@Anaphory Yeah, that's true. I'm too lazy though, but at least my GM is active on the field.

And that does anyway not mean you get answers, he is likely to say “Ah! Interesting!” and go back to his game design desk, without telling you what you came asking for ;)

I wouldn't mind that outcome too much :p

I love playing a Gnome Thief

@dot_Sp0T I love hearing what people love: tell me more. (For starters, system/edition?)

My GM is really good with AW. I introduced him to the game and borrowed him the book, a week later he debates rule issues with quotes from the books. Verbatim.

DnD Next

@dot_Sp0T (Should have realized from looking back twenty posts.)

He's also a much younger role player than myself, he started when I ran an AW game for him - far worse than he's run for us now.

no bother

what's AW?

@dot_Sp0T Btw, are you actually playing with the old (ca. 2012?) playtest materials, or are you just "still" calling 5e "Next"?

@dot_Sp0T Apocalypse World

I am just still calling it next

never liked the ring of 5e

I recommend you to check Apocalypse World out. It's a narrative-heavy, rules-light game about people trying not to fuck up in a post-apocalyptic world of misery, scarcity and primal emotion.

Also, the first edition is free now that 2e is about to get released.

I'm something of a fanboi, but heck, the book is worth reading even if you never plan to play it IMO :)

@kviiri Ooh... I'm a sucker for downloading free RPGs. And I'm enjoying DW and so have thought about looking at AW. Where can I get the free stuff?

@nitsua60 apocalypse-world.com but you need to sign-up with your email. It's not verified in any way afaik. They haven't spammed me and I'm following the 2e project anyway so I just used my real mail.

Thanks!

hey there @nitsua60

No prob! The fun thing is, with the preview character sheets for 2e and the first edition MC's guide, it's really easy to run an enjoyable game of 2e.

@Shalvenay hiya

@nitsua60 how're things going?

@Shalvenay having too much fun with spreadsheets =)

Now that the kid-LARP's done, I get to play the game I like: write a computer program to analyze D&D builds =)

There are no major rule changes in 2e as far as I know - mostly different framework for prep, character playbooks have been retouched, one (operator) was merged with driver and a ton of new basic moves pertaining to combat and vehicle use were added.

Well it sounds interesting, but I'm more of a player than GM.. so if anybody's going to run sth on Roll20 or the likes

I'm starting to hate The Witcher 2

@Zachiel you're almost through it, keep strong

@dot_Sp0T Sorry--I spotted the green gravatar and thought it was Shalvey responding. As a response to you, mine would have made no sense, I suppose =|

Hey, look, you're in act 3 now, where you get the best equipment in the game. Look! Vran Sword! Vran Armor! Blood gauntlets/trousers/boots!

Cool! Let's enchant them with the enchantments I've never used.

@Zachiel well' it's about the story

Oh, no, I ran out of Ysgrith runes! Tell me they can be crafted!

Oh, yes, they can be crafted or bought.

Both the rune or the recipe can be bought in act 1 and 2

"Oh, sh**, I made one blood gaunltlet too much because I misclicked."

Now I have 1 reinforced leather less than those needed for the Vran Armor

Tell me that reinforceid leather can be bought, or that I can buy its recipe!

Owie.

"Yes, you can. In acts 1 and 2 of course."

BRING ME A WORKING CHARACTER EDITOR!!!

Imagine Geralt working on his gear. "Careful, carefuuuul..." <accidentally creates a third gauntlet> "nnnnooooo!"

I crafted the three blood items one after another. But I crafted the same twice and no trousers

DAM DAM DAAAAAAAAAAAAM

And of course, since the number of saves somewhat slows down the whole game, I deleted previous saves thinking that oh, it can't be this important, right? I'll just sell the extra gauntlet.

Well, anyone else would probably work with a gameguide on a game that old if they want to 100% it

:)

at least you don't have to worry about Geralt running the entire area out of the correct kind of ammo :P

I used a gameguide but it wasn't so inclusive as to tell me what to by and when

Reinforced leather doesn't, intuitively, sound like something non-renewable.

If a game has non-renewable materials, I think it'd be prudent to have them be exceptionally well-labeled as such.

But alas, game devs often run out of time with their projects and have to settle...

Can somebody sanity-check me in 5e? A character/player has Sharpshooter feat and is considering taking the -5 to-hit and the +10 damage. You would expect that to be a damage-increasing choice against low or high AC?

It is not non-renewable. It is just that in the final act you can't buy some things.

Ah, I see. Passed a point of no return.

@kviiri But you get the recipes where that thing is needed way past the point of no return.

@nitsua60 mainly low AC.

Against high AC, the increased chance of non hitting makes it so the increased damage almost never applies

@Zachiel Good. That's what I get, too. (Except crits make the upper-end of AC Sharpshooter-preferable, too. If your only chance of hitting is to roll a 20, then might as well take the -5!)

I was getting there

Thanks.

but at that point, you'd better run

@Zachiel not a bad point.

Iirc DnD 4e has a rule where natural 20 is always a hit, but it's critical only if the attack would've hit anyway. If that rule is carried over to 5e it might be still better to not take that to-hit malus.

huh, I don't recall a rule like that

@kviiri That's not a thing in 5e.

though, as long as a target wasn't a ridiculous number of levels higher than you, you usually couldn't miss on a 20

Part of the simplification: crits are crits.

@trogdor cover and disadvantage (lighting, range) make this come into play at my tables sometimes.

fair enough

("COVER" and "LIGHTING" are two of the combat-interestingening principles I've got jotted on my side of my table tent. Also, I'm trademarking that word, there.)

I do happen to dislike the idea that this is a game which you are relying on a D20 to arbitrate randomness, but a nat 20 still wouldn't do what you want

that would be soooo dumb

But 5e doesn't do that--crits always hit for critical damage, and a 20's always a crit. It's 3&4 you're talking about?

there is a house rule in 3.5 that says 20 always hits and crits

I don't think it is a built in one

though it is an extremely common house rule if I remember correctly and am right

Yes, in 4e you need to both get a natural 20 and exceed the defenses for a crit. A natural 20 is a guaranteed hit always, though. And any enemy you need that 20 to hit is too buff for your party, anyway.

So the rule doesn't get applied that much in practice.

@trogdor It got ported from 3.5e in the rules compendium

ah

It's mostly for situations where the attacker's to-hit has been temporarily vexed to oblivion but they decide to try anyways, I guess.

In 3.5 the default is "20 is a natural hit; when you roll a number inside your critical range, if you hit the enemy (if you would hit it without the natural 20 rule) roll for confirmation"

So they dropped one bit per edition: 4e drops confirmation rule but kept the to-hit limit on crits, while 5e dropped that limit too and made all 20's crits.

Yeah, I'm getting a term whose interpretation is "if target's AC > your attack bonus +15..." to which answer really could be "screw the math, I'm running."

Yeah. Wouldn't happen often.

(that's when the "I might as well take -5/+10 cause a crit's all that'll help" reasoning comes in)

Yeah. Wouldn't happen often.

Wow, my lousy 3G managed to resend the same message somehow

Acting all wonky tonight.

@nitsua60 Well no, that'd be AC > attack bonus +20

@Zachiel sorry, that's not the full inequality--it's just one term within the page of algebra.

Trying to figure out how best to present the "sharpshooter's dilemma" answer: when do I choose -5/+10?

It's threshold AC as a function of both attack bonus and expected base attack damage.

Well, calculating the expected damage is one thing. But you also need to remember that the possible increase in expected damage is only going to do you good if it's likely to reduce total attacks needed.

Anyways, I'm off to bed. 1AM in here. Good night folks.

What's the downside to choosing an attack with higher expected damage even if it doesn't, eventually, reduce the total attacks needed?

@kviiri Night!

@nitsua60 Are you factoring advantage into your calculations at all?

Also, if it's easy for you to create, I'd be very curious to see the same chart done for DPR at each level - averages obscure details a bit too much for me.

(A side effect of working as a data analyst is that you can never trust aggregated data again.)

@BESW Tried to get my previous FLGS onto Bits&Mortar, but RPG books (in particular indie ones signed up on B&M) were too much a niche market for them to bother. Might try again now that a competitor lessFLGS is gone…

@Miniman Relephant podcast.

@Miniman No, not at all. I figured that the "always assume SA" imprecision already outweighed that level of detail.

@Miniman I've got those numbers, just need to chart them. [creating...]

@nitsua60 I figured you had to in order to get averages :P

@Miniman Well, I might have been computationally-efficient and just kept a running tally, reporting out average at each level... =)

@Anaphory Yeah, our FLGS's idea of expanding its RPG content is offering D&D adventure modules.

@nitsua60 Nah, you're way too detail-oriented to do something like that.

@nitsua60 Wow! Man, the Fighter really wishes they could get their last Extra Attack earlier.

How do the R3/F9s end up so different?

@Miniman True. But I feel like the chart of averages makes the argument (to me) that career damage output (integral of the "at level" chart) is benefitted by delaying first extra attack by R1 (get +1d6 for four levels at cost of one level without 2nd attack) and then delaying third attack by two more levels to gain another SA die.

@Miniman hmm... you're right--they should be tracking from 9-16. Looks like maybe I've got an off-by-one typo driving down R1/F1/R3/F9, then maybe also missing third attack on two of them. [double-checking...]

Ahh... no. The divergence at the very end is that I've left off of the legend the decisions made in levels 13-16. (Since I'm not really expecting to use them.) In one of the F9/R3 variants I grab two more levels of rogue at character levels 15 & 16, tacking on one more SA die. That's the extremely-visible fork at upper-right. Still looking for the parallel offset that looks to be screwed up in R1/F1/R3/F9 somewhere in the first few levels.

@nitsua60 Ah, right. Yeah, if you're not getting another attack I guess Fighter levels are effectively dead as far as this analysis is concerned.

@Miniman Right. So, in reality, the other F9/R3 variations should grab that additional SA die rather than another use of indomitable some time during their last 4 levels, and parallel the top line at the very end.

Admittedly, there are plenty of choices I'm making and will make that are sub-optimal w.r.t. this one measure. No matter what this had shown, I'm going F1/R1 (in some order) at first two levels because I want archery and expertise as establishing characteristics. Champion and its expanded criticals would obviously outperform Battle Master on this measure, but Parry to get out of melee and Goading from a protected sniper's nest seem useful and fun (respectively). &c. &c. &c.

And I'm making either WIS or CHA my secondary attribute, for the skillz =)

@Miniman Got it. The one that starts with a rogue level--I forgot to upgrade her damage die from shortbow to longbow when she took her first level of fighter. Which is exactly the off-by-one it looks like =)

Not on the chart of averages =)

(But, of course, you're right to ask for at-level. It's a great check because we know there are all these convergence points where lines should mate.)