TRPG General Chat

BESW

00:01

Oblivious Sage

I'd have voted to close if I didn't think the asker was not a native English speaker and genuinely didn't understand that round down === truncate.

BESW

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a native speaker who got taught maths with a non-standard vocabulary.

Oblivious Sage

Hmmm, I suppose that could be. Truncate is the math/CS technical term for it, "round down" is just how it's usually taught to kids.

BESW

They use a comma for a decimal, which is a signal that they aren't operating with a typical American maths education.

Oblivious Sage

Good catch. That makes me lean a lot more towards non-native English speaker. I'm wanting to say the Brits & Australians use periods for decimals, and that commas are a European and Southern American thing.

BESW

00:07

Roughly, yes.

And Role-playing Games has a proud tradition of helping folks with cultural/linguistic translation/transliteration issues that get in the way of understanding the rules.

So I'm a little sad at all those downvotes.

DuckTapeAl

@BESW I wouldn't have been able to do any super weird shenanigans with the Midgard Dwarves, but it would have saved me a feat or two once I got access to Shapechange.

BESW

@DuckTapeAl Oh, for that epic campaign (which was already full of cheese) I would've gone whole-hog with crafting classes and feats. I think I could've probably set it up so that I could just make whatever I needed on the fly mid-combat.

BESW

01:21

Here's a great aspect: Since you haven't shot me yet, we should be friends.

> A simple definition of friendship. If, at the end of the first round of a physical conflict during which you were clearly visible to at least one opponent, you have not been attacked, you may place the boost Since you haven't shot me yet, we should be friends on one opponent who could see you.

(@trogdor I think I found HASSAN's stunt.)

trogdor

lol

perfect

if only he was actually still a thing

lol

BESW

Hrm. This Scrivener RPG template is not gonna be useful for a group-defined campaign.

Also, it's kinda... weird. "Culture," "Mythology," and "Groups & Factions" are separate equal-rank collections?

DuckTapeAl

01:41

@Sandwich Hey, if you want to talk about that question I asked, I'll probably be on most of the night tonight.

Sandwich

I don't believe thats true at all

Bonus to a knowledge skill is unequivocally knowledge that you didnt have before

If you had a +100 racial bonus to xxx knowledge

Are you really implying that you couldn't answer a simple question in that field

Does it say that anywhere in a sourcebook

BESW

> Trained Only
If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If it is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section (see below).

(source)

Does "bonus" = "rank"?

Sandwich

Its possible

The numbers have to mean something

BESW

Ah, so your argument for an obviously edge case is "the rules don't say these two words don't mean the same thing"?

Sandwich

Otherwise what would be the point of getting an insight bonus in a skill that requires training to pass a check

Insight bonus to roll a knowledge check

BESW

01:46

That's an excellent question. Do you have an example of this being done?

Sandwich

I don't.

BESW

(And of course, we know that Knowledge checks can be made untrained for DCs of 10 and less.)

So I'm very unclear on what your support is for this.

Sandwich

But if a character had a substantial bonus of any type to a specific knowledge type, and was asked a question in that field, would he be prevented from answering because he didn't have a rank in it, even if his total modifier was higher than the actual DC for the check?

BESW

...Yes.

By a strict reading of the rules this is the case.

Sandwich

That's what I don't agree with

BESW

01:48

If you would like a "simulation" justification, I can provide one. But the rules don't care.

Sandwich

If a person has an insight bonus to their next skill roll

And their next skill roll was one that required training

Would the roll pass or fail

DuckTapeAl

1 sec, lemme grab the quote.

BESW

It'd fail because he has no training to leverage that insight.

DuckTapeAl

"Untrained
This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn’t appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can’t attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated as “Trained Only”)."

Sandwich

He has foresight that could tell him what the possible answer would be

DuckTapeAl

01:49

That's the last entry on this page: d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillDescriptions.htm

BESW

@Sandwich That is a very reasonable narrative protest, which would have more weight in a different kind of system.

Sandwich

If you specifically divined the answer to a question and received an insight bonus to your next knowledge check

DuckTapeAl

If your argument is "D&D 3.5 has many rules that don't make any realistic sense" then you'll find no argument from me. :P

Sandwich

I see no reason why it wouldn't be the case that you'd know the answer, even if the skill required training

BESW

As it is, insight bonuses are like giving someone an understanding of differential calculus without teaching them arithmetic.

