« first day (3855 days earlier)      last day (27 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

12:06 AM
Sounds awful
 
Ben
In all honesty, it was my own doing. Lol. I realized there was a much easier way to do it, so I started cleaning up, then realized what was actually going on.
It was kinda like "Eh, it works. Oh, wait... huh... oh... oh, no... oh heck... ok... I got this... I think"
 
12:26 AM
hey there @linksassin
 
12:46 AM
8
Q: Does the Zealot Barbarians Warrior of the Gods feature work with Divine Soul Twinned Spell?

user68fdI have been looking at Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and I have a question about how the Zealot Barbarian's Warrior of the Gods feature works with Twinned Spell for a Divine Soul Sorcerer. The Warrior of the Gods feature says: If a spell, such as raise dead, has the sole effect of restoring yo...

 
Ben
Ok, so I have a situation I need to think about, regarding an incident that occurred in our last D&D game.
Basically, after trying to stay under the radar, and quite well I might add, for several sessions, all hell broke loose. Our bribes slipped up, our trail was caught, and it all ended up with a brawl with the police in the middle of the street.
The rest of the party was only invested so far as to break free from the police, but then the rogue (assassin) stepped in, and started slicing throats, which, needless to say, took us all by surprise.
The session ended there, with one PC captured, the rest of us heading back to safety, and one PC not sure if he wants to stick around (being the only "good" character in the party)
 
Ben
1:12 AM
My character is a Warforged Forge Cleric
 
Have you tried asking the Omnissiah for guidance discussing with the other players out-of-game to better synchronize playstyles and expectations, and discussing with the GM about possible ways forward with the campaign?
 
Ben
well, I wanna come up with a plan first to present to the group
 
I think a plan is gonna to start with getting a sense for how the players feel about what just happened and how much they're gonna want to walk back.
 
Ben
The general feeling was "holy hell he just killed 3 unconscious dudes". The players are fine with it; it's character development.
I'm personally feeling that an intervention is going to happen in some way
 
1:32 AM
Hear out the player who's doubting whether his character is still a good fit for the campaign. That can be a frustrating place to be and a source of continuous tension. Maybe discuss possible options for adapting that character (e.g. compromising his morals to fit the group's actions, or admonishing his peers about acting more heroic) or replacing them entirely.
 
Ben
@MikeQ Very good point
 
It's also possible that some of the players didn't want the encounter to play out that way, so y'all can also discuss different options for handling those sort of situations. Ask the GM how they expected the party to handle the encounter, in case there were better ways out that the players just didn't see.
 
Ben
@MikeQ In this situation I don't think that's necessary, or at least that's what we're going to sort out in the intervention. We're enjoying the in-game reactions to tense situations.
 
At lest you don't have to worry about the city being demolished.
 
Ben
That escalated
 
1:48 AM
someone remind me, what's the trope called.

Fight Orcs Get Cake? something like that?
 
I've proposed systematic use of create bonfire before. It's a little slow but it can make a bad situation worse.
 
@goodguy5 "Orc and Pie"?
 
YES
Thanks
 
My big concern would be that I've seen campaigns' tone and story type change dramatically as a result of one character doing something that changes the landscape. If your setting is the sort of place where "murdering a bunch of cops" means systematic retaliation and the party is topping the state's Most Wanted list, that might make it hard to keep playing whatever kind of game you were playing before.
A big question I'd need to ask the group is whether this means the campaign is now a five-star Grand Theft Auto run with no cooldown mechanic, and if so is that okay.
2
And I'd want to come into that conversation with ideas about what we might do if the answer to the second question is "no."
Rewind and redo is the obvious, simple answer.
 
2:11 AM
BTW Mike Q; I have a theorem. In short, it reads, if you can have a time paradox anywhere, you can have it everywhere.
 
2:27 AM
@Shalvenay G'day, how's it going?
 
@linksassin alright here, been pondering some urban planning actually, as for you?
 
@Shalvenay Busy. A bunch of things at work are ramping up in parallel and I'm having to tell people I really don't have time to do both. Which is a new thing. Usually I'm not that loaded.
My manager left a few weeks ago and a lot of his project acquisition work fell to me ontop of my normal workload.
 
@linksassin ah. spent way too long over the past couple of workdays wrangling a dodgy test system, and oof
 
@Shalvenay At least you have a test system. I work somewhere that genuinely believes automated test systems are cutting edge breakthrough technology. Well not quite but very few projects have implemented them. And we regularly hear about projects breaking due to badly tested features making it to develop.
 
