View Profile: ClaytonCross - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Today, 05:20 PM
    Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.
    188 replies | 12742 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Today, 04:31 PM
    On the semantics side, Spanish needs more information to convey a message than English does. For example if you have to translate "I'm bad at studying and I could use your help." Which of the six possible constructs -each one with different meaning- should you use? You need a lot of contextual information to decide. That is more work than many translators bother to do. Some would only take the...
    56 replies | 1589 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Today, 01:07 AM
    Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.
    188 replies | 12742 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Today, 12:57 AM
    I have another theory, Spanish translations require more work, some other languages don't. For other languages you can easily take the plain text in English and just straight translate it without paying too much attention to context. So the result is either a trainwreck that mixes/ignores gender/closeness/person or is more expensive. Many times this is done in Spain for videogames by people who...
    56 replies | 1589 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:09 AM
    In other circumstances I would have pre-ordered already. I kind of need an alternative where character building is less cumbersome and fiddly than PF, but I want a little more that what 5e gives. I want to like PF2, but I need to see the finalized rules before committing to it.
    29 replies | 1394 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 04:45 AM
    RPGs live and die by their setting. Only D&D can afford to go "setting agnostic" (and that is barely) by virtue of its size and prominence. Without a strong setting a random RPG is but a set of bland mechanics, and if it's fantasy themed, it is just a heartbreaker. For identity purposes World of Darkness is Storyteller, Freedom City is M&M, and Golarion is Pathfinder. Yes, other settings can work...
    123 replies | 7345 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:50 AM
    Ideally I would have ability modifiers not affecting skill bonus by themselves, I would rather high ability bonuses helped you have higher proficiency levels faster. Edit: An on topic, this isn't necessarily a judgment of value, what I got from the playtest was that PF2 somehow managed to have the bad parts of 4e without the good stuff. I'm still on the fence on whether to give it some of my...
    188 replies | 12742 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:25 PM
    I never said I wanted the Alchemist gone. All I said was leaving Witches out of core was a bad decision. I only speak for myself in this. The choice to make bards occult made what it means to be occult confusing -seriously, it is a conversation in the Paizo forums-
    123 replies | 7345 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 05:15 PM
    I think it is a glaring omission because: a) The witch is important in Golarion (the most common non-divine caster) and b) the witch is an obvious primary occult caster, by not having it the bard was square pegged into the tradition and as a primary caster at the expense of other stuff. (IMO primal or arcane fitted better for the bard)
    123 replies | 7345 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:54 AM
    I am not sure it matters as long as the Bonus and DC adjust to the scale. That's all I am saying. Even if we use your joke 100 skill +1d20, but then we make the DC 115 its really no different than 10 skill +1d20 with DC 25. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy philosophy behind 5th edition. So what really that means is how much do you want to hand out bonuses? if you do it at on the 0-10...
    224 replies | 5893 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:28 AM
    I never said that and It was not in the post to which you replied that I was replying on. So if some where later in that thread on some post @jgsugden said that, then he did cross that line into jerk. I don't see that post and I am posting in the context of the original post. It would not surprise me at all for the first comment to be a legitimate suggestion but for later posts arguing the point...
    224 replies | 5893 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:12 AM
    That's not wrong. Its just the same as taking a -5, 0, or +5, instead of a 0, +5, or +10. I simply prefer a default of 0 being no skill and the base at which they start. Then your good or your and expert. I get the idea of being truly bad at something but at the same time a bad swordsman might still be better than a untrained person who is not a swords man. In this case -- t0 me -- a bad...
    224 replies | 5893 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:55 AM
    I get that he is saying "its fun and there is no issue on raising an idea of an alternate system" but I also don't think its rude to bring up a point of consideration and question the need for the topic. I also don't think is rude to bring up a consideration that problems at tables are not always the game but often how the table approaches the game. Its a valid point of consideration but...
    224 replies | 5893 view(s)
    0 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:27 AM
    Sure but wizards don't generally use longswords so they don't get better at them. You have option for ASI / feat to choose what you have been doing and improving as well as any skill you actually do can count toward training gaining said proficiency bonus... and done. We don't assume, we have seen your many posts! ;) lol jk … in seriousness the point I believe @jgsugden is making...
    224 replies | 5893 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:29 PM
    That ship has long sailed, and sank. Nobody survived, and there's nothing left of the shipwreck...
    123 replies | 7345 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:20 PM
    It all depends on context, it isn't a clear cut black and white issue. In this particular context doesn't matter that badly. But for example, in 5e what's core and what isn't does matter. I still can't have an aasimar divine soul in AL for example, because neither is core! Core matters, some DMs play with core-only. Some groups demand core-only. Core classes/races receive more attention from...
    123 replies | 7345 view(s)
    2 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 01:10 AM
    If you need to cheat, it means you have a paper-thin case. Which means you aren't very good at finding loopholes. I stand my ground cheating= munchkin and not a rules lawyer. That's why you go for the most ironclad case you can build. In fact, many times these interpretations end up being validated one way or another. And if the DM is convinced am I really imposing my own interpretation? How...
    95 replies | 3891 view(s)
    1 XP
  • ClaytonCross's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 12:50 AM
    I had a GM that did. He also felt that applied to weapons even though it didn't say so when I multi-classed rogue so I had find wood from a D&D Quebracho tree (aka Axe Breaker Tree) to make daggers that wouldn't NORMALLY break in combat and use mending to fix them when they did. Add to that my old GM would take my agency away and prevent me from putting my hand in fire and burning myself if it...
    641 replies | 18235 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 12:57 AM
    I'm a self-professed Rules Lawyer. It's there - ok used to be - in my signature. I'm a rules lawyering drama queen... I don't consider being a Rules Lawyer something negative, just one way to play. What many posters here have an actual problem is not with rules lawyerism is with munchkinism. A rules lawyer finds loopholes and exploits, however annoying that might be. What a rules lawyer...
    95 replies | 3891 view(s)
    1 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
710
Posts Per Day
0.89
Last Post
Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus? Friday, 12th July, 2019 06:54 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
20
General Information
Last Activity
Wednesday, 17th July, 2019 11:51 PM
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

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Saturday, 13th July, 2019


Friday, 12th July, 2019


Monday, 8th July, 2019


Sunday, 30th June, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 05:18 AM - FrogReaver mentioned ClaytonCross in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    ClaytonCross This is what was said.... 5E is a very good system. While not perfect, it is at a point where most (if not all) of the effort I see to 'improve', 'fix', 'adjust', etc... it are inefficient uses of time. If that time were instead spent playing the game, planning sessions, or doing something unrelated to D&D, it would likely be time that generated more benefit than arguing over whether a wizard should inherently be better at Medicine after years of adventuring. It's flat out rude to tell someone they are wasting their time doing something they enjoy. How you are defending that, I don't think I'll ever understand.

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...


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

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 07:03 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    I am not sure it matters as long as the Bonus and DC adjust to the scale. That's all I am saying. Even if we use your joke 100 skill +1d20, but then we make the DC 115 its really no different than 10 skill +1d20 with DC 25. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy philosophy behind 5th edition. So what really that means is how much do you want to hand out bonuses? if you do it at on the 0-10 scale you are increasing the bonus and DC every 2 levels. If you increase is 0-6 you increase the skill and DC about every 3 levels. The only impact is to unskilled checks on a DC change of +6 vs +10 but I am saying I mostly don't care about that because generally when you need a door unlocked, the guy who picks locks does the test, so the other players skills only mattered as far as they are lower than his so they are not doing it. If he was gone and the second best was going to try it I can have effect but at the same time they might not have anyone else who picks locks and instead they get the strongest...
  • 06:20 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    That's not wrong. Its just the same as taking a -5, 0, or +5, instead of a 0, +5, or +10. I simply prefer a default of 0 being no skill and the base at which they start. Then your good or your and expert. I get the idea of being truly bad at something but at the same time a bad swordsman might still be better than a untrained person who is not a swords man. In this case -- t0 me -- a bad swordsman is still a trained proficient swordsman who simply has bad habits but would still beat and untrained swordsman picking up sword for the first time... (unless your name is Rai apparently). So to answer you question of scale, Untrained 0 , in training is >0 (proficient) and a good character would be double that (expertise) that's not stating the game it just a statement of thought which closely aligns with the game. If the scale was 0, 1, 2 or 0, 2, 4or 0, 6, 10 or even 0, 50, 100 I would be fine with it. The interesting thing is that for the most part parties compare their skill and growth in a skill vs ot...
  • 01:43 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    … My personal opinion is that I don't want to be proficient in all things or for my abilities to scale evenly. Your 1d4, Not Proficient, Proficient, and Expertise method looks to reflect that too. You want negative qualities, qualities you keep up with, and qualities you excel at so we are in agreement there. We differ is that I would prefer to not proficient the majority of things to highlight when I am proficient for greater separation of party roles and do distinguish Player characters more.Where you appear to want to generally proficient in all things with a few deficiencies. This is just a perspective difference. I prefer the greater separation because it reduces toe stepping. Maybe it would help to abstract this out a little more. How much worse should a bad character be at something than a good character? Should the bonus difference be a 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 100?
  • 01:39 AM - FrogReaver quoted ClaytonCross in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT] Sure but wizards don't generally use longswords so they don't get better at them. You have option for ASI / feat to choose what you have been doing and improving as well as any skill you actually do can count toward training gaining said proficiency bonus... and done. Agreed. Weapons and tools should be excluded from such a system. [LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana] We don't assume, we have seen your many posts! ;) lol jk lol … in seriousness the point I believe @jgsugden is making is if your happy under the current system then why talk about changing it? Kind of falls under the "if its not broke don't fix it" rule of life. I know the point. Do you get why raising that point is rude and uncalled for? In case you missed it. It's because I and many others find fixing things fun. Also, since they are functional to most people, its possible (but not by any means or even normally the case) that some one not enjoying this system is because your not playing ...

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...


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