Pixie

01:50

The salient bit, rules-wise: a character simply cannot attempt checks with a Trained Only skill they don't have trained. It doesn't matter what your bonus would have been. The rules straight up say you can't attempt the skill.

DuckTapeAl

However, from a RAW perspective, a character with an Int of 1 billion and no Knowledge skills can't succeed on knowledge checks.

Sandwich

I have to make a question for this

BESW

@Sandwich Because you've chosen to play in a system with rules that don't cover edge cases neatly.

Sandwich

This seems like a glaring failure of rules

BESW

This is the glaring failure of 3.5's pretension at simulation?

DuckTapeAl

01:51

It's not as bad as the lighting rules. :P

Sandwich

Well.. a glaring failure of some of the rules

There are a lot of rules failures in 3.5

BESW

Not the bit where water breathing lets you breath indefinitely regardless of the oxygenation of the water, or the part where folks are totally healthy until they suddenly pass out?

DuckTapeAl

I'll start writing up my answer now so I can get that delicious "first". :D

BESW

You're arguing from narrative toward rules in a system that's set up to work the other way.

Sandwich

Its something that could possibly be deserving of a houserule

BESW

01:59

Yeah, but the instant your answer to "how do I do this within X ruleset?" is "change the ruleset," the Stack is gonna look at it seriously askance.

That's, at best, a frame challenge.

BESW

02:13

@KorvinStarmast This would be a good observation to include in an answer, but as a comment I'm not sure what its function is.

DuckTapeAl

Hey @Sandwich, are you still working on that question? I just finished my answer.

Sandwich

Yeah

Sandwich

02:29

I hope you have predicted how I'm going to word this question though

I had to bring pun pun into it though

Because ability modifiers only get that high when pun-pun is involved

DuckTapeAl

Well, I'm going to modify it to more precisely fit your specific wording before I post it.

"that high"

Great Wyrm Gold Dragons get a +11 Int standard, which is plenty high enough to make low-20s knowledge checks.

Sandwich

Yeah but they don't get ability scores of 20,010 with modifiers of +10,000

DuckTapeAl

Sure.

Let me say it this way: All of my arguments assume reasonable (~30s) ability scores.

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl -- yeah. 30s are reachable by PCs too

DuckTapeAl

But I know of at least two different tricks to get to over +100, pre-epic, with very few shenanigans, so I don't think i'ts really that big of a thing.

BESW

02:36

What's the point of exploring edge cases with high numbers, if the question is about whether a bonus granted the "trained" quality. A DC 12 Knowledge check for creature lore is unrollable without training, but numerically quite attainable by anyone with a +1 insight or racial bonus.

Shalvenay

@BESW I'm with you there

BESW

Boom, instant easy example that doesn't bring in other ridiculous edge cases.

Shalvenay

you can get into this issue at low DCs with many characters

BESW

No need to complicate the issue.

DuckTapeAl

Fun fact: If you don't have Knowledge(Local), you don't know what an elf is.

BESW

02:37

....erm.

Sandwich

Burn

BESW

DC 10 Knowledge checks are accessible untrained.

DuckTapeAl

" In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. "

Elves have 1 hit die.

10 + 1 = 11.

Shalvenay

oh gosh

watches steam come out of some ears

DuckTapeAl

Yup.

Super duper dumb.

BESW

02:39

> You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

Sandwich

I'm going to add that to the question that's brilliant

BESW

That's not "I don't know what an Elf is," it's "I'm not familiar with exactly how elves work."

DuckTapeAl

"You can use this skill to identify monsters"

Identify as in, see one and know what it is.

BESW

[shrug] You wanna argue about the semantics of conjunctions?

Shalvenay

Don't make me break out the Schoolhouse Rock

DuckTapeAl

02:40

I don't think such an argument would be... functional.

:D

BESW

If it read "to identify monsters and to identify their special powers or vulnerabilities" I'd be more inclined toward that reading.

Sandwich

Well it also would mean you didn't know anything about humans or any creatures with 1HD either @DuckTapeAl

BESW

And given the extra context of explaining exactly what such a check accomplishes in the last sentence, I don't think it's a sustainable interpretation.

DuckTapeAl

Humans are sort of an edge case, since they're not in the MM.

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl lolwut?

DuckTapeAl

02:41

Yup.

BESW

I can know "That's an elf" without knowing anything useful about 'em, just like I know a koala on sight but I don't know anything about how to deal with 'em.

Shalvenay

chucks a random bandit at @DuckTapeAl

Sandwich

You'd think that

Someone with 12 INT would know what an Elf was

Since they have that +1 in INT and they know things

BESW

Again, I'm saying they do know.

DuckTapeAl

@BESW How you describe it is exactly how I run it in game, I'm just pointing out that the wording of the rules makes it very arguable that you don't know what a 1-HD race is unless you have a relevant skill.

Okay, what about this: There's an obscure race called the Blankians that have 1 hit die, but isn't generally known. What kind of check would a player have to make, when they see such a creature, to know that it's actually a Blankian.

Shalvenay

02:45

@DuckTapeAl if I was to run my campaign world in 3.5e -- this would indeed be an issue!

BESW

@DuckTapeAl Many monster entries have this kind of information in a box next to unusual creatures.

Shalvenay

(I like your Blankian formulation btw -- because I suspect this also applies to rejiggered races)

BESW

Also, please note: there's a big difference between "That's an elf" implying "...and I know they have low-light vision, are immune to sleep, and are born knowing how to use a rapier" vs it implying "...and I know they're secretly three mole-men standing on top of each other with a clever mask."

A DC 11 "Blankian" check will not only tell you "That's a Blankian," it'll also tell you something useful about them.

Identification without knowledge of "special powers or vulnerabilities" isn't, by a strict technical reading of the rules, actually covered in that part of the Knowledge skill block. And when we look at the general idea that Knowledge "represents a study of some body of lore" we see that it shouldn't be treated as the exclusive door to common knowledge.

DuckTapeAl

Okay, so what DC do I need to beat to just know "Oh yeah, that's a Blankian. No idea what their deal is."

BESW

There's no general rule given to us for that.

The Blankian entry might tell us.

If Blankians were common knowledge, though, it'd be a no-skill gimmie.

DuckTapeAl

02:55

Unfortunately, since Blankian was written as a player race, it has no Knowledge skill entry in it's block. Much like how the Elf doesn't.

BESW

Knowledge skills are for stuff that you wouldn't expect an average guy to know.

DuckTapeAl

I mean, I agree with you. My point is that the D&D 3.5 rules are often terribly written, and that this particular passage is very commonly read by ruleslawyers to say that you don't know what a thing is without a knowledge roll.

BESW

@DuckTapeAl Then the rules have no power over you.

DuckTapeAl

MWA HA HA HA HA

BESW

DuckTapeAl

02:57

Lol.

BESW

The underlying problem, of course, is that D&D 3.5 presents itself as rigorous without actually being rigorous.

DuckTapeAl

Yeah.

Shalvenay

@BESW exactly.

BESW

So when we take it at its word, we run into... amusements.

DuckTapeAl

Indeed.

Shalvenay

02:58

D&D 3.5e really needs to step away from "RAW-is-god" and to the rulings-culture of editions both before and after it

BESW

I mean, 4e got rigour right. It was a great demonstration of what a truly rigorous system can accomplish--and what it can't.

DuckTapeAl

Related: I really, really like watching people with mostly 4e experience try to play 5e. My current favourite is the whole "there's no reason for a warlock to use a weapon" thing.

BESW

But a lot of that rigour came from backing away from even trying to lay down rules on stuff it couldn't be rigorous about.

DuckTapeAl

@Sandwich Don't know if you saw yet, but I answered you.

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl do they not need one in 4e?

DuckTapeAl

03:01

No clue. It's an optimization thing.

Basically, because Warlocks can do a small amount more damage in 5e using their Eldrtich Blast, their weapon stuff is considered useless by the 4e crowd.

Sandwich

Open lock I could agree with

Well actually...

Hmm

If you had a +10,000 competence bonus to Open lock

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl OAs. 'nuff said.

Sandwich

That would mean that you were supremely competent at that thing

DuckTapeAl

And knew nothing about tumblers.

Sandwich

You'd have to know about tumblers

That's what competence is

DuckTapeAl

03:02

Nope. Not necessarily.

Sandwich

So rules as written

Only the first rank you put into a skill matters

Shalvenay

while there are spells that can mitigate them -- not taking them in the first place is always the best mitigation

Sandwich

Everything else is superfluous

BESW

@Sandwich That's... massively reductionist.

The first rank you put into a skill is very important, yes.

