View Profile: dnd4vr - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Today, 04:31 AM
    It took some time but I finally finished writing up and formatting our collection of house rules for your enjoyment (see attachment). We have been playing with these rules for a while and everything works fine for us, so I am not looking for feedback on balance issues, etc. If you have ideas you think we might like to add or notice errors, please let me know and thanks for reviewing!
    1 replies | 76 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:21 PM
    Well, dwarves do spend a lot of time underground, but in all the media (books, movies, etc.) they nearly always have light sources (fireplaces, torches, lanterns, candles, etc.). Our rationale was the dwarves are adapted to seeing better in dim light due to their common use of "limited" light sources. They are not known to typically operate in absolute darkness, however. I should mention, though,...
    203 replies | 7178 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:11 PM
    We split the nine races thus: Darkvision: Dragonborn, Half-Orcs, Tieflings Shadowsight (aka Low-Light): Dwarves, Elfs, Gnomes Normal: Half-elves, Halflings, Humans. Our current party has one dragonborn, a dwarf, three elves, one human, and a half-orc. Since most of the party has darkvision or shadowsight, we often are using dancing lights to make darkness into dim light. Then the human...
    203 replies | 7178 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:52 PM
    Your spellcasting ability score modifier plus your proficiency bonus. Just as if you were making a spell attack roll. We had two new people join our group yesterday, one playing a wizard and the other a bard/monk. So, we had to explain the system and everything to them and they caught on quickly. It works well as long as you don't mind the potential of several low level spells or a bit more...
    19 replies | 545 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th June, 2019, 02:27 PM
    Here's the system we use for spell points. It works well for us. :)
    19 replies | 545 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 05:13 AM
    Or you could read it the other way around, that the multiclassing spellcaster table is the specific that overrides all the other spellcaster tables (Bards, Clerics, etc.). :) Although I agree with you, that's why I responded you could argue it reasonably well in either direction. When push comes to shove, it is simply up to the DM and the table IMO.
    8 replies | 359 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 04:07 AM
    Definitely AD&D.
    41 replies | 1098 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 04:05 AM
    I guess it is up to interpretation, but I would rule only up to 5th. The multiclassing rule allows you to use spells you know or prepare with higher level slots, but not to know or prepare spells higher than a level you can know. That being said, if my DM ruled it the other way, it could be argued easily and understandably as well.
    8 replies | 359 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:02 AM
    Yeah, we use the dnd-spells.com website and it helps some, but I agree I think part of the problem is two players basically only do stuff during session time and we lose time often. But they are new, don't have books, and work a lot so the rest of us try to be as understanding as possible. I usually host the game so I have been trying to encourage them to arrive early so I can help if they need...
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:10 AM
    The cleric/wizard players complain a bit, but also the other players waiting for the discussion of "what to prepare today". I was thinking also of suggesting to those players to prep 3x5 cards with "combat", "in town", "traveling", etc. for what the player expects for the day. That would cut down on the wasted time. I think the CDW classes would have enough spells and maybe we'll try it out....
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 05:22 PM
    Oh, I agree that passive scores are definitely useful and I like the tent idea LOL. Maybe when I am DMing I will put post-its on my DM screen, or I'll just add them to the initiative spreadsheet... Either way, they are a good reference for if a character might notice something when a player doesn't think to ask or that it is important to check--that is how we like using it.
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:06 PM
    You have it correct. We are house-ruling that a high enough passive score means you can roll for a check, even if the player doesn't think to ask to do it. We don't like it to be automatic so changed it.
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:02 PM
