View Profile: 5ekyu - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Today, 12:18 AM
    Fiat treshold is that line in the gms mind of "helpless enough" to qualify for tossing the normal damage system and moving to the checkmate or plan-b or whatever. Its when you cut from orc on guard duty to that same orc having insufficient defenses. I mean, if we assume the hidden archer vs orc guard is possibly at play for checkmate, then some degree of bored was mentioned. I would...
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:57 PM
    Ehhh... See this is where i hit trouble. My take is its not so much about revere as respect. Respect nature to me isnt "dont kill animals and take hides." Its more "kill what you need and use it all" its more about the harmony and renewable or sustainable balance. Tribes who hunt buffalo, take no more than they can use (often the weaker slower - duh) and use every bit of their kills...
    30 replies | 537 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:47 PM
    I get invis is not as one-stop-easy-pop as Holds become, but it covers a lot of the workload one would "in real life" would see as "common sense" to reach anything like a consistant "fiat threshold". But simply put, in the game now, its powerful for a 2nd level spell with only one shot possibly getting you advantage (rest is class features). Add in the "fiat checkmate bar" so that this can...
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:20 PM
    Well yes. But to create a good one you need playtest, outside review etc. One of the most notable "smile, dont make eye contact, walk away slowly" moments was when a guy pitched his solo developed 40 years in the making perfectly balanced fantasy game which only his wife had been allowed to see a little of.... you know you are looking at trouble when the 30m pitch emphasizes how little the...
    6 replies | 112 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:15 PM
    Also, it says the monster, not the troll.... so obviously, every time I burn a monster a troll is killed.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:05 PM
    It seems to me reading about the checkmate rule - Hold Person and its ilk all move to tier-3 spells. Any monsters etc that toss outnparalysis on hit jump up to tier-3 CR too. Those are just off the top of my head. Have to figure out where in tier-2 we move Invisibility now that one-hit can be one-kill by-passing HP. My guess is invisibility goes to replace its 4th level greater version ...
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:55 PM
    Generally, the backgrounds assume your character is from "around here". The exceptions are the ones that are like "you aint from around here" as their thing. So, your noble backgtound would be from an area known enough to be recognized and respected or hated in the main campaign.
    2 replies | 150 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:56 PM
    "What do you think? What is the Ranger to you?" The key features for a ranger are (to me): Martial expert - primary fighter but without heavy armor Wilderness- Scout, tracker, hunter, survivalist Hedge Druid - Some variation on low end druidic type magic tho this could be replaced by some form of herbalist or ritual casting into fetishes etc. Truthfully if it were a " prepared" caster"...
    30 replies | 537 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:41 PM
    Why am I thinking it was Crocofile Dundee 2 where kangaroo with guns was a thing?
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 AM
    And deer do not normally have armor over key vital spots - at least round here.
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:41 AM
    Exactly this... Rob us "So it would be perfectly reasonable for an NPC to not make any effort in a combat situation and they would get all their HP? They could just stand there and absorb the generally lethal blows and be fine? Do you see why I feel differently?" Yes, I just think your argument is flawed. As I and others said, when the GM sets the guard there with say 20 up, they are...
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:28 AM
    So, well, yeah, if the players and GM are on the same page about the rules, then you dont get these issues. That much kinda goes without sayin'.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:25 AM
    In editions where druids had rules that established they could wear metal armor but doing do imposed penalties, this issue is not present. No rule of play is being violated. In games/tables where the GM sets up rules that allow druids to wear metal armor and suffer penalties, there are again no game rules bring violated. In games/tables where the rule is left as is in 5e, and the players...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:51 AM
    I generally assumed that if a rule is important for controversial, then the one who wants it to be clear that it's not used as RAW should bring it up. I mean, if you dont want to play with s given tule as is, by RAW, specific yo the class you choose, doesnt it seem like z good thing to do ? I mean, a lot of the discussions about sorcerer and wild magic start with "talk to your GM about...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:41 AM
    And if the solution they players decided they needed was to cast invisibility on all four PCs but they only had three slots left, do they get to cast three or four invisibility? If you are familiar with sandbox play, at all even a smidge or a tad, then you might be aware that that means sometimes you encounter challenges you cannot get thru as is and might have to pull back and regroup until...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:27 AM
    If the orc is too powerful to be felled by thexrsngrr in one shot, that was a CHOICE the GM made. Why should there be a reason that was bypassed? If the ranger player thinks his arrows have a reasonable chance to one dhotborcs, maybe the player and GM need to discuss the setting cuz thry are not in some page.
    110 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:16 AM
    "This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. " Uh huh... GM sny quedtions? Player - So what about PvP? GM Pvp isnt allowed. Try it and get NPCed. Player OK GM Got charscter idea. Player- Thinking druid.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:06 AM
    Nope. **if** the gm setup a druid trap situation so that the only way to survive was for the dtuidnplayer to violate the rule they agreed to play, then thats on the GM. His failing was sgreringbthst druids in this campaign will not wear nrtsl armor and then setting up an "'only way" trap against that. Thsts the GM violating the rule. On the other hand, if there were/are multiple options and...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 10:45 PM
    "What I AM saying is that if paladins are able to freely choose to break their oaths, and clerics to defy their deities, etc., then a druid should equally be free to choose to wear metal armor, and suffer in-game consequences for that decision just like the other classes." What I am saying is that if that is going to be the rules st play in your game, those rules should be in place and set...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 10:32 PM
    Yeah the loot splits get strange. Hard to predict what triggers an itch. Course, when that druid got into an area with banded armor made by druidic dragon/lizard folks he kept wearing the shells, didnt even check eith them on access to special wooden shields or banded? Even after being told finding wooden shield with enchants is rare outside of druid enclaves.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 10:27 PM
    To me I would have: Put hide armor as light and studded as medium. Adjust scores and values. Give druids light armor and shields Give wildshape restrictions if wearing medium or heavy armor or metal shields. Basically, they wont be merged into the form. Have to be left behind.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 10:18 PM
    Personally, player agency tells me a player should take this up with the GM if its gonna be a problem **at chargen**. Maybe we work sonething out, maybe we dont and you choose a different class or table but when you wait until its an inconvenirnt agreement pull your player agency fury card, that comes off as weaponizing the dispute every bit as much as yee olde jerk GM putting paladins of old in...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 10:10 PM
    Assuming you are talking a devotion paladin where the tenets vover thst kind of activity, no I wouldn't tell them that because thats silly. See, the rules agreed to play by, assuming RAW, include that whole section on breaking oaths, even the bestest is fallible, hest of moment, emotion, etc etc etc. So, that makes it clear that the rules show you the tenets as stuff you aspire to, not hard...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:49 PM
    Double points for purchases on very non-politically correct anniversaries!!!!
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:48 PM
    Agreed. What draws me to druid and has for ages is the fact it has a lot of limited tools - no one able to carry the day over and over but easily a couple that can be useful in very different ways. Of course, I am also drawn to Bard and Cleric so, maybe I have a type and they are never the "moar DPR max AC" number-hunters.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:44 PM
    Damned good explanation - for either will not PvP or will not metal armor - "that is what all of us, including you, agreed to." See, this avoids having to re-litigate the "will not" every f'n time we hit another case where it's a trifle inconvenient for you to actually follow what you agreed to. I mean , it's likely to rarely come up and when the few times its inconvenient just deciding to...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 08:03 PM
    The added level of surreal to me is that the RAW hands the GM a far, far more "power of the GM" tool of oppression specifically for Druids in the utter lack of any guidelines for how many and which beast forms a druid has "seen" at any point of a campaign. Yet, it's the smackdown on auth-ori-tye caused by saying "no" to waiving "will not" that earns you your tyrants-r-us rewards card.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:46 PM
    Just like there may not be anything preventing PVP yet many games manage to run a non- PVP game without a hitch. But here, for some, the rule being actually in print in the rules somehow makes it seem **less binding** than the table no-pvp rule would be. To me, you agreeing to play by the printed rule is as binding as you agreeing to play by the table rule. But apparently to some...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:11 PM
    So, yeah, are we now all happy in agreement that it's there in the official rulebook that druids will not wear the metal armor, it's there in the official ruling that the gm might allow a PCdruid to wear medium metal anyway but that it's their choice as GM, period and that even applies to whether or not the GM uses those official rulings at all? If so, doesnt that put us all happily away from...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:00 PM
    Script driven resolution is definitely an approach with a lot of basis in the source material fictions, lore and movies. Or can lead to oddball cases - like not being able to use shuttlecraft if the script is about transporter accidents- but it is common across the fiction. There are even games where that is the core mechanic. The "roll for..." is more determinative or authoring not...
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:40 PM
    If we start a thread titled "You might be a tyrant GM if..." will Foxworthy sue? :-)
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 04:45 PM
    Moreover, go to pretty much any table, agree to the rules in play, then decide unilaterally during play when inconvenient your charscter can ignore the rule and if told no start spouting off about tyrants and railroading... see how far that gets you. Even the current SAC makes it clear the DM decides whether to use the official rulings in play and for the druid metal thingy they emphasize the...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 03:26 PM
    Got it. For me, rather than get the characters history for every stand around and think about stuff moment, I prefer to know say any proficiencies or features they might actually have that apply- like z background or class trait. See, that who " learned at the feet of Greenskin the Smelly" ain't really gonna get you much knowledge about tracking unless you represented that say by giving your...
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 03:13 PM
    Likely, but to be clear, you font allow that info to be gained other than for rangers inside their favored terrain? Rangers used to mountains cannot get numbers tracked while following tracks in grasslands?
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 03:10 PM
    Uh, the penalties for not sleeping etc still apply - no changes there - the difference is the higher Con characters can get the benefits of short and long rests more often and in more adverse circumstances. I mean, when I read some folks requiring a week for long rest, I didnt think they meant the PCs only sleep during thosexweeks, did you?
    32 replies | 953 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:59 PM
    To me it's not lessening or taking away from the ranger. The ranger gets some of these features automatically in their favored terrain and that still holds. But allowing the chance of these for other characters as ability checks of various types for non-rangers and rangers outside their favored terrains does not "lessen" that ranger ability.
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:52 PM
    Just to be clear tho, this definition of approach if I read you correct does not require any specific action of the character to be stated? There was no guidance as to what the character is doing, just the player stating a list of factors that they want the gm to consider. So, whether or not the character is standing stock still in place or moving around the scene checking for stuff is not...
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:40 PM
    Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue. Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:31 PM
    There are a lot of distinctions that can be made but their relevance to the druid metal discussion and whether player who play druids ha ve to abide hy the rules in play at the table is not yet established.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    Exactly. The issue I have been raising and having dodged for pages after pages now is that if you agree to play with this or that rule in play, then in game decide that rule no longer applies to you the person violating the rules is **not** the character but the player. Now we cue the dismissals of the druid armor even bring a rule or any agreed rules at the table not counting etc etc dodgey etc....
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 02:05 PM
    Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 01:51 PM
    5e rules do not by default allow a character to "no longer be" a class. You can add a class thru multiclassing. Do, "dont want to be a druid" (or an assassin or a barbarian ) would have to be worked out by the player and GM.
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:57 AM
    Agsin, the rule is that druids will not wear metal armor. If there was a rule at the table which said fire wizards eont become ice wizards, that would apply too. If the table rule is " PC will not attack other PCs " would that be fluff your character can choose to change their mind on mid-scene when convenient?
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:13 AM
    Again, you try and argue about the rule as if it said cant. It didnt. The rule says "will not wear". That is the rule in play (barring house rules) and do that's the rule you agreed to when choosing to be playing a druid. If you, then player, agreed to play by that rule, why are you then trying to ho back on that in play and going all off with "tyrant" or "railroad" claims when it actually...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:42 AM
    Ok, so, hey, I doubt we are ever going to get anywhere if you insist on saying that the druid 5e armor proficiency listing is not a rule.. You can decide to treat it as fluff in your games, that's fine. . So, if that's the basis of your position, then, we are literally reading different books and have no basis for further discussion on that. As for your imaginary tyrant... I never tell...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:18 AM
    I do realize that when the player agreed to play in a game where the rule was druids wont wear metal armor then yes, that was a choice they made. If they preferred to play in a game where the rule was "druids will wear whatever armor they care to, they should play in those. See how that works?
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:11 AM
    Careful, "scouring" could imply a strength based check. :-)
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:08 AM
    Wisdom survival for most. For do the tracks and trail show signs of injury, Int Investigation. If there was an effort made to hide the tracks, Wisdom Perception. Any of these could reach " no roll needed" if they were easy enough and the PC skilled enough.
    61 replies | 1313 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 05:52 AM
    So, as a general rule, I am against just set values for key elements and restrictions. I prefer charsacter defined elements. So, has anyone looked at say linking rests available to Con in some way that turned that stat into a significant player in the rest game? For example... Default: Long Rests are a week and Short rests are an 8 hour break in comfortable safe environment. ...
    32 replies | 953 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 05:42 AM
    Why is that halfling incapable of flying across the chasm? Is it perhaps that there is a rule to that effect the players all play by? Why epnt that druid put on armor? Is it that there is a rule the players agreed to to that effect? See how that works? As for you personally deciding that including the word "wont" (or "will not") disqualifies something as being a rule, you certainly can...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 05:27 AM
    While obviously there can be most any type of behavior, I dont know of any GM eho would kick a player out for *wanting* their druid to wear metal armor. I can see it as more likely to occur to players who *insist* and get argumentative or insulting about it if told no. Me? I am a "say yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no" guy do in my games I added special "banded armor"...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 05:23 AM
    First it us a rule. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise. As for you disobeying your Dad, absolutely, I get that. It's just like how in DnD a GM can choose for their game to not use the druid armor rule, or the cleric armor rules or the multi-class restrictions. But, at most tables, that's a far different kind of choice than a player at that table deciding to not play by the rules that...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 08:10 PM
    "The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 07:11 PM
    Actually no, just no. If someone says they cant drink milk cuz gas, they are using the wrong words. It may be done but it's wrong. It may be not called out but the word should be wont, not cant. But the key is, in 5e rules they dont use "cant" ambiguously for druid armor. They font use "cant" at all forcdruid armor. They say "will not".
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 06:55 PM
    "If you actually apply the proper use of language, you'd know what the sentence is saying, but it appears common sense is no longer applicable in reading." No, it appears common sense is no longer required by griping. See, here is the thing. Let's pretend you font like that druid armor rule. It's a stretch, I know. Let's assume you play D&D 5e and choose a druid. Common sense would...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 06:47 PM
    "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." 5e PHB. There is no reference to the circumstances of the thing - is it to sneak into a castle, win cosplay, mock the paladin etc. But then they dont list or try to list all the various reasons one may use things. So, for 5e, if you chose druid, knowing this rule and did not work out the details with your GM, then to me it's not...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 06:38 PM
    Actually, the change in time of rests may change the popularity between the two. As observed above, a 4 hour rest means more likely setting up a camp, not just stopping for lunch. It may mean setting watches. Unless the gm slters a variety ofcdpells, things like Rope Trick give way to Leo Hut. 4hr vs 24 hour likely leads to more long rests thsn short rests thsn the 1 hour vs 8 hour/day does. ...
    32 replies | 953 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 02:07 PM
    "Your experiences have been vastly different than mine. IME everyone except the wizard, eldritch knight, and arcane trickster will dump Int, with the occasional RP type player who wants to have an average or higher intelligence character." Looking across the last 4 5e games I was in, the only PCs who went with 8 int were barbarians or other barbarisn-like characters. Most had 10s in Int,...
    61 replies | 1574 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 01:53 PM
    "Railroading is not removing choice in selecting mechanics, but rather removing options in the game world by stating the possible to be impossible without any reason given besides not wanting the player to do it, or "the rules". So, just to be clear, now asking your player to abide by "thevrules" of the class you chose is railroading? Great!!! Yet another case of a word being eroded to...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 05:33 PM
    Ok so a question on the approach... if the first thing you come up with is that it doesn't need to apply to all features of long and short rests - giving casters some/all spells back through other means - what specific rest gains are you trying to prevent in what circumstances? Might it be more precise to identify the specific features you think NEED TO TAKE LONGER and adjust them as opposed...
    32 replies | 953 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 05:17 PM
    The problem isn't with the core six, they work very well IMO offering enough to make them distinct. Yeah see that is where the triad to me is a way to address what you see as the problem. You start with "what role does those score play in its triad." Then ypu pick triads that will see significant play. Everything smaller becomes a skill or a feat or a trait or whatever you want to call...
    61 replies | 1574 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 04:52 PM
    So, the problem you were worried about is the scaling of spell DC vs non-favored saves - which is a higher levels growth thing - and that for somr cases it **can be** really bad and you have so far only seen it at 7th and under - where its not yet big. Also, your chamge affects all save spells and effects, not just those that **can be** really bad. Hmmm... Well, its not something i see...
    15 replies | 468 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 04:18 PM
    To me there is a serious flaw in the framing. Basically not alk ability checks adding to saves and checks are equal. Sure we can,point to str having carry capacity as an extra feature but when we compare that to Cha ans say Cha needs more we are ignoring that Cha carries a lot of the weight for the social pillar on its own with the four skills it adds to. Compared with Athletics - thats not a...
    61 replies | 1574 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 04:02 PM
    Actually once you step,outside the dnd/srd/d20 bubble it seems like very many games abandoned these six in favore of more or less. If i were going to build a set from scratch - it would start at 9. There would be a triad of stats for each "focus". Physical - strength, dex, con Intellect - knowledge, wits, discipline
    61 replies | 1574 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 01:45 AM
    Power attack in forms that allowed chosen minuses to hit and comparable gains in damage have been around for a while in various types of d20 gsmes snd others for a long time. Experience with them backs up your claims in actual play non-ehite room excels where the right assumptions get you amy results you want. Those who typically evangelize the 5 -10 round here fall back when pressed on...
    49 replies | 1116 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 01:25 AM
    TheGM can already chose your new "solution" option of just banning them. So, really the new part would be using them and you open them up to all, not just a few styles. So, back to the new solution being having more of it in play across a wider group of builds or banning it. Course, if it takes an extra fest, that makes the human feat variant even more appealing- so more ofvthstnond,...
    49 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 11:11 PM
    Uhhh adding the 5-10 to everyone who is into dsmage output is already raising the bar. Your shield guys and twf guys will already be adding their newfound 5-10 must have output in. Is there another game smashing must have feat we should be looking at too or is the new " must have" the +2 score option? When do we carve out enough thst balance isnt spelled " one way"?
    49 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 11:00 PM
    My thoughts... The humor and style is such that you will like it or not. That's very subjective. But while it goes a tad farther than I like, in my group some "conceptual anachronisms" are normal - basically the "Corp speak" no more actually what the character said than is our own english language as common. Many of the concepts being described existed in different forms. As for what I...
    112 replies | 5139 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 10:33 PM
    I believe the question is why the need to add the skill 5-10 at all? Do you not feel the 5-10 a track damage is not enough on own? My question would be different. According to the conventional white room wisdom the 5-10 outshines everything else. So you decide to solve that by giving every fighting style the 5-10 **not** by introducing other options that are equivslent.
    49 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 01:00 PM
    Don't force it. It plays as it plays. Reworking module bits before play is fine and having robust and resilient scenarios is key. But, no, not gonna just poof he gets away.
    54 replies | 1644 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 05:01 AM
    Ok, so just a couple things since it's obvious no headway is possible. Yes, you have multiple graphs where they go over many different elements of a variety of monk traits and almost all of them have dome wiggle vlsuse in them. One in the middle - not set spart) failed up to include a specific wiggle room bit *while it foes* use a rather unspecified term like "take their work serioudly" which...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 01:20 AM
    Yet, is anybody taking this as a case where we would say that in such a trap scenario or even setup such a trap without giving that pkayer or character guidance beforehand about "in this setting"??? I mean, really, it sounds like any number of ye olde jerk-GM paladin traps where they are presented with choding between losing paladinhood or letting folks die (or other horror) with vague...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 01:05 AM
    Uhhh... You are aware that those blurbs tend to list many different types in those descriptions? So, say, for instance the line about how critical the god is and the not follow specific divine arent at odds, just different options, right? See at this point it feels more like "hostile reading" looking for how it can be misconstrued instead of what it means. As for devotion psladins, again,...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 04:06 PM
    The value of any trait or combo of traits is (in rpg terms) how much it is needed or helps. That comes down to "what are the challenges the heroes will face, how often, how serious?" So, whenever I start looking at "fine tuning balance" (anything more precise than grossly out of whack) I look at the external demands put on by the GM and the setting or campaign, not tweaks and minutiae of rules...
    7 replies | 337 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 10:06 AM
    "If they wanted to leave it flexible to cover a variety of lore, it shouldn't go into the Class Features, but rather go into the lore sections of the class, like they do for every other class, and then actually add some narrative to said lore." Or, alternatively, it should be right where it is with no prescribed mechanicals so that the GMs can apply it to varying degrees as they see fit. ...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 09:00 AM
    "It doesn't take a very rigorous analysis to see that it requires more than a single line of text to cover this aspect of the class." Unless, the designer felt it did not need to be a cant, wanted to leave it flexible to cover the variety of lore (sometimes contradictory) across editions and setting and they knew it wasnt gonna break anything if a gm decided for their setting it was fine to...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 08:26 AM
    My homebrew for ranger takes favored terrain and makes it include "local terrain" after 24 hours. Its more getting to know the lay of the land. So, pretty much,except for short transition periods its there. For enemies, its more about familiarity and study.
    106 replies | 3931 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 08:20 AM
    To me it seemed we tended to tie the metal armor etc to wild shape and toss in a dash of fey vs iron nature lore in our "why" mag-o-babble for druids armor woes. Did it match up to a rigorous hard sci-fi logic logic analysis? Nope. But then once you explain how the mass of a druid shifts back and forth from tabby to bear to elf using the ssme level of scrutiny, then and only then will i start...
    466 replies | 9962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 06:01 PM
    "We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group. Yes? Does anyone disagree with that?" I do. Jayne is chaotic neutral for a lot of reasons - alignment is not determined by a singular act. Betraying your party to the authorities could be a lawful act or a good act as well - depending on the particulars. As for Han Solo, like most characters over long periods...
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 05:52 PM
    And in the course of the show and the movie most every character that got any development at all at one time or another made an intentional choice to defy orders, go against the group etc - even in cases that put others in danger - sometimes cuz they were led astray by those playing on their weaknesses. Remember the case where Mal's flaws led him to get taken out by Mrs Reynolds delivering...
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 05:40 PM
    If you take the term "untrusteorthy" to the extreme of anyone who ever messes up etc, then yup. But that makes everyone untrustworthy snd do the term becomes meaningless. Moreover, here us the rub, it also tends to blow any claim linking reliability and any relationship to lawful vs chaos. If falling asleep on watch means unreliable - there is nothing about lawful that says you dont fall...
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 04:40 AM
    Agreed. I think someone else pointed to the reason CN attracts the disruptors. It's the one seen as most do what you want that is approved in non-evil campaigns
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 04:39 AM
    No, it's the definition of not perfect. In fact, they did trust him after. Malcolm did specifically when he realized Jayne was actually ashamed of what he had done, not just upset he got caught. This is why alignments tend to not be extremes - all or nothing one-slip changes.
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 07:00 PM
    "But I think a game that's designed with this mode in mind is more likely to do the job cleanly." See, this is where we just have to disagree... It seem to me that 5e was built with all three modes in mind. Could they give more pre-defined use-cases for each - sure - but they went with a less rigid more "ruling" based push for all of them. It was built from ground up with ability checks...
    350 replies | 11014 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 06:41 PM
    5ekyu replied to Human Viability
    Imo if you use point buy it can make the +1 per better. But additionally, in practice the balance will more come from the types of threats and situations. Dont focus overly much on darkness scenarios where the lack of darkvision shows itself. Do show a substantial human or event human-centered group of settlements. I mean, to me, in fact every aspect of every character doesnt share...
    21 replies | 859 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 06:13 PM
    Well, to me, its as vague as succeed and fail are - they get about the same. I mean, if i am climbing a treacherous hillside do i fall on a fail or just get bo ehere? If i succeed is ot one check for the whole climb or one per my half speed climb segment? Basically, i do not see the progress with setback as any less detailed than the other two options - each is left to the gm to define...
    350 replies | 11014 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 18th June, 2019, 02:25 PM
    Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time. "He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most. Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas -...
    306 replies | 8165 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 10:17 PM
    "So I think the existence of engaging mechanics for social interaction can actually add to play rather than detract from it. The problem is that the most common social interaction rules aren't really all that engaging." The DMG setup for these involve the traits such as ideals, bonds, flaws- discovering them, exploiting them etc and can easily lead to no roll needed or an easy roll of DC 10.
    350 replies | 11014 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 10:13 PM
    If a group decides to go with simple binary for non-combst, then I tend to think thats what they want. The rules certainly dont require it. Both the GM and players csn ddcide to build as much into those as they eidh. I mean, ok, so if we look at stealth and hiding, we see it starts with GM determination of whether thsats evedn even possible well before you get yo jour toll. You got spells...
    350 replies | 11014 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 17th June, 2019, 07:11 PM
    To me, looking at your sneak example, that's a pretty bland setup. Its setup like it's a throwaway scene, not a real task. Add in a setup with meaningful scenery, NPCs around and scenes back and forth past the guards etc and you get opportunities for PCs to arrange distractions, to find ways that dont require stealth checks, to investigate and bribe or persuade etc etc etc. In other words,...
    350 replies | 11014 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About 5ekyu

Basic Information

Date of Birth
December 5
About 5ekyu
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,990
Posts Per Day
6.77
Last Post
Attacking defenseless NPCs Today 12:18 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
10
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:28 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 14th November, 2017
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019


Tuesday, 25th June, 2019


Monday, 24th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Saturday, 22nd June, 2019


Thursday, 20th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Tuesday, 18th June, 2019


Monday, 17th June, 2019



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 01:03 AM - Hussar mentioned 5ekyu in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    ...is diametrically opposed to everything that a team represents. It would make not sense that someone who is LG has to follow all the laws of the area they are currently in. If it is illegal to be a worshipper of <insert LG god in your campaign here> in my hypothetical orc-controlled kingdom do you really expect that LG cleric or paladin to just turn themselves in to the local authority? The fundamental belief system of my PC no matter what their alignment is not going to change because of where they happen to be located at the moment. I don't see how a PC could be playable if they had to obey every rule of every land they ever visit if they ever enter stray from countries that have reasonable and just laws. For one, following the laws of the land is not what lawful good is about. Lawful Neutral? Maybe. But, the good aspect of LG means judging laws based on morality and acting accordingly. What about LG would imply that they have to follow all the laws? ---- And, 5ekyu's idea of whims. You own definition states that whims are illogical - they cannot be explained. ---- Lastly, it's this whole "well chaotic can be just as reliable as lawful" that has made demons in D&D unbelievably bland. 3e was particularly egregious for this. Demons that have deep, methodical plots that involved many parts? What? Naw, you're the thing of raw chaos and destruction. Plans are for weasel tongued devils. You're a demon. Live the life. But, no, we get demons like Malcanthet and whatnot who are basically just devils with different damage resistances. BOOORRRIIIINGGG. If CN is functionally no different than LG, then there's no point in having alignment. If a CN character is just as reliable and dependable as a LG character, then why bother having alignment at all? And, honestly, if you want to play a reliable, dependable, works well with others character, why is it a huge problem for that character to write Lawful Good on the character sheet? W...

Saturday, 25th May, 2019


Monday, 6th May, 2019

  • 07:28 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Elfcrusher, I'm with 5ekyu on this. I don't place traps randomly. I don't use them very often and when I do it's in fairly obvious locations an situations. As I've stated before, when I do I rely heavily on passive checks. I've never had a 5E game devolve into checking for traps every 5 ft. Has anyone on this thread ever claimed they were in a game where that happened? Because it seems to be a strawman.

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 05:33 PM - Celebrim mentioned 5ekyu in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    5ekyu: The thing I like most about your post in which you describe your 4 different categories of challenge is that we almost entirely agree on the definitions and meanings of the terms, but having done so, you express an entirely different set of preferences and processes of play which you also present a reasonable case for. I don't agree with your preferences, and I have different ones and different processes of play, but I can't actually prove that you are right or wrong. Yet, we also agree that "challenge the player" and "challenge the character" are reasonable labels and define very different things. You probably won't be surprised to discover that just as you are trying to eliminate all category #1 challenges for your game, I'm trying to eliminate all category #2 challenges from mine.
  • 01:26 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ... going to be needed to discover and disable the trap. You can of course always take an alternate route. I don't view proficiency with a skill or tool all that much differently than proficiency with a weapon. Yes, a +1 sword will add 5% to your chance to hit and a climber's kit will stop you from falling more than 25 feet once you're anchored. But you still need to roll a d20 in all but a few edge cases to hit with the sword and you still need to roll a d20 to climb a wall unless it's a foregone conclusion that you can climb the wall safely. In any case, this was in response to a posting about how climbing a wall requires describing how you're climbing the wall and getting out a climber's kit, and so on and so forth. The vast majority of time I don't care. It's just a wall, make an athletics check to climb unless you have all the time in the world or you can't fall far enough to hurt yourself. If the latter case, you just climb the wall as part of the narration. [EDIT] I think 5ekyu probably put it better. If a PC's ability and proficiency score do not matter it's a player challenge. If it's something that gets resolved using a PC's stats, it's a PC challenge. In addition I use blended challenges sometimes, especially when it comes to puzzles; if the players are struggling I'll give them hints based on PC's capabilities.
  • 06:42 AM - Hussar mentioned 5ekyu in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    CleverNickName and 5ekyu and Mort get it. As was said, meaning is rarely in a vacuum. Challenge the character is simply shorthand for setting a challenge in the game that is addressed to the fictional abilities of the character and not directly addressed to the player. Combat is a perfect example really. Very few of us know how to use a halberd. None of us can cast a fireball. But, our characters can. How they do it? Dunno. Don't particularly care either. But, I do know that they can. So, when combat ensues, I'm not expected to tell the group how I hold my halberd or how I wave my hands and make a fireball shoot out. Sure, the decision to use a halberd or a fireball is a player decision, but, the solution to the problem of the orc standing between you and the pie is found with the character, not within your ability to figure out how to stab that orc. Once upon a time, adventures were designed to be very, very player facing. Tome of Horrors is probably the best example of this, but, there ...

Monday, 22nd April, 2019

  • 10:48 PM - Hussar mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I'm not going to get terribly concerned about how you want to describe the guy who fails 50% of the time or more. That's not really the point. The point is, the untrained guy, as 5ekyu points out, fails social checks that carry any sort of real penalty at least half the time. Again, not a very persuasive person. And, since, by the rules, if the NPC is actively hostile, the untrained, low Cha character (Cha 8) has zero chance of success, I'd say that he's not very persuasive. But, the point being, I'd rather you make the check first and then narrate. Solves all the inconsistency issues and falls in line with every other d20 roll you ever make. You don't narrate before an attack, you don't narrate before initiative, you don't narrate before a saving throw. You can't narrate before most other checks as well - physical checks is what I'm thinking here. You can't narrate a climb before you make your check. So, I simply follow the same method for all checks - make the check first and then deal with the fallout.

Friday, 19th April, 2019

  • 11:15 PM - Hussar mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    So even though I keep repeatedly saying that the performance doesn't matter, and that it's the content of the idea (the "approach") that counts, not how well it was delivered, you simply don't believe me? FWIW, you can't challenge the character. The character doesn't exist. You can only challenge the player. Part of resolving the challenge can use the numbers on the character sheet, but that still does not challenge the character. Now, the player can do their best to pretend to be the character when addressing the challenge, and that's great, but I don't want to get into a game of arbitrating what is good and bad, or valid and invalid, roleplaying. 5ekyu answered this quite well but, I thought I'd repeat. The approach matters. The approach is defined by the player. The player can define an approach regardless of what the character he or she is playing. Thus, we are challenging the player. I am not interested in that. Perhaps a better way for me to phrase it is that everything the player does must be shaped by the character and the results of the die roll. So, no your approach doesn't really matter to me. The results matter. Because, as you say, you don't want to arbitrate good or bad. Therefore, I don't. Remove approach and now there is nothing to arbitrate.
  • 02:01 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...more blunt ally. But the DC is a 20 regardless. What’s more, it doesn’t matter how good of an explanation either Player gives. No matter how many eloquent words the player of the blunt character uses, the DC is still 20 for this particular approach to this particular goal. And no matter how much of a mumble-mouth our player of the Cha 20 character is, they’ll still have a +8 to the roll. Pretty neat, eh? The scenario challenges the players. The difficulty of the task challenges the characters. Couple of things. One is that I run campaigns with a lot of RP, a lot of back-and-forth. So trying to persuade or convince people happens on a pretty regular basis. I don't want to stop someone from contributing because they run a low charisma character, but if I rely on a straight roll in a lot of times that is the result. This is something I've experienced from both sides of the DM's screen. I'm just not sure there's a good answer. Or at least not for me. Second (and I think 5ekyu brought this up) what a person says does matter. If they make a cogent argument, bring up salient points I'll give them advantage or lower the DC. I may also give the player some insight, history or straight intelligence checks to remember things that might be important. I also don't usually have a predetermined DC in mind. I run a sandbox campaign most of the time, I know who's who and what's going on but the PCs largely drive the story. I may have never foreseen that they'd try diplomacy with the rat king, but they're free to do so. So I'm making up the DC on the fly and I'm simply acknowledging that what the player says will probably affect the DC.
  • 07:29 AM - pemerton mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...y the Troll King, then they can expect to have to make some suboptimal moves. A bit like when a fight goes bad and the wizard has to start declaring melee attacks. At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure. So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing.That was me, not Charlaquin. As per a post I made not too long ago days-wise but maybe 100+ posts upthread, there are different approaches possible and this thread is bringing out some of those differences. Just to mention some of the posters I've interacted with: The approach I'm describing (which I use in 4e and which I think could be ported to 5e) has some similiarities to 5ekyu's, but is not identical (as can be seen in the discussion of the Audience With the Troll King scenario). Ovinomancer also does some things similar to me - eg in some recent posts mentions the idea of keeping up the pressure on the players via their PCs - but not identically I don't think. I also have some similiarites to Elfcrusher and Charlaquin - eg regarding the fictional specification of the declared action as very important - but some differences - eg I call for more checks than they do (see my quote upthread from Luke Crane for the reasons why). I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and making things worse for the party that instead they opt to do nothing. So, when I see people saying that by adding more consequences for failing a roll than simply defaulting to the status quo, and that makes their players more eager to act, that goes against everything I have seen with new players. The more consequences there are, the more likely they are t...

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 06:42 AM - Elfcrusher mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I listen at the door is at the minimum threshold, i think. If I'm being sober about it, I think "I listen at the door" is fine, too, if minimal. The problem with that example is that it's probably where the two different styles meet, so it's not really a great illustration of the difference. And, yes, I'd say there's a lot more engineering in @Elfcrusher's game than mine, His example of how much thinking goes into his games is a very far cry from the "oh, crap, I supposed to run in 15 minutes" I usually do. For the record, although I'd like for my game to be as "engineered", and to unfold as nicely, as the example I narrated earlier, it's definitely the exception. I find myself winging it much more than I want to, and too often think afterward "Oh, what I should have done was...." I'm not a great improv DM. I'll add that I'm still licking my wounds over the accusation (e.g. @5ekyu) that it was over-engineered, that I wasn't allowing for the possibility that the story might unfold a different way. On the one hand, I really wanted (needed?) them to eventually/somehow find and open the secret door, and I had a couple of likely pathways mapped out. But yes...of course...if they did something completely unexpected (like siding with the Lady's attackers) I would have adapted.

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 02:51 AM - pemerton mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...a few times in this particular dungeon. Now, what happens if they do not roll perception? They get ambushed. So... what happens if they do roll perception? They get ambushed. And, to my mind, there is clearly uncertain circumstance if they press their ears to the door to see if they can hear enemies waiting on the other side. This clearly needs a roll. But the way you are describing this to me, in trying to be cautious and come up with a plan, they are inviting the possibility of worse things happening than just getting ambushed. Failing has to be worse than not trying. And knowledge skills... yeah, I've heard of the idea of telling the players lies when they roll low. The problem? I let my players roll their own dice. So, they know they rolled low, and they know it is likely what they have learned is a lie.I can only speak for my own approach - and to reiterate my earlier disclosure, I'm not playing 5e (although some people in this thread - especially 5ekyu, if I've understood properly - use a similar approach in 5e). I use a broadly similar approach in 4e, Cortex+ Heroic, and Burning Wheel. (Prince Valiant doesn't really involve knowledge/perception checks, so this issue hasn't come up; and Classic Traveller is a bit different too as I posted not far upthread.) Your examples seem to take it as a given that the fiction already contains an answer - that there is an ambush, or that the truth of the situation is such-and-such. But I'm using these checks to establish the fiction. An example, not too far upthread, is of the search for the mace. The check fails, and so the PCs discover something they didn't want to be true (namely, that the brother was an evil manufacturer of cursed black arrows). If the players declare that they are trying to ascertain whether or not an ambush is behind a door, then there will already be some context in play that makes ambushes a salient stake. A successful check might mean the PCs learn there is no o...

Tuesday, 9th April, 2019

  • 07:51 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned 5ekyu in post My "Insane" house Rule on healing
    5ekyu - That doesn't sound crazy. It actually reminds me a bit of healing surges in 4e. I kind of like the idea, to be honest. But I do have some questions. How do you handle things like the Life Cleric? Also, since a paladin no longer needs a "pool" of hit points for Lay on Hands, do you change this to a number of uses per rest? Also, how do you handle the curing of poison or disease with Lay on Hands?
  • 08:49 AM - Caliburn101 mentioned 5ekyu in post Incorporeal Creatures Carrying Objects
    @5ekyu I note that you sidestepped the entire point of my post and didn't answer any of the situational conflicts the RAW give rise to - concentrating on the only element of your argument that is on solid ground. Let me make one last appeal to you to answer on the many exceptions to the way in which the rule is supposed to work, but doesn't. The definition (insofar as it goes...) of the Trait is not the problem. The extremely limited scope of the Incorporeal Trait is. It cannot be utilised at the table as written in any of the circumstances I have described without houseruling. It cannot. Therefore a DM is forced to rule what incorporeal means at their table - making the issue of whether they can carry things and if they can under what restrictions and circumstances a necessary consideration for any DM. What incorporeal means at one table differs from another - there being a suite of different answers to the various interactions with solid objects such monster will make as the DM sees i...

Monday, 8th April, 2019

  • 07:13 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...mething like "they seem to be telling the truth" or maybe "they seem to be a bit nervous, but your not sure why". So I never tell anyone with 100% certainty that someone is lying or telling the truth with an insight check. It's just a skill, not magic. Even if an NPC is using deception, the insight check won't be a guarantee more of a feeling that they're hiding something or their unconsciously glancing at someone or something nervously. I always allow people to ask if they can do any skill check. I'll only tell them they can't if it should be obvious from the perspective of the PC that it's not possible. Superman may be able to leap buildings with a single bound, PCs by and large cannot. But otherwise they're always allowed to try even if it will fail because it reflects the effort. I don't care if I know the skill check won't alter the outcome. In the case of the OP it's not obvious from the perspective of the PC that the skill check will always have the same result. 5ekyu, I pre-map almost nothing. I'm quite lazy and rarely even pre-draw maps lower than region or maybe a city down to the neighborhood level. I gave up on trying to figure out what my players were going to do ahead of time a long time ago. So I focus on organizations, conflicts, alliances, general environment and ecology. But I do set things in place that I think make sense. If the NPC should have traps, they probably will. Related to that, I almost never use complex traps unless they're powered by magic or maintained by undead/automatons because I find them silly. While I frequently have multiple ways around obstacles or allow the players to come up with something I didn't think of, describing how you're doing what I deem a skill check is not one of them. Coming up with a different way to do the skill check (arcana to freeze the trap with Ray of Frost for example) is fine. Some people indicate that they will allow a good description to bypass just about any obstacle and feel like...

Sunday, 7th April, 2019

  • 02:56 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post How do YOU handle a Fastball Special, and other team manuevers?
    If it ever came up, which it hasn't, I would probably do similar to 5ekyu or give both PCs a check. The check could be athletics or acrobatics for the PC being thrown. For example if the fighter is throwing the halfling rogue, the fighter is providing the oomph while the halfling is providing the finesse. I wouldn't add a ton of distance either way, just use the highest distance possible jump ignoring special class features or magic and give advantage to the person being thrown to their skill check. All the other action economy restrictions would still apply.

Thursday, 4th April, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019

  • 02:13 AM - Hawk Diesel mentioned 5ekyu in post True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse
    5ekyu - Not trying to start an argument or come off disrespectfully. But I honestly don't see the thing that you are seeing. It would be helpful if you provide some concrete examples. Most of the cases you describe give plenty of options for using your bonus action. So requiring you to have access to cantrip *and* give up bonus action on the turn of use is an opportunity cost. So to my knowledge, most fighters only have access to Second Wind as a normal bonus action, which is only once per rest. Two-Weapon fighters will use their bonus action for an additional attack, but once you get access to Extra Attack it seems it would be more beneficial to use a bonus action for your version of True Strike. The same applies to the bonus action attack from Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Especially since your primary weapon is likely to deal more damage on a hit than your secondary weapon. Those with the Shield Master feat would lose out on using shove as a bonus action, but I most often ...

Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019

  • 09:34 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned 5ekyu in post True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse
    5ekyu Your version runs into the same issue though. Rogues with access to this cantrip would always get their sneak attack. Fighters (not even just Eldritch Knights) would effectively get an unlimited lesser version of Action Surge, or put another way, a better version of Barbarian's Reckless Attack since it has no penalty tied to it. Not only that, but by limiting the attack to a weapon attack, you make it an even more useless cantrip to actual spellcasters that might consider such a cantrip. As to your point about smites and sneak attacks, at least in my version such characters give up a round of not being able to sneak attack or smite. They may be more likely to use sneak attack or smite the next round, but most times the damage boost from True Strike is less than 2 rounds of smite/sneak attack damage. The point of my version is meant to be risk/reward. You give up an action, so your next attack can be more reliable with a slight damage boost. The only edge case I see becoming probl...
  • 01:05 PM - Oofta mentioned 5ekyu in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    That is an important question for GMs to ask, to avoid the following situation. Player: I search the door for traps. GM: As you touch it, contact poison seeps into your skin, make— Player: Hang on, I never said I touched the door! That's not fair! I think 5ekyu responded with better details, but the simple answer is "don't be a dick DM". If you are, I'll walk. After all I could also have Player: "I look closely at the trap, leaning in to examine it. I'm being careful not to touch it while rubbing my arm stub where we had to cut off my hand to stop the poison from last door." DM: "Ha! A needle springs forth and stabs you in the eye! Not only do you take 20 points of damage from the poison but you're permanently blinded in that eye!" Player: "Gah! Not my good eye!" I can play "gotcha" with whatever style of play you want. ;)


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 96 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Thursday, 27th June, 2019

  • 12:31 AM - Bawylie quoted 5ekyu in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    Fiat treshold is that line in the gms mind of "helpless enough" to qualify for tossing the normal damage system and moving to the checkmate or plan-b or whatever. Its when you cut from orc on guard duty to that same orc having insufficient defenses. I mean, if we assume the hidden archer vs orc guard is possibly at play for checkmate, then some degree of bored was mentioned. I would think some degree of armored would apply too, since armor is designed to cover vital spots. But at some point a gm decides against using the system rules for attacker unseen against surprise first round of combat and going checkmate - based on a culmination of stuff in his head. Does guard in full plate vs guard naked play a role other than AC here? If its a cresture with natural armor does a dart throw still have the same pop-n-kill threshold as a longbow? Etc etc etc. I see. So if we cast sleep on the orc, we’d all be in agreement that orc would be uniquely vulnerable. But there’s a gray area betwe...
  • 12:28 AM - Oofta quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Also, it says the monster, not the troll.... so obviously, every time I burn a monster a troll is killed. We can add it to the pile of dead orcs over on the non middle ages genre thread. ;)

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019

  • 11:49 PM - Bawylie quoted 5ekyu in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    I get invis is not as one-stop-easy-pop as Holds become, but it covers a lot of the workload one would "in real life" would see as "common sense" to reach anything like a consistant "fiat threshold". But simply put, in the game now, its powerful for a 2nd level spell with only one shot possibly getting you advantage (rest is class features). Add in the "fiat checkmate bar" so that this can be a help towards insta-kill, it goes up a lot, imo. But out of curiousity what level did you move holds to or did you just ban them altogether after checkmate? Didn’t take any position on Holds. I have no wizards or sorcerers in any group at the moment. What is a “fiat threshold?”
  • 11:35 PM - Bawylie quoted 5ekyu in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    It seems to me reading about the checkmate rule - Hold Person and its ilk all move to tier-3 spells. Any monsters etc that toss outnparalysis on hit jump up to tier-3 CR too. Those are just off the top of my head. Have to figure out where in tier-2 we move Invisibility now that one-hit can be one-kill by-passing HP. My guess is invisibility goes to replace its 4th level greater version and that one goes to tier-3 at 7th level. Invisibility is helpful but IMO it does not, on its own, satisfy “target is totally unaware of you.”
  • 01:37 PM - Oofta quoted 5ekyu in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    And deer do not normally have armor over key vital spots - at least round here. Lucky you. Around here I think they're getting ready to fight back. 107260
  • 07:02 AM - cbwjm quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    To me I would have: Put hide armor as light and studded as medium. Adjust scores and values. Give druids light armor and shields Give wildshape restrictions if wearing medium or heavy armor or metal shields. Basically, they wont be merged into the form. Have to be left behind.I think if there was some kind of mechanical restriction like that then there would be far less people questioning the current restriction on druid armour.
  • 05:10 AM - Maxperson quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I generally assumed that if a rule is important for controversial, then the one who wants it to be clear that it's not used as RAW should bring it up. It's not that important of a rule. The penalties for breaking it are spelled out. No need to hash out something that already fixed.
  • 05:08 AM - Maxperson quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    And if the solution they players decided they needed was to cast invisibility on all four PCs but they only had three slots left, do they get to cast three or four invisibility? LOL If you are familiar with sandbox play, at all even a smidge or a tad, then you might be aware that that means sometimes you encounter challenges you cannot get thru as is and might have to pull back and regroup until you find another option. Happily, this was not one of those times. The druid could put on armor and they can get through it. Right? Dkmetjmescthere might not be a way thru it within the rules. Does your defijiyionnof sandbox then ssy the GM should just change the rules for them? That's like the opposite of sandbox. Putting on armor is within the rules. Taboo is not binding. The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is. It's losing access to the druids magical abilities. That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk ...
  • 04:28 AM - Maxperson quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    "This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. " Uh huh... GM sny quedtions? Player - So what about PvP? GM Pvp isnt allowed. Try it and get NPCed. Player OK GM Got charscter idea. Player- Thinking druid. GM - I add in various forms of shell snd natural axle but the will not wear metal is there. Player - Got it. Now, maybe the FM expressed this by just saying RAW but hey, it is what it is. I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
  • 04:26 AM - Maxperson quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Nope. **if** the gm setup a druid trap situation so that the only way to survive was for the dtuidnplayer to violate the rule they agreed to play, then thats on the GM. His failing was sgreringbthst druids in this campaign will not wear nrtsl armor and then setting up an "'only way" trap against that. Thsts the GM violating the rule. On the other hand, if there were/are multiple options and due to failure or choices the players have driven thfmsrlve to " no opyionsvthry like better than violating the rules" then thsts on them and they cannot break the rule, any more than if it was a case of PvP or die. So, hey, it noilscfoen to very simple, you cannot violate the rules you agree to play by. So if the GM forces you to a no-win its z no-win. If you work yourself into a no-win, its a no-win. "Hey, we cannot win this fight unless I have zanother fireball but I used sll my slots already?" What a tyrant. So, apparently you're unfamiliar with sandbox play. Encounters are not build with the...
  • 01:55 AM - Maxperson quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue. Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like plot points and gave them the ability to suspend certain restrictions for short time or enabling 10d15 damage weapons - that is obviously different. Things change during gameplay, though. A druid might be willing to put on metal armor in order to save a forest or something else important to the character. When choosing druid, the player does not agree to let the character's character die in order to maintain no armor. If the only option to stay true to the character is to don metal armor briefly, the player can have his druid do that. A DM who says no doesn't deserve the job.

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 10:56 PM - coolAlias quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    "What I AM saying is that if paladins are able to freely choose to break their oaths, and clerics to defy their deities, etc., then a druid should equally be free to choose to wear metal armor, and suffer in-game consequences for that decision just like the other classes." What I am saying is that if that is going to be the rules st play in your game, those rules should be in place and set down - preferably session zero but definitely before and druid charsacter escape chargen approved. As for whether or not st any table druids and paladins should be the same or different, unlike you, I dont give a crap. It only matters to me if it's my table then it's a discussion. But if at my neighbors they say druids csn freely wear armor but paladin oaths violation bring consequences- I dont care. There is plenty of room in the world for tables that same-up paladins and druids * and* games where they are very distinct. It seems, then, that we are fundamentally in agreement. Carry on.
  • 10:32 PM - coolAlias quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Assuming you are talking a devotion paladin where the tenets vover thst kind of activity, no I wouldn't tell them that because thats silly. See, the rules agreed to play by, assuming RAW, include that whole section on breaking oaths, even the bestest is fallible, hest of moment, emotion, etc etc etc. So, that makes it clear that the rules show you the tenets as stuff you aspire to, not hard and fast prohibitions. It would be like say, our rule on pvp was " if you pvp, your character loses a level." That's a whole different rule than "our characters will not PvP." See the diff? Perhaps you are misunderstanding my stance here. I am NOT saying that anyone should be able to create a druid character that non-chalantly wears metal armor at any 5e D&D table anywhere in the world. I am NOT saying that a player should be allowed to break the group's social contract - a group that has agreed no PvP is well within their right to ignore a player saying they stab their companion in the back. What ...
  • 10:24 PM - JonnyP71 quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Personally, player agency tells me a player should take this up with the GM if its gonna be a problem **at chargen**. Maybe we work sonething out, maybe we dont and you choose a different class or table but when you wait until its an inconvenirnt agreement pull your player agency fury card, that comes off as weaponizing the dispute every bit as much as yee olde jerk GM putting paladins of old in alignment traps with no way out. In the game I run now, shell-based breastplate armor made sn appearance by like 3rd level and the genasi ranger and druid had to sort out who got it. Good roleplaying even through today. In mine it was blue dragonscale armour (essentially medium armour, protects as per scale mail, no penalty to stealth, resistance to electrical damage) - at about level 8. The party's Bard swiped it... oh well. And yep, session 0 is when expectations are to be thrashed out.... not during play - that's very bad form.
  • 09:57 PM - coolAlias quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Damned good explanation - for either will not PvP or will not metal armor - "that is what all of us, including you, agreed to." See, this avoids having to re-litigate the "will not" every f'n time we hit another case where it's a trifle inconvenient for you to actually follow what you agreed to. I mean , it's likely to rarely come up and when the few times its inconvenient just deciding to re-hash it again is, well, we know what that is. Dont we? So when a player playing a paladin decides that their character is going to lie or cheat or steal, you tell them that they can't?
  • 08:34 PM - lowkey13 quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Yet, it's the smackdown on auth-ori-tye caused by saying "no" to waiving "will not" that earns you your tyrants-r-us rewards card. I very much would like that card!
  • 08:19 PM - coolAlias quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    What you describe as "DM Fiat" is what I would say is "A Player Following the Rules." And not only is there a printed rule in actual rulebooks, but there is a further explanation that this is the way it is, UNLESS your DM allows it. Just like there may not be anything preventing PVP yet many games manage to run a non- PVP game without a hitch. But here, for some, the rule being actually in print in the rules somehow makes it seem **less binding** than the table no-pvp rule would be. To me, you agreeing to play by the printed rule is as binding as you agreeing to play by the table rule. But apparently to some that's tyranical. I'm not saying it's tyrannical, nor am I saying it's not a rule. The point is that the rule says "won't" - in English, that does NOT mean "can't." Would a player that refuses to abide by this rule be out of line, assuming that the DM did not explicitly exempt them from it? Absolutely. Would a DM that tells a player their druid character absolutely cannot pu...
  • 04:18 PM - Sacrosanct quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day. Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means). Is it opposite week and I missed it or something? But you know what? Go to an AL game with a...
  • 03:18 PM - Sadras quoted 5ekyu in post Changing rest periods
    So, has anyone looked at say linking rests available to Con in some way that turned that stat into a significant player in the rest game? ...(snip)... So, this pretty much let's you at chargen pay for your "field endurance" capability. I find this is already done at class level - so a Battlemaster who is all short rest abilities can go NOVA many more times than your wizard. I wouldn't want to compound that with an additional high CON requirement (CON already has the hp thing going for it). As an aside: That is one of the primary reasons why my recharge rest variant uses one's primary ability rather than CON.
  • 03:14 PM - robus quoted 5ekyu in post Abilities....Which check would you use?
    Just to be clear tho, this definition of approach if I read you correct does not require any specific action of the character to be stated? There was no guidance as to what the character is doing, just the player stating a list of factors that they want the gm to consider. The action is the character recalling their knowledge and experience for help in interpreting the tracks. Yes, they're not moving their body, but that doesn't mean they're not doing something. And by describing their examination in such terms, connecting their characters experience to the task at hand, it clearly communicates to the DM that their character knows what they're doing and should either get the information they need, or at least get some boost to any check that might be called.


Page 1 of 96 123456789101151 ... LastLast

5ekyu's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites