Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forged Fury" data-source="post: 6937883" data-attributes="member: 95059">I don't think the proposal changes the damage threshold calculations, so they should work like they did against the trandoshans. The proposal is to change the recovery mechanic and formula. It would ultimately retain the fact that something happens from reeling (disadvantage on everything for a turn or using your Action to more easily recover), but reduces the likelihood that someone is taken out for multiple rounds, particularly at higher Reeling DCs, by allowing the recovery roll to improve by something other than raw Constitution.  As far as changing the Stun condition generated by multiple Reeling conditions, as written, I think it only last one round as it is. There's no roll required I think it could still be in place, since the roll to remove Reeling would be a non-action, at least with the latest proposal.Two questions about the Stunned condition, @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6801242" target="_blank">GreenKarl</a>: You have it lasting one round, but I think most conditions applied like this in 5E are listed as being "until the end of your/their turn" with respect to who applied or is suffering from the condition. Basically, the question is when does the stun end? At the end of the stunee's turn or until the beginning of the stunner's next turn? Given group initiative in our game, it may not matter since they are effectively the same thing, assuming two groups.Also, how do the Stun condition rules change given static defenses? In 5E, it means you auto-fail any STR or DEX saves since you're considered incapacitated. But we don't have those saves...</blockquote>

Verification