View Profile: Oofta - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Today, 12:19 AM
    I like Eberron's take - what would a more advanced magical world be like. I integrate some of that into my own campaign, I don't quite go to the steam-punk level but my world is full of wonder and magic. Might even get to the Eberron level if I stopped blowing up the world every few centuries. :heh: Other than that, I've toyed with the idea of more of a wild west setting, just because my...
    56 replies | 1085 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:01 PM
    The temp HP are permanent until used, but people do have to be in the aura when the spirit appears: in the aura when the spirit appears gains temporary hit points. I see no reason why they would go away if not in the aura. In addition, it's kind of odd ... if you leave the aura and come back do you get new temp HP? On the other hand, if you want the other benefits you have to be in the...
    10 replies | 342 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:52 PM
    I liked different editions for different reasons so I've picked up different things from different editions. From original editions (lumping together a bit because I'm old and they blur together). The embrace of a wide variety of fantasy tropes and sources that I could use in my own campaigns. Conan? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Lord of the Rings? Pick your style. The pantheons that I...
    48 replies | 1222 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:02 PM
    My view of the gods has been heavily influenced by Harry Harrison's The Hammer and The Cross series. Basically the gods are real-ish in that they are powered by peoples belief and worship in them. They are real in the sense that they have their own agendas, thoughts and ideas and indirectly manipulate people and events. However, in other ways they are not real in the sense that they are given...
    27 replies | 765 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 03:51 PM
    I'd set it in a poor part of town (every city has one) and take the fight to the rooftops. Lots of jumping between rooftops, balancing while fighting on slanted roofs and other environmental hazards. Plenty chances for ambushes and traps where parts of the roof have been strategically weakened and so on. Warehouses are great as well as long as you don't mind the cliche. Or do it in stages,...
    13 replies | 444 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:42 PM
    For visuals, I replace "match" with "cutting torch" and leave it there for couple of seconds for higher level spells. You're still not going to catch many things on fire although wood will char, cloth that is not in movement may start on fire and so on. But even with fairly high heat if the application is relatively short there will be damage but not fire. I do allow spells to start things...
    32 replies | 668 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 01:28 PM
    There is no great way of doing this, the best way I've found is to roll for items. Long ago in a campaign and edition far, far away, we tried to use a "logical" scheme. Problem everyone was always "you get the magic weapon because you're a fighter but Bob the wizard so he gets the ring of protection". I could have started a magic weapons shop because who really needs a +1 trident to add to the...
    14 replies | 443 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:03 PM
    So ... you don't accept that some people found THAC0 painful? You keep asking people to explain it to you. It's simple. Some people find it more difficult. Period. End of story. You ask "why" ... well the answer is that apparently not everyone thinks like you do. My wife started playing D&D with 2E and she hates THAC0 because it makes her subtract and she finds the numbers (especially...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 04:19 PM
    So am I understanding this right? That one of the "advantages" of THAC0 was that you had a character sheet where you pre-calculated what AC you hit based on your D20 roll? Which you could do with any system that uses a reasonably small range of numbers to determine whether you hit or not? As far as subtracting being more difficult, it's the combination of adding, and subtracting that you...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 12:16 PM
    I kind of liked flat footed, surprised and facing. It added a bit more tactics. Never cared for calculating THACO.As far as the "only people who didn't use it dis it" ... umm ... no. My wife learned to play with 2E and was quite happy with the change in calculation with the advent of 3, as were several other people in my group at the time. It accomplished the same goal while being more...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 06:17 PM
    Maybe we should have a poll "how do you pronounce THAC0". Of course you would only need two options, "THACK-OH" and "The wrong way". ;) Kidding aside, I never met anyone who didn't pronounce it THACK-OH. Maybe it's a midwestern thing.
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 06:08 PM
    I'm not saying 3.x didn't have issues. Or any edition for that matter. Just that you're conflating having half a dozen modifiers with the move away from THAC0 (which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong :p ). They're different topic. Of course I didn't have a problem with 3.x either, although it did get a bit crazy when I had to have a grid with all...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 05:49 PM
    I'm just relating, like, my experience man. :cool: Several people I played with were relieved when we switched to 3 that they no longer had to do what they considered "backwards math". Maybe you and people you played it didn't think it was bad because it was a self-selecting group. Personally I didn't hate THAC0, but I wasn't fond of it either. D&D has enough idiosyncrasies and sacred cows...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 05:39 PM
    Numbers got crazy in 3/4, but I've never seen an AC of 30 in 5E. They could exist in theory but it would be easy enough to just set a max AC of whatever you want. I don't see any link between THAC0 and limiting AC to a reasonable number. Whether we should limit AC to some number (20, 30, sky's the limit?) is a separate topic.
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 05:25 PM
    All I can say is that for some people, THAC0 was a stumbling block. It never really bothered me but it is easier to add than subtract, especially into the negatives. But some people have enough problems adding two simple integers. I don't see how it could really affect the end result all that much but "high is always better" and one concept for attacks/saves/checks streamlines things. In...
    166 replies | 5293 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 04:59 PM
    My simple answer has always been that I consider torture evil and I don't allow evil characters. Whether it should work in real life or the game (people will eventually tell you what they think you want to hear) is not relevant. There are plenty of ways to intimidate someone without resorting to evil acts.
    68 replies | 2417 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 01:07 PM
    The question is, does thread necromancy have sunlight sensitivity? :cool:
    27 replies | 23897 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:11 PM
    Yes and no. Yes, I have things that happen off-screen often without the input of PCs. Either because the group didn't follow that path, it wasn't relative to the PCs at the moment or because it's happening between campaigns. For example in a recent campaign, the PCs overthrew the "false" king and put in place one of the PCs who was a legitimate heir to the throne. We did some wrap-up stuff...
    44 replies | 1205 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 06:28 PM
    I have considered the TWF paladin option myself simply for the additional nova damage. Smite twice on the same round (or three times if hasted)? Could be fun against the BBEG. I don't really care if it "balances out", but when my vengeance paladin wants to he could get VENGEANCE!!! :mad: So that would work for me. On the other hand, simply allowing two weapon fighting style for a paladin...
    188 replies | 4723 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 03:25 PM
    The difference in damage potential is minimal as others have pointed out, the other aspect is the +1 to AC from dual wielder and the flexibility it gives. My wife's swashbuckler thinks it's great that she can not only get two chances at sneak attack but also avoid attacks from two opponents when moving away even if the second opponent doesn't take a lot of damage. Is it as good as a...
    188 replies | 4723 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 08:02 PM
    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have a pet peeve about what I bolded. It bugs me when people support their play style with "I know better than you and if you want your game to be better, do this. Different styles work for different people. P.S. This is just free advice and as such probably worth what you paid for it. Take it, leave it, I don't really care.
    106 replies | 3281 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 02:34 PM
    The players and the DM need to work together to make stories that work for everyone. So in my campaign world (which I've been running for decades with multiple groups, multiple editions) some things make sense, some don't. So I don't care if you want to play a drow that dual-wields scimitars and has a pet cat. In my world drow are the boogeymen that rise from the darkness and murder people for...
    106 replies | 3281 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 06:54 PM
    The world exists outside of the PCs, but it can be quite fuzzy until and unless the PCs interact with it. I usually do quite a sand-boxy world and I set things in motion that will have their own momentum unless the PCs decide to act on a plot thread. So I may have 5 plot threads going on and the players decide which ones they're going to pursue. While I try to avoid no-win scenarios (I'll...
    106 replies | 3281 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 05:05 PM
    I'd like to see a Deities & Demigods + Non-Human pantheons or just a Faiths and Avatars like Shiroiken said. Well, ideally I'd like all three (real world pantheons + fantasy pantheons) but I don't see that ever happening.
    71 replies | 2766 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 05:00 PM
    I agree with telling people a rough equivalent, but even during happy hour a mug of ale costs more than 4 cents. It's not DM cheating if you state up front that there are spells and rituals not available to PCs and that there may be magical protections on castles that would stop you from teleporting in to the king's bedchamber in the middle of the night. In any case, it's a pretty common...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 09:39 PM
    I have a "no evil" rule for my PCs, but I also make it clear that PCs are not above the law. In a world where high level magic users exist, people have developed ways to deal with them. Unless the PCs raise a literal army, they are vulnerable. So yes, there are high level PCs (although they are rare). If they are truly going on a rampage of evil they may find themselves fighting good...
    24 replies | 883 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 09:19 PM
    Well, having 1 price list for all items across all cultures is always going to be problematic, especially considering the inconsistencies of armor and weapon types. On the other hand if plate mail isn't "expensive enough" maybe that's because there are too many wizards casting fabricate. ;) As far as the fabricate, I posted long ago that I saw a lot of issues, especially depending on level...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 07:09 PM
    Other than that for that price it should be a really awesome loaf of bread. Or you bought it at Trader Joe's. :p
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 06:24 PM
    Why are you assuming that gold has the same value as it does in the real world? I start with some basic goods and services from the PHB to work out a ballpark. I agree that we probably shouldn't have a GP standard, a SP standard would be more "realistic". But in a game with dragons why do you assume that alchemists aren't occasionally successful at transmuting lead to gold?
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 06:05 PM
    While I agree that $400 to 1 GP is out of line, $1 to 1 GP is too far the other way. Just looking at common goods, that would make a set of clothing 50 cents. A bucket would be a nickel. Prices in the PHB may not make a lot of sense and I'm sure someone else has done the math but I think of a GP as being roughly equivalent of a 20 dollar bill.
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 05:52 PM
    How much flexibility do you give them? Can they "invent" weapons like my net throwing ballista? Create new rituals? Special wards against specific types of magic? The way I run it the printed rules aren't all inclusive, they include rules for PCs. But it's going to vary widely by campaign and preference. I warn people that they may not be able to teleport wherever they want, that some...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 12:30 PM
    I've always assumed counter measures in my world for important well protected places. Just because a spell or ritual is not in the PHB does not mean it doesn't exist. Yes, flying creatures and spells would be dangerous. It means there would be an arms race of sorts but people are creative. Giants and ogres attacking? Good thing you had those ballista ready because they've got some big...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 28th May, 2019, 06:00 PM
    The way I run it depends on the interaction. Impersonating a random guard? Okay until you don't know the password, don't respond like a guard would or someone bumps into you and realizes you aren't really wearing armor. However, it does nothing to disguise your voice or mannerisms so impersonating a specific individual if you interact with anyone that has actually met that person is likely...
    23 replies | 696 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 02:52 PM
    What can we help clear up the confusion? If we look at an adult black dragon we have Multiattack. The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. It then makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws. Any time you see the label "Multiattack" it's telling you that the monster can do all of those things listed (with appropriate "and's" and "or's" as necessary) as it's action on...
    16 replies | 688 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 11:20 PM
    With most of my recent campaigns, most of the PCs started as locals but it's up to them. The only requirement is that they come up with reasons to join up with the group, it's something we discuss during our session 0. In more than one campaign, we even started the PCs as pre-teen kids growing up together. PCs introduced later in the campaign can be from any background that makes sense as...
    18 replies | 568 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 09:20 PM
    I'm with jaelis on this one. The fact that an incorporeal creature is slowed to half speed walking through a sword means that it is interacting with it, just not as much as a normal (corporeal) creature.
    19 replies | 569 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 02:03 PM
    Well, in all fairness I probably didn't expound on it too much in my initial post. Just to be clear - I'm not saying my way of handling it is "better". It was just the best way I could think of without house ruling. Or maybe it's just because I'm old enough to remember the instructions for the "wish" spell being basically "try to think of how to literally interpret the wish in order to ****...
    24 replies | 1090 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 12:51 PM
    I agree that the spell is probably overly-powerful, especially if it just becomes a disposable version of the PC. I considered just banning it or setting up some other limitation such as only used so many times per year, etc. I decided on the golem approach because they follow orders very literally, have no sense of self-preservation, and won't do anything on their own. Told to watch the back,...
    24 replies | 1090 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 06:17 PM
    Personally I treat it as a golem. It's an illusion, not a "real" creature and as such has little or nor motivation or personality of it's own. While it follows your commands, it will follow them literally. It's not completely unintelligent because that would be annoying, but it doesn't need to eat, sleep or defecate. It doesn't act on it's own initiative or have any motivation, much less...
    24 replies | 1090 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 05:38 PM
    Bards and clerics with the nature domain can also cast the spell. But it still doesn't reduce the effort to plant. If yield is doubled, it's going to take nearly twice as much effort to harvest. If there's a drought and the normal yield of the crop would be half instead of half you just get what would have been normal. Add in other processing and handling overhead and I think the only...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 01:02 PM
    You could also just take a less mathematical approach to all of this. If a wizard in the party wants to do this they can support themselves in the luxury lifestyle but all profit goes into advertising and finding brokers to sell their goods. Running a business can be expensive, even if you have a great product. Besides, who wants to buy armor from someone that lives in a shack? If they're...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 12:56 PM
    I rarely do dungeon crawls, but if I did and the people left after a fight or two only to come back the next day it would not work out well for the group. The thing is that as a DM I really don't have to play fair. I do, but if I'm up front with the players about what I'm trying to accomplish and why if they don't play along there will be consequences. So when you say I'd respond that...
    53 replies | 1699 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 11:19 PM
    I've always seen this as a bit odd as well. I want my campaign world to be a living, breathing world where the enemy is reasonably intelligent base on what or who they are. Take out a few rooms and ... Go back to town? When you come back, they've abandoned the dungeon taking all their loot with them. They did leave behind a few traps as a parting gift. Go back to town (#2)? They know...
    53 replies | 1699 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 10:04 PM
    This is basically how I run my games. It takes several days (usually a week) to get a long rest, during that time I'm assuming you aren't doing anything strenuous. We don't run into issues with exhaustion (usually) because a short rest is overnight. Especially at higher levels this is about the only thing that stops casters from going nova. As far as leomunds, etc, they aren't perfect. I...
    53 replies | 1699 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 02:10 PM
    I agree with Kinematics, about the only difference I see is that there would be no "gold rush". If wizards have access to fabricate, they've probably had it for millennia unless magic is new in your campaign. Would the odd wizard here and there do it? Perhaps. But it wouldn't even have to be plate armor, it could be custom carriages for the well to do. But a smart wizard wouldn't flood the...
    198 replies | 10110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Saturday, 18th May, 2019, 02:37 PM
    What's missing? Well, in my personal opinion (feel free to disagree) Generic classes that felt bland and only supported one play style preference because they tried to make all classes equal and gave everyone "powers" that for many people felt supernatural and somehow limiting as well. Overly complex rules bloat that led to a high barrier of entry; system mastery allowed people to build PCs...
    71 replies | 3909 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Oofta's Avatar
    Friday, 17th May, 2019, 11:45 AM
    I think I see your problem. The familiar should be feeding the monsters, not the necromancer. Oh wait, on second thought necromancers are frequently monsters. :hmm: Never mind.
    25 replies | 878 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
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
4,025
Posts Per Day
2.96
Last Post
Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment! Today 12:32 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
4
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:49 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 5 12345 LastLast

Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Saturday, 15th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019


Tuesday, 11th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

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.

Monday, 8th April, 2019

  • 03:25 PM - pemerton mentioned Oofta in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...d that The Falcon's Claw was not found (in a subsequent session it turned out to be in the possession of a nemesis NPC who had been hanging around the tower), but that the search did reveal something else - in the ruin's of the older brother's workroom, which the mage PC had never been allowed to enter while a pupil of his brother, was a stand of cursed black arrows like the one that the elf wore around his neck! This was a shocking revelation for both PCs: for the mage, it suggested that his brother was not evil because possessed by a balrog, but rather had been possessed by the balrog because he was already evil; and for the elf, it suggested that rather than aid his companion to redeem his brother, he needed to take revenge on the brother who had made the arrow that had killed his master. If I've understood you correctly, then I would expect that you would see my (1) and (2) as similar to what you're talking about (one a success, the other a failure). I think perhaps some of Ooftas perspectives follows a similar vein of "shroedinger's dungeon" - all the minutiae of a scene is not pre-designated, just enough to illustrate the key parts and the degree of understanding the PCs can get. <snip> But I could be wrong.I don't get that vibe from Oofta's posts myself - I get the feeling that Oofta uses a "pre-stocked"/pre-described dungeon. But I could be wrong too!
  • 02:52 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?
    Yes, I know. I play Dungeon World. Honestly I find this conversation a bit surreal. I'm not even sure how to respond. One of us totally doesn't understand what the other is talking about. Or possibly both of us.Well, I think there are (at least) two alternatives to Oofta's approach. iserith is describing one. I think Ovinomancer may be describing something a bit different, but he can clarify that if he wants to. I'm not sure what your overall position is. Both alternatives equate action declaration with describing something that happens in the fiction. This is a contrast with Oofta, Hussar, etc. In iserith's approach to 5e, following such an action declaration the GM then adjudicates this to determine whether or not a check is required, and if so how hard it is. As he puts it, the ultimate player goal is to avoid the risks of the dice. I see this as a type of puzzle-solving play, though (obviously) not like solving riddles or chess puzzles. By way of contrast, in DW, DitV, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth, etc (just to name some of the games I'm familiar with that adopt this alternative approach), there is no avoiding the risks of the dice, assuming that something is actually at stake. (If not...

Sunday, 7th April, 2019

  • 09:11 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?
    Gahhhh!!!! No, it’s not “bypassing a skill check”. That suggests that the skill check is “there” waiting for the character to encounter it. Like a speed bump on the only road for mikes around. As if the players are SUPPOSED to roll dice here. There’s a locked door in the way, not a skill check. It may be that the method proposed by the players results in a dice roll, but if they charge the door with an elephant they didn’t “bypass the skill check”. Now, if you take an adventure written with a 3e/4e mindset, that does put skill check speed bumps along the way, it may feel like players are bypassing them, but part of what we have been trying to describe is an approach to writing adventures that does not just sprinkle random skill checks about like pixie dust Ding. I think this is entirely what Oofta misses. He sees a trapped door as something that needs a check to get past. I see it as something my players will interact with. How they interact with it may be uncertain, which will require a check. Sometimes, how they interact with it will not be uncertain, and I won't call for a check. The key is that there isn't a DC left there dangling because it never existed in the first place. DCs don't exist until I get an approach and goal statement (or an action declaration, if you will), and I decide the outcome is uncertain, and then I pick a DC based on the approach and goal. Only then is a check asked for. It doesn't exist until this process occurs, so talking about "autosuccess" is a function of action declarations, not skill checks. If a check exists, there's no autosuccess, because we've already moved past that point.


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

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 01:01 AM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    If I have a campaign theme, I'll tell people to write up a character that makes sense for that campaign and we'll try to work something out. If we can't, I'll discuss the issue with the player. Sure. I totally agree with that. Some people just love playing the nihilistic anti-hero loner no matter what they put on their character sheet. Try as you might to explain that what makes good drama on their favorite Anime doesn't translate into a good member of an adventuring team some people just don't get it. That's certainly one of the most problematic types. There are others, such as a character that's hyper-focused in a particular domain that means nobody else need bother with that role and conversely that character is totally useless outside their narrow domain. Ultimately though, I've never seen alignment really be that big of a deal on whether or not a player is going to cause problems for the group. I think it's an imperfect signal but one that has some validity, although I've...
  • 12:16 AM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. They’re going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc. One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along. I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult. People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be ...

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 10:57 PM - Immortal Sun quoted Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along. This is why, while I don't have alignment restrictions at my table, I do have "You must make a party friendly character who is interested in adventuring." I don't care if you're chaotic, evil, or both; you can be all those things and still move the adventure and party forward.
  • 03:44 PM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Oofta in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    I think CN gets a bad rap. <...> For example I may have a CN barbarian who's ideals include finding stalwart companions to seek out adventure and gain fame and fortune. Who's bonds are to those in his group and who's flaw is that he's brutally honest to a fault because he believes deceiving others is a sign of weakness. He's chaotic because he thinks people should make their own rules, he's neutral because he doesn't really believe in concepts of good and evil. An inveterate gambler, he's in it because he enjoys combat and loves gold. He finds no joy in harming others, but he believes people should be responsible for their own lives. This is a very good example of a playable-in-a-party Chaotic Neutral character. Similarly, a current character I have is Lawful Neutral: A samurai who's very bound to the code of (pseudo-) Bushido. I could argue for chaotic because I'm going against the dictates of family at the moment. However, that's really more of a temporary thing and I've played very...

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 04:16 PM - lowkey13 quoted Oofta in post What do you love about your favorite edition that ISN’T rules related?
    The sense of humor What I liked most about the early stuff (I am thinking OD&D, B/X, and especially AD&D) was that anything was possible. Yes, it was serious. But it also had lots of humor (as you point out) and that was important to me. Just kinda sorta. And the breaking of the fourth wall to the reader. ...not to mention the real sense of wonder by combining all the genres (sure, maybe you have a space ship in the middle of your elven forest, or an adventure in Wonderland, or the Finnish pantheon). It was just a gloriously mixed-up, messed-up grab bag. Screw canon and continuity; give me the mess.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 10:05 PM - Morrus quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    So ... you don't accept that some people found THAC0 painful? You keep asking people to explain it to you. It's simple. Some people find it more difficult. Period. End of story. Woosh. :) It’s a joke.
  • 05:12 PM - Morrus quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    But it's probably like trying to explain color to my buddy who's color-blind. No matter how much I can try to explain the difference between red and green, he's just not going to get it. If you don't understand why adding all numbers is easier than adding and comparing positive numbers is more natural for most people you'll just have to accept that it is. Wow?

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 11:57 AM - TallIan quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Kidding aside, I never met anyone who didn't pronounce it THACK-OH. Maybe it's a midwestern thing. Possibly, it seems to vary by region. When I was in South Africa we said THAK-OH; when I moved to the UK people (who were old enough) said TAK-OH; but at university I knew a guy from elsewhere in the UK who said THAYK-OH.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 08:20 PM - Mercador quoted Oofta in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Previous experience may have been why they were so gun-shy. Let's face it they've had some pretty bad luck with software developers over the past few years. You might argue that why they chose those developers in the first place? Larian made D:OS2, probably the best CRPG ever made. I'm hyped as hell (no pun intended).
  • 07:47 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    I'm not saying 3.x didn't have issues. Or any edition for that matter. Just that you're conflating having half a dozen modifiers with the move away from THAC0 To be fair, the move away from THAC0 with 3e was at least /correlated/ with having more than half a dozen modifiers. There were, what? 17 named bonus types in 3e? (Google seems to think it was 18...) And untyped bonuses could stack with those, and eachother. Not that typed bonuses are all bad. In 3e, avoiding anything stacking with armor was a simple matter of giving it an Armor Bonus. In the name of simplicity (actually, natural language) 5e does not use named bonuses. But, it still wants some things to not stack with armor, which has slightly confused people, prompting this 1700 word article (that I stumbled about while googling those bonus names from 3), to accomplish what the two words "armor bonus" did in 3e. ;) http://dmsworkshop.com/2017/05/19/things-you-didnt-know-about-dd-5e-calculating-ac/ I feel like...
  • 06:19 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Maybe we should have a poll "how do you pronounce THAC0". Of course you would only need two options, "THACK-OH" and "The wrong way". ;) Kidding aside, I never met anyone who didn't pronounce it THACK-OH. Maybe it's a midwestern thing. Quite possibly - Southeast U.S. here. I believe we went long A because of the acronym AC having a long A. It's all good!
  • 06:16 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    (which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong :p ). They're different topic. . Yeah, I was wondering what was going on upthread. I was like, "There IS an H in there...". We always pronounced it THACK OH.
  • 06:11 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    THAC0 (which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong :p ) I was just staying quiet on this one, but we always went with THAKE (like lake) -OH. XD
  • 05:55 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Numbers got crazy in 3/4, but I've never seen an AC of 30 in 5E. They could exist in theory but it would be easy enough to just set a max AC of whatever you want. I don't see any link between THAC0 and limiting AC to a reasonable number. Whether we should limit AC to some number (20, 30, sky's the limit?) is a separate topic. Well, 5e went to bounded accuracy in large part because of the huge numbers bloat of previous editions. A much needed design change. But given a choice between 2e's THAC0 and 3e's ascending system, 2e all the way. Even with doing subtraction, it was way easier and faster. You didn't sit there adding a half dozen modifiers that constantly changed depending on what was going on just to figure out what AC you hit.
  • 05:34 PM - Morrus quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    In other words, I've never seen any advantage to THAC0 other than nostalgia. It's not that it had more value than the current one. Nobody's claimed that. It's just that it's not as complex as it has a reputation for. That's all. :)
  • 05:28 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Oofta in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    In other words, I've never seen any advantage to THAC0 other than nostalgia. It worked in it's day but I'm glad it was replaced. It capped max AC at -10 (which you hardly ever got that low anyway). That's a huge advantage over the incredible numbers bloat of 3e, where ACs could go into the 40s and higher.
  • 05:09 AM - Michael Scott2 quoted Oofta in post Driftglobe, what am I missing?
    Sunlight sensitivity is not defined anywhere that I know of There are many creatures who either benefit from dim light or darkness OR have sunlight weakness. Like the Shadow: Sunlight Weakness. While in sunlight, the shadow has disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. But the daylight spell would not trigger this. It would, however, eliminate its dim light advantages.

Sunday, 2nd June, 2019

  • 04:38 AM - jgsugden quoted Oofta in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have a pet peeve about what I bolded. It bugs me when people support their play style with "I know better than you and if you want your game to be better, do this. Different styles work for different people. True. But there is subjective and objective truth. There are also a lot of things that seem subjective, but due to the realities of how similar people actually are, are essentially objective. Regardless, I'll refrain from further posts on this topic. The amusing irony of telling people they have no choice but to consider the input of others is wearing off.

Friday, 31st May, 2019

  • 04:46 AM - Kinematics quoted Oofta in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Never try to compare value to the commodity price of raw gold/silver/copper. It's largely meaningless. If you want to compare monetary values, generally stick to basic goods like flour, salt, bread, etc. I usually settle on about $50 per GP, $5 per SP, and $0.50 per CP. If you look at trade goods, you can see things like flour at 2 CP/lb, or salt at 5 CP/lb. That would then translate to about $1 per pound of flour, or $2.50 per pound of salt. You can get it cheaper at a modern supermarket, but it's a reasonable approximation. Lifestyle expenses start at 1 SP per day for squalid living conditions. That's about $5 for whatever food you can scrounge up, and no place to live. Modest is 1 GP per day. If you consider that $50, that gets you an apartment (~$20 per day = $600 per month) plus food and some other minor costs. In fact, it works out to about $20k per year in basic living expenses, which isn't unreasonable. Aristocratic is at least 10 GP per day, which would translate to...

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 09:02 PM - Beleriphon quoted Oofta in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Why are you assuming that gold has the same value as it does in the real world? I start with some basic goods and services from the PHB to work out a ballpark. I agree that we probably shouldn't have a GP standard, a SP standard would be more "realistic". But in a game with dragons why do you assume that alchemists aren't occasionally successful at transmuting lead to gold? I'm not suggesting that gold be world what it is in reality, for comparative purposes. I supposed I'm more poorly point out that gold pieces aren't a good starting point for most stuff, in a cheeky way that didn't quite come across. Even realistically using a silver standing shouldn't matter, since we'd be better served by figuring out what the relative cost of items are like food, and comparing roughly to modern values of similar items. Most common stuff every day stuff is priced in silver. If we look a the cost of a meal at an inn and the cost of a meal at a fast food restaurant, we're getting a reasonable comp...


Oofta's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites