(OOC) Fitz's Folly (ToA PBP)

[Ancalagon]

now I'm worried about Dellrack getting swarmed :O

We posted essentially at the same time and we have another gap... I think next round I'm going to action surge.

 

[Fradak]

Let's do a back-to-back-to-back-to-back and Miss M. Will be like at the shooting range.

 

[Ancalagon]

Let's do a back-to-back-to-back-to-back and Miss M. Will be like at the shooting range.

I can live with that

 

[gargoyleking]

Sorry about the delay. Just put Harb wherever feels best. He whiffed it up pretty good this turn.

Squirrels are evil!

 

[EarlyBird]

[MENTION=6899077]EarlyBird[/MENTION]

In 5e, you can absolutely do the sweet maneuver you just had Dellrak do. But I can't think of a way without the Feat that you can use a Battleaxe with it. You'd need to do it with two hand-axes (both weapons have to be light). I'll just knock two points off your damage. (And you've got a hand-axe in hand, but that's easy enough to put away later if you want to get your battleaxe out. Or you could keep dual-wielding two hand-axes, which is pretty effective (particularly because you can throw one of them whenever you like.)

Hmmm... so odd you can't longsword dagger fight in this, but I found I read that two weapon fighting all wrong. Thanks for the update.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hmmm... so odd you can't longsword dagger fight in this, but I found I read that two weapon fighting all wrong. Thanks for the update.

Yes, weirdly you can't do a big weapon and a smaller weapon in 5e (y'know, they way two-handed styles usually actually worked IRL). Just two small weapons, or if you have the feat, you go all the way to two big weapons. The feat would have been good enough if they made it only one of the two weapons to be light.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmmm... so odd you can't longsword dagger fight in this, but I found I read that two weapon fighting all wrong. Thanks for the update.

Yes, weirdly you can't do a big weapon and a smaller weapon in 5e (y'know, they way two-handed styles usually actually worked IRL). Just two small weapons, or if you have the feat, you go all the way to two big weapons. The feat would have been good enough if they made it only one of the two weapons to be light.

Yup, odd indeed. Two weapons of the same time, historically speaking, was done but usually with swords of somewhat short length. Two long swords, rapiers etc, they just got in each other's way. Sword dagger or similar was also frequent.

I'll note that rodrigo's parrying dagger is just "cosmetic". Mechanically speaking it's a shield.

 

[Ancalagon]

In other news, looks like we have a battle line forming (not entirely sure where Harb ended up but it's happening) and the round is ending... let's hope those zombies have poor luck.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'll note that rodrigo's parrying dagger is just "cosmetic". Mechanically speaking it's a shield.

I remember discussing that. I like to use "refluffing" to make characters more the way we imagine them to be. (As another rules minor-complaint, it irks me slightly that you can't bash people with a shield. IRL if you couldn't bash someone with your shield, you weren't "proficient" with a shield.) There should at least be a feat for it.

In other news, looks like we have a battle line forming (not entirely sure where Harb ended up but it's happening) and the round is ending... let's hope those zombies have poor luck.

You got your wish!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have been known to allow people to stack relevant tool proficiencies with skills in the past.

Now that Xanathar's is out, they have a pretty great (IMO) official system in place for making tools much, much better than they used to be. We'll be going with that now, instead.

The simple version is: If you think a tool proficiency should stack with a skill check, you get advantage on the skill check. (If you use the tool, or if your training in the tool might apply).