« first day (3762 days earlier)      last day (44 days later) » 

1:12 AM
3
Q: What are the objective issues with dice sharing?

TheDragonOfFlameTasha’s Cauldron of Everything, page 141 says the following (emphasis mine): Common in-game limits include - but are not limited to - [...] Common out-of-game limits include unwanted physical contact, dice-sharing, dice-throwing, shouting, vulgarity, [...]. All of these make sense to me, except...

 
 
1 hour later…
2:32 AM
@CaptainMan there's no way to judge between the answers
 
@Someone_Evil Might be a good idea to remove the dice question from HNQ.
@HotRPGQuestions also this question still very obviously opinion based and should be closed.
 
3:16 AM
@ThomasMarkov I disagree. It's not my opinion that some people are germophobic etc. That's a fact, some people are.
 
speaking of list question, I just thought of the possibility of trying to find the lowest level way to destroy the world
the problem will probably come down to how to define out-of-level magic artifacts
 
4:19 AM
1 message moved to ­Trash
 
 
4 hours later…
8:02 AM
4
Q: With Blind Fighting style from Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, can you cast spells that require a target you can see?

ProphetZarquonBlind Fighting, as phrased in Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, contains additional wording beyond the description of mere Blindsight. The entry for Blind Fighting reads: You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover,...

 
 
3 hours later…
11:27 AM
@Powerdork @Shalvenay @ErikOttosen Heya! I have seen the chat where you were planning characters for a D&D 4e dungeon crawl. Picture me curious, was this the first D&D 4e game for any of you? If so, how did you like the ruleset?
 
 
2 hours later…
1:43 PM
Ugh all those domain questions...
 
What about them?
 
2:19 PM
No commentary on the features.
Just lists the features with no details about what is concerning, what the goal is, etc. I’ve voted to close them.
 
2:43 PM
I'm not even sure that they created them...
 
Well, the goal seems to be comparing them, in power, to the official ones. It looks clear enough to me. Do we really need anything more specific? The thing that worries me more is that they could potentially attract opinionated answers.
 
@Zachiel Couple of issues there: 1)It's not clear that this it their own homebrew content and 2)we do have guidelines on how to ask homebrew - and that includes explaining why you made it, your own assessments of what may be problematic, and some direction to us as to what to look for.
35
Q: How can I ask a good homebrew review question?

doppelgreenerI'd like to post some homebrew material I've made, and I want people to review it so I can ensure it will work well. How can I ask a good question like this? What are our guidelines for handling these questions well as an asker? Return to FAQ Index

 
Good. I'm not going to check (I'm bad at balancing content) but I hope that's been linked to the querent.
 
@Zachiel They've been linked - both recently and historically. Not their first rodeo on homebrew review.
and all those domains really feel like "what if we designed subclasses that could replace all the other major classes!"
 
3:25 PM
Gosh, if those subclasses are paid material and they aren’t the author the questions need to be deleted.
 
@ThomasMarkov Yeah, i'm not sure, though. I did find a Chaos domain as well, but that one clearly wasn't the same.
However, that user has in the past posted a bunch of different homebrew review simultaneously.
so it could still be theirs.
 
@Zachiel it was the second 4e game I've attempted, and the first one where I've actually gotten to play at all. char creation poses a rather steep learning curve coming from other editions, but once I got past that, it was actually fairly smooth sailing -- it really didn't feel that much different from 3.5e or 5e once you were in the thick of things
 
Does anyone know the name of the game described here? (Please, tag me so that I get a notification)
 
@nbro Not an RPG by the looks of it
 
4:06 PM
@Shalvenay oh, really? With its restricted multiclassing and list of options tied to each class instead of a pool of options where some classes pick some and some other pick some other (I'm thinking spells that can be a lv3 cleric spell and a lv4 druid or wizard spell) I wouldn't have thought it could look steep. What were the biggest hurdles to you, if you don't mind expanding?
 
4:50 PM
@Zachiel the power system takes some getting used to during the creation process
(granted, playing a caster, it's less of a curve, I expect, than playing a martial)
also, magic items in 4e seem to work a bit differently
 
5:11 PM
@Shalvenay Ah, yes, only one enchantment per weapon/armor/neck slot item and no ability boosts
 
 
1 hour later…
6:13 PM
@Zachiel This was the first time for two of the three friends I invited. I'm going to post some chat snippets from them
> TheDragonOfFlame (GM): I don't find 4e bad, but it's complex. 5e had trouble with doing a big powerful thing, missing and being... oh, that sucks.
> Bost: Haha, I don't find it bad either, I don't even think its THAT complex, it's just... different, and new, and we only had one chance to get it right.
> Alaron: I dunno, if I got to try it more and got more used to it I think I'd like it for a more High Fantasy campaign.
(the friends being Alaron and Bost here)
 
6:33 PM
I can second the feeling that it's really good for high fantasy. Both of those players are coming from 5e, right?
Does 5e do the "all you need to know about the enemy is in his statblock" thing that 4e introduced? PF and 3e sometimes drive me mad XD
 
@ThomasMarkov Regarding the lots of homebrew all-at-once questions. The OP has brought up these questions (the user posted 8 similar ones at the same time). Do you feel those should also be closed?
 
We should close all the mainsite questions, then we don't have to debate which ones to close anymore
2
 
@MikeQ Oh gosh, this reminds me of Wikis that ban all edits...
 
The wiki won't have bad content if it doesn't have any content
 
@Medix2 That one you linked looks better than the ones we just got, it has several details included about what it was trying to do.
 
6:48 PM
@ThomasMarkov I see that they wanted cantrips similar to BB/GFB but I have no idea why they wanted them
And there's no commentary on why the spells do what they do other than the restriction that it fits much of what GBF/BB already do; which... yeah that's more details than the Cleric things, but not much
 
The scope of that particular one is pretty narrow. “Here’s what I’m trying to do with this one spell, compare to gfb/bb”.
 
Just realized that myself XD
I also just read one of the features: "At level 17, you always have advantage on ranged weapon attacks, and your attacks ignore cover."
 
Ouch.
Did you see the one that was “pick 12 9th level spells and roll a d12 and cast the result.”
 
I'll be honest... I didn't read them
 
7:07 PM
@Zachiel Both have at least touched either Pathfinder or 3.5, but both also play 5e, and one's in my Fellowship group (a PBTA game)
 
7:22 PM
@ThomasMarkov wut
@Zachiel For the most part, yes. 5e did away with "all creatures of this type have extra rules that are explained elsewhere" thing. So Undead no longer have a blanket immunity to mind-control spells just for being undead
 
@RevenantBacon lol yeah
 
but why? there are really good odds that you're gonna hit a dud.
 
7:37 PM
0
Q: When a necromancer raises a zombie, is it animated by the dead creature's soul, or by magic?

chaosI am interested in what precisely "moves" the undead body, in the Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Is it the magic of the spell? Is the creature's soul rebound to the body? Is a "false soul" created and bound to the body? Something else? I ask because I am researching the mechanics of Necromancy a...

I edited this question to add clarity, is it possible to reopen it?
 
@RevenantBacon I was thinking more about the list of spells in a wizard's statblock being only the names, and you go find what each does. (Same thing for feats and all equip in 3e and for treasures in 4e)
 
8:16 PM
@Zachiel Oh, no. If it straight up lists a spell, you have to actually look it up. If they listed the full effect of every spell a monster could cast, single entries could take up multiple pages, like for dragons or high tier fiends
 
@RevenantBacon The power of online documents is collapsable tables/spell descriptions
 
Yeah, but printing presses lack that trait, and most statblocks that you find will mimic the form they took in print
 
@RevenantBacon *insert rant about people trying to match arbitrary traditions of writing style even when it actively makes their point less clear* (Now, don't get me wrong, arbitrary writing style traditions very much can help make your point more clear, just the times when it doesn't and people stick with it make me go "ugh")
 
The format they put the statblocks in in the books isn't arbitrary though, and neither is the reason for mimicking it. The statblocks are set the way they are for print to put as much relevant information as possible into a compact and easy to read form, to allow for putting as many statblocks in as few pages as possible. And then it gets mimicked by people writing them up in an electronic fashion so that people don't have to learn a whole new format for reading a critters stats
And if you've got a creature who has 18 different spells, then expecting them to all have their full effects listed in the statblock is unreasonable
 
It is arbitrary in that there are plenty of similar-looking and similar ways of accomplishing the same thing. There are countless ways to organize that data and I 100% do not believe anybody has ever found the single-best way (or that such a thing really even exists)
 
8:28 PM
Plus, it means there'd be quite a few spells that would get reprinted dozens of times, which is a huge waste of print space
@Medix2 I didn't saying it's the 100% best way to organize them.
 
The exact way that they are organized is designed yes, but it has arbitrary or relatively-arbitrary decisions throughout the entire design as well; and what I dislike is when people stick to those arbitrary design decision even when they actively create confusion
I don't think the spells thing really fits in here, since it isn't making any confusion really at all; but other things I've seen people do... ugh
 
There are 3 things to consider when doing this type of design. How much information is necessary. How much space you have to put it in. How to set it up so that it doesn't look like trash.
@Medix2 Can you give me an example of where following the design scheme that's already in place has actively created confusion?
 
@RevenantBacon When people try to word features that do wholly new things using only pre-existing text
 
That's not a design theme issue, that's a language issue.
 
I said "writing style"
But I'm sure a similar thing can happen with design
When people try to force something to fit into a design that it just doesn't fit into
 
8:33 PM
You do know that this conversation has been about layout this whole time, not writing style.
 
Yeah I know, I honestly wasn't expecting a response to my "rant"
 
Because I will 100% get behind the fact that the way certain things are written are... poor.
 
But sure spells in statblocks
If you're making an online monster statblock I think you should reprint spells in dropdowns and collapsable tables or at least have links
It's using a tool that does nothing but help and the only reason not to use it is to match an unhelpful tradition
 
I don't disagree with you, but that's also a lot of extra work
 
@RevenantBacon I'm planning to be a teacher... maybe I'm just used to that XD
 
8:36 PM
"Unhelpful" implies that it is actively making things more difficult, rather than simply not being as helpful as it could be otherwise
 
There's some philosophical ideas about whether not being maximally helpful is unhelpful... but I don't think we need to go there XD
 
And it's a purely pragmatic descision. It's a choice of make slightly more work for the end user, or make slightly more work for the designer
 
I would also say it does make things more difficult by requiring you to go to a completely different section of who knows what book
 
@Medix2 RIP philosophy
But we do know what book. It's not a mystery
 
Wait we do? They actually tell you that now?
 
8:38 PM
It just means that we have to actually go get it
Every single monster in the Monster Manual has spells that are exclusively from the PHB
 
@RevenantBacon Ah, "In the Monster Manual"
 
Everything from Volo's does as well
 
I at least would definitely have a design goal of minimizing the effort my user must put in to apply my product
 
Aditionally, when I went through Tasha's, I noticed that on the artificer spell list, some spells had a * next to them, and some had **. The ones with a single * were from XGtE, while the ones with a ** were from Tasha's
So yeah, they do tell you what book
 
Well there they do; I'm not sure what PotA print-form looks like...
But that's fair at least
 
8:43 PM
I don't think the critters from the PotA had spells from a source other than the PHB
I'd have to check though, since I don't actually remember any of their spell lists
 
Flamewrath has control flames; Stonemelder has erupting earth
 
@Medix2 First printed in Elemental Evil Player Companion
 
But I digress. I'll just call WotC not the world's best designer and move on with my life
 
@Medix2 Well, you wouldn't be wrong there lol. Wizards R&D, you've done it again! (unfortunately)
 
8:58 PM
yeah, see, in 3e (and in 5e too, apparently) each caster monster had a ton of different things it could do. Some it was expected to use in combat, some were maybe situational combat options, some were useless in combat but they informed what other things the monster could do.
In 4e, the "what could this monster do outside combat" was entirely DM choice, and the combat options were few but synergistic.
 
Have I applied quote blocks to this D&D 5e answer correctly?
0
A: Can you attack twice using the same hand crossbow if you have the Crossbow Expert feat?

Bill LeahyIf you read the entire text of the rule: Crossbow Expert Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits: You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your rang...

 
@doppelgreener I think so
 
looks okay to me
though a kind of unnecessary late answer there
 
9:18 PM
@doppelgreener I usually leave the name of the feature out of the quote block and give it a small heading or just bold it, but that's not really necessary, I just think it looks more aesthetically pleasing that way.
 
@doppelgreener yup, I added some bold for pretty.
 
9:42 PM
noice
thanks!
i was hoping i didn't wind up botching the textbook quote
 
10:28 PM
@nbro fyi it looks like the ipad/iphone game Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal, based on the screenshots (and the username) - which itself looks very likely to be based on the 1985 boardgame Carrier Battles: The Struggle for Guadalcanal, though I wouldn't be able to guess as to whether or not it's a faithful implementation of the original
 
11:16 PM
ben roswell wrote a twitter post codifying fiction/mechanic interactions in benefits and triggers.
For #AppreciateADragonDay, Pulp Librarian made a twitter thread of classic covers from Dragon magazine.
Jon East wrote a twitter thread of his readthrough of GUN&SLINGER.
Upcoming Kickstarter: Thursday RPG - Zinequest by Eli Seitz. A tabletop role playing game of time loops, drama, and learning from your mistakes.
Dyl Briones shared art for the Bantara Bowman class from the Confederation of Apumbukid for @liquorcanini's #GubatBanwa ttrpg.
Stars Without Brightness by liquorcanini. A Fantasy novel set in [my upcoming Tabletop RPG: Gubat Banwa], a setting inspired by Late Porcelain Period Philippines mired in war, and follows a skilled spirit medium, a hotheaded warrior, a rebellious prince, a princess turned flesh-eater, a revived swordsman, and a passionate monster in their quest to fulfill orders and duty, facing the truth of war and violence.
 

« first day (3762 days earlier)      last day (44 days later) »