Search results

Sure. There were a number of modern campaigns where we were all human. Those campaigns had no issues with species. There was a goblin campaign that I played in where we were all goblins. Although there were several sub-species of goblins so we weren't all the same. That campaign kind of broke...

My recommendation for challenging a party that employs such tactics is to use AoE damage. Fireball, damaging auras, sweeping attacks, etc. If an enemy can drop 3 characters with one attack/action (or even no action in the case of auras) that's a really strong move, even if the healer can get...

I'm not following your math here. Standard 4 person party. 2 PCs downed every turn. One healer (I'll be generous and assume the healer won't be targeted unless all other party members are downed first). I'll also assume side initiative, since that way downed party members won't have their turns...

In the classic (2e) definition of True Neutral, as keepers of the balance, I'd say a Neutral character could commit any act as long as it furthered the cause of balance. In order to perform a "neutral" evil-act, there would need to be an imbalance in the favor of good. They can't just perform...

Sure. I've played in quite a few thematic campaigns that didn't have humans.

It's a good idea, but if their deliberations are adding an extra hour (give or take) to encounters, then asking them to complete it while you set up is... ambitious. IME, the best option is to have a conversation with them like they're adults (this is assuming they're adults; I really haven't...

If they're spending a lot of time deliberating, then that's at least one of your bottlenecks. Either reduce the time they deliberate, or accept that your combats will run long. A simple, straight-forward approach would be to simply talk to your players. Something like, "Hey guys, the combats...

The first thing, IMO, is to figure out where your bottleneck is. Are the players deliberating a long time on their turns? Is the DM spending a long time considering their tactics on the monsters' turns? Once you know what the table is spending lots of time on, you can takes steps to address it...

I'm still interested if @Distracted DM doesn't want them.

If there's anything that isn't already spoken for, I'd happily pay for the shipping. Good luck with your move.

For those unfamiliar with AD&D, a combat round was 1 minute. So it was 2d6 x 10 rounds (not 2d6 x100, as someone more familiar with 3e+ might expect). But yeah, massively longer duration than in 5e.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with any systems that do this (it's entirely possible I came across this idea somewhere, but I unfortunately don't have any recollection of it ATM). This was how I was thinking of implementing it though. Soul Burn You can flare your soul to gain a brief burst of...

I was reading the 5e Petrified condition today, and it occurred to me that it doesn't say anything about not needing food or drink while petrified. It does say that the creature "ceases aging", and it could be argued that the intent of this to imply that the creature no longer requires food or...

Something I've considered (but never actually implemented) was adding a mechanic to allow creatures to "power through" and ignore the effects of conditions on their turn. I was thinking along the lines of expending 25% of the creature's max HP to ignore all status effects on their turn. I...

If this only applies to PCs, it's fine. If it applies to monsters too, it basically makes the monk (already a class that wasn't terribly powerful, aside from stun spam) much much worse.

Assuming the damage dice are based on the DPR value, they'll likely roughly average out to a similar amount. On any given attack you might roll more or less damage, but over a sufficient number of combats it'll trend toward the average.

You picked 4 data points and showed that the general trend of scaling is linear. Which was already fairly obvious from the tables, was it not? You're not wrong, insofar as what you're demonstrating. I'm just not sure if you have a point that I'm missing?

Here are the numbers, assuming scaling AC. AC 17 CR 1/8 to 1/2 DPR DPR per CR ATT Bonus Adjusted DPR Adj DPR per CR 0.125 3 24 +3 1.05 8.4 0.25 5 20 +3 1.75 7 0.5 10 20 +3 3.5 7 AVERAGE 21.3333333333333 AVERAGE 7.47 AC 17 CR 1 to 4 DPR DPR per CR ATT Bonus Adjusted DPR Adj...

132 damage is if the monster hits with every attack (and we assume zero damage mitigation from the PC). In actuality, the damage from a CR 20 is going to deal an average 92.4 DPR (against AC 17), before mitigation. I agree that a hit survivability calculation would be very interesting to see...

Because I'm lazy and didn't want to have to redo T1, I went with the following AC: T1=17, T2 = 18, T3 = 19, and T4 = 20. The results were interesting. I'll try to write up the tables tonight, when I have time. To summarize, T1 remains 3.38 damage / CR. Unless you treat CR 1 as part of the...