TRPG General Chat

SPavel

14:00

@kviiri Naturally, I am suggesting you put in good puzzles and traps, rather than bad puzzles and traps

kviiri

@SPavel I don't know what'd be a good puzzle, honestly

And the best traps are tied to combat encounters

I have something that might be considered a non-combat trap currently in: Albolg's Embrace. It's a disease transmitted by miasma, but the players always have a choice to go around a different route. Face the miasma for shortcuts, or find another way.

NautArch

@kviiri Agreed - those have been the most fun for me. Treat them like video games wher you have to figure out how to get out of the room as you're doing the combat. Decision making forces fighting vs actions to solve the puzzle.

kviiri

(and it smells horrible way before it actually contracts, so it's also obvious before the party is actually in danger)

Yuuki

@kviiri Might want to cover paladins somehow?

wew divine health

kviiri

@Yuuki 4e Paladins don't have that. They might have access to Cure Disease ritual but that's a fair play.

(access to a cheaper casting of Cure Disease is actually one of the rewards of the quest)

SPavel

14:05

@kviiri A good puzzle IMO is one where figuring out what to do is fairly simple, but the things you need to do are not easy

Combining the puzzle with combat is an easy option

For example: A ghost that escapes when "killed" unless you kill it in the right way

kviiri

@SPavel Well okay, I can live with those

SPavel

Even if the dungeon walls are inscribed with "kill me with the cursed blade of ak'banghasd" - where do you find it, who is going to wield the blade when it turns out to be 7 feet long and covered in spikes

"guess what the DM was thinking" is not a puzzle, it's a chore

kviiri

In this particular quest, the players seek a holy symbol in the Dwarven stronghold. They have a map of the stronghold depicting a hidden chamber inside the temple. If the players figure it out and don't linger too much, they'll find the holy symbol and get to use it against the final boss. If they let the bad guys conduct their search, the boss'll find and wield it instead.

@SPavel Hah, agreed

Yuuki

@kviiri Hmm... kinda wish they kept it like that.

kviiri

@Yuuki I kinda wish they had made more DnD 4e in general. It's a decent system for the playstyle it's designed for.

Yuuki

14:09

Not really a fan of immunities. All it does is make the DM cross things off their list.

kviiri

yep

Yuuki

It's better for a paladin to be more resistant to disease or able to cure disease more easily (which they can do with Lay on Hands) than just outright making them immune.

Especially at such a low level.

I would've preferred "gain advantage on saves against disease" to immunity.

kviiri

Does 5e have a mechanic for diseases?

Yuuki

Plus, since you technically nerfed it, you could make the ability "advantage on saves against disease and poison".

kviiri

4e does have that thing where a disease has a predefined attack (to see whether it contracts) and after that a "ladder" of symptoms. Every long rest one rolls endurance to see whether they go up or down the ladder.

Yuuki

14:11

@kviiri I think each disease has its own mechanics.

Some of them are pretty interesting, like cackle fever.

Cackle fever causes its victims to roll saves when experiencing high stress. On failure, they take psychic damage and laugh like crazy people, after which anyone within 10 feet must also make saves to avoid catching cackle fever.

Rubiksmoose

@kviiri nope. Nothing general. Not even a definition of disease actually.

SPavel

@Yuuki But I thought laughter was the best medicine?

kviiri

@SPavel It's a matter of dosage

SPavel

@kviiri Dosage or donotsage, there is no trysage

kviiri

@SPavel I was lucky to have my childhood in the dosage, because kids who grew up in windowsage don't just understand computers the way I do. Then again, commodoreage kids are even better than me...

NautArch

14:17

@Rubiksmoose Contagion is nasty, but it's definitely not a combat spell for disease.

SPavel

@kviiri windowsage is fine, it's the iosage that's problematic

Kids these days have fairly poor IT skills beyond "go to the app store and get the app"

kviiri

I'm not sharing any dungeons yet, but because I'm playing with an international group for the first time I'm actually writing my quests in English

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch what do you mean "not a combat spell for disease"?

kviiri

so I'll eventually have something to share around here :)

SPavel

They didn't have to pull .rar.part files one by one off shady Lithuanian torrent sites

goodguy5

14:19

@kviiri no. there are very few mentions of the word "disease".

7 monsters in the MM call something a "disease"

and two of them are slaad

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose because it takes 3 rounds of failed saves in order to start.

Yuuki

You guys are all talking about the dosage, but I'm worried we're overlooking the dothyme.

SPavel

Caesar slaad or Niçoise slaad?

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch ah ok. Wasn't sure what you meant.

Szega

@Rubiksmoose I am pretty sure diseases from contagion take effect immediately

they just don't last 7 days if you save

Rubiksmoose

14:23

@Szega They don't actually :-/ Not according to RAI.

Szega

@Rubiksmoose convince me

"On a hit, you aftlict
the creature with a disease" "After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the
creature recovers from the disease,"

There is RAW, no need to bring RAI into this

Rubiksmoose

7

Q: Does the contagion spell infect immediately on a melee attack hit?

Let's say I'm a cleric with the 5th level spell Contagion and I am successful on the melee attack. From the wording of the spell it seems that the effect kicks in immediately, but Jeremy Crawford said that it "activate[s] after three failed saving throws." Josh‏ @SirJosh94 · 27 May 2015 @Je...

Szega

Why the hell would you make saves every turn for a spell that will last 7 days? ...

goodguy5

the wording on the spell seems pretty clear, I don't understand how this is an argument

Rubiksmoose

@Szega I agree that RAW implies it, but it apparently is not intended to work that way. Very poor wording on their part.

goodguy5

14:28

the only argument for RAI, imo, is that one of the diseases (slimy doom) make con checks/ST harder.

So, one would just choose slimy doom every time

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 The argument for RAI is that JC has clarified the intent.

goodguy5

hence the "imo"

If that's the intent, then this is one of the worst worded spells in the game.

kviiri

@Szega immersion

Rubiksmoose

@Szega you still only have to fail it three times I think, but yeah. Silly.

@goodguy5 Agreed. And I'm not sure how it doesn't qualify for errata in a huge way.

NautArch

I actually think it makes sense to not take effect immediately. The saves represent the body trying to fight the awful disease. Should you succumb, it's going to last for awhile - and that's the benefit.

Szega

14:30

@kviiri this might force a turn structure when there was none... not really bringing it towards immersion

@NautArch You can rationalize it any which way you want, its magic.

Rubiksmoose

"Crawford does say, if he could change it now, he would, as more groups seem to not be playing according to RAI."

Which is funny because he literally can - through errata.

Szega

RAI is not: "We forgot to word it properly. You should figure out what we thought."

I do not care much what they intended if what they wrote is not even close.

Rubiksmoose

I mean technically it is. The only requirement for RAI is that there designers actually intended something no matter how badly they messed it up. Of course no reason as always that you can't ignore it.

Yuuki

I feel like between three saving throws and the ability to be cured, Contagion is already a pretty terrible spell and not inflicting disease on hit just makes it completely pointless.

Rubiksmoose

Agreed

Yuuki

14:37

Going by RAI, Contagion immediately becomes a spell that would only be used by NPCs.

kviiri

Yeah, I feel things that do something that'd be immensely powerful in real life but aren't worth any immediate combat advantage are a bit tricky to fit in the DnD format.

Yuuki

Because from the viewpoint of PCs, there's very few occasions where they'll be fighting an enemy for a week.

Most combat encounters are one and done, enemies defeated are often killed.

Rubiksmoose

Yeah it almost becomes a weird social spell almost at that point.

Personally I'd play it by RAW

Yuuki

By RAI, it'd be an NPC-only spell because even if they die, they could still possibly inflict the PC with a disease that their allies could take advantage of later on down the road.

SPavel

The D&D combat engine has a huuuuuge gap where "fighting retreat" should be

Fights to the death are fine in a wargame, but in an RPG it is far more interesting to have "lost, but ran away" as a plausible outcome

Sadly, because of the rocket tag aspect, by the time you realize a fight is too tough, it's typically too late to flee, and even if you decide to run anyway, "everyone takes a move action away on their turn" just leaves the people with the lowest init to get threshed by the monsters

NautArch

14:48

@Rubiksmoose Or it's a plan ahead type of thing. You know you're gonna have to fight this guy soon. So you cast contagion well in advance. Definitely more of an RP thing, but it can be a combat setup.

Yuuki

@NautArch Yeah, but that's a very rare situation.

kviiri

@SPavel Yeah, the DnD combat engine is quite bad for simulating chase scenes anyway

Yuuki

60-70% of the time, your encounter is going to be "crawling through the dungeon, your party encounters a group of goblins or something".

SPavel

@Yuuki That is a pretty lame campaign

kviiri

Eg. in CoS we had an early fight against a monster that was fleeing 30ft per turn, but my Monk could keep up with it because of the wicked movement bonuses... I could've prolonged that fight a lot if I hadn't realized the thing keeps regenerating and has resistance against whatever damage I dealt against it. But in theory, I could've killed it with a dozen or so particularly lucky criticals I guess.

SPavel

14:57

That sounds pretty boring too

A game I worked on tried to do special rules for chases (among other things, like interrogation or investigation)

It worked ok

NautArch

@Yuuki yup, but a lot of other spells are are for rare situations, too. I think if Contagion worked immediately, it'd need to be ahigher level spell.

kviiri

5e does have chase rules too, for situations where you don't just want to look up who has the most speed and decide based on that. But they're hidden in the DMG, which means that probably less than one table in ten has actually used them.

Yuuki

@NautArch Fair enough, being more general-use always makes something more powerful, but it's already a 5th-level spell.

kviiri

I wonder how many beginning DnD GMs actually read the DMG before starting.

Yesterday, I learned that my first GM never owned the book, and well... he wasn't the best GM.

Yuuki

@kviiri If they're anything like me, they read through it completely but then the information drains out of their head at the table.

kviiri

15:01

I don't hold the DMG in a particularly high regard, but I can imagine the alternative of starting totally in the dark being far worse.

KorvinStarmast

15:49

@Rubiksmoose There is a trivially easy answer to this for D&D 5e. Sorry to see it closed.

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast how is it trivial/not opinion-based?

David Coffron

16:02

0

Q: Does this homebrew look like it'll work?

This is my first attempt at a homebrew, and for a challenge I've never DM'd so my knowledge of the players handbook is what I've managed to find online. so my question is this; at a glance is it overpowered compared to the standard races? (in relation to the racial traits/sub-race traits) Ra...

dnd-5e homebrew balance

These are both extremely unbalanced and exceedingly difficult to compare to core races. Just for the record (I'm too busy at work to make an answer if this gets reopened)

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast It was closed for no system. Since it now has a system I have voted to reopen.

NautArch

@DavidCoffron the easiest way to compare (at least for the Eir) is to variant human given the feat provided.

Rubiksmoose

Though now that I think about it, each race should really get its own question.

David Coffron

Yeah split it in two and then tell him they're both extremely OP

And the large one is a mess of rule/mechanics stuff to explain (if someone wants to tackle it)

kviiri

I didn't think the latter one is very OP but then I read the natural armor part again.

David Coffron

16:09

The race has the equivalent to jack if all trades in 7 skills AND climb speed AND weapons. And then the subrace features

kviiri

Effectively getting plate or better at 1st level with none of the drawbacks... at least there's the opportunity cost of having a relatively weak ability bonus.

David Coffron

Each subrace would be a little overtuned by itself

Rubiksmoose

@kviiri I'm actually still a bit confused about the natural armor part.

Or I should say, I'm not sure if it makes much sense.

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose 2 subraces of a single race. I think it would be weird to split them into 2 questions.

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage ok that was not clear in the original edit.

David Coffron

16:10

The natural armor is 16 + dex. That's all

NautArch

@DavidCoffron Which is likely a 21 unarmored AC.

David Coffron

Just like regular monster nat armor

kviiri

Personally, I think the root of the issue is trying to homebrew stuff before even DM'ing the usual stuff. That's a good recipe for a bad time.

GreySage

It's open now, so go for it

NautArch

@kviiri or having read the PHB

Rubiksmoose

16:11

@kviiri completely agreed

kviiri

The road to Hell is paved with "wouldn't it be cool if".

David Coffron

@NautArch which is better than maxed out Unarmored Defense, which is one of the strongest CLASS features

NautArch

@DavidCoffron yup

David Coffron

Tortle was (arguably) balanced bc it was flat AC and comparable to average heavy armor.

kviiri

Yea well, balance is again one of those concepts where there's several mutually incompatible definitions.

...although some things are consistently unbalanced according to each of them.

David Coffron

16:15

It's hard to say balance in rpgs since you have three pillars and every setting/DM is different, but some things are glaring

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron how can it be unarmored though?

David Coffron

One thing going for the homebrew race is it only gives +2 to ASs like variant human

kviiri

Yeah. Although personally, I worry the most about things that are "balanced" to many but not to me, because they're the ones that are likely to appear in games :)

Rubiksmoose

If it is natural armor

kviiri

"Linear mages, quadratic wizards" are balanced to many, but not to me. Nor are "onion knights" (from Final Fantasy: characters who have rubbish abilities at everything until the very final levels when they very rapidly overtake everyone else)

KorvinStarmast

16:17

@NautArch You can have a fight without killing the other PC.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose the wording is not equivalent to 5e bc I think the OP doesn't have full grasp of how it works. I think he's trying to make sure you don't get the nat armor bonus on top of armor bonus (which you wouldn't anyway, but...)

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Yeah that is what I figured. But it does make it a bit confusing.

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast d'oh.

kviiri

@KorvinStarmast Yep. I wouldn't recommend that as the solution because... well, it seems like it's probably a social problem they're having about PvP and they should settle that out of the game.

David Coffron

@kviiri as an ex-RTS player i see how your balance ideas are different, but having variable peaks is part of game balance in a lot of ways.

It just doesn't work that well in long term campaigns

kviiri

16:20

@DavidCoffron Well it's a part of DnD's balance, or at least has been in many of its incarnations. It's not a feature I like. But it's also different in single-player games than in multiplayer games, and likewise in short-term strategic games versus long-lasting campaigns

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast But the argument I suspect OP would make is that they are evil so why wouldn't they kill them?

kviiri

@DavidCoffron I also dislike the "high power" (pure casters) vs "high endurance" (martial characters, monks, warlocks) dichotomy in DnD 5e, not as a concept but because it never seems to play out that way in our table :<

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose I will say with the way the Unarmored defense is worded in the question (I haven't read his picture), if you have natural armor from wild shape, and your DM rules that the feature works you would get 10+ nat armor (which may be like 13) + dex and get ludicrous ACs

@kviiri that's because smart casters will almost never get attacked and have tools to not get hit even if they do (shield spell) and even the "high endurance" martial characters don't have certain save proficiencies so can be squishy in certain encounters (only paladin feels right and they are half-casters)

kviiri

@DavidCoffron Yeah, but it's about more than just squishiness vs not - it's also a matter of maintaining a consistency of power. Our table has traditionally been rather stingy with encounters, resulting in adventuring days of a single hard combat - that's an indirect nerf to characters like Warlocks whose strength is being able to replenish from a short rest.

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Yeah that the whole AC thing is an issue.

Yuuki

16:30

@kviiri I also don't like the concept of "linear vs. exponential growth". The only time that makes sense is when you have a short-duration player-vs-player game. Like a MOBA.

David Coffron

@kviiri low-key then force the characters to fight or homebrew around that I've played tables where a long rest was once a week and a short rest took a day to fix that problem (then slow pace is fine and resources are still valuable)

kviiri

@DavidCoffron Yeah, in my own games I'm a lot more stingy on long rests. Although I don't run 5e anymore

And in 4e I plan to enforce a "can't sleep, enemies are nearby!" rule for dungeons. In other words, long rests between quests only

David Coffron

@Yuuki agreed, but linear vs exponential growth to a point and then it levels off would be fine imo

Yuuki

"Classes are balanced because fighters are supposed to be strong in the early game and wizards are weak until the late game". One, that's wrong. Two, that doesn't make sense at all in a cooperative RPG that lasts for months.

kviiri

@Yuuki Well, it's true for a certain angle of balance. One that I don't subscribe to either, for that matter. I think games should be designed so all levels are fun for everyone involved.

Yuuki

16:32

Because it's not like fighters and wizards have different "win" conditions for a campaign. Everyone's goal is to get to the late game.

David Coffron

@Yuuki if your concerned about that, give spells + ability mod damage and don't let them have high powered spell slots. Problem solved

NautArch

@kviiri @KorvinStarmast In addition, that is ONE answer that's possible. But there are many more and even that one is an opinion (i guess)

kviiri

@DavidCoffron Except if you overshoot and have to keep readjusting it over and over again. Balance is finicky.

David Coffron

@kviiri I've played with those rules. We're fine until level 12 (we didn't play past then). The goal was super low magic setting

kviiri

@NautArch It's an opinion, yep. In my opinion it's an opinion within the acceptable scope for many questions on the site, but I'm not sure I would put it there

@Yuuki "You're all on the same side, who cares if one is stronger/weaker than the rest?" is another stock phrase that makes me cringe

GreySage

16:38

@DavidCoffron That's called a Warlock

David Coffron

Wait he didn't even read the PHB before homebrewing... I'll be nice but that seems like a poor decision

@GreySage not quite, even non-cantrips got added damage so using low level aoe spells was our wizards bread and butter. Our fighter spent a lot of time just throwing every one close together with grapples

NautArch

@DavidCoffron that's why i gave an uypvote (for rep) and the suggestion to come in here

David Coffron

@NautArch alright. I'll put my nice shows on if he shows

David Coffron

17:01

Shoes*

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch Actually, it's based on the rules "knocking out" and it avoids killing the other PC, which is the question asked.

All the other drama is a mess of ... the usual.

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast i know...but that's still just one solution.

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast and ignores the fact that OP would probably say that his character would not spare the other since he is evil.

It seems likely that OP had thought of the solution of simply not killing them all the way before but for whatever reason it does not work for them.

KorvinStarmast

17:28

@Rubiksmoose I'm not going to guess, though you are probably right.

goodguy5

dat homebrew, doe

good answer korvin

KorvinStarmast

@goodguy5 I also like the ref @sr-ix made to that "detect balance" tool. It's a nice first approximation ... seen it used in discussions at GiTP.

goodguy5

oh neat. tbh, didn't scroll down that far

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose I also think there's a bit of an XY problem, and the potential for a frame challenge along the lines of "at what point did you all decide that PvP is OK, and are you even aware as a group that you had chosen to do so?"

goodguy5

I've thought for a while something like what I'm about to say, but had never put it clearly into words until I heard it on TL;DM Podcast.

Combat rules are not for PVP. If there's PVP, then something else is going on and it should be resolved with input from the players, not soley (sp) through the dice.

Rubiksmoose

17:40

@KorvinStarmast Yeah absolutely. And also the issue of my guyism that needs to be addressed.

I'd be willing to reopen it if you think that we can get some good answers for it.

SPavel

@goodguy5 Disagree. There are many different kinds of PvP.

goodguy5

"Thiefy McThieferson wants to steal your component pounch, Mr Mageface. How would that play out?"

And as long as you're playing with adults that aren't buttheads, then it should go something like:

"Well, I think that Mageface has always been distrustful of Thieferson and would be watching him"
--or--
"Mageface has really learned to rely on Thieferson and views them as friends and would be more focused no the crowd. I suppose he steals it"

@SPavel Spavel, you and I disagree a lot. I do not think we would enjoy playing at the same table.

SPavel

@goodguy5 D&D is not for playing anyway, it's for obsessing over theoretical builds

goodguy5

heh

that is one of my top 10 favorite parts

SPavel

But I have played with people who were wrong in the past, and it was fine

KorvinStarmast

17:44

@Rubiksmoose Hmm, I'd rather see the asker respond to a few comments first ... your call.

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast Yeah that is something that is definitely a concern. People are going to have questions about this situation I have no doubt.

KorvinStarmast

@SPavel And that's why PvP is a thing. Can't have the other player be wrong, right? :p

kviiri

Well RPGs are like pizza. Even when they're bad they're pretty good.

Occasionally it gets really bad though.

David Coffron

@KorvinStarmast yuanti pureblood are allowed in AL as long as they are in the Lords Alliance

goodguy5

@DavidCoffron is that really the restriction or are you making a joke?

KorvinStarmast

17:48

@DavidCoffron Really? OK, so that was the restriction; only one faction allows them. Got it. (Quite frankly, I find that decision to be appalling, but I am not in charge of such things so there it is).

David Coffron

@goodguy5 That's the restriction. VGtM races need to be part of certain factions (sort of like sponsors so they are accepted in society)

SPavel

@KorvinStarmast No, PvP does not solve being wrong

goodguy5

@DavidCoffron ah

KorvinStarmast

@SPavel As you are the one who started this, you will reap what you have sown. ;)

David Coffron

@SPavel 1 v 1 me bro

SPavel

17:51

@KorvinStarmast Fox only, no items, Final Destination

goodguy5

@SPavel wait, like Fox Entertainment, Fox News, Fox & Friends?

SPavel

@goodguy5 Fawkes the phoenix

Rubiksmoose

Faux the fake phoenix

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose that explains so much

goodguy5

no. no no no

we're not playing that game again

SPavel

17:56

@goodguy5 Not enough words rhyme with phoenix anyway

Square Enix?

goodguy5

beatnicks?

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron up to your DM =/= opinion-based

Otherwise 95% of all 5e questions should be closed immediately lol

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose I know but it's a boring question

I think all custom wish questions should be closed as boring

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron but boring should never be a reason a question is closed or stays closed.

David Coffron

I voted to reopen. Still boring

Rubiksmoose

18:02

17

Q: Can I use Divine Intervention or Wish to regain Wish?

After reading this question on what happens to Sorcs who lose the ability to cast wish, I started wondering if there are ways for them to regain that ability. I figured a Divine Intervention is probably strong enough as that is a god's power, as well as a second caster casting wish to undo the f...

dnd-5e spells

@DavidCoffron regardless it has already been asked and answered

and it is now closed again.

kviiri

Wish is one of those things I think DnD could do without

Yuuki

@kviiri Yeah...

SPavel

@DavidCoffron If only "boring" was a close option

Yuuki

I feel like it's an artifact of a time when the assumption was that every player wanted to basically become a god.

goodguy5

"I wish that I don't suffer the stress of casting this wish"

Benefacting source of magic: \*marks pip on caster's sheet that spell has been cast and does nothing else\*
"nailed it"

kviiri

18:10

@Yuuki Except the fighters, they want to become groupies of gods.

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose have you seen rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7914/… ?

I feel like you've taken a stab at answering some of those designer intent questions before

Yuuki

@Rubiksmoose Would be kinda funny if this daisy-chained throughout the party.

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross I have!

kviiri

One of the few things in Dungeon World that I like is that Wizards have Wish at level 1. Or well, they don't, but they have something better: Ritual.

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross Yeah it is kind of sad that they are probably going to be gone (and already starting to go) but probably for the better.

David Coffron

18:16

@kviiri I have no problems with wish's use any lesser spell use. That's an interesting and complex mechanic. But the custom wish is dumb

Colin Gross

True. I did get the feeling that the people that asked those questions we're just salty about the rules.

Wish is kind of like a deck of many things... it's not that great a story telling mechanic.

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross definitely that was a decent percentage of them

kviiri

You tell the GM what you want, they tell you what it takes. Still at the whim of the GM, but the GM has more guidance on how to use their power, and the terms are agreed to in advance, not spur-of-the-moment. It's excellent for turning plotlines about killing dragons into plotlines about completing a ritual that kills the dragon.

@DavidCoffron Sure, but no one ever asks about that part of Wish :P

Colin Gross

and mechanically, in game, it's a nightmare unless you take one of the preset "just grant this" like 2e and 3e had. e.g. 10k gold.

David Coffron

@kviiri I did I think... It's also the most useful effect if you know all the spells. So versatile

Colin Gross

18:17

At least, I think it was some set amount you could just have. Or a single point stat boost.

kviiri

@DavidCoffron It's pretty potent, yep.

Anyway, I'm off for a while. jog jog

goodguy5

@kviiri was that a "zug zug" joke?

GreySage

@ColinGross The problem I have with that question is that 4 of the answers say the exact same thing, which is crowding out the actual alternative answers.

goodguy5

neat alternative to spell slots:
https://arsphantasia.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/alternative-to-spell-slots-points/

Rubiksmoose

1

Q: Is limiting Sneak Attack to only dexterity based attacks "unfair"?

Inspired by this question "Recless Attack + Sneak Attack synergy?". I was about to make a house ruling that in order to be able to utilize Sneak Attack that you had to choose the Dexterity option on the finesse weapon. This would essentially remove this weird synergy, but one of my players has t...

dnd-5e house-rules

Man, I disagree with this so much, but cannot put into words why except that I hate very much when DMs work to limit player options when nothing is broken.

Colin Gross

18:36

@GreySage The wish spell answers? I usually skip questions involving the wish spell. It's the ultimate GM fiat mechanic.

The list of immediately permissible effects seem reasonable especially for an L17 caster.

Like oooo 25k gold item.... They've probably come across a dozen of those so far.

Anything more seems like the xkcd "What if?" series.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose whole heartedly agree. Players should be encouraged to explore their options. Besides, sneak attack is easy to trigger anyway (via adjacency) so it's not even close to broken (especially since you are giving away advantage anyway)

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron potentially to a LOT of enemies. That is a significant amount of attacks that you are taking as a tradeoff.

(potentially)

David Coffron

Even if you are not attacked that round it's not that powerful a synergy. An experienced rogue with a cooperative party will almost always get sneak attack off

(When I played my arcane trickster rogue I got every sneak attack except like 2; in a one shot)

Rubiksmoose

Yeah even after asking for clarification I still have no idea why OP wants to change the rule. I'm very much in the if it ain't broke don't fix it camp.

goodguy5

18:53

@DavidCoffron ha, I was saying the same thing

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 You got my upvote good sir. I was not sure how I was going to phrase an answer and got too busy comment-answer fighting and clarification-seeking.

goodguy5

I like to avoid those by answering :)

Transcript for