TRPG General Chat

4:00 PM

And I don't think it makes sense to make a distinction between experts-in-dnd5e and experts-in-dnd5e-RAW.

Sure well I'm not going to get into debating the whole mess of why we got rid of the tag, but I agree with its deletion. My only point was to bring the question to people's attention so as to make their own conclusions.

From my perspective, it seems like things worked well and the lack of tag wasn't an issue.

Just calling out RAW in the question was enough.

Stackstuck

4:20 PM

meanwhile, looks at Anima I don't think half of my questions have RAW answers. :/

Rubiksmoose

Yeah RAW answers get very hard for games that don't have too many of them (eg Masks) or that play fast and loose with them (eg Paranoia).

And arguably, those games probably don't have a strong RAW culture around them as a result.

Stackstuck

there's plenty of rules, they just don't cover any of the obvious shit I just don't even.

Rubiksmoose

Ah I see. Well that would be an issue as well lol

nitsua60

@Stackstuck Can you keep the language clean, please?

Someone_Evil

Hmm... there being previous answers that were deleted does not count towards being first to answer..

Rubiksmoose

4:27 PM

That is indeed the case as I remember it!

Someone_Evil

I suppose that's fair, an 'answer' that was deleted shouldn't count in the first place otherwise spam etc. would spoil someone's chance for the Enlightened Badge

Rubiksmoose

And it would be pretty darned confusing for users that can't see deleted answers as well

Someone_Evil

Well, in this specific instance they were there when I answered. I even edited one of them..

Rubiksmoose

Congrats on the badge btw lol

Someone_Evil

cheers

Stackstuck

4:33 PM

@nitsua60 my apologies, I'm just rather frustrated by the obvious holes in the rules.

Rubiksmoose

@Someone_Evil it was a good answer in any case

nitsua60

@Stackstuck Understandable. Good luck with them!

Someone_Evil

@Rubiksmoose thanks. Finding the fault in Leomund's secret chest felt like a gods-send

Stackstuck

@Someone_Evil eh?

Someone_Evil

@Stackstuck It turns out D&D 5e doesn't make a distinction between ending a spells effect and ending the spell. for LSC it uses both in the same sentence

It this question (and my answer to it specifically)

Stackstuck

4:44 PM

Oh, right. Now I remember that.

5e, what the heck even.

Xirema

22 hours ago, by GcL

I would like to re-open the prospect of having a formal ontology for 5e.

Stackstuck

Meanwhile, magic item duplication rules rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/146846/…

Someone_Evil

@Xirema Have you ever tried to read the comprehensive rule for MtG?

Stackstuck

MtG is Turing-complete.

Xirema

There has to be a middle ground between "We're going to define everything in plain English" and "we're going to define everything in its own lexicon and publish a 500 page dictionary just for our game"

Stackstuck

4:48 PM

You can make a computer in MtG.

Someone_Evil

@Xirema I like the 'let the DM figure out what makes sense' as a middle ground

Xirema

@Someone_Evil The DM has that role regardless. No need to make their job more difficult. Plus, if WotC wants people to take stuff like Adventurer's League seriously, players need to trust that basic mechanical decisions they make in character progression will mean roughly the same thing from DM to DM.

Someone_Evil

@Xirema I might be missing some, I don't think there's a lot of actual glaring holes in the rules. DM's not actually using the rules is a different matter.

Xirema

If basic spells like Dispel Magic can do different things depending on how the DM interprets the rules, that's a problem. And that's what happens when you hew too close to one of those extremes— "Well, I think it says...!" vs "Wait, what does 'Secondary Spell Target Trigger' mean again?"

> "Oh, wait, it doesn't say 'Secondary Spell Target Trigger', it says 'Second Spell Target Trigger', okay, wait, was that the Wizard or the Sorcerer?" "No, it was the Bard, because they're the one that used their 'Target Trigger Action' to supply the 'Material Reagent' for the second target." "Oh. Okay, wait, what are the rules for 'Material Reagent's again?"

> "No, you're thinking of the rules for 'Material Catalyst's. For reagents, you just need to make sure the 'Tactical Item Properties' are synonymous with the component, using the table of synonymous properties in the Appendix of the DMG." "Ahh, okay. Alright, so you deal 3 damage, let's move on to the second Action of the night—what do you mean it's already midnight???"

David Coffron

This question is real complicated

Someone_Evil

4:59 PM

I will agree dispel magic has some problems (or other spell descriptions have a problem with it), but I think it's mostly edge-cases that aren't going to come up that often and the impact is minor. Some DM's are gonna let that tool work, other's aren't, there are still other tools.

David Coffron

I've got 6 builds that are all close enough with their own benefits

Not to mention that the DPR is dependent on AC (and it is unclear whether the enemies will be more armored or not)

Xirema

@DavidCoffron I could run the builds through my engine and at least yield some numbers to compare against.

Someone_Evil

@Xirema What is this engine based on?

David Coffron

@Xirema I have all the numbers (made a spreadsheet). I'm just having trouble evaluating which is better

Xirema

@Someone_Evil I've been iterating on a program that is basically a competitor to AnyDice.

Someone_Evil

5:10 PM

@Xirema Ah, I read his problem as not having a reliable 'AC-distribution' to evaluate against

Xirema

I personally think [0, 10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 25] gives a good spread.

Maybe add 40 at the end if you want something like the reverse of what 0 offers.

Someone_Evil

There your just going with how DPR varies with AC, but how that means out to an effective one, right?

David Coffron

@Someone_Evil Well some features (like Elven Accuracy) are better against high AC targets, so it is tought to gauge whether it is better than an ASI at times

Someone_Evil

And crit and crit related features are going to vary DPR with AC

goodguy5

I accidentally typo'd a emote that I use a lot and it came out like this:

%_%

Xirema

5:25 PM

@goodguy5 Big mood.

goodguy5

^_^

nitsua60

6:27 PM

Seems to me that ship sailed when they bagged the notion of site coordinators (and sites) and their support for regional coordinators.
It used to be I was a site coordinator and knew my regional coordinator... in return I got passwords to the site where Expeditions could be downloaded free and run in-person.
Now anybody can claim to be running AL, regardless of whether or not they are, and it's the responsibility of every player to judge whether that GM really is and whether or not to log the session on the basis of that judgment. And there's no one "over" the GM in many cases to help media…

goodguy5

@nitsua60 that makes me want to take completely homebrew content into an AL content and claim for it to be official

nitsua60

@goodguy5 That's... basically what I wandered into the other week when I went to my FLGS and sat down at an "AL table."

I'll drop you a copy of my writeup of that... experience in Discord if you want to take a look.

goodguy5

1. what is flgs?
2. yes

Rubiksmoose

@goodguy5 Friendly Local Game Store

goodguy5

is that a brand or an rpg-ism?

nitsua60

6:41 PM

(It's a copy-paste from another discord, so I don't want to drop names/statements made by non-chatizens into this publicly-indexed chat.)

@goodguy5 RPGism.

Rubiksmoose

Actually I'm more familiar with it as a board game term, but yeah it is a generic term for a local store where you go to buy games.

As opposed to say, online at Amazon.

Though if I ever open a game store I'm going to call it that lol

goodguy5

@nitsua60 that terrasque, tho

nitsua60

After a round I said "what the hell, I'm not logging this session, who cares if I die" and stepped up to blow all my ki on stunning it and keeping it there. With those ridiculous martials dealing triple-digit damage on their attacks, it didn't take too long.

MikeQ

@nitsua60 Could I also get a copy? This sounds like an intriguing read.

nitsua60

@MikeQ It's on discord now.

It was a bit maddening when I was in the mindset of "oh, maybe I'll get a D&D game in tonight" and much better when I switched to the mindset "I'm a tourist...."

MikeQ

6:57 PM

So were these folks all entirely new to the system? They just saw stuff in the PHB and MM and said "I want to be both"?

"+10 to hit = +10 weapon" seems intuitive if the group hasn't read thru the gameplay rules, and just skimmed stat blocks and tried to proceed from there

Stackstuck

What's a good tag for "what happens when an effect expires"?

Rubiksmoose

@Stackstuck an existing tag? Not sure we have one. But if we are talking D&D the term would likely be "duration"

doppelgreener

7:13 PM

@Stackstuck no tag for that on the site

Rubiksmoose

@Stackstuck eh actually duration might not cut it. But yeah no tag that I can find

Yuuki

@Stackstuck wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey

Xirema

Stats for Roll [2d6GWF]
╔═════════╤══════════╤════════╤═══════════╗
║ Outcome │     Odds │ Trials │ Pass Odds ║
╟─────────┼──────────┼────────┼───────────╢
║      +2 │   0.309% │      4 │  100.000% ║
║      +3 │   0.617% │      8 │   99.691% ║
║      +4 │   2.778% │     36 │   99.074% ║
║      +5 │   4.938% │     64 │   96.296% ║
║      +6 │   9.877% │    128 │   91.358% ║
║      +7 │  14.815% │    192 │   81.481% ║
║      +8 │  17.284% │    224 │   66.667% ║
║      +9 │  19.753% │    256 │   49.383% ║

@Xirema Soliciting Formatting feedback.

MikeQ

@Xirema The headers are nice and explain what the columns are

goodguy5

@Xirema cute chart

Xirema

7:19 PM

@MikeQ Vast improvement over what I was doing before. ;)

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema I like it! Also, stop talking to yourself ;)

Xirema

(I had to convert my entire codebase to UTF-8 to get this to render correctly, because Java is dumb)

Hot RPG Questions

7:45 PM

5

Q: What is the most expensive material in the world that could be used to create pun-pun's lute?

I want to create a magic item that would be basically a lute left by the almighty Pun-Pun. I highly doubt that he would lower his standards to use pitiful materials like adamantium or platinum. I am wondering what is the most expensive material in the world of Dungeons and Dragons that could be u...

trogdor

@goodguy5 wow I hate that XD

Stackstuck

I'll tag [duration] then...

whoops, I'm on mobile.

Rubiksmoose

@Stackstuck I'd only do that if you are sure it will be a useful addition to the tag system. I'm not so sure...

Stackstuck

And apparently Request Desktop Site works.

hm. Yeah you have a point...

Well, I've already done it, so, shrug

If y'all think it's bad go ahead and burninate.

Xirema

8:57 PM

@Rubiksmoose I guess the question on my mind is why, for PCs, Natural Weapons count as Unarmed Strikes, but for NPCs, they do not. Since that's what seems to be implied by Crawford's tweet about Druid Wild Shape attacks not counting as Unarmed Strikes.

Because for every single example of Natural Weapons normally (RAW) available to PCs, they're valid for use as Unarmed Strikes. It's only where NPCs are concerned that this ceases to be the case.

Rubiksmoose

They don't count for either, unless specifically stated.

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose How do we know that?

Rubiksmoose

Because unarmed strikes can't be made with a weapon right?

Xirema

(Sidebar: is it provably incorrect if I describe my own Unarmed Strikes as being made with Natural Weapons: Miss Lefty and Miss Righty?)

Rubiksmoose

You might as well ask, "where in the rules does it say that you can't make an unarmed strike with a sword?"

A weapon is a weapon.

Hot RPG Questions

9:03 PM

6

Q: Does the damage from the Absorb Elements spell apply to your next attack, or to your first attack on your next turn?

The description of the absorb elements spell says: The spell captures some of the incoming energy, lessening its effect on you and storing it for your next melee attack. [...] Also, the first time you hit with a melee attack on your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 damage of the...

dnd-5e spells

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose That is in the book though: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." — PHB, 195

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema exactly "Instead of using a weapon". A natural weapon is a weapon. It's right in the name.

Xirema

So why do both VGM and GGR (which have subtly different language between them, FYI) both stipulate, for their races that have "Natural Weapons", that they may use them "to make an unarmed strike"? Because that kind of goes beyond making them "unarmed strikes" if they expressly use weapons. why not just call them "Natural Weapons with which you are proficient"?

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema hmmm I'm not sure I understand the question, but the point occurs to me that why would they say that if it was already allowed by default?

Can you restate the question though?

(and to extend my previous question, why do not all examples of natural weapons contain the language that they can be made as an unarmed strike?)

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose Is a 'Natural Weapon' actually a Weapon, semantically, if they are allowed to be used to make Unarmed Strikes.

Rubiksmoose

9:08 PM

@Xirema Sure, specific over general.

Xirema

Like should 'Natural Weapon' actually be 'Natural weapon' (note the case change).

@Rubiksmoose I mean, maybe.

In the same way that an Unarmed Strike counts as a 'Melee Weapon Attack' without including any weapons.

Except you are using weapons: Miss Righty and Lefty.

CTWind

Yeah, I agree that I'd read that as 'you have this special (natural) weapon, and also it has the special ability to be used when you make unarmed strikes'

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema sure, but also specifically because the rules are laid out that way, as an excpetion.

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose Bleh. =D

Rubiksmoose

I mean it is really tricky and I can understand why the devs allowed PCs to do that, because generally I think it is better for them and clearly natural weapons exist conceptually in a grey area between "unarmed" and "holding a manufactured weapon".

However, they are weapons pure and simple. The rules call them that. It's in the name. I don't see any way around that reading.

Xirema

9:12 PM

yesterday, by GcL

I would like to re-open the prospect of having a formal ontology for 5e.

Rubiksmoose

hahaha agreed.

CTWind

I personally would love action + bonus action -> 'main action' + 'side action'- the implication being one is a thing you're focused on doing, and the other is a thing you can do while focusing on other things. But I don't know that that reads well outside my own head. :-P

Xirema

Anyone have a link to that proposal to try to eliminate Bonus Actions entirely from 5th Edition?

Rubiksmoose

Was it a question?

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose I think it was external to the site.

V2Blast

9:18 PM

Mike Mearls made a series of tweets about it: sageadvice.eu/2017/05/28/…

Bonus actions are fairly hacky, and with 3+ years running the final game under my belt it's now obvious how to live without them. #wotcstaff

Tweeted by mikemearls on May 28, 2017 at 9:34 PM in reply to mikemearls

You just need to glue the appropriate actions together - for instance, Two-Weapon Fighting is just a special attack action. #wotcstaff https://twitter.com/archon/status/868945060834021376

Tweeted by mikemearls on May 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM

Instead of there being an Attack action, you'd have Attack as a category with new class-exclusive options added to it. Cleaner design.

Tweeted by mikemearls on May 28, 2017 at 9:54 PM in reply to mikemearls

With all that said, nothing that requires a new edition. We'll do that when players and DMs ask for it. No where near that now. #wotcstaff

Tweeted by mikemearls on May 28, 2017 at 9:54 PM in reply to mikemearls

someone asked about Healing Word and bonus-action spells, someone else suggested "Perhaps something like this: "When you cast this spell, you can also take one of the following actions: attack, cast a cantrip, dodge, dash"", Mearls agreed

and then someone else pointed out:
"And then you need to clarify that you can only add one such enhancement per turn. And you'd need to clarify extra for Monks and spells.
It sounds like all it would accomplish is remove the words "bonus action" and introduce clunkier wording instead. Would like to see UA of it"

on a different point...

CTWind

That's more or less where I sided on it. I think having a 'minor action' is ok, but I think the language around it could be much improved.

V2Blast

is there some generally accepted practice for when to accept answers on meta and what it actually means? particularly as it relates to suggesting changes

specifically:

10

Q: Should we add [sentient-magic-items] as a synonym of the [intelligent-magic-items] tag?

Right now, the intelligent-magic-items tag exists, with the tag info: For questions about intelligent or sentient magic items. (In D&D 5e, at least, these are referred to in the DMG (p. 214) as sentient magic items.) However, though the two terms are very similar and refer to the same type...

discussion tags synonymization

Xirema

Mind; I'm not necessarily "anti-Bonus Action"—quite a few of my favorite builds involve saturating Bonus Action use really hard, especially Sorcerers with Quickened Spell—but I've been curious what effect those kinds of proposals have on such builds.

V2Blast

how long should I wait to accept this answer? does accepting it actually indicate anything about how we should proceed? will it get acted upon by a mod or someone with permissions to suggest the synonym once I do?

BESW

@Xirema Too much like 4e!

CTWind

9:28 PM

Not that I have any authority on the subject, but I've always felt like accepting felt especially unnecessary on meta for 'discussion' questions (i.e., not a question that has a verbatim site rules answer). Almost feels like it's something mods should do if an answer encouraged an action that was actually taken.

BESW

Sep 6 '18 at 20:59, by BESW

The Stack Exchange devoted years to developing an interface and infrastructure to enforce an epistemology that values pithy independent responses to clear, precise problems. This interface and its accompanying infrastructure actively discourages discussion, ambiguity, and accompaniment.

Sep 6 '18 at 20:59, by BESW

Then they applied that interface to their space for discussing policies, identifying ambiguities, and accompanying each other.

Hot RPG Questions

9:42 PM

3

Q: Magical attacks and overcoming damage resistance

I got hit with an argument from one of my players the other day, and it goes like this: He is playing a Monk and his unarmed attacks count as magical attacks. He was trying to punch a Web. I told him his bludgeoning attacks did no damage since it was immune to bludgeoning damage. My party dis...

dnd-5e damage-resistance

user15026

10:29 PM

@CTWind its a weirdly messy use of the site design, yeah. It's weird in the sense that they wanted to give us a discussion space to make site choices but the implementation is a little broken.

trogdor

10:55 PM

Yeah

Go figure recycling design isn't necessarily great

doppelgreener

@CTWind i don't tend to use it on meta myself

user15026

@trogdor who would have thought you can't just apply this to everything...

user15026

(it's one of the biggest things I get frustrated by with SE, the idea that everything has to fit this model in the same way)