View Profile: Oofta - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent 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
4,184
Posts Per Day
3.00
Last Post
High level and trivial encounters Today 02:57 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
4
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:01 AM
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 9 123456789 LastLast

Friday, 19th July, 2019


Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019



Page 1 of 9 123456789 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...

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 09:59 PM - Harzel quoted Oofta in post Is This Odd?
    Personally I find people reading the MM annoying for a few reasons, but the primary one is that it breaks the immersion of the players in the game. Instead of fighting a large green skinned humanoid monster with ropey muscles and rubbery skin they're now fighting a pile of stats. I think this is a good articulation of the main reason that I have a negative emotional reaction to people dragging stat and/or trait info from the MM into play (whether they read it at the table or not). Nevertheless, I have told my players that they are free to access the information in the MM, and, since most in my group don't spend a lot of time on the game outside of sessions, I don't frown at them if they read it at the table. I have two reasons for this: 1) I do not want to, nor do I think I should be policing the player knowledge vs. character knowledge issue. I personally think it is more fun to "keep them separate" (although there's certainly a lot more that can be and has been said about exactly what...
  • 03:12 PM - CapnZapp quoted Oofta in post High level and trivial encounters
    Like S'mon, I use the alternate long rest rule. If you can get a long rest after every other fight, almost every fight can become trivial depending on your group. But I also think tactics can make a huge difference. Have the goblins set up traps and ambushes. They never show up in fireball formation, they pop out of the woods fire some arrows and disappear into the jungle and show up again from somewhere else. Chase them? They've set up trip lines and snares. Or just adjust the encounters. The random table calls for 5 goblins? Well, the goblins have heard of the group and they send 20. In waves. Add in some environmental hazards. Goblins for example are small and light. Maybe they can cross the quicksand while that half orc breaks through and sinks. Or, you could just skip the encounter and have to do none of those things...? It's not as if you're about to run out of content while exploring Chult...

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 02:52 AM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    The rule is quite clear. "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0". Once it's at 0 it can't be reduced any more. Only because they didn't consider this corner case. The reduces portion is not really relevant as it is only there to let us know that 0 max hit points from the necrotic damage causes instant death. All the conditions for death are still present. You can "rules lawyer" the technicality all you want. I'm going to go with RAI. Now your turn: "But it does so!" Right after your, "Does not!"
  • 02:41 AM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    As @Blue said, the important thing is that even if you rule that raise dead does not override the 0 HP max, there is nothing in the description of the vampire bite that specifically states the spell does not work. You would simply be brought back to life with 0 HP. You can't gain that 1 HP because that would exceed the max. Since you are brought back to life with 0 HP, your HP cannot be reduced therefore you are not slain a second time. Feel free to change the rule for your campaign if you want. In case I wasn't clear with my previous post, I may be doing so with long rest while unconscious mostly because I don't care and I'm not a slave to the letter of the rules. I don't need to change any rule. The rule is that if at 0 max hit points due to being drained by the vampire's necrotic damage, you die. You can(and have) interpreted the rule differently. Your alternative interpretation doesn't mean I have to alter the rule at all.

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 05:08 PM - jaelis quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    We know you can only take 1 long rest per 24 hour period, so that's not an issue as far as recovering spells. I don't think there is any rule saying that, rather it says you can only benefit from one long rest per 24 hours. So I disagree that the "benefits" question is "meh" :)
  • 12:55 PM - Hriston quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    You are conflating the specifically laid out benefits of a long rest, with a benefit that happens because a long rest has passed. They are not the same. The benefits of a long rest are clearly laid out in the PHB on page 186. The vampire's bite is not part of that. Rather the description of the max HP reduction for the vampire has a condition for when it returns. "The reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest." Absolutely clear language. Did you finish a long rest? Then the reduction is no longer continuing. If you couldn't take a long rest if you were at 0 HP it would say "If you have 0 HP you can't take a long rest". It doesn't say that. You just don't get the benefits enumerated above. You don't regain HP and hit dice. Anyway that's how I'd rule. Dying because your max HP is reduced to 0 (and not getting any HP back from a long rest) is penalty enough. I don’t think anyone has answered jaelis’s question about regaining spent spell slots when taking a long r...
  • 01:52 AM - Maxperson quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    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. There is no general. The 0 hit point max is also a specific rule. 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. This is a False Dichotomy. It's not one or the other of those two options, especially since the effect of having max hit points due to the necrotic damage is still present, which we all know causes death. That's a third option right there that is more likely than either of the other two. Personally I'd rule the former works, it's specific wordin...

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 10:41 PM - Blue quoted Oofta in post Death and 0 Max HP
    The problem is the interpretation of what the PHB means when states under Long Rest "a character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of the rest to gain its benefits". Did they really have a long rest if they can't gain any benefits from it? Note that I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd certainly allow it. Dying is enough of a penalty in and of itself. Absolutely. That is completely clear in the PHB. It's not that you can't take a long rest, it's that you don't gain those benefits from it. That a long rest can be taken even at 0 HPs isn't a question if you read the PHB.
  • 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...


Oofta's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites