@SPavel Age of sail or age of steam?

@KorvinStarmast let's say age of sail

@AnthonyGamache OD&D had an OK high seas combat thing for that system.

@SPavel To avoid crew berthing, you had to be a senior mate or petty officer. Officers had state rooms, and only the captain had a significantly good accommodation, however, depending on the ship there would be a mess/wardroom for the officers to share meals. On some of the larger ships of the line, you'd have a mess for the flag and for the captain ... but that varied a bit.

All around, compared to today's world, getting "good" living conditions wasn't common. The iron men who sailed wooden ships weren't sofies like people today.

Heck, I was on a ship in the 1970's where berthing was tight and hot bunking a common practice.

@KorvinStarmast What accommodations did the petty officers have?

@AnthonyGamache AD&D 1e had at sea combat rules as well ... let me take a look.

@SPavel I wouldn't know but I'm sure they complained about it all the time.

@Yuuki XD

Unrelated: please answer my stupid question here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105028/…

@AnthonyGamache Pages 53-55 of the AD&D 1e DMG has a waterborne/ship borne combat thing ... that would take some work to port into 5e.

@SPavel depends on the size of the ship.

I think you'll be able to find some ideas on that if you look at on line pictures of HMS Victory versus USS Constitution versus HMS Bounty. Deck diagrams.

@Yuuki that is adorable!

@BESW yes, I'd like this. :D

@doppelgreener you have seen the Good Place? XD

The Good Place's premise doesn't really work, unless the PCs are demons from the Bad Place

I dunno about that

it would be all about tricking demons into thinking you are being tortured

and or escaping

and or surviving simple social interaction with people who were picked to be incompatible with you

there are a lot of things it could do or focus on

"hot sim vr" sounds like something very not G-rated lol

@Rubiksmoose It sounds like a bash command

One of those scary alphabet soups

Hmm. Stories are about change. The Good Place is very much about change.

It's just, you know, not about violent or coercive change like we've become accustomed to in our stories.

It'd probably be more of a Golden Sky Stories kind of game?

Spoiler tag fail - I guess it doesn't recognize it as a URL

maybe?

>! spoiler test

nop

Thing is--no matter where in the show you set the game, the show's never been about the plot.

yeah true

but it has been about a similar theme of social interaction

that was what I was highlighting

@trogdor yes!!! All 2 seasons. :)

nice

my father thinks there is a third season coming but I think he mis-read the ending

I think there would be!

If it's renewed

I need to look up if they are planning one

This is America, there will always be more seasons, shows don't end

It's always been about exploring characters and character interactions. The plot's just a series of thin excuses to throw the main characters into situations that force them to examine themselves and each other in new ways. The second season really demonstrates the writers' willingness to throw out any idea, no matter how interesting as a plot, the moment the idea has lost its character-examining sparkle.

Even with something like Marvelous Mrs Maisel, they would bring it back for season 2 if the funding was good enough

@BESW yes, true

"'The Good Place' Renewed for Season 3 at NBC"

oh ok

do all the work for me, oooooh noooooooooooo

[thbbt]

@BESW Which ideas did they throw out?

We're probably getting into spoiler territory. Tread with care please. :)

@SPavel Season 2, episode three, flashed through a dozen plots that any other show might've spent a whole season on, or at least a full episode each, because they'd already done all the character exploring of that sort they wanted to in the first season and had new ideas for the new season.

The end of episode 3 completely changes the season's premise as established in the season 2 opener--in terms of expected narrative arcs in that kind of sitcom it effectively serves as all of season 2 and a pilot for season 3 all on its own.

@BESW and they used it as an excuse to explore as much character stuff they could

@BESW Ehh, I am not confident that developing those ideas further would have been a particularly good season 2

@SPavel I agree. But most shows would've.

I don't know about that

It was basically Season 1 new game plus

Most shows don't retread old ground for no reason

Well, unless it's CSI

Right. And that's sort of the point; part of The Good Place's first season allegory was the writing of a brand-new sitcom, with a new wacky situation each week trying to figure out how to make the chemistry of the show work.

Most shows do retread old ground. The reset button trope exists for a reason.

They blow things up, then return to the status quo. As an extension of the show-writing allegory, Season Two's opening premise was brilliantly apt.

I am just glad they have not laugh track

that has killed some shows by itself for me

A lesser production team would've committed to it for the whole season and milked it dry, but The Good Place isn't about its allegory. It's about the characters, and that's the definitive statement they're making with the rapid montage and the new direction in episode three.

Maybe I don't watch bad shows then, I didn't really see anything unusual about skipping over the stuff they already did

Probably the most egregious pop culture example I can think of off the top of my head is Buffy.

@BESW The only episode of that I've seen was the last one

It was on an airplane media center, I thought hey, it's that Buffy thing everyone loves, let's give it a go

And then it was the series finale.

@SPavel and how'd that work for you then? lol

@Rubiksmoose It was ok, not particularly memorable

Buffy proved to execs that complex season arcs can be popular even if you're not David Lynch, but early seasons were still paint-by-numbers "monster of the week, someone learns a lesson they'll forget next week" standard fare; the season arc advancement tended to be tacked on or relegated to a handful of dedicated episodes scattered across the season.

@SPavel I'd imagine that is really the best you could hope for in watching only the finale of a show. I've never actually seen any of it.

Later seasons of Buffy became more focused on their season arcs and character development, but the character development arcs started locking into Whedon's now-recognizable signature pattern of "take a character the fans love, promise them happiness, rip it away from them as horribly as possible, milk the drama, repeat."

Killing off the stars means great savings on salary

@BESW Awww man now I'm thinking about Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog

It became dismally predictable in ways that actively and depressingly subverted the show's original theme.

@BESW I really do hate his style specifically because he can't seem to stop doing it

it's become meta-predictable that he will

What happens when you get Joss Whedon to write a show with Sean Bean

Will Sean Bean die, or will he live on because a negative negative is a positive

Oh, Joss doesn't kill main characters very often. Not permanently, anyway.

Much more often he brutally sacrifices their love interests.

@BESW Sean bean will be the love interest

...however, you do make a good point: Sean Bean should totally play the lead in a live action remake of Captain Scarlet.

In fact to make it more severe, Sean Bean will be every other character's love interest

The characters all compete to win Sean Bean's love, while he sort of hangs out

@BESW that is just horrible

jossing doesn't involve killing characters usually, i mean, you lose half the suffering you can capitalise on if you do that

he did it with Inara and Mal Reynolds in Firefly, and then Zoe and Wash in Serenity

and only 1 of those 4 people died

Technically on the Internet "jossing" means dramatically revealing that a popular fan theory is extremely wrong.

@BESW oh okay. i've heard it used both ways.

I call the pattern described above "Whedon Syndrome."

like "mal & inara got jossed"

For some reason, I had a visual image of the Ted Nugent album "cat scratchy fever" pop into my head when I read this question. I guess I am being naughty ...

I think this question should be put on hold until what OP defines as animal is made clear.

@Rubiksmoose Isn't 'animal' a creature type

@SPavel no, not that I could find

It is in, say, 3.5.

But even then, it'd be important to confirm whether the querent is using it as a term of art.

I have confirmed that it is not among the monster types. They probably want beast, but as asked his question could get responses about kittens and or dragons and that seems like a very wide net to cast. It also seems to be not OP's intent if their examples are anything to go by

Uh, we talking about a beast?

@KorvinStarmast it is unclear

maybe I'm just being overly pedantic and it is clear terminology, but I thought it was worth bringing to people's attention. If only to be corrected.

A beast!

@BESW XD

Morning all

@Ben Where is it morning?

Australia

It's get-me-my-coffee-o-clock for me.

Seconded

@Ben It's not even midnight in Vienna

It's also the 16th

@SPavel It's beer thirty in Texas. :)

(I was making an Australia-Austria joke)

(I am not in Vienna)

see also: australia-hungary i.redd.it/5u2lnhnbubbz.png

My brain isn't on yet lol

It's almost student bedtime here

@kviiri 4 AM?

@SPavel I can't see Australia Hungary, it was dissolved after the war. :p

@KorvinStarmast I'm hungry?

Ben, I am usually hungry when I wake up, which can be solved with breakfast tacos (among other fine choices ....)

@KorvinStarmast The coffee shop near me sells Eggs Benedict Wraps

Good grief... not even my keyboard has woken up yet

Kickstarter for Yohance: The Movie. OMG.

I'm usually not hungry in the morning so I skip breakfast, but these past few days I've been ravenous

@SPavel oh, you got me there

I need to make one more PC for my game that might not be happening tonight. Lol

@Ben Intel or AMD?

Ok I got that one. The caffeine seems to have kicked in

@Ben So you've got your Warrior, your Rogue, and now you're making the Sorcerer?

Actually I... kinda lost those

Lol

Huh?

Started over. I asked the party which ones they wanted and they said Rogue Warrior and Necromancer

Ah, right. So now you just gotta make the Warrior?

Yeah

Gonna make him a variant human

Seems simple enough.

Something I need to check: the Martial Adept feat - does that require a minimum level

?

Nope.

Hm...

Nah. Honestly I think the Battle Master Archetype is really the only one worth using anyway, so I'll just give him a different feat. Probably Dungeon Delver

Ok... Giving them a Longsword, so they can 2-hand it, but also giving them a shield, which works with Dueling

hey there @KorvinStarmast @CTWind

That still works out... right?

@Ben It does, although I see the Warrior as more of a greatsword guy, personally.

@Miniman Tank or DPS

That's the role he has

As in, one or the other

[cue taco ad] Why not both?

...In which case if I go Tank, I might give him the Defense fighting style

@Miniman Lol

@Ben With Defense and Heavy Armor Master, he's gonna be a tank even using greatsword instead of a shield.

Not defense... Protection

@Miniman You have my attention...

@Ben plz no

@Miniman or defense with sentinel for extra protection goodness

@NautArch Yep, that works too.

@NautArch Sold

Does battlemaster have other reaction uses?

hey there @NautArch

@NautArch Some.

@Miniman maneuvers?

> Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.

Does that include things like "Misty Step"?

Nope, teleports avoid it

> Parry. When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier,

@NautArch Excellent...

Maybe don't pick that maneuver

There are also monsters that don't trigger OAs. I have sentinel and my small often uses them

swashbucklers too

@NautArch Exactly

I'm the DM in this situation. Lol

From the other side...don't steal that thunder too much.

Each PC has an advantage over certain parts/areas of the dungeon, but I want there to be the occasional situation where things don't work

> Thunder Thief. When someone else in the scene succeeds with style, you get +2 on your next roll. This effect can be cumulative.

For example, The first level of the dungeon is going to be filled with undead, so a guy with a tough AC and a big sword is going to be having a merry old time with that. But, when it comes to the boss, if he has "Misty Step" (Or something similar), that will change things up

@BESW So if 3 others have succeeded with style you get +6?

Yup! Which makes it very easy to steal their thunder.

Lol

...can a non-spellcaster class use a scroll to cast a spell?

Not going to put that in this game. Just a thought that popped into my head

They can not