View Profile: 5ekyu - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Today, 10:13 AM
    "Eh, depends upon your definition of viable. But Ok." For me, capable of working successfully; feasible. In an RPG (say 5e) that includes fun for me, enjoyable for others, able to contribute meaningfully in two of the three pillars. And yeah, dwarven wizards or other spellcasters classe are fine at that.
    35 replies | 811 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:36 PM
    WoD d10 threshold dice pools. 2d20 threshold dice pools plus roll under plus difficulty as successes. Mutants and Masterminds damage/effect saves snd tiers of effect. 5e advantage/disadvantage and default fail to "some progress with setback" in the definition of fail. FASERIP stunts
    22 replies | 699 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:28 PM
    In my experience- a lot of modern and alien scifi etc... the language and culture conceits just aide play. The times where anything like the diversity of language possible was put into play without some hand-wave such as universal translator or babble-fish mage rpg more fun on an ongoing basis is small compared to the frustrations of ongoing tries to play thru the "how do we communicate". It's...
    29 replies | 636 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:18 PM
    Not sure if this matters orcspplies, cuz I was not sure what the conclusion of your poet was, but... In my game I removed a **lot** of the common hesling potions etc, removing the load-up-equipment HP return that was basically only controlled by inventory. I also added a house rule allowing characters to spend HD when they regained HP by magical means and common elixirs that also allow...
    3 replies | 248 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:09 PM
    Honestly, just looking at the sub-classes much les the many different imaginable concepts for woodland guy with weapons and magic leave me with much broader view of skills than that three or four "hhnter/scouts" that were claimed as "or not a ranger". This gets even broader when one thinks of multi-classing and many concepts there. While I could get behind the "when you get to 10th and...
    65 replies | 1793 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 10:38 AM
    So we require them to all take proficiency **and** spend ability scores on dex? Both are required to be "good" at stealth, right? Is 16 dex minimum at 1st tier enough? Tier-2 18. Tier 3-4 30? I mean, we are deciding that non-proficiency with 18 dex for +4 to stealth is *not good enough* to be allowed to be chosen in the game at 5th level so it seems clear that say 12 dex and proficiency for...
    65 replies | 1793 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 10:24 AM
    It's always interesting how when extolling the virtues of random rolls one chooses a good and interesting random result, isnt it. So you optimize for Con but that PC barbarian does too. Whst if the roll limited all to 16? Or your top stat was Wis? Or maybe it was a decent combo but just not in line with your desired objectives? Or what is several different fighters got very similar tops...
    51 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 10:17 AM
    5-10 most important 1-4 next 11-15 next 16+ hardly matters
    16 replies | 548 view(s)
    5 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:17 PM
    In my experience, most pick class-race that gives them either a +1 or +2 not strictly +2 because fishing for two 16s is pretty easy for either point buy or array. But also, the next tier is the race that gives you add-ons that matter to that class. So, if you remove ability scores ftom race, you boil down to the same folks who choose for optimal now choose based on the features. So, to...
    51 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:20 PM
    Said fighter has indom multiple times so that's several failed save with rerolls - which puts his passing at like close to 50%. Wizard doubling his HP gets him what, an extra round?
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:15 PM
    The "gets rid of" is an area which bothers me. Like most changes it just swaps the "best of" combo's around a smidge picking different winners and losers. Myself I woulda expected halfling to still see some rogue play for their hiding edge in crowds unless your targeted get rid of cut that as well.
    51 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    lowkey13 "So, what do y'all think?" I think that's a list of preferences you have and that are thus fine, even tho I disagree with all 10 which might be a record for consistency.
    72 replies | 2387 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:39 AM
    Uhhh actually, since all classes have unfavored saves this isn't really just fighters but the reason for the bard, paladin, etc ability to cover saves for others bring relevant is to point out how this is a team combo game, not fantasy cage match. If all classes were much better at their off saves snd you add in the existing bonuses you choose to leave out to frame your position, save spells...
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:24 AM
    No, I haven't but then I havent seen a 20th level fighter with 8 wisdom in a featless game with no buffs either.
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:23 AM
    Isnt the baseline exsmple for the vulnerability used here sn 8 wisdom fighter? Wasnt the "the same" mocking compared to thst? If we are gonna compare the heinous vulnerability of a 20 fighter with 8 wis in a festless game with no buffs vs saves to the hp protection of w izard, why isn't the same determination of how gimped the wizard would be ok ?
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 09:00 PM
    Yeah another round of the old saw without really even imaginative packaging while fighters remain one of or the most played classes.
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:56 PM
