@NautArch Not to mention "we solemnly and repeatedly swear that WGtE will have the final version of the Artificer"..."but we never said we'd include all the subclasses! Haha get wrekt scrubs!"
I mean, I always knew people who bought WGtE were going to get ripped off, but even I didn't see this coming.
@KorvinStarmast I'm still holding off, personally. But sooner or later one of the free games is going to be one that I want and don't already have, and then it will suddenly be very worthwhile for me.
@Miniman wow! Did not know that. Wizards not doing a lot to build trust.
Amazingly, I have not bought a game off steam in a very very long time.
user15026
@Miniman This is where I'm at too.
user15026
Mind you, I'm awful at playing anything on my PC that isn't WoW. (And I suspect the only reason I remember to play that is because my husband and I play together)
@NautArch I also haven't seen the final versions, and it's very possible that they fixed the issues I had with the Artillerist. The Battlesmith I think is a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, I have no objection to steampunk. My problem with the Battlesmith is essentially the same as my problem with the Hexblade - it has exactly the same "gishes are hard, but people like them, so we made one for you by giving one subclass way more stuff than the others" vibe.
The Artillerist just seemed a bit all over the place, so I'm hopeful that they tightened it up and I'll like it now XD
@KorvinStarmast Eh, I have one just for the free games. It's like Steam... I'll get to these hundreds of games one day! :P
@Miniman Depends what your issues were, but yeah, they did change some things about
If anything, people think the Alchemist is underpowered (or just boring) compared to the other 2 subclasses
there are some "early looks" out there like Adam Koebel's and another YouTuber's that linger on stuff long enough for basically all the character options to be out there even for non-owners
In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there is a character in chapter 7, section 2 that has the following property:
I'm unsure how to correctly parse this sentence. Is this supposed to be read as the first 10 fire damage from every single attack or source or is it only the first 10 fire damage he rece...
In Adventurers League play, it is possible to find a "Shadowneedle" (Unbreakable arrow from module CCC-KUMORI-02-04), which has this special text :
One of twenty unbreakable arrows crafted with Shadowsong [A flavored Oathbow from DDEX03-07 that could be found in Adventurers League play in the...
Could probably add that to the tag description for answering. When answeting, please try to be a little more explicit beyond any combination of "no" and "just because"
my nephew is awesome. We just fought through two salamanders and a hydra. And won. And we got what we needed, access to greater restoration, to get our life cleric un stoned, un statued, from that darned medusa. And, as the spell took effect, his rogue pulled out a small packet of herb (yes, the DM has herb in the game for a steep price) and lit up a blunt. So the cleric says "I'm not stoned anymore." And my newphew's rogues says ..."I can help with that!" and offers him the blunt.
The three following questions currently exist (ordered from newest to oldest):
If I Ready an action, can I then use my reaction for something else?
Reaction while holding a readied action?
Can you forgo your readied action to take an opportunity attack instead?
They are all extremely similar,...
In 5e it is a common misconception that knowing someones location is the same as being able to see them. What would be a good way to ask/answer a question to clear up this common confusion?
@jgn I don't believe that is a misconception had, at least as far as I've seen. By default, unless a creature is hidden, you know where it is during any combat.
Furthermore, you can know where an invisible creature is, which proves that they are not the same things. You can also know where a creature is on the other side of a wall
@Medix2 I've seen dozens of answers conflating the two concepts, often highly upvoted or accepted answers even. I also think the invisible condition is a fast way to prove the idea wrong, but it's frustrating to have to post it every time. I'll check out that link, cheers.
Heres a few that I just replied to (explaining with invisiblity actually!) https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/69812/can-a-hidden-attacker-shoot-around-the-corner https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/142247/would-being-hidden-grant-advantage-on-both-bracers-of-flying-daggers-attacks
In particular this passage of Unseen Attackers "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." tends to cause people to think that means the attacker can be seen. So any question about attacking while hiding or stealthing (almost always) have this problem
Should I make a copypasta that explains 5e sense and sight and explains that knowing where someone is doesn't mean they can be seen? I have probably explained this concept a dozen times at least.
I'm not sure your points makes a ton of sense. In the second question the target's location becomes known after the first attack is made, and if they are able to make the second attack at all they must be able to see each other and thus the creature is also visible
Bracer user (Rogue) can see the target, who cannot see the Rogue. The Rogue makes their first attack which reveals their locations and must also make them visible to the target.
If the Rogue can see their target, and the Rogue's location is known, then the target must be able to see the Rogue (unless the Rogue is invisible, which they are not)
If your location is known you can be seen unless you are invisible or behind a barrier
The attacker can see their target though, and the attacker is making two attacks. After the first their location is revealed and by line-of-sight (or whatever else to call it), they are now visible
That feels strange to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, by your description it seems like it's when the attacker pops in to line of sight to make the attack that they should be seen.
Why are they seen after the attack hits/misses instead of when they are about to attack?
Because of how it's described "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—**when you make an attack**, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
@Medix2 But your logic was that it's because the attacker must enter line of sight to attack right? So why do you think the attacker is unseen when they attack? Shouldn't they be visible?
Moreover, even if you decide that they are seen after the attack, why would "you give away your location" even be a rule? If you are seen then your location is known.
Previously they were hidden, they could not be seen, heard, located, anything. Then they attacked which revealed their location. Imagine now the target looks at that location and voila there is an enemy there
@V2Blast I don't think there is any interpretation of "give away your location" that can mean "you see them", at least none that doesn't mean messing up large sections of the game, including making invisibility nonsense.
"if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."
The rule on unseen attackers is specifically about being hidden: "**If you are hidden**—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
@Medix2 We aren't talking about coming out of hiding and approaching a creature here. We are talking about staying in hiding and attacking.
Yes, but it doesn't say "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, the DM decides what happens" Instead it gives explicit instructions: "you give away your location"
Is the extent of "Ultimately, the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." unclear? It's supposed to be only for deciding if someone can hide where they are trying to hide.
As far as I can tell, you can only become hidden when you cannot be seen. Then, in order to attack a creature you must have line-of-sight to it. And upon a hit/miss your location is revealed. Then the question is whether or not the creature can also see you in addition to knowing your location? Or rather, do you remain hidden after the attack hits/misses?
@Medix2 You can attempt to Hide so long as you are not "clearly seen"
The question is whether knowing someones location is enough to be able to see them, especially if they are hiding and usually can only be seen after a successful Perception check.
It's not really the same question unfortunately. You will notice that the answers assert that "knowing location = being able to see" as part of their answer.
Eg Dale M's answer: "“Giv[ing] away your location" means that you are no longer hidden " without any justification or explanation.
Compare this to the next answer which states "Giving away your location" just means that enemies know where you are. It doesn't necessarily mean they can see you."
They just assume that to be true as an assertion of their answer.
Well, lots of people are making assertions, I did at one time try to explain "from the start" with the rules, but RAW questions/answers are not well received here unfortunately
So I think it would be good to have a conclusive answer about whether knowing location = seeing which can clear up this common issue
" In 5e it is a common misconception that knowing someones location is the same as being able to see them. What would be a good way to ask/answer a question to clear up this common confusion?"
I've seen many questions asked about whether or not you need to be able to see your Mage Hand in order to control it.
However, can Mage Hand be summoned through a wall or other such obstruction?
Mage Hand's description states (PHB pg 256):
A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choo...
Tiamat can take a Legendary Actions at the end of each turn, and I believe these were listed as reactions. Could an Open Hand Monk's Open Hand Technique prevent these legendary actions entirely?
Per the Way of the Open Hand monk's Open Hand Technique feature:
Whenever you hit a creature with...
I'd warn against didactism and condescension, SAQs tend to be plagued by those and it leads to structural problems which make them bad fits for the site.
@Medix2 Well the same question in different contexts is a unique question, so its not really the same question. But it would help to answer that other question, so maybe I should link it as related?
On an unrelated note: we might need to do a search for questions about the original versions of WGTE content and potentially retag them as UA, if they did appear in UA; I'm less sure about how to handle the WGtE content that was changed without going through the UA process. (Otherwise, the questions/answers need to be updated I guess?) Probably worth a meta after I've slept, unless someone else can phrase it better.
This recently bumped question brought it to mind (the double-bladed scimitar and Revenant Blade feat are, to my knowledge, two things that didn't go through UA but were changed in the final version):
I am using the double-bladed scimitar with the Revenant Blade feat from Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.
The double-bladed scimitar's special feature (p. 74):
Special. When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make ...
Even those specific dice had other qualities which would make my game experience more or less enjoyable, that completely overshadowed any impact of their spindown quality.
@V2Blast I thought all of their spells had to be evocation/abjuration, but actually they are allowed one exception (and more on levelups) so it allows them to e.g. swap out a 1st-level spell at XL 7 to get Enlarge/Reduce
In the past I've said positive things here about the TTRPG "Hot Guys Making Out" by PH Lee. I have revisited the game text recently and am upset that I was ever able to speak about it that way. This is my wholehearted un-endorsement of that game, including the recently-announced upcoming modifications which do not address its fundamental problems.
I don't really want to talk about the details, there are people who've done that better than I could.
But part of being truly sorry for saying something harmful, like I have, is making at least as much noise when correcting ourselves, and in the same places. So here I am.
@jgn you're generating complaints over the last couple of days. General themes are familiar: seemingly-obtuse argumentativeness, strawmanning, nitpicking long after everyone else has moved on.... We've spoken to you privately about it, now I'm saying it publicly:
Stop making chat and the site(s) unpleasant for others. You may be the nicest person in the world face-to-face, but here you're coming across badly. Fix that.
@Gwideon personally, I'm doing well. I'm finally back to running regularly after an abdominal surgery this summer, and my pace hasn't really dropped at all. Which makes me happy. (I'm carrying 10-15 extra pounds, which I'd like to fix, but it's nice that the cardio's still there.)
@nitsua60 I am still more out of shape than I'd really like. But I just tried doing some yoga with my wife last night using the downwarddog app - and i really enjoyed it.
@NautArch Ooh, sell me on that app? We used to have a yoga routine with our smartTV that worked well for us, but then that got put behind a paywall and we haven't managed to get that back into the schedule. And we're both tighter than we'd like. (Lots of long runs and not enough stretching may be good for cardio, but not so good for hamstring tightness....)
@nitsua60 It's a paywall app, but it's pretty cheap. Wife says it's $35/year. It's got a mobile app as well as a web app, but no roku or smart TV app that I can see.
But I'm not sure if you couldn't just pop it open in a browser and then chromecast it to a TV if you have that option.
I've got my gaming PC hooked up to the TV, so I can just acccess a browser directly. But didn't know that last night and just 'listened' and tried to follow what my wife was doing.
Friday just reminds me that I need to prepare the final session of my sci-fi campaign (players have expressed a desire to move on as the sci-fi campaign is a bit aimless)
@Yuuki I'm not sure why I bother to read anything you write anymore. I should know that I'm just going to be angry at whatever (too clever) pun you made. :p
@goodguy5 Technically, that they're editing their question isn't a problem: it hasn't gotten answers yet. They do need to be editing their question correctly though, which they're presently not.
@Someone_Evil Worth noting though that the kind of character who would express an interest in using this scimitar is also the same kind of character who probably did not take the GWF fighting style.
Anyways, I've dumped some stats in the Plane of Math.
@Xirema @Someone_Evil The point about elf-only and not being optimal for strength is a good one. But overall, that thing seems OP. Although now I want a bladesinger doublescimatar with GWM.
@Gwideon For Stress: you have two boxes, one 1-stress-sized, the other 2-stress-sized. Having certain skills at certain levels gives you extra stressboxes. As for skills, you'll want to pick the skills from the appropriate list (better use the default list to get used to the concepts).
You get one skill at level 4, two skills at level 3, three skills at level 2, and four skills at level 1. All other skills are treated as level 0 if you ever need to roll them 'untrained'.
Conceptually: I tend to try to fit make High Concepts more elaborate, usually along the lines of 'adjective noun of something' or 'adjective noun with characteristic_gear', or 'thing-relation characteristic+noun' or the like.
On a more upbeat note, I guess the published version of the Artificer can take an infusion to replicate any common magic item from XGtE, which has some interesting possibilities
@Gwideon Mechanically: under core rules, there's not much reason to have Fight 3 if you take Shoot 4. There are rulings and houserules that change that, but under Core RAW, I think Fight can be safely reduced to 2 or even 1.
You have Investigate-based lie detection, which is a good reason to move Investigate to a +3 or so.
Will at 3 gives you two bonus stress boxes that can be used only in Mental Conflicts. (One 3-stress-sized, the other 4-stress-sized.)
Athletics is rather important for combatants. Consider swapping it with something.
Physique offers bonus stressboxes for Physical Conflicts (only) at levels 1 and 3, which means that it's a candidate for reducing to 1 or increasing to 3, depending on priorities.
@Gwideon Since you moved Investigate down to 1, it's useful to replace Attention to Detail with a different Stunt that would either just give +2 to Empathy for detecting lies (0+2 = 2), or use Notice instead of Empathy for detecting lies. You get to make up your name for the latter Stunt.
@Gwideon What does Astrid do for a living nowadays? Having only Mediocre (+0) Resources implies either not earning much, or spending it all on gambling. The stereotypical answer is of course bounty-hunting, but maybe there's a twist?
@Gwideon Adding that to the High Concept (or other Aspect) would be good since it allows Invoking those Aspects to be more competent in bounty-hunting and/or smuggling jobs. Also Smuggling would probably warrant either Crafts or Burglary for hiding the contraband one way or another. Or a Stunt maybe.
@Gwideon Do you have a third Stunt now? (I still can't read past the first few lines of that field.)
I'd suggest using google docs for fate sheets, you don't get issues with things getting cropped. E.g. here's one I did for another game
Oh gotcha
Looks fine, though I'd replace "compelled to gamble" with whatever it is about her that makes her compelled to gamble. For example, "Compulsive gambler". Compelled to gamble is more of an event; compulsive gambler is more of a description.
That's a little bit nitpicky of me but it's something that stands out, there's a difference in it saying something about who your character is vs merely something that happens to them
I like Aspect names that derive from dialogue/catchphrases rather than just descriptions. Something feels more immersive about It's Just A Flesh Wound compared to Stoic or Pain-Tolerant.
@Yuuki They look pithy, but they are prone to need clarifying subtitles because they can be read both ways (e.g. just a flesh wound can be read as being tough [invoke to resist damage], or as stereotypically underestimating the severity of wounds [invoke for making the wound turn out to be nastier than estimated]).
There's something Fate misses in that it can be helpful to briefly mention what an aspect is about; when Evil Hat designed the Cortex system they included that: you pick up aspect-like things but you also describe what they mean beyond the pithy name, potentially including the history or interpersonal connections implied in it.
(That said, the brief mention is separate from the aspect itself. It's just a description of the aspect. I once had a player submit an entire paragraph as an aspect in a game I was arranging; this needed revision.)
Also, I've found in general: it is helpful to leave blanks in your character sheet. Fill in 2-3 aspects, but not all 5. Fill in maybe 1 stunt, but not all 2-3 stunt slots. Fill in half your skills, but not all of them.
In the experience BESW, Trogdor and I had playing together, our 100% filled out character sheets regularly wound up with aspects, skills, and stunts that were simply not very relevant to the game, and we swapped them out later at milestones. When we started leaving blanks at creation, it meant the things we picked were always relevant — we only filled an aspect in when we needed one, and it would be relevant to what we were about to do!
We were initially like "psh, we're RPG experts, of course we can fill everything out," but then we read from the Evil Hat authors that it was actually recommended and lead to better gameplay to leave blanks... and they were right of course.
In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there is a character in chapter 7, section 2 that has the following property:
I'm unsure how to correctly parse this sentence. Is this supposed to be read as the first 10 fire damage from every single attack or source or is it only the first 10 fire damage he rece...
In Adventurers League play, it is possible to find a "Shadowneedle" (Unbreakable arrow from module CCC-KUMORI-02-04), which has this special text :
One of twenty unbreakable arrows crafted with Shadowsong [A flavored Oathbow from DDEX03-07 that could be found in Adventurers League play in the...
The three following questions currently exist (ordered from newest to oldest):
If I Ready an action, can I then use my reaction for something else?
Reaction while holding a readied action?
Can you forgo your readied action to take an opportunity attack instead?
They are all extremely similar,...
Tiamat can take a Legendary Actions at the end of each turn, and I believe these were listed as reactions. Could an Open Hand Monk's Open Hand Technique prevent these legendary actions entirely?
Per the Way of the Open Hand monk's Open Hand Technique feature:
Whenever you hit a creature with...
I am using the double-bladed scimitar with the Revenant Blade feat from Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.
The double-bladed scimitar's special feature (p. 74):
Special. When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make ...