    Cool. Thanks for your input and experiences in doing something like what we are considering. I was already planning on working ritual spells into Wizards somehow and the idea about domain spells for cleric and druids works well I would think.
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:00 PM
    Well, compared to Sorcerers and Warlocks, Wizards eventually would know twice as many spells (30 vs only 15), and more than 35% more than Bards. Clerics and Druids have more "extra" features so would receive more spells than Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, but not quite as many as Wizards. Even clerics and druids have an spell known edge over Bards, and a significant on over Sorcerers and...
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:52 AM
    Oh, there are still reasons to play Wizards and Clerics (and even Druids :P ). First, you'll notice those spellcasters get more known spells (not a lot at first, but quite a bit more later on). As I mentioned as an option, Ritual spells could be automatically known and used maybe (at least for Wizards). I was also considering granting more uses of Channel Divinity and likewise with Druid class...
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 06:44 PM
    I've seen much the same. Although other casters might swap out spells once in a while, by and large they seem loyal to their favorites. Here is the progression I am thinking of for the other classes in gaining known spells instead of using prepared spells. I'm also considering having the spellcasting ability score modifier added to the number of known spells for all spellcasting classes. ...
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 01:27 PM
    LOL ok, so technically the known spells of a wizard are the ones in his spellbook. I meant the idea of known spells similar to Bards so that I can nix the idea of "prepared" spells. Clerics and Druids have no known spell list. They "know" all the spells available to them but select spells to prepare. I would like to change that to "known" spells akin to Bards, et al. Sorry for the confusion.
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:10 AM
    Since some classes have known spells, I have been toying with the idea of giving Clerics, Druids, and Wizards known spells as well instead of prepared spells, using the same ideas as Bards and others (you start with 2 or 3, get one a level, exchange one, etc.). I know Wizards "know" the spells in their spellbooks, but I am looking to remove the idea of having to select preparing spells. As an...
    26 replies | 1007 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:10 PM
    The character is always observing life, just as we are. However, if the DM describes an odd smell, the characters already notice it. To determine the source of the smell is the check in this case. Just like a person notices shadows everywhere we go, whether or not we notice something hidden in the shadows is passive unless we put forth the effort to do it actively. Passive means you might notice...
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:52 PM
    I would just post a screen shot of the tables as an image and it might look better.
    135 replies | 3922 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 01:41 PM
    Maybe you aren't getting the concept? Your last statement about the same idea in combat reflects that. If a player says my character is looking, they roll. Passive has nothing to do with it once the player is active.I'll give you an example:The party is meeting with a local magistrate. They walk into the room and an aid is hidden with a DC 20 to spot him. None of the players say their characters...
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 04:08 AM
    While a few people already responded, I have to say there is a big difference in every respect. Doing a walking handstand does require a lot of balance, but it also requires enormous strength. Few acrobats/gymnasts are weak by any standards. There are many times when Strength (Acrobatics) would be more appropriate than Dexterity (Acrobatics) and many circumstances when Dexterity (Athletics) is...
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 04:33 AM
    I agree, I see a very large difference between Athletics and Acrobatics.We use passive scores somewhat differently. If you have a passive score that is high enough to "detect" something, the DM tells you to roll a check even if you don't say you want to. For example, if the characters walk past a secret door with a DC 20, a character with a Passive Perception of 20 or better might notice the door...
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 04:07 AM
    Um... isn't this sort of thing what you're supposed to be doing in 5E? I know it is a variant option, but seems more like what most people do anyway. On the new character sheet I made, I removed the link between ability scores and skills so players don't get trapped into thinking you have to use them linked only one way.
    70 replies | 1736 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 02:55 PM
    You can buy mine, but I own many that you weren't impressed by... :)
    33 replies | 1122 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:50 PM
    I disagree completely. I discussed this point with my table yesterday and they agreed: you put in the time, you level--there just isn't a feeling of struggling or accomplishment really. A lot of this comes from the ease of avoiding death. We implemented a new house-rule concerning Revivify (as this is particularly an issue): When you are the target of Revivify, you must make a death save. If...
    162 replies | 6276 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 04:32 PM
    Our table has been playing with TWF granting an additional attack with a second weapon without the cost of the bonus action for months. It works well IMO as the Fighter/Rogue with short sword and handaxe is dealing comparable damage to the duelist Fighter/Barbarian. The only downside is the rogue's use of Cunning Action often when he gets to TWF, but it has hardly been game breaking. So I can...
    203 replies | 5216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 02:33 PM
    I wonder how that would translate into 5E... I never played Pathfinder and 3.5 for one a few months over 10 years ago.
    31 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 01:00 PM
    dnd4vr started a thread Wizard archetype needed!
    So, for the life of me, I can't find this... I know there is an archetype for Clerics who worship gods of magic or something so they get some limited Arcane spells, but isn't there also a Wizard archetype that had limited access to Divine spells? The Sorcerer bloodline is close, and maybe that is what I am thinking of, but I thought there was a Wizard archetype. Anyone know of something I am...
    31 replies | 1116 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 12:56 PM
    So what happens if they fail the check? I am not familiar with Mutants and Masterminds. As for the discrepancy between classes and HD type, you could add a bonus to the check. Also, if you make it a CON ability check instead of a save, it removes the advantage to classes with CON saves or desire for the Resilient (CON) feat.
    94 replies | 4258 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 05:32 AM
    Fenris-77 brings up an interesting point about removing systems or house-ruling them. If you can change one thing instead of another to achieve the same desired effect, go with the easiest option. For example, our table has been debating changing the AC mechanic to Armor give damage reduction, etc., but it worked out pretty balanced but resulted in nearly the same effect for combat as keeping AC...
    94 replies | 4258 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 05:22 AM
    I have to agree with this. We've only been playing 5E for about 8 months now, but that is just what it feels like: Getting PCs to higher levels in 5e doesn't feel special in any way, but feels like it's pretty much a guarantee if I just put the time in. Don't misunderstand me. It is nice getting to higher levels, getting better spells, more features, etc., but I feel a lot like it is too...
    162 replies | 6276 view(s)
    3 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 04:07 AM
    Like others, I wouldn't mind a Greyhawk settings book and psionics as well. I wouldn't care for Deities & Demigods because I can use my 1E version and if the players ever face a god, they will lose if they try to fight it. Period. What I would LOVE is a historically accurate (do your research WotC instead!) Arms and Equipment Guide, focusing on greater variety for flavor in different campaign...
    71 replies | 2791 view(s)
    2 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 01:45 PM
    There are definitely people with levels in "skills", but that doesn't necessarily give them classes, too. This translates into a higher proficiency bonus, but classes and levels and all the associated features don't apply. A lot of it is just how you view the world and your interpretation. Thanks for your insight.
    94 replies | 4380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 12:35 PM
    UPDATE: That player actually went with a Dwarven Bard. First Bard in our 5E game...
    10 replies | 549 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 12:32 PM
    Going to -10 wasn't a house-rule in 1E. It is on page 82 in the 1E DMG.
    162 replies | 6276 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 04:39 AM
    If you want less hitting and fewer hit points, a "fix" we are considering is making base AC equal to 8 plus proficiency bonus (works so at lower levels is equal to base 10). This represents higher level characters being harder to hit because of their experience in combat. Scale AC up for monsters with proficiency bonus greater than 2, basically add proficiency bonus - 2 to AC and its the same...
    162 replies | 6276 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 04:12 AM
    While I also know many martial artists and military, most I wouldn't consider to have levels in anything. Just as a "Guard" monster has no levels of Fighter or anything else. Although a Priest can cast spells equal to a 5th-level cleric, he has no levels of Cleric. IRL, someone who studies religion and practices it doesn't make them a Cleric or Druid. Also, I would like to consider all the...
    94 replies | 4380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 12:43 PM
    I'm curious IRL what people you know who have "levels"? I could see someone in the military (or ex-military) having some fighter, ranger, or other warrior class levels. Someone who grew up "on the street" might have some rogue levels. So how are things IRL that makes you realize you live in a different world? In game, what levels would the greater percentage of the population have? Farmers are...
    94 replies | 4380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 27th May, 2019, 03:17 AM
    The only thing I don't like is how spells are separated into two groups: attack spells and affecting spells, one versus AC and the other gets saves. I would prefer to retool spells so they are save only, reserving AC for combat only. Since spells are usually light of sight, you focus the spell energy at the target and the save represents the target avoiding (or lessening) the effect. I am...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 27th May, 2019, 01:44 AM
    I've always played as GM about 2% of the adult population has "levels" in some class. They might be retired adventures, or others who picked up skills over the course of their lives, and the rest are still in the game. Of course, this is later separated by class with the base classes having the most individuals. So in a city of 10000, you might have 200 adventurers. Most would be lower levels...
    94 replies | 4380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Monday, 27th May, 2019, 12:56 AM
    I think this is a complete system. I think I got all the numbers right so it works with the exact same probabilities as the present rules. Normal player rolls (no change) Attack Roll: Normal Spell Casting Attack Roll against AC: Normal Resist Spell Roll by Save: Normal Resist Trap/Effect by Save: Normal Players now rolling against the opponents' threat or spell attack, to impose their...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 06:35 PM
    I like the lower numbers instead, but that is simply personal preference. You can achieve the same thing by: "So for example PC with AC 16 and +6 attack roll and spell DC 12 vs Orc with AC 18, an attack bonus of +7 and a save bonus of +1." Orc attacks and has Threat Class (TC?) of 12 + bonus, or 19 (if you want the PC to win all ties, make it 11 + bonus). The PC resists with d20 + Armor...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 02:33 PM
    I would think you would use 10 + attack bonus? or maybe 11 + attack bonus... Actually, I think 11 + attack bonus would work better for the mechanics. The AC mod could be AC - 10 and you add d20, sort of like a saving throw. Maybe 5ekyu has other ideas though.
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 12:34 AM
    Here's an idea: let the players make all rolls. If they are casting, allow them to attack, if they are the target, let them save. This way they are always more engaged. You could do the same thing for attacks. If they are attacking, they roll to hit. If they are being attacked, they roll to defend. If you want to give the players the edge, let them win all ties regardless of which side...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 08:02 PM
    The real issue is that the current system only moves 5% per two points (because a 14 and 15 DEX offer the same modifier), as where going with straight ability scores is a 1 point per 5% change. If you remove proficiency bonus (or keep it a static +2) that might work, but then very high ability scores would be impossible without something to assist the spellcaster. Keep in mind this also raises...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 06:09 PM
    Thanks. Like I said there nothing inherently wrong with doing it the other way, but it would change the nature and feel for magic use quite a bit in many cases. I agree that finding a universal and elegant solution would be best. I'll continue to think on it as well and maybe one of us will come up with a good mechanic.
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 03:33 PM
    Sure, I get that as a player and DM as well, but fair warning is this idea makes spells more effective against the PCs as well! Non-DEX-based classes already have a hard enough time saving against an enemy's fireball for instance. Since most PCS will otherwise have a 10-14 DEX and the enemy spellcaster a +6 or better spellcasting modifier is not uncommon, it can be hard on the players, too. ...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 03:18 PM
    Well, it makes casting a Lightning Bolt or Fireball against dragons a no-brainer! The best DEX a chromatic dragon has is 14 for Black dragons. Even at lower levels with a modest +6 spellcasting modifier you will be successful 65% of the time, but in the current system with the DEX save, the Black Young for instance has a +5 modifier because it is proficient and would need a 9 or higher against...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 04:31 AM
    Just to make sure I am following you correctly, let's look at a concrete example: Suppose your character is a 5th-level Cleric (WIS 16) casting Sacred Flame (DC 14 save) against a Drow Elf (CR 1/4) which has a DEX 14. The Drow is not proficient but has a +2 Dexterity modifer, so needs to roll a 12 or higher (45%) to save. With your idea, you are +6 for your spellcasting modifier and rolling...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 02:46 PM
    This isn't a bad idea, as basically the DC for the save would work like AC does in combat with the attacker always rolling. But I think there might be some problems with this in the mechanics. First, most characters are only proficient in two saves. So for a character without proficiency in DEX saves, but with a DEX 16, would have a big advantage doing it as you suggest. Also, how would...
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Friday, 24th May, 2019, 04:29 AM
    TOTALLY WICKED! The funny thing is about six years ago I started writing an updated movie script based on the old D&D cartoons... maybe I should dig it out LOL! :)
    96 replies | 4832 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 04:43 AM
    We only get short rests in dangerous (or potentially so) areas. In order for the Long Rest to be beneficial the party has to be in a safe and comfortable environment at our table. Since I'm about to start running our game next, I was thinking for using the grittier variation for 8-hour Short Rests and 24-hour or even full-week Long Rests. MWAHAHAHAHA! :D
    53 replies | 1703 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 04:41 AM
    Yeah, there are very few cases where the actual score for an ability comes into play instead of simply the modifier. I like some of your ideas so I'll keep watching to see how you might expand on it and if anything comes to mind I'll add my 2 cp. :)
    58 replies | 1707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 04:38 AM
    If you are interested in KotBL, I can sell you our copy now that we're done with it. I'll give you a good price! :)
    22 replies | 1008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Thursday, 23rd May, 2019, 04:36 AM
    Another vote for KotBL! We played it and it was pretty good (I played it in 1E/2E a long time ago, but no one else in our group knew it). I've also been a fan of the Against the Giants modules, and Tales from the Yawning Portal is a good write-up of it.
    22 replies | 1008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 06:42 PM
    Our DM is taking a break, so we are starting a new campaign and yours truly is in charge! MWAHAHAHA! :lol: I get to add my own flare and tastes as the reigning DM and am looking for options on combating "normal" fights to the death. I have been thinking about tactics such as grappling, knocking prone, etc. because I find the endless fight after fight where they typically end in every creature...
    20 replies | 747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 18th May, 2019, 11:51 PM
    Woo-hoo!!! I was the first (and only) bet for Greyhawk! :)
    70 replies | 4486 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dnd4vr's Avatar
    Saturday, 18th May, 2019, 04:05 AM
    I guess as changes go everything is fine. Personally, I like the Deck as is, but if it works better for your group that's great! :)
    3 replies | 305 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About dnd4vr

Basic Information

About dnd4vr
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
522
Posts Per Day
4.48
Last Post
Our collection of House Rules Today 04:31 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:45 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 20th February, 2019
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019


Saturday, 8th June, 2019


Monday, 3rd June, 2019


Sunday, 2nd June, 2019


Saturday, 1st June, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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. That’s interesting. Is that written somewhere? I’ve 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 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 02:41 PM - Azzy quoted dnd4vr in post Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision
    We split the nine races thus: Darkvision: Dragonborn, Half-Orcs, Tieflings Shadowsight (aka Low-Light): Dwarves, Elfs, Gnomes Normal: Half-elves, Halflings, Humans. I'm curious about rationale of this selection. One would think that dwarves, living underground, would have darkvision as opposed to half-orcs (given that half-orcs are more above-ground than dwarves).
  • 08:59 AM - Harzel quoted dnd4vr in post Spell Points and Problem Spells
    Counterspell and Dispel Magic: Casting either of these spells always requires a spellcasting check... By "spellcasting check" do you mean an ability check using your spellcasting ability? I would assume so, but just wanted to clarify.

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 03:31 PM - 77IM quoted dnd4vr in post Magical secrets and multiclassing
    Or you could read it the other way around, that the multiclassing spellcaster table is the specific that overrides all the other spellcaster tables (Bards, Clerics, etc.). :) Although I agree with you, that's why I responded you could argue it reasonably well in either direction. When push comes to shove, it is simply up to the DM and the table IMO. It's definitely ambiguous (that's why we're here) but let's look at this little gem from the Multiclassing chapter: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class" (emphasis mine). So you determine your bard spells as if you were a bard and NOT multiclassed. Since the spells learned from Magical Secrets are included in the Spells Known column from the bard table, that seems pretty clear that they are bard spells known, and thus determined without regard to multiclassing.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 03:46 PM - Riley37 quoted dnd4vr in post Wizards (et al.) Casting Known Spells?
    I was thinking also of suggesting to those players to prep 3x5 cards with "combat", "in town", "traveling", etc. for what the player expects for the day. At the table where I regularly play, the paladin player has a "town" spell prep list and a "dangerous territory" spell prep list. Maybe the paladin and the cleric would gain in-game efficiency if they coordinated to make sure that one or other has Locate Object and Lesser Restoration; but maybe that in-game efficiency isn't worth table time. I play a sorceror/bard/warlock (currently S2/B1/W3), so I only have decisions to make at level-up transitions. (That one level in Bard added four known spells to my list!)
  • 03:03 PM - DM Dave1 quoted dnd4vr in post Wizards (et al.) Casting Known Spells?
    On one hand, clerics, paladins and some druids already have spells known, in the sense of always prepared: clerics have domain spells, Land druids have terrain-specific spells, and paladins have Oath-specific spells. On another hand, if the issue is "players spend too much table time deciding which spells to prepare", then this is a drastic in-game change, affecting everyone in the setting, to solve a problem with player behavior. Players spend time making choices which may have consequences: this is the core difference between reading a novel and playing TRPG. If other players get bored, how about this solution: the bored players ask the dithering players to get it over with, so the story can move forwards. Sometimes the best way to influence player behavior, is a conversation at the table, rather than a shift in the fundamental mechanics of the setting. Agreed to all this. Personally, I think it all works well as is, but if your table is one that has fun experimenting then: On the gri...

Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 09:51 PM - Greenstone.Walker quoted dnd4vr in post Wizards (et al.) Casting Known Spells?
    ...several minutes or longer of precious game time is wasted. Why do you feel this time is a waste, as opposed to "a fun part of the game."? Are the players of those wizards and clerics complaining?
  • 04:17 PM - ART! quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    You have it correct. We are house-ruling that a high enough passive score means you can roll for a check, even if the player doesn't think to ask to do it. We don't like it to be automatic so changed it. Okay, cool. Thanks. For me as a DM, I have those little hand-made "tents" that hang over my DM screen, one for each PC with their pertinents written on them. More and more I'm listing passive skills there, so I can throw things at a given PC because they would just natural know/see/whatever. I wouldn't want to replace them rolling when thinks get tricky, but the passives just help me move things along.
  • 01:46 PM - Maxperson quoted dnd4vr in post Wizards (et al.) Casting Known Spells?
    Oh, there are still reasons to play Wizards and Clerics (and even Druids :P ). First, you'll notice those spellcasters get more known spells (not a lot at first, but quite a bit more later on). As I mentioned as an option, Ritual spells could be automatically known and used maybe (at least for Wizards). I was also considering granting more uses of Channel Divinity and likewise with Druid class features. Less than 1 spell per spell level over bards, and half that over clerics and druids is hardly what I would call "quite a bit." In our group the versatility of these classes is nothing compared to the delay in time it takes when players pour over their spell lists trying to decide what to take for the day. 90% of the time, nothing changes, except maybe a few spells as Greenstone.Walker mentions, and several minutes or longer of precious game time is wasted. Then 90% of the time there should be no delay. Most of the remaining 10% should also be no delay as they should know their spells and ...

Sunday, 9th June, 2019

  • 02:06 PM - vincegetorix quoted dnd4vr in post Wizards (et al.) Casting Known Spells?
    LOL ok, so technically the known spells of a wizard are the ones in his spellbook. I meant the idea of known spells similar to Bards so that I can nix the idea of "prepared" spells. Clerics and Druids have no known spell list. They "know" all the spells available to them but select spells to prepare. I would like to change that to "known" spells akin to Bards, et al. Sorry for the confusion. Having seen some confusion about preparing spells at my table, and seeing that once my players selected their spells and prepared, they did not care to switch them, I decided to put all caster in the ''known, no prep'' team. You could see a loss of versatility if you noticed your players tend to switch their spell a lot, but I think that most players select their favorite spells from the list and stick with them so YMMV. EDIT: My wizards also have to select a least one spell from their chosen school at level up (if any remaining).

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 10:35 PM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    Maybe you aren't getting the concept? I understand your concept, I just disagree that the idea that a character is not observing their environment exists. Now, an alert character, acting on player instructions, might do things which give bonuses or even remove the need for a roll to observe. But absent that the character is still observing what they can of the world. The DM has a set of tools to determine what the character experiences, such as vision modes (for seeing in darkness), languages known (for understanding written words), and perception for awareness. The DM uses these tool as the filter to know what to describe of the world. A character, living in the world and experiencing it, can notice things the player does not think to ask about - just like in real life you may notice something walking down the street that was not a conscious decision to observe. A simple example is a strong smell. Players may not think to ask if they smell something odd, but the DM should d...
  • 04:20 PM - 5ekyu quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    Maybe you aren't getting the concept? Your last statement about the same idea in combat reflects that. If a player says my character is looking, they roll. Passive has nothing to do with it once the player is active.I'll give you an example:The party is meeting with a local magistrate. They walk into the room and an aid is hidden with a DC 20 to spot him. None of the players say their characters are looking for someone hidden, because they have no reason to suspect the magistrate is really a bad man. So, none of them roll because they aren't looking. However, one character with Observant has a Passive score of 21. So, the DM tells THAT player to roll for Perception. If the roll is 20 or higher, that character notices something to tip them off that there is someone hidden in the room.Now, with Observant, their passive score is 5 higher, so it is basically like saying they roll a 15 all the time instead of the passive 10. That is fine, but it also means their passive ability is BETTER than thei...
  • 06:50 AM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    As for passive skills, it works great and makes much more sense than the system as is. First, observant makes you better due to the +5 bonus when you AREN'T looking than when you are! How does that work?!? Secondly, if players state they are looking then everything works normally anyway, and if they aren't, a good passive score gives them a chance to notice something even when not actively looking. Nothing should be automatic in D&D IMO and it works well for our group. No one, and I seriously mean NO ONE, has ever complained or felt using passive skills RAW makes sense. Except that you're actively messing up the math in exchange for the DM not doing their job. The characters live in the world. You need to know what the characters see so you can convey it to the player. Let me repeat that - you need to have already figured out what the character sees so you can tell the player. Not the other way around in terms of general awareness. Sure, the players can also inspect, look for or whate...

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 01:13 PM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    I agree, I see a very large difference between Athletics and Acrobatics. The question isn't if you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics. The question is if MECHANICALLY you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics that aren't covered by the differences in ability scores? Many of the checks needed (escaping grapples, spells, etc.) right now can use either. And a bunch should. For example, right now someone with expertise in acrobatics with a 20 DEX has no indication that they can climb. That's STR (Athletics). I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall. We use passive scores somewhat differently. If you have a passive score that is high enough to "detect" something, the DM tells you to roll a check even if you don't say you want to. This is double jeopardy. Just shy of half the people who could detect something will never get a roll, and of those that get a role many w...

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 03:02 PM - the Jester quoted dnd4vr in post Wizard archetype needed!
    I wonder how that would translate into 5E... I never played Pathfinder and 3.5 for one a few months over 10 years ago. Poorly. It was a patch on the multiclassing system, designed to make cleric/wizards viable in a system that had significant issues with it due, among other things, to the number of mechanics tied to caster level (especially spell resistance). 5e simply doesn't need to patch that; it's designed with multiclassed casters in mind.
  • 02:45 PM - Blue quoted dnd4vr in post skill proficiencies point buy
    Um... isn't this sort of thing what you're supposed to be doing in 5E? I know it is a variant option, but seems more like what most people do anyway. On the new character sheet I made, I removed the link between ability scores and skills so players don't get trapped into thinking you have to use them linked only one way. The bigger idea was not just to pair skills and ability scores as needed, a variant rule that I have to say I'm the only one I see doing around here, but to trim down the skill list so everything on it was meaningful. Combining similar choices like Athletics & Acrobatics, and leaving them differentiated by the ability score. And folding little used ones like Medicine into other skills, again differentiated by ability score.

Sunday, 2nd June, 2019

  • 05:10 PM - TwoSix quoted dnd4vr in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    I disagree completely. I discussed this point with my table yesterday and they agreed: you put in the time, you level--there just isn't a feeling of struggling or accomplishment really. A lot of this comes from the ease of avoiding death. We implemented a new house-rule concerning Revivify (as this is particularly an issue): But you're not really disagreeing with me. You're choosing to implement a play style in which levels are difficult to gain and maintain. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just simply one play style among many. I'm just saying that levels and experience are ultimately 100% the purview of the DM and the type of game they want to play. They're a tool for the DM to use to shape the game experience.
  • 04:12 PM - TwoSix quoted dnd4vr in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    I have to agree with this. We've only been playing 5E for about 8 months now, but that is just what it feels like: Getting PCs to higher levels in 5e doesn't feel special in any way, but feels like it's pretty much a guarantee if I just put the time in. Don't misunderstand me. It is nice getting to higher levels, getting better spells, more features, etc., but I feel a lot like it is too easy. We're are probably going to implement rules to make the game harder but to each their own. I never quite understood the argument about "getting to higher levels feels special". Level is a game setting, with a built-in tone and its own narrative and mechanical considerations. It's also a dial that I, as the DM, have full control over. If I want the PCs to start at level 15, they will. If I want the game to take 30 sessions to go from level 1 to 5, then it will. It's also fully edition agnostic. I've run games in 5e that started at 1st level, and I've run games in 2e that started at 10th....

Saturday, 1st June, 2019

  • 07:27 PM - 5ekyu quoted dnd4vr in post Removing Hit Points from the Game
    So what happens if they fail the check? I am not familiar with Mutants and Masterminds. As for the discrepancy between classes and HD type, you could add a bonus to the check. Also, if you make it a CON ability check instead of a save, it removes the advantage to classes with CON saves or desire for the Resilient (CON) feat.Mutants and Masterminds has a damage save system. Each successful attack requires a "damage save" (think ConSave) vs a DC created by the strength of the atrack. Failure produces a variety of effects depending on how badly you fail. Degree of success and fail us big. Succeed - shrug it off Fail by 1 to 5 - bruised and battered - take cumulative -1 to damage saves until healed. (Think of this as losing hp) Fail by 6-10 - bruised and get a one turn condition called dazed which is kinda like slowed - limits your actions but doesnt lose all of them Fail by 11-15 - stunned for one turn Fail by 16+ - staggered - stunned ongoing - lasting - two staggered equal out EDIT To g...
  • 05:49 PM - Tony Vargas quoted dnd4vr in post Wizard archetype needed!
    Wizard archetype needed! Ha! Another trick question! Wizards don't have archetypes, they have Traditions! I wonder how that would translate into 5E... I never played Pathfinder and 3.5 for one a few months over 10 years ago. The Mystic Theurge was a kludge, because 3.5 MCing produced caster/caster combos that were about as bad as having 2 casters standing next to eachother, but only one of them could act each round. In 5e a Mystic Theurge would be a Cleric/Wizard, no kludge required - one thing 5e got righter than 3.5 - now, Extra Attack & ASIs, OTOH.... Or, absent MCing, maybe the afore-mentioned arcane Domain Cleric, or a Wizard with the Acolyte bacground.

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 09:32 PM - Enevhar Aldarion quoted dnd4vr in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    Going to -10 wasn't a house-rule in 1E. It is on page 82 in the 1E DMG. 106751 Hm, I don't remember that from 1E at all. As far back as I can remember in any group I was in, being brought back from negative HP to positive HP meant the character was able to get up and do stuff. None of that coma stuff.


Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

dnd4vr's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites