View Profile: ClaytonCross - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 09:01 PM
    I've lost count of how many bots it has attracted. I've reported quite a few, I bet Umbran dreams me.
    39 replies | 3707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 07:19 AM
    Since you only have one attack, I would consider poison lacing your weapons. You can buy and make poinsion and you sheath/unsheath as a free action. So I would poor the poision into your sheath, then ask the GM as a special exception for your unusual build that it allows you to apply poision to your weapon once per turn using the dosage. So rule of cool its a unique idea your likely slightly...
    37 replies | 1157 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    I keep them as saves, Reflex save, fortitude save, Will save. I just redefine saves as DCs for enemy attacks. The beauty of this all is that 4e has such a precise and clinical language -in order to avoid interpretation- that natural language can describe basically the same while looking wildly different.
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 07:45 PM
    SO have a mental defense and a physical defense?
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:48 PM
    How about two levels of support? And doing it over the weekend?
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:06 PM
    At this point I believe many here believe it is doable in principle. We just disagree on how. How about we make it a challenge? NaNoWriMo Style? (Ok, not exactly that). We establish an start point and an end point (could be two weeks, could be a month). The challenge, to write a clone using OGC, four races, four classes, combat rules, skill rules, ten levels of feats and support, and a sample...
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 03:30 PM
    It's still a patch, and not a good one like Divine Soul/Shadow Magic (it costs a feat/ASI). Ritual Caster is a good feat on itself -it obviously closes the utility gap-, but it shouldn't be taken into account when weighting class against class. I mean, give ritual caster to a Champion Fighter, that particular fighter gets utility on par with a wizard. Would you say that because of Ritual Caster...
    124 replies | 7813 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 01:50 AM
    Taking the Ritual Caster feat is a capitulation, it means giving up the most essential part of what means to be a sorcerer. The in world description of a sorcerer is a magical creature in (demi)human form, there is no room for a book in there. If you take Ritual Caster you are a wizard period. Maybe some people don't care about the flavor of what it means to be a sorcerer, but a sorcerer isn't...
    124 replies | 7813 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:46 AM
    This is why I propose the "innovation" of giving some stats the chance to apply to a second defense so this situation doesn't happen. If you have the STR/CON pair, then Str can apply to Ref, if you have INT/DEX, int can apply to Will, if you have Cha/Wis, Wis can apply to Fort.
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 05:05 PM
    And the avenger (revenger?) would be int based? what about the wizards with more brains than sense?
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:52 PM
    I'm toying with stuff like Forte(Fort), Touch(Ref), Willpower(Will). Also to make a minor patch and allow wis to apply to fort, strength to apply to ref, and int to apply to will.
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:37 PM
    to be fair, 3e ardent was very different from 4e ardent. Both in roll and fiction. 3e ardent is more mystical and contemplative. 4e ardent is an empath with traces of 3e wilder. And what do you do with the cleric? Having six scores opens up the door for more meaningful differentiation. The avenger is cool because it has the wisdom equal awareness equals prescience equals ac that...
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 10:20 PM
    Call big feats by the th word?
    320 replies | 11738 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About ClaytonCross

Basic Information

About ClaytonCross
Introduction:
Playing D&D in Okinawa Japan
About Me:
Playing D&D in Okinawa Japan
Location:
Okinawa, Japan
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Okinawa City
State:
Okinawa Prefecture
Country:
Japan
Game Details:
Played D&D 3.5
Playing D&D 5
Also like Shadowrun 5e

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
704
Posts Per Day
0.91
Last Post
Warlock build advice... Friday, 14th June, 2019 07:19 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
20
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:59 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 10th May, 2017
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. MoonSong MoonSong is offline

    Member

    MoonSong
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
Okinawa City
State:
Okinawa Prefecture
Country:
Japan
Game Details:
Played D&D 3.5
Playing D&D 5
Also like Shadowrun 5e
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 11:53 PM - CleverNickName mentioned ClaytonCross in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    ...76.89 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: $10,101,010 MichaelSomething: $10,000,000 Lazybones: $9,750,000 PabloM: $9,500,000 akr71: $9,250,000 rczarnec: $9,250,000 Azzy: $9,000,000 Henry: $8,900,000 mortwatcher: $8,666,000 Lidgar: $8,423,976.73 vincegetorix: $8,360,000 SmokeyCriminal: $8,008,135 AriochQ: $7,777,777 robus: $7,750,000 MarkB: $7,500,000 phantomK9: $6,969,696 TarionzCousin: $6,160,000 ClaytonCross: $6,000,000 ---------Highest-Funded Film Project on Kickstarter (MST3K Kickstarter) $5,764,229----------- MaximusArael020: $5,685,000 Prakriti: $1

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

  • 02:13 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    @ClaytonCross I think this question will be helpful. If the word subclass in "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" is a delimiter then what is the word class in "Class Distribution (Active Characters)"? If Class is a delimiter then why include it at all, as by necessity all characters must have a class. I think this indicate that class is actually a descriptor and not a redundant delimiter. This makes sense as well when you consider that the title "Distribution (Active Characters)" would have made a very poor title due to lack of descriptiveness. So if you end up agreeing with me that "class" is a descriptor instead of a delimiter in the first graph. Then isn't it more reasonable to think that the subclass graph title is following the same structure and thus is a descriptor instead of a delimiter as well?
  • 02:00 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    @ClaytonCross My point is its an apples to oranges argument forcing me to separate apples (Red), Apples(green) and orange so you can say I separated oranges due to "Apple distribution" then claim they are part of the same group as fruit but while orange are fruit they are not apples. Its not "Fruit Distribution" any more than a subclass is "class Distribution" and if a class is not using a subclass, it is just a class like an orange is fruit but not an apple. Any distribution must account for all members of the population that is being accounted for. What you are trying to ask is: can oranges should be included in a graph titled "Apple Distribution (Population X)" and my answer is yes provided that oranges are in population X. So in the above sentence I'm treating apple as simply a descriptor and not a delimeter. As long as the population being described is mostly apples then that descriptor makes sense. If the population was more 50-50 apple to orange then calling it an apple distribution wo...
  • 01:37 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    @ClaytonCross But your choosing to ignore that I don't except your example as valid and keep arguing it when my point is its not a valid comparison so why do keep going back to it? It fails to maintain the absolute nature of having a subclass or not having a subclass because of the apples to oranges nature of the argument. So if you want to continue with your point you need to use an absolute example or skip the example how it is that your able to argue that "Subclass distribution" should cover classes without subclass destitution. I already said I would include lack of subclassing by dividing it at the class level "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)" I'm saying this nicely, but maybe if you would address my actual example you might have a chance of convincing me it's invalid. Or who knows, maybe if you actually address it you will be convinced it's not invalid. As to the bolded. A distribution must account for every member of the population in tha...
  • 12:53 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    ClaytonCross Why is this important? If I say I agree that clear is colorless but would divide it by its color as not being red or blue then I am defining it as color and calling it colorless at the same time. The example I'm using doesn't mention clear. It mentions 96 colorless marbles. I'm not sure if the rest of this part is still applicable with that change. If it is maybe you can rephrase it so It's clear we aren't talking about clear. No pun intended. That is the contradiction of apples and oranges. A correct statement is that it is clear but of a hue despite it being of very light do to a high-level of transparency. So I would divide a 96 "clear white marbles", 3 "clear red marbles", and 1 "clear blue marbles" into 3 groups by color because all 3 have color despite the clarity level being so much more that on white that people don't call it white. I really don't think we can continue a discuss anything important if you are unwilling to admit something as basic as "colorless...
  • 12:43 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    ClaytonCross You said, "Also to anyone that cares: Colorless marbles are referred to as Clear." which means your not saying with color and without color, your defining colorless = clear. That is asserting the use of color and "colorless" as if colorless actually exists and defining it as clear which is not a color. As I pointed out later Clear Blue water is blue but your switching that to say colorless defies that. So your asking me to agree to an apples to oranges argument. Since you have set visual property of opacity and equated to color it in a way that is not true your division of color is not an accurate example of your point...Its like saying whats your favorite subclass? Answer: Rogue... but rogue is not subclass its a class. I'm going to finish replying to your post above and I will mention clear a few more times. I then will never mention it again. If you want the last word on that matter you are welcome to have it but I'm not going to continue to talk about something that both ...
  • 12:09 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    @ClaytonCross I said this: If it makes you feel better take my example and exchange every instance of "clear" with "colorless". Actually I'll do that for you. As an example of what I am saying above. Let's say I have a bag of marbles. 96 Colorless. 3 Red. 1 Blue. If I created the Chart/Graph below "Color Distribution (FrogReaver's bag of marbles)" 3 Red (75%) 1 Blue (25%) Do you find that to be a correct summarization? I don't. I purposefully mislabeled the population. A correct labeling is below: "Color Distribution (FrogReaver's bag of marbles *colored marbles only*)" 3 Red (75%) 1 Blue (25%) You claim to have said the following covers the above: Then you would have a more accurate depiction of the case of having or not having a subclass (which is finite and specific in that a character has a subclass or it does not) and it would in fact be a correct depiction. You use of a visual property in the pretense that a clear marble does not get measured as if a color is false because if you gi...

Thursday, 14th February, 2019


Tuesday, 28th August, 2018

  • 09:48 AM - Coroc mentioned ClaytonCross in post Katana
    ClaytonCross "I would actually suggest a short sword as the basis of a Katana and a dagger for a wakizashi..." Doesn't work like this. You could use scimitar for Katana, because it is a cutting weapon mainly. 30 cm is a short wakizashi but never a katana, dunno where you got that from. Besides the D&D Long sword is not a long sword at all. If used one handed it is rather an arming sword. If it is versatile, it is a bastard sword aka hand and half. The correct term for great sword used two handed only would be longsword. The arming sword would have blade length around 80cm to 1m and a typical katana has about 80 cm the 1d8 mechanic for 1 handed longsword could be applied. A Bastard sword has a bit longer blade approx. up to 1m10 to 1m20 but it is still comparable in cutting power. If you want to differ between the damage of a katana and a wakizashi, you gotta make it 1d4 1d6 or 1d6 1d8 or if you are a fanboi 1d8 and 1d10 for mechanical reasons. But since D&D already failed comple...

Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 03:49 AM - 77IM mentioned ClaytonCross in post Archer Druid Subclass?
    ClaytonCross you are full of good ideas on this thread. You made me realize that the druid shouldn't be stealing class features from the ranger or paladin... they should be stealing from the cleric. So, I made this thing: Circle of the Sun

Tuesday, 5th June, 2018

  • 09:25 AM - pming mentioned ClaytonCross in post Power Gaming: the result of leveling power driven design
    Hiya! ClaytonCross, I'm going to have to say...no? I've played a LOT of RPG's over the years. Most of the longer ones tend to be Fantasy, followed by Gamma World (3rd Edition; I would have said 'Apocalyptic', but honestly, the only real Apocalyptic we play consistently...at least up until about a year ago...was 3rd edition Gamma World), then Super-Heroes. Everything else falls after that. Of the Fantasy, a LOT of it has been either 1e/Hackmaster, BECMI/DarkDungeons (https://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/), Powers & Perils (www.powersandperils.com), or Dominion Rules (www.dominionrules.org). Anyway, I've been trying to think back to almost 40 years of DM'ing some form of "D&D" and I think I can honestly say, only my first 5 to 10 years of DM'ing was 'stuff' a common motivator. After about a decade I sort of hit my stride/style for DM'ing and I think I've remained fairly consistent over the decades...with only a slight mellowing on the whole 'detailed rules' side of it all (old age and all that I guess...

Tuesday, 22nd May, 2018

  • 11:49 PM - OB1 mentioned ClaytonCross in post Survivor Ultimate Subclass Edition- BATTLE MASTER WINS!
    ClaytonCross curious as to why you refer to the Oath of the Ancients as munckinism, I’ve always seen it as a slightly underpowered flavor build rather than a power one. Never played one but have been looking forward to it. And just gotta day again I love the finals of this survivor. Any one of these would make an excellent Ultimate Survivor Subclass!

Thursday, 8th March, 2018

  • 12:43 AM - Oofta mentioned ClaytonCross in post Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules
    @ClaytonCross, what I've been trying to point out is that you don't seem to accept the input to your basic concept. As @5ekyu pointed out you seem to be coming at this from a solution standpoint, not a "what do you want to achieve" standpoint. I think the fundamental theory is wrong. Getting bitten by a Tarrasque should do more damage than being stung by a swarm of insects. If someone hits you, they are by extension probably hitting your armor. But fundamentally you have said how this will make your campaign more "gritty" because you haven't stated any goals. Maybe it's because I write software for a living, but this seems appropriate. 94853

Tuesday, 6th March, 2018

  • 02:43 PM - 5ekyu mentioned ClaytonCross in post Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules
    ClaytonCross Sub-systems need to be analyzed as part of a whole especially when they impact a small subset of the players' options in a direct way. So, asking for feedback with a sort of handwave "dont worry the rest of the game will be balanced to fit it" kind of attitude is just a basic design process fail. What happens if the wizard debuff is worse than this and so you need a better fix for this or if the barbarian debuff that works the way you want is just less and so this needs toning down later etc etc etc? creating a bunch of isolated changes with the hopes that they balance out in the end... often fails. this is especially true if you take "how often it happens" and throw it into "playtest" as opposed to design. You mention that *maybe* it wont happen more than once a "game" (do you mean campaign?) Is that the design goal? is that an accident? Are you really wanting to add an entire sub-system of swing-by swing economics to add all that paperwork in the roleplaying and dial-it so...

Friday, 23rd February, 2018

  • 04:08 PM - lowkey13 mentioned ClaytonCross in post Fluff, Rules, and the Cleric/Warlock Multiclass (WITH POLL!)
    ClaytonCross I suggest starting here- http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?618785-Fluff-Rules-and-the-Cleric-Warlock-Multiclass-(WITH-POLL!)/page4&p=7350045#post7350045 I truly meant that. Now, it happens to be my opinion that the Venn Diagram of those who come up with post hoc rationalizations for Warlock/Cleric "stories" and those who use the phrase "Warlock Dip" as something other than tasty Orc food is a perfect circle- but again, that's just me. As I already stated, people come into this with different conceptions. In my group, the idea of "designing out" a character is anathema. You start at level one, and things happen from there. I prefer an emergent story; but I (and my table) are not representative of everyone. *shrug* So when you go on about creating a "Spawn" character, or a "Ghost rider," all I can think is, "Well, more power to ya, but that's not what I'm doing." And it would be truly awesome if you would accord the same respect back. Know what I mean? I'm gla...

Monday, 5th February, 2018

  • 06:33 AM - Olive mentioned ClaytonCross in post The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument
    4) Voting with my wallet. Eventually WoTC will publish a psionics book. I won't be buying it. True, they won't notice the lack of my $50 because thier math will have indicated that there IS a large enough market for such a book. But who knows? Maybe if between now & then I can convince enough others to join my anti-psionics stance I cam affect that math..... Hopefully I succeed in thwarting any of you Drow/monster psionics fans.:) This is sort of besides the point but I'm interested in the response. I assume that psionics won't be a book of it's own but instead a section within a book on alternate systems or soemthing similar. Would you not buy a book jsut because it contains a class and some spells you don't like? This goes for ClaytonCross and guns/artificer as well. For the record I don't like guns or psionics in DnD either...

Saturday, 25th November, 2017

  • 07:49 AM - Nevvur mentioned ClaytonCross in post How Defeat this Coffelock Villain?
    ClaytonCross Blindness was something I was looking at suggesting, too. Unfortunately it's a con save, which sorcerers have proficiency in, so we're looking at a +11 or greater ST bonus. Feeblemind would be ideal, though it's probably not part of the surviving spellcasters' repertoire, leaving only 1 wish to pull it off, and then the simulacrum has Heal to negate it. Maybe Wish: Feeblemind and be ready to counterspell Heal? To the OP, another possible approach: one caster uses Dimension Door and pulls another caster along for the ride, with the second caster readying an action to cast Antimagic Field. Broadly speaking, this is an intractable problem because the fight has already been initiated and you're down a wizard. There are numerous solutions available for a fresh party with 2 wishes. It also doesn't help that you haven't provided a list of spells known and prepared by the surviving party members, along with a list of their magic items, features, etc... anything that can be brought to...
  • 01:45 AM - pming mentioned ClaytonCross in post The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"
    Hiya! I'm just gonna pop my head in here for a quick depositing of my 2˘. :) ClaytonCross : I think what's going on is most definitely a matter of DM and Player "style" or "preferred play". In the closest post above this, you wrote: "The more I have played as GM and a player at the same time the more I see GMs saying these things and realize a lot of hate for "balance" from both sides is because the GM just don't want to take the time to look at their player characters and build for them to make it harder with the same CR battles and/or ensure they are not telling a story by themselves instead of playing a game together. Putting a trap in front of your players that they lack the skill to even possibly meat or exceed in order to even detect it is not "independent world building" it is railroading players and story telling how a player(s) died to a trap. Again ... That is my opinion, anyway." That right there. I think that is the schism you and some other posters on here are getting hung up on. What that paragraph says, to me, is "a DM needs to make stuff fair for the P...

Friday, 24th November, 2017

  • 03:36 PM - Coroc mentioned ClaytonCross in post Running D&D 5e for Levels 10+
    I wanted to write something similar to what ClaytonCross wrote in #35 but i would not have done it so perfectly with all the math. Exactly this is your Problem most of the time when you complain about having no challenge for your mid to high Level Group! Stop playing your Dragon like an acid blob who sits there to be slaughtered. A Dragon (/Vampire/Lich/Evil Archnecromancer/fiend) should per Definition have at least the same intelectual capabilities like your most intelligent Party member. That means he will not have eventually a good tactic for the Group, but he will have a perfect tactic and exploit every weakness! Be fair though, the Dragon is sure to kill the caster / ranged guy / healer first unless he is intimidated to Launch his wrath on a tank guy instead. The dumb Level 21 orc captain though will have difficulties to decide who is the Party cleric and who is the rogue though. The key to overcome highly intelligent opponents should be something like exploiting some flaw in their personality, making them underes...

Thursday, 16th November, 2017

  • 07:42 PM - Coroc mentioned ClaytonCross in post The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"
    ClaytonCross reply w/o a quote for obvious reasons :) Nah joking aside, you made a lot of good points and analysis but on some things I disagree: Those players who do not min max, in a campaign which is not purely hack and slash (and even then sometimes) have other advantages you just forgot. A minmaxer has 1 or more very weak stats that is the min side of the medal which is all to often forgotten. The roleplayer with odd stat or not, might have some points in wisdom or charisma and is much more likely to resist a charm. Just imagine your minmaxer in a campaign with lots of vampires. Those mobs are hard enough on there own, but if your minmaxer is dishing out the tpk alone, just because he gets charmed every other time and the dm plays it closely by the book, guess who has the fun at the table: right, the dm if he has some slight sadistic ambition. There should be some kind of social contract on these things. Most people are capable of doing both, balanced builds and minmax builds...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 12:56 AM - FlyingChihuahua quoted ClaytonCross in post Are you satisfied enough with the Artificer to publish it?
    Normally with any other class you would be correct. However below is a direct quote from the latest version of the Artificer: "Cantrips At 1st level, you know two cantrips of your choice from the artificer spell list below. At higher levels, you learn additional artificer cantrips of your choice, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Artificer table. When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the artificer cantrips you know with another cantrip from the artificer spell list." I mean, rests happen a helluva lot more than level ups, so I could still see it as useful.

Friday, 17th May, 2019

  • 03:42 AM - Psyzhran2357 quoted ClaytonCross in post Are you satisfied enough with the Artificer to publish it?
    If they would take awesome "Spell-Storing Item" ability from the level 18 where no one will ever see it used and replace the lack luster "The Right Cantrip for the Job" at level 10 where "Spell-Storing Item" would be more a part of the class I would be happy. "The Right Cantrip for the Job" is very situational and almost voided by the ability to change cantrips at when you level as well as the Artillerist subclass ability "Wand Prototype" duplicating the ability to change a cantrip on long rest. If you can't do it on the spot when you need it, ultimately its just learning player preference which is already done with "When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the artificer cantrips you know with another cantrip from the artificer spell list." … Then if you want to keep "The Right Cantrip for the Job" at level 18, just let it change one cantrip to one other artificer cantrip as an action once a day, so you can actually use it in those random chance situations instead of having picke...

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 05:16 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    I think this is were it strikes me most. To me, a Thug is more a professional fighter (aka warrior) than defined by skills. Is it the name causing that conceptual dissonance? Would calling the subclass the Bully or something similar that implies dirty fighting after using skills to be in an advantageous position. That said backstab is more of skilled assassin shot than a fighter. So I actually played a rogue archer as a sniper which is a skilled warrior and mechanically very much suites the rogue feature set. Fighters are less "skilled" doing less damage per hit but overwhelming with multiple attacks. Barbarians raging is also a path of over whelming an opponent with brute force. That would be a valid interpretation of sneak attack, and one that fits quite well with the Thug subclass. The grappler design, of this subclass seems like an overwhelming force which fits the fighter or barbarian better... Fighters are not the only class that might practice nonmagical martial arts. The shove + at...

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 05:07 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    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? Off the top of my head: the focus on skills rather than combat training or intense bursts of power. Whether Social climbing, sneaking, actual climbing, knowing stuff, the Rogue has not only a broader skill base, but a much more capable one. Again, that's why I keep referring to the rogue class as a group of features. What detracts from this if the athletic criminal is based on the barbarian or fighter features? Why rogue? Does this not also step on the toes of those classes since they exist to fill that void? Being a criminal is not class specific and could be applied to any class. Why play a dex-based fighter? Does that not step on toes? :) - 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 capabili...
  • 11:22 AM - Kobold Stew quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    as a constructive suggestion, you might want to step back from all the grappling because there is potential for abuse. As it turns out, I agree with you -- there's more grappling in this build than would suit my taste. I do not think it is overpowered, however. In fact, I think the OP has heard criticisms, and been careful to limit the power: Dirty hands (level 3) - only works in a surprise round. So that's, what, once every four or five combats? Manhandler (level 13, so well beyond what most games get to in any case) - requires two free hands, but allows you to move +15' and cover someone's mouth. Cheap Shot (level 17) - allows a grapple+weapon attack (and so excludes the use of manhandler at the same time). This is at the level that Wizards get the Wish spell, Time Stop, and Power Word Kill. Does the Op realize the implications of what this would do if a rogue caught an enemy caster with this design? I don't know. Given the depth of response you have received, I am confident they do un...

Monday, 22nd April, 2019

  • 08:23 AM - Kobold Stew quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    You've made these points several times now, and so I suspect you think you're not being understood. You are: your points are clear, and we get that your understanding of the rogue requires the use of Dexterity as the main stat. Fortunately, the game supports this view of yours: In pretty much every game I have ever seen the rogue features results in ranged combat using dex or stealthy melee fighter using dex. Some of us, including the OP who has I think been too patient, are interested in the option of a more diverse build. As a class, a rouge could have been many things; instead, it tends to favour Dexterity. The place to break free of that is in the subclass (as can happen with Arcane Trickster). If you're not onboard with the premise, then you obviously aren't going to like the results. But let's try to be constructive. There's no need to imply that there are scurrilous motives in the design. There's no need to talk about "god stats", or "munchkin" or "power creep". Those words are com...
  • 07:41 AM - Cap'n Kobold quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    "It" being rogue features? How do you see it playing? In pretty much every game I have ever seen the rogue features results in ranged combat using dex or stealthy melee fighter using dex. Using strength is inherently abstract to that... so what is it your keeping about how the rogue plays? The only think I see is backstab which is one hit mighty melee damage based on taking advantage of openings. That also aligns more with dex and your goal as I understand it is to use strength. If you just want strength one shot more damage like backstab then I addressed a better way to do that with a fighter. If their is something else with the rogue you want that does not use dex its not clear in your posts since the majority of the class is build around dex. 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 cl...

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 08:23 PM - clutchbone quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    In this case I really like the idea of the subclass and the majority of the features but I think the goals of the stated end result, is greatly hindered by the choice of starting point being apparently picked not by its mechanical design but the name and implied role it provokes. If I was going to make a thug, I might have originally looked at the class features of a class call "rogue" as well. Having looked at those features and read the posts by the OP, I feel like his (and my) original instinct leads to a contradiction through meta names that don't really matter in play. If the OP sees that and understands, then decides to do it anyway... the appears what they said the goal was is either not true or has evolved as a mater of input. For example, they may want to make a subclass using the feature set of the rogue specifically but what to use strength because their GM uses variant encumbrance and having strength for attack, armor, encumbrance, and grapple mechanics makes it the god stat... the alte...
  • 06:01 AM - BookBarbarian quoted ClaytonCross in post The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
    Typically, feature group #1 can't read so you add that proficiency if you have a problem with it, then your 90% of stated goals. - Bonus proficiency changing from medium armor to reading There is nothing at all that says Feature Group #1 typically can't read. Not in any 5e book. They can speak, read, and write in any languages they have proficiency in just like any other Feature group. You weaken your argument with falsehoods.

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 07:48 AM - Elfcrusher quoted ClaytonCross in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Let me also add, that know an NPC is lying or holding back the truth does not tell players what part of what was said was a lie or if it is a lie of omission. I say, the NPC does seem to be completely honest with you. The don't get anything else and that covers the whole of a conversation not a line by line break down. I suspect some participants in this thread would respond by blurting out "I use Insight!" (and "Can I use Insight, too?") every time the NPC finishes a sentence.
  • 12:11 AM - Chaosmancer quoted ClaytonCross in post Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
    So if your taking the role of front line defense, aka the tank. It seems like your "problem with the feat" is your trying to make it into a way to do more damage while your character is a defensive character that would better benefit from Shield Master or Defensive Duelist. I warn you, you play a dangerous game giving me openings to discuss my character build :P And yeah, he had Shield Master. It's why I went variant human, because being a knight (background) was so vital to my concept that I wanted my sword and shield combo to be the best I could make it by level 1. Also, you seem under a misconception. My problem with Weapon Master has nothing to do with my Barbarian Knight and how I built him. I knew about the Dawnforged Homebrew that I used from another source (I think I was looking for Magic Items when I found the document), and my Knight is only showing the one time I used it myself (I had a Ranger who played in a game I DM'd use it as well). I've had a problem with RAW Weapon Ma...

Tuesday, 9th April, 2019

  • 03:40 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
    I think adding "to hit" makes them less flavor and more a way to break bounded accuracy above and redundant to the ASI, +X magic weapons, and the scaling proficiency bonus we already have. There is a large risk doing more harm than good with that. It's also not like they are not good enough that I don't see polearm master, great weapons master, sharpshooter, shield master, mobility, medium armor master, and heavy armor master almost every campaign I have been in since 5e. Weapons Master and Martial Adept are the only ones that I don't see all the time and they while a little weak till have their niches and I have seen both at least once on player characters that were happy to have them. However, I do agree Weapons Master combine with Martial Adept is not overpowered and its a lot more interesting than a striate +1/+1 without causing the issues with balance and bounded accuracy due to the superiority die resource limit. Now you are flip flopping on your goals a little. The previous goal of f...
  • 03:07 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
    I have not played a monk or rogue yet... well I did multi-class a druid/rogue who used a special axebreaker wood (Quebracho) dagger which my GM let me use Shillelagh on, but I did not go as you stated for 3 of your 5 assumption. I am just saying even if your are right the majority of the time feats are for characters to be unique, to the idea is that you don't need them because of normality seems backwards their very intent. They setup the abstract. They create variation. So having normal assumption and players that want to break that is a if not the primary reason for a feat to exist. Having a longsword wielding wizard with warcaster using it to strike with boomingblade for opportunity attacks is exactly the justification for feat like this. Not a write of that normally doesn't happen because *most* feats are about how you can be not normal not about what is normal. I am not saying you are wrong that what you say is mostly true. I am just saying its an off argument to use mostly true as a basis...

Friday, 5th April, 2019

  • 11:17 PM - Chaosmancer quoted ClaytonCross in post Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
    Ya I figured I had to disclaimer myself after I went back. Its hard to tell the difference between trying to push a point and being a jerk in text talking to someone you don't know well enough to get where they are coming from. So just understand as you continue on, I mean not personal offense, I exaggerate, I used bad examples, and write with passion that might be mistaken as anger or inertance but that's just because in the head of the reader inflection is added that I don't intend and an air of seriousness is added beyond that appropriate discussion of gaming on a forum of strangers. No harm no foul Well the Reaper Strawman was intended to be an obvious strawman simple to highlight a point, but rogues get the majority of their damage from backstab not the 1d4 - 1d8 damage of the dagger. Choosing to use two 1d4 daggers instead of two 1d6 short swords or a 1d8 rapier will change your average damage by at most 2 points. While backstab at 20 will add around 35, and the +1 to hit is a 5% ...
  • 04:37 AM - Chaosmancer quoted ClaytonCross in post Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
    I like the ability to give any character weapon proficiencies of my choice. Changing it would cause my table to lose that ability with no replacement. Your suggested ability is just another "+ damage" ability which I find to be less interesting and less unique than the only feat that provides weapon proficiencies. If you want your "I want to do more damage … because" feat. You do just do something like "Reaper: character never misses and always does enough damage to kill enemies with one hit unless they are bosses." … because that's would end the relentless attempts to power creep damage and do nothing interesting with the feat. I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just trying to make a point that being better at attacking and doing damage is not a "feat" of heroism and increasing those is not unique or interesting. Its just power creep and trivializing combat so you can kill things more than others kill things. Which is what you get from basic leveling in any class. If your trying to replace fea...

Friday, 22nd March, 2019

  • 08:43 AM - Hussar quoted ClaytonCross in post D&D storylines for a movie?
    I think part of the problem is the PG mass audience lines they keep going for. They should stop trying to make a movie of mass appeal and find a true niche. Deadpool proved that due to lack of other targeted options when you give one it can draw big crows. I feel like if they just did a rated R Curse of Strahd Ravenloft campaign related side story following a different path of adventures who … well.. don't win to introduce the concept and prove a D&D story can be good. Then if successful they can follow up with an R rated series or trilogy following the campaign of a group that follows the actual campaign and ...might... succeed if with a few loses. That provides a basis of testing the waters without commitment and a more powerful better story arc treated with as something valuable instead of a self contained short story with a low budget and no plan forward. Why would D&D find it's niche in R rated? It's not like the game is R rated, nor is it even remotely meant to be. The game is v...

Thursday, 14th March, 2019

  • 12:27 AM - iserith quoted ClaytonCross in post A little help with Strength checks please
    People keep saying that but I completely to disagree. Players need to be able to wrap their head around what they are doing in that world. Its not like we through out physics in worlds of magic, we do create exceptions around them like and anti-gravity spell etc. however the worlds are 99% based on the world we know. We simply focus on the 1% of magic because what is different about the world has to be explained. Unless the smaller creature has some 1% magic allowing it saying "its magic world … what ever" is a cop out and defeats the need for the 1% magic. The principle about having magic in a world is that it defies what we know when used in a world where what we know still applies. The argument of a GM that a larger creature has more mass, longer reach, better leverage, and/or better footing/traction from a human roughly the same size as them is really a product of trying to understand the world for how its the same not how its different. It is easier for some people to imagine a dragon that ...

Wednesday, 13th March, 2019

  • 07:47 PM - Gwarok quoted ClaytonCross in post A little help with Strength checks please
    That said, watching SUMO its not uncommon for the smaller opponent to get under a larger one lifting them to reduce footing and gaining the ability to push large opponents around. So I don't see a need to add that advantage myself and I certainly wouldn't give the smaller opponent disadvantage. The size difference between a "large" sumo wrestler and a "small" one is not the same as the size difference between a size M and size L creature. They are going to be around 300lbs plus or minus 100 or so. Think the difference between a horse and a human, 200lbs vs 1000lbs+. Even the biggest weight difference match ever doesn't provide a comparable metaphor. If the contest is purely STR obviously advantage should apply, and even if it's STR vs DEX anything a fast little guy is trying to accomplish with speed vs an opponent is going to be much more difficult vs. one 8 times the mass. Size does matter, and in such contests in DND it's sorta absurd to not factor that in. Otherwise watching my bar...
  • 07:58 AM - MNblockhead quoted ClaytonCross in post Does anyone know where I can get 1.5 inch squre grid Fantacy battle maps?
    That's awesome and if I had a clear fiber class cover with a 1.5 inch grid on it I could just adjust until they match or use and image without a grid and get it to about the right scale for my figures and call it a day... unfortunate while I GM, we rotate GMs and my place is small so when its my turn I got to someone else's house and I have to haul what I need myself. I don't seem me hauling a TV table down 3 flights of stairs, finding a way to put it in my tiny car, and up to at my friends house. Make not mistake, that's awesome and I wish it was an option for me. However, a map that rolls up work way batter for my current situation. That said I did save the link. Maybe I get a bigger place in the future and that becomes an option. One reason I went with the Collabrewate case is that is it pretty portable. It has handle and can be carried from room to room or from home to game store/friends house pretty easily, especially if you go with a smaller screen size. It is not fully encased on the bott...

Thursday, 7th March, 2019

  • 12:50 PM - jmucchiello quoted ClaytonCross in post Critical Role's Kickstarter Breaks $1,000,000 In About An Hour!
    They are currently the 15th most funded project on kickstarter. So before this shift I might have been right but now... the limit is based on how much they are willing to produce. Mercer has said, the more money, the more animation minutes. I doubt they have any willingness to stop. And as for the stretch goals delaying the release, that's silly. They only really have to get the first 88 minutes or so out by the "fall 2020" deadline. That should be no problem. The rest can come out over time.


Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

ClaytonCross's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites