aren't rangers, they are rogues. And that's true across the board. Hunters are rangers. Berzerkers are barbarians. If you take an Oath of the Ancients you are a paladin. But to then to try and create a subclass that's isn't actually a sub OF that class (because you're suggesting it's a sub of multiple classes), you really aren't designing what you're supposed to be. Really, discosoc has the right of it, in my opinion. You aren't creating a true subclass... instead you're creating a whole new flavorful class in itself that you just want to attach onto another class to get that class's extra mechanics. If you think a Ninja can be thought of as possibly a fighter or a rogue or a monk or a sorcerer... then it isn't a subclass, it is its own thing entirely. And in that regard, a Prestige Class is really what it is. Now of course you can work it out for yourself however you want... if you want to make these "prestigelike" classes that get snapped onto existing ones because you don't want to lose the features of the classes you were in, then more power to you. But I just don't think you're really staying true to what the concept of a subclass is really meant to be. But hey! To each their own! :)

Friday, 3rd February, 2017

  • 06:06 PM - iserith mentioned discosoc in post Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???
    With Stealth, as with Perception, you should have the player roll even when there is no uncertainty, otherwise you are telegraphing information to the players that their character should not know, namely, "There are creatures nearby." For example, if the party is sneaking through a dungeon, and you don't ask for a Stealth roll until they sneak past a passageway blocked by a curtain, then the players knows that there's something beyond that curtain that could detect them. In essence, you are telling them, "There are creatures nearby; let's see if they detect you." Leaving aside my belief that the DM should be telegraphing hidden threats to avoid the perception of challenges as gotchas, as @discosoc notes, if the party is being stealthy while traveling through the dungeon, your best bet is to use a passive check since it's a task they are performing on an ongoing basis. They will, of course, have to be moving at a slow pace which hopefully the DM has set up as a trade-off: They get more wandering monster checks per unit of dungeon covered or they have less wiggle-room to resolve their time-sensitive quest. But given your example, if they aren't doing so in general, but have chosen to stealth through this one area where someone is hiding, then again, I wouldn't ask for a check unless I knew something would actually happen on a failure. If there is no meaningful consequence of failure that would change the scene in some way (e.g. the monster behind the curtain attacks with surprise!), then I'm not asking for a roll. I will just decide on an outcome.

Thursday, 5th January, 2017


Friday, 28th October, 2016

  • 05:13 AM - AnimeSniper mentioned discosoc in post New Uses for Tools
    Nicely done and workable into a campaign as a DT Action I could even see the following: Thieves Tools having included a small lump of soft clay like material that could be used to make an impression of a key that could the used to make a duplicate key, maybe acid for melting through locks, @discosoc Would Create Antidote for a sample of a poison be included in your Alchemy or Herbalism rules I'll see if I can find my old notes on the additions I made for old 3.5e Rogues kit...
  • 03:10 AM - UngeheuerLich mentioned discosoc in post Totally underwhelmed by 5e bladesinger, am I missing something?
    discosoc Huh? Why was I quoted... I never doubted that ruling...

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned discosoc in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...f Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One) Prolucutor (the Pro- makes it too authoritative, sounds like the person is a professional talker, and is just too hard to say) Warden (too Ranger) Leader(zzzzzzzzzz…) @3e4ever ; @77IM @Aaron Of Barbaria; @AbdulAlhazred ; @admcewen ; @Aenghus ; @Ahrimon ; @Ainulindalion ; @airwalkrr; @Aldarc ; @akr71 ; @AmerginLiath ; @Andor ; @AntiStateQuixote ; @aramis erak; @Aribar ; @Arnwolf ; @Ashkelon ; @Ashrym ; @Athinar ; @AtomicPope ; @Azurewraith; @Azzy ; @Bawylie ; @bedir than ; @Bedrockgames ; @bert1000 ; @billd91 ; @Blackbrrd; @Blackwarder ; @Blue ; @Bluenose ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @HEEGZ ; @Hemlock ; @Henry ; @Herobizkit; @Hussar; @IchneumonWasp ; @I'm A Banana ; @Imaro ; @Iosue ; @Irennan ; @JackOfAllTirades; @jacktannery ; @jadrax ; @Jaelommiss ; @JamesTheLion ; @JamesonCourage ; @JasonZZ; @jayoungr ; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @...

