View Profile: Oofta - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Today, 02:39 PM
    After a bit of caffeine I thought I'd clarify what I was saying. A person is slain when reduced to 0 max HP from a vampire bite. "The target dies if this effect reduces it hit point maximum to 0." It does not state "The person cannot be raised from the dead if this effect reduces it hit point maximum to 0." So when raise dead is cast one of two things happen. Either they are...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Today, 12:42 PM
    To me, the only time the max HP reducing the PC to 0 slays them is when that reduction happens as part of the Bite action because that's where the result is specified. If the target was automatically and forever slain the instant they had 0 max HP*, it should have been a separate paragraph. But ultimately it just wouldn't be fun. It's a "Sorry Bob, you're just SOL, write up a new...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Today, 12:32 PM
    I have notes on my encounters such as what monsters and how many appear. When I have spell casters, I use one of two methods. First method is to list out the spell level and number of slots which I just check off. If I have multiple spellcasting monsters of the same type I just make multiple columns. For monsters I'm going to use again, I write up monster cards. All the stats I need all...
    11 replies | 385 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:53 PM
    For me it usually does matter what race I play. I try to run my characters from their perspective and race is one of the aspects that influence how they would think and approach various situations. I think that's one of the reasons I have problems playing elves or halflings; elves are just "human but better" and halflings are just short. But a gnome? Sure. Inventive, fast talking, either...
    77 replies | 2119 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:18 PM
    True, if by traditional you mean "Buffy the Vampire Slayer traditional". The lore is all over the place on this though. Sometimes they poof sometimes they decay to the level that they would have decayed had they not been undead, sometimes they just leave a corpse. Depends on the lore. I always assumed they "poofed" on Buffy for much the same reason Star Trek has transporters; it's a cheap...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:02 PM
    Is there another loophole? Okay, so we know that raise dead has no effect on undead. But if you kill a vampire (or vampire spawn) they are no longer undead. They're just plain old dead. So ... bury the PC, let them rise as a vampire spawn, kill them (and get some sweet XP). You now have just a body. Cast raise dead. You aren't casting the spell on an undead creature, it's just...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:18 PM
    The rules don't say anything about blood drain. In fact, we know that in this scenario the PC died because they had their max HP lowered by wights. Wights don't drain blood. Vampires do piercing and necrotic damage. They may do that by sucking blood but as far as the rules are concerned there is no mention of irrevocable blood loss. As for raise dead not working, I disagree with that...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:23 AM
    Nowhere does it state in the rules that the victim has been infected with a magic disease. Let me quote it again: "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0. A humanoid slain in this way and then buried in the ground rises the following night as a vampire spawn under the vampire's control" No mention of disease. In addition, they need to be buried in the ground...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:58 PM
    Personally I wouldn't allow it because revivify just stops the body from decaying. In my world it's difficult to raise dead, revivify works because the spirit has not moved on yet. Once the soul has started it's journey, it takes a lot to get it back. I guess if it ever came up I'd have to make an official ruling since it also affects raise dead. I've always viewed it as extending the Raise...
    14 replies | 508 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:51 PM
    Why would they come back as undead? If they were undead, raise dead won't work. The vampire power is pretty specific: "A humanoid slain in this way and then buried in the ground rises...". So yes, they died, but unless they're buried they don't come back as a vampire. EDIT: In addition, gentle repose specifically states that while the spell is still in effect the corpse cannot become...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:47 PM
    Yeah, you'd have to be pretty literal to say that "This spell doesn't, however, remove magical diseases, curses, or similar effects; if these aren't first removed prior to casting the spell, they take effect when the creature returns to life" wouldn't cover max HP from greater restoration. Worst case scenario I'd rule that a person with max HP of 0 is raised but unconscious at 0 HP. Since...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:15 PM
    First, I would go with whatever was most fun and best for the story. There is some wiggle room since Raise Dead says "the creature returns to life with 1 hit point." However it goes on to state "This spell also neutralizes any poisons and cures nonmagical diseases that affected the creature at the time it died. This spell doesn't, however, remove magical diseases, curses, or similar...
    76 replies | 1577 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 01:36 PM
    . All I'm saying is that it eliminates the effectiveness of an entire category of monsters that rely primarily or exclusively on melee. Can I come up with other types of monsters? Give all my melee types from CR 5 on reach or effective ranged attacks? Sure. But that means either I ignore melee opponents, fights are either boring or incredibly dependent on luck of the die. Let's say I...
    76 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 06:32 PM
    Oofta replied to Warlock hex
    Hex is a first level warlock spell with a duration of 1 hour that requires concentration. You place a curse on a creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. The target has disadvantage on ability checks made with the chosen ability. If the...
    4 replies | 282 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 06:18 PM
    That's making assumptions that you make NPCs/monsters specifically to counter the build. Which I can do of course but then I've just told my player "neener, neener, I'm the DM so I can always come up with some custom monster to nerf your investment". In addition, while I didn't do an extensive search, the only monster I found that had the ability to avoid opp attacks are the handful that can...
    76 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 01:49 PM
    Nope. Polearm Master While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach. Sentinel When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn. You are correct though, enemies also can't disengage to avoid an opportunity attack.
    76 replies | 5488 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 11:42 PM
    While I agree, I do try to give the PCs an escape route. I don't normally run a particularly lethal campaign unless the PC(s) do something really, really stupid. Then again, never underestimate the ability of players to actually succeed when you least expect them to. There have been encounters I though would lead to the total obliteration of the party that turned into cake walks. Of course...
    50 replies | 1851 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 03:43 PM
    Bad guys are generally reasonably intelligent. It's highly unlikely the BBEG will have a inner sanctum that does not have an escape route or is virtually impenetrable barring a siege. If the BBEG is an undead, I hope the PCs are ready to wait it out a long, long time. So camp outside the doorstep and the BBEG knows you're there or can reasonably deduce it because all the patrols don't report...
    50 replies | 1851 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 07:32 PM
    No, it's not. A decision made 20 years ago by a DM or a development team for a version that was replaced shortly after has no relevance to the the current version of the game. I'm sure a lot of DMs have ignored the rule over the years, just as they are free to do today. That doesn't make it any less of a rule.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 07:07 PM
    Meh. I don't see how a computer game implementation of 2nd edition has anything to do with it. They chose to ignore a rule, just like DMs are free to ignore or alter rules of the current edition.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 04:05 PM
    Hey now. I only had to roll up a few hundred characters to get those numbers. All the rest are farmers or died on their way to the dungeon. Honest! :rant:
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:50 PM
    Right. Remember though people have never said anywhere on this thread that a druid would ever wear metal armor, such as plate. Just that they could, if they wanted to and if you think it's not really a rule. Even though it is a rule. And people want their druids in metal armor. But they don't. It's badly implemented because there's not a paragraph justifying it unlike every other rule in...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:04 AM
    Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time. In any case, in all my years of playing I've never seen a scenario where a druid would be forced to put on metal armor no matter how many hypothetical castles we're trying to infiltrate. If a DM puts your druid into...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 02:39 AM
    Basically it boils down to some people want their druid to wear metal armor. It's "justified" because ... I dunno. I'm sure we'll get yet another wall of text soon. It's not a real rule because it only shows up as a proficiency restriction and there is no penalty if the rule is broken. Will not doesn't really mean they won't. The rules aren't the boss of the player. Take your pick. ...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 04:18 PM
    There are some bad DMs out there, I've run into my fair share. I'm sure we all have stories of bad DMs, but I also have empathy for the guy on the other side of the screen. I'm just trying to be sure I was clear; if it's really important and really obvious I'll raise an issue. Otherwise I'll just wait until after the game.
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 04:05 PM
    Well it is just obvious that they're a member of the ORTHODOX UPPERCASE BLUE SECT
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 03:53 PM
    But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about goblins using their bonus action, orcs getting to close in on enemies, a phase spider phasing in. Or maybe I thought it would be more cinematic to have the PCs see the bad guy slip through a door just ahead of them only to have the challenge of "How did he do that? Did he have a readied action? If he did, he can't lock the door behind...
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 03:20 PM
    Hey now. ALL CAPS BOLD BLUE HATH SPOKEN, INFIDEL!
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 03:18 PM

    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 01:44 PM
    That's pretty much what I've always done in 5E. It depends on the group and what you want to accomplish with the campaign of course, but go too fast and it feels like you don't get to enjoy those new abilities before there's something else new. Too slow and you feel like your on a treadmill. In previous editions leveling was much, much slower and it was fine, but it's also nice to get to...
    45 replies | 1766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 08:39 PM
    I'm going to echo Celebrim on the "challenging the DM" thing. Here's the thing. Let's say I have ... picking a random low level monster ... goblins. Goblins have "Nimble Escape. The goblin can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of its turns." But let's say the rules guru forgets that and asks why they didn't get an opportunity attack. So instead of a dynamic fight...
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 01:05 PM
    There were also a lot of times where my fighter could attack from range while closing or target the enemy spell caster more easily. Things that are practically impossible to quantify on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, I had fun with the PC so it worked. YMMV.
    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 12:50 PM
    As far as average damage ... I think there's a whole lot of complexity being ignored for a difference of what, 6% increase in average damage in the sample from FrogReaver? I get it. Some people like to eke out every drop. Just put me in the list of people that think it doesn't matter and is highly situational. Besides, there's other fun things you can do like dual throw hand axes like my...
    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 11:01 PM
    Concerning the fighter with a belt of giant strength two handed vs not, why assume the dual wielder has two +3 weapons? While I haven't done the math a PC with a pair of +1 swords and the equivalent belt of giant strength is probably going be in the same ballpark if not better.
    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 10:56 PM
    At higher levels, why are they using short swords? Unless of course you don't use feats in your game. It also depends on a lot of things. Levels, items, multiple opponents, play style all factor into it. Comparing characters on a spreadsheet, especially when most games (according to various sources) never get above level 10 is kind of pointless. Of course if maximizing your calculated...
    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 10:49 PM
    Putting aside magical protections for rigging an sails, do you really want to set an enemy ship on fire? If you're the pirates there goes your reward. If you're defending you've just made a very desperate enemy who will do anything, including taking you down with them. Besides, most pirates preferred to take captives for ransom, piss them off enough and that's not going to be an option. Better...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 05:01 PM
    First I just want to comment on the "everybody likes rules lawyers when their on your side". Nope. Not me. But it was written by a dedicated rules lawyer who thought it was fun to find some exploit in the rules for personal gain so they probably do believe it. In my experience rules lawyers care more about gaming the system than they are about playing the game. Rules lawyers have a bad...
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:40 PM
    Don't confuse Rules Lawyer with someone that knows the rules well and shares knowledge openly. RL is looking to twist the rules for their own personal gain, it's not a problem if you mention a rule whether it hurts or helps himself or a fellow party member. At my table I used to give out inspiration points if someone points out a rule that hurts them or a fellow player.
    95 replies | 3766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 03:21 AM
    Part of this depends as well on whether you have low level NPC wizards. Think level 0 casters that can only cast cantrips but have control flames or fire bolt. Maybe they're only trained well enough to use wands. Controlling fire on a boat whether caused by a fireball or a clumsy sailor with a lamp would be incredibly beneficial.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 03:14 AM
    Since trying to get consensus on a public forum is pretty much a lost cause, I'll just throw in my 2 coppers that I think it works fine as is. Great? Best option for everyone? Perfectly balanced? No, not at all. But the difference of a couple of points of damage per round at specific level ranges on a spreadsheet doesn't mean it needs to be modified. There is no such thing as perfect...
    225 replies | 8885 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:28 AM
    In my home campaign at higher levels flying in to battle seems to be pretty standard. The only requirement I have is that somebody start humming "Flight of the Valkarie" the first time it happens. :D As far as magic and sail, a lot of it depends how many high level wizards there are in the world. Is it 10% of the population, 1% or .01%? How many of those wizards going to be living/working...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 09:33 PM
    Would it really? I guess it depends on whether or not you care much about realism (and I admit I haven't read the Saltmarsh naval rules) but ships don't turn on a dime. It lasts at most for a minute, presumably someone would notice the helmsman wasn't doing their job and stop anything too dramatic from happening. Of course real world and D&D don't always mix so I guess it depends on the...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:16 PM
    No, it was just that if you hit someone with enough momentum left over the arrow may go straight through them. Yeah, that's it. :uhoh: I fixed it. :blush:
    28 replies | 1059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:06 PM
    I just do half or three quarters cover as necessary. In previous games, if you hit miss your target by 10 or more you had a chance to hit a different creature selected randomly along the line of fire. Roll again to see if you hit the new target. I like the miss by 10 or more instead of rolling a 1 because the latter felt like it was penalizing PCs that rely on multiple attacks. Edit: oops.
    28 replies | 1059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 12:28 AM
    We can add it to the pile of dead orcs over on the non middle ages genre thread. ;)
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:03 PM
    Satyrn speaking of Hasselhoff ... not necessarily SFW, but if you want a really good dose of the Hoffster, google Hasselhoff Sharpei. Just be warned, the images may haunt your dreams.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:00 PM
    I was thinking more along the lines of alternate ability scores for hacking. Use intelligence instead of charisma or dexterity. That way opening a lock could use the same skill but still be logical for what ability score you're using. Depends on the genre though, are you going for more-or-less current tech or something with real AI? Real AI (like Fallout) I could see persuasion / deception...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 07:57 PM
    Great. Now I have flashbacks of David Hasselhoff and leather. So much leather. So much Hasselhoff.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:37 PM
    But if a PC is skilled enough (e.g. high enough level) they can take the target out with one hit. If the PC has advantage from sharp shooter and advantage from surprise it's pretty much guaranteed. On the other hand, I will hand-wave easy combats on a pretty regular basis, especially for mid-to-high level groups. We'll just narrate that they take out the patrols and guards, if someone wants...
    178 replies | 5479 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 05:53 PM
    The machine gun (or gatling gun) fire is an interesting question especially depending on genre. If I did my D&D Fallout ripoff homage, there are some builds that will be able to slap on power armor and just tank it. For other genres I like the idea of going prone ... or maybe you get a saving throw because you're ducking down behind cover but jump up quick enough? Or special abilities? I'm...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 04:58 PM
    Same here. This has never, ever come up over thousands of hours of gaming with dozens of different DMs over the years. We need to stop feeding the trolls.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 03:10 PM
    For the "knife to the throat" scenario you could implement something like the coupe de grace' from 3.5 rules. Basically if you're adjacent to someone that's helpless you automatically do n amount of damage and the target gets a fortitude (con) save based on the damage you just did. Before anybody asks, yes I did use it against a PC in a standoff situation (the PC rolled high and survived two...
    178 replies | 5479 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:52 PM
    Yeah, I remember games in previous public play where you literally had to choose between a devil and a demon. We decided to tell them both to go to hell (maybe we should have told one to go to the Abyss?). In another game you had to make a deal that would have violated the paladins oath to continue with the mod. We didn't so the mod was over in 15 minutes. Never understood why people think...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:21 PM
    Still a lot (and I meant to go back and check to see if I had a typo). But my google-fu just failed me. Serves me right for just looking at the search page result and not clicking the link.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:16 PM
    Yeah, I'd probably do something similar - area effect in a cone maybe. The primary purpose of machine guns is primarily suppression fire.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:13 PM
    There's an optional rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything "When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn’t reduce your exhaustion level." Personally I ignore the rule because I have no clue how much more uncomfortable it would be to...
    140 replies | 12185 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 01:42 PM
    I don't view HP as just toughness, but toughness (and difficulty to critically wound a creature) as kind of a sliding scale. PCs do more damage as they get higher level either through stronger spells, more base damage or more attacks. It reflects that they're getting better at killing opponents than when they got started. So barring really bad rolls a 20th level ranger would not have had any...
    178 replies | 5479 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 01:37 PM
    Lucky you. Around here I think they're getting ready to fight back.
    178 replies | 5479 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:13 AM
    A theme to this thread seems to be "D&D doesn't work with firearms because people won't fight because people won't approach combat the way I expect them to". But end of the day I don't care what tactics my players use, it's up to them. I don't care if they play "the right way" as long as they're having fun. As far as running into a gatling gun, they fire 6,000 rounds per minute. If...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 01:40 AM
    You seem to be handling it similar to a coupe de grace', which honestly is something I've never really liked. I might let it be an automatic critical but that's about it. Normally though I just follow the rules and it would be a standard attack with advantage. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing if you're just narrating part of the story. But where do you draw the line? What if...
    178 replies | 5479 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:40 PM
    Which is why my vampire will be a sorcerer with subtle spell and misty step. ;) In all honesty, if the party thinks ahead enough they can stop the vampire from getting away, I never have a predetermined outcome. I make make it difficult to stop the bad guy from getting away, but if the party can stop them more power to them. If the vampire is integral to the plot, either another threat will...
    59 replies | 2518 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:30 PM
    I might still let my cowboys wear armor because the world would be different with magic and dragons. Maybe instead of steel it's hardened giant spider silk, needs to be adamantium or even just say that the dwarves make really high quality steel.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:20 PM
    I quoted your posts back to you a few pages ago. If you care to clarify please do.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:19 PM
    Another cool campaign idea. D&D Fallout. Magic suddenly started working in an alternate modern day which caused people to panic and let the nukes fly. In this new version of reality radiation really is magic. I don't think you'd even need to change much. Fallout already uses HP, armor, melee weapons, magic healing, mini-nukes. Well, maybe not mini-nukes but meteor storm is about the same. ...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:13 PM
    Wow. So you've decided that no one anywhere ever ran a wild west game without changing rules? That's either the height of hubris or now your just pulling our legs that you really believe that. I might tweak the firearms a little bit because they should be slightly less effective than the modern equivalent but otherwise I don't see why I'd change a single thing. Well, that and add gatling...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:28 PM
    It means they will not willingly wear metal armor. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No. That's the rule and trying to squeeze out anything else through word parsing is not "interpreting" the rules, it's twisting them to mean something they don't say.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:25 PM
    It's not that they can't understand, it's that they will not. :P
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:53 PM
    Really? There's no other weapon in the PHB who's purpose is to kill the enemy before they get up close? Have you never played with someone who has archery style and sharp shooter?
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:50 PM
    I have toyed with the idea of a weird west campaign, which is why I wanted to discuss some implementation specifics. All of that has been derailed of course by "guns and D&D don't mix". I think you could also do something like Team Fortress or Halo with either pseudo-modern or futuristic combat. It's really not that far off from D&D with it's classes and archetypes. Plate becomes advanced...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:34 PM
    You've said basically "it won't work because any single shot should kill you". It's been pointed out time and again that the same could be said of any weapon that does damage. You've never been able to clearly state why a gun should be handled differently. Well, other than "because I said so". On the other hand when you come up with some specific house rules for how you would handle it,...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 04:46 PM
    Or Eberron or ... well any number of fantasy novels. In my world gunpowder exists but as a weapon? Not particularly useful. Want flash/bang stuff that will frighten your enemies? Cast some low level spells. Start to make gunpowder useful? Some wizard somewhere is going to invent a "spark" cantrip that seeks out gunpowder to ruin your day, or just cast heat metal on your gun to have it go...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 03:44 PM
    So we can just redefine words to mean anything we want? A vegetarian can eat all the steak they want and still be a vegetarian? Cool. From now on proficiency in martial weapons really means that I can shoot laser beams from my eyes. 'Cuz lasers are awesome!
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:59 PM
    There's a couple of problems with that in a D&D/fantasy setting. There are a lot of monsters that won't be stopped by a few bullets. That troll is going to laugh at you while it charges into combat to rip you to shreds. A bullette is still going to pop up in the middle of your party and ruin your day. A T-Rex is still going to eat you. I've played in a few range heavy parties, they still...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:34 PM
    And you can keep repeating that "will not" doesn't really mean they will not wear metal armor an it's still not a rule. Some random person on the internet does not get to decide what is a rule and what isn't. I don't see why a proficiency that restricts access is any less of a rule that allows access. So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian? Can't argue...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:27 PM
    I don't remember ever reading that magic users would not use a sword in any edition. Nope. Proficient? No. Will not use? Not there.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 01:32 PM
    I'm sure that someone somewhere in some game at some point someone has had their PC put on metal armor to sneak into a castle. But there are sooo many issues with that hypothetical. Like ... does the 8 strength wizard put on full plate? Guess you aren't using the variant encumbrance rules. Hope nobody notices the dwarf in a castle run by orcs. That fighter with the +1 plate is going to swap...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 12:44 PM
    D&D is pretty decent at many things, but being overly realistic simulation of combat of virtually any kind is not one of them. Are there other games that are better at modeling real combat of various types? Absolutely. But being a realistic simulation or supporting and encouraging any specific fighting style whether that's taking advantage of cover and advancing cautiously or mimicking fencing...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 02:34 PM
    Here's where you bring this whole concept up first in this thread that I found So you start with the assumption that every round should potentially kill you. Then you object to my (sarcastically I admit) labeling bullets as magic killing devices. But that's the basis of everything you've posted, that a single bullet can kill you. So what am I missing? You want any single shot to...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 12:38 PM
    No game system can handle every trope. I don't "expect" the PCs to act in any particular way. If I have a scenario where there's a lot of ranged combat (whether that's arrows, bullets or spells) and plenty of cover people can take advantage of it. But you seem to be fixated on this idea of cover. Guess what? Probably 90% of what people use for cover on TV is BS. Cars (other than engine...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 03:45 AM
    When this topic came up I did a bit of googling, and 19th century rifles have about the same effective range as longbows with a few exceptions (such as the Sharps rifle which was the equivalent of a sniper rifle). But your basic Winchester? About the same. Pistols? Close to shortbows. Add in the fact that they used black powder and I don't even see that much of a need for dramatically...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 02:44 AM
    But do you really need to? I think the thing that bothers me most about this "D&D doesn't work with guns" is that unless you assume fully automatic weapons and an unlimited ammo supply, guns are really all that much different in game terms than what we already have. Particularly if you limit to 19th century or earlier tech, they really aren't all that much more effective. Cheaper? Easier to...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 05:16 PM
    I do this because it better suits the pace of my campaign. In my case I just use the optional rules, a short rest is overnight and a long rest is several days. I find it helps balance out the classes a little bit if I have 5-10 encounters per long rest, people that like to nova every fight though may not appreciate it.
    32 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 02:11 PM
    There was a Mythbusters episode on dodging arrows. They had a martial arts expert try to dodge arrows shot from low-powered bows. He couldn't do it even when he knew exactly when and where the arrow was coming from. In addition, it doesn't really matter if you see that grizzly bear about to rip your face off, you're still not going to be able to get out of the way*. Last but not least, you...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 03:30 AM
    So let me get this straight. HP works for flying arrows, being cut to bits or run through by a sword, bludgeoned by maces, ripped to shreds by dragons bigger than a city bus ... but not for bullets? Real world stories of people being shot 20+ times mean nothing because in some movies of a specific genre bullets are always 100% lethal. Except when it's "just a flesh wound" but apparently we're...
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 06:47 PM
    Somebody should tell that to the people that make kevlar. I could also say that there's no defense against getting run through by a sword ... except in D&D there is. Not all bullet wounds are fatal and HP will always be an abstraction of many things, not just how tough you are.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 06:34 PM
    I hate it when video games do they do that. Even worse if it happens during a D&D game. YMMV of course, different people play for different reasons.
    59 replies | 2518 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 05:53 PM
    You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"? Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard...
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 05:07 PM
    Good point. Because there's no weapon in D&D that does the same damage of a longsword that has a short range of 150 feet. It's not possible to take a feat that increases range to 600 feet without penalty while ignoring cover.
    448 replies | 15137 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 05:00 PM
    Resorting to appeal to popularity? Don't like the rule? Change it when you DM.
    641 replies | 17677 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Oofta

Basic Information

About Oofta
Location:
Twin Cities, MN
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Minnetonka
State:
Minnesota
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,171
Posts Per Day
3.00
Last Post
Death and 0 Max HP Today 02:39 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
4
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:36 PM
Join Date
Friday, 25th September, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

2 Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
My Game Details
Town:
Minnetonka
State:
Minnesota
Country:
USA
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Saturday, 13th July, 2019


Monday, 8th July, 2019


Sunday, 7th July, 2019


Saturday, 6th July, 2019



Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 12:40 AM - MarkB mentioned Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Oofta I agree with your interpretation, in particular because of the vampire's "chained to the grave" aspect - they are fundamentally tied to the place where they were buried. No burial, no vampire.

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 05:21 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Oofta I’d also add that any of those alignments could be attached to a character who just hates slavers, and will try to free slaves if they can, or a character whose main priority is group cohesion and the good of their party memebers (or 1 specific member), in a group that features 1 or more members who deeply care about the fate of these slaves.
  • 05:19 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Oofta I’d also add that any of those alignments could be attached to a character who just hates slavers, and will try to free slaves if they can, or a character whose main priority is group cohesion and the good of their party memebers (or 1 specific member), in a group that features 1 or more members who deeply care about the fate of these slaves.

Thursday, 9th May, 2019

  • 06:10 AM - Hussar mentioned Oofta in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    *ducks back in, waving a white flag* Totally, totally not trying to start anything. Honest. I just want to point something out iserith. When three different posters, at least, at three different times - myself, Oofta and now Tony Vargas, all come to the same, or at least very similar conclusions based on what you are posting, perhaps, and I'm not saying this is true, but, perhaps, the point you are trying to make isn't as clear as you think it is. I mean, you're dismissing Tony Vargas because apparently he's been scarred by edition wars. You dismissed oofta so hard that he's still on your ignore list. You dismissed my points as well. I'm not saying you're wrong here. I'm not trying to pick a fight and my horse in this race is long dead. I'm just saying that perhaps, just maybe, your point could be misconstrued. I mean, heck, once you actually pointed out an actual example, I realized that there is not much difference between your table and mine, I just don't insist on such strict adherence to formula - I skip steps. Otherwise, the end results between your table and mine are probably pretty close. However, it took an actual example to see that. I guess what I'm trying to say is...

Wednesday, 8th May, 2019

  • 08:49 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    If you don't allow an insight check because you know the result ... you're giving away information the characters don't have. The players now know the NPC is telling the truth. Yet somehow asking for a perception check that may result in the player not getting any new information is something I should be ashamed of? :confused: Next stop... 2000 posts! Nice going, Oofta! :P I like to think I take the middle road as described in the DMG but your game seems to be much, much more in the "ignore the dice" realm. If it works for you, great. I accept that different people play for different reasons. Personally I enjoy getting into the mindset of my PC, even when that's different than my own. It's a wide road. Apparently. We can all ride there in the middle. In our respective lanes.
  • 07:54 AM - pemerton mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ... hellplant looks like it is being more demanding than was intended by the GM, then in the approach I'm describing here the GM might manipulate things "behind the scenes" to compensate - whether reducing the threat posed by some later planned encounter, or fudging one of the checks made to deal with the plant, or whatever other device this sort of GM has up his/her sleeve. I personally don't play in the style I've just described - in a different current thread in General, I've been discussing (with Chaosmancer and others) what I think are ways of getting the REH-like dramatic pacing and consequnces but with less reliance on GM-side determinations. But I think that the sort of approach I've described in this thread is a widely-adopted one. I'm hesitant to project my own account of the approach too readily onto individual posters each of whom has his/her own unique way of playing RPGs, but with appropriate caution and no intention to cause offence, I would conjecture that Chaosmancer, Oofta and Yardiff can all recognise some aspects of how they approach GMing in what I've set out in this post.

Tuesday, 7th May, 2019

  • 03:53 AM - pemerton mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ... rolls in secret and players are rewarded for having high (normal) Perception. 4) Traps are random consumers of resources by causing damage in unavoidable ways. Now, a lot of those options are pretty common in D&D, historically. Over the years I've played using all those mechanisms. But, since the "board game" insult has been used by others, those all feel a lot more board-gamey to me. You roll your dice, move your piece, and maybe you land on somebody else's Hotel. Or the lich's death-trap, as the case may be. So really this comes back to the "player skill" or "challenging the player" thing: I'd just rather play (and DM) where the human players have to pay attention for hints and then use those hints to make meaningful decisions. And by "meaningful decisions" I mean informed decisions with risk:reward tradeoff that will impact the game state either way.I think there's another possibility. To me, it seems to lie behind some of the posts in this thread (eg Chaosmancer, maybe Oofta) although of course I could be drawing mistaken inferences from what they've said. 5) The presence from time-to-time of "random"/"untelegraphed" traps - some of which are triggered, some of which are narrated in advance by the GM to those players playing PCs with certain Passive Perception skills - reinforces the players' sense of setting and/or story. Used in this way, traps aren't about rewarding players for skilled play or skilled build, nor about consuming resources. Their function is about establishing a certain fiction/feeling, not about "beating the dungeon".

Sunday, 5th May, 2019

  • 11:03 PM - Harzel mentioned Oofta in post Want to shake things up: Doorways, Scouting, Caution
    Actually it does, since Fireball does half damage on a successful Dex save. Half cover gives +2 to AC and Dex saves, 3/4 cover gives +5 to AC and Dex saves. Granted, cover won’t save a creature from taking damage from Fireball, but it will give them a better chance of reducing the damage by half, which is better than nothing. Which is important for determining the affected area, but it doesn’t say it ignores cover. Cover is something you have relative to the caster, not to the spell’s area of effect. Wouldn't cover be counted from the initial point of the spell effect? While I do think you could have cover from a fireball (such as having a waist high wall between you and the initial point of the spell), having cover relative to the caster doesn't really matter does it? As @Oofta points out, it is RAW that cover is determined from the spell's point of origin. Although I, too, had the initial impulse to grant the DEX saving throw bonus to cover even to Fireball, it seems like that cannot have been the authors' intent, since it leaves you with the following quandary. Because Fireball goes around corners*, a creature can have full cover from Fireball, but still be in its area-of-effect. So if you give the +2/+5 bonus for half/three-quarters cover, what do you do with that creature that has full cover? You can certainly come up with solutions. For instance, you could grant auto-success on the save. But at that point, you are clearly ruling/house-ruling. EDIT: Also, granting the DEX save bonuses for Fireball​ means that the "goes around corners" property makes no difference in the partial cover situations, which seems odd. * While thinking about this a while back, I noted that the use of the word "corners" is itself problematic. I'm pretty sure the in...

Wednesday, 1st May, 2019

  • 01:25 PM - robus mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...g for how I played. I even went so far as to invite folks to call my way house ruling if it helped. IOW, while I might have gotten sucked down into some argument, I certainly started off by saying, "That's cool but I prefer to handle it this way". I dunno, your very first post in thread definitely took an aggressive stance: #37 All this equivocating or "letting there be leeway for error" is just a player screw job AFAIC. Yeah, I'm not big on playing silly buggers to try to increase difficulty. So definitely stepping into the realm of going after others method right off the bat. Your second post in thread #42 gets a bit more passive aggressive: I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach. @Bawylie engaged with that though in post #46 but rather than dogpiling, gave a brief history of the game discussing the different approaches to action resolution encouraged by the different editions. @Oofta joins in with post #49 and increases the temperature with this little nugget: While I encourage people to state things in-character, I don't see a need to treat every action like Jeopardy where things have to be said using the correct structure. No need for a wording gestapo if the intent is clear. (my bold) And we’re off to the races... Edit: and I see Charlaquin beat me to it.
  • 03:22 AM - Hussar mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Y'know, I have to apologize for the "talkie talkie" thing. I thought it was funny and cute, totally not meant as a shot or anything like that. I see that it has very much taken on a life of its own, and that's totally my bad. Sorry about that. When I say, talky talky or talky bits, I'm simply meaning those parts of the game that revolve around the social pillar. As opposed to the hacky bits or looky bits. :p Yeah, humour is always tough. But, honestly Elfcrusher, I've never seen this as you folks needing to defend anything. iserith is 100% right in saying that this is what the 5e books expect. It is right there in black and white. I can't really argue with that. My point has always been that anyone, like me or Oofta, saying that we have a way that works better for us is immediately dogpiled on as coming from dysfunctional tables or not understanding other approaches or whatever.

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 10:21 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...t’s not at all what he said. Not even close. Really? "There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players) You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. (You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)" How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined? Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced. Seems pretty dang close to what Oofta was saying about Charlaquin coming across as feeling superior in their style. “More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences. Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way. There isn't much daylight between Charlaquin's position and mine, plus I have the other poster blocked, so my mistake there. But that poster has been continually railing about my position as well or what he or she can read of it in quotes ...

Saturday, 27th April, 2019

  • 05:17 AM - pemerton mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    One could assume that their judgement call would be based off of the information they have been provided by the DM, including descriptions of the environment so far, the general tone of the campaign, and their basic understanding of the worldThe description of the environment was simply that the building is decrepit. How is "judging" whether or not the GM will decide that the chandelier in a decrepit house might fall if leapt on any different from guessing that same thing? And if the answer is that the possiblity is implict in the situation and the player's knowledge of the GM's taste and table practices, then it no longer serves an example of the consequences not being known to the player! Which is what it was presented as (by Oofta). I believe the reference to coddling was in the idea of telling the player the consequences for all challenges or actions taken by their character. So it's "coddling" to tell it to the players, but it's not "coddling" to wink it to them (by way of descriptions of the environment so far, the general tone of the campaign, and their basic understanding of the world)? That's not a contrast I find easy to follow. Particularly in the context of interpreting a poster who was making a big deal of not telegraphing traps. Let's look at it another way: The player knows chandeliers, in general, may fall under human weight. The player also knows (because the GM said so) that this building is run down. That increases the prospect that the chandelier might fall when leapt on. The player, knowing all this, declares that his/her PC wants to leap onto the chandelier and swing across the room to pursue the assassin. The GM calls for a check, which gives rise to a chance of failure. How i...

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 04:17 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Oofta in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    One thing that makes discussions like this challenging is that participants often take slight differences in positions and exaggerate the other side to an extreme. (I think that's what you're calling out here.) I sincerely apologize if I stepped in something between you and Oofta ! I honestly don't see the crux of the disagreement. AFAICT, if anything, the prevalence of (what I think you guys are referring to as?) Player Challenges was even higher back in ye olden days, when "player skill" was something to be tested (see also, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, more puzzles in adventures, etc.). But, again, I think I'll bow out as I can't quite fathom the distinction in these positions. :)
  • 03:26 AM - Hussar mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Well, Oofta, the fact that no consequence was ever posited points to the notion that there was no consequence. And, at that point I think we all agree, regardless of approach, you just tell the players they climb over the wall and move on. Same goes for pretty much any sort of obstacle where time will overcome it. I have to admit, I have no idea why 5e removed the "Take 20" rules. I suppose, at the end of the day, they don't really need them - you're not supposed to roll anyway, so, just get on with it. I always did think, though, that Take 20 was a nice mechanic in the game. Too much power to the players maybe? I would like to say, that as I read this last page of the thread, I find myself nodding with pretty much everyone. Well done you folks.

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 07:00 PM - Elfcrusher mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Please don't call this out as bad form. I've made many of my fake internet points by witty* paraphrasing delivered in quotes. I'd hate to see that practise demonized. * by witty, of course, I mean "vaguely humorous to somebody somewhere. Maybe. Hopefully. Please click laugh" Fair enough. I may unfairly be lumping Oofta in with some others, and thus mistaking humor for denigration. If so, my apologies, Oofta.
  • 03:25 PM - 5ekyu mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...nner. DM: Sets the DC for Athletics check based on the player's statement. The DC could be anywhere from automatically successful (i.e., using a ladder) to impossible (bare-handed while trying to carry everyone else in the party on his back up a wall made of ice). Player: Rolls if necessary. DM: Narrates the success or failure of the action. Now maybe that is what you meant, but then you misunderstood/misrepresented the person you were responding to. The point they and others were making is that you cannot make a roll much less determine the chance of success unless you have a clear understanding of the player's goal. This interaction loop applies to combat, social, and environmental interactions. The only real difference is that for combat, many of the variables are already predetermined (AC, to hit bonus, damage to be applied, etc.). The other two pillars have many more undefined variables that cannot be set until a clear statement of action is made.I admire Hussar and Oofta for their persistence in agsin climbing down the morphing shifting rabbit hole offer up, but hey, evetybody's got to have a hobby. I find the ladder funny and just tha latest swerve retread so I will toss in a line or two which I am sure clearly shows I misunderstand the wonders of the approach. I (and Hussar I suspect and many others) consider cases in which **as GMs** we provide a wall the PCs might need or want to get over **and** a ladder they can just pick up (or crates they can stack) and use as **not an obstacle** or **not a challenge**. Its the equivalent to "I get out of bed" or "I eat lunch" and so on and so on. They dontvrise near the level of challenge, obstacle or as I tend to specify "challenge that matters." The only way these have significance worth their "resolution" is if something else makes it a challenge - like bad guys en route do you havevtimevyo stack or are you better off preparing to fight using crates stacked up as cover - not ladder. In all my years of g...

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 05:17 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Oofta in post 5e Capping AC and to hit
    Might be obvious to most, but worth mentioning that a nat 20 will always hit regardless of AC or to hit. High level monsters with multi-attack and perhaps advantage are going to crit at some point. If not, try some different dice. :) Piggybacking on Oofta's point: High AC characters can be challenged by spells or other monster attack abilities that require saves. No character is going to have proficiency in every save, so choose certain monsters for some encounters accordingly. Also, I agree with this sentiment: Even if I were to see numbers like you do, at extreme high levels, I'm okay with that. Let epic pcs be epic, that's what I say.

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 06:40 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...ur game, if there is no cost to failure then the action can just be narrated as an automatic success or an automatic failure. We don't bother with rolling if there is no meaningful consequence to failing. Silly example: With no cost of failure: Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond. DM: Ok. Cool howl. The Goddess does not respond. Now what would you like to do? With a cost of failure: Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond. DM: Ok. Make a Charisma (Performance) check. DC 15. If you fail, the wolves that you've been hearing in the distance will take offense. Player: On second thought... At our table, knowing that any action might have a meaningful cost of failure does not discourage creativity - in fact, it is quite the opposite in practice. Creativity is often rewarded with lower DCs, Advantage, or automatic success, depending on the situation.This. Oofta you've said multiple times that you see asking for a check as only being stylistically different from the goal and approach method, yet we've shown there are clear differences in both methid and design. Are you now willing to acknowledge that there are clear differences in the styles, or will you continue to maintain you see liitle difference?

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 09:31 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...he roll, and things went from there. A better phrasing might have been, I wouldn't have let the players actions fail. OR I wouldn't have called for a roll. Or any number of things. But, after defending myself so many times against something I never disagreed with because people think I disagreed with it, I'm getting sloppier in my responses. Mostly cause I'm getting tired of defending myself against something I never once said. No, all skill checks need to be rolled because rolling a d20 and adding an ability modifier (and potentially a proficiency bonus) and trying to beat a target number is the definition of a skill check. If you’re not rolling, then a skill check is not what you’re doing. If we want to get pedantic, a Rogue with Reliable Talent still rolls the die, they just change the result to (10 + Ability + Prof) If the die comes up less than 10. Okay, first I'm really curious why every time after the first that you quote me, it shows up as you quoting Oofta. It doesn't matter, but it is starting to get weird. But, on to pedantry. That's the point. In the strictest since, a roll is being made, but the result is changing so that it doesn't matter what is rolled. So, if we decide not to roll the dice because the result is a known factor... is that an ability check? What if you want to flag down the waitress? It could be seen as a DC 5 charisma check. But, considering how minor in importance that moment is, and the high likelihood of success, we choose not to roll the dice. There is little to no uncertainty and no stakes. But does that mean there is not an ability check that could be rolled? So, if the Rogue's Reliable Talent is an ability check, which is must be since that ability only works on an ability check, even if we do not roll the dice... then why must flagging down the waitress not be an ability check? Why is there a division between these two events, where they are both situations where no roll is made for speed ...

Saturday, 13th April, 2019

  • 08:00 PM - Satyrn mentioned Oofta in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    None of that contradicts my point: players do not necessarily benefit from being overly granular in declaring actions at my table. "I search the study" is as good as and possibly superior to a series of more specific declarations. Similarly, on topic, "I try to determine if he's lying" is good enough. You and Oofta are far better at gleaning your e players' intentions than I am. I see ""I try to determine if he's lying" and I know you, the Enworld poster, are suggesting the method described in PH in the Insight description because this thread is all about that. But at the table, if Insight hasn't even been mentioned during the session, I wouldn't know that you're trying to read his body language or do something else. I might guess you're trying to determine he lying by questioning his aide sitting beside him, or checking the reference library if recorded facts could show the NPC was lying. I'm not likely gonna know what you mean if you don't tell me what you mean.


Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
No results to display...

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 03:33 PM - dnd4vr quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    After a bit of caffeine I thought I'd clarify what I was saying. A person is slain when reduced to 0 max HP from a vampire bite. "The target dies if this effect reduces it hit point maximum to 0." It does not state "The person cannot be raised from the dead if this effect reduces it hit point maximum to 0." So when raise dead is cast one of two things happen. Either they are raised to 1 HP and there is no issue. Specific overrides general, the max HP of 0 is ignored and the person is alive with 1 HP. Go take a long rest. The other option is that they can not be raised to 1 HP because their max is 0. They're still brought back to life because there's no reason to negate that part of the spell. They're unconscious at 0 HP and need a greater restoration (you can't long rest while at 0 HP). Their max HP remains unchanged, therefore the clause "if this effect reduces it hit point maximum to 0" is not invoked and they are not slain. Personally I'd rule the former works, it's specific ...
  • 02:47 PM - jaelis quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Or just allow a greater restoration on the corpse even though it is no longer considered a creature. I agree with your alternatives, and this here is I think the most sensible way to play it.
  • 01:09 PM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    To me, the only time the max HP reducing the PC to 0 slays them is when that reduction happens as part of the Bite action because that's where the result is specified. If the target was automatically and forever slain the instant they had 0 max HP*, it should have been a separate paragraph. But ultimately it just wouldn't be fun. It's a "Sorry Bob, you're just SOL, write up a new character." But this has come down to "You're wrong" vs "No, you are" so have a good one. You seem to have missed the part early in the thread where it appears like corpses are intended to count as creatures. You can remove curse on an object, but not cure diseases, yet Raise Dead states you need to cure the corpse of magical diseases before raising. Just cast greater restoration or something on the corpse before it comes back to life.
  • 01:34 AM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    The rules don't say anything about blood drain. In fact, we know that in this scenario the PC died because they had their max HP lowered by wights. Wights don't drain blood. Vampires do piercing and necrotic damage. They may do that by sucking blood but as far as the rules are concerned there is no mention of irrevocable blood loss. The blood portion was pretty irrelevant, though, which I mentioned in a prior post. The max hit points hitting zero and dying is the important part. Whether from a wight or from a vampire, the effect is the effect. That said, the OP is very clear that it was death by Vampire. No wight was mentioned. As for raise dead not working, I disagree with that as well. There is a clause in raise dead that if vital bits like your head are missing the spell doesn't work. There's no clause for not being able to regain a hit point. I agree that it works. Then, because the hit point maximum is 0 and death happens at zero due to the vampire bite, the PC immediate...

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 10:18 PM - MarkB quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    True, if by traditional you mean "Buffy the Vampire Slayer traditional". The lore is all over the place on this though. Sometimes they poof sometimes they decay to the level that they would have decayed had they not been undead, sometimes they just leave a corpse. Depends on the lore. I always assumed they "poofed" on Buffy for much the same reason Star Trek has transporters; it's a cheap and easy special effect. It also makes it easier for Buffy to fight multiple vamps, no worries about stepping over/around dead bodies. True, and on closer examination there is at least an implication that D&D vampires leave a corpse. Under its Shape Changer ability, it notes that the vampire reverts to its natural form if it is destroyed.
  • 07:23 PM - MarkB quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Is there another loophole? Okay, so we know that raise dead has no effect on undead. But if you kill a vampire (or vampire spawn) they are no longer undead. They're just plain old dead. So ... bury the PC, let them rise as a vampire spawn, kill them (and get some sweet XP). You now have just a body. Cast raise dead. You aren't casting the spell on an undead creature, it's just being cast on a regular old corpse. As long as it's within 10 days of the original death it seems like it might work. Well, that depends on what happens when a vampire is destroyed (the Monster Manual doesn't really specify). If it's the traditional "turns to dust" then you don't have a body, and you'll have to resort to Reincarnate or True Resurrection.
  • 09:29 AM - S'mon quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Nowhere does it state in the rules that the victim has been infected with a magic disease. Let me quote it again: "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0. A humanoid slain in this way and then buried in the ground rises the following night as a vampire spawn under the vampire's control" No mention of disease. In addition, they need to be buried in the ground before they come back as a vampire spawn. As long as the PC is not buried they cannot be transformed into a vampire. In addition you can't have it both ways. Either they're dead and the gentle repose is still in effect and they can't become undead or they're alive and can be healed after a greater restoration. If they're alive they don't turn into a vampire. That's my take on it anyway, if it ever comes up at your table feel free to run it however you want. I don't think it would be fun to tell a player that their PC is in effect irrevocably dead because of bad luck. It's a situation the rules ...
  • 08:40 AM - Harzel quoted Oofta in post Can Gentle Repose extend the timelimit for Revivify?
    Personally I wouldn't allow it because revivify just stops the body from decaying. In my world it's difficult to raise dead, revivify works because the spirit has not moved on yet. Once the soul has started it's journey, it takes a lot to get it back. I guess if it ever came up I'd have to make an official ruling since it also affects raise dead. I've always viewed it as extending the Raise Dead spell because it specifically states that it doesn't restore lost limbs. If too much time has gone by, there's too much decomposition of the body to restore life. You seem to be neglecting one word in the spell description. (I'm assuming you meant Gentle Repose when you typed revivify.) You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead. The spell also effectively extends the time limit on raising the target from the dead, since days spent under the influence of this spell don't count against the time limit of spells such as rai...

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 08:15 PM - S'mon quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Why would they come back as undead? If they were undead, raise dead won't work. The vampire power is pretty specific: "A humanoid slain in this way and then buried in the ground rises...". So yes, they died, but unless they're buried they don't come back as a vampire. EDIT: In addition, gentle repose specifically states that while the spell is still in effect the corpse cannot become undead. Once they're Raised the Gentle Repose would not be in effect. They've been infected with vampirism, a magical disease, so they come back vampirised. I'd have them turn into a vampire later, as happened to my first PC in ES IV: Oblivion. She completed the game without feeding, then after failing to find a cure she walked into the sunlight.
  • 06:34 PM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Can Gentle Repose extend the timelimit for Revivify?
    Personally I wouldn't allow it because revivify just stops the body from decaying. In my world it's difficult to raise dead, revivify works because the spirit has not moved on yet. Once the soul has started it's journey, it takes a lot to get it back. I guess if it ever came up I'd have to make an official ruling since it also affects raise dead. I've always viewed it as extending the Raise Dead spell because it specifically states that it doesn't restore lost limbs. If too much time has gone by, there's too much decomposition of the body to restore life. That seems reasonable, too.
  • 06:02 PM - dnd4vr quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Unless of course the group buries them just so they have a vampire spawn to kill for XP. :erm: Hmm... I don't think any one mentioned that option. MWAHAHAHA! *rubs hands greedily* I LOVE IT! :D

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 05:43 PM - 5ekyu quoted Oofta in post Things your table should do, but doesn't do- The Fun v. Efficiency Thread
    . All I'm saying is that it eliminates the effectiveness of an entire category of monsters that rely primarily or exclusively on melee. Can I come up with other types of monsters? Give all my melee types from CR 5 on reach or effective ranged attacks? Sure. But that means either I ignore melee opponents, fights are either boring or incredibly dependent on luck of the die. Let's say I throw a Champion (CR 9) melee type against a level 5 party. If the fighter is lucky, the champion never has a chance to attack anyone (I rule you can't switch between a held weapon and another weapon without dropping one of them or taking an action). On the other hand a couple of misses and suddenly the PAM fighter is down and it's looking bad for the PCs. YMMV and I don't feel like arguing about this any more. I just dislike the effect the rule has when I've seen it in actual play.Honestly, I can easily see this combo bring frustrating, but... To me in 5e the "value" of a primary melee only bb...
  • 05:31 PM - Esker quoted Oofta in post Things your table should do, but doesn't do- The Fun v. Efficiency Thread
    . All I'm saying is that it eliminates the effectiveness of an entire category of monsters that rely primarily or exclusively on melee. Can I come up with other types of monsters? Give all my melee types from CR 5 on reach or effective ranged attacks? Sure. But that means either I ignore melee opponents, fights are either boring or incredibly dependent on luck of the die. Let's say I throw a Champion (CR 9) melee type against a level 5 party. If the fighter is lucky, the champion never has a chance to attack anyone (I rule you can't switch between a held weapon and another weapon without dropping one of them or taking an action). On the other hand a couple of misses and suddenly the PAM fighter is down and it's looking bad for the PCs. YMMV and I don't feel like arguing about this any more. I just dislike the effect the rule has when I've seen it in actual play. Obviously you're entitled to do what you want and prohibit certain mechanics that you don't like. And you said yo...
  • 04:19 AM - Esker quoted Oofta in post Things your table should do, but doesn't do- The Fun v. Efficiency Thread
    That's making assumptions that you make NPCs/monsters specifically to counter the build. Which I can do of course but then I've just told my player "neener, neener, I'm the DM so I can always come up with some custom monster to nerf your investment". In addition, while I didn't do an extensive search, the only monster I found that had the ability to avoid opp attacks are the handful that can teleport/phase and the vampire that can move without provoking. At the very least, it's not "common". The DM can always find ways to threaten PCs. This is just one of my least favorite combos because it either works a lot (and it's boring), or the DM writes encounters so that it's rarely if ever useful particularly against boss monsters. Including mini-bosses. I'd rather discuss it with the player and either come up with alternative house rules or work something else out. I don't think you have to specifically counter the build to have a good chance that the BBEG has some way around this combo. An...

Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 10:28 PM - Dausuul quoted Oofta in post Warlock hex
    Note that there is some, shall we say, controversy about this. Some DMs rule that once you cast hex, you transfer the hex to another creature any time within an hour as long as the original target dropped to 0 HP and you've maintained concentration. Others rule that the hex needs to be transferred the turn after the original target drops to 0 or during the same combat since you don't track turns once an encounter is over. Anything can be house-ruled, but by the book, the spell is quite clear: You can transfer it any time (hence why it says "a subsequent turn of yours" instead of "your next turn"), and there is nothing in there saying it has to be the same encounter. It would be pretty silly to have a duration that scales all the way up to 24 hours if you could only use it in a single combat.

Thursday, 4th July, 2019

  • 12:21 PM - Fanaelialae quoted Oofta in post Things your table should do, but doesn't do- The Fun v. Efficiency Thread
    It may be a pet peeve more than anything, and the following is a semi-rant so don't take anything personally. Different people play for different reasons. :) It makes it really difficult to balance encounters. Let's say I have a BBEG. Thematically, I want this particular BBEG to be a tank (I like to mix things up). Well, if he can always be stopped before he can do any damage for round after round ... it's no challenge. It's a boring nothing burger of a fight. So round 1: BBEG charges in, fighter stops him before the BBEG can attack. BBEG looks sad and does nothing. Figther (and everyone else) attacks and walks away. Round 2: see round 1. Rinse and repeat until BBEG is dead. Yawn. Some people like having an "I win" button. Heck occasionally the PCs stomp the heck out of a fight that I thought would be tough. That's all fine. But when the same tactic works against every tank, that just means that as a DM I'm going change tactics and adjust encounters. I'll add HP, mor...

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 07:44 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Oofta in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    No, it's not. A decision made 20 years ago by a DM or a development team for a version that was replaced shortly after has no relevance to the the current version of the game. I'm sure a lot of DMs have ignored the rule over the years, just as they are free to do today. That doesn't make it any less of a rule. As I said, the relevence is obvious (none whatsoever).
  • 07:18 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Oofta in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Meh. I don't see how a computer game implementation of 2nd edition has anything to do with it. They chose to ignore a rule, just like DMs are free to ignore or alter rules of the current edition. The human thing is core 2nd edition rules. The computer game goes with something that makes more sense (The dual classed fighter druid can wear any armour). It jumps the other way with cleric weapons though. Your dual classed cleric fighter is merrily choping things up with a sword, then suddenly wham, you level up and you can't hold your sword any more. The relevance should be obvious.
  • 08:39 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Oofta in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Basically it boils down to some people want their druid to wear metal armor. Who? Which people? I haven't seen any people in this thread saying that, and I have never seen anyone playing want that.
  • 08:11 AM - Ohmyn quoted Oofta in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time. Because extremes are the best way to emphasize a point, and player choice is super important in this game, so long as they're not being disruptive to the table. Every class has extremes within them, and all characters should be assumed fallible, or perhaps willing to make personal sacrifices for something greater. This is exactly why "will not" is not a fully actionable rule with how the game system is written where players have control over what their character does in any situation. Even if they're certain the decision will lead to death, or come with some other great cost, they can opt to do it anyway. "Will not" and "do not" exist in a lot of places in the books, but are typically overlooked because it either does not have penalties, so ignoring it is of no significance, or penalties do exist and the player i...


Oofta's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites