TRPG General Chat

4:17 PM

I thought my table had issues, but some of those houserules that ClarusNox is playing with look unfun.

"<anything> on nat 1 or 20" is a red flag for me.

Sadly, often such rules are based on paying homage to the cult of nat 1 and 20, not any concrete vision on how it'd improve the game.

Maximillian

Hope he isn't paying a lot to play at that table.

NautArch

@Maximillian they're paying with their soul.

Sir Cinnamon

Those rulings seem so anti-fun to me

doppelgreener

Which?

Sir Cinnamon

4:30 PM

The spells cant crit ruling. I play with skill checks able to crit

but i get why others don't - you have to be careful as a DM

doppelgreener

Oh shoot

NautArch

We have rough attack fumble rules, but 1s on skill checks don't do anything. But we do use nat 20s auto succeed saving throws, but not skill checks.

SPavel

@SirCinnamon They are fun for the DM

Some DMs don't derive fun from the same thing as the players

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel True, I suppose. It's important for the DM to have fun but I think as a DM I prioritize the players enjoyment - there are more of them after all

But maybe I am lucky enough to enjoy mostly the same things as my players. I enjoy seeing them do well and overcome legitimate challenges

I play with attack fumbles, and 1s on skill checks fail usually with added penalty but 20 is basically a best possible/realistic outcome. Hard to define as a rule obviously but I think it allows me some more freedom to improvise a challenge or reward for the players

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Nothing to do with luck. Socially smart people optimize their social group.

My profession has taught me to think in goals, not solutions, which is not how most people who write house rules think.

Sir Cinnamon

4:40 PM

@SPavel Could you elaborate?

kviiri

I dunno, I think there's such a thing as a good house rule. I think that when something starts happening often in a game, it tends to deserve a rule.

Rubiksmoose

They're are definitely good house rules I'd say

SPavel

@SirCinnamon In this specific case, @kviiri has hit the nail on the head - the DM has proceeded into houseruling with the assumption that 1 and 20 being more special = more good

kviiri

One of those virulent memes of RPG community.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel I don't know if that's exactly right - The DM removed crits from spell attacks and replaced them with crits on saving throws. The crits on skill checks is another house rule but i guess a fairly common one

SPavel

4:46 PM

A game designer (or indeed any kind of non-visual designer) would say - what are we trying to achieve, and how is making 1 and 20 more special going to get us there

The answer is that if you want to have more fun, it probably won't

PCs roll more than NPCs, therefore they are guaranteed to roll a 1 and have their character inadvertently circumcise themselves or whatever

If this is a fun outcome for the table, then it's a good house rule

Sir Cinnamon

So the fun is based on the outcomes not the crits or misses. If you apply insane outcomes it certainly seems un-fun

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Not necessarily

If a Bad Thing happens on a 1, the badness of the thing doesn't change that it was bad

PCs feel punished

Sir Cinnamon

But bad things happening is as vital as good things hapening

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Bad things happening to my vitals are not good

kviiri

Yes, but 1 is a fail in most circumstances. It follows that many people feel rolling a 1 should be more critical.

Hence it's not uncommon to see houserules where the master samurai hits himself roughly 1/20 of the time or something.

Or breaks their weapon or something.

Sir Cinnamon

4:51 PM

Again you're taking issue with the exact punishment not the method of punishing

goodguy5

I've got to draft up my houserules list and player-DM contract soon

SPavel

1 is a fail anyway, unless you are off the RNG. So you already have a small punishment. Adding more punishment is extra bad.

If you make a 1 auto-fail and spectacular auto-fail at that, hyper-competent characters will feel especially slighted.

Sir Cinnamon

Is adding more reward equally bad?

NautArch

@SPavel are we talking skill checks or saves/attacks?

SPavel

Same with spectacular success on a 20

goodguy5

4:52 PM

@SirCinnamon kinda

SPavel

If I spent my life becoming the best at underwater baskerweaving, and Joe McNPC over there rolled a 20 and weaved a space rocket, I'm going to be miffed

kviiri

And DnD is already quite bad at making failure fun, unless the GM is putting a lot of effort into it.

SPavel

A 20 - again, unless you fell off the RNG - is already a good result. You rolled the maximum. A good thing should happen (and if it doesn't, the problem is bigger than this issue).

You don't need to make it more good. It adds nothing.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel I fully disagree.

SPavel

If the result of rolling 20 on an action underwhelms, the thing you are doing is weak and that weakness should be fixed for 100% of rolls, not 5%.

Sir Cinnamon

4:55 PM

Luck exists in my game, both at the table and in universe. Rolling a 20 is lucky and that luck occurs in universe. Same for a 1

By your logic you should play without critical hit attacks

SPavel

On top of that, the span of numbers 2 through 19 are equivalent. You swing a sword, roll any one of those, and deal exactly the same amount of damage. Making 1 and 20 suddenly go "whee oh boy" violates the paradigm.

If you want to be lucky on an attack, that's measured by your damage roll.

Sir Cinnamon

What if you want to be lucky on anything else?

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon I don't super disagree with that. I kinda miss the 4e max damage "critical"

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Then you need to address what luck means for that thing.

NautArch

@goodguy5 never played 4e, but criticals are underwhelming in 5e (unless your divine smiting or have a sneak attack)

i'd prefer max double damage or something.

SPavel

4:57 PM

For example, if you do a skill check, there are graduated DCs - 10, 15, 20, etc. What does rolling a natural 20 mean? Do you get some plus? Some orthogonal benefit? Why?

kviiri

It's kinda funny how often a disappointingly low damage roll seems to happen after a critical hit in DnD 5e. (I know, it's probably just biased thinking)

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Because of luck!

You got lucky at the table, your character gets lucky in the universe

SPavel

@SirCinnamon I'm talking about the rule, not the in-game justification.

goodguy5

It's almost definitely confirmation bias. Someone posted recently with a houserule that I kinda like. max roll + die roll

SPavel

What happens when you roll a 20 on a skill, and why did you decide that this thing must happen?

How does that fit into the mental model of what happens on a skill check, or any other check?

kviiri

4:58 PM

I sort of disagree with such paradigm of luck, because luck usually works best as a storytelling device when it works nothing like luck normally does.

Sir Cinnamon

@goodguy5 I play with this rule, it seems alright, very swing-y at low levels

kviiri

That's why in TV, when someone bets their boss's car they've been borrowing in poker and have a full house, someone else invariably gets a straight flush or somesuch.

goodguy5

Actually, I know the way I'd like to deal with criticals.

Minimum damage is max roll on one die

SPavel

If D&D were a game more rigorously structured around storytelling rules, I could see something like a metanarrative complication or fortunate circumstance

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel I dont know what you are asking. It adds excitement and drama to the check. My players enjoy the risk and the reward

SPavel

5:01 PM

@SirCinnamon what adds excitement and drama? What happens when you roll a 20 on a skill?

goodguy5

So, roll your diceX2. roll well? great. Roll bad? take 12 for d12 or whatever

SPavel

That's what I am asking, it's not a complicated question.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel something lucky! Something slightly better than just succeeding

SPavel

@SirCinnamon What if you did not succeed?

What if I rolled a 20 on a DC25 check, with a +4 mod?

Sir Cinnamon

I'd call that a success

SPavel

5:02 PM

What if I rolled a 20 on a DC250 check, with a +4 mod?

Sir Cinnamon

Then you would not have rolled

goodguy5

but why not?

Sir Cinnamon

Because what you tried to do was impossible

SPavel

So essentially the rule is, 10% of rolls are followed by DM fiat

goodguy5

since you have a 5% chance in your world of instantly achieving any goal

SPavel

5:03 PM

5% bear some arbitrary measure of good fiat, 5% bear bad fiat

Sir Cinnamon

That is absolutely not how that works

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 A DM should never let a player roll for something that they do not intend to let them suceed on or that has no interesting failure result.

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon It's not impossible. Someone or something some where can do it. so it's not "impossible". So, why shouldn't every character just take 20 on everything?

@Rubiksmoose separate problem

Sir Cinnamon

@goodguy5 Impossible for that character. Not even close

SPavel

@SirCinnamon What about DC30?

Is that impossible enough?

goodguy5

5:04 PM

But a DC 25 skill check is impossible for that character

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 gotcha. Guess I'm not following all the threads here properly

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon but you've already handwaived that. How do you decide what is impossible?

Sir Cinnamon

DC30 with a +4.... probably not a success. Maybe partial

SPavel

How is the line drawn between "you may not attempt" and "you may attempt but only succeed on 20" and "you may attempt but only partial success on a 20" and "nope"?

3

goodguy5

^ +1

Sir Cinnamon

5:06 PM

@SPavel realism, storytelling needs and fun usually

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Why do you need a house rule to fiat?

Sir Cinnamon

Because it's fun for my players to roll 20s. and fun for them to roll 1s too

And when they do so, it puts me on the spot to make something extra interesting happen

goodguy5

Do your players actually enjoy **rolling**, or do they enjoy the game, that happens to have some mechanics around rolling?

i.e. - why can't they just play craps?

Sir Cinnamon

They enjoy the game...

NautArch

@goodguy5 let's not make fun of those of us who enjoy rolling dice :) I don't play craps, but I like dice rolling.

although I have tried to convince my acting trained wife who likes to play craps that D&D is craps with character acting.

goodguy5

5:10 PM

If it is in any way construable that I am making fun of dice rolling enthusiasts, that is not my intention

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 you'd find yourself with very few supporters I think in here if so lol

goodguy5

I'm just trying to get to a point (that I think pavel is also working towards) that it's not the dice rolls that make things fun; it's the interactions between players and the world.

So, if you want there to be a chance at a player succeeding at something, then it should be done within the parameters of what the character can do, rather than a 5% chance that the character can achieve something outside of their bounds.

Sir Cinnamon

I don't see why it's all that crazy to think that if crits in combat make sense - luck coming in to play to achieve a greater reward - they also make sense for skill checks. I'm not allowing my players to climb a waterfall while naked using only fish to hold onto. Even if I was who cares. I'm not publishing

Because a great hero can sometimes exceed their bounds!

A fighter with +3 to attack can hit something that has AC 25, if he rolls a 20.

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon Then their bounds are not where they thought they were.

Sir Cinnamon

Exactly

Rubiksmoose

5:13 PM

I do think it is a bit silly to say that @SirCinnamon is wrong and that his players aren't having fun if they actually are. If they enjoy it, then that works for them and that is great.

Sir Cinnamon

Exceeding expectations, defying the odds and winning is fun

goodguy5

^ correct (to moose)

@SirCinnamon Additionally, comparing D&D's combat engine to its "everything else" engine is a farce. The two are not generally meant to interact in a meaningful way. It is more realistic to say that when in combat, you are playing a minigame within D&D, with slightly different rules than the rest of the game.

Much like Blitz Ball in Final Fantasy X, or any similar example

doppelgreener

I would rather say it's the other way around

Rubiksmoose

It seems like the arguments here are saying: this person is enjoying the game in a way that I don't/theory says they shouldn't. If the person/people in question are actually enjoying the game are not having any issues or looking to change things up it seems silly to argue about which method of achieving essentially the same thing is better.

Sir Cinnamon

@goodguy5 It's not the balance of it or the interaction between the two its the reasoning. Why are there crits in combat?

doppelgreener

5:15 PM

In D&D, if you're not in combat, you're playing a minigame with slightly different (and many fewer) rules than the rest of the game (which is combat)

goodguy5

@doppelgreener splitting hairs ;)

@SirCinnamon because gary gygax liked war miniatures

Sir Cinnamon

The reason there are critical hits in combat is the same reason I use criticals on skill checks

NautArch

@SirCinnamon That's a designer intent question :)

goodguy5

XD

Sir Cinnamon

because gygax liked war minis exactly

Rubiksmoose

5:17 PM

@NautArch now you've done it.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I'll just go ahead and post that :)

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch make sure to add rules-as-rolled underwater-basketweaving and tiny-hut to it.

KorvinStarmast

@SevenSidedDie @doppelgreener I prefer case by case handling, I think Chad had some good points about the broad brush approach, and the designer reasons being used perhaps as "if you have a hammer it's looking like a nail" thing.

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Critical hits in combat are mechanically clearly defined, even if they violate the attack/damage paradigm. Skills do not work that way even in your system.

goodguy5

Cinnamon, at the end of the day, play the game your players (including you) enjoy. Personally, I don't like crit failures because they're not fun to me, or interesting, or really thematically sensible. I also generally don't like critical successes that exceed your character's bounds because they feel hacky to me and don't make sense.

Sir Cinnamon

5:19 PM

@SPavel Neither does any other part of the out of combat system of dnd. The books dont describe how to handle a character who wants to swing from a chandelier and knock it onto a nearby enemy

but by god I'm gonna let em try

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Roll for hospital bill

Oops, a natural 1! It's out of network.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel I'm Canadian ;)

doppelgreener

Contextually, yeah, D&D came from Chainmail which came from wargaming

SPavel

@SirCinnamon You rolled a natural 1 when voting and the PCs dismantled the social net

Sir Cinnamon

I have to roll to vote? This system sucks

SPavel

5:21 PM

(PCs in this case being the Progressive Conservative party, for our international friends - the only kind of PC more destructive than a Player Character)

KorvinStarmast

@SPavel What you said here makes sense.

GreySage

@SirCinnamon rolling does seem to invalidate the whole voting process

doppelgreener

(in the middle between Chainmail and wargaming, there was Braunstein)

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Your roll represents being informed about the candidates, falling for the speeches and rallies, and managing to figure out poorly designed ballots

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel "Sorry sir/madam you are in the wrong district."

NautArch

5:23 PM

@SirCinnamon Rogue's Reliable Talent

SPavel

Also suppressing the reflex to vote for Jack Layton even though he's dead

Sir Cinnamon

Don't worry, I crit missed my animal handling and didn't make it to the voting station anyway

SPavel

@Rubiksmoose It's called a riding, Yankee :P

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose Also not a problem in Canada, if you have your ID and voting card you can vote anywhere

SPavel

@GreySage Well, not anywhere

It still has to be a polling station

GreySage

5:24 PM

Clearly implied

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage Don't worry give it a few years and Trump will have annexed Canada to fix all these flaws in the Canadian system.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch An interesting problem I haven't encountered yet. To crit fail or not to crit fail

SPavel

@GreySage Instructions unclear, tried to submit my ballot into a moose

GreySage

@SPavel You can also mail in your vote

SPavel

@GreySage Natural 1, post office on strike

NautArch

5:25 PM

@SirCinnamon my bad, i was making a bad joke that canadians are reliable rogues in regard to healthcare :)

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon out of curiosity, do you allow modifications to change a 1 or 20 from/into crit success/failure?

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose I do not

Rubiksmoose

eg bardic inspiration/cutting words/bane

SPavel

@SirCinnamon if you push a 20-sided Modron and he lands on a 1, what happens

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose although none of those turn a 20 into a crit. Just a 20 (not a natural 20/crit)

Rubiksmoose

5:27 PM

that was appropos of nothing fwiw. I was just wondering.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Heat death of the universe - bad luck and bad timing

SPavel

What about if Trinity is falling out of a building, but Neo manages to cushion her fall, so she lands on The One?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch It is funny to thinkl that the numeric score you get in the end is meaningless compared to the pure number you rolled for a 1 and a 20

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel TRInity is 3 sided obviously

NautArch

@doppelgreener Oh, sure. Go ahead and my useful answer to a bad question clearer :)

Rubiksmoose

5:28 PM

@NautArch what a jerk

doppelgreener

@NautArch yeah take that

NautArch

@doppelgreener jerk. I purposefully wrote it all haphazard in spite!

doppelgreener

@NautArch yeah well i revised it to be neater and less haphazard in spite

SPavel

Maximillian

@Rubiksmoose He'll give you back Canada after he tries Tim Hortons and decides he doesn't like it.

Rubiksmoose

5:33 PM

@Maximillian If only his decision were based on that much logic.

Maximillian

Or when he tries to Annex Canada, reply, "You have to make a skill check for that." then inform him his roll wasn't high enough and to try again next year.

SPavel

@Maximillian It's worth trying

Next time Trump does something stupid, an aide should try and say "sorry, you rolled too low"

Good chance it'll work

Maximillian

If he gets angry and make threats, roll your eyes and tell him that's a +2 circumstance bonus.

NautArch

@doppelgreener harumph!

Rubiksmoose

Sanity check: this is a duplicate of this right?

9

Q: Can you use Dispel Magic on the source of a spell (ie, the caster)?

If a caster is currently concentrating on a spell whose effects are not on the caster, can you cast Dispel Magic on the caster to end the spell?

Sir Cinnamon

5:37 PM

looks like one and quacks like one

SPavel

If you roll a natural 20 when trying to dispel the wizard's spell, does the wizard disappear?

Rubiksmoose

reality disappears. The wizard remains.

Sir Cinnamon

"or does dispel magic need to be cast directly at the weapon?" might warrant its own question

NautArch

I have been pretty happy with buying the books on DNDbeyond. Although I do miss actual books.

@Rubiksmoose I would never have found that first one :) But yeah, it's a dupe.

SPavel

@Rubiksmoose Reality is overpowered in d20.

Rubiksmoose

5:39 PM

oh man I forgot about shiny gold badge powers. that is weird.

Sir Cinnamon

Oh I was looking at that backwards

goodguy5

To be fair, the old one is asking about a duration spell

The new one is asking about concentration

SPavel

I myself commissioned a genuine multiverse from Japan for 400 Yen and I practice with it every day; I can create universes of solid steel within my multiverse

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose And I clearly DID find that old one. NOt sure why I didn't hink it was a dupe then.

or anyone else, as I linked it in the comments.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Only gaijin use solid steel, all my steel is folded

Anaphory

5:40 PM

Hello, Fine People!

goodguy5

I'm not sure it's a dupe

NautArch

@Anaphory Howdy Fine Person!

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch and the one you did think was a dupe definitely is not :P

SPavel

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Other than that, i was spot on.

Rubiksmoose

5:42 PM

@goodguy5 darn you are right regarding duration vs concentration.

goodguy5

The older question is also more specific

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I"m not sure I undertand re: duration vs concentration. Both quetsions are asking if Dispel Magic will end a spell effect that isn't on the caster, but controlled by the caster.

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 that was my logic for losing old as duplicate of the newer one as opposed to the reverse.

goodguy5

It's basically "what can I cast dispel magic on during spiritual weapon to remove the effect"

vs

"can I break concentration with dispel magic"

Rubiksmoose

Yeah I'm actually still happy calling it a dupe because, if anything, the duration spells have even less of a reason (read: no reason) to think that DM would work on it.

SPavel

5:44 PM

The best way to break a wizard's concentration is to shout "Hey, remember that one time in middle school?" Wizards are naturally awkward so this will remind him of many embarrassing incidents and break his focus.

5

NautArch

@goodguy5 Hmm. Well, SPiritual weapon is concentration, but my question wasn't about breaking concentration, it was about dispelling magic on a concentration spell.

SPavel

Bonus: When he tries to fall asleep his brain will keep thinking about the thing that happened, so he will not get rest and won't be able to prepare spells.

goodguy5

@NautArch Duration: 1 minute

Maximillian

Distract the wizard by asking an academic question about their specialty magic school.

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel that would 100% work on wizard-me

SPavel

5:46 PM

@Maximillian Make a statement about their specialty school that is nearly correct

They will try to explain why you are technically wrong

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Like that time I moved to a new school and thought it would be a good idea to show off my neato piece of obsidian by flintknapping it into a spearhead...And failing miserably?

SPavel

@NautArch Nothing is more impressive than stone age melee weapons

NautArch

@goodguy5 There is a difference in who the spell is maintained, but the questions are both asking will Dispel Magic end that effect if cast on the caster and not on the magical effect.

Sir Cinnamon

Got my first mortarboard badge

SPavel

Luckily, whenever I moved to a new school, I turned people off with my awkwardness and personality rather than making a fool of myself like that

doppelgreener

5:47 PM

@SirCinnamon congrats!

Maximillian

@SPavel "You know... Cure Light Wounds is just reverse Necromancy."

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

Sir Cinnamon

I thought it was a motorboat badge at first and worried my webcam was on

Maximillian

Well okay that'd be a bard or cleric you're talking to, not a wizard.

SPavel

Sir Cinnamon

(I chat exclusively from my motorboat)

goodguy5

5:48 PM

@NautArch but the reasoning for why is different

Maximillian

Needs a tiny wizard hat on that picture.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch yeahhhhhh totally like that lol.

NautArch

@SPavel Amazingly, the first friend I made at that school I'm still friends with today.

SPavel

@NautArch That is pretty amazing

NautArch

@Maximillian tiny wizard hut?

SPavel

5:49 PM

@NautArch too soon

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch sounds like you really sparked a good friendship

NautArch

@goodguy5 it is?

@Rubiksmoose solid as a rock

SPavel

One of my oldest friends let a guy from Tinder move into our shared apartment and then would spend the whole day watching TV and not cleaning up after herself

And in the friend divorce, she got all the friends

Rubiksmoose

@SPavel :(

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch Yeah, Naut, ClarusNox seems to have run into a "previous edition assumptions" situation. @kviiri Sadly, often such rules are based on paying homage to the cult of nat 1 and 20, not any concrete vision on how it'd improve the game was nicely put.

kviiri

5:54 PM

Gee, thanks ^^

goodguy5

not my best work, but gets the joke across

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast Looking forward to tomorrow night and the next episode in our adventure

Maximillian

Good enough!

KorvinStarmast

@SirCinnamon In truth, critical hits are a bias against the players, since "guess who gets attacked most?" PC's. (We have a number of Q&A that address that point exactly, one of KRyan's answers on that point is a fave of mine)

Maximillian

"You know, Tim the Enchanter never demonstrated any kind of Enchantment. His correct name should be Tim the Evoker."

Sir Cinnamon

5:59 PM

@KorvinStarmast I believe it. But I imagine despite that most players would vote to keep them in (fully conjecture)

Rubiksmoose

Ironically Tim the Enchanter is a much more evocative name.

SPavel

Tim the Enchanter demonstrated amazing powers of enchantment - everything he did was an illusion

But not the kind of illusion that's Illusion

It was all in the minds of the Knights

NautArch

6:16 PM

@doppelgreener Ugh, after all that, it seems like D&DBeyond is missing spells :(

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch like?

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Modern Magic UA

Rubiksmoose

ah yeah. It only has UA material starting from a certain point going forward. No plans to bring the old UA stuff that I've seen.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Oh, that's an interesting choice.

I also don't see any other content from UA on Beyond.

what's the acronym for that? DDB? DNDB?

"When to Indulge In Murder" seems like a worrisome question :)

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch yeah. my guess is because the old stuff at this point is probably either discarded or having another revision or penned for publishing.

I've seen and been using DnDB or D&DB

Sir Cinnamon

6:27 PM

@Rubiksmoose The Critical Role folks keep drilling that it "DEE EN DEE beyond" not "DEE AND DEE beyond" - its highly ingrained at this point

Rubiksmoose

there's actually a question on the stack about it lol

NautArch

@SirCinnamon I should probably fix @doppelgreener's edit then :)

Rubiksmoose

Does this answer make sense to you guys: rpg.stackexchange.com/a/117588/28591?

I feel like I'm missing something here, but it seems solid. I'm pretty confused at the other answers saying yes.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Haha referring to it is pretty flexible but "dndbeyond" is the actual URL

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I'm not sure. I'd potentially read "rider" in the question to mean assume the controlled mount is being ridden.

Rubiksmoose

6:32 PM

@NautArch that is correct. Controlled mounts are being ridden always as far as I know.

NautArch

in which case, you can probably be clearer with a lead like "You share the same initiative count" and then explain what that means.

Sir Cinnamon

So you actually are not able to move the mount, attack, move the mount again?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch the problem is the book never defines intitiative count :-|

on JC does

*only

@SirCinnamon Correct. I've updated that question as well.

By now it feels like I've left answers on every mount question on the stack.

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose I guess ready an attack when you get in range, then take the mounts turn and move in and out of range? You lose your reaction but its probably safest

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch you really think I should define initiative count? It is not a term that is actually used in any of the rules here though...

4

A: Can a rider move using his mount, attack from his mount, then have the mount dash away?

No, the mount acts on its own turn Controlled mount The PHB describes the rules for mounted combat. In them it describes that a controlled mount has an initiative that is the same as the rider's: The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. However, this...

NautArch

6:38 PM

@Rubiksmoose no, I don't think you need to define "initiative count", that is Initiative :)

Sir Cinnamon

@Rubiksmoose Well look at that! I don't think I have ever used mounted combat rules

NautArch

@SirCinnamon i have a feeling most tables hand waive those to make it easier

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon yeah it is one of those things that just never come up in a lot of campaigns.

Until you get a paladin with find steed

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose but even then, a lot of battles are non-mountable

Rubiksmoose

Personally I actually cannot think of a way off-hand to make it any simpler than the way I read the rules currently.

Sir Cinnamon

6:41 PM

In Curse of Strahd our paladin got Find Steed but yeah never a chance to fight mounted

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch very true!

NautArch

In my current paladin campaign, I only rarely have an opportunity to use my mount.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Basic horse or something more exotic?

doppelgreener

@SirCinnamon alright i'll rename the dnd-beyond tag to dee-en-dee-beyond np np

2

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Basic horse for a while...until Xanathar's came out :) Now I"ve got a pegasus.

and a +3 Halberd.

Sir Cinnamon

6:44 PM

When running curse of strahd, it mentions some spell effects being different in barovia. Skeletal mage hand etc. I may have... applied that to the Paladin's found steed

NautArch

so I can fly 10' above an enemy, attack, and move out of range. Kiting with a GWM Paladin is fun :)

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch So everyone who faces you rapidly becomes the headless horseman

Rubiksmoose

@doppelgreener oh goodness that is painful to read.

Sir Cinnamon

@doppelgreener @Rubiksmoose dee-en-dee-beeyawnd

doppelgreener

@Rubiksmoose dee-en-dee-five-ee

Rubiksmoose

6:46 PM

@NautArch I've added the definition at least

Sir Cinnamon

i dont know how to make it a tag

doppelgreener

[tag:like-this]

Rubiksmoose

@doppelgreener [rips eyes out]

Sir Cinnamon

dee-en-dee-beeyawnd

looks good to me, ship it

doppelgreener

ok, it's done

renamed

forever

NautArch

6:48 PM

@doppelgreener it's clearly Friday

doppelgreener

friday evening and i am relaxing and recovering from a cold. good times

NautArch

@doppelgreener this year's cold/flu season has been awful. Hydrate!

and Hail Hydra!

doppelgreener

hail hydrate

Sir Cinnamon

It must be friday because I have spent the whole workday hanging out in this chatroom.

Rubiksmoose

oh man, I really strongly dislike the top answer to that question...

Sir Cinnamon

6:50 PM

@Rubiksmoose Because it's wrong?

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon no because it doesn't even bother to give any reasoning.

being wrong is fine, but having an answer where you make up your own quote and then proceed to attribute lots of meaning to it is wayy over the line.

this one btw rpg.stackexchange.com/a/68079/28591

Sir Cinnamon

Oh geez, thats pretty egregious

There is pretty good precedent for commanding something or controlling something outside of your turn

So saying it needs to be read one way is... something

Rubiksmoose

Yeah, the answer below it is MUCH better (even though I think it is wrong).

Sir Cinnamon

The next answer makes a much better argument

Pre-JC's ruling I would be pretty inclined to say that that one is the correct answer

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose Sebkha's answer is good, though. And they named the Warhorse Applejack.

Rubiksmoose

6:56 PM

@NautArch It is certainly a well reasoned and thought out answer. But I do think it made some flaws in its reasoning. (and is also now in contradiction to JC's multiple rulings on hte matter)

Yeah I don't often downvote, but that one definitely earned mine.

Transcript for