« first day (3858 days earlier)      last day (228 days later) » 

12:03 AM
Q: Does the spell Misty Step transit through the Ethereal Plane?

forestfeyIn older D&D lore, most teleportation type spells worked like a short and (almost?) instantaneous transit through the Ethereal Plane. I'm working on a monster species with Succubus ancestry, being able to cast Misty Step. So, does it work via the Ethereal Plane, or is it something entirely differ...

4 hours later…
3:42 AM
@BESW TIL what ashcan release is:
Q: What is an "ashcan" release?

SevenSidedDieWhat are "ashcans"? What are their purpose? Where does the name come from?

Ah yes.
TRPGs: when a medium is so new, all its jargon is nipped from older mediums.
Looks exciting, and I'd even buy it if I had time for RPGs right now
I remember when people were haggling over "theater of the mind" in 5e.
My brother bought be the original Mass effect about 10 years ago, but I've still not played it.
@BESW heh
3:53 AM
(I got more than 300 rep off that kerfuffle.)
Back when you cared for such things 😜
[checks] Ah yes, the nostalgic yesteryear of 2016.
In other news: Today's suhoor went off without a hitch thankfully
Hooray! Have your suhoors been hitchful recently?
@BESW oftentimes
I don't have the best sleep cycle most of the time, so then making sure I'm up for suhoor isn't always easy
4:01 AM
Ah. I know that feeling.
Many years I go into fasting with "Midnight is early bedtime" as my standard. And I don't feel good if I eat right after I get up, so I need to schedule that into my wakeup time too.
We've had a good start to the evening if we start eating before midnight, and that's on days where we're not fasting.
It's 5am here and I need to be up before 9am
That's the plan
That's the plan every night/morning
@BardicWizard Grats on the jab!
4:16 AM
I was thinking more Pinky and the Brain, but I'll accept that too
@BardicWizard JABGRATS!
@BESW never heard of it
(Image is from a background in the show "Twelve Forever.")
Goin to plot my sleep plan on sleepyti.me from under my weighted blanket
4:41 AM
@BESW aww, thanks! It’s been just over a week since my first and it’s just been bugging me cause I sleep weirdly
@AncientSwordRage thanks!
I got my second two days ago, and both times I had trouble sleeping for at least a night or two because of the sore arm.
@BESW oof, I’m sorry
Congrats on the vaccine though!
I'm just glad that so far I haven't had anything worse than a couple days of feeling achy and not sleeping well.
@BESW Yay, that’s good
I’m doing three final projects, cramming for AP tests, researching an essay, and writing a thing this week, so it’s probably not the vaccine causing my lack of sleep
That is a great many things
4:50 AM
(is tired can't brain)
@BESW yep! Then add that I’m going back to in person school for the last few weeks...
I have become increasingly frustrated with the D&D 5e authors' decision to describe fantastical magical effects, which do not exist and which we cannot reasonably intuit the workings of, with ambiguous "natural" language.
How many APs?
@bobble 2 tests, one class (WHAP and AP euro)
I’m taking like 3 next year though
I see you and raise you 5 APs
(I did 5 APs last year too, but the tests were weird and school was so nonexistent that I had ample study time)
5:02 AM
They only offer sophs WHAP/euro so I’m only doing that this year
I think I ended up taking 6 APs my senior year, lo these many years ago. That was a stressful time. It did make completing my degree notably cheaper though.
I gtg to bed, night!
I shall sleep as well :)
nice to know there are some other crazy AP people here
(My high school didn't get APs until it was too late for me to take them.)
> I have become increasingly frustrated with the D&D 5e authors' decision to describe fantastical magical effects, which do not exist and which we cannot reasonably intuit the workings of, with ambiguous "natural" language.
@sptrashcan Point. Details?
Which one d'you have in mind?
5:22 AM
Today, it's the definition of "target".
Spells do not state, as a line item, their targets.
There are quite a few features that key off being the target of a spell.
Hilarity ensues.
That must be extra frustrating since it was already a solved problem within the same franchise.
Yes. It's enough to make me briefly nostalgic for 4e.
(4e has some real problems if you want to run it without computer assistance, but ambiguity is not one of them.)
Aye. The closure of the online support systems effectively killed it as a playable game for me, regardless of any reluctance to play it for personal reasons.
I feel like 5e is in an uncomfortable position where it has heard of fiction-first and thinks it's a neat idea but also still wants to be a tactical simulation board game.
May 6 '19 at 8:06, by BESW
Then 5e came along like "unite the factions! The new edition will be a universal connector for all previous editions! Pathfinder apostates will return to the fold! players and GMs can all individually choose which variants to use! ALL WILL LOVE D&D NEXT AND DESPAIR."
But all we got was unlimited rice pudding.
5:32 AM
From the designer perspective, I'm sure it must feel like the best of both worlds: engage in as much crunchy rules fiddling as you want, and if you happen to create unresolvable ambiguities, well, Let The DM Decide!
Did you know that Tenser's Floating Disk can cross arbitrary distances instantaneously? It used to have a speed, but now it doesn't! It just moves to within 30 feet of you if it can, as soon as it can, achieving arbitrary velocity in the process...
It's a particularly bad approach given that there's quite a bit of popular fiction that has careful consideration and exploitation of the exact mechanics of supernatural abilities as a major theme. But you're not supposed to think about how magic works...
(Admittedly, trying to balance abilities at the fictional rather than the mechanical level is an amazingly hard puzzle, but then, spells aren't really balanced around their mechanical effects either...)
As an amateur designer, I take this kind of thing as a lesson to be more like Verity Lambert and less like Steven Moffat: unnecessary explanations are unnecessary. The more space I leave open, the more room there is for my audience to insert their own needs if any, or to simply move on if they don't need to dwell on it.
I'd have thought that was half the fun of a magic system like D&D's. Given these spells that do these very specific things, how do you do X?
I think it's okay to be vague about how it works if you're precise about what it does, or vice versa, but not both.
It's one of the reasons my card-based TRPG is stallling out; it requires more precision than I feel qualified to bring to the project.
Well, for better or worse, I do have Programmer Mind.
5:45 AM
I don't know Tenser's Floating Disk from D&D, but I do know it from Discworld :-D
6:03 AM
I remember going back to 4e a while back and doing some analysis, and I found that because the monster defense progression is more or less constant, you could effectively implement bounded accuracy by getting rid of defense progression scaling and then removing all feats and magic bonuses to accuracy. This made me briefly excited.
Then I took a look at the stat block for a 4e svirfneblin and remembered that bounded accuracy was the least of my problems.
Partway through my 4e campaign I implemented the L1E tables for monster stats and it vastly improved the gameplay but also made me realize that I could've just removed all numeric progression entirely and made it a flat-number game with progression defined by increased feature access.
I also modified all GM rolled damage to streamline my side of the table: if the average damage of the original dice expression was A, then my new dice expression was [A/3.5]d6 + [A/2].
It made my damage output much less swingy and let me make all my rolls with only a d20 and a handful of d6s.
I have a personal antipathy for "progression" systems that consist of "number go up", and I particularly dislike systems that make you choose between "interesting thing" and "number go up".
Aye, same.
I've ripped numerical progression out of most of the systems I've played for the last several years, and in many cases I've removed cumulative progression altogether; among other things, it helps reduce friction when your friends can't show up to every session.
I've been tinkering with non-numeric-incremental progression systems for a while now. It's harder to think of new toys than numbers that go up, but it's also way more interesting IMO.
The only game I'm designing which has any kind of cumulative progression, it's an expression of the work you're putting into the world and is held in the progression of NPCs rather than in the PC or even a relationship stat.
(It's a mechanical implementation of my Traveling Librarians Game Guide.)
6:20 AM
Yeah. I've also thought about fantastic expressions of the idea that power comes from being at the apex of a pyramidal supply chain - basically, combat mages as fighter pilots.
I've also got a game where PCs' stats are phrasal attributes, and progression consists of adding to or changing what your phrase means (or changing the phrase itself, Fate-aspect style).
Interesting, though I'm personally leery of meta-narrative mechanics because they tend to be disassociative.
Think, like, if Luke Skywalker had the stat I want to be closer to my father. It starts out meaning that he wants to enlist in the Empire because his father was a soldier; but when he learns that one of the Empire's leaders killed his father, it turns into a revenge stat.
All three films have him retaining that desire of being closer to his father, but what that means changes many times, and very dramatically.
Yeah, I understand. I do think it's neat, and I have enjoyed games that focus on narrative structure, but they're not what I want when I come to play a "role playing game" if that makes sense.
Our play goals are very different, I think.
6:28 AM
Quite possibly!
I was probably a lot more like you eight to ten years ago.
I get a lot of where you seem to be coming from, it's just vastly deprioritized for me these days.
When I am specifically playing a "role playing game", I'm less interested in crafting a "good story" and more interested with engaging with a fictional scenario as if it were real, through a fictional character as if I was them.
I'm not opposed to playing games that are explicitly about creating a narrative. I like Microscope a lot. But I don't think of it as being in the same category.
Ah, you're into bleed.
That's one of the terms for overlapping player and character as closely as possible.
One "bleeds" into the other.
Hm. Maybe? It's less about being the character, per se, and more about living in the world. I like the feeling that a fictional place has life beyond what I can perceive, that things are happening outside of my view into it. Treating it explicitly as a narrative constructs undermines that sense of... non-solipsism?
Audience, not author?
6:38 AM
Participant, not observer.
But not creator either.
Not beyond the bounds of my fictional person, no.
(These boundaries are not necessarily as set in stone as I might be making them seem. I don't mind inventing parts of the world. But it would bum me out if I asked what was over the next hill and was asked "well, what do you want there to be?")
Q: Are there any mechanical issues with removing the concept of "triggers" for readied actions?

Alex FSince I first read the Ready Action rules, the concept of a trigger rubbed me the wrong way. The idea that a character cannot adapt and improvise in the moment seems odd to me, and when I imagine them setting up to do something, I don't imagine them having to look for a very specific thing to hap...

Using the taxonomy from the MDA paper (users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) I prioritize discovery, fantasy, expression, and challenge in more or less that order.
I spend probably more than 3/4 of my time at the table as a GM, and was in the GM chair for months before I ever got to run a single character, so my awareness of the illusion and the work put into sustaining it makes it difficult for me to 'forget' the creative act I'm participating in.
In the last five years or so I've come to prefer instead to invite my friends to share the creative act at whatever level they're comfortable with. It never means demanding that a player decide something about the world, but it does mean inviting them to whenever they wish.
But it does mean destroying the illusion that I'm somehow merely the medium conducting a ritual seance in which we commune with a realm beyond our own.
6:56 AM
That's fair. I've GMed myself a time or two, but when I'm in that seat I like to create a situation with a lot of things to find and fiddle with, and enjoy discovering what the players will do with them. I don't really think of myself as an illusionist, because I am "playing fair" to a certain extent in that things are where and how I decided them to be and I don't go back on those decisions.
Heh. My players have never been predictable enough to make that possible.
I'm currently playing a character in a game with a like-minded GM, and he's just about as excited about us stumbling through and upsetting the world he's been building as we are about poking through it.
I've done "set up the world like a chessboard and let the PCs smash through it like a pack of ravenous bowling balls" and it's a ton of fun. But it always goes in directions I have no preparation for, which is part of the fun.
Admittedly, he does have the advantage that we're playing only a few hours a week and we have to tell him where we plan to go ahead of time. I know that the world is in some sense being assembled in front of us, but it's being assembled according to someone else's sensibilities based on information I'm not yet privy to and I enjoy that mystery.
(Besides, my friends usually have much better ideas for what's "really happening" than I do, so long before I started explicitly inviting them to participate in worldbuilding, I'd be tossing out my notes and leaning into their ideas mid-campaign anyway.)
Part of the joy I get now from collaborative creation, is that nobody knows where it's going and so everybody gets to discover something mysterious because it's literally unfolding as we go.
I'm right there with everybody else going "omigosh look at how these two things connect in ways we didn't anticipate!"
7:05 AM
Yeah. That's a sometimes food for me. I like collaborative worldbuilding discussions, but I also want to be able to opt out of that in favor of enjoying different things.
I mean I'm always going to be conscious of the artificial nature of what we're doing but I don't want to have my attention forced onto it all the time.
Hmm. How would you feel if other players in the same game had those kinds of conversations and contributions, without you being pressured to participate?
I think where I draw the line is the distinction between idle discussion and suggestions that may or may not be incorporated, versus an actual system rule that formalizes manipulating the narrative.
It's a fuzzy aesthetic distinction, but for example, Feng Shui is on one side of the line but Fate is on the other.
7:32 AM
In Feng Shui, if you're fighting in a kitchen and it's your go, you can say "so I reach over and grab the wok full of hot oil and throw it at him" and everyone nods and it's fine, that wok always existed because of course it did, why wouldn't it. In Fate, there's a whole process for establishing a thing in the scene and everyone is acutely conscious that it's a New Plot Element that is there because somebody used their god-like narrative power to cause it to come into being.
Aesthetic and subjective! But it matters to me.
7:53 AM
It's like the difference between watching a movie and watching a behind-the-scenes documentary. They're both interesting but they don't engage in the same way.
3 hours later…
10:43 AM
A thing that I think makes a big difference between the 'number goes up' option being boring vs. interesting is whether the number is *meaningful* or a purely arbitrary part of the 'boardgame' more than an RPG.

E.g. in GURPS, raising your engineering skills into the mid-20s allows you invent some cutting edge stuff, and likely be one of the people who push the technology level forward in a setting; having wealth at certain levels lets you afford a ship instead of travelling the hard way; having Running and Breath Control both at 16+ means you can generally switch from overland travel being
In that scenario, though, aren't the numbers themselves not as important as the unlocked capabilities? It sounds like you could have the latter without the former.
@sptrashcan Well that's . . . reversing causality?
Capabilities unlocking is a result of being able to overcome high difficulties, either at all, or reliably.
(This is somewhat undermined in invention rules by minimum skill requirements existing alongside of difficulties, but outside that it works smoother.)
A friend once brought this discussion up regarding the video games Factorio and Civilization
The wealth example is probably cleanest. It's not that you need a special tag to be able to just unlock purchasing a yacht. It's that a yacht has a price range starting at so-and-so, and you need to save up a certain amount and then also pay the maintenance to keep her running. And to save up enough, you need income/wealth/savings.
Okay, but I don't think I'm so much reversing causality as skipping a step. You invested resources, so your number is X, so you can do things with difficulty Y, and because thing Z has difficulty Y, you can now do thing Z. Or: You invested resources, so you can now do thing Z.
10:52 AM
In Civilization, you progress mainly in numbers. More citizens, more technology points, more techs unlocked, better buildings to produce more economy stuff like tech and culture, and more units. You unlock capabilities, such as fielding a rifleman instead of a pikeman --- but the rifleman is basically just a pikeman with improved stats and the gameplay doesn't change much because of the change.
@sptrashcan Uhh, maybe? Point is, the unlocking emerges naturally from the properties of the game world, not assigned purely ad hoc.
In Factorio, you also progress in numbers (resource production, technology granting bonuses to building efficiency) but the progress is more tangible, and unlocks gradually start changing the way the game plays as you adapt the unlocked features into your skill set.
Okay, but the partitioning of knowledge into discrete skills, and the assignment of skills to tasks, and the assignment of tasks to difficulties are kind of ad hoc. Fundamentally, it's a choice as to what your capability graph looks like (and whether you want capabilities to have fuzzy or sharp boundaries).
Well, you can't entirely eliminate the quantisation of game elements.
But you can make some things more smooth.
(There is usually a trade-off between playability and smoothness, but it's not a zero sum and there are ways to make the sum of the two more favourable in aggregate.)
But even with some grainy steps, I found that when numbers mean something within the game world, and the game world doesn't magically rubberband to PC progression, then the numbers going up are more interesting.
Some things really are measurable on a single axis. You can't have "a lot of money" without having "some money" also. Some things are not. It's more or less equally an abstraction to say "learning one knife trick has no impact on learning other knife tricks" versus "once you get a certain level of good at knife, you are equally good at all the knife tricks of a certain difficulty."
Well, there's also the distinction between contested and uncontested skill. I can get arbitrarily good at throwing a knife at predictable targets, but when I go head to head with Larry the Knife-Dodger who has spent an equal amount of time in front of a tennis ball launcher that shoots knives...
11:02 AM
@sptrashcan You can design systems where you can improve separate sets of a 'Skill'. It has been done before, it will be done again. But that seems to be a separate matter entirely from numbers having coherent in-world meanings at all.
(Into how many competences a character is split is a question that different systems answer very differently, with answer-numbers ranging from a handful to hundreds.)
But I am nitpicking, and I do agree with the general idea that progression that opens new options is more interesting than a red queen's race, whether that new option comes through a number meeting a threshold or is just chosen directly from an expanding set of available improvements.
@sptrashcan Interesting paper, I'd guess I was: Expression, Discovery, narrative in that order. Maybe some others in a lesser degree as well
Admittedly, I'm probably favorably disposed toward discrete binary capabilities partly because I have spent too much time with the d20, aka "The Die That Makes People Bad At Things They Are Good At."
I should also probably emphasise that the thresholds don't need to be a matter of 'you need to be this tall to ultramarathon'. Instead, it's that certain changes in how your resources flow gradually mean that different tactics become viable and eventually reliable.

So with the (somewhat clumsy and not exactly realistic) running example, it's not like some sort of Feat you unlock. But your fatigue economy becomes such that it becomes reasonable to run some, make some recovery rolls, and run some more, and get a better per-day mileage becomes better than a normal person walking nonstop for t
@sptrashcan mumble mumble take 10
11:14 AM
Yeah, I can see how it works, but I'm also not drawn to that level of granularity. I acknowledge that saying "you can do Z" is practically and functionally equivalent to "you have a very good chance of succeeding when you try to do Z" and if you want to break things down by probabilities of success against uncontested skill checks then capabilities as a result of rising success chance are an emergent property, more or less.
for some I people I think there's a degree to which it feels more satisfying to be able to do something via the emergent property than it is to just have a trait that says "and now you can Z"
It basically comes down to whether you measure progress by causes or effects, I guess.
(and how far up the causal chain you want to go)
the extra step of figuring out how to be able to do the thing, as opposed to just buying the ability to do the thing, is a kind of game itself
And whether that's a bug or a feature is very much down to taste.
@sptrashcan Granularity level can be a separate matter too. You can have pretty rough granularity while still retaining meaningfulness. You will probably have more all-or-nothing splits, but if that's not a problem for the group, then it's not a problem.
12:09 PM
...does that star mean somebody got my unlimited rice pudding reference? And was it someone other than Troggy?
wasn't me
I've been barely paying attention to this room for the past,.. month at least
Unrelatedly: rejoice, for Beau Sheldon's website is back online. Which means I can do this again.
I even thought you meant your latest star but you meant the one before that
@trogdor hands up!
@BESW Sadly I did not
12:20 PM
12:55 PM
Animon Story by Zak Barouh. Take on the role of Kids who team up with their very own monster buddies called Animon. Together you'll go on adventures, grow as friends, and maybe even save the world!
@KorvinStarmast Am I just being blind to what youre talking about? I really dont see anything mentioning CR in the description.
@ThomasMarkov Nope, my memory playing tricks on me. Deleted the answer. Just got my Tasha's out, and what I recalled as being there wasn't there.
Okay, there is a discrepancy between Tasha's and the UA version (and DDB has the UA version).
It's worht mentioning, but it isn't a huge deal.
@ThomasMarkov checking DDB ... to reconfirm, but I don't think CR is there either since the UA I have on file doesn't show it.
It just has a dash on the CR field
It also has Proficiency bonus on the same line, which might be a trip-up spot
1:05 PM
yeah, my brain I think mixed prof bonus and CR until I looked in Tasha's, so Thomas is right on the "where's the CR?" point.
@Someone_Evil There's a lot of white space between them in the printing, but not on DDB.
@ThomasMarkov my DDB is inside of Naut's shared campaign, so I had to go back to the UA file to read the UA version.
in other words, my DDB has the TCoE rendering of the spell
@KorvinStarmast what does "at higher levels" say on your DDB?
@ThomasMarkov At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the creature assumes the higher level for that casting wherever it uses the spell’s level in its stat block
That's incorrect
That matches the UA language
Tasha's actually is a bit different
The printed version says:
> When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, use the higher level wherever the spell's level appears in the stat block.
1:11 PM
@ThomasMarkov yeah, and yet the notes under my entry says this: Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything , pg. 109 As usual, DDB, sloppy
Posting on the Tasha's thread now
let me see what roll20 says since I got the Tasha's there ...
The compendium entry seems to agree with printed
Roll 20 says this in the compendium: At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd Level or higher, use the higher level wherever the spell's level appears in the stat block
@Someone_Evil yeppers
Updoot my forum post
VTC'd here, I think each subclass should be its own question.
1:23 PM
I think it's probably OK to put all of them in there, since the Class is what they are asking about, but it is harder to answer that's for sure. I'd not mind seeing related questions with each subclass ...
1:47 PM
@BESW that's excellent
@ThomasMarkov I agree that each subclass should be its own question, I disagree that it should be Main class + Subclass on each question. The main class should at the very least be asked about on its own, and I think that there's no need to rehash the main class with each subclass. I'm not like 100% against it, but I think that just focusing on the main class on its own would be better.
It makes no sense to evaluate the main class separately from the subclass since you always get subclass features on top of it.
You have to consider the full set of class features a character will have to determine if something is balanced.
I disagree, because the base features can be compared to the base features of any other class independantly of the subclass features
Right, but an OP base class might be balanced out by underperforming subclass features.
@BaconyRevanant Do D&D5 classes always have the same distribution of feature oomph between main-class and sub-class sections of a class?
1:58 PM
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica Nope.
It doesnt help to say "this base class is OP" when the overall base+sub class is actually balanced because the sub features were underpowered.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica No, different classes have different distributions of core features to sub features. Warlocks are a good case for that
OP would then tone down the base class, and then combine it with the underpowered sub class features and get a woefully underpowered class because we didnt consider the class as a whole.
Although now that I think about it, most subclasses grant features to their core class on an average of 4 different levels
@ThomasMarkov I don't think that's a realistic concern
The base class can easily be evaluated on its own, and while the subclasses can't, that just means that we need to evaluate the base class first.
That makes exactly zero sense.
But like I said, I'm not 100% against it, I just think that the base class should also be posted on its own
2:04 PM
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica Not in the least
@ThomasMarkov No, I'm sure that it makes sense
You can evaluate a base class by comparing it to other base classes that are supposed to fill a similar role
@BaconyRevanant That evaluation is meaningless without considering the subclass features.
I have to disagree
No, it isn't
Possibly of use:
Q: What is the best way to ask for a whole homebrew class review?

HellSaintI am aware of the how to ask a homebrew review guidelines, however, I feel that a whole class review (specifically for D&D 5e here, but may apply to other systems and editions) is a problem by itself. We got one recently, and I even thought about posting mine up for review but I decided not to be...

2:06 PM
When I compare Fighter and Rogue I do not compare all possible subclass sets to all others in a wacky round robin thing
I can, and do, compare the actual classes. Doing the alternative would require... probably at least 50 compairsons
Are we claiming we need 0 subclasses, 1, or all (however many that may be)?
@Someone_Evil I am claiming it should be Base + 1 Subclass per post.
Can you evaluate the balance of a class without knowing its subclasses
@Someone_Evil I am saying that the ideal split for the class should be 1 question for the base class, and 1 question for each subclass
@Medix2 No, because the answer will always be "this might be balanced depending on how strong or weak the subclass is".
2:09 PM
Or, big or small if using that PoV
And I don't know if you can evaluate balance, but you can definitely evaluate themeing, toe-stepping, guideline/trend adherence, wording, and the introduction of things that are just completely out of place in 5e
> Multiple subclasses might be good for a class with the indent of being shared, but it makes the reviewing process way harder. I'll heavily recommend asking with only one subclass. It should be possible to also ask for reviews of other subclasses against that one.
(quoted from top answer to above meta question)
(also could someone please edit "indent" -> "intent")
@bobble got it
What planet did I come from when writing that answer that made me use the phrase "back of the napkin"??? That's SO not me XD
My point is that the subclass features are part of the character, and so are essential to determining the balance of the character. When you get power discrepancies as wide as Battlemaster Fighter and Purple Dragon Knight fighter, it just doesn't make sense to evaluate a core class without the subclass features. BM Fighter and PDK Fighter have the same core features, but one is quite good, and one is a pile of smoking garbage.
2:14 PM
@Medix2 Yeah, and balance is a... nuanced thing, to say the least
/me points towards the "seriously gimped one-trick-pony race boom a few years ago"
@ThomasMarkov Right, but you reached that evaluation purely from comparing the subclass features to each other. You didn't need the base class features to reach that conclusion.
Yeah I agree, or at least, I think the assessment one would get from analyzing a single class is less helpful than what comes from assessing a class + sub combo, since you get just as much and then more
But I also question whether it's even too big right now with all three subs anyway so...
Even without those features, the character is still a fighter who gets 4 attacks in a turn with their +3 [weapon of choice]
Quadratic Wizards, Linear Fighters, and logarithmic PDKs.
Talk about stunted growth, wow
I voted to leave open btw
2:22 PM
We only have two questions about the PDK, and one of them is "is it really this bad?" And the answer is "it's as good as other underpowered choices until level 18, then it's terrible".
@Medix2 I just think OP is more likely to get more help by splitting it up.
I dont want to handle all three subs, but I dont want to get booed for only reviewing one sub.
Stumbled upon this question with the following comment: "Downvoting b/c I believe there are better venues for homebrew critiques than RPGSE (/r/UnearthedArcana, OotS forums, ect). SE is not really suited for extended discussion on a topic, but for selecting a single, definitive answer. To give this the guidance it needs to shine, I suggest you seek out another site."
And I imagine that sentiment is not unique. It's a lot to tackle all at once, and it doesn't hurt to split it up.
@Medix2 lol flagged NLN.
Ehh, I think it's useful still
And then there's people who think eg. "bad at combat, good at social" is balanced, and those who don't
Downvote explanations are probably one of the most useful comments to me actually
@kviiri The wonderful world of balance being a messy web of "uhh... 2 + 2 ≈ 1.3 + 2.9????"
2:27 PM
Well, like I said, I feel like the base class could be evaluated on its own, but I also feel like it's not detrimental to include it with the subclasses. It's not like I'm gonna downvote it or VTC for it being included with each subclass
I just think that having it as a separate post that can referenced to instead of having to reevaluate for each subclass would be more efficient
@ThomasMarkov And it's gone now :(
@Medix2 The downvote reason had nothing to do with the question though
It has everything to do with the question though
Same reason people downvote tool rec questions for not fitting the site
They felt it was a poor fit for the site, so they downvoted, and then they actually explained that reasoning, allowing others to think on it and show their agreement with the idea as well
But eh, it's gone now, oh well
It didn't really do anything useful hanging around on the question. It's a comment about a class of questions, which is a discussion that should be had on meta if it needs having
@KorvinStarmast Answering your question about your highwayman rogue has got me really wanting to get into a D&D game again. I'm experiencing D&D withdrawals -_-
2:36 PM
Yeah that's a good point, Someone
@Medix2 You're just being efficient. No need to waste half a napkin, man!
(he he he)
Q: Can a Druid wildshape into a Bestial Spirit form, and if they can, what are the mechanical effects of doing so for the Spirit's stat block?

Payden K. PringleSummon Beast (Summon Bestial Spirit, freely available UA version of the spell) Note that I'm linking to the UA because it is freely available and the content for this spell is almost identical to its released version in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. This is a question that carries within it man...

2:56 PM
@KorvinStarmast Also, I added a segment on why Sharpshooter might still be a good choice to pick up, even if you can't make excellent use of the -5/+10 portion of the feat right away.
3:33 PM
@BaconyRevanant While that's a really powerful feature, I always worried that combats never really start 120 ft. away for practicality sake.
It may not start 120 feet away, but rogues are incredibly mobile thanks to the ability to dash as a bonus action, and even if you can't make use of the full 120 feet, you can usually get 40-60 feet away from a target a majority of the time.
3:52 PM
To be honest, I don't often see Archer players at our table kite. They kind of plonk themselves down and make like a turret. I know we've had intelligent encounters kite like that. That could be a very interesting playstyle if we made more encounters to facilitate it.
I think our players that play front-liners are just really good at controlling enemy movement. I know I ran a Muscle Rogue that would lock down 2-3 enemies at a time, and we also had a Sentinel Glaive user.
We also have a build a couple of us have workshopped with a Dragonborn Paladin that can lock enemies EXACTLY 30 ft. away from themselves using a combination of features.
@Axoren Well, if they haven't had the need to kite, then there's no real reason to, and it's certainly useful to be able to stick somewhat nearby in case things go pear-shaped for the frontliners
I'd certainly like to hear about that paladin build though, that sounds pretty interesting
Dragon Fear (XGE) + Champion Challenge (SCAG)
You can't go home AND you can't stay here.
Dragon fear forces them to move 30 feet away, and challenge forces them to approach within 30 feet, nice
Well, they aren't forced to run. They just cannot willingly approach. Champion Challenge makes it so that they cannot willingly retreat.
Even if it does not affect all combatants in its totality, it still partitions the fight into a donut.
Which is exactly what you want out of controller-type abilities. It takes some portion of enemies out of the fight while you deal with a smaller portion.
@Axoren That'll give them the Runaround
4:03 PM
What does this Paladin prefer as their weapon of choice?
@BaconyRevanant A bow.
While not synergistic with Smite, a bow is still a perfect weapon for an Extra Attacker
4:37 PM
at least D&D allows kiting archers at all
[glares at DA RPG]
5:08 PM
Bow makes sense too, since you're trying to keep enemies at a set distance.
Also, since you can Smite with your fists, you can be a switch hitter while dealing with anyone that approaches with reasonable competence.
Or you can just pull a dagger with your other hand while holding your bow
Q: Are you aware that you are cursed when you attune to a cursed magical item?

Eddy BravoAre you aware that you are cursed when you attune to a cursed magical item? For example, if you are attuned to a sword of vengence, would you be aware that the item is cursed, even if you desire to keep a hold of the blade as it describes in the item description (which would therefore justify a ...

5:24 PM
@Axoren smiting with fist seems cooler though
@BaconyRevanant Yes, 100%
If you pick up Fighting Style: Unarmed, then it's actually just as good as a shortsword.
Unfortunately, holding the Bow in the other hand counts against earning the d8 for hits
So the most you can get is d6 punches
6:04 PM
Alternatively, dip a few levels in Monk for those sweet d10 unarmed hits
Ya know, just a little 17 level dip
6:22 PM
@BaconyRevanant there is bound to be someone looking for another player. :)
@BaconyRevanant ok, will have a look
6:46 PM
Q: How long should someone be out of action when they mark Trauma?

Glazius9 stress is certainly more than you can mark at once, but clearing out all of your stress between scores can be a bit of a gamble in overindulgence if it's on the low side. So let's say that one of my PCs, Candlestick, starts a score with like 2 or 3 stress, pushes themselves once, and then has e...

@KorvinStarmast Yeah, I just always feel really awkward asking someone if I can join their game, so like, I usually just sit around hoping someone will ask me if I'm interested, and occasionally dropping hints that I like D&D. Unsurprisingly, this tactic usually fails.
(note, I am not currently attempting to employ this tactic)
@BaconyRevanant I joined NautArch's game by saying, "hey Im looking for a game"
(please note that this is not an attempt at reverse psychology)
@BaconyRevanant This specific sentence? Or the thing before?
7:00 PM
This sentence is an attempt at reverse psychology, albeit a bad one.
@BaconyRevanant This statement is false
This statement is egg.
@ThomasMarkov I'm a time traveler, replying to future messages.
@BaconyRevanant Youve failed convinced me to not disinvite you from NautArch's game.
The system does not seem to mind.
7:04 PM
I believe you.
@ThomasMarkov You could probably infinite loop messages replying to eachother. Reply to this message.
Do it.
@Axoren reply to this message in itself.
No hole to the Astral Plane. Shame.
Pfff, I already broke the time space continuum like that tomorrow
And also like 3 days ago
:57751602 I wonder if I can reply to a message that hasn't even been written yet.
Time Magic Test
Oh, it looks like it doesn't work.
7:08 PM
@BaconyRevanant See here for refernce
@Axoren You're gonna want to reply to a message in the same room
@Axoren The code for this message is 57751606, so 57751602 had already happened in a different romm by the time you dropped that
@Someone_Evil It's gonna be hard to predict message ids to the current room.
Also I am mildly disappointed that you can't reply to messages from other rooms
:57751667 Message from the past.
7:10 PM
:57751666 As a side note, what happens when your reply links to a message that gets migrated to another room?
@BaconyRevanant Like for example, what if that gets move to HtBD?
@Axoren off by one
Oh neat, it still @'s you, but the "jump to this message" arrow is removed
4 hours later…
11:41 PM
I really wish WotC gave up on putting mediocre improvements at the end of a class' lifespan.
Like, at 17, the monk getting a die increase is like getting a coupon at Rick's Diner for saving the world.
@Axoren cries in Sorcerous Restoration
Make classes a grab-bag of abilities and let people pick from them at investment milestones
Like how Warlock Invocations are, kind of
Do that, but for everything class.
3.5 was the closest to having this kind of thing, but the Features-by-Level thing won out

« first day (3858 days earlier)      last day (228 days later) »