View Profile: dnd4vr - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:13 PM
    Past tier 1, I would rather hope class will completely override race in bringing excitement to the player about their character. I certainly don't mind the idea of it scaling, such as the Dragonborn's breath weapon, but ideally I want it to be "useful", not a key feature for the player to rely on. That is my preference, anyway.
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:09 PM
    If you want to do math that way, that is up to you, but I hope you have someone else do your taxes! But hey, if your table is okay with it then kuddos. Otherwise, you're just being silly. We aren't discussing grammar unless you want to return to your statements. Of course, that is pointless since you continue to ignore the idea that the effect can only be removed by a long rest or powerful...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:45 PM
    Ah, yes, I remember that now. That was why I wrote you needed some light for Ultravision to function. In that sense it is similar to shadowsight, but not identical.
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:43 PM
    True enough. In retrospect, we never played 2E RAW but as you suggest, a blend of 1E/2E really. Still, adding elements of 2E as you discuss, such as more powerful dragons and rules for massive damage, never increased lethality, only changed how the game was played. Even playing characters with 3d6 in order (I recall a 2E Priest I had named Benson Miller, all stats 9-12 with a 12 Wisdom) only...
    74 replies | 1546 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:35 PM
    Honestly, I had considered this and I might to a point, but probably not to the extent you're talking about. I want the racial features to be significant, but not over powering in any respect.
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:34 PM
    Not really. IIRC both Infravision and Ultravision allowed you to "see" in the dark, but by different means. Infravision was sight by heat sources or something, as where Ultravision used any light that was at all present and magnified it to the point you could see. Darkvision works RAW in 5E for us. Shadowsight works more like Ultravision, magnifying the available light to a degree where you...
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:26 PM
    No one is ignoring anything, they are just interpreting it differently. Rules lawyering is about arguing concrete rules. There is nothing concrete in this scenario to argue about. If you don't believe someone else's interpretation of how something works is valid then that is your issue, especially when other people understand and agree with the that as a valid interpretation. And while I...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:41 PM
    Thanks for posting! I was beginning to think I wouldn't have any responses LOL. I'll make note of your choices on my spreadsheet. To answer your points: yes, a bit of redesign for game balance and simplicity. I want to encourage players to choose race for reasons other than "what can I get" and by reducing the benefits for each race to a single core feature, which while useful will not be too...
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:31 PM
    True, but like it or not, certain weapons are "better" than others. There is a historical reason why the arms race existed. If you want the simplicity of 5E, damage is really the only differentiator. Unless you include things like AC adjustments, speed factors, reach, etc. and others into the mechanics of combat (thus, making it much more complicated), you're stuck with just damage. So, 5E...
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:16 PM
    No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid. I am not trying to cast Revivify on this "dead horse", but I think some people should understand that there is no right or wrong answer here and rules lawyering doesn't work because... well, it is still all about interpreting the rules. Anyway, our DM is informed me that HIS...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:42 PM
    We added weapon properties: Skewer, Stun, Wound for many piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing weapons. Basically on a critical hit they involve the target making a Dex, Str, or Con check to avoid additional damage, etc.
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:28 PM
    dnd4vr replied to Double Dash
    RUN (bonus action): When you take the Dash action, you can use your bonus action to Run. Make a DC 5 Strength (Athletics) check to add double your speed to your Dash. Each round you Dash and Run, the DC increases by 1. If you fail the check, you cannot Run the next round. SPRINT (bonus action): When you take the Dash action, you can use your bonus action to Sprint. Make a DC 10 Strength...
    81 replies | 1940 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:43 PM
    Our house-rule for versatile weapons is they have the finesse property or the heavy property (player's choice) if you use both hands. Finesse does DEX mod to attack, but still STR mod to damage (like others); and heavy does STR mod x1.5 (round down) to damage.
    84 replies | 2468 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:38 PM
    Even if you believe 2E was the most lethal edition, how many people remember more of their characters dying in 1E? I know I had more character deaths in 1E than 2E, by a long shot. Since I played with mostly the same people over all those years between both editions I will rule that factor out. And while things like having a default 3d6 for ability scores in 2E, I can't recall many players...
    74 replies | 1546 view(s)
    3 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:19 PM
    At first I thought you made it something like this (I have a form-fillable pdf if you want) since the skills are not "linked" to ability scores: But for what you want, I could have made it if you had asked a week or two ago before my trial ran out on my software LOL. If you want one to fill out by hand (how old school!) then I can easily make one for you. Just let me know.
    5 replies | 162 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:38 PM
    Well, I guess I never realized that was your issue. IMO it has been long established that Greater Restoration would be needed in some capacity and why our party needs a Cleric high enough level for that. With Gentle Repose also working, our DM would allow Revivify to work as well once Greater Restoration is in play. Of course, we are going with Raise Dead if we can at that point because our...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:18 PM
    Of course it would work in that case because the necrotic damage delivered by the bite attack doesn't reduce the target to max 0 hp. When the character is revivified with 1 hp, their maximum hp was also 1 point or greater when they failed their death saves. The character takes a long rest, and max hp is restored. So, no problem there. I am not sure why you brought it up, actually, unless I missed...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:52 PM
    I want to streamline the races and bring them down to one core racial feature each. (For those who are tempted to ask "Why?" Because I want to. :) ) I am curious what people think is the core defining feature for each race? I would do a poll, but I would end up needing a poll for each race. I've already reduced all races to a single +1 ASI. I am thinking of allowing a second +1 ASI, but you...
    13 replies | 275 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:14 PM
    He was thinking that while she would be in a coma, she would be getting a long rest maybe? I don't know I'd have to ask him.
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:10 PM
    dnd4vr replied to Double Dash
    We use the double-dash. But for running, D&D is not very good IMO. Everyone has the same base speed with a few exceptions, and even though physical attributes vary drastically, they could all move or run or sprint the exact same. It doesn't model real-life well at all. You can come up with a complex system that does, but frankly it isn't worth the trouble to implement IMO.
    81 replies | 1940 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:13 PM
    We would have been in the same situation really then since we can't cast Greater Restoration, either. If he had ruled it this way, he told me he would have had the character remain in a coma until we got a Greater Restoration and maybe required a death save daily, allowing her to recover naturally or die again. (Which is kind of pointless since we can just cast Revivify again...) While...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 12:20 PM
    Sure, that makes sense. When you don't happen to roll 15 misses, say only 10 in the day, the five other dice can't be used for precision attack, and don't factor in at that point. On the other side, if you have more than 21 misses, say 25, then those extra 4 misses also can't benefit because all 15 have already been used. It's interesting that this only changes the outcome by a point or less. Of...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 06:11 PM
    Actually, no one does. :p
    84 replies | 2468 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:45 PM
    Hmm... Why would you think there are fewer opportunities to use them? For all 15 are used on the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in each set of 20 rolls (5 misses out of the 7 in each set). If you can use it on a natural 2 to make it a hit, you would also use it on a 3 through 7 for the same impact. Regardless, I think both our respective methods show in this scenario, Precision attack is vastly superior to...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:41 PM
    Not enough time at present to read through the thread, so my apologies if I am repeating anything others have already said. We already house-rule all bonus damage comes from Strength, regardless of the weapon type with the exception of loading weapons, which never receive a bonus to damage. This fixed finesse for us. We also added rules for light and heavy weapons (light weapons do half...
    84 replies | 2468 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:45 PM
    I used combinatorics and probability distributions. Yeah, you have to break it up into cases. I just assumed the 60 attacks with expected rolls of 3 1's, 3 2's, 3 3's, etc. up to 3 20's. Thus the 15 rolls of 3's through 7's will use up the 15 superiority dice. The 1's automiss, of course, and the 2's aren't needed to be considered because with only 15 dice, there are none left to even attempt to...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:36 PM
    One option we used for a while was (at level 1 only), if the die rolled less than 1/2 the maximum, you got 1/2 the maximum.
    6 replies | 321 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:33 PM
    Option 1: Raise dead works. Character at max XP 0, in coma, never wakes up. Cast Greater Restoration, will wake up. Option 2: Raise dead fails. Cast Greater Restoration first (allowing it to be cast on the former-creature which is technically now an object), then Raise Dead works fine. Option 3: EXTREME DMing. Raise Dead fails. Greater Restoration can't be cast on an object. Good luck...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:50 AM
    I am glad to see you revised your answer, because I got 171.5 (roughly), only 1 point away from perfect potential IIRC. I remember someone saying the math was hard... guess not LOL. ;)
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:42 AM
    The player has a second character, so removing the one from the campaign for a time, or it might end up being permanently, is just part of the game. The effect that if the target's hit point maximum is reduced to 0 by the vampire's bite, it dies. The effect that is causing this, the hit point reduction, is only removed by a long rest. It doesn't stop until removed. You also realize the...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:48 PM
    Better late than never! Hmm... Nice and interesting argument. I'll have to discuss that one with the DM. I'll get back to you on his interpretation after work late tonight.
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:26 PM
    Good, you agree the raised creature still has a maximum 0 hp (well, you don't say maximum, but I have to assume you mean that because otherwise the Raise Dead would restore the raised creature to 1 hp, and you said 0). Now you do think this is debatable, so until you decide to argue for Raise Dead over the vampire condition, I have to disagree with your next assessment: Vampire bites...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:37 PM
    "The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest." The triggering condition is still present until a long rest is completed, which the corpse cannot do because, well, it is a corpse. If you raised the target, which is still at maximum 0 hit points due to the vampire bite, it would simply die again immediately since that is the effect of the vampire bite. The effect of the...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 01:10 PM
    Completely agree. I've run many games when a player wanted to be a certain race and I told them no. I don't have any problem enforcing that or if a DM tells me I can't play something in their game. In our current game, a player wanted to make a Goliath or something not in the PHB, and the DM just said the race won't fit in the current setting. He did explain that such a character might be allowed...
    102 replies | 3420 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 12:52 PM
    So, I talked to him last night about it and he gave me a heads up for next session. It turns out we will need two clerics, one for Greater Restoration and one for Raise Dead, to perform the casting together somehow. I guess I'll learn more at the time. He might even have a minor priest perform Aid or something else like Remove Curse as well.
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 12:32 PM
    Very true. The game could state that a combat round is the length of time needed for all participants to complete their actions, with the caveat that this is generally from 6-10 seconds, but can be longer as needed. But I have a feeling that for some others, this would be too willy-nilly.
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 04:26 AM
    Wonderful, now I am in the mood to watch Gladiator! I haven't seen it in a decade. Thanks a lot. :p Of course, it brings back memories of the Fighter Tactics house-rules we made up, like Aggression (before 3E Cleave), Finesse, and Stunning Blow, which we got idea for from the movie LOL. Funny how so many house-rules ended up showing up in later editions. Hmm... :hmm:
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 04:24 AM
    And what is your experience out of curiosity? 6 seconds in the wrong situation can certainly seem like it will never end. However... D&D isn't literally meant to be (or at least never was in prior editions) a "blow-by-blow" simulation of combat. Enemies attack and parry, dodge and move for position, etc. It was assumed many exchanges were made and the attack roll came when an opportunity...
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:47 AM
    Oy.... really? I don't know whether to "boo" or "hiss". j/k :D
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 12:38 AM
    Lot so stuff others have mentioned but I will add: 6-second long rounds. Ridiculous. That someone will move dozens of feet and attack or cast spells, not to mention bonus actions, etc. -- all in 6 seconds. While maybe a full minute long round was a bit much in 1ed AD&D, 6-seconds is much too fast. Even 10-seconds would be better and more reasonable IMO.
    146 replies | 5279 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 11:21 PM
    Thinking... ok, so I had to recheck Revivify and Raise Dead and I can hear my DM now: "Since both spells return the target corpse to life with 1 hit point, they won't work since you cannot have more hit points than your maximum. Her maximum is 0 until she finishes a long rest. She can't finish a long rest because she is dead. And since Aid can only be cast on a creature (a living target, not...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 10:49 PM
    Since Aid has to be cast on a living target, it won't help here since the vampire's bite kills the target when their maximum hit points are reduced to zero. Nice thought, though. :)
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:02 PM
    Hmm... I don't think any one mentioned that option. MWAHAHAHA! *rubs hands greedily* I LOVE IT! :D
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:49 PM
    Yeah, we finished the session with Gentle Repose cast and having returned to the manor at the village. One of the characters has a Giant Eagle steed, so we are thinking of placing the corpse (which is under 5 feet tall luckily) into our bag of holding and sending him ahead to the closest major city, where he has the best chance of finding a cleric high enough in level to save her. The rest of the...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:37 PM
    We have played that is Gentle Repose does allow Revivify to be used up to 10 day later, but the Gentle Repose MUST then be cast within 1 minute of the creature's death. Otherwise, too much time has lapsed for Revivify to be effective. That's our interpretation, anyway.
    14 replies | 551 view(s)
    6 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:30 PM
    I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Your example that I quoted had a STR 16 and DEX 14, and later you said those were (by chance) also the caps at 16 and 14, respectively, that were generated after the character is complete. This implies whatever method you have to generate the caps happened to result in zero room for improvement in STR and DEX but happened to allow CON to go from...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:51 PM
    He is pretty reasonable (most of the time LOL) for a DM. I think the Greater Restoration followed by Raise Dead is the way to go, just to be safe instead of Raise Dead by itself. Now we just have to get to the city and hope we can find a priest who can do it (9th level is not common in our game), and of course we have to get back in time and try not to get waylaid.
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:47 PM
    FYI, there were only five saves in 1e AD&D, not six. And while everyones' saves improved in that edition, the Fighter class improved insanely by far compared to the others, having the best overall saves in the end. We don't see this at all in 5E. And every version of D&D has always been a team-oriented game, so I see that as being immaterial to any argument about saves, etc.
    71 replies | 2034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    So you would want to implement a stat cap system where you could be capped at your starting ability scores? I am not sure that would be a lot of fun for many players. Any way for me, with this build, I would boost CON at least once, maybe twice, before I worried about STR or DEX. However, maybe instead an increased cost once the cap is reached? In your example perhaps an ASI boosts STR or DEX...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 12:56 PM
    dnd4vr started a thread Death and 0 Max HP
    So an interesting thing happened in our game yesterday. One of the characters was killed by a vampire and had her maximum hit points reduced to 0 by the bite. A couple rounds later (vampire defeated), our bard with Revivify tried it and the DM ruled it failed (due to her maximum hp at 0). Now it is a race against time as the party has about 20 days (gentle repose) to find a priest to cast Raise...
    149 replies | 3206 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 03:07 PM
    Yep. It sprung from my comparison of the general classes of Fighter vs. Paladin, with action surge vs divine strike. I was looking at 20th level, but his was at 11th so I just went with that.
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 12:25 PM
    I just used combinatorics and, in our specific scenario, found the probabilities, to determine how much damage the fighter would expectedly benefit from during 20 rounds of combat. If you do the math for our particular scenario, I would be interested to see if the results jibe. If not, no worries. :)
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:10 AM
    Nope. Unfortunately. I recall a long time ago trying to move the discussion to a new thread... but alas, it never happened. :( And sense there wasn't much hope of reaching a consensus on TWF, might as well talk about something else. ;)
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:39 AM
    Since FrogReaver has't replied, allow me to chime in. We were comparing the expected damage of a Fighter vs. Paladin. His post #171 (top of page 18) show a table he made. We are now discussing how much of a greater impact the Battle Master using precision attack instead of one of the maneuvers that simply add damage. That is why he replied to my post about calculating the value of precision...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:29 AM
    We've been stacking advantage/disadvantage in this manner since the start. Hasn't bothered or broken anything and since no one at our table is a crazy multiclassing min/maxer crit hunter, we have yet so suffer such an issue. Frankly, if someone went through all the trouble to do it, I doubt our DM would care. :) In other words, house-rule on! :D
    37 replies | 925 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:21 AM
    For a while we lowered the maximum ability score bonus to +4 to balance it better with proficiency bonus since our table doesn't feel the two should be near equal (+5 vs +6 maxes). However after we raised the maximum proficiency bonus to +8 at 20th, we returned to the +5 max at 20 ability score. Here are some more options to think about: 1. Reduce racial stats to two +1 ASIs 2. Add a +1...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:28 PM
    First, LOL. ;) While I freely admitted I wasn't familiar with battle master (even stated so in the post you reference), if you want to contest that those other points were blunders, it is time for you to back that up! :D Because while interpretations may differ, I stand by those. As for precision attack, with a d10 at level 11 using your earlier table, you are turning 15 misses...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:26 PM
    You know, I like some of this idea a lot. It is much easier to improve something that is average than to make something good even better (the law of diminishing returns).
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:15 PM
    Not every wizard needs a INT 20, though. I hardly consider an INT 16 hobbling the character since that is what my current wizard character has and I am very happy with it. I can really see using my ASIs to boost it much more as I would rather have the feats. As a 16 is a good, some would even say very good, score and works fine as a cap. We currently have a +2 to any stat and +1 to another for...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:35 PM
    Again, it comes back to the same question: why a lower limit on stat caps? If you don't want racial bonuses that steer class selection, caps will do the same thing. If I find out my STR cap is 16, for example, I am less likely to pick a Fighter or other battler class, especially if my DEX cap is 16 also. Then it turns out my cap for CON and WIS are both 20. Now, a Druid maybe is looking nice...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:54 AM
    Another thought is this, remove ASIs completely and ONLY have feats. This way a character might get a two point bump if they take feats that add to an ability score, but 3 would be a stretch and 4 almost unheard of. Since most characters already begin with 15 or higher in their primary stat, this would slow down the stat bumping process and by extension create an artificial cap sort of. For a...
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:09 AM
    Just to reiterate, since you might not have read my posts in the thread and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have NEVER seen a battle master played nor looked into the class much because, quite frankly, I vastly dislike the concept of "superiority dice" and their use. Because of this, I was not familiar with the maneuvers they have really, and only skimmed over precision attack...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:51 PM
    Really, because I have been looking them over and for the ones that add damage, such as Lunging attack, you use the dice and if you hit you add damage. Either hit or miss, the superiority dice is spent. That was why I was asking, specifically, what maneuver you are using to add this damage. None that I skimmed through add it after the "hit", only if the attack does hit (but like I said, the die...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:48 PM
    We've thought about adjusting stats so they are no longer all bonuses and if we did, caps would be 18 modified by race. For instance, if we changed Elves to Dex +2, Con -2 (akin to earlier versions), then they would cap Dex at 20, and Con at 16. We do cap halflings and gnomes at Str 18 instead of 20.
    51 replies | 1244 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:36 PM
    @FrogReaver, in your table about the 11th level Paladin/Fighter (post #171, top of page 18) how did you figure the damage from the Battle Master dice? It looks like you are doing the 15 d10's average, which is 82.5, but what maneuver are you gaining this from. I don't play the archetype and have never seen one in action, either, so I am honestly curious. I thought maybe with Lunging attack,...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    It is always the player's choice. You can max out your strengths or shore up your weaknesses. As a player, I am always happy to shore up any weaknesses my characters have. In 5E I am very happy with my primary stats at 16. It isn't max, obviously, but it is "good enough" that my character can overcome the challenges she faces. Does she have proficiency in deception? intimidation? Nope. Nope....
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:19 AM
    But I bet you can play a mean air-guitar! :) Wait?! Do you know about King Arthur's search for the Holy Grail while riding unreal horses as your lackies "clippity-clop" some coconut shells to sound like hooves? Did you ever encounter a crazy, killer rabbit with viscous pointy things? Didn't Cleric Bob form a foundation for increasing his understanding of Religion at level 1 by...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:24 PM
    A quick summary of some things I've gleaned from this thread before I head off to a long day at work: 1. I like the idea of each class having one save that is specified and allowing the player to choose the second. Fighters might get Strength by default, but could then pick Wisdom or Charisma or whatever instead of ALWAYS having to take Constitution. I will probably encourage a house rule that...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:24 PM
    This is an excellent point actually and was inherent to the treadmill effect in prior editions. That being said (from above), characters do get better because, while some challenges scale many don't. At 10th-level, you might be fighting a monster that would have demolished you when you were 1st, but you might also be mopping the floor with its orc-henchmen which pose little threat to you...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:15 PM
    Your response above quoted me, but it wasn't me you should have quoted it was Fenris-77, unless you meant to quote me, in which case you had the wrong quote. :)
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    Maybe instead of full skill proficiency, with each ASI you could grant a character a +2 skill. They could apply this once (as the mini-expertise) to a skill they are already proficient in OR to a skill they are not proficient in. With enough +2 mini-boosts, they could also eventually become proficient.
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:41 PM
    I never played 4E (or Pathfinder or whatever). I played a little 3 and 3.5, but stopped for several years before jumping back into 5E. I wouldn't mind the swap idea if they implemented one. That's not a bad idea either. If your character starts with 4 skills (default for most classes) and you get 5 ASI's, you could finally finish with 9 skills. But if you opted for a feat instead of the...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 12:53 PM
    We've never had someone use an item without proficiency for long. In prior editions, if a character got a new powerful weapon or something, they would use a Weapon Proficiency as soon as possible. I suppose in a featless game, without Weapon Master, or dipping into a battler class, there isn't any way for a Wizard to learn the longsword. If you opt for training like in XGtE, then the wizard could...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:29 AM
    True, I don't think I've ever seen a system that degenerates skills for non-use. When I've discussed it in the past in a game I made with some other players years ago, the result in playtesting was players using skills for silly reasons simply so it wouldn't degrade. In a like manner, when adventures stop adventuring for an extended period of time, hit points should also degrade IMO, but they...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:48 AM
    I thought this way once myself. But I would like to point out that people change and unless you practice something, you lose it. I used to skateboard when I was in my teens, but that was 30 years ago. Would I fall if I jumped on one now? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be any better at it since I haven't been in continual practice and using it since then. How perceptive where you 20 years ago?...
    224 replies | 5812 view(s)
    3 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:37 AM
    While I like your take on changing the Bard, I would like to offer a suggestion about the idea of Bards being limited to "music" and instruments. In our group, the current Bard/Paladin is a dwarf and he does oration and storytelling for his performances, some chanting old dwarven war songs is the most "musical" he gets. He has played the drums to offer cadence to his stories, but that isn't much...
    2 replies | 153 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:32 AM
    I'll read through the thread tomorrow, but while I have time this is what we thought of: Expertise adds: Advantage to a check instead of a bonus. Allows the character to use the skill as a bonus action but without advantage. You can spend an Inspiration point to have your check automatically be a 20. However, after trying it out it wasn't as well received as we thought and changed...
    43 replies | 1357 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 04:18 AM
    I wouldn't grant the half-prof bonus to other saves because I agree with others it detracts from which classes are better at which saves. However, we did add Tier Advancement. There are different options, like a +1 ASI and a skill, martial weapon proficiency, etc. and one of those options is proficiency in a save. So, if the player wants, they could gain save proficiency at 5th, 11th, and 17th...
    71 replies | 2034 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:24 PM
    I know it was meant to be humorous and to be honest it was to a point, but then it went beyond humor and into offense. Of course I accept your apology and will admit my own reaction could easily have been influenced by reading it after an 11-hour day at work. :) I'm glad to see my original take on you was the accurate one, and I apologize if anything I said upset you as well. I agree with much...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:09 AM
    It what universe was all this necessary? Thanks for proving what an abusive person you can be. At one point I valued your input, and I know you won't care, being the type of person you obviously are, but I no longer do. Oh, and your further analysis continues to use Battle Master to exceed what all Paladins can do without bring an archetype into the mix. Talking about particular archetypes and...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:47 PM
    The biggest issue at our table is players not paying attention when others are acting out their turns. Our DM is almost at the point of taking cell phones away LOL!
    31 replies | 1321 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:46 PM
    We can't really use them because of our house-rules. I've thought about making one, but clicking a bunch of buttons takes some of the fun out of designing a build IMO, the trade off for the speed of it isn't worth it but I would never begrudge others for using them. :)
    3 replies | 192 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:40 PM
    Improved Divine Smite By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. (DELETED: If you also use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite.) Removing the italicized sentence...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 01:21 PM
    Wrong, it is pretty simple math: (at 20th-level, assuming Improved Divine Smite still caps smites at 5d8, some tables play it increases it to 6d8, but whatever...) 4 smites for 3d8 = 4 x 13.5 avg = 54 3 smites for 4d8 = 3 x 18 avg = 54 8 (3 + 3 + 2) smites for 5d8 = 8 x 22.5 avg = 180 54 + 54 + 180 = 288 hp of damage on average. Oh, and MOST importantly, this is added AFTER the hit so it...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 12:50 AM
    Mine. ;) Of course, ours have things added and removed for our table. If you're interested, I'll post a couple versions. I've been debating about making a RAW version, but it takes a bit of time doing all the form work so I haven't made it yet.
    4 replies | 255 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 12:21 AM
    Several uses of Divine Smite is more damaging than, at most, 3 action surges, dealing on average roughly 100 hp more damage throughout its use at maximum. Divine smite is not a nova ability IMO with up to 15 uses per long rest. This allows a paladin to use divine smite practically every round at higher levels. At lower levels it is more useful, but not at higher ones. Granted at tier 4 when a...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 09:22 PM
    It isn't a matter of controlling when it happens, it is an issue of what sort of impact it has over the long run. It would be like including archetypes and trying to estimate how much extra damage the assassinate feature could do. It simply isn't practical to include nova abilities, of which action surge is one. Something like action surge would double the expected damage for a single round, but...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 08:08 PM
    Because you can't know how many rounds of combat you will have between short rests and therefore you can't average out the bump in DPR. In a similar fashion, I am not factoring in critical hits. At higher levels, the sneak attack bonus dice on a critical hit far outweighs what a fighter might get from his bonus for an extra weapon die of damage. Since some tables have more combat rounds, the...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 06:47 PM
    Yep, that was in my post but easy to miss if you skimmed it. Of course, like many I personally don't like rapiers in our game, but others do and it is the only d8 melee weapon the rogue can use with sneak attack (that I know of anyway LOL). Anyway, even if you decreased it to a d6 weapon like a shortsword, the rogue's avg. damage over the levels is still 0.40 or so better than the fighter. ...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 06:33 PM
    For me, anyway, I am only concerned with a base build. Of course certain fighter builds we have better DPR than rogues, but that defeats the idea that in general fighters should have better DPR. I disagree that rogues should be out damaging the fighter because of AC or other factors. Rogues have their niche, and fighters should have theirs... the problem is the basic fighter build barely...
    232 replies | 9898 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About dnd4vr

Basic Information

About dnd4vr
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
711
Posts Per Day
4.80
Last Post
Super Simple Racial Features Yesterday 04:13 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:47 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 20th February, 2019
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019



Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 05:30 PM - FrogReaver mentioned dnd4vr in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    dnd4vr - your chart shows a level 1 rogue doing 11 damage but a fighter doing 9.5. The fighter with duelist style will only be .5 damage behind the rogue. Something is off in your numbers.

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019


Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 03:54 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned dnd4vr in post Crafting Items - Expert Craftsman vs Adventurers
    ...pend their plunder on when they visit the big city. That said, letting a Bard or Rogue use their Expertise to gain double proficiency with Smith's Tools or Leatherworker's Tools or whatever sounds fine to me if that's a thing that will help advance their character concept. We're talking an XP difference of up to 48000 points. None of the characters in our current game have that much XP and we've been playing for almost 6 months now. Sure, but playing for 6 months doesn't actually mean much. Do you meet weekly? Bi-weekly? Perhaps more importantly, how much time has passed in your campaign world? Characters in our campaign (which meets every other week or so) might gain 3 levels over the course of 6 or 7 sessions - and that might be months in the game world or it might only be 4 or 5 days. Point being, if you think about it too hard it all becomes nonsense. So? Did we have fun despite the math/physics? If yes, then it's all good. It seems that the OP issue (as dnd4vr empathizes above) is really with bounded accuracy. The range of bonuses in 5e is tight on purpose. Rather than abilities advancing exponentially, 5e ability advancement is mostly linear and, with some exceptions, capped. Seems that it goes without saying, but the game is not intended to simulate reality. It is, as they say, what it is, and the math hasn't impacted the enjoyment of the sessions at our table.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 02:37 PM - DEFCON 1 mentioned dnd4vr in post 2d10 for Skill Checks
    ...ver)... I find it funny that you've been trying to claim my change doesn't work for what I've been trying to accomplish. ;) Now if you're talking about just the average table... sure your math might be right. But obviously my table isn't average. So why you made the claim in your original post... Mathematically, you have introduced a much greater variance. You are heading in the opposite direction of your stated goal. ...using math for tables which are not mine makes me cock an eyebrow at your claims. If all you're trying to do is just say that for the average table that has more DCs in the 10-14 range, rolling 2d10 does not give any appreciable affect... that cool. You probably are right (and if I cared, I'd actually go through your math to confirm it for myself.) But if that's the case, I'm wondering why you also made the statement about my specific situation, which by accounts does not appear to fall into the average table you are talking about (and which is what dnd4vr has also been writing about)?

Friday, 22nd March, 2019

  • 06:22 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned dnd4vr in post 2d10 for Skill Checks
    ... fact that the d20 die roll produced way too large a variance for me, resulting in a PC's personal modifier having much less meaning in the grand scheme of results. A PC with a +6 to a skill versus one with a +0 did not make a perceptional difference that often... when the +0 could roll 16s to 20s while the +6 would roll 3s, 5s, 6s etc. The lack of a bell-curve meant modifiers had less import. Simple solution: have the players switch dice. That way the PC with the +6 could roll 16s to 20s while the +0 would roll 3s, 5s, 6s. Amirite? On a more serious note, I have noodled over this before but concluded that the d20 just works. In the multiple dice method, any combo of dice is going to have results that strongly favor the middle of the range thereby lowering the chances of spectacular successes and failures. High and low rolls alike can create memorable moments at the table and reducing the chances of those would be a net loss, IMO (especially the failures :devil:). As dnd4vr demonstrates, rolling a 20 (or a 1) is 5x less likely to happen with 2d10 than it is with a d20. In game, when there is a meaningful consequence for failing a check and so a roll is called for by the DM, the +0 PC could simply offer to Help (or Work Together with) the +6 PC. If that is appropriate in the given situation, the "problem" of the lesser skilled PC rolling higher goes away - instead they have teamed up to gain advantage and gain a better chance to succeed. One might also argue that 2d10 for skill checks also somewhat diminishes the impact of the Rogue's Reliable Talent since it's less likely to roll less than a 10... or that it diminishes the value of Bardic Inspiration as the truly skilled PC won't need it as often... but maybe neither of those is really that significant... That said, if 2d10 works for your table in a fun way, that's cool - and I'm glad you shared it!

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 02:34 PM - Hriston mentioned dnd4vr in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    ...ame time as Y, not that Y can exist so long as X eventually does. But X is true at the same time as Y because it's true of your entire turn. You can't both take the Attack action on your turn and not take the Attack action on your turn. It's one or the other. Possibly, except we have another rule, the one that says you do not have a bonus action until given one. In that case, you cannot go to the bookstore (bonus action) because the bookstore doesn't exist until you take money out of the ATM. Okay, that example got weird, but still, that's how it works. Okay, I was ignoring the bonus action part of the example because of the weirdness, but what I've been saying about Shield Master still holds. The rule you're citing says you don't have a bonus action to take unless "a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action." Shield Master states (with conditions) that you can shove a creature as a bonus action. Alternatively, dnd4vr's example states (with conditions) that you can go to the bookstore and buy a book as a bonus action. You cannot take a bonus action to shove until you've taken the Attack action on your turn. If X, Y means X cannot be a future event if Y occurs, it must be a current event. Right, and my argument is that it's current because of the "on your turn" language. Perhaps an interpolation would help: If you [do] take the Attack action on your turn, you can use... The fact your interpretation jumps to the end of the turn to check if the Attack action has occurred and then goes back to earlier to allow the bonus action prior to the Attack action. Since you've been clear that declaration isn't how you do this, then you have to be allowing a end-of-turn check to justify the bonus action. It's different than that, though. Until satisfaction of the condition can be checked for (which, at the latest, is at the end of your turn), all that has happened is a shove-attempt. Once the moment...

Sunday, 3rd March, 2019

  • 06:10 PM - UngeheuerLich mentioned dnd4vr in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    5ekyu You still miss the target. 1. RAW Ready goes 2nd, but not after an action but a perceivable trigger. So hostage scenarios are an edge case as well as having a killing shot. It is also possible to circumvent the trigger and still cast a spell. (Subtle casting metamagic etc.) 2. Hostages are often low level bystanders or badly wounded people. For the scene it is not necessary to do a killing blow, just the threat of it. 3. I even second you in rulings that make ready an action a rare scenario. So no concentration. But I like it as a gamble you might take in those situations. 4. I just strongly disagree with your reading of "finishes the trigger". We would not have the discussion if it was worded as in previous editions "finsihes the triggering action". In that case the spell would go off no question. But I really like the wording of 5e RAW because it rewardsclever thinking on both sides. dnd4vr As you can read in my post: I don't think the rule is in anyway jnfortunately written. Actually it works perfectly. No backloop. No time traves. Just a simple trigger reaction and then tine goes on normally. The only thing you as a DM have to take care off: you don't say: the wizards ignores your threat and just casts you have to say: ignoring your warning the wizard still moves his hand. And now the PC decides: shoot or not. The player might get a sense motive pr perception chech to notice what the intend of the movement is, but now you have to decide possibly before you know what the movement means. That alligns perfectly with movie scenes that depic such situations.

Saturday, 2nd March, 2019

  • 04:43 PM - MarkB mentioned dnd4vr in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    The rule I stated was for determining the exact spell being cast. The DM could just as easily rule it as Insight check or similar against the Mind Flayer's Deception (if it was actually trying to fool the PC Fighter). Of course, with that thinking the Deception act by the Mind Flayer could constitute its action! LOL And as I wrote in my post, the player could simple react and throw the spear immediately, without deciding to make the check. Again, lots of ways to handle this. Which still doesn't address the second part of my post. Readied actions, unlike reactions in general, don't occur immediately. They happen after the trigger finishes. That leaves a lot less room for interpretations that allow an action to be interrupted. Thatís interesting. Is that written somewhere? Iíve not heard that rule but I like it. It's the rule dnd4vr was referencing - Xanathar's, page 85.
  • 04:38 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned dnd4vr in post [5E] Interrupting a Spellcaster via Ready Action
    That just opens up more room for disagreements. If the Mind Flayer hasn't actually cast the spell yet, how do you know that's what it's doing, as opposed to speaking or gesturing to an ally? Must the Fighter take his readied action the moment the Mind Flayer utters any word or makes any gesture? And again, you take your readied action after the trigger finishes. What counts as someone finishing starting moving their hands or speaking words? Simple: There should be no disagreement because the DM makes a ruling, like dnd4vr stated above. I would say the trigger is finished as soon as the Flayer starts moving its hands or starts to speak in a spell-like fashion, just as the player intended. Then it's up to the player to decide for their PC if they think it is a spell or not. If the player then says their PC tries to recognize the Flayer's motion (or speech) as spellcasting before throwing the spear, the DM might call for an Arcana roll. If the player rolls well, the PC is pretty sure it's a spell (or not). If they roll poorly, they have no idea. In any case, the player gets to decide if the PC carries out the action, or ignores the trigger, per the rules of the Ready action. How about another example. Let's say the fighter readied this action: "I throw my spear at the Flayer if it starts moving towards us". As a DM, would you really insist the the Flayer finish its movement - perhaps it moves 20' to get next to the wizard, attacks, then moves its last 10' to get next to the fighter - before all...

Friday, 1st March, 2019

  • 03:51 PM - Dausuul mentioned dnd4vr in post Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong
    In martial classes, being able to stack that free sneak attack hit onto a fighter attack routine is tremendous. There isn't an answer for it in the other martial abilities (at least with the choices you've made, a fighter/barb great weapon fighter with the right feats and your multiclassing rule would dish serious damage and almost never miss). Your multiclassing rule will supercharge your martials and not do much at all for your casters. Huh? That's not true at all. Double spell slots is a colossal buff. Unless you're doing the whole 5-minute workday thing, casters have to ration their high-end spells with great care. Double spell slots means you can lob twice as many fireballs before you have to fall back on cantrips. You might be assuming that spell slots stack the way they do in 5E multiclassing, but I don't think that assumption is warranted. Based on @dnd4vr's description, it sounds like they threw the 5E multiclass system out the window entirely and went with the AD&D approach. That would mean each class tracks its own spell slots separately. @dnd4vr can correct me if I'm wrong here. Looking over the list of characters, it seems like a reasonably balanced party, at least at a glance. The only character I'd be worried about not keeping up would be the fighter/barbarian; that one seems like it would have less synergy than the others. (The barbarian/monk is an interesting mix... is that character going Dex-focused or Str-focused? Str would seem like a better fit, since it lets you stack rage on top of Flurry of Blows, but I could see the other way too.) Regardless, if our system works for us to meet the challenges we face and the play style we like and our DM fosters, it isn't broken. :p Damn straight. It sounds like a fun game! There's nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone is on board and willing to address any issues tha...

Monday, 25th February, 2019

  • 05:41 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned dnd4vr in post Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong
    dnd4vr Not meaning to sound disrespectful (but certainly recognizing my question can be be seen as such), but have you asked your player how they imagine it works? Did you give them a chance to solve the "problem"? The way I see it, D&D is composed of mechanics and how we see imagine, or "skin" them. There is nothing inherent about the mechanics that make up what we call a human to be human. I can just as easily take those same stats and state that it is a bugbear. The mechanics are not impacted by this, but it allows us to explore the role playing opportunities of having a bugbear present in the party. Additionally, there is nothing that says I can't take the mechanics that make up a warhammer and describe it as a big battle gauntlet. Mechanically the description has no impact on the mechanics, but it can help explain and realize a player's concept for their character. Similarly, Sneak Attack can easily be skinned into other actions. The problem is that we have this kind of cultural un...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 07:23 PM - billd91 quoted dnd4vr in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    Even if you believe 2E was the most lethal edition, how many people remember more of their characters dying in 1E? I know I had more character deaths in 1E than 2E, by a long shot. Since I played with mostly the same people over all those years between both editions I will rule that factor out. I don't know about you but back when we were playing 1e, we were younger and dumber than when we were playing 2e. Eight years of player and life experiences made a difference.
  • 04:34 PM - jaelis quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    If you want to do math that way, that is up to you, but I hope you have someone else do your taxes! But hey, if your table is okay with it then kuddos. Otherwise, you're just being silly. We aren't discussing grammar unless you want to return to your statements. Of course, that is pointless since you continue to ignore the idea that the effect can only be removed by a long rest or powerful magic as per the vampire description. That is where the interpretation comes in. To you, the effect is gone when the character is killed by the initial reduction to 0 max hp, to our group the reduction remains--preventing Revivify, until removed. Again, both are valid and neither has anything to do with grammar. To me, this sounds like you are saying "The rule says that the the effect can only be removed with a long rest. But grammar is not relevant for understanding what the rule says." I can't comprehend this at all. How can you know what the rule says without thinking about the language that...
  • 04:04 PM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post Super Simple Racial Features
    Honestly, I had considered this and I might to a point, but probably not to the extent you're talking about. I want the racial features to be significant, but not over powering in any respect. Overpowering at what level range? What racial features make players excited at Tier 2 and Tier 3 of play?
  • 03:39 PM - lowkey13 quoted dnd4vr in post Super Simple Racial Features
    Not really. IIRC both Infravision and Ultravision allowed you to "see" in the dark, but by different means. Infravision was sight by heat sources or something, as where Ultravision used any light that was at all present and magnified it to the point you could see. Not quite (at least, not as introduced). DMG 59 states that ultravision can't be used underground or indoors- basically, it's only useful outdoors at night. My favorite weird ultravision rule is that magic weapon light ruins ultravision. :)
  • 03:23 PM - Sacrosanct quoted dnd4vr in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    Even if you believe 2E was the most lethal edition, how many people remember more of their characters dying in 1E? I know I had more character deaths in 1E than 2E, by a long shot. Since I played with mostly the same people over all those years between both editions I will rule that factor out. And while things like having a default 3d6 for ability scores in 2E, I can't recall many players ever really using it unless they wanted the randomness and challenge. True, dragons could be much more deadly, but in 1E lower level characters could handle dragons with some chance of success, in 2E all it did was make it so characters had to be higher levels to handle them. The degree of danger remained the same IMO, just when you challenged them was different. Those were my experiences, anyway. I suspect your experiences are the norm. Thatís why when I looked at the rules, I was surprised. 2e was written a lot more brutal than 1e, but we still played with a lot of 1e rules, like assuming 4d6 ...
  • 02:45 PM - lowkey13 quoted dnd4vr in post Super Simple Racial Features
    reducing the benefits for each race to a single core feature, which while useful will not be too powerful, I am hoping to accomplish that. I am keeping every thing else the same, but made some changes to vision: Darkvision races: Dragonborn, Half-orc, Tiefling (Darkness becomes dim, dim becomes normal) Shadowsight races: Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes (Dim Light becomes normal, no help in Darkness) Normal sight races: Half-elves, Halflings, Humans Is the Darkvision / Shadowsight like the old Infravision / Ultravision?
  • 02:27 PM - jaelis quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid. What do you mean exactly? I agree in the sense that it is the right and responsibility of the DM (and players) to use the rules in a way that works for them. If that means ignoring something that doesn't work for you, then that is absolutely a "valid" thing to do. On the other hand, the words in the rules say something. English is ambiguous, so often the same words can be interpreted in different, but valid ways. But not all ways are "valid" in that sense. Claiming that "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0" has the same English meaning as "The target dies if this effect has reduced its hit point maximum to 0" is, IMO, wrong, and disputing that is a matter of grammar not interpretation. Yes that is rules lawyering, and if you don't care about that kind of argument, the right response is "whatever, I don't care." But if you tell a rules lawyer "No, y...
  • 02:24 PM - Maxperson quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    No one is changing the rules or ignoring them. They are all interpretations of the rules and are all valid. I am not trying to cast Revivify on this "dead horse", but I think some people should understand that there is no right or wrong answer here and rules lawyering doesn't work because... well, it is still all about interpreting the rules. This.
  • 02:06 PM - Sadras quoted dnd4vr in post What are your Pedantic Complaints about D&D?
    We added weapon properties: Skewer, Stun, Wound for many piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing weapons. Basically on a critical hit they involve the target making a Dex, Str, or Con check to avoid additional damage, etc. Sure, but that doesn't fix the issue of weapons being samey or OP compared to the rest. The point is to differentiate weapons by more than just damage making other weapon choices viable.

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 03:23 PM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Anyway, this could go round-and-round, back-and-forth, for years with no clear answer. RAW interpretations will differ, which is fine of course, but no one is going to win this debate. :) Actually, jaelis just won it for the "long rest at 0 won't make it come back" side. :) I had the concept of "what happens because of a long rest" and "what happens after a long rest occurs", which is supported reading the Long Rest section of the PHB and the Vampire's bite entry. But he called on me to look at other things that come back after a long rest, and the verbiage of them differed from the Long Rest section and matched the Vampire's bite section. So I was wrong. It would take a Greater Restoration or similar after the Revivify.
  • 02:57 PM - Hriston quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    He was thinking that while she would be in a coma, she would be getting a long rest maybe? I don't know I'd have to ask him. Sorry for my cross-editing. As Iíve posted up-thread, I donít think a long rest is possible at 0 hit points, the most readily available (to me) in-fiction reason being that you canít sleep/trance while unconscious.
  • 02:09 PM - Hriston quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    We would have been in the same situation really then since we can't cast Greater Restoration, either. If he had ruled it this way, he told me he would have had the character remain in a coma until we got a Greater Restoration and maybe required a death save daily, allowing her to recover naturally or die again. (Which is kind of pointless since we can just cast Revivify again...) Thatís pretty much how Iíd have run it. I left death saves out of my response because stabilizing a dying PC seems trivial enough, if deemed necessary, once revivify was cast. Of course, care would need to be taken to prevent further damage to the PC, or the PC would die again. Iím not sure what you mean by ďrecover naturallyĒ though, because even if a 20 was rolled on a death save, the PCís hit points would remain at 0 until greater restoration was cast. Bringing the PC back with revivify just avoids having to use a higher level spell later, and I think it should have worked for that purpose. Once the PC was taken ...
  • 01:05 PM - Esker quoted dnd4vr in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    Sure, that makes sense. When you don't happen to roll 15 misses, say only 10 in the day, the five other dice can't be used for precision attack, and don't factor in at that point. On the other side, if you have more than 21 misses, say 25, then those extra 4 misses also can't benefit because all 15 have already been used. It's interesting that this only changes the outcome by a point or less. Of course, when all 15 dice aren't needed for precision attack, they will contribute to damage through other maneuvers, adding to the overall expected damage. Anyway, it was fun. :) Itís a really small difference at this AC in particular because the below 15 near-misses cases do partially compensate for the above 15 near-misses cases, just not fully. If you have dice leftover it usually means you've hit more often than expected (unless you just had an excess of nat 1s and 2s), so you're doing more damage than when you use all your dice. Basically you're trading an 80% chance to hit for an 86% chanc...

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 07:45 PM - Hriston quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    So an interesting thing happened in our game yesterday. One of the characters was killed by a vampire and had her maximum hit points reduced to 0 by the bite. A couple rounds later (vampire defeated), our bard with Revivify tried it and the DM ruled it failed (due to her maximum hp at 0). Now it is a race against time as the party has about 20 days (gentle repose) to find a priest to cast Raise Dead. Our group is wondering will it work? Or is she doomed to remain dead? After all, she is still with maximum hp of 0. She is dead so she can't really rest to recover those hit points. We were thinking maybe we would need a Greater Restoration to restore the maximum hp first and then cast Raise Dead. I don't know how our DM will rule it so I am thinking of getting compelling argument material in case he rules unfavorably. :) Thoughts? My 2Ę: revivify should have brought the character back to life with 0 hit points. The 1 hit point of healing would have been lost, and the characterís hit point ma...
  • 06:26 PM - Esker quoted dnd4vr in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    Hmm... Why would you think there are fewer opportunities to use them? For all 15 are used on the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in each set of 20 rolls (5 misses out of the 7 in each set). If you can use it on a natural 2 to make it a hit, you would also use it on a 3 through 7 for the same impact. Because there won't always be 15 in that range; sometimes there will be more and sometimes fewer. If there are more, you're worse off on average than the case you examined, since any rolls after the 5th in that range automatically miss. If there are fewer, you're a bit better off, since the shortfall are more likely to be hits than nat 2s and 1s, but it's not a guarantee. The two cases (>= 15 and <= 15) don't balance out exactly; on average the outcomes that aren't exactly 15 are a bit worse than the outcomes that are exactly 15. The same is true if you use your dice on 2s, but two things differ. The downside is that on rolls when you use a die, you're hitting a bit less often on average than if you held back...
  • 06:25 PM - Tony Vargas quoted dnd4vr in post Variant HP per HD
    One option we used for a while was (at level 1 only), if the die rolled less than 1/2 the maximum, you got 1/2 the maximum.My 3.x group always did that. One of the more extreme ways I've ever seen of dealing with a bad HD roll at level-up, was to repudiate the level. That's how the player put it "I do not accept that roll! I repudiate the level!" I was Ok with it, his fighter dropped back to 2nd, and she ultimately made it to 4th (with less disappointing HD rolls on the way)Ö ...she was, BTW, one of those characters we old timers sometimes like to rave about: a horribly disappointing set of random stats, that was /only/ qualified for fighter, some willfully bad choices (Weapon specialization: Club) and not very good at it (no bonuses from STR), but who became a fun character to play, in spite of that (or in part because of it).
  • 05:48 PM - Oofta quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    FYI the Greater Restoration/ Raise Dead combo is how our DM is ruling it. For story-flare, they have to be cast in conjunction during a "special ceremony", etc. Now we just have to find two clerics high enough level and get the money to pay them. LOL. As for the annoying rules lawyering, as I said I am finished with it. It is all about interpretation of the vampire bite effect. You feel once the character dies, the effect no longer keeps them at max hp 0, I (and my DM obviously) feel otherwise. Have a nice day. I think the simplest interpretation is that the specific wording of raise dead overrides the general max HP restriction. But even if it doesn't, the trigger for being slain by having max HP reduced to zero cannot be met. If you're already at 0 max HP, your max HP can't be reduced. Since they aren't reduced you aren't slain. But the only important thing is that there's a fun alternative to resolve the obstacle.
  • 05:36 PM - Remathilis quoted dnd4vr in post Finesse rebalance
    Not enough time at present to read through the thread, so my apologies if I am repeating anything others have already said. We already house-rule all bonus damage comes from Strength, regardless of the weapon type with the exception of loading weapons, which never receive a bonus to damage. This fixed finesse for us. We also added rules for light and heavy weapons (light weapons do half STR mod and heavy to 1.5 x STR mod, both round down). We removed two-handed and all heavy weapons are two-handed by default (most already were anyway). Ranged weapons always require two hands, regardless (for firing and loading), but thrown weapons are always one-handed. I don't mind the new Fighting Style, but it seems a bit much like a strange combo of Dueling, Defenseive Duelist, and Dual Wielding, ya know? In a non-feat game I am sure you could write such a style that would work better IMO. If I think of anything I will certainly contribute!It might have been faster just to say "in my campaign, everyo...
  • 04:26 PM - Esker quoted dnd4vr in post Consensus about two-weapon fighting?
    I used combinatorics and probability distributions. Yeah, you have to break it up into cases. I just assumed the 60 attacks with expected rolls of 3 1's, 3 2's, 3 3's, etc. up to 3 20's. Thus the 15 rolls of 3's through 7's will use up the 15 superiority dice. The 1's automiss, of course, and the 2's aren't needed to be considered because with only 15 dice, there are none left to even attempt to improve them out of 60 rolls. Then I ran a 1,000,000 trial sample to verify the numbers and I got the 171.5 (or so). Interesting, so it's not quite the same, since you're using the average distribution of rolls. I actually find that if you don't use a die when you roll a natural 2, your extra damage goes down to 152; the reason being that you're now more likely to have fewer opportunities than 15 to use them (and more likely to miss when you don't).
  • 01:31 PM - jaelis quoted dnd4vr in post Death and 0 Max HP
    You also realize the way I am reading this, as interpreted by your quote, is equivalent to what is written in the vampire's description, right? Only if you ignore the tenses of the verbs involved. I gather you feel OK with that, but I don't know why. The text has the form "Something happens (present tense) if something happens (present tense)." Try substituting some other phrases in: "You collect $10,000 if the hurricane destroys your home." Your insurance company will not pay you another $10k next month, even if your home is still destroyed. "You get a ticket if an officer catches you speeding." You don't continue to automatically get a ticket every time you speed for the rest of your life. "Joe gets mad if you beat him at Mario Kart." That doesn't imply Joe will be mad at you tomorrow, even if you haven't played Mario Kart again. i can't think of an everyday example of that form where there is a clear implication the effect is ongoing. You would use the past perfect for th...


Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

dnd4vr's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites