View Profile: CubicsRube - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About CubicsRube

Basic Information

About CubicsRube
Obsessive rules tinkerer
Somewhere in the ether
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Age Group:
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

New South Wales


Everything I say is my opinion, and that's a fact.


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
[5e] Offensive and defensive stances Thursday, 25th April, 2019 12:34 AM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:54 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 19th April, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
My Game Details
New South Wales
No results to show...

Wednesday, 6th March, 2019

  • 05:34 PM - CleverNickName mentioned CubicsRube in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    ... amount without going over will win the prize. Just like on "The Price is Right." In the unlikely event of a tie, the person who posted the correct amount first will win. If you post more than one guess, or if you edit your post, you will be disqualified. Predictions must be made in this thread before next Monday, March 11th, 11:59 p.m. PST. Predictions made after that time will be ignored. Good luck! The Prize The winner will receive a gift certificate to, good for one custom 3D-printed character mini (a $25 value), like this one! 105294 I got this digital gift certificate for Christmas, but I already have like a dozen HeroForge minis (I may have a problem). I thought I'd offer it up to a worthy cause. Sound good? OF COURSE it sounds good! Let's see those predictions! ----- PREDICTION ROSTER Stalker0: $100,000,000 Dausuul: $50,000,000 gyor: $30,000,000 Hussar: $25,000,000 aco175: $23,500,000 CubicsRube: $21,000,000 CleverNickName: $20,612,408.57 ---------Highest-Funded Kickstarter in History (Pebble Time smartwatch) $20,338,986----------- Parmandr: $20,000,000 EnochSeven: $16,213,102 TallIan: $15,876,374 MNblockhead: $15,555,555 77IM: $14,980,000.00 jgsugden: $14,520,000 OB1: $14,000,042 The Big BZ: $14,000,000 dregntael: $13,935,109 chrisrtld: $13,635,019 pogre: $13,500,000 Aebir-Toril: $13,224,376.89 Satyrn: $13,000,000 Yardiff: $12,456,145 -----------Highest-Funded Game Project on Kickstarter (Kingdom Death: Monster 1.5) $12,393,139-------- Radaceus: $12,345,678.91 FarBeyondC: $12,345,678.90 Morrus: $12,000,000 Mistwell: $11,800,000 Mort: $11,620,000 Zardnaar: $11,354,883 <--- The Winner! Sadras: $11,120,000 SkidAce: $11,000,000 Tazawa: $10,700,000 togashi_joe: $10,250,000 DM Dave1...

Monday, 14th January, 2019

  • 11:24 PM - Quickleaf mentioned CubicsRube in post yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
    CubicsRube Totally, something along those lines would make a lot of sense thematically, and it avoids pigeon-holing fighter players too much. You could play a totally free-wheeling swashbuckler type who still knows people through "military connections" because of the many nights he spent sobering up in jail, enchanting the guards and fellow lock-ups alike with his tales and charm. It serves as a nice springboard for the player's creativity, and gives new players a lens through which to view the worlds of D&D. The trick is pinning down language that would feel at home in a class, as opposed to the more vague language used in background features. And also not making it overlap the design space of background features. What I like about that approach, placing such a social-based feature at level 1, is that it right away encourages players to see the campaign world through a lens. As opposed to older editions of D&D where a fighter player was expected to mature into the "baron/lord" lens. ......

Thursday, 13th December, 2018

  • 04:28 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned CubicsRube in post Using ideals, bonds, flaws and traits for advantage
    CubicsRube I think that is a nice change. It’s not very different from the actual rule, and te changes put it purely in the hands of the player as a resource to be used. It removes the DM having to grant Inspiration to a player, which seems to be something that is often overlooked. Seems like a solid take on it.
  • 01:36 PM - delericho mentioned CubicsRube in post Using ideals, bonds, flaws and traits for advantage
    I find that Inspiration is one of those theory/practice things. In theory, I like the rule from the PHB, but in practice I find that I never remember to give out Inspiration. In theory, I even prefer the Angry GM's suggested alternative. But in practice I found it didn't work too well - players just never bothered to collect their Inspiration. So now I just give each player an Inspiration token at the start of each level, which they can use on any one d20 roll. If they don't use it before leveling up, they lose it. As for your suggested rule, CubicsRube, it looks fine. I would give it a go, see how it actually works out, and then tweak it to your liking. Fortunately, Inspiration is one of the most modular parts of 5e, so is one of the easiest to change. Good luck!

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 03:10 AM - Mistwell mentioned CubicsRube in post Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"
    THIS. Also THIS. To expand upon my point earlier, I understand that 5E has moved away from the very gamist 4E (that's not an insult folks, it was, and I loved it) and the much more gamist but less overtly so 3.5, with their "natural language" and "rulings not rules" approaches (among other things). But fundamentally, they are making a game. It often feels like what the Designers talk about and what we play at the table are two different things. Like, this thing that they're looking at is not a game, and this thing we're playing is a game, and somehow the Designers are unaware of this thing we're playing, like a DM who just doesn't get why his players are "missing it." And I think all four of you (the other three being I think Sorcerers Apprentice, Schmoe, and CubicsRube) have misinterpreted what he said. Read MarkB's post. This is the sentence, "If this phrase [action economy] comes up as part of the design process, we have probably done something wrong. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated." This is how I read that sentence, "If the phrase action economy comes up as part of the design process, we have probably come dangerously close to messing with a balanced element of the game that's working well. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resources that are being spent such that we are about to change what it's spent on, I think we've made the game too complicated and run the risk of messing up what was working well." I don't think he's referring to what the players are thinking about the action economy (he never mentions players). I think he's thinking about the designers playing around with the existing action economy (he does refer to designer, and tha...

Tuesday, 20th March, 2018

  • 03:07 PM - Coroc mentioned CubicsRube in post The best solution for longswords
    CubicsRube #74 the longsword may be iconic for D&D but not in history at least not as a war weapon of choice, even though it was in use for many centuries as a - weapon of war bevor the age of widespread heavy armor (mostly in combination with a shield) - civilians weapon and Status Symbol because a sword was to be distinguished vs other sideweapons like dagger / axe /hammer which could also be Tools, whereas a sword was purely a weapon. - BACKUP weapon in war times. Yes. Absolute Backup, unless you refer to the longsword as the two handed aka greatsword. Swords as main weapons in war times became obsolete with the use of chain armor or better, and even padded armor could withstand cuts. Nobody would fight someone in plate armor with a sword, unless he had no other option. You might occasionally use the sword on the battlefield to cut down fleeing unarmored oponents while on horsebeack but that's about it. But i like your feat, and eventually we Need such a feat for every weapon ak...

Friday, 16th March, 2018

  • 01:40 PM - darkbard mentioned CubicsRube in post Any Dungeon World players here?
    Just popping it to say, CubicsRube, that your forum handle is among the most clever I've ever seen! Kudos! Also, though I haven't played DW, I have read through large chunks of the rules and played in other "Story Now," player-facing systems that its rules lend themselves to. The play experience IS quite different in some ways from "traditional" RPGing, but wonderfully so! If you're at all interested in what I mean by the difference in player-facing vs. GM-facing play, you might check out the (very long now and, at times, heated, but still quite informative) thread hereabouts in this forum entitled "what is *worldbuilding* for." Have fun cthulhu42 (which is also a pretty clever handle, combining two of my favorite things!).

Saturday, 24th February, 2018

  • 04:28 AM - Hawk Diesel mentioned CubicsRube in post Expanding reactions in 5e
    CubicsRube I had a similar desire to expand on reactions in order to add some strategy to the round and because I find reactions are rarely used in games I play or run. My idea was to provide a specific kind of reaction based on your class. I'll try and dig 'em up and post them here for review. Might get some creative juices flowing. I think the main issue I had was thinking of a unique reaction for every class. I had most classes covered, but not all of them.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Saturday, 20th April, 2019

  • 04:50 PM - Blue quoted CubicsRube in post [5e] Offensive and defensive stances
    The idea is thus: Characters may determine if they are in a reckless, cautious, or neutral stance at the start of their turn if they are making a melee attack. If they are using ranged or casting a spell, they are assumed to be in neutral stance. If aggressive, they have advantage to attack rolls, but enemies have advantage to attack them for the rest of the round. If cautious, they have disadvantage to attack rolls, but enemies have disadvantage to attack them for the rest of the round. Neutral is the same as vanilla 5e. No advantahe or disadvantage. It's better then Aggressive Stance since it works with non-STR attacks, which can allow things like Sneak Attack and such. And it works with Elven Accuracy. Plus all the crit-seeking is doubled. A fighter(champion) would be critting 19% of the time at 3rd level. Make it a half orc with a battle axe and close to 1/5 of all attacks are doing 3d12+STR. Take GWM at 4th and you're also getting bonus action attack, plus really enabling the -5/+10...

Thursday, 21st March, 2019

Wednesday, 20th March, 2019

  • 08:15 PM - Charlaquin quoted CubicsRube in post Some combat house rules to peruse or ignore
    There's a reason i blocked them over a year ago! They blocked me because I called them out for being rude. I’m not terribly torn up about that.
  • 05:24 AM - Volund quoted CubicsRube in post Perception should be an intelligence proficiency
    I've been thinking lately about the much bemoaned obsolence of INT as a useful stat for most classes this edition and I feel like there is one simple thing tjat would go a long way to having people seriously consider not dumping it: make perception an intelligence proficiency. I have the opposite problem in the game I DM. In a party of six 4th level characters the highest passive perception is 12. Three PC's have Perception proficiency paired with a wisdom score of 10. One PC has a wisdom of 14 but isn't proficient in Perception. As a group they are much better at Arcana/History/Investigation/Religion skills. They're always pushing me to use Investigation to find traps and secret doors and I'm always pushing back that they have to notice something before they can investigate it. Perception lets you walk around with a broad awareness until something unusual grabs your attention. Investigation is putting your focus on a single thing and giving it all your attention. Using investigation to find t...

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 09:36 PM - UngeheuerLich quoted CubicsRube in post Removing Hit Points from the Game
    Reynard although hitpoint inflation doesn't bother me as ive never played past 11th level in 5e, i have run some numbers on where my sweet spot would be. Ultimately I decided on this: at level 0 use you CON score for hitpoints. At level 1 and every level thereafter, use the average hit points gained per level WITHOUT the CON modifier. This front loads some of the HP and most classes with a COn bonus will break even around 3rd to 5th level. It props up those with a low con slightly and brings down those with a high con score slightly, lessening the hp gap between classes. Note i would still use the con mod for hit dice recovery and for con saves of course, so it is still a useful stat. That may or may not work for you. Most interestingly that was about the solution in the first 5e playtest. I think it was Con score hp. Then class based hp rolled per level. Con score was the minimum you would get however. Hit dice were already in place as rolled die+con. My experience and probabl...
  • 04:52 AM - FrogReaver quoted CubicsRube in post Perception should be an intelligence proficiency
    I've been thinking lately about the much bemoaned obsolence of INT as a useful stat for most classes this edition and I feel like there is one simple thing tjat would go a long way to having people seriously consider not dumping it: make perception an intelligence proficiency. What this means: Druids, monks, rangers, and cleric are no longer the typically "perceptive" classes. Wizards, eldritch knights, arcane tricksters are. For some of you, that may grate, others perhaps it may not. It has some support. INT saves are often used to resist illusions. That's my thought on balancing wisdom and intelligence somewhat, and how i would likely do it if i were running standard 5e. Hiw would you all add value to INT? I think combat related skills get chosen in combat focused games. As it stands perception is useful for combat (surprise sucks) and no skill for int really helps tell encounter after encounter like perception does. If you take perception away from wisdom based classes ...

Thursday, 7th March, 2019

  • 05:45 PM - Dausuul quoted CubicsRube in post Monsters struggling to hit players? Common?
    Why aren't the enemies using help for advantage? Because one monster attacking with advantage is less effective than two monsters attacking without. This tactic is only useful in a "minions and boss" scenario. Or grappling? What do you accomplish by grappling the tanky fighter-type? Making them stay next to you until you're dead? That's probably what they were planning to do anyway. Or tripping and ganging up on an individual member? I'm going to assume that by "trip," you mean "shove." This can work, but you need a very large group. Assuming that you have about a 50% chance to succeed on a shove, you're burning 2 attacks each round to grant advantage to the others. You need at least 5 monsters mobbing the target for that to have any payoff at all, and you need 7+ monsters for the payoff to be significant. Maybe the enemies should have spellcasters also? Sometimes they do. Often they don't, because spellcasters are not all that common. You can't just walk down to the corner store and buy ...
  • 04:25 PM - Nebulous quoted CubicsRube in post Monsters struggling to hit players? Common?
    I feel annoyed at times when people go straight to blaming the system without fully looking at the strategies within the book. Why aren't the enemies using help for advantage? Or grappling? Or tripping and ganging up on an individual member? Maybe the enemies should have spellcasters also? Anything that's game for the party should worm for the enemies also. I don't think that enough people play monsters intelligently enough. And that's not really a fault of the system. As someone who has DMed since 1st edition, and 5e since it came out, I would say I am qualified to disagree with you here. I DO run monsters intelligently and try Helping and grappling and spellcasters and whatever, and I can unequivocally say that in MY campaigns, per the OP concerns, it can still be difficult for monsters to hit those upper PC Armor Classes, especially at higher levels. And really, mob grappling every fight isn't fun, only sparingly. And preferably at the edge of a chasm or pit. I really do think ...

Friday, 15th February, 2019

  • 08:50 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CubicsRube in post Improving monk of the four elements
    I know this has been discussed many times over, but as I'm thinking of playing a monk of the four elements soon I was thinking what I would change if I was the archmage of the coast. I would change one thing aboit monk of the four elements. A single thing. I would at third level allow them to use a ki point to cast absorb elements as a reaction. I love the idea of absorbing an elemental spell cast and them and using it straight after in a strike. It has a very deflect arrows feel to me. In your opinions, would this make the subclass more interesting to you? I think it's a cool and appropriate concept but it does nothing to adress (if anything it only worsens) the main issue with WotFE; it's abyssmal recource economy and scaling. You could change it to something along the lines of "1x per long rest you can absorb the effects of an elemental spell to restore you Ki points to full" and you'd still be fine. I don't think that's true at all, actually. Paying 1 ki to cast Absorb Elemen...

Thursday, 10th January, 2019

  • 07:08 PM - Satyrn quoted CubicsRube in post yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
    Ok. Here's a go at a class feature. This replaces the extra feat at 6th level. Choose either inspiring presence or menacing presence INSPIRING PRESENCE at 6th level you exude a natural air of confidence and bravery that inspires others to your cause. When making a persuasion roll to convince someone to ally with your cause you may make the roll with advantage. If you are not proficient in persuasion, you are considered proficient for this roll. One you use this feature you cannot use it again before you finish a long rest MENACING PRESENCE at 6th level your demeanour overpowers others and instills instinctive fear should you choose it to. When making an intimidation roll to convince someone to do as you say you may make the roll with advantage. If you are not proficient in persuasion, you are considered proficient for this roll. One you use this feature you cannot use it again before you finish a long rest Giving up an ASI/feat for advantage on one check once per day? You're...
  • 05:40 PM - Elfcrusher quoted CubicsRube in post yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
    Socially, a fighter should be one the most socially relatable classes imo. Warlocks and druids and even uppity paladins might put off the city guard and common folk, but a fighter should know how to talk to other soldiers and mercenaries, and should be able to blend in with society quite easily. That's a great idea! And the best part of it is that you can play that way with no changes to the rules. I seriously think much of the contention here is that many people are in the mindset of earlier editions, where something has to be explicitly stated in the rules or...or the DM won't allow it? Or something?
  • 08:14 AM - Eubani quoted CubicsRube in post yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
    Actually i do have an idea if it's bot too radical for you. You can try dumping skills and using the dmg background proficiency variant. This goves a lot more meat to choice of background and it works for a certain style of player (which is why it is default in some systems such as 13th age and shadow of the demon lord) Whilst that method has some pros it does not change the issue that it is the same base as everyone else who gain abilities/spells to back it up and the fighter does not.

Wednesday, 2nd January, 2019

  • 04:21 PM - Blue quoted CubicsRube in post What solution for "Cantrips don't feel magical"?
    My bent as above is that a good variety helps things feel new and fresh, and hopefully "magical". If everyone is picking fireball at 5th level it kinda kills it for me. I've played enough spellcasters in 5e that I'm gimping myself now just because I'm bored of the same old spells We've got three full casters @ 6th level in one game I play. No one has fireball. With a bard, a warlock (not fiend who does get FB) and a life cleric we have almost no overlap in spells. Fireball in particular I don't see a lot of duplication because it's only on two standard lists - usually I don't see a sorcerer and a wizard in the same party (much less two wizards or two sorcerers).

Monday, 24th December, 2018

  • 03:20 PM - ad_hoc quoted CubicsRube in post 5E Feat Option = D&D On Easy Mode?
    I've never seen feats make a game to easy. It's really too easy to scale. Sharpshooter is commonly quoted, but ime I've really seen DMs use copious cover (+2 to ac) and darkness (disadvantage not covered by ss and it still applies to pcs with darkvision!) GWM is more easily countered with tactics, such as a couple of monsters tying up the gwm fighter and using dodge. And, if you want to really make things fun, give monsters fests too! Theres a small horde of orcs charging you, but the grizzled and scareed veteran at the back pulls out his axe and does a mighty sweep for a -5/+10 on you! That'll even the odds. Well, a nitpick here is that Sharpshooter negates cover so that doesn't change anything. More importantly, your post proves the point. If the game needs to be changed/difficulty raised/targeting a specific PC all because they have taken 1 of 2 feats then those feats are too good. Taking SS or GWM (SS is the worst offender here) increases a PC's damage by about 50%. At...

Sunday, 23rd December, 2018

  • 03:26 AM - Blue quoted CubicsRube in post [Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar
    @Blue - one of my thought precisely was how advanrage makes higher scores more probable, but doesnt change the bounds of those scores. It also doesnt habe any overlap with proficiency and expertise, which i like The other option is effectively based off the dmg variant of nackground proficiency to allow prof bonus, or even doubling proficiency for those chaeacters already proficient. Expertise would like have to be changed in the system to make it workable. Other systems like shadows of the demon lord dump any kind of skill bonus and instead give their version of proficiency instead. I was thinking about making a seperate ruling for the exploration pillar instead, but i may in fact roll these up into the same area. It makes sense that a sailor would be proficient at perception on the seas, but not in a forest, or a hermit would be adept and stealth in the woods, but not in a city, etc. The more i think about it, the more I'm inclined towards that variant rule instead. At this point you ma...

Saturday, 22nd December, 2018

  • 12:11 AM - Blue quoted CubicsRube in post [Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar
    Each character gains advantage on their social rolls with certain groups and disadvantafe with others. Anything not listed is just a normal roll. If a character is multiclassed, they use the class they have the most levels in. If they are even, then they must choose only one for the below to apply. This seems to completely ignore a character's background an concept and instead shoehorn them in by class. A samurai and a thug might both be fighters, but will have different social circles. Robin hood, an assassin, and an investigator might all be rogues. Linking it to background instead of class isn't too bad, but then says you can never escape your roots. Perhaps I'd ask players to each give me a group they are better with and worse with. No judgement from the DM if they are balanced - I'd take that as a sign of player interest in having both of them in the campaign and make sure they showed up with roughly equal frequency.

Friday, 21st December, 2018

  • 04:48 PM - OverlordOcelot quoted CubicsRube in post [Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar
    On social groups: Did y'all read where I said this part was a work in progress and I was looking for feedback? I was hoping for more than "this is wrong/sucks" and more along the lines of what you'd suggest in its place. I suggested using ad hoc rulings in it's place, since as I pointed out the systematic approach you're trying has a ton of holes and doesn't make sense at a very basic level of story. By the time you actually factor in all of the possible backgrounds and history that characters have been through, you're going to have an incredibly complicated system that really amounts to just doing ad hoc rulings in advance. And probably still has a lot of mechanical weirdness because of fact that you have to reveal things that would normally be hidden. And I think a pretty good test of any system of social rules for D&D is to drop a couple of well-known characters with pretty standard backgrounds into it to see if they fit. The fact that it's not clear where to put the hobbits of the shir...
  • 01:58 PM - Li Shenron quoted CubicsRube in post [Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar
    Each character gains advantage on their social rolls with certain groups and disadvantafe with others. Anything not listed is just a normal roll. It's not bad, but I have my reservations on this idea... The GOOD thing is that it is very likely to encourage everyone in the group to step up and take the lead during a social encounter, depending on the other side. Even a high-Cha party leader might sometimes better step aside and have the average-Cha Barbarian deal with savages or the average-Cha Wizard deal with scholars. Using the default rules, whoever has the highest Cha should do all the social rolls, and that actually doesn't sound very exciting. However, generally I am not a fan of granting advantage too easily. I prefer to let the players figure out in-character ways to gain advantage instead of just having it by default, and also I want advantage to feel at least a bit special, not a constant... finally, I also think that it may devalue special abilities or feats granting the same ...

Thursday, 20th December, 2018

  • 12:15 PM - Quartz quoted CubicsRube in post [Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar
    I've always wanted to enhance the social pillar of 5e, but keep the mechanics as light as possible to not interfere with the natural game process when characters socialise. It's an interesting concept but I think you're using the wrong mechanism. I think you should be using Proficiency. A soldier will be Proficient at talking to soldiers, for instance. And I wouldn't apply automatic disadvantage. Let us know how it works for you.

Thursday, 13th December, 2018

  • 09:30 PM - Satyrn quoted CubicsRube in post Using ideals, bonds, flaws and traits for advantage
    The explanation really I had in mind is just so they have an opportunity to flesh out their character in front of others. But really yes it should be very lenient and granted easily in practice. As for alignment, it doesn't grant inspiration as per phb if I remember rightly, and I don't really use it in my games. Alignment comes up in the Ideals, anyway.

Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

CubicsRube's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites