|
the best part of playing ToA was when my mulhorandi wizard entered a counterspell duel with the lich at the end, then used Bigby's Hand to plunk him down in front of the party's melee
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
theironjef posted:What are you, their well-meaning but creepy uncle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
How highly would you rate darkvision for an arcane trickster rogue? On the one hand, it is pretty great. On the other hand, I feel like humans would disguise themselves easier and I'd love to go variant human and magic initiate at level 1 for those delicious extra cantrips.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Darkvision only allow you to see in the dark(and spot your targets' locations), you still get disadvantage on your attack roll because of the obscurity. If you have the light cantrip(or floating lights), darkvision rates pretty low. Unless you plan to infiltrate dark places and need to stay totally in the dark without a light source in order not to get caught, you still need a light not to roll with disadvantage on your attack in the dark. And solo infiltration happens rarely in a d&d game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Darkvision only allow you to see in the dark(and spot your targets' locations), you still get disadvantage on your attack roll because of the obscurity. If you have the light cantrip(or floating lights), darkvision rates pretty low. I guess I can pick up some sort of light cantrip or spell then with my magic initiate feat right off the bat. I didn't know darkvision didn't cover disadvantages. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Darkvision only allow you to see in the dark(and spot your targets' locations), you still get disadvantage on your attack roll because of the obscurity. If you have the light cantrip(or floating lights), darkvision rates pretty low. ... That makes zero loving sense. If I can see the target despite the darkness, then the target isn't obscured and there's no reason I should suffer disadvantage to hit them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Darkvision only allow you to see in the dark(and spot your targets' locations), you still get disadvantage on your attack roll because of the obscurity. If you have the light cantrip(or floating lights), darkvision rates pretty low. Uh, this is completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Miftan posted:I guess I can pick up some sort of light cantrip or spell then with my magic initiate feat right off the bat. I didn't know darkvision didn't cover disadvantages. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah darkvision allow you to see in total darkness as if you were in dim light so you see them as if it's lightly obscured area which is only a disadvantage on perception check. Some GMs sometime consider that behind cover it counts as heavily obscured for range attack. Discuss the rule with your gm i guess. He may be chill about it. A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix). A heavily obscured area doesn't blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it. "Some GMs" can just gently caress right off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Darkvision is super, super useful - because yes, basically everyone can get forms of light. But light is... not stealthy. It's pretty hard to sneak into anywhere when your wizard's staff is glowing like a loving maglite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:"Some GMs" can just gently caress right off. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Darkvision is super, super useful - because yes, basically everyone can get forms of light. I'm going for more of a con man rogue than a breaking and entering rogue, though s/he will obviously have to do the latter as well. I'm not sure if darkvision useful enough to not take an extra feat at level 1. Are there any ways to get around not having darkvision? There's a magic item but I can't rely on that. Any spells that might help?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Darkvision - 2nd-level - Arcane Trickster will get it at level 7.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
It's also worth bearing party comp in mind. If you're the only one with DV it's mostly useless, if there's only one WITHOUT it it can be super irritating to try to keep things quiet and sneaky whilst taking advantage of the capabilities of the group. If you don't expect to do sneaking in the dark then it's going to be largely irrelevant. But just because you're a con artist (not really a concept that works amazingly well in D&D btw, which doesn't have complex and deep support for social interactions of that nature) doesn't mean everyone else is...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I appreciate your proactiveness but the game actually already works that way RAW. I'm not sure where the other poster misread? I"m suggesting that I would, for example, allow someone with a shortsword and dagger and Extra Attack as a class feature to make a sword attack, a bonus action dagger attack, stow both sword and dagger, pull out a longbow, and take the extra attack with the longbow. The bit I think I'm house-ruling relates to stowing and drawing equipment. Can you point me to the specific rule that makes all this unnecessary? For that poor suffering poster in the thread, look at PHB 183 and 185, which provide the rules on lightly and heavily obscured conditions Conspiratiorist just quoted and then has a separate section labeled Darkvision that explicitly states you treat dim light as bright light and darkness as dim light, "so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned" (185). Also, cover refers to "walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles" (196), and is systemically distinct from concealment. This is a rare instance where 5e actually bothers to define terms within the system instead of using natural language. Concealment ("I can't see you clearly") is conceptually distinct from cover ("a physical obstacle is between us"). Would a GM who grants cover because of darkness require an athletics roll to climb over the darkness? If darkness is a solid object, can someone pick it up and move it? Do creatures get cover when I close my eyes? If not, can I get rid of darkness-as-cover by closing my eyes? A GM could house-rule this in the same way he could house-rule character HD a step down, so barbarians get 1d10 and wizards get 1d4. Just don't pretend that the RAW isn't obviously different. If you don't like the darkvision mechanic, just eliminate darkvision, don't pile on needless and arbitrary complication.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Also, cover refers to "walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles" (196), and is systemically distinct from concealment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's also worth bearing party comp in mind. If you're the only one with DV it's mostly useless, if there's only one WITHOUT it it can be super irritating to try to keep things quiet and sneaky whilst taking advantage of the capabilities of the group. I had actually considered that. D&D doesn't lend itself to elaborate heists if it's not a game built around it, so it's more of a back story for a standard rogue who will hopefully be very creative with their spells and specialise in forgery/disguises/deception for social stuff as opposed to intimidate for example. The comp stuff is good, so I'll take it into account when everybody else is making their characters on our first session (lots of newbies, including me). Marathanes posted:Darkvision - 2nd-level - Arcane Trickster will get it at level 7. Dunno if the game will go as long as level 7 but I'll keep that spell in mind!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Narsham posted:I'm not sure where the other poster misread? I"m suggesting that I would, for example, allow someone with a shortsword and dagger and Extra Attack as a class feature to make a sword attack, a bonus action dagger attack, stow both sword and dagger, pull out a longbow, and take the extra attack with the longbow. The bit I think I'm house-ruling relates to stowing and drawing equipment. No, my bad: I was thinking on SotDL where weapon switching is considered one interaction. Dropping is free, but sheathing and drawing a different weapon would be two interactions. In the specific case in your post here, even with your stowing houserule, what I'd be suspicious about is allowing bonus actions in the middle of an action. Off the top of my head it doesn't really break anything, but is also not how the game works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
For reference https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
I remember that Bonus actions were stated as being one of the biggest regrets in hindsight by the designers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I remember that Bonus actions were stated as being one of the biggest regrets in hindsight by the designers. Other regrets: literally everything
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
The best flaws in 5e are the ones that exist because the team refused to read 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:what I'd be suspicious about is allowing bonus actions in the middle of an action. Off the top of my head it doesn't really break anything, but is also not how the game works. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified,
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
I hear complaints leveled at bonus actions sometimes and I vaguely understand some of them, but what is the functional difference between bonus actions and minor actions other than the name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:No, my bad: I was thinking on SotDL where weapon switching is considered one interaction. Dropping is free, but sheathing and drawing a different weapon would be two interactions. I think allowing a bonus action during an attack sequence mostly benefits martials and the smite line of spells, which from what I've seen need some help. It's an example of the extreme edge case, anyway. A better example would reverse the order: bow shot, stow bow, draw sword and dagger, attack with sword, bonus action dagger attack. On further reflection, allowing bonus action attacks in-between Extra Attack attacks has some probably undesirable interactions with monks. A little research suggests Crawford ruled first one way, then the other (quoted above), so there's not a lot of clarity here, especially since the ruling against inserting a bonus action attack hinges on having to complete the attack action to satisfy, while the wording just says you can take the bonus action attack "when you take the attack action..." and satisfy other weapon-related conditions. GWM granting a bonus action attack off of a trigger that can happen during an attack action appears, by both of Crawford's rulings, to permit the bonus action to trigger during and not after the completion of the attack sequence. In any event, it looks like you can interrupt an action to take a bonus action when the thing granting you a bonus action gets triggered during the action, but not BY the action, if we take Crawford's ruling to heart. I can't express how much I like that these questions rarely arise during the actual 5e play I'm doing. And I can't believe looking back at 1e and 2e how much clearer the rules are now while still producing these kinds of questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Narsham posted:I think allowing a bonus action during an attack sequence mostly benefits martials and the smite line of spells, which from what I've seen need some help. It's an example of the extreme edge case, anyway. A better example would reverse the order: bow shot, stow bow, draw sword and dagger, attack with sword, bonus action dagger attack. I'm going to let martials shield bash before attack action and its really dumb not to allow this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I'm going to let martials shield bash before attack action and its really dumb not to allow this. My dm won't let me and it's really annoying. Not even after my first attack!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I hear complaints leveled at bonus actions sometimes and I vaguely understand some of them, but what is the functional difference between bonus actions and minor actions other than the name? I could write a whole lot, but short version: as far as I can tell, it functionally is a minor action. They don't want to call it that, and they don't want to balance the game around everyone having minor actions, but they also understand that they need something bigger than free and smaller than An Action, and they also know that allowing as many bonus action triggers as possible could lead to some combo headaches. Bonus actions just aren't balanced well. Minor action attacks are extremely powerful, and bonus action attacks are extremely powerful. The Correct Way to play a rogue is usually at range with a hand crossbow (so you don't need to use things like dash and disengage, and instead get more sneak attack opportunities), and all these paladins are walking around in full plate, shining shield and a stick. If the paladin had been built from the ground up around the idea of using a bonus action every round, maybe something interesting would have happened there, instead. Having an option of doing an extra attack as a bonus action every round is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:The Correct Way to play a rogue is usually at range with a hand crossbow That doesn't sound like using your Bonus Action attack with Scimitar of Speed on your own turn and readying your actual attack to use as a Reaction so you are double sneaking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
It always baffles me how little the Scimitar of Speed gets brought up, given how it's one of the best weapons in the game. It's up there with the Holy Avenger, Blackrazor, Wave, and the Staff of Power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Well, I did say usually. I don't know how difficult it is to get a Scimitar of Speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah i had GMs with different opinions about your PC/friend counting or not counting as "a creature, and other obstacles" providing half cover (+2ac) to the enemies. So, in your games, does you hinder your ranged friends by increasing the target ac by attacking them upfront (and not on the side)? Yes, if you are shooting a crossbow down a five-foot wide passage with three of your buddies in plate armor between you and the kobold you're shooting, the kobold gets half-cover unless you ignore half-cover by one of several means available to you. Given that previous editions of the game gave you a penalty worse than thatbfor firing into melee and several suggested that you randomly determine if you hit friend or foe, this is not a big deal. (I still have one player who expects to hit his ally if he misses by 1 or 2 on the attack roll.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Just looked up the thread and yeah they think they outright screwed up with how it was implemented.D&D posted:Bonus actions are needlessly fiddly. If we crafted actions correctly, we wouldn't need them. Alas, the benefits of three years of hindsight!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Coming up with bad answers to problems 4E solved, because if we admit that 4E mattered someone at WotC would lose a bet or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
I'm kinda surprised (and I might just be ignorant) that someone hasn't pathfinder'd 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
ConanThe3rd posted:I'm kinda surprised (and I might just be ignorant) that someone hasn't pathfinder'd 4e. Well there's Strike!, which is sitting on my shelf unplayed. To some extent 13th Age, which is essentially an attempt to make a D&D game that really doesn't need a grid and is one-size-fits-all, as opposed to one where they say it is those things. There's a lot to be said about 13th Age, not all of it good. Probably ten games that other people would be better qualified to speak on. But what RPG industry there is outside of d20 stuff seems to have largely moved to retro and/or "narrative" games that have technical advantages for publishers who don't have the resources to playtest hundreds of pages of mechanics, and players who are older now and have jobs, significant others, and kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
Got a bit of it in Shadow of the Demon Lord, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I could write a whole lot, but short version: as far as I can tell, it functionally is a minor action. There's a bit more to it than that, which makes 5e even dumber. In 4e (and Star Wars Saga IIRC), you could downgrade one action type into one of a "lower" type, as it were. Standard actions could become move actions. Move actions could become minor actions. So if you wanted, for some reason, you could take three minor actions on your turn but then you'd do nothing else, not even walk around. You can't do that in 5e. This usually doesn't matter much but when it does, things get a little silly. At least IMO. Let's say for example you're some kind of, I dunno, Eldritch Knight with Misty Step. And you want to use Misty Step (a bonus action) together with Second Wind (also a bonus action) because you need to GTFO and recover. That's not allowed in 5e. Even if you'd be willing to give up your regular action and all of your normal movement, you're just not allowed to do it. For some reason you can't catch your breath and cast a spell which is "especially swift" (PHB p. 202) at the same time. But on the other hand, you can totally catch your breath, jog around a bit, and cast a slower spell at the same time. Why? Because we're the Aristocrats! This also ties into the Concentration mechanic. For all their crowing about 5e Concentration fixing so many things, that's actually only true if you look at 3e scry-buff-fry shenanigans. In 4e, most concentration spells took up a minor action. What's the real difference then? In 5e, you can only maintain one Concentration spell so you only use your best available one, ever. This makes you a one-trick pony. In 4e, you can maintain up to three spells in theory, but that would require sacrificing other options. There's tactical trade-offs to be made here and requires you to look at the context of the fight. Enemy is placing a lot of dangerous zones (e.g. Entangle, Black Tentacles, burning pools of oil)? Then for god's sake, don't give up your move action just to maintain an extra Bless spell! (Though I must say that 4e didn't leverage this strength enough and had way too many end-of-next-turn temporary bullshit going on.) To get away from the 4e-vs-5e vibe, another game which had good ideas about this was the 2012 Iron Kingdoms RPG. They had numerous special abilities (analogous to feats) which either required you to spend a quick action for some new kind of functionality, or which provided you with an additional quick action each turn which could only be used for very specific things. So depending on how you wanted to build your character you could become a blur of motion, doing all sorts of things in combat at once, but still with an eye on the action economy and character build resources. Shame it was a bit broken in other areas but that part of the game was neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
ConanThe3rd posted:I'm kinda surprised (and I might just be ignorant) that someone hasn't pathfinder'd 4e. Good news, Pathfinder 2e is just that!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Arivia posted:Good news, Pathfinder 2e is just that!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 12:42
|
|
