At least personally, I bristle at hard caps. I don't know why, but for me, that does more to hurt my suspension of disbelief more than anything. With the post 18 +1s a la starfinder, I feel like that makes sense. Diminishing returns and such. But a hard cap just reminds me that I'm in a game, and there are artificial limits. It's kind of like how in video games, not being able to climb a mountain because the cliff face becomes too sheer doesn't bother me, but hitting an invisible wall does.
I am the opposite, love caps for ability scores; seriously hurts my suspension of disbelief for a halfling character to become stronger than an ogre, that is simply silly.
So both attacks must be against a single target?
Darius Alazario wrote:
So, does this mean both attacks must be against a single target?
Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?
So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?
Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Right on, that's cool; I asked in the Monk thread, but can you explain how Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then you make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
It looks like Ki is optional, which I am pleased about, and I like that it is a spell point pool.
I really like the sound of different Unarmed weapons from Stances. Though I am not that jazzed to see that nonlethal is still a thing, but we'll see how it pans out. I also find it a bit odd that agile and finesse are two different weapon qualities, seem if it's finesse, it would be agile, I am probably missing something.
Not being proficient in any weapons at all is rather extreme, so they are purely sans weapons by default?
I agree with someone else who mentioned some classes not making an appearance this edition, due to the modular feat like nature (hybrid), archetypes, and we still haven't seen multiclassing.
Unfortunately I am not too thrilled with any of that, either.
"...we'll turn that Frankenstein you see in the mirror every morning, into a Franken-Fine...."
Well, l now desperately want to play a superbly pimpish character with goldfish in his heels. With his own following background music-band.
I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.
Yes, that is not cool, the guess what the DM wants me to say game, so a game-related check or resolution is fine, as long as it is regardless of the player in question, if there is need for one.
Full disclosure, when I was like 8 I got my hands on the original DMG and read through it and discovered the "Harlot encounter subtable". It was like a decade before I realized a "trollop" wasn't a kind of troll and a "doxy" wasn't a thing like a pixie.
Yes, that magical tome, ah, as has been said by others, it seems even after decades, whenever I hope it, I find some new gem; marvellous book.
All prostitution is not inherently bad/evil.
Sometimes in these conversations, people bring up not being naturally gregarious, charismatic, or what-have you, well, I don't expect the 100 lbs/40 kg player running a character with an 18 Str to perform amazing feats of strength, so I don't expect the introverted, uncharismatic player to make amazing, rousing speeches when playing their 18 Cha bard.
That's certainly a way to spin it, but not what I was saying or what was going on.
I know what you mean, they (the original races of the gods, before the dwarves, gnomes and kender) were more like the actual subtype (ala fiends, etc), so the Irda, probably the most beautiful and majestic, were corrupted by their inner god-given Evil or what-have-you. The original 1st Ed Dragonlance book has some really cool lore, also a cosmology separate from the Great Wheel.
I only wanted to add a last thing - it's better not to use the word "oriental" anymore, it's usually considered a pejorative, othering, demeaning, and rather unfounded in reality - I know you didn't mean to offend anyone, but East Asian is much better for a samurai, and better safe than sorry - wouldn't want other players to feel uncomfortable for a mere misunderstanding... sorry, that's all!
This seems to be more of an American thing, quite a few people, at last here in the UK, from the Far East (of far Eastern ethnicity) prefer the term Oriental (I have worked with quite a few in the NHS), so as not to be confused with those from India and Pakistan.
Well, it was more about goblins being more monstrous in certain settings, never tolerated by humans, elves, and such.
In Dragonlance they tied the original races of Krynn to an alignment: Elves = Good, Humans = Neutral, Irda/Ogres = Evil, that had interesting implications.
Total, as I said, defends on the setting; I can easily see Goblins being an accepted part of certain societies, cities and what-not in Golarian, there is a place for pretty much everything there. They could have their own city, where they export alchemical items.
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
If were gonna let humans in core I say we let goblins too. Its only fair. Humans are a way eviler race then gobbers.
Yes, we all know in the real world humans are the most evil of animals (chimpanzees can also be rather unpleasant), but sometimes in a fantasy games it's nice to think of humans as a more idealised, romanticised version of the race, with things like orcs and goblins representing the evil, twisted side, sort of like LotR (I know orcs were made in mockery if elves, but the general idea).
I also dig more cosmopolitan campaign settings, like Al-Qadim, cities with humans, elves, goblins, dwarves, kobolds, gnomes, and lizardfolk all living in relative harmony.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Yes, I would like a few more + 2s here or there. As for Advantage, a common houserule is to stack cases of advantage/disadvantage: Advantage x2 vs. Disadvantage x1 = Advantage. Many things were brutally streamlined in the name of simplicity for 5th Ed (the -5/+10 damage feats should obviously be based off of Proficiency Bonus, things like that). I like the base chassis, but definitely a DIY Edition, for me. Some grave design mistakes, luckily easily rectified.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Here's where it gets a bit hazy, especially in 2nd Ed, it would seem you can move up to half your speed and "make an attack", but it doesn't specify how many.
Right on, but in 3rd Ed, it's more that they are CN, but there are monastic conclaves/orders/temples that are LN.
Interesting, I have owned and used the 1st Ed AD&D FF and the githzerai therein for decades now, and I always assumed the Githzerai Monks are Lawful.
Is this a LAIRE thing?
Talek & Luna wrote:
The same way they would in any other world, new cites and countries are a thing that happens.
Especially as a decent response in most situations from a barbarian can be "I am already showing you my strength, where is yours?" as they tear of the head of an orc and throw it at them.
And this is why I want more unarmed options for Barbarians, some sort of Rip-Off Heads archetype or something.
Talek & Luna wrote:
I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains
That is one of the most common complaints I hear from people that are not into published settings, I just don't agree. If I run a FR campaign, you are not going to be hearing about Elminster taking care of business off screen, and Drizzt dropping by to save your heiny; as for mapped out, there are always areas, locales, NPCs, etc, etc, with with to challenge, surprise and entertain the PCs. The 2nd Ed AD&D Historical Reference series had D&D adventures on semi-historical Earth, and that is just fine.
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking?
Of course, classic, Weapon vs. AC modifiers, those can be great (and 2nd Ed streamlines it a bit) in certain campaigns, helps weapons stand out (picks are better than swords against plate). That is one of the least byzantine 1st Ed rules.
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
I generally agree, but 5th Ed is probably more like Basic (BECMI), as I said, 1st Ed AD&D is heavy stuff. Most people simply do not use most of the rules, hence the fast and loose feeling and reputation.