Search results

I edited the original to make it clearer - the idea is to have an attack (hopefully repeatable) where you roll one of each die for the attack, not just to hit every die type in a round. It needs to all be in one sweep of rolling attack and damage at the same time, and only one die of each (which...

Adding it to the attack roll is fine, this is rolling the attack and damage at the same time. So you've solved it for the single attack case, a battlemaster getting bless and inspiration can do an 'all dice' roll as a one-off - I don't know why I wasn't thinking of BM in this. Now for the more...

I was playing a warlock, and an ally put a bless spell on me while I was using Hex, which meant that to roll attack and damage at the same time my Eldritch Blasts needed a d20, d4, d10, and d6. This prompted me to wonder if there was a reasonable setup that would let you roll one of each die...

ACs 1 or higher are literally the worst ACs that are legal in the game. AC doesn't go higher than 10, and lower ACs are harder to hit. 1st level 1e PCs will virtually always be coming up against things with ACs that are 1 or worse, most of the monster manual is in that range.

I literally posted a copy of the table from the 1e DMG in this thread and provided a link to the page hosting it. Anyone who is capable of reading can look at that table and see that if you look up AC 0 on that chart for a 1st level Magic User, the number needed to hit is... 20. 21 doesn't...

For the benefit of anyone else reading this tedious argument: I haven't moved any goal posts. Celebrim made the statement that the repeated 20s, then 21 rule never came up in play (quoted above). I pointed out that it did come up in play, and that you'd get incorrect results if you didn't...

In 1e it was actually worse for high level casters. MM gave you 1 missile then 1 for every 2 additional caster levels, each of which did d4+1 and didn't miss or have a save. Magic Users got a d4 hit die with at most +2 from constitution up to level 11, then 1 HP for level after that. Two casts...

Two little notes: Shield protects against Magic Missile because it has since first edition. There's not a logical reason for it now, it's just how it worked back in the day and is now part of the tradition of the spell. I think it was originally to force mage on mage fighting to be something...

If you accounted for it, then the rule in fact came up in play, and your statement that it didn't come up in play, that tables could simply ignore the existence of those rules, and that the repeated 20s only apply in weird edge cases is incorrect. That is the statement of yours that I initially...

I understand what you wrote, and that it what you wrote is factually incorrect. The fact that you are using words in the opposite of their usual meaning obfuscates that, but doesn't change the fact that a 1st level thief of MU requires a 20 to hit AC1 in 1st edition AD&D. No, it's not...

I literally didn't agree with you. I'd quote, but anyone who thinks I did do this can scroll up and read that I pointedly stated the opposite of your claim that the only difference was when dealing with an AC of 1 or better. I think the problem is that you've forgotten that 'better' is 'lower'...

Pretty much the opposite? I can't see why a god would object to you doing what he wants by two slightly different paths that he endorses. I wouldn't have a single being granting powers by both routes since I think warlock-like pacts are for lesser entities like demons, fey, celestials, powerful...

They're going to encounter monsters with AC1 or better or worse quite frequently! This is not correct. The 1st level character needs a 20 to hit AC0 OR AC1 by the tables. If you take their THAC0 as 20 and use that in the calculation, you'll get that you need a 19 to hit AC1, 18 for AC2, and so...

After the errata change, how many people using polearm mastery and shield are using a normal quarterstaff for the job now that a fighter-type can use a spear for the task? It seems to me that the only people who'd want to use a quarterstaff and shield instead of spear and shield are the people...

It would come up pretty often actually - at 1st level, thief and magic user needed a 20 to hit AC1, so using THAC0 to calculate hits even on normal ACs wasn't technically correct for either of those hit tables, as you'd end up with effectively a +1 bonus. My experience is that people tended to...

Lots of people treat gods in a D&D setting like they're the heads of coexisting monotheistic religions, where the idea of working with another god or other powerful entity is clearly anathema and each god is clearly morally right on a fundamental level. But historical European and north African...

Yes, it's clearly a straight up change to the rules, not a 'fill in the gap' decision. When you're changing around rules to let a player powergame so he can focus his ASIs instead of having to spread them around different capabilities, there's nothing wrong with it, but I think there is...

Did you read the OP? That's exactly how it went in this example. The OP turned up and these special rules for the monk were just in effect. And it's contrary to your statement "Who the character *is* is what is important, not the decision on which funny dice you roll and which random numbers you...

This mentality is, in fact, how 5e is designed. There wouldn't be things called 'rulebooks' if there were no rules and everything was just handled on a 'whatever, I'll make a ruling' basis like you're saying. Yes, 5e has a philosophy of 'there will be a decent set of rules, then the DM fills in...