TRPG General Chat

1:20 AM

hey there @daze413

@Shalvenay heyo! What's up? :D

not a whole lot, waiting for the session I'm in to come back around to me

chat's showing weird double names

"ShalvenShalvenay"... sounds like a Verbal component

@Shalvenay are you DMing again?

@daze413 no, playing this time

@Shalvenay Ah, dungeons-and-dragons-fifth-edition?

1:24 AM

@daze413 yes

Are you playing Jherala?

@daze413 no -- I'd be having better luck if I was I suspect :P

@Shalvenay oh? How so?

trying my hand at a straight-up Warlock this time but the char got separated from the caravan she was traveling with and then darted in the back while trying to parlay her way out of a situation

e6 > epic-level-six

@Shalvenay oof, why not just Eldritch Blast yourself out of it? :D (ofc, i respect the RP-heavy talking playstyle, just wanna know what you're up against)

1:28 AM

@daze413 haven't gotten the chance to yet -- don't really have a good feel for campaign expectations -- the DM is playing close to the vest in some regards (it's not a DM I've had much experience with)

Adeptus

@doppelgreener This one was in Adelaide, next Australian one is in Melbourne in 2 years. They have them in UK (& USA) too, but no idea when/where...

Just had the best idea for a program ever

It reads code, follows method hierarchy, and basically tells you how the code works and what it does.

No more spending 15 hours trying to figure out what your code does!

@Ben -- until you run into the codebase I deal with at work

your tool would probably crash

1:43 AM

At this stage, I can't really do much about it myself, so I'll let someone else develop that. I just want a 1% royalty :P

@Shalvenay Lol

@Ben I mean, that sounds great, until you realise that the output would just be refactored code.

I would dare say that situation would be more than likely, but you can't say that wouldn't be useful for the most part :P

@Miniman Essentially. But I daresay it could be developed to be more than that. I know a guy that wrote a (program/language) that basically links code together based on the requirements of the user

No idea how exactly it works, but the description he gave was pretty impressive

For example, it could report back something like
Methods: (A, B, C)
Overall functionality: Compares string(s) from user input with database values in table (xyz)

2:07 AM

I like how wearing headphones is the universal message for "Don't talk to me, I'm not listening", and then they talk to you anyway.

Usually it's just annoying for me because I only wear one headphone, and I have industrial deafness, so any and all overlapping speech/music simply becomes unintelligible noise.

2:41 AM

Question - When you're hit by a spell or breath weapon or something like that, when it's unavoidable (save to take half damage), what do you roll to "put out" the fire? That is, you have been hit by the flames, now you can save to not be set on fire.

I think in our games, we have just rolled CON, but that doesn't really make sense?

@Ben Which ability?

it seems the rules assume the fire goes out on its own

@Miniman Off the top of my head, like a Dragonborn's breath weapon

@Ben None of those set people on fire.

Generally speaking, stuff doesn't catch fire in a sustainable way just from a brief exposure to a flame.

2:43 AM

instead of being persistent (which is somewhat unlike RL incendiaries)

@BESW indeed

Hmm.

I am just going off vague memory, so I can't really give an explicit example of this

...although if you're playing a Vampire game, I'd allow the assumption that everyone's wearing cheap inflammable Hot Topic clothes.

@BESW lulz

But from memory, it would always seem like it was a similar situation to poison: roll CON to not cough up your liver; Roll CON to not be set on fire.

Just makes it sound like you make the flames go out by pure force of will

@BESW It's a dacron blend

Well, in that case: if a player was set on fire by some means or other, what would they roll to attempt to put the flames out? (In wont of a pool of water or something similar)

Personally I'd say perhaps Dex? (Stop, drop, roll)

@Ben Going off existing examples, Dex.

2:48 AM

In 3.5, it's a Reflex save each round: success puts out the fire, failure deals more damage.

You can trigger another save by taking an action like rolling on the ground.

Now, developing this thought (because that's just how I work) would suffocation rules start to apply after a certain amount of rounds?

@Ben Nope.

@Ben agreed -- if they actually were set on fire, DEX. and you wouldn't need suffocation rules in that case.

Smoke inhalation takes a long time, and involves a lot more fire than just "my clothes are burning".

In 3.5, there's "if you breath heavy smoke" rules, but nothing mechanical to tie that to the fire rules.

2:50 AM

@Miniman yeah.

However.... thinking about the people I played 3.5 with....

Well, saying they somehow fail the Dex checks, if you're on fire I'd imagine you'd be devoid of oxygen (depending on the severity obviously)

A pant leg would be different to complete combustion

Heavy smoke gives concealment. If you've deliberately set yourself on fire to get the miss chance from concealment, I'd say you have to deal with breathing the smoke too.

@Ben you'd need to be pretty engulfed, and smoke inhalation is a CO problem far before it's an O2 deprival problem

@Shalvenay Fire burns oxygen - it's not the smoke, just the fact that the fire consumes the oxygen before you can breathe

2:53 AM

@Ben ah, yeah -- not sure because I've never been in a fire :P

@Shalvenay Thankfully, neither have I. But I have heard the guys in the fire suits talk about it

If you're in an open space, fire doesn't magically keep oxygen from the environment from replenishing the local area.

@BESW exactly -- in fact, you'll get a nice wind out of the deal, or perhaps a not-so-nice-one

@Ben I don't know either, but I seriously suspect that if you were on fire enough for that to be a problem, suffocation would be the least of your problems.

look up "pyro-tornadogenesis" sometime

2:55 AM

[shrug] Seems like a tertiary issue at most, after the heat inhalation and such.

By the time the fire's burnt up your oxygen, your lungs are probably already toast.

@Miniman Very valid. However I'm just thinking that (edge case scenario), you have a massive health pool, but you can only hold your breath for so long...

In that situation breathing would be a difficulty

oh hey there @RobertF -- long time no see

@Ben Fair enough, I guess. I feel compelled to point out, though, the average adventurer can hold their breath for 4 minutes, and suffocate for a further 3 rounds, without any issues. So that's 43 rounds of damage. Even if it's only 1d4 per round, I still think hit points will be an issue well before suffocation is.

Fire Tornado in Slow Motion 4K - The Slow Mo Guys

@Miniman Fair enough

►

@Ben abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3774941.htm

for the full sized version

3:02 AM

@Miniman I was thinking the only applicable situation might be a barbarian, chained up, and set on fire.

Today's experiment: Drafted an answer to a question that was subsequently closed. Will the draft still be there when the question is reopened? Find out in the next episode!

@Miniman Never close the tab. Problem solved :P

@Ben Nah, I refreshed the page. I knew the question would be closed, this was a deliberate experiment.

hey there @daze413

So after all that; What build can survive long enough to suffer from lack of oxygen after being set on fire? :P

3:05 AM

@Ben Turn into something fireproof?

@Ben Anyone who can drink a potion of resistance.

I've always wondered what a fire elemental would see if they were standing in the middle of a room that was flashing over

Well, I'd dare say you could reduce the damage to as low as 1 damage per round... would rage and PoR stack?

@Shalvenay flashing over?

@Ben No.

@Ben as in -- the whole room reaches autoignition temps

and POOF it's all on fire

3:07 AM

@Shalvenay Ohh right. Yes

Mythbusters did that once

They filled a room with gas, then ignited it (I think... something like that). No explosion, like in themovies, it was just suddenly all on fire

@Miniman do fire elementals still need to breathe?

@Shalvenay To be fair though, I daresay that a fire elemental would likely see everything as always on fire

@daze413 As far as I can tell, it doesn't say either way.

So by default, all the elementals need to breathe, including the water elemental and the earth elemental.

@Miniman no elemental has the "amphibious" or similar trait. By RAW, even a water elemental would die if it couldn't breathe!

@Miniman I am now immediately picturing a barbarian strangling a fire elemental

3:13 AM

Possible mainsite Q: Can you breathe while earth gliding?

@Ben Answer, after much brainstorming: Any elemental

Alright, so next question: what do I need to take into account when designing a "gauntlet" fight? Eg, a fight vs a higher-level monster, or a fight through multiple engagements? How can I make sure that the fight is balanced for the party?

I feel like that could be a mainsite q

3:28 AM

@Ben the question has to be about either a) a higher-level monster or b) a fight through multiple engagements, but can't be both. I'd handle both differently, at least

or else, VTC: too broad

@Miniman AH, nope! Just found something in page 123 of the MM:

> Elemental Nature. An elemental doesn't require air, food, drink, or sleep.

cc: @Ben

Ah, that'd be it. I was working from the SRD, since I'm at work.

I thought there was something. Weird that they'd leave it out.

It's kinda weird that they would leave it in the "fluff" section. I wish they'd place it in a text box or something :/

Thinking of homebrewing a race of ex-sentient magical weapons given life as a humanoid. Has this been done before?
> Magical Nature. You always register as magical when Detect Magic is cast.

@daze413 Sorry, ex-sentient magical weapons, or ex-(sentient magical weapons)?

3:45 AM

@Miniman B. They were sentient magical weapons whose sentience was separated into a human/oid form

@daze413 Right, makes sense.

They get to "finally use a sword right after all those so called swordmasters handled me"

How does being a former magical weapon affect them now that they're humanoids?

probably some mechanical benefit to the type of weapon they were, kinda like a subrace, but not as strong as those weapon feats

they also keep forgetting they need to eat, or if you want to be sillier, forget they need to breathe

@daze413 Hmmm, interesting. So having been a sword makes them better at using swords, sort of thing?

3:51 AM

@Miniman Yeah sort of like, how they wish they'd been treated while still being actual weapons.

@daze413 It'd be either really. But I can see it being different for both examples.

And in this process of thinking of a homebrew, I realize that there is a pitfall that I suspect every homebrewer who adds too many things to his/her homebrew, is suffering. It's that they want to add mechanical benefits/limitations to their homebrew, according to how they envision their homebrew should be role/played. And in that pitfall, they add too many things to sort of "guide" the user.

Would it be a valid question to say "what to consider in fight vs high-level monster, or multiple fights"?

Like, is a question about one thing, with 2 variations considered "broad"?

Flawed artifact #34: Sentient sword. Deals "bleeding damage" on a crit. Also suffers from hemophobia

Like in my ex-SMW race homebrew, something popped up in my head about how, in my mind, they would form a bond over their ex-"body", and maybe get a mechanical benefit from using it. Then I thought: why am I putting in a mechanical benefit for how I want to roleplay such a race? What if another player wants to roleplay this race as never even wanting to see their old form?

@Ben That "one thing" is combat, that in itself is too broad.

@daze413 Perhaps that can be an optional background? Someone the was freed from a prison, or alternatively, given the option to be freed?

@daze413 Ok, well I am genuinely interested in this. I would like to create a fight like this - either against a single enemy, or a multiple engagement fight

4:04 AM

@Ben then ask two questions

Fair.

4:15 AM

@daze413 Super Mario World homebrew? Please, tell me more.

4:25 AM

Do I get to play as a Yoshi?

And do I have advantage on grapples if I swallow them and poop them out as an egg

4:43 AM

Ok... first one is up rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105017/…

I feel like it's a little poor in terms of quality though...

Depending on how this is receieved, I'll ask the second one

:39339358 I thought of that... Edited that in between posting the link and your response haha

Maybe you could flesh out what "stronger than the entire party" means, exactly. Do you have the numbers for it?

Yeah... I was a bit vague on that. CR isn't exactly accurate to party level... so like a party of 4 x 5th level characters doesn't really mean that a CR 5 monster is an even fight

no, it's a medium fight.

But it could help, right now, if we're using the 4 5th-level PCs example, anything from CR10 above could be "stronger than the entire party"

maybe you mean past the deadly threshold?

umm.. sorta... kinda... no? I mean, what I'm looking for is endurance rather than any kind of power

Like, sure, fighting a monster above that threshold would take a long time to take down, but the chance of death is very high

The cheap way of doing it is just giving them a high health pool, and low damage output, but that's not very immersive, I feel

not very fun, no. A fight has to end- for better or worse, or else it drags on for too long and it's just not fun.

I also made a mistake, it should be "any moncster with a CR9 above"

CR9 just crosses to the deadly threshold, not 10

I made the edit

@Ben I wish you had asked the second one first XD This one's a lot tougher

5:05 AM

Haha

@Ben I think "What do I need to consider" is a phrasing that invites too broad close-votes, because there are so many things you need to consider. Maybe something more like "how can I make this type of fight fun for my players"?

@Miniman then, it depends on what "fun" means

curse you, RPG hobby, and your multi-definition terminologies :(

Yes, but "how can I do [thing]" is better than "What should I think about," in terms of Stack usability.

Because [thing] can get defined for the specific use context.

In this case, it sounds like "fun" is roughly equivalent to "make combat with a single enemy have the pacing and threat level of a typical multi-enemy fight of moderate difficulty."

@BESW In not so many words haha, but yes

I will have to get back to this, because I GTG. Good luck with the Q @Ben I hope it works out, I will try to add an answer later tonight

5:19 AM

Cheers :) I'll give it a little bit longer to see what people think, then I'll add the multiple engagement fight Q :P

Details about the difference between fights you like and this kind of fight, perhaps.

@BESW I think I'm having a simple moment... could you rephrase that?

(1) You and your friends have had enjoyable fights in D&D 5e.

Uhuh

(2) Reducing the number of opponents in those fights to a single enemy dramatically reduces the enjoyment those fights bring you and your friends.

5:34 AM

It can, and I can understand why, but I have had an enjoyable fight against a single enemy, in such an encounter

(3) So far as you're aware, the only factor which changes in the less enjoyable fights is a reduction in the number of opponents and a commensurate increase in the opponent's challenge level.

so (4) You want to know what factors can be changed to make the enjoyment of single-enemy gauntlets more enjoyable for you and your friends.

@BESW Yes

This is all pretty clear, but we need to know what you and your friends enjoy. The easiest, most effective way to tell us that is to tell us the details about difference in experience between fights you like and fights you don't.

So you're suggesting that isn't obvious ion my question?

And in the few single-enemy battles you've enjoyed, what did you enjoy that wasn't there in the others?

5:37 AM

Oh ok. So perhaps I should add an example of a fight I have enjoyed, and a fight I haven't, and why?

At least examples of moments in the fights, yes.

"This happened and it was awesome."

"This happened and it stank."

"That didn't happen and everyone was disappointed."

"Before the fight started my friend said they looked forward to doing [thing]."

"When the fight was over my friend complained about [thing]."

"I've noticed that everyone stops looking at their phones when [thing is going on]."

"When the monster did [thing], everyone started seeing how high they could balance their dice."

In truth, the one fight I did have against a single enemy, I was really drawn in, so I don't really remember much about what everyone else was doing/thought about the fight in particular.

Then share what was preoccupying you.

"I was so absorbed with [thing] that I kinda forgot about everyone else."

They did in particular have a specific trope however - like they could only be (properly) damaged by a particular kind of attack

"When I announced the monster was immune to weapon attacks, the fighter literally went to sleep at the table."

5:45 AM

Actually - that was one thing. It had some kind of regeneration

@Miniman what did you enjoy about the fight in Daze's game?

The 8-round-long guantlet

@Ben Well, we had a lot of interesting elements.

To start with, our goal wasn't killing everyone, or anything to do with fighting, really, it was "get to this point".

Then we had a really interesting terrain/map layout that made it different to a normal fight.

True. The combat in itself wasn't overly enticing. Most combat was dealt with in a round or two

And the other combatants weren't just enemies to be killed, they were making decisions about what they did based on their motivations, fighting each other, running, all sorts of stuff.

Then, too, there were a couple of elements that made for interesting variation - the bridge was the big one.

Hmmm, that's not the best way to explain that.

Yeah! removing a threat by slowing them down/cutting them off from the chase rather than just simply killing them :)

The climbing, and continual threat of falling were elements that were there through the whole fight, but the bridge was something different that changed things up partway through.

6:14 AM

@Ben Thinking about it, another thing I liked: The fight was (pretty obviously) 100% our fault. It wasn't a fight we had to fight, it was one we caused directly through our own actions.

HHaha true. I mean, we were kinda forced into it, but yeah.

I mean, a little bit, but it definitely seems to me that if we'd been more creative/diplomatic/had the right spells, we could have gotten around it.

For example, once inside the gate, one of us could've disguised ourselves as the mezzoloth and walked past everyone.

Maybe even dragging the other to the witch "to be punished for their crimes against her" or something.

@Miniman Alternatively if we actually had a grappling hook we could have bypassed it all too haha

@Ben Well, the guys at the top might've spotted us, but yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean.

6:54 AM

Or perhaps a decent intimidation check :P

Did you swap dice after that? 'Cos after those terrible intimidation rolls, you started rolling really well!

7:24 AM

Nah, my dice just hate being used for social rolls :P

Tarrasque: A plot device with a stat block.

3

@Miniman Lol. I am a firm believer in dice-juju

9:19 AM

Peeling potatoes. Shaved off a nail

10:05 AM

@daze413 posted the multiple engagement Q

Also linked them together as "related"

10:33 AM

What does VOIP rhyme with?

@BESW Orange

Apparently, it doesn't rhyme with anything 1, 2

@BESW it would depend on whether you pronounce it wee-o-ay-pee or voip (like void)

kviiri

My first guess would be to look for that one British accent where /aɪ/ gets replaced with /oi/

Or is it Irish?

eimyr

@kviiri I'd wager it's Oirish

10:49 AM

Again, any input as to improving the quality of this question would be appreciated

@Ben the main problem is that fun is subjective

its would be better to target a specific issue

6 hours ago, by BESW

Yes, but "how can I do [thing]" is better than "What should I think about," in terms of Stack usability.

And the following messages

that actually supports what I said

@Szega Yes, I do understand your point, but there is only so many characters allowed in a title :P

6 hours ago, by BESW

In this case, it sounds like "fun" is roughly equivalent to "make combat with a single enemy have the pacing and threat level of a typical multi-enemy fight of moderate difficulty."

@Ben the title is one thing. You can include you reasons for asking something there

but fun in itself is either too broad or opinion-based

10:58 AM

> I want to lie shipwrecked and comatose
Drinking fresh mango juice
Goldfish shoals, nibbling at my toes
Fun, Fun, Fun in the Sun, Sun, Sun
Fun, Fun, Fun in the Sun, Sun, Sun

@Ben I don't think "How can I make encounters fun" is a good answerable question.

I have elaborated in the body :)

@BESW :)

@trogdor You're welcome.

@Ben You talk about a similar situation you were in, and that how and why that was fun for you. What else do you want to know? Why not just start there?

11:08 AM

@BESW yes thanks XD

@Szega My experience of this was only as a player, and my DMing experience isn't any where near good enough (I feel) to achieve this. There's more to just coming up with a bunch of monsters and skill-checks for this, that can make it a playable, and enjoyable, experience.

@Ben there are concrete things you bring up about that session, pick from that and ask how to achieve that to replace "fun"

11:24 AM

dr-who-adventures-in-time-and-space is our new longest tag. :D

And the first of four to go over the 25 character limit.

@BESW [red dwarf tune begins playing in head]

@doppelgreener Hopefully this version.

it was

(for me anyway)

(and then I also got on youtube to listen to it too)

@BESW this one, but thank you for reminding me of that one. :D

(wait, let me fix that - there we go)

that one is ok, but the other one is SUPERIOR so say I

@trogdor so say we all

11:37 AM

if you all know what is good for you :P

11:57 AM

Haha

12:11 PM

@BESW @Ben On this, something to bear in mind with how fire spreads: fire doesn't "stick" to things like so much mud thrown. Instead, things get lit on fire because the heat from the original fire heated them up to the temperatures under which they'll combust (its flash point). Brief exposure usually won't do that unless the flame is extremely hot.

Weaponised fire (like flamethrowers or napalm) often involves not blasting a plume of fire in one direction, but spraying substances which themselves are burning which themselves stick to the thing you want on fire. That transfers heat more effectively and for a more sustained period, or at least gives the appearance that the thing is on fire because it is covered in a substance which is on fire. Even if the person/object doesn't reach flash point, you do more harm/damage for longer.

Of course, it'd be equally reasonable to say that D&D fire doesn't behave like IRL fire. But that would also call into question any other assumptions about its behavior based on our own physical world.

@BESW Yep, that's true.

(At the point a flame is hot enough to make an object reach its flash point under only brief exposure, you have a weapon so powerful that catching things on fire is the least of someone's concern -- if they're caught in it, they're probably already dead.)

kviiri

12:43 PM

/me opens up discussion on lightning bolt spells and electric conductivity, then ducks for cover.

Can't be worse than the Lady Blackbird one.

12:58 PM

Fire certainly is interesting

3

kviiri

@Ben Starred, if only to have people clicking it for context later on!

Also, something I noticed @doppelgreener do you remember the bot you suggested for dice rolling in discord?

You can roll any-sided-die. Anything from a d0, or a d100, or even a @SevenSidedDie haha

1:28 PM

Was there a meta post here about good subjective/bad subjective questions?

@Ben Digital dice roller hooooo!

@Ben I don't think your question is too broad compared to others

just somewhat hard to answer because we don't know what your table specifically enjoys.

Good Subjective, Bad Subjective

1:51 PM

Robert Cartaino on September 29, 2010

Stack Exchange is about questions with objective, factual answers. We’ve been crystal clear about this for as long as I can remember, even back to the earliest, pre-beta days of Stack Overflow. It’s right there in the standard Stack Exchange FAQ:

What kind of questions should I not ask here?

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!

Thus, questions that are not answerable — discussions, debates, opinions — should be closed as subjective. It seems simple enough: Fact good; opinion and discussion bad. But why? …

2:11 PM

@doppelgreener Player: "What are my chances of (something the GM doesn't want)?"

GM: [rolls d0]

2:33 PM

Can anyone spot an error/typo in my MathJax? (I haven't yet \text{...}-wrapped, but that can't be it.)

\begin{array}{lcc}
Circumstances & Primary Hand & Off Hand \\
Normal penalties & –6 & –10 \\
Off-hand weapon is light & –4 & –8 \\
Two-Weapon Fighting feat & –4 & –4 \\
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat & -2 & –2
\end{array}

(I know I'm going to want to line-split that last row's left element, but this ^^ isn't even rendering.)

ACuriousMind

@nitsua60 It's rendering for me.

And it looks precisely as horrible as expected without \text ;P

@nitsua60 I copied that into the "Ask Question" field and it looks as expected.

A: Can two-hand weapons be dual-wielded by something with four arms?

strange--can you take a look at this:

9

Information from http://www.d20pfsrd.com : Feat: Multiweapon Fighting (Combat) This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons. Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands. Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary han...

nmv.

reloaded the page and it rendered

@nitsua60 Looks fine (if you ignore the text problem)

(now to text{}-wrap!)

Trish

2:39 PM

@nitsua60 technically: yes, you can.

@nitsua60 you can even combine it with that ambidex feat that says "all your hands are main hands"

@Trish I don't know anything about the game--just saw a table in code formatting, and wanted to MJ it.

[5e] Pulled my tier-three character out of mothballs last night for a module. She's got a passive stealth of 34.

She's in this room right now. You just can't find her icon up there.

@nitsua60 <truesight via developer tools>

2:54 PM

@nitsua60 How do you get a passive value of 34 in 5e?

@nitsua60 what's a tier-three character?

Yuuki

@Secespitus IIRC, Rogues can increase their passive base value to... 15?

Add on a whole bunch of +stealth modifiers and 34 shouldn't be too impossible.

@NautArch Levels 12-16, off the top of my head?

@nitsua60 Oh! I don't think I've heard that term before.

@Yuuki Well the Dex score can be a maximum of 20 (not counting tomes or other magical stuff), which would give you a +5 modifier. Base values are 10. So a rogue gets to 15. Perception gets a malus of -5 for disadvantage, so you may be at 20 that an enemy has to pass. But it's still a long way to 24

3:00 PM

@Secespitus double proficiency

@NautArch Ah, Expertise

Right, forgot about that one.

@Secespitus We do proficiency die, so my stealth on my Bard is 2d10+4.

@NautArch Haven't tried that variant with the prof die. Does it work well for your group?

Passive starts at 10. Expertise at her level gives +12 --> 22. DEX is currently +6 (grabbed a Manual of Quickenss of Action during Tomb of Horrors) so that's up to 28. Stone of Good Luck that I picked up somewhere around L4 and have loved gives +1 to all checks, so we've got 29. Then my cloak of elvenkind gives advantage on stealth checks; by rule that's a +5 to passive for a final of... 34.

@Secespitus we love it. We also love rolling dice :)

3:03 PM

Also, you've got disadvantage on your perception roll to spot her.

@Secespitus and I like the idea behind it. Sometimes you do something extremely well, others times not so much. The swinginess is a feature, not a bug, for our table.

@NautArch I do like that it captures the "sometimes you can punch above your weight, sometimes an expert can stumble" feel. How's it for table-speed?

@NautArch Yeah, the idea is pretty cool. I may try that variant once my group is up to speed. We are all beginners and so the fixed version is easier to note down on a character sheet.

However, it undercuts Rollnir a bit =)

@nitsua60 haven't seen a problem with it. Roll the proficiency with the attack. Roll the proficiency when we set DC.

@Secespitus and a lot of character sheets autocomplete that, which is annoying. Hard to explain to new players to ignore what the sheet says.

But it's fun for rogues/bards when rolling an ability check with expertise :)

3:18 PM

@NautArch And when you make a proficient check, right?

@nitsua60 right, so just a the d20 plus the die instead of just a d20

4:35 PM

@NautArch 11-16, actually. It's a nice little gem on PHB p.15, and is referenced in an interesting way in the most recent UA on XP. (I'd never use that XP scheme, but may try to integrate their thinking on tying things to tiers.)

@nitsua60 interesting. Never really noticed that and surprsied the tiers aren't based on the proficiency bonuses.

But I think the cantrip bumps and Extra Attacks follow the tier breaks.

Not extra attack. The first one comes at a tier break, and so does the second (for fighter), but third is capstone, not at 17.

But yes on the cantrips.

It'd be nice if the class-tables had been shaded by tier rather than every-other, to tie the concept through the book.

yeah, tying that all together would have been nice. But possibly harder to read.

4:56 PM

It could always be shaded both ways (light/dark every-other, then colorized tiers)

@Delioth keep your logic out of this! :D

@Delioth "What do the 8 shades of gray mean for all the levels?"

@nwp "Organizing general power levels that kind of match up well within their color group - blues match up pretty well in a group, but a blue is going to be outshined by a yellow."

(Blame the graphic designer if those colors don't go well together)

KorvinStarmast

@doppelgreener Do you think further edits on my space game prod identity question are needed? Will do, if there is room to improve.

I only had so much to work with, the problem being my memory and time elapsed ...

GreySage

@nitsua60 I like that exp scheme, at least the idea of it, but I have doubts about how it would play out

KorvinStarmast

5:12 PM

@nitsua60 That XP UA is ... well intended and not something IMO worth folding in. Needs a lot more work, IMO.

Q: When answering a product/content identification, please explain *why* you think you've found the right thing

2 days ago, by nitsua60

@Miniman I will say that I liked reading that UA a lot more than many of the others. It was much less "here's us trying to fix ranger again" or "here's more feats/classes/archetypes, which you've already got more than enough of" (admittedly, that's a bit of my anti-expansion in there) and more of "hey, let's actually think about what we're trying to do here.

Again--I've no intention of using the strange (IMO) 100-XP scheme they devised, but am intrigued by leveraging the tier-concept more. Incl. XP rewards.

The Oracle

0

This was prompted by Mid-to-late 1970's Space Based RPG: what was it?, a question I've put on hold briefly so we can assess clean-up and whether the question needs refinement. The question's content is not a major issue, but every answer to it so far has been of this format: I think it's {gam...

5:40 PM

@nitsua60 reminds me a bit of iron kingdoms

@nitsua60 Huh, I find a static XP chart nice- I've replaced Pathfinder's experience chart with static "every level is 30 xp; Normal encounters are worth 2 xp, easy are 1, hard are 3-4" rule. Roleplay and traps and stuff count as encounters.

@Delioth No slowdown on leveling speed?

Well, Pathfinder's experience chart doesn't have any leveling speed adjustment. If you're doing CR-appropriate encounters, you nearly always have 15ish encounters per level, regardless of which level you are.

@nwp You're talking about the "catchup mechanic" that's built into XP charts with expanding levels?

@nitsua60 I'm talking about the exponential increase in required XP per level up.

Which kinda sorta acts as a catch up mechanic.

5:50 PM

Yeah.

But more importantly you get to be higher level on average when you consider play from first to last level.

Yeah, monsters also have exponential XP values to keep leveling ~static. I usually just award an extra few experience per session to people who are behind (since they're fighting "hard" encounters/have more risk than the rest). Alternatively, one or two fewer experience for the ones ahead (it depends on whether there are more people behind or more people ahead)

I saw somewhere that if the proficiency gap within the party is 0 or 1 it should be ok.

GreySage

Anyone familiar with 5e know approximately how many encounters a level will take to gain? Or is it non-uniform?

diego

@GreySage Usually 10-15 I think, but it varies based on encounter difficulty, and the level in question. I found this that does some of the math