@Shalvenay ah, yeah, forgot to put that in the fluff text, on closer inspection you'd see hideous welts and tiny holes where the Defensive Growths got to them.
@daze413 some figurines of myserious wonder may be sitting around then, one player who spearheaded an investigation will get something nice for sure though
once had the party spend all their money on potions in Gracklstugh for the adventure Out of the Abyss. Little did they know they needed all that money to buy a boat to cross the dark lake. They had to pawn a lot of things- including 2 boats they found/stole/tookbyforce for 1 slightly worse boat
@Skyler One point to consider - the way you asked that suggests that you want the party to be equipped to deal with the mundane hazards of cold terrain. If those hazards aren't something you care about having as obstacles, you can just assume that the party buys the stuff they need and not worry about it too much.
I am looking for an exhaustive and light set of items to pack when travelling to places characterized by cold weather for the purpose of keeping warm when outside.
By light I mean light packing, one bag if possible.
@Skyler I think that's just the omnivision speaking to you. It's easy to see how creative the players can potentiall be when you're behind the screen. Then again, did you mostly do the creative thinking when you were a player?
There was a particularly loose game where I scavenged a ship for rust shavings, got alumnium shavings, and made lihgtning activated thermite cubes id lob at enemies
Technically they're gargantuan, which puts them at 5x5 in grid-world. But they've some decent reach, so I've always gone with something like 50' tip-to-tail, with a similar wingspan?
@Skyler just caught up on the whole lair-conversation. The one piece of advice I'd have is to layer things. It was a nice mountaintop glade that attracted people--figure out that reason. Then it was a city--why'd that happen? Then it fell into ruin--why'd that happen? Silver dragons like mountaintop ruins. Then the last lair is the environmental effects from MM and the effects of both dragon's bodily and lair actions, accrued over centuries.
Well, it won't spoil anything by saying that near the end we fought something big/impressive, but for reasons almost nobody else in the party could really effectively deal with it, so they handled all the mooks while I basically soloed something many CR above my level =)
While playing 5e with my playgroup, I made a staff strike, along with Flurry of Blows with my monk going for the extra 2 unarmed strikes. For this, my DM made me take a total of 2 attack rolls, one for the staff strike, and one for the "bonus action/attack." I failed the second roll, and was told...
but Monk attribute states, "When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn."
the attribute states "assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action" but the Flurry doesn't. Cant you do Attack, attribute attack, flurry, extra attack
Stunning Strike doesn't require any kind of action and can be done whenever you hit with a melee weapon attack, which Unarmed Attacks still count as despite unarmed not being a weapon. (See the Sage Advice compendium, p.10)
More or less that's what monks are for past level 5- they're not super great at anything, but they are slippery and have one of the most spammable forms of crowd control in the game if they have the resources for it.
They're very good at getting to a target and shutting them down.
(and making them easier to hit, because Stunned does that as well)
I find monk pretty fun. They have plenty of tools to play with even early game, and they have their niche that works well. If I have one complaint it's that they, like barbarians and fighters, are a little light on out-of-combat features.
@Ryan I'd put it the opposite way: what you're calling the "attribute" is basically the same TWF that any character has: anyone can take a hand off their sword and grab a dagger and make another attack with that puny weapon, using a bonus action. (Experts in the room: I'm intentionally ignoring the action-economy question of drawing and stowing that dagger repeatedly.)
But the monk, at the cost of a ki, could make two small attacks with their bonus action, rather than just one.
Hmm the DM didn't tell me that. So every turn my Warlock should've been spamming Eldritch Blast and then trying to stab with his dagger just because?
@CTWind Im getting the feeling Adventurer's League which is what I'm currently playing in is by nature light on out of combat activities. But then I've only played once so far so that's a big assumption on my part
@Miniman Eh, I'm not sure I'd worry too much. It was a pretty well-optimized party, not just me.
Barbarian had taken 3 levels of Champion and made good use of action surge and improved crit + reckless attacks + cloak of displacement + lucky + weapon which did extra damage dice against particular type. (Actually ended up with two of those, with two different types.
Pure L13 Battle Master + PAM + GWF + Sentinel + Mobile (yes, he never took an ASI) who then found a freaking belt of some-giant strength + magical halberd of wounding....
@Ryan No, so far as I'm aware your warlock wouldn't have anything granting him a bonus action attack. (Most features that do grant a bonus action attack require you to spend your action on the Attack action and attacking with a weapon, which Eldritch Blast doesn't qualify for. As an example, two-weapon fighting requires Attacking with a light weapon.)
For me, well you know max dex sharpshooter + precision dice + self bless + expertise in stealth + SA dice + cloak of elvenkind (passive stealth of 30, anyone?) + archery + lucky + bracers of archery (rolled on random treasure table) + +3 longbow (also randomly rolled)....
@Ryan Btw: do not feel bad not having this all straight yet. There are lots of synergies/dependencies, and TSR/WotC has (IMO) never done a good job of explaining its own game to someone who doesn't already know how to play it.
@Ryan if you want to two-weapon fight, Handaxe or shortsword or scimitar (all 1d6 dmg) are going to be your hardest-hitting light weapons, which would allow for an off-hand weapon attack.
The second weapon doesn't have to be a dagger, though, just has to be light. So you could have two of the above weapons and make your two attacks at 1d6 each.
Handaxe is the only one you have proficiency in (as a warlock), so your mundane weapon will have to be a handaxe. Your pact weapon could be any of the three.
Speaking of being older than I think I am, I realized today that many of my students are children of those who delayed child-rearing because of "contemporary" financial crises I was studying while econ-minoring in college.
I know it's a little convoluted, but it still made me feel old.
hey a girl I came close to asking out at the local grocery store a while back (she mentioned her boyfriend so I didn't) told me today I remind her of her high school English teacher
:\ I still am not convinced she's that much younger than me, at best I'd say she's 6 years younger than me but sure made me feel old
(I thought she was thinking of asking you out and that she thought you were like the teacher.)
Right, but do you see how the deleted message wasn't so much something that might offend you, but rather was just nonsense to someone who'd correctly read the precursor?
@Shalvenay So it's about stealing home. I get it when there's runners 1st/3rd, steal second, throw back from 2->home doesn't get there in time. I get it when there's a rundown somewhere in the infield and 3 steals home. Those are easy.
But the straight-up "I'm on third, but I'm super-fast, so as the pitcher gets into his windup I'll just steal freaking home" one: every time it seems like the batter steps back to clear the plate as the pitch comes down. Is it a strike?
@Trish Mostly when it's obvious the question should be closed and needs to be closed ASAP. VTC requests in chat where it's not so clear-cut don't tend to get traction beyond what we'd normally experience on the site (which means people tend to not bother bringing those to chat anyway). That's also kind of important, because it means chat users don't dominate site moderation beyond the obvious cases where nobody would question the closure.
Everything but the touchpad (glued to the case), the display (cracked to hell), the keyboard (missing all the keys), and the hard drive (the only part the original owner cared about).
[Sorry for the late response; I'd been on the road after posting that and kind of forgot about it ^^"]
@Papayaman1000 I did salvage just a cooler from an old laptop... and plan to use it to make a little 'turbofan cooler' for the 3D printer coming sometime next week.
a 5V 0.25A Radial thingy. The housing I have to priont for it weighs approx 21 grams, the fan duct to reach around the hotend I don't know yet, but all in all it will stay under 50 grams including the cooler fan. Or... I find a way to make it even lighter.
@NautArch I told my players that in a one shot I ran a few weeks ago, and they had no issues with it. A few weeks later I ran another one shot that I thought would be pretty easy, and one of their characters died.
> Player: "I want to jump over this waist-high wall." > DM: "Make an Acrobatics check." > *player rolls 1* > DM: "Your foot catches the wall and you fall flat on your face." > Player: "I try to handspring back onto my feet." > *player rolls 1* > DM: "As you push off your hands, your foot slips and you land squarely on your back." > Player: "I attempt to roll to my feet." > *player rolls 1* > DM: "You roll too far and collide with a rock." > Player: "... I jump off the cliff, this die is cursed."
based off another GitP thread, considering posting a question - but I think it's too vague/unanswerable. Does WoTC assume that all senses are equally finely tuned or that in cases of perceiving a living creature sight>hearing.
@satibel you're probably better off just deleting it
answering a question that's for a specific version with the rules for a different version just adds noise to the question, rater than adding anything helpful
@satibel I would delete it, they are asking about 5e, and you are not answering their question. If you think the information is valuable enough you can ask a 3.5e version of the question and self-answer it
@satibel you can ask, but it's pretty clear. You gave an irrelevant answer to a question. If you'd liket o answer the question to have it available to 3.5e, you'd simply ask/answer with that tag.
@NautArch I don't think that's too vague, but I don't think you'll get the coveted "WoTC said this about perceiving with the senses..." answer. More likely you'll get answers saying something like "Not every creature has blindsight/tremorsense/some other perceptive ability, so they don't assume all senses are equal" or "If all senses were equal, you wouldn't have a penalty against attacking invisible creatures, so the senses must be differently tuned" or something like that
@Adam yeah, that's why i wasn't sure about posting it. I guess it comes down to the massive ruleset around how to handle various visual impairments (heavy/light obscurity, etc.) but nothing around audio impairments.
@Adam but does that then mean that it is assumed living creatures are auto perceived by sight AND by hearing as long as they are in range? And there is no real range for daylight vision for anything reasonably close and therefore the same with hearing?
@DForck42 the argument was more about if you have an invisible creature that hasn't taken the hide action, is it's location known through hearing? And are there (always?) circumstances that will limit the ability to hear their sound to locate them.
but then let led me to think that if there are, you are making vision>hearing for locating a non-hidden creature. And i'm not sure if design intent was that or why there aren't audio obscurity levels.
@NautArch I don't think it's unanswerable, but I also don't think it'll get lots of upvotes. The answer's pretty simple: "WotC doesn't say anything about precedence of senses, and goes out of its way to remind us that senses other than sight do exist. (Stealth, hiding rules, existence of blindsight and tremorsense.)"
@NautArch Generally, the less closely I look at how 5e handles vision/light/visibility, the happier I find myself and my players.
I think it's entirely in DM-ruling territory. I don't think there's any rules for whether you can detect a creature that doesn't make any sound if you can't see.
@DForck42 (With the exception if the "proper" system's rules don't cover the situation, and there's some argument to be made that this other system's rules would be good to use.) (cc: @satibel)
@Erik and that's what makes me uncomfortable. It seems that WoTC totally whiffed on how to handle hearing. Unless their assumption is "you can always hear unless someone is actively trying to be unheard(aka hiding) or there is a mechanical effect removing hearing (e.g. Silence spell)"
Or is it also that it is n't just about not seeing the creature, but they have an effect on the environment.
so it's a mixture of autoperceiving a location because of visual cues of their environmental impact and the sounds they make.
I am looking for an exhaustive and light set of items to pack when travelling to places characterized by cold weather for the purpose of keeping warm when outside.
By light I mean light packing, one bag if possible.
