Search results

02_UA_Underdark_Characters.pdf 04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf 1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf 2016_Fighter_UA_1205_1.pdf 2017_01_UA_RangerRogue_0117JCMM.pdf M_2016_UAMonk1_12_12WKWT.pdf UA5_VariantRules.pdf UA_Bard.pdf UA_Cleric.pdf UA_Druid11272016_CAWS.pdf UA_Eberron_v1.1.pdf UA-Feats-V1.pdf...

Betteridge's law of headlines appears to also apply to "titles of 5e threads started by Corpsetaker".

The point is, -5/+10 is not merely not great against things with high AC and low HP, it's actively detrimental and you would never use it. So you've cost the party a feat. :P

I see your "entire sharpshooter party" and raise you "the Castle Full of 2hp Kobolds in Full Plate".

I don't think people should ever ignore forums, but I don't think they should assume that forums accurately represent the entire player base.

So I'm running a game, and so far I've seen two players take feats instead of ability score increases. Both took Observant. I think "better" is inherently contextual, and as it happens, while my game certainly involves combat, it also involves other things.

So I realized that I was overlooking a thing in evaluating the math on the -5/+10 feats: I was overlooking the opportunity cost. Which is to say: If you didn't get that feat, what would you get instead? So the comparison isn't between using a -5/+10 feat and not using it. It should be, at least...

So, some backstory. At one point, a friend of mine asked for a name for a fantasy creature, which he described, and I suggested "Hobson's False Chimera". This gradually led to a running joke about "Hobson's False X", and about Hobson himself, the World's Mightiest Naturalist. He went places no...

And even if it "shouldn't" be a dex check, we just sorta handwave a lot of stuff for ability checks. The argument seemed to be that it should be wis because it's magic, or something, but it's not really magic, it's just cinematic.

No, a dex check is not about "remaining still and silent". A dex check is about doing something which allows you to either conceal your position or refrain from revealing it. It might be remaining still, but you can make hide checks when moving in some cases. The problem here is that you...

You've been very clear about your reasoning, but you've simply failed to respond to substantive criticisms. You've never addressed the observation that many of your "glosses" replace words with completely different words, and you've never addressed the higher-level criticisms about the...

Yes. The context of "full view" is specifically the issue of whether or not you are actually observed at a given time, or concealed from observation. In the context of a discussion about hiding in 5e, anyway.

Yeah, it's intentional that a great deal of it is DM call, because the DM can adapt stealth to "what my table thinks seems reasonable" within a pretty broad range.

See, I don't think those are "allusions", I think those are emphasis. I don't think his writing is poor at all. I've seen exactly two people conclude that it meant anything other than what I thought was completely obvious, and both of them are here. And I'm long since over being interested in...

No, it doesn't leave that open at all, that's the entire !@#*!#ing point of the word "though". Everyone can "vanish" while not directly observed. Lightfoot halflings can vanish while directly observed if they can move behind a larger creature. Absolutely clear that we are talking about...

I agree that it doesn't matter whether you're trying to treat "though" as a conjunction or an adverb. The point is that it's creating a contrast between what a lightfoot halfling can do ("try to hide behind a creature") and what is normally the case ("you can't hide when you're in full view")...

But you can only do it if you actually replace words with other words, which are not actually "synonyms" strictly speaking, just sort-of-similar. "hide" is not "remain unnoticed" in the context of a discussion of your ability to take Hide actions, and a lightfoot halfling doesn't "slip...

I may be missing a thing. Crossbows and bows aren't one-handed weapons, so the loaded hand crossbow thing only works when you're not using one of those. And just from the flavor text, etc., I would only let you do that if you had a "loaded hand crossbow". As in, once you've done that, you now...

I'm a bit curious as to what's making ranged damage "numerically higher" in general. Are you talking about base weapon stats, or weapon stats as modified by the various abilities, or what?

I am sort of thinking that the right answer might involve a smaller ratio, and possibly scaling. Something like -2/+3 at low levels, increasing to -4/+6 and -6/+9 at higher levels, so both the penalty and the damage stay relevant.