    Really? 20th level wizard with 8 con and no investment in hp has on average what - using fixed HP option 5+19x3 or 62 hp. What's the single turn output of say a 20th level battle master or EK or Elven Archer with maxed stats and expected gear? As you observe a one turn assault from a fighter with main weapons has decent chance to ko wizard at 1st vs first. But at with vs a wizard who made...
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:18 PM
    I see no way it breaks the game. But "breaks the game - yes/no" is for me necessary to pass for a house rule but not sufficient. If it breaks the game, it wont be added. But it needs more than that to be considered. Do, what is the goal you are seeking to achieve? What play problems led you to look for a house rule? Why did this specific rule out-shine the other options to deal with that...
    37 replies | 910 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:33 PM
    Any character voncept gine at 26 is not even involved in a max cap use case, unless the lower cap is 15. Thst said, I think the focus on the higher caps is overvalued. I cannot imagine it bring a major decision for me at chargen.
    51 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:29 PM
    This could be handled by the wording. If the extra new gimmicks to be named all had "on your turn" they would be much the same for AO as extra attack is now.
    44 replies | 1444 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:50 PM
    Significant elements that can effect long term viability and performance should not be random in my view so no. If instead you went with ssy your favored saves stats could go higher, maybe. If it was racial, sure. Random, no choice, nope.
    51 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:21 PM
    "But, who would rebel against not getting multiple attacks on standard characters?" As a rule, removing a distinctive festure with the promise of other distinctive features leave me cold. Its removing a given differentiation that seems fairly versatile and promising a lot of new stuff that's unseen and not itself assessable. So, if you added the greatest stuff of all time then hey...
    44 replies | 1444 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:07 PM
    Realized most of what I said was covered in another post. ?
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:00 PM
    "You are entitled to your opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everyone I've discussed this with, that is not how D&D5 was designed. The rogue class depends on sneak attack every round, with exceptions being the rarity." Uhhh... so see, there you are kinda linking two things only tangentially related. The rogues in my games played and ran got sneaks pretty much unless they missed. ...
    104 replies | 2842 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:13 PM
    Not a feat. But could be a fsntastic background.
    8 replies | 430 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:04 PM
    "Should your character not always be better at nearly everything he does as a level 20 character than when he was a level 1 character." Everything he does, sure. All the things he could have done or ever do? Nope. But its just a matter of how you represent the better? A 20th level wizard can pull out his dagger and wipe the floor with a 1st level wizard. He doesnt beed to get more and more...
    224 replies | 5730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 10:59 PM
    5ekyu replied to OSR Gripes
    Hah. Sounds like the slow motion version of traveller's death in chargen, only here you may get to take other PCs folks like with you!!! :-)
    229 replies | 7466 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:44 PM
    Fenris-77 "Combat is different precisely because everyone does get a turn and the system supports the participation of the whole party. Even if you didn't land the mortal blow, you got your licks in. Social interaction doesn't currently work like that, but I think it should. Part of what I'm working on is ways to do that, both in smaller scale encounters and especially is larger scale social...
    104 replies | 2842 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:01 PM
    See, to me, things like this fail on multiple levels. First, it isnt very significsnt. Tier 1 and 2 it pays off 1 off-save in 20 mostly Second, since it's just baked in automatically, its invisible. It's just another pre- figured bonys among bonuses. Three, it reduces character differences. Its literally everyone gets it **and** it drops the gap between the individual choices a tad...
    71 replies | 1996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 11:44 AM
    As RAW, Ri think AI snd imo RAF I would *not* rule that NonD covers the various "ask for guidance" type spells. Those tend to be along the line of checking eith the more informed, not any sort of active scan. There nothing to say the basis for those replies isn't info or wisdom gained from eons of knowledge, wisdom and experience. I **might** as GM ratchet up the vague level if there is a...
    2 replies | 199 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 11:33 AM
    Have not read whole thread do likely repeating, the goal of expertise snd reliable is to allow the tier-3 rogue to be able to so excel at routine tasks that it's not a challenge. As game evolves, challenges of certain types fall away as the capabilities increase. A 20' pit might be eortidome at lower levels yoo, but by 11th, not so much. But I would take issue with this "To be clear,...
    104 replies | 2842 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 05:43 PM
    Honestly, I can easily see this combo bring frustrating, but... To me in 5e the "value" of a primary melee only bbeg without it having chosen favorable terrain and circumstance is close to nil before we get anywhere near double feat reach weapon combos. To be s challenging boss much less any sort of finale style contedt, challenges for z gtoup need to be far more robust and resilient than one...
    76 replies | 5531 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 08:07 AM
    5ekyu replied to Lighting Effects
    Barring obscuring effects the lighting at the target is what matters.
    34 replies | 1112 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:07 AM
    That is marrying more than a little bit of "background" into the class. Fighter doesnt have to mean soldier and vice versa. For me, in the past, honestly some of my most hobnob with guards and soldiers were rangers and rogues (former scouts) and clerics (obviously healers and war god types but really, most any.) "In the business" for guard, city watch and "stuff like that" ought not to be...
    231 replies | 9428 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:00 AM
    In terms of overall strength, I myself think the idea of a melee team of a pair of combat oriented rogues instead of the presumed fighter and rogue to be quite interesting. Not just looking at the whitecrokm warrior fu but the strength in overall campaign performance of that as your lead "grunts" (especially if you add in say a druid or bard and a wizard or sorc leads to some very different sets...
    231 replies | 9428 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 02:48 AM
    If all you compare is one fighter's attack action vs another fighter's attack action, you have eliminated like 99.99999% of the factors in play in a combat and so any conclusions judgements have practically no value in terms of an assessment over which class does more damage? You make this too easy when your last paragraph is a perfect proof of my point about assumptions and "non-quantifiable...
    231 replies | 9428 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 08:52 PM
    "If done well, I think it could lead to making combat more dynamic. What do you think?" Well, as dynamic is in the eye of the beholder, my bet is you are right for some and not for others. Usually changes just swap the old "here is how to..." with a new one. This is the kind of thing practically impossible to add after-markrt and have work. Systems need to be built around and balanced...
    25 replies | 752 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 05:27 PM
    5ekyu replied to Lighting Effects
    The perception is based on the illumination at the target being observed. Unless any of the conditions provide obscuration the intervening areas do not matter. So the guy next to the torch is observed as if in bright light - no penalties barring some special sensitivity. The guy in dim light is perceived as in din light - rolls at disadvantage to see much about them but not unseen or hidden...
    34 replies | 1112 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 11:16 AM
    "You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. " Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective". The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily...
    231 replies | 9428 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 03:31 AM
    Regarding Paryy - one of the things that strikes me as missing in 5e is a bit of the softer offense vs defense choices. The old flavors of power attack and defensive attack (give up to-hits for bonus damage or AC vs melee) seem missing or replaced by their more all-or-nothing extremes. Easy enough to add. Might also be on some magic items.
    47 replies | 3225 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 10:09 PM
    I tend to agree that the invocations as written do not pack the umphhh to replace both cantrip and slot loss. So, I would be looking at giving more patron and pact powers to make up the diff - on top of a little more invocations. But you are effectively redesigning the class power focus from scratch - so this would be a major effort with a lot of playtest and revision expected before it...
    15 replies | 609 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 07:19 AM
    "You want to rest where? Well, yeah you can try, but..."
    50 replies | 1879 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 10:17 PM
    In a game, if the GM agrees the rules they are using is "druids will not wear metal armor" then that GM wont be mind controlling PC druids to fo do or forcing them into traps where "the only choice" is to do do. That would be violating the agreement, not unlike giving paladins a no-win alignment test in ye olde days. In a game, if the player agrees the rules they are using is "druids will not...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 07:31 PM
    I mentioned many pages ago that such would be fine for my games - all player has to provide compelling story tie-in to get to it. That said, I would also grtbhuy-in that the metal srmor's they csn wesp ste ones made from specpcial sanctified metals, prepared such snd duch a way etc- basuvpcslly "kosher" and worthy of his "divine's notice. So, just run of the mill armor tskrn off corpses or...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:59 PM
    Another general go-to i use a lot stems from the notion and trope that "evil doesn't play well with others" and "everything is better with three sides.". basically when adapting modules or other such products i fond its good to add in divisions and cracks within and between the various groups and individuals to reflect the situations not being as much of a monolithic presentation as often put...
    37 replies | 1128 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 03:28 PM
    2.5 sessions seems fine for intro but fast after that. We use a scaling rate of 3-4 x tier sessions per level. The wiggle at 3-4 gives us good flexibility in timing. We like that pace of advancement. It gives a good amount of time to get to use new stuff before leveling again. If I were going to change it I would change it to 6-7 x tier sessions and let them level two levels each time....
    45 replies | 1786 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:51 PM
    Oh, yeah, Millenium's End.
    111 replies | 8235 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 05:24 AM
    My first 5e game had two clerics. My current has none - but has druid, two bards, ranger and barbarian so... they kinda (over?)covered that in other ways. :-)
    101 replies | 3046 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 05:04 AM
    Actually, no my point us not yours. Alignment has never been straightjacket. They were from day one established as reactive to sctions, choices and changeable. Rules about what one class can do and another cant are, if you will, straight jackets. There is no rule that says a nature cleric can suddenly decide to cast bard spells - they have to do that by some other means. They cannot just...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 12:19 AM
    Our first games had true neutral druid as I recall and he played it pretty aloof as I recall, but since alignments were not straight jackets even then, it created flavor, challenges but not problems, for us at least. Obviously, that time is known for some folks making alignments into a problem with paladins being the notable extremes. Mismatches can occur anytime the player and the GM are...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 11:54 PM
    Have zero desire to get into rehashing. 4 decades old slignment disputes. Alignment in DnD has, for PCs, as i recall always been non-straightjacket. It could be violated and often had cnsewuences for some classes and was often pretty up to GM determination for when violations occur. So, no big deal. And, yes, if a player chooses to play a character so mono-focused and the gm allows it in,...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 09:22 PM
    If I were looking to publish a setting, modern would be wat down the lists. In today's climate, any references to real world topics is a bit of a landmine. On the other hand, if you go the DC "star city, central city" renames you wind up with a touch of hokey. So, by the time you go far enough into "it's not here" you are going as much work as a new era would need.
    101 replies | 5032 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 09:14 PM
    One man's lore is another man's extremism and one man's burr in saddle is another man's opportunity. I tended from 1e on as seeing druids as about balance in things not "shunning" civilization. Many druids eould be fine with villages and towns as long as it was not too disruptive to the nature around it. As for your laundry list of whys? I see these as opportunities, not problems. You might...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:58 PM
    5ekyu replied to Expertise Feat
    I would look at XGtE racial feat Prodigy as a go-to pattern.
    13 replies | 535 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 06:23 PM
    Of course, if its commonplace and accepted, it's pretty much a wash right, as far as competitions go? Both sides get their juice from God and everyone expects folks to be juicin' so no big deal unless you are one of those competing clean. But hey your lock picking is upped by sneaky cleric whispers, but then, when the lock was made or the security setup they likely had their cleric of order...
    132 replies | 65262 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:12 PM
    This explains a lot. Thanks.
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:11 PM
    "This goes south generally when the result goes against the player, and the typical mechanics you'd apply said there was a good chance for things to be different, but the GM decides to not use the rules." The GM has more knowledge than the player. There may be factors involved that alter the uncertain/certain that the players do not know. In my experience, if the GM runs a game where it is...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:55 AM
    Of course i understsnd the difference between in-character and out of character. That is why the flat out permission for PLAYERS to try and break rules even to casting spells with slots unless the GM has tracked it well enough to say " no" just boggles my mind. "Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. " You are trying to draw a distinction between which rules the player should be...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:38 AM
    I use the default half cover +2 for creatures unless we have something like the jello cube filling z corridor. Instead of comparing AC if the attacker tolls a 1 they hit the cover creature.
    28 replies | 1071 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 01:21 AM
    Maybe, but I see what's being discussed here as two parts. Diceless vs Diced - pro and con. Rules that serve us vs rules we fight against. I have played and run both diced snd diceless games and they create very enjoyable experiences with the right groups. I have played diced games where honestly few dice were rolled. I tend to recommend that DMs play/run diceless gsmes a couple...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 01:01 AM
    The game rules as written leave it to the GM to decide which to fo snd gives a kind of general case in exsmple of not tracking DS for underlings but maybe doing it for named guys. It seems more a matter of convenience, you can bother with it if you see benefit in it or not if it isnt with the effort, not "npcs dont die like PCs do" It's kinda like how, you know, PC might have a full...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 12:54 AM
    I dufnt think you were being unreasonable in your OP. A GM deciding the walls are guarded by creatures thst are solidly within the range of "those what can be One-Shot-Killed (OSK) is perfectly reasonable. But, deciding to then give the guards so many HP that you have to bypass the basics of combat to resolve it shows a real disconnect between the GMs vision and the execution. It would...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:15 PM
    Now of course I shouldn't take the bait but hey, it is what it is. At our table a player who keeps trying to do things that are illegal under the belief that its everyone rlse's job to call him when its illegal is not here long. Our table rules are not "cheat until you get caught". But it's good to see that kind of support is in line with the other side here.
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:13 PM
    Wait, what? Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do. There is no rule anywhere saying thst players are allowed to try and break rules. You are not allowed in 5e to roll you dice as a player and just tell everyone whatever result you want until you get caught. You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits. ...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:03 PM
    Me? I am pretty sure that players in my games would ask me about the metal armor rule if they even considered ever violating it. The druid in my current game did ask if armors of various other types would be available or known. His druid is currently wearing one from shells. I am also sure if they had a concept of dwarven smith-druid who did wear metal mediums and shields - they would know...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:49 PM
    Actually, the player saying their character "flies across the cavern" is describing the **result** of their actions. The GM determines the results of actions, not the player. Now, it's pretty common for players to Express actions by ssying what they want to fo, like "I run across the room" but that's only a kind of shorthand to avoid adding "my character will try to..." to every statement. ...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:44 PM
    Thank you!
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:28 PM
    D&D is an exception based game, yes, with the understanding to some extent that specific beats general. As you not, a player can choose thrir character's actions **except** they cannot do so if it violates a rule. Well, there is a rule under druid in its proficiencies section that says they will not wear metal armor. I get, you dont want to see thst as a rule that applies to you,...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:02 PM
    Yes, absolutely it is. But, when playing a game, it's not a personal choice yo be bound by the rules of the game. It's a "group" decision or at very least in the hands of the GM ss to what happens when the players realize a player has now chosen to no longer abide hy the tules he and they agreed to. If I decide whrn playing Imhotep I can love two blocks to a boat every turn, even though...
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 01:48 PM
    Ok, so, to you the rule in the PHB reads as a druid chooses not to wear armor or shields made of metal? Ok. So a player playing a druid agrees to that. Ok. So, then, if in play that player decides that his character will now chooses differently is now violating the rule the player agreed to.
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:34 AM
    Both of which may be legal or illegal depending on the rules of a game. I for one recognize that some rules agreed to by players do not have to have in-game world causality - such as the no-pvp rule you left out when you limited your response. But, thats ok. Its expected.
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:41 AM
    The hilarious bit here is that I have not been jumping into the AD&D rules issues from previous editions etc and have been focusing on 5e D&D so, yeah, nice choice of claims to quotes matching there!!! :-)
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:28 AM
    Well, that was just dandy then.
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:22 AM
    Possibility vs probability is an issue tho. The impact of checkmate and spells and effects at low level that kick-up checkmates is not one of signing on, but of what kind of action you are looking for. Is the kind of battle and fsnyptady action you are looking for more of a modern swat orcfirstbperson ambush shooter challenge where all the fights are figuring out which combo to level yo...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:43 AM
    "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 between that definite candidate for checkmate and an orc who is not a candidate for checkmate that you’re calling fiat. " Uhhh.. not quite. A sleeping orc in my games is subject to the existing rules for unconscious. There is literally nothing unique about it. I dont need...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 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...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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...
    352 replies | 12165 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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...
    30 replies | 1763 view(s)
    2 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 11:15 PM
    Also, it says the monster, not the troll.... so obviously, every time I burn a monster a troll is killed.
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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 ...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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 | 320 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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"...
    352 replies | 12165 view(s)
    1 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 01:41 PM
    Why am I thinking it was Crocofile Dundee 2 where kangaroo with guns was a thing?
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 10:00 AM
    And deer do not normally have armor over key vital spots - at least round here.
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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...
    178 replies | 5529 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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'.
    641 replies | 17836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • 5ekyu's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 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...
    641 replies | 17836 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
4,067
Posts Per Day
6.67
Last Post
Shoe Horning the Races by Class? Today 10:13 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
10
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:22 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 14th November, 2017
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Saturday, 13th July, 2019


Wednesday, 10th July, 2019


Tuesday, 9th July, 2019


Monday, 8th July, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Friday, 28th June, 2019

  • 09:30 PM - Maxperson mentioned 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    5ekyu You quoted me, but it may have been in a response to Lowkey. He blocked me earlier for asking him to say please, which is very ironic as he has a personal rule he has mentioned here where he stated that he asks nicely first, then gets serious if quoted again, then blocks the person if quoted a second time. He violated his own rule in a thread about rules violations where he was on the side of not violating the rules. Oh, well. Maybe he had DM approval. Anyway, if you could quote me separately so that we can continue our discussion that would be great. :)

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...


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 98 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 02:12 PM - Garthanos quoted 5ekyu in post Healing Surges arent Second Wind.
    Not sure if this matters orcspplies, cuz I was not sure what the conclusion of your poet was, but... In my game I removed a **lot** of the common hesling potions etc, removing the load-up-equipment HP return that was basically only controlled by inventory. I also added a house rule allowing characters to spend HD when they regained HP by magical means and common elixirs that also allow spending dome HD - all these outside of rests. The objective was to turn HD into the "heroic healing" with a limit that did not recover all overnight and put a character driven limit in place - HD on "common item healing between long rests." It impacts of course the tactical side but that's just another resource to be managed, one with a long rest two-day recovery. So far it has worked fine. But, related to your post, it does sort of create a sense of "heroic recovery" when needed by the dint thst commoners etc wont have tons of HD to spend. Sounds like some very similar rule idea.

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 04:53 PM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Variable stat caps. Anyone ever used?
    It's always interesting how when extolling the virtues of random rolls one chooses a good and interesting random result, isnt it. So you optimize for Con but that PC barbarian does too. Whst if the roll limited all to 16? Or your top stat was Wis? Or maybe it was a decent combo but just not in line with your desired objectives? Or what is several different fighters got very similar tops and bottoms? Or really, what if it wasnt just fun? It's a modular system. You can easily replace random cap with set 20 cap.

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 03:13 PM - oreofox quoted 5ekyu in post Variable stat caps. Anyone ever used?
    The "gets rid of" is an area which bothers me. Like most changes it just swaps the "best of" combo's around a smidge picking different winners and losers. Myself I woulda expected halfling to still see some rogue play for their hiding edge in crowds unless your targeted get rid of cut that as well. By "get rid of" I meant it isn't only just halfling rogues, tiefling warlocks, etc. Most people seem to choose their race on what gives them that +2 to their class's main stat, or choose their class based on the race's +2 bonus. So it opens up more than just tiefling warlocks or elf wizards. I had someone play an elf barbarian. I had a tiefling monk in another game. It opens up more variety and choice to the players for character creation, without them feeling "gimped" (which is a mindset I absolutely hate, and is the entire reason behind me making this change). I do admit "gets rid of" was a bad choice in wording.
  • 02:32 PM - lowkey13 quoted 5ekyu in post OSR ... Feel the Love! Why People Like The Old School
    @lowkey13 "So, what do y'all think?" I think that's a list of preferences you have and that are thus fine, even tho I disagree with all 10 which might be a record for consistency. Wait until you see my list of favorite ice cream flavors! Mmmmm..... Lobster ice cream in Bar Harbor.
  • 02:32 PM - Garthanos quoted 5ekyu in post OSR ... Feel the Love! Why People Like The Old School
    @lowkey13 "So, what do y'all think?" I think that's a list of preferences you have and that are thus fine, even tho I disagree with all 10 which might be a record for consistency. Yeh its a hilarious me too I also like Paladins with old school flavor which I think are prominently on lowkeys negative list
  • 02:50 AM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    Uhhh actually, since all classes have unfavored saves this isn't really just fighters but the reason for the bard, paladin, etc ability to cover saves for others bring relevant is to point out how this is a team combo game, not fantasy cage match. Of course, which is why the proposal is to increase everyone's saves not just the fighters. Saves in high level games are too low compared to the normal DC. If all classes were much better at their off saves snd you add in the existing bonuses you choose to leave out to frame your position, save spells would be off-balanced by a great deal So much better? I'm suggesting the 8 wisdom fighter should have about a 20% chance of success as opposed to a 10% chance. If he got proficiency and maxed wisdom that would put him at 80% ...Which you are right is still too high if anything can then stack on top of that. On the bright side - we have learned something important about 5e. the real issue with saves and why they couldn't be placed where...
  • 02:34 AM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    Isnt the baseline exsmple for the vulnerability used here sn 8 wisdom fighter? Wasnt the "the same" mocking compared to thst? If we are gonna compare the heinous vulnerability of a 20 fighter with 8 wis in a festless game with no buffs vs saves to the hp protection of w izard, why isn't the same determination of how gimped the wizard would be ok ? Because no wizard maintains an 8 con, fighters in featless games can maintain an 8 wisdom
  • 02:33 AM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    No, I haven't but then I havent seen a 20th level fighter with 8 wisdom in a featless game with no buffs either. I've seen a fighter's focus be str, dex and con before with no mental stat focus.

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 09:17 PM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    Really? 20th level wizard with 8 con and no investment in hp has on average what - using fixed HP option 5+19x3 or 62 hp. What's the single turn output of say a 20th level battle master or EK or Elven Archer with maxed stats and expected gear? At least create a reasonable character. I mean have you even seen a 5e wizard played with 8 con?
  • 09:01 PM - Gladius Legis quoted 5ekyu in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    Really? 20th level wizard with 8 con and no investment in hp has on average what - using fixed HP option 5+19x3 or 62 hp. What's the single turn output of say a 20th level battle master or EK or Elven Archer with maxed stats and expected gear? What 20th-level Wizard is going to have an 8 CON when for most Wizards CON is either 2nd or 3rd in importance?

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 04:25 AM - Gladius Legis quoted 5ekyu in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    If all you compare is one fighter's attack action vs another fighter's attack action, you have eliminated like 99.99999% of the factors in play in a combat and so any conclusions judgements have practically no value in terms of an assessment over which class does more damage? You make this too easy when your last paragraph is a perfect proof of my point about assumptions and "non-quantifiable factors" and the flaws of claims to objectivity of white room warrior fu. If you want to look at comparing how much damage beyond just the fighter attack action, say to rogue or pally and disadvantages etc then you run into factors like say how precision attack applies after the die/dice are rolled, how disadvantage doesnt just make the roll worst for the rogue but also cancels any chance at sneak damage even if they hit, etc. "Your "non-quantifiable factors" really aren't relevant." QED. Objectively speaking, that is. I wasn't comparing one Fighter to another Fighter. You are arguing in bad fait...
  • 03:08 AM - Garthanos quoted 5ekyu in post Telegraphing Attacks
    "If done well, I think it could lead to making combat more dynamic. What do you think?" Well, as dynamic is in the eye of the beholder, my bet is you are right for some and not for others. Usually changes just swap the old "here is how to..." with a new one. This is the kind of thing practically impossible to add after-markrt and have work. Systems need to be built around and balanced around the basic nature of play. So many things are scaled based on "what they do" that making a fundamental change to the mechanics changes a lot. So, if a lot of the vote design had been built around slow vs quick options - with a lot more detailed sequencing of sctions - this would be part of that and do fine. But, a lot of things go into overdrive if you just add this. Premise - the slow choices thst hit next turn and allow interruption on other folk's turns have to be better than similar quick options thst happens now. Otherwise, the slow options wont be used. Given that premise, the adding in a va...

Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 05:32 PM - FrogReaver quoted 5ekyu in post Lighting Effects
    The perception is based on the illumination at the target being observed. Unless any of the conditions provide obscuration the intervening areas do not matter. So the guy next to the torch is observed as if in bright light - no penalties barring some special sensitivity. The guy in dim light is perceived as in din light - rolls at disadvantage to see much about them but not unseen or hidden unless other factors apply. The guy in darkness is unseen but not hidden - unless other factors apply. This is why your Unseen Servant should be carrying the torch ahead of your group and night camp lighting should be on the perimeter unless your goal is to make it easier for areas right around you to be spotted. Obviously, magical darkness and other obscuring effects change things a lot. Can the guy in darkness see the NPC in the light?
  • 01:23 PM - Gladius Legis quoted 5ekyu in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective". Care to point out specifically what "lot of assumptions" I'm making on something as basic as a Fighter's TYPICAL ATTACK ACTION? No? Then your words are empty platitudes. The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly. Again, talking about the damage of a Fighter's typical attack action. There aren't really any "non-quantifiable factors" that effect the Fighter's attack action's damage compared to anyone else. The Fighter makes his attacks. Simple miss/hit probability and damage averages. Something that gives the Fighter disadvantage on attacks is going to do the same to the Paladin or the Rogue. Your "non-quantifiable factors" really aren't relevant.
  • 12:18 PM - dnd4vr quoted 5ekyu in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style. The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument. Well, if your experience differs then that is great for you and your table. At ours, we see fighters as being underpowered compared to the damage other battlers consistently do, so we've made house-rules to make them more palatable. You might be sick of it but there is a reason for it as 5ekyu notes. So, YOUR math agrees due to whatever specific conditions you (or others) are examining. I am a great person to do white room analysis (master's degrees in both mathematics and statistics) but stopped doing it because it only examines certain conditions in game play and cannot accurately reflect the game experience as a whole. Certain analysis is fine depending on just what you are looking to prove, but this argument is not one of them. Statistics of any kind can nearly always be slanted to what the user wants to "prove." Finally, I am not out to "win" any argument. We're having a discussion and I am well aware that personal experience can differ. If you think fighters are the tops at fighting, then as I said, good for you. :) "You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. " Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, ru...

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 01:55 PM - jasper quoted 5ekyu in post Hidden
  • 01:55 PM - Oofta quoted 5ekyu in post Hidden
  • 08:11 AM - Ohmyn quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    In a game, if the GM agrees the rules they are using is "druids will not wear metal armor" then that GM wont be mind controlling PC druids to fo do or forcing them into traps where "the only choice" is to do do. That would be violating the agreement, not unlike giving paladins a no-win alignment test in ye olde days. In a game, if the player agrees the rules they are using is "druids will not wear metal armor" then that player wont opt for donning metal armor as an easier or quicker way around a challenge and will find other ways, other options. So, in a game where both the players and the gm play by the rules they agree to, the difference between "will not" and "cannot" is nada. For a forum sock puppet rager tho... The point isn't even a matter of "cannot" or "will not", which I'd have hoped is obviously clear by now, but I guess it's not that easy for those with lesser reading comprehension. Even if it said "cannot", it would still be just as busted of a rule, because it still wouldn'...

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 07:39 PM - TwoSix quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Which of course is likely fine since **nobody** is after just open access to metal armor for their druid, right? <Raises hand> It's a corny bit of flavor with no real balance impact, and it makes multiclassing with a druid way more complicated than it has to be. I ignore it in my own games, and it should go the way of the "ex-paladin" rules from 3e.

Saturday, 29th June, 2019

  • 08:48 AM - Ohmyn quoted 5ekyu in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Actually, no my point us not yours. Alignment has never been straightjacket. They were from day one established as reactive to sctions, choices and changeable. Rules about what one class can do and another cant are, if you will, straight jackets. There is no rule that says a nature cleric can suddenly decide to cast bard spells - they have to do that by some other means. They cannot just decide all their cleric spells now cast spontaneously instead of requiring morning prayers or preparation. Paladin path rents express what they try to do but the paladin class **rules** make it clear they can fail at these. They can not get there. They can make wrong choices, other choices. It's not just that it establishes punishments, it establishes that paladins can go against these oath tenets. There is no such rule for druids in the RAW for their armor proficiencies. Its has neither the "reactive" definition of alignment or the clear notations that they can choose to not do that. Obviously a GM...


Page 1 of 98 123456789101151 ... LastLast

5ekyu's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites