TRPG General Chat

1:24 PM

Morning all

@Rubiksmoose morning!

Hi!

Did anybody have an exciting weekend?

I think I remember reading awhile ago that there was a concern that allowing "is this balanced" to overcome the POB gate and I'm worried that's it starting to happen.

@Rubiksmoose I spent far too much time musing over a mouse guard adventure for next Sunday. I'm still not sure what the Big Bad will be. Right now, I wonder whether maybe a large non-predator would be appropriate.

1:28 PM

@NautArch Yeah I'm just not sure what to do with them. Not even like enough coherence to write a meta about at this point.

@Anaphory I've heard about but never touched the system. I know what you mean though about dumping time into thinking/prep though lol

@Rubiksmoose That's my thought as well. There are Qs for balance that are pretty well researched and prepared, but there are also Qs that clearly are not. And seeing comments like "This as written isn't stackable, but change the question to be about balance and it will be" frustrates and concerns me.

@NautArch I've thought the same thing. To be fair, that same paradigm exists with question that say "what should I do" and we convert to "what do rules say I can do"

But that is an example of turning a non-stackable question into a type of question we are good at handling. Whereas sometimes it seems your example feels sometimes like it is sidestepping POB somehow

@Rubiksmoose I normally play low-prep games. And if I had a good mental image of forest-boundary ecosystems, I would run Mouse Guard like that, too. But with lack of forest lore (what animal is dangerous to a city of mice when for doing what), and an immensely detailed setting in principle out there (several volumes of comics), I can't run MG like that.

@Rubiksmoose Yup - although asking for clarification of a rule isn't a bad thing with regard to a specific action (like the Crossbow Expert question). That was actually one that started off like a rant, but @DavidCoffron saw the hidden diamond of a question and brought it out.

And its not necessarily bad, but it feels like we're getting a lot more balanced/homebrew review questions than we have in the past.

and I"m not sure we're 100% the right place for them now that there are more.

@NautArch It does feel like that doesn't it? Maybe I'll try to extract some stats from SEDE and see if we are.

1:43 PM

And I get that people like answering questions like that, but they're feeling more and more opinion-based both in question and in answers.

Very few actually have playtest support.

Relevant metas: Are “is this balanced” questions on-topic? and How should I ask about my D&D 5e Homebrew being balanced?.

@NautArch Not all of them need it to be fair (eg the really obviously flawed ones).

The former is open to being changed, the latter exists to provide guidance on how to ask good questions about balance (presuming they're on topic, which they currently are). If there's problem questions asking about balance but doing so insufficiently somehow, it is helpful to have a meta link we can provide guiding them how to do it well, which the second link is intended to be.

Herro

If the second link isn't providing adequate guidance—measured by "is this the kind of question I'd be comfortable linking to someone asking about balance?"—we need to improve our guidance.

Hi @Josh!

Also consider that the issue might not be the questions, so much as the community isn't downvoting low quality answers, which might warrant its own discussion.

1:48 PM

@doppelgreener That's kind of where I was going :)

That the community wants these questions even though they may not be appropriate. So both questions and answers get a pass that shouldn't because folks like them.

@NautArch Same. In some cases it almost feels like there is a double standard where homebrew answers are given way more leeway towards opinion and lack of evidence then answers to other questions are given.

@NautArch The thing is, conceptually, I don't see any reason why the questions wouldn't be appropriate. I'm mainly unhappy with the quality of the answers. Which may circle around and be a reason to look at the questions themselves, but still I think that is where my issue starts.

I think. It is a complicated issue and I've not really gotten my head around it comfortably.

@Rubiksmoose I somewhat agree with that. I'm not sure if it's fair to 'blame' or 'limit' a querent because those types of questions inherently seem to provide low quality answers, or if that's really a problem built-in because of the type of question and it's either unavoidable or it makes it impossible to administrate.

@Anaphory That does sound very tricky.

@NautArch Well I completely agree with what you just said. I'm not sure where the blame should lie either. For me personally, I think my discomfort has come from the fact that the questions seem to get pretty low-quality answers and without the amount of downvoting that I would expect.

@Rubiksmoose I'm also feeling very "Get off my lawn" and "kids these days" about bringing it up.

@NautArch I think it is honestly an issue. The most obvious thing to me is the weirdness in the community voting which homebrews stay open and which ones get closed.

Fwiw I think this question is a good example of a well-phrased question and a good answer. Albeit that I agree with SSD in that the homebrew has a pretty obvious overpowered aspect.

2:05 PM

Would any of this discussion and/or tackling the issue be helped by a meta answer that provided our subjective answer citation/backup requirements clearly?

they're kinda obscure, so i've been considering writing a meta about those

(for a few months now actually)

@Rubiksmoose And I do not. How does the feat work differently (if it does work differently) for classes that have full access to a spell list and just prepare daily vs classes that can only pick and replace at level.

@NautArch Is that a critique of the question or the answer?

Because I thought the question was pretty clear that it worked the same regardless.

@Rubiksmoose Question. It also has followup questions about 'changes', which also suggests it's not a complete homebrew. WHat is being answered? The original question or the followups inside it?

@Rubiksmoose That may be, but determining balance will change based on class then (possibly). It also doesn't discuss if you're using the same ability score for each spellcasting class list.

@NautArch I disagree with the implication that homebrew must be complete before asking about it. Our current guidance just suggests that querent show their current efforts. I think the question meets our current guidelines. However, the questions you bring up are good ones though and should be asked as clarification to the question.

@NautArch balance being different for each class is going to be an issue with any feat. I don't see that as a bad thing with the question.

@Rubiksmoose If we're posting works-in-progress and helping to clarify and finetune before it's even good enough to ask, that only further increases my concern on these types of questions. Yes, we do that for rules questions, but these are inherently different.

@Rubiksmoose That may be true, good point.

2:13 PM

@NautArch That is the thing though I think this was "good enough to ask" but happened to be missing a detail that needs clarification.

They are not mutually exclusive.

@doppelgreener I think it would. Not for this particular question but in general.

Ok, cool.

I'll revisit creating that then.

I also think it will have a good impact even outside of the issue of homebrew.

@doppelgreener @Rubiksmoose I"m all for this, but I am worried that the stackizens will either not read it or simply not care and we'll see the same upvotes for low quality answers.

@NautArch Well it is up to that stackizens to care and uphold the standards of the site. If there is a huge disparity in voting wrt written site guidelines, that will have to be another discussion.

@Rubiksmoose Maybe that's the meta we need :(

2:19 PM

@NautArch Maybe. I'm not 100% sure that is the issue yet. There seems to be a lot to unpack.

It's largely because our objective requirements are obvious ("cite the thing you're saying is true") but our requirements for subjective answers are obscure and expressed only as two bullet points buried in the middle of a very long blog post that is itself only actually about subjective questions.

Greetings fellow humanoids of miscellaneous alignment

greetings o/

2:30 PM

Does everyone have their popcorn ready for the inevitable influx of pathfinder-2e questions

2

i have my broom ready

If you have a broom, should we call you doppelcleaner instead?

5

2:49 PM

@MikeQ I'm actually kind of surprised not to see more of them yet. But then again this is the first major "launch" of a system that I've been around here for.

@Rubiksmoose The playtest rules are kind of a mess. I'm not convinced that the system is any simpler than before.

3:01 PM

I require DM advice for the campaign I'm running. I gave my players an extremely useful item without realizing how powerful it is. I imposed a limit on its usability, but I'd like to change that to a per-use cost. Any suggestions on how to make that transition?

@MikeQ what system?

@MikeQ not entirely surprised here, but then again I also haven't given this a look at all.

@MikeQ I'd just say talk with your players and explain the mistake. You can do it in-game, but it's probably easier to just discuss and retcon.

Pathfinder. The item was intended as a plot device and information resource, but I kinda didn't consider how useful it would be in other contexts.

@MikeQ "Hey, I made your item too powerful. I didn't realise it would be that powerful when I gave it to you, but found out pretty quick how powerful it was. I need to change it so that it's reasonable to use, but still fun and useable for you. I'm planning on this change, does that break anything for you?"

Sdjz

@MikeQ some ideas here

3:05 PM

@MikeQ Yeah, unless the players are fairly unreasonable, this explaination should be fine. Have they had it a long time/gotten a lot of use out of it already?

that "does it break anything for you" thing is largely in case they were making build choices based on how the item worked

@doppelgreener which is honestly a really good addition and shows the DM is looking out for the players as well.

if it breaks something, remedy that breakage, like by letting them respec that feat they took last level.

@Rubiksmoose Yes, that's the issue, and I'm afraid that my players will get annoyed by the retcon

So far my best idea is for the item to say something along the lines of "your free trial period has expired" and it will demand payment for now on. Another idea is for some NPC to steal the item and activate its curse, but that seems too railroady.

You can talk to them about needing to change it mechanically and also ask them if they've got some idea of how to reason it out in-game.

If you're concerned they'll be annoyed by a retcon, you can find out by asking them: "Is it okay if we just retcon this, or would you like something to change in-universe? Maybe someone drops it and breaks it, and it doesn't work quite the way it used to, for example."

3:10 PM

@doppelgreener That's fair. I'm quite disorganized sometimes and I've already retconned a few things already, hence my hesitation to retcon something else and test their patience.

You don't need to provide the in-narrative reason for the change yourself, and it can be quite satisfying for the players in this situation to be able to provide a reason that works well for them. It also gives them buy-in on the narrative, they created it themselves.

@MikeQ Well, assuming that the only solution is to provide a nerf to the item, I really don't see any other way around it. DMs are human too. Just make it clear you are doing this because it will negatively affect their fun. You can even ask for their input as to narratively how to address it and work together on a story that will make everyon happy.

(sorry that was delayed a bit)

@doppelgreener Good idea. There has already been confusion about how the item's features and mechanics. It would be good to let them discuss what they think the item should do and how it should work, and this way it won't seem like I'm suddenly punishing them for being smart (by making it harder to use).

It is OK as a GM to not be right all the time and to make mistakes, and to talk to your players about those mistakes and involve them in fixing those mistakes.

In the end though, annoyance will pass. If you really think this thing will be anti-fun going forward then you need to address it one way or the other.

3:15 PM

@MikeQ It is fine for you to also suggest you think the item is a bit OP, and that you think this particular change might address that, but you're open to other options.

@Rubiksmoose It's anti-fun for me because it's making it extremely difficult to implement certain types of challenges that involve unknowns or information-gathering

@MikeQ which in turn makes it a challenge to the fun of the players.

I'm of the opinion that you want everyone to be having fun, DM included. And the a DM that is having fun is more likely to be able to enhance the fun of their players.

For example, a DM that is stressed or overworked or in an aggressive mindset is likely to focus less or be able to focus less on table enjoyment as a whole (maybe because of reduced prep time or just frustration at this or that).

@NautArch rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129045/…

FYI

good morning

morning!

@Rubiksmoose Tbh I'm quite stressed just with the campaign as is. Running homebrew means I get control over what to throw at the players, but it also means I have to populate a campaign's worth of content. With the constant brainstorming and asking myself questions like "Is this balanced" and "Is this fun" and "Is this story too complicated", the whole process is more exhausting than my full-time job.

3:31 PM

@MikeQ I feel you. I do not envy your position. My Masks game is all "homebrew" (in the sense that I'm not running a prewritten anything and doing all the lore/worldbuilding. But it is a prep-light system and still it has taken me a long time. I shudder to think of what you have to deal with in PF.

@Rubiksmoose So it's like Super Magic Initiate.

@NautArch Seems that way yep.

@MikeQ Though all the more reason why your players should be sympathetic to the ocassional mistake.

@Rubiksmoose And should likely be included in the Q.

@NautArch edited in.

@Rubiksmoose by Masks standards that's just "a normal campaign that isn't premade"

I switched to games like Fate specifically because of the low GM burden for preparation and the ease with which I can improvise and adjust on the spot

3:39 PM

@doppelgreener Yup! I could have used the bits and pieces of lore they scatter artound (and expand upon in some of the new books) but it was a bit more straightforward for me to just do my own and steal from them as convenient. And, as you say that is basically the default expectation for the game.

@doppelgreener I'm somewhat anxious about prep (I normally like to have all my ducks very much in a row beforehand so that I can lean on prep to help me improvise). That is one of the reasons that Masks prep has taking me a long time: simply being a bit too anxious about lack of prep. As I've done more and more sessions though that burden has greatly decreased. It is really nice how the system allows me the freedom and tools to make good story even with very little planning.

@Rubiksmoose that is great. :)

I'm not sure I ever want to go back to DMing a 5e/PF level system again after this honestly lol

@Rubiksmoose ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US

@Rubiksmoose Me neither, I think this is the last time I DM anything homebrew in a system with so many character options and different mechanics

The fun:prep ratio of this game is sky high compared to me previous systems/games.

@Anaphory If I'm being super honest, it has even tainted the fun of 5e for me a bit and really reduced my desire to go back even as a player. It makes it hard to deal with the worse aspects of 5e when you know there are other systems out there that do it better. In this case: roleplay. My players are just eating it up., They love it so much and I love watching/enabling/interacting with it. There was a case where I didn't have to do anything but call for a couple minor rolls in a solid hour.

3:47 PM

@Rubiksmoose same. BESW has also mentioned in here that his experience is that D&D tends to say "no" to a lot of the really awesome roleplay opportunities that have come up, but the systems we're using now generally let him say "yes".

And Masks is generally really awesome at that.

(Like "I want to do X" but X is unbalanced, another class's thing, should require a feat, is really expensive, etc)

“So you are unleashing your powers?”

@doppelgreener That is an interesting way of looking at it. I think I would agree. And even go further. Masks not only allows you to say "yes" but also gives you the "but..." in that it provides a way to resolve it in a way that drives things into more interesting interactions and story moments. Whereas in 5e at best you get nothing and at worst it is "no".

@Rubiksmoose There's not a huge amount of prep in terms of encounters? Or in terms of worldbuilding?

I mean, I generally create about 4 encounters prior to a session to handle potential paths the players take.

3:54 PM

@NautArch For Masks, worldbuilding is going to be pretty different person to person I think. But generally the assumption is that you build your own world. It is built such that you are kind of expected to build a lot of things on the fly and with active participation from the players. But I'm sure some people have built out a very detailed world ahead of time. I took a middle road since I'm not as confident in my improv, but also kept players inolved pre-session to help me build.

@NautArch Encounter prep is dead easy though. I could literally throw any villain I wanted in with no warning given 5-10 minutes at most. Now, the hard part would be keeping theme and plot relevance if that was important, but if you are ok with throwing in a "villain of the week" when things are getting slow, you can do that super super easily.

@Rubiksmoose What has been different from 5e? In terms of building and overhead?

@Rubiksmoose I'm still not clear on how this is easier/simpler than 5e.

@NautArch There are almost no mechanics involved in battle. No HP, no attacks, no damage, no turns. So there are way less things to consider when building an encounter.

@NautArch So in 5e the easy part is all the cannon you have to work with. You have the standard fantasy tropes and pseudo-medieval setting so generally everyone has a solid baseline working towards a setting in 5e. Even more so if your players are familiar with D&D setting in particular.

You have a lot less to work with as given in Masks so in that sense you are going to have to be doing a lot more worldbuilding. There are also no pre-written adventures or anything to go off of.

@NautArch Also no levels, no XP, no CR, etc.

@Rubiksmoose so strictly role play, kind of an improve readers theater?

Generally I aim for 1 encounter per session. Sometimes it doesn't happen though. In Masks a lot of the fun is actually built into the RP side of things instead of battle in 5e.

@Rubiksmoose Ah, gotcha. I think my main group likes those mechanics.

4:04 PM

I haven't GMed masks yet, but as far as I can recall, the biggest questions a GM needs to consider for a confrontation aren't what mechanics to put into it but what kind of narrative they'd like to go for in the scene and with the villain — then use the mechanics they use all the time anyway to express it.

Does that sound right?

@ravery Kind of. There are a couple of mechanics. "Conditions" work as a sort of HP-analogue in that the fight ends at the latest when your villain gets all of their conditions filled. But generally you have a lot more control over the narrative flow of a battle compared to a mechanically driven one like 5e.

@doppelgreener Yup. This is correct. There are a couple "mechanical things" I would want to nail down but they are so tied to the narrative that they hardly seem mechanical. As you say, my first and main decision is what the purpose of that villain is in the story and all the other decisions flow from that.

For example I wanted a really physically tough fight for my party since they had been facing lighter, cleverer opponents until now. I wanted to show them things getting a little bit rougher for them. So I created essentially Clayface as a villain. Gave him three moves and two conditions and a motivation and I was done. Took like 5 minutes and involves no numbers, no rules cross-referencing and all of them serve the narrative.

(of course what actually happened is that my Beacon activated his Moment of Truth and took him out as a team leader in one scene before I had a chance to do anything at all to them, but that is neither here nor there lol)

My tough as mud (heh) villain is now in a jar carried by a person with no superpowers and it was more amazing than I could have hoped.

@NautArch And some people certainly do. I certainly would not recommend the system for anybody that loves any level of crunch because Masks is about as crunchy as jello.

4:25 PM

@Rubiksmoose but...there's always room for jell-o!

Hello!

I will actually rephrase that though. I think that I would recommend this for people that love crunch as long as they don't require crunch in order to enjoy it. I suspect that many players who like crunch would be equally as happy with rules-light systems. But that is probably way too broad a generalization. At the very least, I think everyone should give them a shot once :)

@NautArch There is! It fits into all the nooks and crannies.

@LukeSommers Hi!

What's up?

I'm running a 5e campaign. There is a duel coming up (I've asked about different aspects on this encounter before). An enemy challenges a party member to a duel. 12 other enemy character watch, and jump in if there is interference. The duel is also witnessed by an entire work camp of NPCs. This is a high magic campaign, but none of the enemy are casters.

1) if the rest of the party decides to help via spells like Bardic Insperation or Vicious Mockery, what ability check and DC do you think I should use to determine if the 12 notice? 2) If the complete the encounter without the 12 jumping in, should the party get the XP for them anyway?

2) yes, if you want to reward players for thematic decisions they should get the XP for avoiding the fight (but not the loot) as if they fought those monsters

essentially they overcame the obstacle, just with a different approach

XP only for kills basically encourages murderhobo play styles

4:38 PM

@JoshuaAslanSmith that's what I was thinking. the 12 were "defeated" though not actually killed.

@ravery I'd just make it clear no interference/help (or prebuffs)

@JoshuaAslanSmith I would award XP as if it were an encounter of Easy difficulty (increasing the XP if the challenge is more difficult)

If you don't want interference, just DM that.

we had a duel set up in one campaign where we each had to fight 1:1 with an enemy. No buffs.

That's what I usually do for skill challenges in 5e. Works fairly well

Has anyone here used Roll20?

4:39 PM

@NautArch Depending on the table this might be a very unsatisfying solution though.

@NautArch the encounter states that the 12 join the duel if the party interferes, so it comes down to determining if the 12 notice

@ravery We did individual bassed on enemy choice, but that stunk because we didnt really know how 'strong' each enemy was.

@LukeSommers I use roll20

@ravery regarding part 1, I mean 5e pretty much has magic in a lot of places, the magic economy of 4e may be gone, but magic from various forms is still wide spread enough that I dont think it should take a particularly hard check for the enemy NPCs to realize interference

I might even have an issue with it. For example, (worse case scenario) if my ally was dying as part of the duel why is my character not helping them?

4:41 PM

@ravery True. I guess investigation/arcana checks? BUt if they get caught, it would be pretty bad for the party if all 12 jumped in on the guy.

@ravery I'm trying to find a way to play 5e, since I have trouble finding a group where I am.

@LukeSommers yes ive used roll20 for various systems and been a subscriber and also a free user, what are your questions about it?

@JoshuaAslanSmith I was just wondering if anyone here had used it.

Ive never used it to join an unknown group before, always as a platform for my existing players and friends

@NautArch well of course if the 12 notice then it would be full party vs full enemy (5 vs 13). the 12 are basically thugs, so the odds are really too bad.

4:43 PM

if you are looking to join as a player or host and have other players join your best resources are:

Official subforum for LFG app.roll20.net/forum/category/22

also reddit has a subreddit specifically for roll20 LFG as well. reddit.com/r/roll20LFG

@LukeSommers roll20 is set up for 5e. And personally, I like the their setup

@ravery It really depends honestly on the details on what I would do. Maybe a perception to notice and an investigation/arcana to understand it. If the NPC had no experience with magic than maybe just investigation. Though it really depends on how the PCs go about it. If there is no sign of them casting (subtle spell, NPCs can't see them, etc.) then no check should be called for.

@ravery WHat's your goal here? Do you want true 1:1 even fights?

Isn't there a stack question about this (or did you just ask in chat before)

@ravery And will you do the same for the enemy? DO you plan onhaving them 'cheat' and offer a chance for the PCs to discover it?

4:45 PM

Thank you!

@LukeSommers if you have interface questions there is a wiki just google roll20 wiki and it has how-tos though somethings are a little obtuse you can drop in here and ask for more advice

@JoshuaAslanSmith Thanks.

the 5e character sheet is pretty great with its autocalculated values and skill and spell buttons for automation

@LukeSommers I am in and running a 5e game on roll20 and if you find a compatible group that stays together it is good fun. That's the hard part and is mostly trial and error

Mhm.

4:47 PM

I've only ever used roll20 to play games with people who I already knew

@Carcer Same...althought i guess the Chatizen game here is the closest i've come to 'not know' folks on roll20.

@NautArch The enemy are all low level fighters except the duelist (also a fighter) not sure how they can cheat. The environment of the duel will be noisy with all spectators jeering and encouraging the combatants. So, possible to disguise an aiding spell.

it's been a handy tool for playing games with my old friends from uni as we now live in many different parts of the country

@ravery They could hire spellcasters... But in general, it seems like you're creating an environment specificially FOR your players to cheat. THat's fine, but just think about how you want it to work within your story.

@ravery I think a big part about this is in how you as the GM communicate the stakes to the players and their characters

why are the PCs accepting the duel, what social/logical reason has brought about this formalized moment

4:51 PM

And it's perfectly fine if you want to tilt the odds to the players. But wanting to do that AND have a mechanic for getting 'discovered' which doesn't really give much of a penalty (they all live and win), then why have it at all?

just FYI, I don't think bardic inspiration could be possibly considered as cheating in character

it's not a magical effect

you're just chuffed because your mate is saying nice things, basically

@Carcer Depends on the rules of the engagement, but that is the most innocuous.

no different than anyone else in the crowd cheering you on except that a bard is really, really good at it

@Carcer In fact would be pretty thematic in terms of a duel.

@NautArch well sort of, strictly by the campaign this a duel to the death...the enemy will kill the PC if she wins. And Yes I know I can change that to

4:52 PM

yeah, exactly

@ravery Right, but if it's a duel to the death where the PCs can cheat but the enemy can't and that if they are found out ot have cheated they'll still win...then it's not quite a threat or necessarily what you were hoping to generate.

Basically, if you make it so there's no threat...then there's no threat.

there's a social threat, possibly?

@JoshuaAslanSmith it is a grudge match from a previous even, the enemy wants to kill the PC, who is forced into combat

@NautArch PCs don't know that though. It can still be a percieved threat or at least an inconvenience. Right?

if the audience sees you cheat, then that affects the PC's reputation, even if the fight itself isn't actually a danger to them

4:56 PM

@Rubiksmoose Maybe? It just seems like @ravery wants to introduce the drama of the threat of danger. But if they think they can beat someone 1:1 naturally, beat htem 1:1 cheating or beat them in a battle royale...then where's the threat? Especially if they know it'll either be hard to be discovered or that the enemy will not be cheating.

as far as the audience, they are enjoying the fight, a bit of entertainment. they are not for either side. and is not a "Honor" duel.

Context from when ravery asked a month ago

@ravery Is there a ref?

no referee.

@DavidCoffron @ravery Hmmm. So it's either everyone sits and watches the duel, or they cheat or create an opportunity for a 12v5? Why wouldn't the other characters want the battle royale they think they could win where they all participate?

Why not just make it the 12v5?

4:58 PM

@NautArch roleplay reasons? The spectators would see you as cheaters? Reputation loss?

maybe the 12 have 'spies' that are listening on the players plans and they plan to jump in anyway knowing there will be cheating?

There are many reasons non-mechanical

@DavidCoffron nono, i mean a spectator could watch a 1:1 or a 12:5. Personally, a 12:5 fight would be pretty exciting.

more blood, more happy

@NautArch unless the spectators know it's supposed to be 1v1

The 11 are guards IIRC

@NautArch no preplanning, the party will not know of the duel until it happens

4:59 PM

Meant to keep it 1v1

Ok, so I have a question: Wouldn't a Shortsword and a Dagger be better than a single rapier?

@LukeSommers what class?

@LukeSommers unless you have another use for your bonus action

@NautArch Rogue.

@ravery I guess I'm still uncertain as to the goal of this narratively.

5:00 PM

If you aren't using Cunning Action yes because two chances for sneak attack is better than 1

@DavidCoffron Shouldn't need it.

@LukeSommers then as long as you dont need a free hand, use two weapons (2 shortswords would work too)

@DavidCoffron Sneak attack is once per turn, right?

@LukeSommers yes but only if you hit. If you miss your 1 rapier attack you lose that damage, but you have a second chance with two-weapon fighting

@DavidCoffron Yeah, but not getting hit because you've disengaged away is pretty handy, too :)

5:02 PM

@NautArch That's why I'm going swashbuckler.

But yeah, having the 2nd option isn't bad. There likely isn't a need to have your 2nd hand free.

@NautArch holding the off-hand weapon gives you the tactical flexibility to go for another hit or disengage

@NautArch also, Mastermind rogue has the ridiculously OP bonus action help

@NautArch You don't need to disengage if they can't hit you ;)

@NautArch well, in general, it is if the party decides to help covertly, how should I determine if it is noticed by the 12 guards

5:04 PM

@Carcer Yup, and there really isn't a need for a free hand (unless you have duelist feat)

@ravery I still think you're getting ahead of yourself with that. But given that the rule is no interference, then I'd say the guards have advantage on perception/investigation/arcana checks for interference.

@Carcer I have a rogue in my campaign that does this quite well

THey're looking for it, after all.

@ravery @NautArch is confused about the narrative goals of the fight itself.

@ravery right but why are the PCs accepting of the duel, what social force is keepign this mano e mano

which would also be the reason why the PCs might want to not interfere beyond the immediate consequence of it becoming an outnumbered brawl

@JoshuaAslanSmith and a brawl that they'd likely win. But @ravery while they'd win, I'd think that kiling guards wouldn't go over well in general. SO sure, they could win, but then what happens?

after they kill 11 guards.

5:08 PM

5e doesn't really rule on how to surreptitiously cast spells at all, apart from the sorc's subtle spell metamagic

@JoshuaAslanSmith ah, the duelist will force the confrontation regardless, it is a grudge match. There is nothing preventing them from keeping it 1vs1 except the 12 guards

in practice, it seems like most DMs would just have you make sleight of hand/stealth rolls to conceal casting a spell with somatic/verbal components

opposed by the perception of anyone who might notice. Having a loud shouting crowd would help a bit with covering the verbal components, but in general somatic gestures are presumed to be quite obvious

@NautArch the guards are enemy characters not NPCs.

uh

what does that mean

every character that is not a PC is by definition an NPC

@ravery SO they're not 'guards' but just 'enemies'?

5:10 PM

@Carcer I'm guessing that they guards are aligned against the PCs and not neutral NPCs

@Carcer Given that Subtle Spell is a thing, I probably wouldn't let regular casters mimic it.

@NautArch right, they aren't city/camp guards, they are part of the enemy party

@Carcer and if they aren't actively looking it would be against passive perception.

I'm okay with letting regular casters try to hide their casting, given that subtle spell is a special effect which basically lets them automatically succeed at it

@NautArch Perhaps they have to make several checks? Sleight of hand, stealth, and Arcana?

5:12 PM

@Carcer More than that, it is they don't even have to try to attempt it. So no free hand etc.

@ravery I think we're talking past each other, step back from the encounter mechanics. Im asking in world, why would the PC group accept a duel. What force of law or social requirement is backing up the imposition from the Enemy leader. This is the same leverage that should be used to keep the PCs from interfering or at least the counterweight to the (well duh yeah we will interefere so our buddy wins gaming approach).

So yeah it seems fine to me.

yeah, subtle spell has a lot of advantages above not just being obvious - it works if you're bound and gagged, for instance

@ravery I think you need to try and flesh out what's going on here a bit more (personally.) WHo are these "guards"? Is there "job" to make sure there isn't cheating (actively watching)? Are they just spectating (passively watching)? Are you trying to make it a real threat to do this for the PCs? If so, is that threat in the 1:1 or in a battle royale of "you cheated so we had 11 guards jump in"?

@JoshuaAslanSmith @ravery This is also what I'm trying to understand.

@LukeSommers I'm just saying if you've create a method to avoid visual queues, do you require actions for it? If not, then why wouldn't your casters do this in battle all the time to prevent counterspelling?

so the impression I'm getting here is that this tool turns up demanding a 1v1, and he's counting on the threat of having all his henchmen pile in forcing the party to agree - there's no higher social imposition which demands that the players honourably accept a 1v1 duel or whatever

5:14 PM

@NautArch True.

@JoshuaAslanSmith the enemy will force the fight (attack) whether or not the party accepts. this is not a formal duel...it is a grudge match. there is not law or social standard backing the enemy

@NautArch Fair point. Maybe introduce a failure consequence - fluff the roll by X or more, your attempt to hide the components actually mucks them up and you lose the spell?

@Carcer Maybe...but now you're creating a lot of houserules for a one off event that can then be used later. Or you can just say you can't do it and that's 100% in the rules.

@Carcer exactly

So hes just sorta school yard bully saying "Fight me like a man, 1-to-1"?

5:16 PM

But I know that I"m a DM that doesn't always say Yes.

and making faces

gotcha

and that many others do say YES more :)

@NautArch Nothing in the rules says you can't do it lol.

@Rubiksmoose grumble grumble

My experience says the players will ignore that unless they are specifically roleplaying very honorable or vain characters, and staying in character

5:16 PM

@NautArch :)

@ravery If that's the case, then just let the players do what they want. Determine a reasonable mechanic for the guards to perceive it (set a DC and have them roll) and then make the call as to if it turns into a battle royale.

But seriously: extreme example, caster throws sheet over themselves (free object interaction) now their gestures cannot be seen. No rules against this.

Given the circumstances, it seems pretty likely that it'll turn into a 12v5.

@Rubiksmoose something something bugblatter beast of traal

@Rubiksmoose Depends on the spell. Line of sight/line of attack may be an issue.

5:18 PM

@NautArch which is why I'm asking which check and DC someone might use

@ravery Are the guards actually watching the PCs?

@NautArch Right I was assuming LoS was not an issue. It doesn't affect the hiding of the components at least.

@Rubiksmoose Yeah, if it's not an issue, then it's legit. But if I was checking for cheaters and saw someone throw a blanket overthemsleves and then start moving around in it...i'm calling that out :)

@NautArch naratively, I think they will be watching the fight. not actively watching the rest of the party

@NautArch you could wear a large poncho raither than an actual halloween ghost costume

5:20 PM

@NautArch Sure sure, but aside from the narrative, I am saying that there are lots of ways within the rules to try to hide components without subtle.

@ravery So there's no risk for the players to cheat then. If you're making your own DC, then it's a passive check and you'll decide ahead of time if the DC is above or below their passive.

@Rubiksmoose and Vicious Mockery could even sound like jeers jabs

@Rubiksmoose Let's agree to disagree on this. I don't think we'll change each others minds :)

@NautArch Fair enough.

@ravery is use stealth check vs passive perception (If the guards are watching the fight) or perception check (If their watching the crowd). They cant obscure their gestures (a la Sleight of Hand) but they can try to get enough cover from the crowd.

5:23 PM

OrcPub2's spell cards are nice.

@DavidCoffron If it's a big crowd and the 'guards' are watching the fight, then why would they ever notice anything in the crowd?

@DavidCoffron Maybe even under a table or something.

@ravery yeah VM would be pretty easy to disguise the verbal. don't know offhand if it has other components.

The conclusion we all seem to be coming to is generally "let them cheat." Whether you want the guards to react is 100% up to you @ravery. There is clearly enough opportunity to interfere without being notice, so creating a mechanic for it seems kinda silly.

Don't know if this got shared yet....

So we played DnD with my 11yo cousin yesterday and it was his first proper session He had real bad luck with his dice rolls and HIS ELF JUST DIED After a solemn pause looking over his character sheet He writes "Jr" next to his name and proclaimes "I AM HERE TO AVENGE MY FATHER"😂

Tweeted by River_Niles on August 1, 2018 at 11:16 AM

2

@Rubiksmoose the description says "you whisper something only the target can hear" I'm not sure if there was a somatic or not either

5:27 PM

@doppelgreener that's glorious

@ravery nope just verbal

@DavidCoffron isn't it??

@doppelgreener I love that RPGs are an any age hobby. Makes it so approachable

@doppelgreener If your character keeps dying, just write the second, third, fourth, etc.

@doppelgreener Classic

@LukeSommers Elowen Leafshadow, Jr, The Second, Jr, Esq.

5:30 PM

@doppelgreener I love that RPGs are an any age hobby. Makes it so approachable

@doppelgreener that kid has genre savviness to boot

He does

So I had an idea that could enable more efficient NPC creation and management in PF. Instead of building them like PCs, I build them like custom monsters, using the table of expected monster stats per CR. Because in most cases, it doesn't matter how I allocate their skill ranks and feats and circumstantial class abilities (other than spellcasting). So I'd just use some kind of quickbuild rules instead. Thoughts on this?

@MikeQ Isn't that the way the MM suggests with NPCs?

@MikeQ we talking about D&D5e?

5:33 PM

@Rubiksmoose Pathfinder, sorry. On one hand, the NPCs would have fewer class features. But the spellcaster NPCs could end up stronger if I'm using a quickbuild in place of, say, a multiclass.

@MikeQ Oops!

@MikeQ pretty much how D&D 4e does it, works wonderfully. Put in the components characters will need to interact with—defences, ability scores, hp—then give them abilities and maybe a couple of skills and a language or two.

Then give them the moves you're interested in them using.

@MikeQ I haven't read the bestiary for pathfinder 2e yet, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly how it does it. Also, I think standard Pathfinder has rules for quick-building monsters too (I don't recall where, though)

At the very least, I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PC's

@Delioth Yes, those are the rules, and what I'm suggesting is to use them for all NPCs, from minion thugs to shopkeepers. Effectively build "backwards" by starting at CR, then fill in the stats that way.

I don't know how easy that is to arrive at in pathfinder, but the end result is very workable and makes npc creation a lot more straightforward and fun.

5:37 PM

Why do you need stats for shopkeepers? (Or many other NPC's, really)

@doppelgreener "My name is Dr. Monde Final, Marquise of Thundertree the 7th, how do you do?"

@Delioth PC interacts with an NPC and does something unexpected - Bluff check vs their Sense Motive, or Grapple check vs their CMD, or casts a spell and the NPC wants to use Spellcraft to identify it

Just make it up on the spot. If you've got a feel for the numbers, I mean.

How would you add knighthood to that? Sir doctor? Doctor sir?

Technically Dame rather than sir

Most shopkeepers should be sitting between a +1 and a +10 for Sense Motive (low level NPC's which may or may not be trained/have as a class skill), similar for Spellcraft (though that one's likely to be +0, but real wizard-ish characters may be closer to 7-15), CMD is probably safe to just assume as 15 for shopkeeps

Lower if they're described as old or frail (~12), higher if they're the blacksmith (~18)

5:42 PM

@Delioth Do they have class skills?

@LukeSommers If you build them like PCs, then yes, but it's usually a huge waste of time because 1. it's time-consuming and 2. the class features rarely come up in game

Shopkeepers? If you build them per the rules, then they'd be NPC's with levels in either Commoner or Expert, both of which would provide some class skills

@MikeQ Not the features, the skills.

I just go with the method that's pretty much "if they would use this multiple times per week, it's a class skill and they get the +3"

@Delioth Alright. Is Appraisal a big one for them?

5:44 PM

If you ever roll appraisal

@LukeSommers I'm using "features" as an umbrella term here for "anything mechanical on their stat sheet". BAB, typed bonuses, class skills, proficiencies, etc.

@MikeQ Ah, gotcha.

@Delioth I'd assume the shopkeepers would.

I (almost) never have appraisal rolls for NPC's. If it's an exceptionally rare item, they try to give a ballpark which may be wildly inaccurate based on a whim. If it's an item they deal with normally, they just know it.

There's no chance that you walk into a blacksmith with a nice, functional sword and he doesn't know how much it's worth

@Delioth A better argument for my system would be the case where you want to populate an encounter with fighter NPCs. If you build them per the rules, you have to allocate their feats and skills, and possibly miscellaneous bonuses to/against different combat maneuvers.

@Delioth Alright. One of my characters has appraisal as a class skill (No points in it though), and I'm always trying to find stuff. Not really useful when you're playing a cult-themed campaign. Linguistics, however... is really fun. He knows 8 languages at level 2.

5:48 PM

Similarly, there's no chance that a normal leatherworker will be able to give you an accurate price for the armor that a God forged for his chosen hero to take down another God's armies at the dawn of the First Era

@MikeQ This is when I either just use sheets from an NPC codex (either crowdsourced on the internet or the actual book), or use sheets from there but slightly modified

Common, Abyssal, Aklo, Infernal, Draconic, Goblin, Gnome, and Necril.

@LukeSommers In Pathfinder, something being a class skill doesn't change anything if you don't have any ranks in it

@Delioth My point is that I put a disproportionate amount of time and energy in creating and managing NPCs, compared to how much time they spend in game and how much impact they have. If I have an encounter with multiple types of NPCs (which I always do), that means jumping between 4-5 different sheets at once, so it would help if I could simplify their stat blocks into smaller portions (ignoring circumstantial features that won't matter) and fit them on the same page.

@Delioth I know, I'm saying the bonus is lower than it could be if I put ranks in it.

At 0 ranks, the class skill doesn't matter at all - it's a +stat bonus for anyone who uses it (and people with no ranks may not be able to use it at all in some cases)

@MikeQ Eh, I usually try to keep it to 3 npc blocks, tops

You don't usually need multiple NPC's with unique things per encounter - I try to keep it to one type who can do fancy things (spellcaster, dragon, etc); one type who can do meatshield-ish things (mooks); and one type that might be a bigger, better mook

Specialist, Standard, and Shield

5:53 PM

@Delioth Yes, in most cases I have 2-3 different types. Occasionally 4. The 5 different blocks was... an experiment, and I will never do it again.

The important part is that the mooks and such you'll only need what... 5 lines for? Defenses (AC/Saves/Special), HP, attacks.. and line breaks. I also like to use PCGen to help build NPC's though

@Delioth That's essentially what I have been doing until now.

npcgenerator.azurewebsites.net

Makes it super simple to get solid stats for a bunch of similar NPC's. Start with Troglodyte, and then an hour later you can have 6 variations thereupon to play around with (1 level of fighter; 3 levels of fighter; 3 levels of Shaman; 2 levels of fighter but with archery stuff; etc). I find that sitting down with it for a few hours and then categorizing the remaining statblocks for easy reference ends up with a rich and diverse catalog of monsters that I can improvise off of

@Delioth Right, but that's a few hours of prep for an NPC that lasts 2-3 rounds. Long term, it's exhausting.

5:57 PM

@MikeQ Why is your npc showing up once?

I do it to build up a catalog that's reusable

Like that set of troglodytes. With a few kinds it's easy to mix-and-match to come up with unique encounters

The NPC generator could also be good for character ideas, put in occupation as Class and then choose one

Throw in some variations in terrain, setting, and similar stuff and you have a ton