@linksassin eheheh. we're not nearly where we ought to be with automated testing at $work over here, but that's largely due to an architectural issue. come to think of it, mind if I bounce it off you in Discord PM?
 
2:40 AM
Why not perform tests on production? Performing test and production in the same place means getting two for the price of one. And if something goes wrong, then it builds character.
Also, you should change project requirements on a daily basis. It keeps developers on their toes.
 
@Shalvenay Anytime.
 
 
2 hours later…
4:48 AM
3
Q: As a Warlock, can I cast Vampiric Touch on myself to grant my pact weapon an extra 3d6 necrotic damage?

000280If I'm playing as a Warlock and I take the pact of the blade feature and the thirsting blade invocation (which allows me to make two melee attacks with my pact weapon), can I cast vampiric touch on myself to grant both of my melee attacks the extra 3d6 necrotic damage, or did I misunderstood the ...

 
 
7 hours later…
11:33 AM
0
Q: Opinion based questions: on-topic and criteria for closing?

illustroOve the past number of years I've noticed an uptick in questions being closed for being "opinion based" and calls for questions to be closed for that reason. My understanding was that opinion based questions were on-topic for this stack (though they may fall foul of other rules which make them of...

 
11:55 AM
0
Q: Why was the edit suggestion rejected?

RayllumI recently proposed the following edit suggestion: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/74128 It was unanimously rejected and I think that might have been wrong. I replaced the spell Bolt, which is wrong, with the spell Healing, which is a correct possibility. As stated in Chat, t...

 
12:26 PM
@TheOracle I feel like we've been through this, Oracle. Opinion-based answers are the real problem.
That candlekeep question is pretty interesting, but I'm not sure it's stackable. Unless we can become a review site, but those seem opinion-y. Or could we be the cliffs notes for published modules? Or does that step on the modules paywalls?
 
Are we doing the job of the marketing department was my first thought
 
@Someone_Evil Yep, and then can we was my next :)
and i'm not sure we can. That sounds like the job for the alexandrian :)
Because reviews are inherently opinion-based...i think.
i have yet to vote on that question
 
The only sort of response that gets close to good subjective is a summary of your experience playing through the module, but then the question is just discussion of what happened when you played it.
 
ALthough, I don't think that 's what they want.
THey really want a cliffs notes on the mechanics and story. Not the actual play descriptions.
or sparq or whatever the kids are using these days :P
 
Right, they want me to read each adventure and give my opinion on what sort of information would be helpful.
 
12:36 PM
It's clearly unclearwhat they 'call' each possible encounter.
 
Also, how do review queues even work
The question went into the queue and got a close vote and an edit, and then was removed from the queue.
 
Which makes it difficult, and given that encounters can become something else through actions of player and DM, I'm not sure that's even possible.
 
@ThomasMarkov They're doing their best, ok?
 
@Someone_Evil ??
 
@NautArch I assume "the review queues are doing their best"
 
12:38 PM
ah
 
Got punished for not using the reply system
 
DOes that mean whomever VTC'd unrang their bell?
 
No, an edit action in the review ends it
Didn't know it did that for close, but certainly the case for LQ
 
To be honest, I don't know why this question is still open.
Only one answer is actually supported.
 
Tried to close it just now.
> You voted to close this question yesterday
 
12:40 PM
@Someone_Evil How you feel about post notices in there?
 
Let me finish writing a meta answer and I'll get to those :)
 
for everyone but mkdir?
hahaha
okaleedokalee
I do think Illustro's meta is a dupe.
 
I vtc'd dupe.
 
I was under the impression that we can revist topics on the meta, and as a result the concept of "duplicate" question isn't really applicable to the meta
see all of the don't guess the system policy questions on meta
 
@illustro That we do do, but I wasn't sure if this was a revisit. Usually those are all based on events or a series of events.
 
12:45 PM
@AncientSwordRage The problem with FTL arises when you take account that there is not only one preferred reference frame for the universe. Relativity tells us that we cannot tell the difference between being stationary in an accelerating frame of reference and being constantly accelerated (due to some force like gravity) in a static frame of reference.
 
This question really seems like it'd be better if it was about the specific question.
 
This lack of a universal frame of reference means when we compare events between different frames of reference (for example a spaceship travelling at some constant fraction of c and the "stationary" people on Earth), if we allow faster than light travel, the order of events will be different between the different reference frames for things that occurred using that FTL. Hence causality breaking.
 
hrmm... that Candlekeep question strikes me as okaaaayish, but also something I'd have no interest in actually answering, myself. (Even though I've got the product and have played many of the eponymous mysteries.) If you're taking 10-20 pp. adventures and characterizing them--not even their plot-points, but their themes/structures--I believe we're well into fair-use territory. (Though IANAL.)
As for it being **P**OB, I wouldn't be too worried about that: what's going to differ from one potential characterization to another is whether the social "encounters" are labeled as minor or major--th
Are we going to slip down a slope of becoming D&DReviews.SE? I would hope not, but I'm also a bigger fan of tackling a problem as it emerges, rather than imagining it will.
 
@nitsua60 I don't think it's POB either, but i'm not sure it's what we want to be, either.
exactly
 
^^
VIOLENT AGREEMENT!
I'm inclined to leave it open--I'd be interested to see if an answer comes in quickly, comes in slowly, never comes....
 
12:48 PM
@nitsua60 I'm currenty leaving as-is. If it' closed, i'm not reopening.
 
3
Q: Pathfinder 1e Magic Item Creation: Save Bonus Limit

KeeganI was just wondering, for items in Pathfinder 1e that provide saves bonuses (like a Cloak of Resistance), they seem to only go up to +5, but in the Magic Item Creation rules, it looks like you could go much higher, all you'd need to do would be to calculate the different cost (and have that much ...

 
@NautArch The question that prompted what I was aiming as a revist question on meta was certainly the candlekeep question, but it's not just about that question, but how we handle opinion based questions (or questions that may generate opinion based answers)
 
I'm just not sure one question that created the issue is enough for a revisit.
Usually, that's a need for when a trend arises.
But for me, all these things just come back to answering with experience.
It's never about the question, it's about the answers.
 
It's not just that one question though...that question is just the latest in what I've (anecdotally) observed as an increase in "close because not an objectively answerable question" behaviour. My anecdotal experience may be wrong, in which case great, we don't need a revist.
 
I honestly think that issue has gotten MUCH better over the years.
And I"m actually trying to only answer questions now with experience instead of rules.
The more of us that do that, the more we show it can be done - and how. Which may end up bringing smaller RPGs to the site as we showcase experience-based answers.
 
12:54 PM
And this is the problem with anecdotal experience, due to exposure differences, people experience different things :)
 
@NautArch lol, to this point, I got told today that we are a RAW first site.
 
@illustro I don't see that as a problem. And it's less about anecdotes and more about the actual experience and analysis.
That's what makes us experts.
 
@NautArch The only game with which I have enough experience to do that with at the moment is D&D 5e, and those types of experience based questions are few and far between for 5e, most are "am I interpreting this rule correctly"
 
@illustro They are fewer, and i'm answering fewer.
I'm okay with that in my attempt to raise the profile of experience-based answers.
 
@NautArch I meant our opposing anecdotal experience of the prevalence of "close because not objective" on the stack!
 
12:57 PM
@illustro Oh, ha!
Well, there are tools to figure out who's memory is better.
I'm just no good at them.
 
I don't think I have access to them yet :P
 
I wouldn't (and didn't) look at the new meta as a revisit. It's somewhere between discussion and support from a close voter PoV, not the asker PoV of the FAQ. Those may be useful to eachother, but differ in how they should explain things
 
@Someone_Evil I personally don't think those should be two separate questions for people to find.
But whatever community decides there, i'm good with.
 
1:28 PM
user image
4
 
@NautArch I VtC's, I think. let me double check.
@BaconyRevanant yeah, that's correct. I have an elf wizard in our group who embodies that picture. Sending to him! 😁
 
@KorvinStarmast I"m withholding my vote for now ;)
 
@KorvinStarmast I love me some fire damage.
 
@NautArch I vtc'd that one. Neat topic, but 'idea generation' I think.
 
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, it's also why I think a meta on the topicality for that would be better @illustro :)
 
1:39 PM
@nitsua60 The candlekeep question can be answered, yes, if someone chooses to take all 20 adventures and summarize them with 20 spoiler blocks. But as I look at the scope on that, my under question comment arrives at "please do my homework for me" questions which usually get slammed on other SEs. FWIW. When I was more active on HistorySE, I helped close quite a few of those.
 
1:49 PM
@KorvinStarmast The problem, with viewing this specific question as a "do my homework" question is the requirement in the question for different DMs, within the same group, to run different sub-adventures (which necessarily requires that one DM doesn't read all of the mini-adventures so as to preserve some sense of mystery for them as a player for the adventures they aren't running)
 
2:00 PM
@ThomasMarkov I saw that and had to do a double take
 
I've recently started interacting a bit more on a non-RPG stackexchange (Computer science) and it's a bit of a culture shock
It's one of those sites where you're not expected to produce a comprehensive answer, but "as comprehensive as the querent deserves", in a nutshell
RPGs are a nice domain because we don't have ACTUAL homework problems (that'd be the day...)
"Oh darn I've got only this night left to write my essay on why Lore Bard is better than Valor for DnD Class..."
 
2:16 PM
@illustro I have invited querent to chat, and I get the point you are making. VtC retracted.
 
@ThomasMarkov I don't necessarily think that that's an accurate statement from whoever said it. I don't think that we're RAW first, it's just a coincidence that most questions are looking for RAW answers
@kviiri Your assignment tonight is to make a level 7 Wizard build that doesn't have Fireball as a known spell.
 
2:29 PM
@KorvinStarmast ::thumbs up::
 
They've brought up a good point though: "How does this stack feel about community wiki answers? e.g. I post my example above for Mystery 1, then individual users who have played Mystery X can edit in their inputs for that single Mystery"
But 1. it means people wouldn't get reputation for their contribution 2. the question of what happens when two people would actually summarize a Mystery in significantly different ways such that they can't be meshed together (but there's probably a good chance that's never the case)
 
@Medix2 they tend to be rare circumstances where community wiki answers are suitable on this stack, but this type of question is one I think it would be precisely suitable for
It might be better to start a community wiki answer after a few individual answers on specific mysteries have been received
 
@illustro +1 on the community wiki.
 
I know I have tried starting CW answers on questions answered by lists and this is answered by a list, hmmmmm. Just a list where each "item" requires more effort than just naming something
 
that way we encourage people to post individual summaries for a mystery, and the "most suitable" ones for the question can be added to the community wiki answer
 
2:35 PM
That would require those answerers to actually agree to have their summaries moved into a community wiki (well, not technically, but I would want that at least). I don't think there's any real harm in just starting a CW answer; if people want to post theirs outside of it, they can just do so
 
No, there is no harm in doing so
 
Also of note, linking to [chat] doesn't actually link to this room
 
@Medix2 There has only been one answer I've submitted as a CW: rpg.stackexchange.com/a/146913/36850
 
@illustro Yup, that's pretty much what I mean XD
All those questions asking "What is every single way I can X?"
 
2:55 PM
Food for thought: bounded list?
 
I dont see how CW would work for this question.
Okay, I see how it would work.
But is that a precedent we want to set
 
I'm not sure CW solves the issue that if you get two different description of one adventure, how does one tell which is correct?
 
@ThomasMarkov I think that's kind of what we are brainstorming here, and it's a good question.
 
The question then, is whether we would ever actually get two different descriptions
 
@Medix2 Yes we would.
 
3:00 PM
Or well... I guess the question is whether we think we would get that and the risk-reward analysis of just leaving the question open and waiting vs closing it assuming something we can't actually know 100% (like all things)
 
There's arguably a broadness issue too, but I'm not liking the idea of splitting it into 16 seperate questions
 
@Someone_Evil Everyone disliked that
 
Do we have any precedent here?
Are there any extant "Summarize this adventure" questions on-site?
 
@ThomasMarkov While I mostly agree with your answer about the Warlock Invocations, I think the strength of allowing other classes to take them is a bit over stated (except Agonizing Blast, hard agree). I think the bigger issue is that allowing any class access to those features significantly cuts into the Warlocks class identity
 
I suspect most of those would've been asked as recommendation
 
3:05 PM
@BaconyRevanant Yeah, I gave you a shout out in my first section.
 
Which, actually; which of the Mysteries suits X interest or style the most might be workable, I'm not sure I'd be easier to pull off
 
what is going on with the review queue right now?
 
@G.Moylan What do you mean?
 
several questions have been dredged up with flags but they're all 8+ years old
 
@G.Moylan I threw a bunch of stuff in there.
 
3:07 PM
Also, long time no see
 
yes, it's been a while
 
@KorvinStarmast I disagree with that edit
 
@G.Moylan See here for meta guidance.
 
@BaconyRevanant OK, revert, I felt that "in my opinion" weakened the excellent point that you were making.
 
@ThomasMarkov I don't so much mind the quantity, I'm just unsure where we stand on very old questions with accepted answers
 
3:10 PM
But it is my opinion
It's certainly not a concrete fact, and there are definitely others that would disagree with me
 
@G.Moylan Off topic is off topic, age and having an accepted answer dont change that. It's okay if you disagree with the closure because you think it is actually on topic, but there is an abundance of guidance on meta that says we should close off topic questions without regard for how old they are.
 
@ThomasMarkov ah, gotcha. I'll review with that in mind, then
how've things been in RPG.SE ?? I've been away for a while
 
Gaaaah, if I have a torch in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other, and I have the Crossbow Expert Feat, do I still get the bonus action attack with the hand crossbow without having a free hand?
or do I have to drop the torch?
 
Is Crossbow Expert the one that lets you ignore the Loading property?
 
Yes, it is
 
3:19 PM
@ThomasMarkov MEANWHILE
Ya know what caps lock... sure, make me scream
 
Hmmm, I think you still need a hand (or some other grasping appendage, such as a prehensile trunk or tail) free to reload
Loading only limits the number of shots you can make per action, not how you need to reload it
 
@BaconyRevanant Aha, still need a free hand ... From SAC ... The upshot is that you can fire it more than once if you have a feature like Extra Attack. You’re still limited, however, by the fact that the weapon has the ammunition property (PH, 146). The latter property requires you to have a bolt to fire from the hand crossbow, and the
hand crossbow isn’t going to load itself (unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention). You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.
 
OK, fine, I might ask someone to casts "light" on the hand crossbow; so much for stealth ....
 
Ah, hi guys. I hadn't realised that @KorvinStarmast meant the general-chat. I was looking for a "this discussion has been moved to a dedicated chat room". :)
 
3:22 PM
@Brondahl arrgh, silly me for not specifying. Sorry about that. 😲
 
Well, you can always drop the torch to reload the crossbow.
 
nw
 
@BaconyRevanant yeah,
 
So, it looks from the above like you'd be on-board with a CW answer if we had a suitable resolution to "what happens if there are conflicting answers offered"?
I don't know that much about CW answers. I've seen them intermittently, but I don't recall whether I've ever contributed to one. Are they actually mechanically different to normal answers just with a special "owner" who has no rep and auto-accepts all edits?
 
there is no particular difference besides the fact that nobody "owns" the answer, yeah
 
3:25 PM
shove the torch in your pockets, by RAW the torch can't light things on fire
 
@Yuuki just hold it in your teeth
 
So, do edits to a CW get put in edit moderation Q?
 
that was going to be my original suggestion, but for some reason i thought "holding a flame close to your face" was going to be more objectionable than "abuse the simulationist nature of D&D"
 
@Brondahl I'm guessing, but I'd think they'd be handled based on score, like other edits
 
Well, technically there's no downside to either solution, but if you put it too deep into your pocket, the light won't come out
 
3:29 PM
@Medix2 I am very much nt a fan of incomplete answers or using community to answer things one piece at a time.
 
If so then an edit reviewer can deal with the edit to ensure that one of the following happen:

* the new edits get gracefully combined with the old notes (i.e. its just adding detail.)
e.g. it's mostly A, with a bit of B.
* The CW is allowed to have "depending on your p.o.v. it's either .... style A description ... or it's .... style B description."

or (most complexly)

* If anyone wants to add a conflicting summary, then the 2 descriptions get split off into "competing" answers, and the standard voting system determines which one is better.
 
i don't really like the implementation of cwiki, partly because of the kind of behavior it encourages
3
 
TBH, I feel like descriptions that are actively in conflict seem somewhat low probability? But I'm relatively new here, so if others disagree that's fine :D
 
but that's more of a top-level objection to cwiki as a whole
 
Yeah I'm not really a fan of the idea. It still comes down to relying on opinion of what makes a good summary
 
3:32 PM
@G.Moylan this is why the question should be closed. It really isn’t a good fit the the stack.
 
@G.Moylan do you feel like that's different to relying on opinion of what makes good Player Management?
 
I mean, I don't know a bunch about Icewind Dale, for example, and if I know I could just post here and say "hey summarize this for me so I don't have to read it", I think I would. Why wouldn't you?
@Brondahl Yes, because wqe can actually test and practice good player management and talk from experience. We can't do that with a quick summary. What might be detailed enough for you might not be for another person, or vice versa.
 
@G.Moylan Bringing that into something I am currenty playing (icewind dale), I'm not sure my summary would be the same as someone else's.
 
@G.Moylan I think that might easily fall short of the "homework problem" or lack of research
 
ANd I don't know about candlekeep, but there is quite a bit of content that a specific table won't play in Icewind Dale.
That I couldn't comment on because I didn't.
 
3:35 PM
Fair enough :)
> And I don't know about candlekeep, but there is quite a bit of content that a specific table won't play in Icewind Dale.

I don't know about the later Mysteries, but certainly the first one is small enough scope that you're definitely going to experience everything necessary to accurately describe the Style of the Mystery.
 
@Someone_Evil I think it lands squarely in that category. It's asking someone else to write you Cliff's Notes
 
I'm also really unsure if we are set up to be a review/abstractl source for modules.
I don't think there's risk of paywall breaking as lots of sites out there review, but I think those sites and people are much better suited to this than us.
We're here for questions once youve dug in, not for general info about things.
 
Using the score on other answers to determine the content of one answer is not what SE is about. It goes against the basic model of the site.
 
And I"m wary to add another D&D tool to our D&D focus.
 
@NautArch Reviews are available on Amazon, DMs Guild, DriveThru RPG, etc. We aren't a review site
@ThomasMarkov I'm confused about your phrasing. Don't we use accepted, upvoted answers as reference material all the time?
 
3:41 PM
@G.Moylan Yes, but there are also answers that are Not Good with lots of upvotes because the answer turned into a popularity contest.
 
@NautArch Sure, but that doesn't mean the good answers aren't valid. I've seen us link to other QAs all the time as reference material, so I'm confused by the proposition that that is wholecloth incorrect
 
@G.Moylan I'm pretty sure I wholeheartedly agree.
 
@NautArch, Do I correctly understand that you're describing a scenario in which lots of the SE users all said that an Answer was "Good" because they liked it, but that the ... experienced ... users on the stack know that actually they're all wrong and the answer was in fact "Not Good".
 
@Brondahl Or that an answer is amusing but not helpful.
Or Amusing but not actually an answer.
 
That scenario arises with joke-answers, and also with answers that do not support their claims in any way whatsoever, but where people agree with those claims anyway
 
3:45 PM
^^
Thanks @Medix2.
 
Ah, that makes sense.
 
@Medix2 "You should do this thing because that's what I would do. It's clearly the best choice"
 
The stack really tries to get us to support our answers, but we're human. And if we like (or dislike) something, we'll say so.
 
@G.Moylan although I guess we use DM interpretation a lot so that isn't necessarily fair of me
 
@G.Moylan Nah, G.Moylan is right here. DM interpretation supported by your experience with that interpretation is exactly what we want.
But if it isn't, then we should be downvoting
@KorvinStarmast My hunch is that WoTC is heading toward a 'build your own character' thing where you can pull from anything and there really aren't classes or races.
 
3:52 PM
@NautArch I'm currently working on "blank" character templates that are just a class at a level with ability scores, and you can pick what race you want and you get the racial abilities but none of the stat changes, the theory being that those are already baked into the class such that you picked what was most advantageous anyway, going by Tasha rules. It doesn't eliminate race but it makes it easy to grab two sheets of paper and not have to think about it for one-shots
 
I like the idea of having to make difficult choices. That's part of a 'game' for me.
But that isn't everyone's cup of tea.
 
@NautArch Sure, but why should my difficult choices come at the expense of playing who/what I want to play?
 
@G.Moylan Because you're playing a game with rules? But I do hear you, although the ability to homebrew what you want has always been available.
 
@G.Moylan My difficult choice should be in picking my sublass and my spells, infusions, etc. Not in whether I should be a minotaur because I want to or if I should pick something else because i'ts "better"
 
@G.Moylan I don't know. If you want to be a fast sloth, I think you're going to come across issues when you race against the cheetah.
And if what you want is suboptimal, that's okay - embrace it. You don't have to get everything you want AND optimize.
 
3:55 PM
<Insert Zootopia reference here>
 
Heck, @ThomasMarkov is currently suffering through his race changing randomly. And I think (hope) he's having fun with it.
 
@NautArch But that's pigeonholing my experience to "you get to play a minotaur but you're going to be worse at X because they just suck at it." Why is every member of a race bad at X? that doesn't make sense to me. There are always differences
 
@NautArch Yup.
 
@G.Moylan which is why each individual has distinct personal skill stats.
 
@NautArch I don't think moving or removing things like stat allocation from races really changes the difficult decision part of character creation, just changes the focus of where those difficult decisions need to be made.
 
3:57 PM
But like you say, it's a game and there's no one way to play
 
It makes more sense for those to be associated with the class than the race
 
@G.Moylan SO many things in D&D just don't make sense when you think about them. Almost all of the racial features aren't biological, and even looking solely at ones that are, they just... I could tirade for a while about the problems in all this stuff
 
If you roll well, then your halfing can be stronger than the Half Orc who rolled poorly
 
characters who choose to be a fighter will self-select in general for those who are naturally better at fighting
 
@Brondahl Which is part of why I don't roll anymore. The variance makes for super awesome or super weak characters and I've found that that's frequently at the expence of my PCs' fun
 
3:59 PM
That seems fair.
Then substitute "roll" for "assign from the std array"
and "well/poorly", and "according to optimal/sub-optimal choices for the class"
 
(in the same way in real life, doctors are self-selected to be those who are significantly better at memorisation than the average person, due to the sheer volume of knowledge they need to be able to access at any given time)
 
Agreed. The high-level rogues are all dextrous, because the undextrous ones got caught / died falling off rooves.
 
@Brondahl What I'm saying is that I disagree that I should feel pigeonholed into playing "suboptimaly" if I want to make a minotaur sorcerer. I should get to play a character who is just as effective as the halfling rogue, regardless of what race I want to play
 
@G.Moylan I would agree with that
 
I mean ... if none of the choices are sub-optimal, then none of them are optimal either, which just means "everyone's equally skilled at all things".
At which point we're saying that the character build choices have no mechanical impact, I think?
 
4:04 PM
I think the rule in Tasha's about putting points where you want opens the door for playing optimally or suboptimally as you want, since you can put the points anywhere and still get to choose your race
 
it'd be kinda interesting to add a point-buy system for "racial" features though
essentially, that sort of mechanic would turn your race choice into a sort of vestigial visual shorthand. it wouldn't have any mechanical implications, but it'd function as a way to signal other players what your character generally looks like
 
@NautArch Great idea for D&D 6e.
@ThomasMarkov At long last, my rogue Highwayman question is up. FWIW.
 
kinda like alignment, really. also has fewer and fewer mechanical implications with every edition, but more of a general descriptor for how a character would behave in very general strokes
 
@illustro The page also suggests that relativity could be broken
 
And height and weight too. They have very little mechanical significance, beyond helping other players visualise your character.
 
4:11 PM
@KorvinStarmast Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, dum dum dum The Night!
 
@Brondahl I can't access reddit from work (boo) but I think this is my post reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/abebq0/…
 
@Yuuki I know people who've implemented that in 5e
Oh, a visual one, nevermind; I know people who've done a mechanical one
 
@AncientSwordRage you mean by FTL?
or as a theory?
 
@illustro yes, but most likely in fiction
 
@G.Moylan yeah, I just can't name him Dennis Moore - in part because I might make this one a lady ...
Maybe Denise Amoré
 
4:14 PM
@Medix2 no, i meant that in the latter way. what i said was that such a mechanic would remove all mechanical implications from your race choice so then whichever race you choose to be would function primarily as a visual shorthand
 
@KorvinStarmast I'm sure you could adapt the name Errol Flynn, too
 
arrgh, I must not! Bonny Denise is as far as I'll go with that.
@G.Moylan Lynn Ferrol - might do that
 
Well the theory of relativity is broken if FTL is allowed precisely because causality would be broken, but we know relativity works very well in all the cases we can observe, because it's one of our two best performing scientific theories
 
@illustro But what I mean is that in that case we say something about FTL breaks relativity in a way that preserves causality (just not as we know it)
 
On Monday Night Football, hoof in mouth broke Cosell-ity ... 😋
 
4:47 PM
@KorvinStarmast debating on answer, but your question seems to be: I like swashbuckler for it fits my concept, but arcane looks so shiny!
Which suggests swashbuckler or a theme change
 
@NautArch If there is something AT can do that makes a substantial damage difference, I can role play the difference if I need to. Magic is just so useful in D&D, and our party is a little bit low magic as built ... hence my indecision.
 
5:16 PM
(back on Candlekeep) a thing is, though: an answer to that question isn't a review of the product. The more I think on it the more I see a decently-scoped problem being described ("we have a group with 4 people who will GM, we have a book with 18 modules, we don't want to self-spoil"). The only thing I take exception with, I think, is that there's a bit of XY going on: OP has decided that a stylistic summary of each is the way to solve the problem.
 
@nitsua60 @Brondahl this is part of why I suggested OP come to chat to see if we can workshop the question into a tighter form ...
 
Then how do we approach answering this? Too much detail will be spoilery, too little detail won't be helpful. There are summaries in the book, just prior to each adventure. Why is the onus on us to carfeully craft/curate summaries to these adventures?
 
I don't know that summaries are the (only) way to answer, is what I'm saying. The really good answer I want to see is someone saying "I have a group, we once decided to rotate GMs, we played published work, here's how we prevented spoilage."
 
Sure, but that still won't answer the quest as written. The question will need a serious overhaul to be answered in that fashion
Which I recognize is your point
 
^^
That answer may say "we asked a friend to summarize and picked from there," or it may say something I can't imagine, because I haven't dealt with the situation.
 
5:22 PM
I think the question should still be closed until it can be rewritten, to prevent low quality or contentious answers
It sits at 4 votes presently
 
Yeah, maybe. But I've got to go teach the entirety of Taylor polynomials in 90 min.
Wish my students luck =)
 
Oh jeez, Taylor series
 
@TheOracle ha, I skipped that one.
@illustro Framing it as a revisit from the get-go is a good approach.
 
6:04 PM
@illustro I totally hear what y'all are saying, I just don't agree for myself. So I think it's helpful to have as an option for those, but not to change the system to dramatically for those that like the decision-making process.
Because why be suboptimal when you can get what you want AND be optimal?
Everyone ends up being optimal, it seems...which as I type it out isn't bad.
 
6:23 PM
@illustro While being good at test-taking is relevant, what makes one good at test-taking contributes more - a lot of that comes down to available capital, whether social, economic, cultural, or symbolic.
 
@Akixkisu And naturally being good at standardized tests is a really odd skill and not that relevant for life.
 
@NautArch cries in niche talents
 
@NautArch I think there is room for a compelling conversation about privilege in those remarks.
 
6:40 PM
@Akixkisu Absolutely
The 'better' schools teach test taking skills (rather than actual skills)
 
7:07 PM
heh, just noticed this: Can a rogue use Evasion if they are surprised? if you are surprised, you can’t move or take an action. A surprised rogue can use Evasion, since that feature doesn’t require the rogue to take an action or move This came up for our AT in our last battle, will discuss with our DM.
 
Its worse than that:
42
Q: Does Evasion allow half damage even when unconscious?

VigilEvasion is a class feature gained by Rogues and Monks at level 7: At 7th level, your instinctive agility lets you dodge out of the way of certain area effects, such as a blue dragon’s lightning breath or a Fireball spell. When you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity...

 
@ThomasMarkov Or, if you are the rogue it's better than that 😄
 
@ThomasMarkov but it doesn't matter? Half or full damage, if you take damage while unconscious that's 2 death saves failed
am I missing anything?
 
@Helwar you can be unconscious, stable, and at full hitpoints.
 
@ThomasMarkov Only takes about seven beers ...
 
7:12 PM
point taken
 
For example, if subject to the spell sleep
 
yeah I was gonna argue, then realized you are right
 
Or, what if the damage on a failure is 1 damage? Then half rounded down is zero, so no failed death save.
 
@ThomasMarkov Huzzah for rogue brand cheese, right?
Rogues sleep with one eye open
 
Ha, I just wrote up an answer to a question about a rogue build.
FYI, rogues are my favorite class, so I def know what I'm talking about XD
 
7:16 PM
i mean artificers are my favorite class and i definitely have no idea what i'm talking about
 
@BaconyRevanant I had always wanted to play a human rogue with the thief subclass and the feat that allows to use med kits for healing.... Sounds interesting as F but I dunno where to go from there to not be a gimmick only :P
 
they're the ones that catch painted salmon, right?
 
@Yuuki No, you're thinking of artifishers
@Helwar Thief is a good all-rounder archetype, but I find that Arcane Tricksters are the most fun. Mage Hand Ledgermain is on of the most entertaining class abilities ever written :p
 
I happen to agree
and I would miss a lot having access to spells
 
7:35 PM
@goodguy5 Can I chat to numbers that don't exist yet?
 
Dunno
Prob not
 
I can edit it in
 
@Helwar Only 1 in this case: 2 auto fails only occurs on critical hits, which are themselves only automatic against targets within 5 feet of the attacker.
 
I still don't know how to reply to myself like that
 
you have to snag the chat code from the permalink
 
7:36 PM
@BaconyRevanant Ah, so I can do something
@BaconyRevanant Like this then
 
That answer is actually very good in pointing out that, mechanically, evasion has no effect on unconscious characters except in really niche circumstances.
 
Recursive message is recursive
 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

« first day (3855 days earlier)      last day (27 days later) »