Out of character discussion thread.
Welcome! Team Good
Character's Name: Lindaer Elyrien
Gender: Male
Alignment: Lawful Good (with chaotic tendencies. I really dislike the alignment system)
Race: Half-Elf
Class: Paladin
Background: Reformed Criminal
Deity: Amren
Character Name: Boddynuck
Sex: Male
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Race: Forest Gnome
Class: Wizard
Background: Folk Hero (modified)
Deity: None (yet :-))
Character Name: Quintavelxaq "Quint" Rue
Sex: Male
Alignment: Chaotic Good.
Race: Gnome
Class: Rogue
Background: Urchin
Deity: None in particular
Character's Name: Drun of Saxwyn
Gender: Male
Alignment: Lawful Good
Race: Half-Orc
Class: Paladin
Background: Outcast
Deity: Saxwyn
Character's Name: Psalm Nackle
Gender: Male
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Race: Forest Gnome
Class: Mountain Circle Druid
Background: Hermit
Deity: Aldellion
Character Name: Gomdebo Blackbuster
Gender: F
Race: Hill Dwarf
Class: Rogue
Background: Sage
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Deity: Deceased
Wow, being on the "good" team will be an adjustment for me, since I'm used to playing the lawful/chaotic part of my alignment more (and riding the border between good and neutral). Two paladins and a bunch of chaotics should make for some interesting party dynamics.
3 gnomes and no humans on team good. Wow.
I am leaving for Disney World tomorrow will be returning late Thursday. I will check if time permits from the room in the evening.
Nervous as both a paladin and a half-orc...will be fun!! Cannot wait to get started! Was hoping I would get on the team with the other paladin and gnomes!! Demi-Humans Unite!!!!
If everyone could do me a huge favor and make sure that your character's passive perception score is listed somewhere in their tagline, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks!
|
Drun, which oath do you plan on taking?
I am thinking of going vengeance.
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are brutally simple.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.
The any means necessary part seems to fit well, as well as his general sense of morality.
Sorry for the delay. Hadn't noticed that the discussion had started :-(
Formal DM Announcement!
Would everyone please do me two favors. Favor the first, make sure that your gender, race, alignment, class, background, HP, AC, and Passive Perception are listed in the tagline for your character. Many of you have this already but some do not. This is the minimum I'd like to see in everyone's tagline. Those who have more, excellent! Thank you. Favor the second, will everyone please post their backstory in a spoiler on their profile page. As an example you can look at Ashrie VanShorn's profile page. You'll notice at the bottom he has a spoiler labeled backstory. Please, will everyone do that same thing? Thank you!
Did it :)
Actually you're tagline is missing your background: Former Criminal.
I think that does it.
All done!
Had everything but background, should be good now.
Heads up friends. I will be embroiled in family Christmas celebrations for the entirety of the weekend and will, with a 99% certainty, not be able to post until Monday morning.
I changed my Avatar pic because I wanted our raven friend free to post. This one looks close to the pic I envisioned most with Psalm. The fact that he is singing is fitting as Psalm is sort of a nature poet philosopher type.
I too am fine with hand-waving this part.
I'm ok with hand waving this part.
+1 for handwaving, since I'm otherwise stuck sitting on mine.
What are we proposing gets a hand wave? I am open to whatever I just don't want to start an interaction that we are getting ready to skip.
Boddy would just splurge a very little. He'd buy some decent food for his animals and a few toys for them (a hamster wheel, some balls, that kind of thing). And a bit of luxury food for himself (jellybeans somehow seem gnomeish :-)).
Most of that isn't on the equipment lists for some reason but I'm assuming that we're talking less than a gold?
I think I am good.
Boddy would just splurge a very little. He'd buy some decent food for his animals and a few toys for them (a hamster wheel, some balls, that kind of thing). And a bit of luxury food for himself (jellybeans somehow seem gnomeish :-)).
Most of that isn't on the equipment lists for some reason but I'm assuming that we're talking less than a gold?
Yes, I would say you could get all of those things for a couple silvers, and in so doing exchange that paper promissory note for some coinage. You can add those items, as desired, to your alias' profile. Everyone else is good to go eh? Wellllllll then...
ready to roll...sorry Christmas work schedule is a bit chaotic at the moment.
If I understand the map correctly, those of us who haven't yet moved are at the bottom of a flight of stairs, and thus out of sight? If a rogue were to move up the stairs and shoot from that position, it would be a sneak attack, right (I don't even think a stealth check is required...)? Still trying to figure out how 5e handles those...
Also, my reading is that attacking an enemy who is within 5ft of my ally (or anyone who is the target's enemy) gets you sneak attack even on ranged attacks. Is that right? I hadn't planned on doing a lot of ranged attacking, but it looks like that might be my only option this round...
Quint, as to the first question. I am going to ask for a stealth check contested by the Sahuagin's Perception because you could be heard going up the stairs, but I will be giving you advantage on the check because of the cacophony of battle happening on the other parts of the ship (and maybe because one of the Sahuagin will be laughing hysterically if Boddynuck selects a different target). As to the second question, that is an emphatic yes! If an ally is within 5' of the enemy a rogue is attacking, whether with a ranged or melee attack, they get their sneak attack damage. Rogues! They're awesome again. :)
Just wanted to throw this here for people to discuss. My reading of the rules is that creatures, whether allies or enemies are considered obstacles that provide all the degrees of cover. I base that off of the fact that on page 196 of the PHB it says: "creatures... can provide cover during combat." And later "whether that creature is an enemy or a friend." Later it says: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." My logic then is, if a creature, enemy or friend, is an obstacle that can provide the various kinds of cover, it can provide all the various forms of cover. However, as I dug a little deeper, looking in the DMG on page 251 where it discusses using grid maps and miniatures, it says this about Line of Sight: "To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight." Those things they list are very obviously much different than a creature. I've done a quick Google search and seen people who rule it both ways, which means it is basically DM fiat territory. For my own part, in the current situation, thinking about a Gnome (size small) with a half-orc standing only 10' in front of him, trying to target something 15' beyond that, it just didn't seem like there would be a clear line of sight? That language in the DMG makes me second guess myself though. Maybe creatures can only provide half and three-quarters cover, but not total cover, and don't block line of sight?