DuckTapeAl

I knew a guy in college who went from never seeing a lockpick to picking a lock pretty much instantly after reading a bit of a book on it. He had the talent, but not the knowledge.

Sandwich

03:03

It is but it makes sense in context

DuckTapeAl

The other ranks matter in that they give you a bonus to the skill, but you're right that only the first rank does something special.

Rank 1: +1 bonus, unlock the skill. Other ranks: +1 bonus.

Sandwich

So what makes the first rank so much better than the other +10,000 that Pun pun has

BESW

More ranks can give synergy bonuses, and unlock feats and talents and prestige classes.

DuckTapeAl

@BESW Right, that too.

BESW

@Sandwich You're asking a narrative question again.

DuckTapeAl

03:05

@Sandwich The first rank represents the absolute minimum of knowledge about the skill. It's like, you can't know about organic chem until you've picked up a book on it.

Sandwich

But why wouldn't having a total modifier of +5 unlock those same synergies you get from having five ranks?

BESW

The 3.5 answer is "I dunno, make something up to justify the rules we've laid down."

4

DuckTapeAl

Basically, the designers wanted to model the idea that there are certain things that you just can't do without training, and they arbitrarily chose skill ranks to be the thing that models that training.

BESW

Sandwich

Arbitrary sounds like the right word for it

DuckTapeAl

03:13

Also, if you want narrative explanations for these things, you'd probably be better off not asking a RAW question.

Sandwich

Good point

Removed tag

DuckTapeAl

03:25

Okay, added some more narrative stuff and the houserule I use.

Since, yeah, this is stupid.

Fun fact: ignoring rules that don't make sense to you in 3.5 will generally only make your life better.

Unless you have a charop player, who will tear your world apart given half an inch of wiggle room.

Sandwich

In a bit I'm gonna roll up a random character in Heroes Unlimited 2E

Gotta go to the bathroom first though

Alrighty! To the Genesis!

Urp[

BRb

Back

Anyway

Genesis!

BESW

03:51

....I have a new one-shot campaign plot.

(Whether the girl and the unicorn are the protagonists or antagonists can be decided on a per-game basis.)

DuckTapeAl

04:37

I really like asking charop questions that make charop people throw up their hands and say "your question has too many conditions". :D

Miniman

@DuckTapeAl I dunno, you haven't had answers from any of the really crazy optimizers yet.

DuckTapeAl

Fair point.

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl the fun part about charopt folks is you can always adopt their tricks as a DM, too :)

DuckTapeAl

@Shalvenay I always found that to be kind of pointless.

Like, I can make Pun-pun as a GM by saying "Okay, here's Pun-pun. He has every ability."

Shalvenay

@DuckTapeAl :P Pun-pun makes everything pointless

DuckTapeAl

04:49

I don't need to do weird charop tricks. The rules of the game, especially character build rules, are entirely at my whim.

I don't think I've built a full character since my first time GMing.

Miniman

Yeah, going through twisty devious methods to empower an NPC can be fun, but is ultimately a waste of time.

DuckTapeAl

As a GM, that is. I build full characters as a player all the time.

@Miniman Yeah. I can just say "She has twisty devious empowerment, and can do XYZ" without worrying about obscure rules justification.

The Oracle

05:09

1

Q: What's unclear about this question?

This question asks "Would any of the versions of D&D, as written, permit someone to backstab with a ballista?" To me, this seems like a simple "yes or no" question where a "yes" answer can easily be backed up by citing the appropriate section of a rulebook; a "no" answer is a bit harder to prove...

Tritium21

06:08

World of Darkness Innocents + a bookmobile + the Necronomicon. Discuss.

DuckTapeAl

Which Necronomicon?

eimyr

= Regular World of Darkness

Tritium21

No...it would still be an innocents chronicle....

WoD: Innocents is rules for playing children

eimyr

You're assuming the innocents would still be innocent.

Or children would be children.

Are tentacley balls of goo still classified as children?

DuckTapeAl

...does the Necronomicon have aging powers?

Tritium21

06:11

It does not

DuckTapeAl

Tritium21

very good, sir

eimyr

"Yum, yum"

DuckTapeAl

My reaction gif game is pretty strong, gotta say.

Tritium21

not when the comment was inspired by that image :P

DuckTapeAl

06:14

Aww.

:P

Tritium21

06:28

Ever be browsing DriveThru, find something a little interesting and have the site tell you that you actually already own it? that happens to me shockingly often

DuckTapeAl

07:51

@Tritium21 There's definitely a question here at least related to that.

Ahh, it's Pathfinder.

10

Q: How far can characters see?

Let's assume we have some PCs moving along infinitely flat plains. In the air (some distance away) is a large creature with a rider that can cast spells. In optimal conditions (so there's normal daylight and no obstructions), how far from the PCs can the rider be and still see them? Note that I...

pathfinder rules-as-written vision-and-light

Tritium21

to....the drivethrurpg purchasing sprees I go on and apparently forget?

DuckTapeAl

No, the question you just asked.

Tritium21

oh, to my question

DuckTapeAl

Basically: Pathfinder explicitly states that you need a check to see something that isn't hidden, and 3.5 doesn't, so the rules are janky about that.

Either you can see it with no check, or you take a huge penalty to see it.

Tritium21

Primary purpose of that: because SE is the top search result for many MANY searches.... you get what I am going for here?

DuckTapeAl

08:01

Yeah, it makes sense.

DuckTapeAl

08:32

Don't worry. I know that there's no RAW about larger size categories, so I won't bother making another question.

:D

Then again, I only know that because I just looked it up in the ELH.

Tritium21

10:44

apparently, when you, as a company, have 40+ years of well received products, and you finally release a stinker, you don't handle it very well...

Mesa, Censorship, and Honesty in Gear Reviews!

►

NSFW Language

Zachiel

11:43

Hello, SE people. I hope there's 3.5e players awake.
What's the foreseeable problems with the following tactic?
- as a cleric in heavy armor, wade into battle with a buckler for having one hand free and a two-hander
- start with some long lasting buffs, including a persisted divine power
- grab a metamagic rod of quicken of appropriate levels
- cast (defensively) buff spells as you go

Zachiel

12:20

(of course I posted it here because this would not be a good question for main)

Iron Heart

13:09

@Zachiel So how are you handling the rods if you're two-handing?

Zachiel

I have three distinct plans

1) get me some gloves of the master strategist to swap to one-handing, output a wand, cast the spell then put the wand away. Con: I can only ever use two wands per combat.
2) start by one handing, when I'm done with casting spells, drop it and start two-handing. Cons: only one wand, lower damage output turns. Pro: no money spent on gloves, no feats.
3) take quick draw to swap to one hand, quick draw the wand, let it go, then swap to two hands again.
In any case, I've seen wizards draw and use wands quite liberally, I'm pretty sure using a cord to tie the rod to your belt so you don't have t…

@IronHeart Sorry, I didn't ping you before

Zachiel

13:47

So I did it. I was invited for a quest in my game and I said no because I wasn't ready and I didn't want to upset the DM.

Zachiel

17:15

Why do I keep making builds without knowing if they work?

Grubermensch

17:38

Sounds like you need tests

Write out some likely scenarios to face, and game out the build through each of them. Notice where it works, where it doesn't, etc.

Pixie

@Tritium21 This happens to me all the time.

Zachiel

@Grubermensch that sounds like a lot of work. I wonde why I can't just use the experience of those who did it before me, but I guess the enswer to that is in not wanting to be just another netbuild, and houserules in my game making it hard to follow them anyway

But in this case it's not tests, I believe. It's just reading and understanding the rules. I think I have seen wizards tie their rods to their belts to drop them as a free action without losing them, but is that really what I have seen? Was it the description of some spell or feat or class feature? Is there some clause like "you don't lose them but you can't draw them again without sheathing them first"? Will quich draw work with this?

Because wizards casting quickened spells cast twice per round and still have time to draw wands and rods, melee people wanting to full attack don't have that luxury

DuckTapeAl

19:45

@Zachiel That cord thing sounds like it will work. Your dm might have specific problems with it, since it feels a little cheesy, but I don't see any obvious way that it wouldn't work exactly as you've described.

Looking at the Quick Draw and Draw a Weapon rules more carefully, I'm still confident in saying that the cord trick you mention would work.

The only problem I can see is that it might be easier to steal them from you in combat depending on the cord strength and how it's attached.

Pureferret

20:15

I find myself in the wrong chat...

Avast ye

Oblivious Sage

No, you found yourself in the right chat.

You were planning to go to the wrong chat.

Pureferret

Hmm

I'll allow it

Trying to plan time for board games and RPG it's somewhat tricky atm

Transcript for