Thursday, 22nd October, 2015

  • 04:16 AM - pukunui mentioned discosoc in post Enhancing "Rise of Tiamat" (Practical stuff to try at your table!)
    Biggest Issues: The adventure was written before 5e rules were really finalized, so you'll see some weird issues with rules being mentioned that don't exist, or encounters that aren't balanced.Your examples from HotDQ are well-documented. The only one I've noticed in RoT is Rath being able to concentrate on both fly and invisibility at the same time. Try and introduce some of the NPC's involved with the council of waterdeep in the second book, during the earlier adventures in the first book.I'll second this. My PCs are currently in Baldur's Gate, so I'm going to present them with the chance to meet with Ulder Ravengard (and he will extend an invitation to join the Lords' Alliance as well; I thought it was odd that the adventure specifically gives the PCs the chance to join the Harpers and the Order of the Gauntlet fairly early on, but doesn't have anyone do the same for the other three factions at any point). Skip the vampire encounter on the cloud giant castle entirely.I'd actually su...

Thursday, 15th October, 2015

  • 08:28 PM - TheCosmicKid mentioned discosoc in post 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?
    My friend, allow me to share some information with you. Trans people - like gays, lesbians, cross dressers, etc - are NOT a new thing.There's a sense in which you're right and a sense in which discosoc is right. You're absolutely correct that the trait we now identify as "transgender" is biological in nature and has probably existed for as long as humanity has. However, as with homosexuality, different cultures have conceptualized the trait in different ways -- in fact, homosexuality and transgender are often seen as the same thing, as thallantyr suggested in his excellent Roman example upthread. But whether trans people were seen as super-duper gay, as a third gender, as a sort of eunuch, as some combination of all three, or as something else entirely, the view seldom if ever lined up closely with our contemporary understanding. So in this sense it is hardly unreasonable to say that transgender identity is a new thing. Reality being, transgender people were often treated with far more respect in the distant past, and the whole nonsense of discrimination is a relatively 'new' thing from a historical point of view (new being relative here)On this I'm sorry to say that you're ...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 5th February, 2018

  • 11:56 AM - Saelorn quoted discosoc in post Longswords
    Finally, you mention rapiers being the best choice, yet they are definitely *not* the best choice in terms of lore (at least any based on real history). Random people in the game world don't have a clue what dice values and stats are for weapons, so there has to be some kind of disconnect between "best in character" vs "best in metagame."The rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, though. If the inability of a rapier to pierce armor is a non-factor, then it's a non-factor. Otherwise, we get into weird situations where the outcome changes depending on whether or not we apply the rules. If reality changes whenever we try to model it, then that's a pretty lousy model.
  • 11:43 AM - Cap'n Kobold quoted discosoc in post Longswords
    There's no further training in the sense that both are martial weapons, but realistically you can't just give a random person a rapier and expect them to be any good with it. It can't just be swung around like a longsword, nor can it randomly stab people like one. You can't really expect to give a random person a longsword and expect them to win fights with it against someone who is trained in it either. Finally, you mention rapiers being the best choice, yet they are definitely *not* the best choice in terms of lore (at least any based on real history). Random people in the game world don't have a clue what dice values and stats are for weapons, so there has to be some kind of disconnect between "best in character" vs "best in metagame." Rapiers are a poor military weapon, which is why they were generally only used for civilian use. However, the factors that represent this (bad against armour, less effective disabling capability, lack of versatility, doesn't pair well with a shield etc) ar...

Saturday, 9th September, 2017

  • 10:11 PM - Alexemplar quoted discosoc in post No Spell-less Ranger in the Near Future
    5e's obsession with making every class magical is kind of annoying. I know there's a lot of "get off my lawn" aspects to this, as someone who started back when D&D had more grounded roots (thus making magic feel even more spectacular), but it sucks to see them doubling down like this. That's more of a general D&D thing than a 5e thing. Even back when the only classes were Fighting-man, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-user, Illusionist, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Thief, and Bard, you were still only looking at 3x classes that couldn't cast spells and only 2x explicitly non-magical classes.
  • 10:05 PM - Tony Vargas quoted discosoc in post No Spell-less Ranger in the Near Future
    5e's obsession with making every class magical is kind of annoying. I know there's a lot of "get off my lawn" aspects to this, as someone who started back when D&D had more grounded roots (thus making magic feel even more spectacular), Back in the day (for me, this would have been 1e AD&D) most classes also had magic in some form or another. Fighters had none, of course. Clerics, Druids, Wizards, & Illusionists were primary casters. The Paladin got lay on hands and, eventually, casting as did the Ranger, the Thief (& Assassin, IIRC) could read & use spell scrolls, the Monk got a variety of supernatural abilities, some of which mimicked spells, and the Bard, once he became a Bard, was also a caster. On top of that, magic items often carried a restriction by class, so even if your fighter got no magic of his own, there were magic items that only fighters could use.

Monday, 4th September, 2017

  • 06:49 PM - Tony Vargas quoted discosoc in post Firearms help needed please
    The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*). Firearms change that dynamic because there's no good way to narrate how a bullet wound doesn't result in massive damage or death within a few rounds. You can't dodge bullets and any "superficial" gunshot wound is the result of pure and insane luck that might be seen once in a doctors' career. ANY hit with a bullet is potentially fatal, and most result in a bleed out time or collapsed lung of about 20 seconds. People routinely survive GSWs, if they get fairly prompt medical care - and no, we're not talking a few six-second rounds, we're talking an ...
  • 11:10 AM - Cap'n Kobold quoted discosoc in post Firearms help needed please
    I don't see the problem with guns having insane damage compared to a bow. They DO have insane damage compared to a bow. An entire Seal team can be taken out with surprise and four well placed bullets. Wielded by children, if they're trained well enough. Yeah, but in D&D terms, the "arrow to the eye" requires a crit or a rogue or someone with the sharpshooter feat. Or opponents with very few hit points. So does the "bullet to the eye". In D&D terms. The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*). I think the point that you're . . . not getting, is that firearms attacks can be incorporated in...
  • 08:20 AM - Ancalagon quoted discosoc in post Firearms help needed please
    The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*). Firearms change that dynamic because there's no good way to narrate how a bullet wound doesn't result in massive damage or death within a few rounds. You can't dodge bullets and any "superficial" gunshot wound is the result of pure and insane luck that might be seen once in a doctors' career. ANY hit with a bullet is potentially fatal, and most result in a bleed out time or collapsed lung of about 20 seconds. At one point he even mentioned how swords often result in severed hands and stuff, but without also recognizing that the body can actually c...
  • 08:15 AM - WhosAChaoticGoodBoy quoted discosoc in post Ideas for mixed skill checks?
    Mixed checks are pretty common, but I'm not sure I'd ever allow the caster to hide a spell being cast. The book makes it pretty clear that spell casting requires a bit of focused concentration, and some or all of verbal, somatic, and material component manipulation. I interpret the rules to define which components are required, but the exact requirements of the components seem open ended in a lot of instances. For instance, where in the book does it say how loudly Misty Step must be cast?

Saturday, 2nd September, 2017

  • 10:40 PM - plisnithus8 quoted discosoc in post How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
    But if a player wants to believe it's a person holding the want, why prevent that? It sounds like the GM is just trying to "beat" the players with semantics because he thinks the scene should play out a certain way. Because that it is just meta-gaming because the dispel player knows the knight player is invisible. Saying that a character "wants to believe" there is an invisible creature sounds similar to saying a character believes she should drop her sword to use fire on this unknown monster because that player has read in the Monster Manual that fire is a troll's weakness. If I were DMing that, I'd probably have the player roll a nature check to see what she knows about trolls just like I'd have them roll a perception to know about the invisible creature. In the actuality of this situation, she did roll and fail the perception check. The DM had no pre-conceived notion of how the scene would play out because I was the player who in the moment whi devided to turn invisible and fly.
  • 09:05 PM - plisnithus8 quoted discosoc in post How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
    A flying wand that's moving as if being wielded by a person... I'm not sure how much you've seen of mimes, but it takes a great deal of talent to make something you're holding look like it's moving on its own when you're "invisible." You're basically just removing player agency by telling your players they their characters can't reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person. There's not much need of miming here; it's a few seconds of a wand flying overhead. It's not bring waved around. The flyers arms aren't swaying with its footsteps. If the other players are supposed to "reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person" does that mean that that would also be their first assumption when seeing an animated object? Anecdotally, I've never heard players' first assumption be that a flying sword is held by an invisible creature.
  • 08:36 PM - Morrus quoted discosoc in post Firearms help needed please
    Maybe he means they have a much larger margin for error. Killing someone with a sword (who's fighting back or running away) takes some level of skill, assuming the target isn't helpless or surprised at your attempt. Killing someone with a gun is incredibly easy, and the wounds are much harder to treat with more collateral damage. Yes, guns arrived because - like crossbows before them - they were easier to use than a sword or a longbow. Not because they did super damage. I don’t agree that a bullet wound is harder to treat; a sword will mangle up your insides just fine; and you’re not reattaching a dismembered hand. But I’m not a doctor, so if any doctors here say otherwise I’ll take their word for it.
  • 12:24 PM - Coroc quoted discosoc in post How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
    You can target invisible things just fine, with dispel magic, if I recall. As mentioned below: http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 7:20 Jeremy Crawford "One of the things I want to say, right at the outset, that is a misconception that often comes up related to spell targeting is that a spell does not require you to see your target, unless the spell says you do. Players will often think things need to be within line of sight for them to target them with their spell. That's only true for spells that say -- they usually say it in some form of like 'choose one creature you can see' -- that kind of thing. Otherwise, you can shoot in the dark. If the spell involves an attack role, our attack rules already have ways of dealing with you attacking something you can't see." I think further on he kind of rationalizes it as simply a facet of being a magical effect in the first place. See my post above, you are right but this does not apply, imho the othe...

Friday, 1st September, 2017

  • 11:14 PM - FrogReaver quoted discosoc in post Letting a class choose saving throws
    Any time you let a player choose from a list of options -- especially those that are purely mechanical -- you're just going to encourage them to pick the one that's mechanically best. That's not very interesting, from an RP perspective. Yep. My favorite 5e feats are Actor, Keen Mind, Lucky, Observant, Ritual Caster, Sentinel, Skulker. I mean they are mechanical in some sense. But in general they aren't about increasing your sheet numbers. They generally make it easier to do things you already could or give the option of doing something when you normally couldn't.
  • 11:00 PM - quoted discosoc in post Letting a class choose saving throws
    Sounds like you're already changing the game away from vanilla. So you could offer the option, no feats EXCEPT Resilience... Uhoh, you've triggered a debate on if feats are assumed or considered optional by RAW!!! Better run for the hills everyone! ** But more seriously, I don't get the point of @WayOfTheFourElementss comment. Why bring up playing without feats in a threat that is essentially about homebrew, if you're bringing in your home-made "optional material" it seems rather petty to draw a distinction between RAW "optional material". Any time you let a player choose from a list of options -- especially those that are purely mechanical -- you're just going to encourage them to pick the one that's mechanically best. That's not very interesting, from an RP perspective. Oh boy look out, we can't role play and roll play at the same time. I guess we better throw this whole "role playing game" thing out the window! Seriously? Why can't we as a community move past this sort of ga...
  • 11:00 PM - Harzel quoted discosoc in post How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
    You can target invisible things just fine, with dispel magic, if I recall. As mentioned below: http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 7:20 Jeremy Crawford "One of the things I want to say, right at the outset, that is a misconception that often comes up related to spell targeting is that a spell does not require you to see your target, unless the spell says you do. Players will often think things need to be within line of sight for them to target them with their spell. That's only true for spells that say -- they usually say it in some form of like 'choose one creature you can see' -- that kind of thing. Otherwise, you can shoot in the dark. If the spell involves an attack role, our attack rules already have ways of dealing with you attacking something you can't see." I think further on he kind of rationalizes it as simply a facet of being a magical effect in the first place. Your point is correct and JC's statements are consistent with RAW. But there i...

Tuesday, 29th August, 2017

  • 10:27 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted discosoc in post What would a 'real' D&D society look like?
    There are really only two paths for a "real D&D society," due to the way people behave and believe. It comes down to a power struggle between practitioners of magic versus those of "the faith," and I'm inclined to believe the later would gain popular support. Yes, just like in real life the only possible society is locked in a power struggle between doctors and engineers.
  • 01:16 AM - Harzel quoted discosoc in post [Historical context] Why "6 to 8 medium/hard encounters" meme is obsolete
    Actually, "can handle" is in the description for what the DMG calls an "Adventuring Day." My sheet isn't concerned about how many such encounters happen in a day, beyond needing to use *some* number to figure out how many sessions each level would take. I could update a single field to change the number of encounters per day to 20 and all it would do it change how many sessions a level takes. The difference -- and the reason I even did mine in the first place -- is that mine ignores "easy" encounters entirely, and takes the average of the lower threshold for medium, hard, and deadly encounters. This reality was far more representative of my personal play experience, where fights were often a mix of high-medium to low-deadly encounters. Also, all the calculations are handled directly rather than attempting any shortcuts because other pages hook into that data in ways that values can be adjusted if I want to try changing something. For example, I have an SQL database of all the 5e monster...

Monday, 28th August, 2017

  • 01:32 AM - Harzel quoted discosoc in post [Historical context] Why "6 to 8 medium/hard encounters" meme is obsolete
    Since the DMG referenced "6 to 8 medium or hard encounters" per day, I averaged the result to get 7. I assume what you are referring to is this: Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium to hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer. Things to note: a) this is talking about how many encounters a party "can handle"; b) the quantity 6-8 is specifically tied to medium to hard encounters; c) this specifically mentions that the number would differ for encounters of other difficulty levels. It has nothing to do with what they "can handle." "can handle" is part of the DMG's description of the meaning of the number(s) that you chose to use. I'm not sure why you would complain about me referring to them that way. If you are saying that you took the number from the DMG, but are using it to mean somet...

Saturday, 26th August, 2017

  • 04:36 AM - Harzel quoted discosoc in post [Historical context] Why "6 to 8 medium/hard encounters" meme is obsolete
    E Days, M Days, H Days, D Days These fields are pretty simple. Since the DMG referenced "6 to 8 medium or hard encounters" per day, I averaged the result to get 7. I then simply take the number of encounters required to level up, and divide by the number of encounters expected each day, to get a baseline. For example, since it takes 12 Easy encounters to level up the above example group, I do 12/7 for a total of 1.7 "adventuring days." Either I don't understand, or you are mixing units. 7 is an expected number of medium-hard encounters per adventuring day, but then you are dividing a # of easy encounters by that. If you go back to the numbers in the original charts, a 1st level character should be able to handle 12 easy encounters in a day, not 7, so E Days should be 1.0, not 1.7. In fact, the apparent differences among the E Days, M Days, H Days, and D Days values for any particular level are an artifact of your pegging the # of encounters at 7, rather than having it vary with the encou...

Friday, 25th August, 2017

  • 12:11 AM - Morrus quoted discosoc in post Is D&D Entering a New Golden Age?
    Maybe it's regional. I just know that finding games or players hasn't seemed to get any easier in the last 5 years, but news and discussions about it are all over the place now. I think it just goes to show that anecdotes are just anecdotes. It's a wide, wide world.


Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

discosoc's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites