Unearthed Arcana An Unearthed Arcana I would like to see - mechanical fixes

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Heh... I don't give a rat's ass WHAT doctorbadwolf does or says or involves at his table or any tables in general. He can make claims about "Strawman!" all he wants. It doesn't change the situation that if he and clearstream and all the rest want WotC to "correct" the flaws in the game that THEY see as being there... they're going to be waiting a long, long, long time. And they already know why, because WotC has been very clear about it from the beginning. And I have no problems whatsoever pointing this little fact out every time the ask is made.

Now maybe the ever-so-slight "bug fixing" they and others have seen in the whole "Beastmaster pets now Dodge if they aren't commanded" edit that was put in the latest errata makes them think "Ha ha! Flood gates are open! Now's the time to get them to edit the Sharpshooter feat!!!"... well, yeah, good luck with that too. If you keep asking about it and keep demanding it, eventually it might happen. Who knows! Mike has said a full edit to the rule book could eventually come about. Eventually. Then maybe even CapnZapp might finally see his "magic item price guide" show up in the game some time in the future that he thinks should have been there from the beginning.

But until then, I and the others will follow the same repetitive song and dance with the same repetitive call and response. Why? Because quite frankly its fun. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Gentlemen. I have the perfect thing for this argument!

Night Of The Straw Men

It's a fine adventure. Recommended. Go check it out. I might even convert it to 5e some time. But dang, check out how much text is needed for the stats! It's only 7 pages long, but could have been 5 pages if they had cut some of the fat from those stats!

Scarecrow CR 3
HP 47 (5 HD)
DR 5/slashing or bludgeoning
Type Always N Medium construct
Init +5
Senses all-around vision, darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Listen +0, Spot +4
Aura unsettling presence (60 ft., DC 12)
Languages understands creator’s orders; magic mouth
AC 14, touch 10, flat-footed 14 (+4 natural)
Immune cold, construct immunities, cannot be flanked
Saves Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +1
Weakness vulnerability to fire
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Melee 2 claws +5 (1d6+2 plus cowering touch)
Base Atk +3; Grp +5
Special Actions cowering gaze, cowering touch
Abilities Str 15, Dex 10, Con —, Int —, Wis 11, Cha 10
SQ camouflage, construct traits
Feats
Skills Listen +0, Search +4, Spot +4
Advancement 6–10 HD (Medium); 11–15 HD (Large)
All-Around Vision (Ex) A scarecrow’s rotating head gives it a +4 racial bonus on Spot and Search checks, and it can’t be flanked.
Unsettling Presence (Su) A scarecrow can unsettle foes with its mere presence. The ability takes effect automatically whenever it attacks. Creatures within a 60-foot radius with fewer HD than the scarecrow must succeed on a DC 12 Will saving throw or become shaken for 2d6 rounds. A creature that succeeds at this save remains immune to the scarecrow’s unsettling presence for 24 hours. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Cowering Gaze (Su) Once per round, as a standard action, a scarecrow can focus its gaze on one creature within 40 feet. Any intelligent humanoid that meets the scarecrow’s gaze must succeed on a DC 12 Will saving throw or cower for 2d4 rounds. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Cowering Touch (Su) If a scarecrow hits with a claw attack, the victim must succeed on a DC 12 Will saving throw or cower for 1d4 rounds. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Camouflage (Ex) Since an animated scarecrow looks like an ordinary scarecrow when at rest, it takes a DC 20 Spot check to notice anything unusual before it attacks. Anyone with ranks in Knowledge (arcana) or Knowledge (nature) can use one of those skills instead of Spot to notice the scarecrow.
Skills A scarecrow has a +4 racial bonus on Search and Spot checks.

images
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Heh... I don't give a rat's ass WHAT doctorbadwolf does or says or involves at his table or any tables in general. He can make claims about "Strawman!" all he wants. It doesn't change the situation that if he and clearstream and all the rest want WotC to "correct" the flaws in the game that THEY see as being there... they're going to be waiting a long, long, long time. And they already know why, because WotC has been very clear about it from the beginning. And I have no problems whatsoever pointing this little fact out every time the ask is made.

Now maybe the ever-so-slight "bug fixing" they and others have seen in the whole "Beastmaster pets now Dodge if they aren't commanded" edit that was put in the latest errata makes them think "Ha ha! Flood gates are open! Now's the time to get them to edit the Sharpshooter feat!!!"... well, yeah, good luck with that too. If you keep asking about it and keep demanding it, eventually it might happen. Who knows! Mike has said a full edit to the rule book could eventually come about. Eventually. Then maybe even CapnZapp might finally see his "magic item price guide" show up in the game some time in the future that he thinks should have been there from the beginning.

But until then, I and the others will follow the same repetitive song and dance with the same repetitive call and response. Why? Because quite frankly its fun. :)

You still seem to think that anyone in this thread thinks 5e is a bad game, or that any of us are asking for a book of errata.

This is a thread about how some of us would enjoy a UA about optional rules that change or patch certain parts of the rules that many groups run into problems with, or simply would prefer for an implied assumption to be more like another edition in this one single facet of the game.

Nobody is sittin here upset that TWF requires a bonus action to work. The people who don't like that mechanic are just talking about how it would be cool if Mike Mearls explored his idea to make it part of the Attack Action instead, and do some playtesting and see if it screws with anything in an unexpected way, if it feels right, if it makes dual wielding on certain classes too good, etc, and then when he's got something he likes for his own 5e games, put it in a UA article.

Like, you seem to have a completely nonsensical view of what people want, and keep making up nonsense about people "demanding" things of the design team.

I mean, if you're having fun, good for you, but you're doing so by being dishonest about what other people are saying, which is pretty weird and rude.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Pfft! As if this is only gonna last one night.

You will either slay the staw men, or they will slay you! I don't think they will sit down for an argument clinic.

[video=youtube;wxrbOVeRonQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrbOVeRonQ[/video]
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
You will either slay the staw men, or they will slay you! I don't think they will sit down for an argument clinic.
Some posters introduced strawmen and unwelcome digressions into this thread. Okay, that's simply part of what internet conversations are like. Could be down to misunderstandings, bees in bonnet, that sort of thing.
Yes, it accepts houserules. I imagine WOTC is paying close attention to the most common house rules.
But... why do you imagine that WotC are paying close attention to the most common house rules?
 


clearstream

(He, Him)
I cut out the rest to save space, but I think that's a great idea. Now, to the question above. Are we going to come to a consensus about a given fix like GWM, or would we have like 5 different fixes for it in the document? If we are going with the former, I would recommend the following. A thread where the potential fixes are noted and discussed, followed by a thread where people vote on poll containing those fixes. 1 vote per person, and the top vote getting goes into the document. The lengthy explanations for each fix would be stated in the OP of that voting thread.

Good idea. Something like that could very well advance the conversation. I'll take a pause and then come back with a new thread for collating "proud nails", matched by one on reddit to cast a wider net. With then perhaps a survey for the community to rank them.

So it seems like there could be some sense of convergence around @TwoSix and @Sword of Spirit suggestions. I'd prefer WotC got onto it, but I can see that a community project could be pragmatic, and maybe influence what comes along down the line.

How might we create that cabal?
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
But until then, I and the others will follow the same repetitive song and dance with the same repetitive call and response. Why? Because quite frankly its fun. :)


So... you publicly admit to posting for express purpose of generating an argument - basically trolling? You figure that's a good move?


You win an award.


Gentlemen,

Do I need to talk about showing respect to your fellow posters, possibly ejecting one or the other of you as an example, or are you capable of recognizing that the Moderator is now watching, and that you should behave in a non-trollish manner from this point forward?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. Cool it, please and thank you.
 


I cut out the rest to save space, but I think that's a great idea. Now, to the question above. Are we going to come to a consensus about a given fix like GWM, or would we have like 5 different fixes for it in the document? If we are going with the former, I would recommend the following. A thread where the potential fixes are noted and discussed, followed by a thread where people vote on poll containing those fixes. 1 vote per person, and the top vote getting goes into the document. The lengthy explanations for each fix would be stated in the OP of that voting thread.

We'd only one want fix for a given issue, otherwise it wouldn't really get the job done.

So it seems like there could be some sense of convergence around @TwoSix and @Sword of Spirit suggestions. I'd prefer WotC got onto it, but I can see that a community project could be pragmatic, and maybe influence what comes along down the line.

How might we create that cabal?

I'm an idea guy and I'm decent at creating structural things, but I'm horrible at management and nitty gritty details. So that being said, here's what I suggest from the ideas and structure angle:

1) We need a few (3-5) administrators for the project, and a home locale for it. I thought I saw someone mention Reddit, which is probably a good idea. A subreddit for the project with administrators for it.

The administrators would stay in contact with each other and keep things in order. We'd need more administrators than we actually think we need, because some would drop out and most would have limited time. I'm willing to be one of them, but my depression limits my consistency, and I don't do management so someone(s) else need to deal with that aspect. I'm not too bad at sorting through data and drawing conclusions from it, so that's something else I could offer.

Administrators would also have recognize that they probably have personal fixes they want in their game that aren't going to make it into this patch, because it needs to stay broadly useful and simple.

In addition to a home subreddit (unless there is a better suggestion) we'd want to post the important information and polls to other places 5e fans congregate, like here on EnWorld, as well rpg.net, Giant in the Playground, etc.

2) We'd come up with a vision and parameters for the endeavor. Things would could state in a few short sentences. The parameters in support of the vision would give us guidelines for things like how we determine what issues are sufficient to be considered, how complex a fix can be (I think they need to be as simple as possible), deciding how much consensus we need to select an option from the suggestions (including polls and how administrators interact with the results), and how to present the materials.

3) We'd get to work asking people about simple fixes they'd like, as well as searching discussions for others that come up a lot. We'd implement the parameters we agreed on and figure out how to conduct polls and interpret results. We'd also invite discussion threads focused on these issues from the perspective of the patch. Administrators would have to make the hard decisions over which things (issues to address as well as proposed fixes) just don't get considered because they go beyond the scope of the project or the design philosophy of 5e (this is a 5e project and needs to feel like a "patch" not a revision). I'm decent at that sort of thing, although I know it will draw ire from those who really want to redo more extensive parts of the game.

Those are my basic thoughts on creating the project.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
We'd only one want fix for a given issue, otherwise it wouldn't really get the job done.



I'm an idea guy and I'm decent at creating structural things, but I'm horrible at management and nitty gritty details. So that being said, here's what I suggest from the ideas and structure angle:

1) We need a few (3-5) administrators for the project, and a home locale for it. I thought I saw someone mention Reddit, which is probably a good idea. A subreddit for the project with administrators for it.

The administrators would stay in contact with each other and keep things in order. We'd need more administrators than we actually think we need, because some would drop out and most would have limited time. I'm willing to be one of them, but my depression limits my consistency, and I don't do management so someone(s) else need to deal with that aspect. I'm not too bad at sorting through data and drawing conclusions from it, so that's something else I could offer.

Administrators would also have recognize that they probably have personal fixes they want in their game that aren't going to make it into this patch, because it needs to stay broadly useful and simple.

In addition to a home subreddit (unless there is a better suggestion) we'd want to post the important information and polls to other places 5e fans congregate, like here on EnWorld, as well rpg.net, Giant in the Playground, etc.

2) We'd come up with a vision and parameters for the endeavor. Things would could state in a few short sentences. The parameters in support of the vision would give us guidelines for things like how we determine what issues are sufficient to be considered, how complex a fix can be (I think they need to be as simple as possible), deciding how much consensus we need to select an option from the suggestions (including polls and how administrators interact with the results), and how to present the materials.

3) We'd get to work asking people about simple fixes they'd like, as well as searching discussions for others that come up a lot. We'd implement the parameters we agreed on and figure out how to conduct polls and interpret results. We'd also invite discussion threads focused on these issues from the perspective of the patch. Administrators would have to make the hard decisions over which things (issues to address as well as proposed fixes) just don't get considered because they go beyond the scope of the project or the design philosophy of 5e (this is a 5e project and needs to feel like a "patch" not a revision). I'm decent at that sort of thing, although I know it will draw ire from those who really want to redo more extensive parts of the game.

Those are my basic thoughts on creating the project.
Okay, this sounds like a good outline to start with. I can be an admin.

I'd like to try and do it here because I feel more connected with this community. Could we make the home here and post announcements and surveys on reddit? Right now I need to sleep, but this feels like a marathon not a sprint so I'll be back on to continue the conversation.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
2) We'd come up with a vision and parameters for the endeavor. Things would could state in a few short sentences. The parameters in support of the vision would give us guidelines for things like how we determine what issues are sufficient to be considered, how complex a fix can be (I think they need to be as simple as possible), deciding how much consensus we need to select an option from the suggestions (including polls and how administrators interact with the results), and how to present the materials.
It feels to me like we should try and resolve this part first, before setting anything else up. Because it's important to have alignment on vision and parameters prior to setting up structure and getting a wider audience involved.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Max. Dude. Read what was said.

At this point I think you may be intentionally being obtuse or dishonest in this exchange.

It makes more sense than you just genuinely not understanding anything I’ve said to you.

I'm not going to go back and read it to see if I got it wrong, so I will just assume that I did. It changes nothing. My statement is more broadly applicable(see what I did there? :) ) You accused me twice of Strawmen and I KNOW I didn't confuse the exchanges between us. You wrongly accused my responses of being Strawmen.
 

3) We'd get to work asking people about simple fixes they'd like, as well as searching discussions for others that come up a lot. We'd implement the parameters we agreed on and figure out how to conduct polls and interpret results. We'd also invite discussion threads focused on these issues from the perspective of the patch. Administrators would have to make the hard decisions over which things (issues to address as well as proposed fixes) just don't get considered because they go beyond the scope of the project or the design philosophy of 5e (this is a 5e project and needs to feel like a "patch" not a revision). I'm decent at that sort of thing, although I know it will draw ire from those who really want to redo more extensive parts of the game.

Those are my basic thoughts on creating the project.

Present material as Variant. They already use that term in core rule.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So it seems like there could be some sense of convergence around @TwoSix and @Sword of Spirit suggestions. I'd prefer WotC got onto it, but I can see that a community project could be pragmatic, and maybe influence what comes along down the line.

How might we create that cabal?

Maybe start a thread around one of the perceived issues with a 1 or 2 week shelf-life. Take all of the actual ideas put forth and create that poll I mentioned. Limiting the thread to 1-2 weeks for ideas will allow us to get several issues handled in a reasonable amount of time, and it seems like most of the good ideas come early on in the thread, before the thread digresses into arguments and other discussions.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
We'd only one want fix for a given issue, otherwise it wouldn't really get the job done.

I tend to agree, but then I think about the old UA books and the multiple alternative ways to do hit points, magic, and other things.

For the rest, my idea on how to go about it is posted above. :)

I'm an idea guy and I'm decent at creating structural things, but I'm horrible at management and nitty gritty details. So that being said, here's what I suggest from the ideas and structure angle:

1) We need a few (3-5) administrators for the project, and a home locale for it. I thought I saw someone mention Reddit, which is probably a good idea. A subreddit for the project with administrators for it.

The administrators would stay in contact with each other and keep things in order. We'd need more administrators than we actually think we need, because some would drop out and most would have limited time. I'm willing to be one of them, but my depression limits my consistency, and I don't do management so someone(s) else need to deal with that aspect. I'm not too bad at sorting through data and drawing conclusions from it, so that's something else I could offer.

Administrators would also have recognize that they probably have personal fixes they want in their game that aren't going to make it into this patch, because it needs to stay broadly useful and simple.

In addition to a home subreddit (unless there is a better suggestion) we'd want to post the important information and polls to other places 5e fans congregate, like here on EnWorld, as well rpg.net, Giant in the Playground, etc.

2) We'd come up with a vision and parameters for the endeavor. Things would could state in a few short sentences. The parameters in support of the vision would give us guidelines for things like how we determine what issues are sufficient to be considered, how complex a fix can be (I think they need to be as simple as possible), deciding how much consensus we need to select an option from the suggestions (including polls and how administrators interact with the results), and how to present the materials.

3) We'd get to work asking people about simple fixes they'd like, as well as searching discussions for others that come up a lot. We'd implement the parameters we agreed on and figure out how to conduct polls and interpret results. We'd also invite discussion threads focused on these issues from the perspective of the patch. Administrators would have to make the hard decisions over which things (issues to address as well as proposed fixes) just don't get considered because they go beyond the scope of the project or the design philosophy of 5e (this is a 5e project and needs to feel like a "patch" not a revision). I'm decent at that sort of thing, although I know it will draw ire from those who really want to redo more extensive parts of the game.

Those are my basic thoughts on creating the project.

I think to start with we should keep it local to this place. Once we have a handful of ideas written down and we can show others what we are doing, we'd get a larger and better response when we go elsewhere.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
I think to start with we should keep it local to this place. Once we have a handful of ideas written down and we can show others what we are doing, we'd get a larger and better response when we go elsewhere.
I agree with that. What do you guys think of doing it in two passes?

In the first pass, we collect all of the "bugs": things people think should be fixed, but not the solutions. We can then rank those (a poll for instance, or even a "survivor" contest).

In the second pass, we take the top X bugs and call for solutions. Admins would collate those. We might then publish the top X bugs, each one with one top ranked solution, or we could stay more agnostic and publish the top X bug with all solutions for each of them. Which seems better? Maybe something in between like the top Y solutions for each bug?

In terms of tools, I can make us a google sheet for collating and ranking.

Steps might be 1) announcement thread calling for participants, 2) bug posting thread, collated into 3) a google sheet, and then 4) voting. And then something similar for solutions. The way these forums work, maybe 1) and 2) end up conflated?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top