Discuss!
Quint, as to the first question. I am going to ask for a stealth check contested by the Sahuagin's Perception because you could be heard going up the stairs, but I will be giving you advantage on the check because of the cacophony of battle happening on the other parts of the ship (and maybe because one of the Sahuagin will be laughing hysterically if Boddynuck selects a different target). As to the second question, that is an emphatic yes! If an ally is within 5' of the enemy a rogue is attacking, whether with a ranged or melee attack, they get their sneak attack damage. Rogues! They're awesome again. :)
Yup. And just for expedience sake I'll roll the opposing perception check here, so you'll know if/when you post if you're successful or not.
Aren't stealth checks made vs. passive perception unless the character making the perception check is actively searching? I thought that was the whole point of passive perception.
Maybe creatures can only provide half and three-quarters cover, but not total cover, and don't block line of sight?I would lean towards a yes to this, because of the pictures on dmg 249. A medium creature doesn't fill a 5 ft cube, and there is much more open space than an arrow slit in a solid wall. And more to the point it leaves a corner open for the grid rules that use lines to determine line of sight.
On the other hand, if creatures provide total cover that could open up some interesting tactical options vs casters. For example in a 5 ft corridor one PC could stand in front and shield the entire party from any spells that directly target them (like a closed door).
That's just my opinion though and really fine either way, its a minor detail. In the current situation he could get a clean shot just by stepping left or right a little, that's totally fine and also adds some tactical depth.
Thank you Gomdebo. I have to say after just looking into the rules and doing some brief thinking about it now, I'm definitely leaning that way (creatures don't block and can't provide total cover). But! You do bring up a good point that allowing creatures to block line of sight, and provide total cover, does open up some interesting things from a tactical point of view for both PCs and bad guys. Obviously I ruled as I did for Boddynuck's situation, and we'll leave it at that. I'd like to hear from everyone here though, just because I like looking at multiple points of view before I make any kind of final decision about anything. :)
Aren't stealth checks made vs. passive perception unless the character making the perception check is actively searching? I thought that was the whole point of passive perception.
That was my initial thought too, but then I thought about the fact that once you're in combat you are, or should be at least, actively scanning for any threats all the time, right? Sort of that heightened sense of awareness when life and death are on the line. And, honestly, I was hoping he'd roll low. :P Didn't know he was going to roll his PP on the dice and then get another +1. :) I'm fine with leaving it at a 15, it's only one digit different. :)
Also, just wanted to say to everyone, I appreciate your patience. I did mention, way back when, under the heading "full disclosure" that this is my first time DMing with these new rules. You all are my guinea pigs, and I appreciate you helping me to get all these little nuances sorted out. You're the best people!!! :)
Ha, just realized I didn't even give him the full bonus on the roll. Sahuagin have a +5 bonus to Perception rolls. Apparently they are really good at seein' stuff. :P
Wait, his passive perception is 15? If so, the roll should have had a +5 bonus, since passive perception (as I understand it) is essentially taking-10 on perception...
If that's not how it works, I need to recalculate mine...
Obviously its totally up to the GM and I'll happily go along with whatever you decide.
That said, 3/4 cover is defined as something like an arrow slit. That seems, to me, MORE than the cover provided by a couple of people in the way. I'm very possibly polluted by playing too much Pathfinder but 1 or two people in the way seems more like half cover to me than 3/4 cover let alone total cover.
To a significant extent it is going to depend on how you want that battle in very cramped quarters to play out. If a couple of bodies provide more than 1/2 cover then pretty much all the time EVERYBODY is (perforce) going to be concentrating on the front rank since they have no viable options. If they don't then at least attacking the back rank becomes viable.
From the "Cover" section of the PHB:
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives threequarters cover, the target has threequarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
Also, while as a rogue I might like to be able to hide behind allies, Lightfoot halflings have a special ability that allows them to hide behind creatures that are at least one size category larger, which strongly implies that anyone else can't.
Yeah, that bit about the arrow slit got me too! After re-reading the rules from both the PHB and the DMG, I realized they only ever specifically mention a creature when talking about half-cover. And after talking to some other DM's in RL, they agreed, though one did say that if the creature providing cover is size large or bigger, he does allow for 3/4 cover in that situation.
Thanks to those that commented. To those that didn't, I realize I left a small time window there, so please feel free to chime in whenever. Moving forward, unless I hear a strong consensus to do otherwise, I will be ruling as follows: creatures of size medium or small, provide half cover only; creatures of size large or bigger can provide 3/4 cover, but never total cover; creatures do not block line of sight/effect.
Sound good?
For those that are interested, and perhaps so that everyone understands just how bad this could get if the dice keep favoring the enemies: Monster Stat Block for Sahuagin. Yes, you read that correctly, they get two attacks every round, and they have advantage on all attacks against any foe that does not have all his/her full HP... It could get really bad, really fast. Funny thing is, according to the encounter building rules in the DMG, this encounter is only considered Medium difficulty!? I'd hate to see a deadly one!!!!??? Lastly, letting you behind the screen a bit here, just because things have turned so badly so quickly, this is the only encounter I have planned for the next twenty-four period in the game, so don't be afraid to pull out all the stops! Use everything at your disposal. I'd hate for the epitaph of Team "good" to read: Brave Heroes? They died before they arrived. :P :P :P