View Profile: Cap'n Kobold - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 16th June, 2019, 01:28 AM
    Unsure if that is a problem or not. While the Monk was contemplating their navel seeking inner peace and learning to channel their Ki, the Fighter was probably doing physical training and practising joint locks. Outside of Expertise, a monk who is trained in grappling will be just as good as a martial character of the same physical capability.
    13 replies | 445 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:33 PM
    Are you talking about if you happen to encounter one as an NPC and ask it really nicely?
    37 replies | 1043 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:43 AM
    Are there any restrictions in what you need to craft magic items normally? I'd suggest not needing an exotic component to create common items (or a 20% discount if you do provide one), Proficiency in a tool, and applying double your proficiency bonus to Intelligence (Arcana) checks to research and identify magic items.
    13 replies | 454 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:24 AM
    Don't Wizards already have 'known spells'? - The spells that they choose to learn and put in their spellbook. Its pretty core to the concept of the D&D Wizard class. Clerics and Druids having a limited list of known spells rather than being able to prepare any spells on their list would be pretty similar to the way wizards work. Balancing might be tricky however since it would be a...
    26 replies | 1084 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:04 AM
    I think that it is the locking of specific mechanics into certain thematics that we're querying, rather than game balance/what concepts fit in the setting concerns. Saying "No school of Swords bards in the game because I think they're unbalanced/don't like the mechanics etc" is fine. Saying "No wandering minstrels because they don't fit the setting." or "Characters with a 'skald' concept...
    36 replies | 1300 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:05 PM
    You can already do this anyway, without needing to invoke any TWF rules. You could do things a little differently than that. Perhaps a feat that does: If your 'main-hand' attack misses, your 'off-hand' attack is performed with advantage. If your 'main-hand' attack hits your 'off-hand' attack adds your proficiency bonus to damage.
    212 replies | 6497 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 06:26 PM
    Not quite. Two attacks have the potential to both hit, both dealing damage.In the case of a Rogue, Advantage allows Sneak Attack, whereas simply making two attacks might not.
    36 replies | 1300 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 06:54 AM
    I don't have an issue with a D8 sneak attack when not dual-wielding. However I would not like to see it based on weapon die. Partly because I allow any weapon to deliver a sneak attack, but mostly because I like to see weapons like daggers used.
    36 replies | 1300 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 08:18 AM
    Rereading the OP with the knowledge that you're talking about accessing a campaign-specific crafting system that would be implemented alongside a magic item crafting system rather than a personal power boost like GWM or Sharpshooter, it is clearer now. I think that I just started thinking along the lines of balancing Inventor with other feats rather than balancing its creations against magic...
    13 replies | 454 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 04:28 AM
    I'd suggest that you treat them as magic items rather than character abilities then, and use the feat as a method of entry into crafting them without needing spellcasting, and to improve the saves to the one based on your Int rather than the default save. Give a discount on the cost of creating (researching) them to counter the ongoing cost of using them.Magical items fit better with the concept:...
    13 replies | 454 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 01:05 AM
    I think that the closest current feat to base this one off in terms of power and versatility is Magic initiate. You're adding new powers, and it is popular, effective, but not generally regarded as game-breaking. This feat gives you two new cantrip-level abilities that you can use a lot and one 1st-level spell ability that you can use once per long rest. This fits pretty well with the Inventor...
    13 replies | 454 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:39 PM
    "Many" does not have to mean anything like a majority. It might just mean "more than ten".
    70 replies | 1846 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 08:58 PM
    Frankly? We wouldn't. There is too much real-world baggage in that name. D&D generally tries to avoid real-life connotations and that word really only has one meaning, which is tied up in a real-world practising religion. Deciding what abilities and such the class gets is going to appear as judgement or implications on the religion. Give us a rough idea of what sort of class you are...
    20 replies | 861 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 10:37 PM
    The suggestion that infusions don't really affect party combat capability because the party would find the magic items that they want anyway is a pretty massive assumption. I would put a having homunculus as closer to having a couple of extra magic items in terms of concept and class design space than spell slots. I don't have a problem with homunculi being an effective way of spending infusion...
    127 replies | 4623 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 05:27 PM
    Why not go all the way: Remove the assorted pets from the base class and make a range of companions and companion abilities/upgrades available on the infusions list.
    127 replies | 4623 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 12:40 AM
    OK. So you're thinking increase the infusion pool and add wands, scrolls and potions to the options available to be created over a long rest?
    127 replies | 4623 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 10:18 PM
    Interesting. Where do you draw the line between "Created a tool that can cast a spell x times/day." and "Can cast a spell x times/day from a tool they created." So it is purely the mechanics of spells that you have issue with? Spell slots? The ability to pick and choose a spell that you spend a spell slot on at the point of casting rather than the beginning of the day? Infusions as in...
    127 replies | 4623 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Monday, 27th May, 2019, 09:33 AM
    Thematically, this sounds more like a Ranger is splitting their training between Ranger and fighter. Weapon specialisation: These are oddly specific and restrictive. Why these specific weapons? Why not include Scimitars and daggers alongside the shortswords and other pole weapons alongside the glaive for example? Weapon specialist: Needs clarification as to how many times they can be used...
    3 replies | 341 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Cap'n Kobold's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 11:05 PM
    If they're a wizard then probably. If they aren't, then why do you think that they might?
    29 replies | 2593 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Cap'n Kobold

Basic Information

About Cap'n Kobold
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Yes
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Nottingham
Country:
United Kingdom

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,712
Posts Per Day
1.27
Last Post
Spell save mechanic for grappling attacks Sunday, 16th June, 2019 01:28 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:49 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 17th October, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Evil_DM Evil_DM is offline

    Member

    Evil_DM
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
Nottingham
Country:
United Kingdom
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019


Saturday, 8th June, 2019


Thursday, 6th June, 2019


Monday, 3rd June, 2019


Sunday, 2nd June, 2019


Saturday, 1st June, 2019


Friday, 31st May, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 12:27 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Rabbi as a class/kit?
    Define what you mean by "Rabbi" You obviously have something in mind (perhaps based on real-world beliefs). And, similar to what Cap'n Kobold said, I don't see how a rabbi (in my expectation) would be any different than a straight cleric of a monotheistic god. Which causes problems in most settings, so, again, what do you mean by Rabbi?

Saturday, 11th May, 2019

  • 07:57 PM - Satyrn mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Firearms
    When I converted the Borderlands video game guns into D&D, I wound up refluffling the manufacturers into legendary dwarven smiths. Doing that, and wanting to keep gunpowder out of the setting for reasons similar to what @Cap'n Kobold mentioned, made me rework how the guns actually fuction so that they were more dwarvish than real-world guns. I wound up calling them "Dwarfbows" and they are built with the typical dwarf's blend of clockwork gears and magical enhancement. When the trigger is pulled, the clockwork gears swing a miniature hammer, the hammer strikes a dart loaded into the launch chamber, and the force of this strike is magically amplified, launching the dart with lethal power. And instead of firing with a bang, they sound like a hammer striking an anvil. They fire with a clang.

Saturday, 13th April, 2019

  • 10:36 AM - Autumn Bask mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post D&D Guide
    I think tiering base classes is incredibly deceptive. In many cases, it's the subclass that makes or breaks a classes power. And they also frequently alter the paradigm in which you'd be playing them. Also, as Cap'n Kobold pointed out, this seems heavily weighted towards the combat pillar if you're placing Fighter in S tier, despite versatility being one of your criteria. And as others have said, Wizard does not belong in bottom tier. The reason I feel particularly strongly about this is that, in all the campaigns I've been in (and all the ones I've heard stories of), nobody has played a Wizard except for me, and it's the only class I've currently played twice. So, A. I can attest to Wizards being awesome. Their low health and the fact that their spells require positioning doesn't make them weak, it just means you need to be more thoughtful about your play (which works to the theme of the class, similar to how playing a Barbarian just lets you be so much more reckless). And B. Stop discouraging people from playing Wizards! I personally rate (depending on the subclass) Bards, Clerics, and Druids higher (i.e. S tier), but that's because they have more out of combat versatility and healng. But W...

Tuesday, 12th February, 2019

  • 06:12 PM - Sacrosanct mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Guns in D&D - A Hot Take
    Cap'n Kobold I also wanted to clarify that if it seems like I'm being argumentative, I apologize if it's coming across like that. I think I've agreed with you on every single issue over the past 3 years, so I do respect your opinion, and don't want to act like I'm disparaging you or insulting you. If I am, I'm sorry for that.

Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 11:31 AM - Coroc mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Expanding the Weapon List
    JonnyP71 as Long as you also give the Quarterstaff / Bo a 1d6 damage twohanded instead of 1d8 i have to totally agree with you and yes spear should be versatile 1d8/1d10 and have reach . With Trident i would say give it 2d3/2d4 for better Balance, of Course it depends wether you talk about a fishing implement or a fork aka Polearm. Cap'n Kobold well a rapier is not a weapon for Bilbo, it is far to Long it and is quite heavy. But please no discussion, i am fine with rapier representing smallsword for most fanbois minds.

Tuesday, 29th May, 2018


Wednesday, 25th April, 2018


Monday, 2nd April, 2018

  • 05:47 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Background: Former Minion
    I would look to the Haunted One's background feature in the Curse of Strahd supplements for inspiration. Also one of the Planeshift articles has some gothic backgrounds that are good models. But I agree with Cap'n Kobold. The background feature should not be a mechanical power so much as a role playing feature.

Wednesday, 21st February, 2018

  • 10:23 AM - CapnZapp mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post [+] Design & Development: Magic Item Pricing
    Let me see if I can't produce a more jovial reply, now that I've gotten a good night's sleep, Cap'n Kobold :) True utility requires you not to have a single price for a generic weapon. Suboptimal weapons that even with a bonus to hit and damage won't be used as a primary weapon have less power and utility than a weapon like a longsword that will be used for the majority of attacks that the character makes. Furthermore, since we are assuming most optimal usage of items, weapons that can be optimised more than the standard longsword are required to be more expensive/less available. Oh, I agree. I just think there's no good reason to make the longsword the average. In general D&D-iana, it might be considered the "standard" weapon. But we've seen enough "nobody's using longswords" threads to know that is not reflective of the truth in this edition. And this thread is meant to be reflective of 5th edition specifically. When I speak of the generic +1 weapon, I mean the best-in-class +1 weapon. In some sense, I could agree to make the rapier that weapon. But at least in game with fe...

Monday, 19th February, 2018

  • 03:56 PM - pemerton mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Paladin / Warlock Faith conflict query
    ...ng's changed. Nothing says that once you begin channeling power from a Power, that is is powerless to stop you. It gives DMs flexibility on how they want to handle situations, and if you as a DM want to allow a paladin to serve 2 masters you can.I read you first sentence, and quoted it: "While in game terms, there is nothing stopping this from happening, in story terms, it probably shouldn't be allowed." But then you went on to say "The reason for this is because divine magic is only granted to the most devoted and the most faithful. When your faith waivers, so does the magic." I was asking whether this was a rule. I take it that your answer is no, it's not, and that this is just your view of things. In which case, I reiterate what I said before: I don't think there's anything odd about playing a cleric whose faith wavers. Perhaps the gods provide such a person with power precisely to try and shore up or restore his/her faith. (And there could be other considerations too, like Cap'n Kobold has posted about.)

Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018


Wednesday, 10th January, 2018

  • 05:48 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Dire Animal Template
    Cap'n Kobold and vincegetorix: thanks, but most suggestions make a minor difference. It is my opinion that relatively small things that doesn't significantly alter CR doesn't need to be codified. A DM can give a monster "inspiration" on a particular attack for instance, or give it maximum hp. All on the fly - no formal rules necessary. What I'm looking for is a bigger change. While five steps on the "CR ladder" only means CR 1/8 becomes CR 3, it also means CR 2 becomes CR 7. I don't know the details of Challenge Rating determination, and honestly, I'm not really using CRs myself. The main reason I'm using them here in these posts is to quickly get my meaning across. Not that I particularly care whether a monster with 40 hp is CR 2 or CR 3. But basically, the template can't just double hit points, say. It also needs to provide a static boost. Let's say "CR 2" means 40 hit points (perhaps not for creatures with good defenses, but animals have poor defenses). Then our template can say "d...
  • 05:38 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Dire Animal Template
    Cap'n Kobold: Thanks. However, "complex" is not what I want. But let me tell y'all what I do want :) A good template is the Shadow Dragon Template (MM85). It starts simple enough, but can be summarized even simpler: "everything necrotic". Yes, it's a bit more than that, but nearly everything else is essentially ribbon abilities (considering how a competent party won't fight it in darkness). To me, a good dire beast template can also be summed up in just a few short points (even if there are a bit more detail to it).

Saturday, 25th November, 2017

  • 04:30 PM - clearstream mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post [Homebrew] Defensive Duelist
    @FrogReaver @Cap'n Kobold After a bit of playtesting, I've found giving back the reaction to be too strong when used by a character with a high base AC. I believe the Defensive Duelist feat per RAW serves sub-classes that aren't using their reaction for other things best. For example Champions. The Savage Attacker merge works okay for those classes, although I find in play it is easy to forget! Allowing a wider range of weapons works nicely. There probably needs to be a better feat for Versatile weapons, but adding them seems an overall positive for this feat. Final text is - Defensive Duelist When you are wielding a one-handed or Versatile melee weapon with which you are proficient and a creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC against that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you. Once per turn, when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the damage dice and use either total.

Tuesday, 21st November, 2017

  • 12:30 PM - Coroc mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Xanathar's Elven Accuracy
    Cap'n Kobold You are right i did exagerate a bit in my example, propably mainly i want to criticize the multiclassing simply built for some game mechanics gimmic coming into effect, e.g. Pally able to Nova + gets a sneak attack or whatever that build was. A Pally in my Point of view is something Special. In the 2nd ed i remember it was stated in some official book, that a Paladin is a 1 in 100. Means on every PC Paladin there are 99 other PC. That was reinforced with the Minimum required stats for Pallys back then, which were very hard to roll with certain roling methods. A different Paladin like todays 5E variations still should still be something Special, in so far that he takes an oath on something and is devoted to a higher goal than mundane wealth or whatever other funs. That means a personality, someone who would not easily stray from a given path. Means purely rp - wise a Paladin should be a class which is among the least used for multiclass.
  • 09:48 AM - Coroc mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Xanathar's Elven Accuracy
    Cap'n Kobold Funny that you mention it, the halfelven fighter is in fact a fashion dandy, he has high cha and is dexbased, a bit like 3 musceteers or Johnny depp in pirates of the caribean. And the swashbuckler is mainly a mariner, he often uses the swashbuckler thing which allows him backstab all the time he is alone with a target.The Pally in the meantime is very classical, there is a lot of nice rp interparty banter some times, so there is also much fun for me to dm this. But no way the Pally would turn into a dandy suddenly no way ever :P

Monday, 20th November, 2017

  • 05:20 PM - Coroc mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Xanathar's Elven Accuracy
    Cap'n Kobold I prefer all PC Pala being of the classic LG type, normally, and i do restrict classes and races and Equipment and such, but the Players know upfront. If one of my Players would ask me for some other class i would ask to give a backstory to why it went that way and how it fits into the campaign. Normally i do not like multiclass, and i do see no reason why dwarfs should be wizards. Drow are Mobs. My Players have got their own preferences, within their Group they normally agree on no more than 50% of the group not human. I would not mind more than that but depending on the campaign Setting : for Planescape definitely yes , for Ravenloft definitely no. In my current greyhawk campaign i do only allow human, halfelf, Gnome, halforc, tiefling (devilbased), and it works out for them. Pary is human swashbuckler (SCAG), halfvelven fighter, human Paladin and Gnome Illusionist.

Wednesday, 1st November, 2017

  • 04:21 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned Cap'n Kobold in post Monk Weapon
    So when I say the value judgement piece, I wasn't directing that at Cap'n Kobold (though I did quote him in my statement, so I wasn't as clear as I would like). But a DM that decides yes or no when those are the options is making a value judgment and imposing it on the player. Which is fine, we all make judgments and decisions based on what we value. It's how we operate as people. I just prefer when people are upfront with their values/presuppositions at a game table, and consistent (I like some predictability at my game table). If I play at a table and find out after the fact that my values/presuppositions don't line up with the DM or group, conflict brews. I guess this is another area that is really resolved in a good and effective session 0.

Monday, 23rd October, 2017


Friday, 13th October, 2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 55 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 07:26 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Warlock build advice...
    Are you talking about if you happen to encounter one as an NPC and ask it really nicely? The character isn't starting at 1st level, so the could have the familiar as part of thier starting equipment. As a DM I would allow it - it's not very powerful.

Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 06:36 PM - Satyrn quoted Cap'n Kobold in post d8 Sneak Attack: Hear me out
    I don't have an issue with a D8 sneak attack when not dual-wielding. However I would not like to see it based on weapon die. Partly because I allow any weapon to deliver a sneak attack, but mostly because I like to see weapons like daggers used. That's what leaps out to me to as the downside to the OP's idea. I've been playing a rogue who fights with a dagger and shield (Moderately Armored). I'm happily foregoing the 1d8 I could be getting from the rapier because of the occasional time throwing my dagger is useful. But if I was also foregoing 4d8 Sneak Attack for 4d4 . . . I'd feel rather forced to use the rapier.

Sunday, 9th June, 2019

  • 11:10 PM - Greg K quoted Cap'n Kobold in post d8 Sneak Attack: Hear me out
    Saying "All sword-school bards are wandering minstrel types." or "All valor bard characters have a skald-type concept." is something that you seem to have implied that you're doing, and what we were concerned about. That is where we're wondering about the agency of your players to determine their own concept. The player gets to choose a culturally appropriate archetype, determine the background and goal (within in terms of the setting and the culture within where they grew up although the goals can change as they adventure and travel). Part of what I want to do is develop specific archetypes from specific influences from historical cultures, myths, and movies that fit the setting that I want to create. There may be multiple ways to approach a concept, but I am the one that determines what best represents it both thematically and mechanically for the campaign or a culture not the player. In the process, this means my eliminating specific approaches that might have been been introduced ove...
  • 03:12 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Inventor Feat!
    Are there any restrictions in what you need to craft magic items normally? I'd suggest not needing an exotic component to create common items (or a 20% discount if you do provide one), Proficiency in a tool, and applying double your proficiency bonus to Intelligence (Arcana) checks to research and identify magic items. The main things with magic item crafting are the rare ingredient as you point out, time and gold, and having to be a spellcaster (DMG rules only, IIRC xgte doesn’t require being a spellcaster) with slots of a given level and knowing the spell you’re enchanting into an object, if any. Now, I prefer the xanathar’s Rules, by far, but any feat should at least work just fine in a DMG rules game. I like what you’ve got there. I think ditching the rare ingredient for common items makes sense. I’d consider reducing time to craft a single category of item, like wands, potions, scrolls, staves and rods, by some amount? Instead or in addition?
  • 03:00 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post d8 Sneak Attack: Hear me out
    I think that it is the locking of specific mechanics into certain thematics that we're querying, rather than game balance/what concepts fit in the setting concerns. Saying "No school of Swords bards in the game because I think they're unbalanced/don't like the mechanics etc" is fine. Saying "No wandering minstrels because they don't fit the setting." or "Characters with a 'skald' concept would be from this region." is fine. Saying "All sword-school bards are wandering minstrel types." or "All valor bard characters have a skald-type concept." is something that you seem to have implied that you're doing, and what we were concerned about. That is where we're wondering about the agency of your players to determine their own concept. Exactly. It’s just completely diametrically opposes to how many of us view the fundamental nature of the game.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 10:07 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post d8 Sneak Attack: Hear me out
    I don't have an issue with a D8 sneak attack when not dual-wielding. However I would not like to see it based on weapon die. Partly because I allow any weapon to deliver a sneak attack, but mostly because I like to see weapons like daggers used. I’d even go the other way, and incentivize incisive or “cruel” weapons like the dagger, sickle, handaxe, and even club, by making them do more damage with SA. I’d go with adding proficiency bonus 1/turn to an attack that qualifies for Sneak Attack, bc it’s more interesting than larger damage die, but making them deal 1d8 when used with a free hand on attacks that qualify for SA could be fun.
  • 12:20 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Inventor Feat!
    Rereading the OP with the knowledge that you're talking about accessing a campaign-specific crafting system that would be implemented alongside a magic item crafting system rather than a personal power boost like GWM or Sharpshooter, it is clearer now. I think that I just started thinking along the lines of balancing Inventor with other feats rather than balancing its creations against magic items and followed that train of thought instead. Fair enough. The crafting system is basically the Xanathar’s magic item crafting. I figure that way, I can easily just reference those rules, repeat some tables to prevent the need to cross reference a book, and make a second table that shows Invention Level compared to magic item rarity, and then the dmg damage by spell level guide as a guidepost for how much damage a given level of invention should be able to do. Can probably streamline all that some, but that’s the basic gist. It’s basically magic item crafting with some custom “magic items” that aren’t actu...

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 06:57 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Inventor Feat!
    I'd suggest that you treat them as magic items rather than character abilities then, and use the feat as a method of entry into crafting them without needing spellcasting, and to improve the saves to the one based on your Int rather than the default save. Save DC based on pc stats is the plan for all crafted items that require a dc, outside of magic items that set a dc rather than using the wielder’s. For some items, like a tangler bomb, that will be weaker than the set DC, while others it will be stronger. The plan was never to treat them as abilities. I’ll have to look over my OP and figure out where to make that clearer, bc I had thought I’d made it clear already. Give a discount on the cost of creating (researching) them to counter the ongoing cost of using them.Magical items fit better with the concept: the only reason that I didn't suggest it before is that I didn't know you were using a crafting system.For example researching Alchemical Fire or acid arrows would be based on the cost and di...
  • 01:33 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Inventor Feat!
    edit: Thank you for the feedback and ideas. Modelling it after a feat which grants spells is a great idea, even if I disagree with the specific feat in question. Part of why is that the inventor should be able to learn further inventions, otherwise it will feel like a bunk feat. So, these items should have a cost and "rarity", a time restriction to learn them, and the Inventor should learn a few for free, and have some benefit with learning new ones. Thus, closer to a hybrid of magic initiate and ritual caster, or svirfneblin magic if it gave 1 less 2nd level spell and instead have access to a specific list of rituals you could learn. I think that the closest current feat to base this one off in terms of power and versatility is Magic initiate. You're adding new powers, and it is popular, effective, but not generally regarded as game-breaking. I’d look more to Ritual Caster or the racial magic feats. This feat gives you two new cantrip-level abilities that you can use a lot and one 1st-level ...

Sunday, 2nd June, 2019

  • 11:24 PM - Charlaquin quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    The artificer already does do things that other classes can't. You seem fixated on the spells, when they're really not the entire focus of the class. Other classses retain identity despite the fact that they also have spell slots and can cast spells, and the artificer does as well. The "casting spells from items" schtick is a way of merging compatible mechanics with class concept but its not an artificers core identity. You could play a wizard like that - but you could also play a cleric, or a bard, or a ranger, or paladin etc like that as well, and they would still be distinct classes. Infusions, capability with tools, companion constructs and such like are things that the artificer can do and no one other class can. Those are part of the class concept at least as much as the artificer's ability to mix up a healing salve or hotwire a lightning bolt from an amber necklace, a couple of runes and an angry rodent. One of the common critiques of the Artificer as it currently stands is that it’s too bus...
  • 07:02 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    Why not go all the way: Remove the assorted pets from the base class and make a range of companions and companion abilities/upgrades available on the infusions list. Balance. The infusions as they stand largely reproduce the effect of magic items the party might find anyway. So their actual effect of infusions on the artificers combat power is negligible*. However, the combat pets add significantly to the artificers combat power and do not reproduce the effect of something that could be found anyway. Ergo, artificers would be forced to take the pet infusion anyway or be gimped in combat. A choice between something powerful and something mediocre is not a choice at all. *Repeating Shot in conjunction with a pistol or musket gives the artificer a significant boost to combat power, but that is situational and build-specific enough to be excused.

Saturday, 1st June, 2019

  • 02:02 AM - Charlaquin quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    OK. So you're thinking increase the infusion pool and add wands, scrolls and potions to the options available to be created over a long rest? That would be a good way to do it, in my opinion.
  • 12:23 AM - Charlaquin quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    Interesting. Where do you draw the line between "Created a tool that can cast a spell x times/day." and "Can cast a spell x times/day from a tool they created." I don’t want to come off sounding snarky here, but the point where you create the tool. So it is purely the mechanics of spells that you have issue with? Spell slots? The ability to pick and choose a spell that you spend a spell slot on at the point of casting rather than the beginning of the day? Out of the options, I guess spell slots. But it’s really more of a hollistic thing. If it looks like a spell, acts like a spell, and quacks like a spell, calling it an Infusion or a Psionic Discipline doesn’t make it not a spell. Infusions as in the 5e version or the 3.5ed version? The 5e version. From what I recall, the 3.5 version was more or less spells by another name.

Saturday, 11th May, 2019

  • 06:02 PM - Scott Graves quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Firearms
    I generally find that the greatest issue with introducing (balanced) firearms to a setting is rarely the firearm itself. - Its making gunpowder readily available to the PCs that tends to have worse knock-on effects than just reskinning a hand crossbow. Yeah... black powder is dangerous stuff to play with. However a DM should require them to spend a lot of time studying how to blow things up. It's not as easy as setting a keg of powder in the middle of a bridge and setting it off.

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 02:35 AM - ClaytonCross quoted Cap'n Kobold in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    ..snip.. The fighter is the pre-eminent nonmagical warrior. Knows weapons and armour The barbarian is fuelled by the rage mechanism. The rouge is defined by skills -- not by combat. If I don't want to play a professional warrior, then rogue is my only option. ..snip.. - Presumably you pick Fighter rather than Rogue for the combat prowess of the base class, in the same way a strength-based rogue picked rogue due to the skill capabilities of the base rogue chassis. ..snip.. <in regards to fighters/barbarians over rogues> They're much better in combat, being tougher, less restricted, and having greater capabilities. But they're nowhere near as good when it comes to versatility out of combat and skill use. - I'm guessing it depends on what you mean by "better". Because you want to play a tricky, skillful character who gets by in combat through dirty fighting rather than being an outright combat monster. I think this is were it strikes me most. To me, a Thug is more a professional ...

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 07:44 AM - ClaytonCross quoted Cap'n Kobold in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    As has been pointed out a couple of times, there is only one Rogue class feature that actually uses Dex specifically. The Sneak Attacks from a melee rogue do not require Dex, just specific weapons that can use Str just as well. In combat, I can see this class behaving very much like any other melee-oriented rogue, pulling off Sneak Attacks as the meat of their contribution but with more tactical maneuvering of opponents vie shoving and grappling. So what of that can't be achieve by role playing fighter or barbarian as thug? What does the Rogue class offer as Strength based design like this that makes it the choice for this subclass? Character fantasy and concept is probably the main impetus for this subclass. The image of the more athletic criminal, still relying on dirty fighting, but viciously clubbing foes down with a sap or chair leg, rather than the more graceful but less physically capable sneak poking with a rapier. Again, that's why I keep referring to the rogue class as a group...

Monday, 22nd April, 2019

  • 12:07 AM - SomthinClever quoted Cap'n Kobold in post D&D Guide
    Interesting opinion piece. I'm sure that stating that the Wizard a lowest-tier class is going to engender a lot of interest from some on the forums and look forward to watching their discussion with you. :) I'm a little curious as to who the guide is intended for though. You're talking about classes starting from the very basics suitable for a beginner, but then mention specific subclasses as throwaway lines with no details. - Some of those subclasses aren't just not present in the PHB, they aren't published as official content anywhere. It also seems very heavily-focused on one out of the three pillars of the game for the tiering. - Is the GameTruth site mostly for video games and you believe that should the readers try out D&D, combat is likely to be their main focus? Hey there! Sorry for the late reply, life has been busy. I love your screen name. Anywho, you are correct in assuming that this is a combat-oriented tier list. As ranking classes based on anything else seemed far too sub...

Sunday, 21st April, 2019

  • 09:17 PM - Bawylie quoted Cap'n Kobold in post Hit Points and Constitution damage System
    A lot of that is really good. By "wearing armour", do you mean having a bonus to armour in addition to your Dex mod? So Monks for example aren't vulnerable to damage all the time. The only thing that I would dislike about them is the automatic breaking of weapons on a natural 1. The more skilled you get at combat, (through multiple attacks,) the more likely that you're going to break your weapon. If weapons only last a couple of encounters, you're going to need a lot of spares. How does that rule work with magic weapons? I don’t have any monks in my current games but if I did, they would be vulnerable to damage while not wearing armor, even with unarmored defense. They’ve got quite a bit of tools in their kits to handle that, though. And of course this is my house rule and you might very reasonably rule differently. I like the breaking of weapons and armor, that includes magic weapons and armor, because that fits the game I’m running now where dealing with scarcity is a theme. There’s ver...
  • 06:59 PM - the Jester quoted Cap'n Kobold in post [5e] Offensive and defensive stances
    . . . or forces the Rogue to fight aggressively to counter the disadvantage. Despite Sage Advice to the contrary, I, and possibly other dms, rule that if you have disadvantage, you can't sneak attack, even if that disadvantage is cancelled out by simultaneous advantage. So this will work with some dms, but is basically telling rogues that they have to offer enemies advantage against them in order to use their most fundamental class ability.
  • 06:36 PM - Mistwell quoted Cap'n Kobold in post [5e] Offensive and defensive stances
    . . . or forces the Rogue to fight aggressively to counter the disadvantage. Right. Which is not, I assume, an intended consequence of these stances to nerf sneak attack by forcing them to only expose rogues to advantage from allies of their target. There are just too many things which interact in unusual ways for this to be wise in my opinion. Some flat bonuses and penalties would work better. I really do think this is one of those cases where the lure of simplicity and elegance is distracting from the mess it wrecks with the rules.


Page 1 of 55 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Cap'n Kobold's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites