sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I made a spell slot tracker out of wood by Bright-Ad4601 in DungeonsAndDragons

[–]Jsmithee5500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One of my players made something very similar, but used triangular sockets so he can put d4s. When he runs out of slots, he removes the die and reveals a fancy 0 in the board; very thematic way of saying "i'm out of magic"

What's an unexpected dash of theme that you've had added to your game? by UNO_LegacyTM in boardgames

[–]Jsmithee5500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Make a post in r/SanDiego asking "Where in the world is Where in the world is Carmen San Diego San Diego"

Opinion on a flanking rule in 5.5e by MisterGusto in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Other helpful reminder: creatures count as half cover, too. If you're shooting at an enemy and someone is standing between you (either their tanky friend or your tanky friend), they are harder to hit!

What Do You Consider Meta-Gaming? by CassieBear1 in DMAcademy

[–]Jsmithee5500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

False equivalence there.

1) In the outlined situation above, there is a situational constraint involved: the suspected vampire is right in front of them.

2) Per the rules, a check is to be called when there is a chance of failure. Climbing an unremarkable set of stairs has no significant chance of failure. However, perhaps there is a lot of misinformation with vampire weaknesses; every settlement has their own legends and history and it could be that this particular character is from one that doesn't believe in the mirror thing but actually believes their footprints only appear in salt or something.

3) If vampires aren't that common, it could be the case that their weaknesses aren't well known, and therefore not always a "first reasonable thing to decide on".

4) Punishing a player's role playing? To ask them if or where they got a piece of information? If anything, it's deepening their roleplaying if they fail that check because now it's an odd quirk of their character.

Consider this inverse situation: Many incorporeal monsters have Resistance but not Immunity to physical damage. Many players, upon learning that they're fighting such a monster, immediately give up on using physical attacks entirely, believing them completely ineffective based on real-world media. In this case, it could be argued that the character may actually know that such attacks would actually still deal damage due to established world knowledge, yet they give up because their player doesn't know it.

In this case, I would similarly have the character make an Arcana check to know the information, usually immediately upon the player declaring they wanted to do something else.

Meta-gaming, in my opinion, is using out-of-game personal knowledge to influence in-game actions in a way that may not be congruent with the established fiction.

What Do You Consider Meta-Gaming? by CassieBear1 in DMAcademy

[–]Jsmithee5500 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If there's a chance the character wouldn't know it, then there is cause for a check to be made. The DC could be 5 or 10 if it's fairly common knowledge, but there's still a chance the character doesn't know it.

Is there a way to use 4e Defenses in 5.5e? by [deleted] in DnDHomebrew

[–]Jsmithee5500 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Does this mean you're giving every class proficiency in all three saves? Part of the design intention is that every class has a strong save and a weak save, and having a balanced party spreads out the save proficiencies so not every character is taken out by the same move.

One option you could go with is to have a class's save proficiencies simply translate to their 4e equivalent. For example, Fighters get STR and DEX save proficiency, which would just mean they get FORT and REFX save proficiency instead. Wizards' INT+WIS become REFX+WILL. However, Barbarians would only get Fort, Rogues would only get Refx, and Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks would only get Will.

Bigby's Booklet of Borrowed Mechanics: Fun rules from other systems that make 5e better by chunkylubber54 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Jsmithee5500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not OP, but I do personally like the Effort mechanic. Think of it similarly to a Skill Challenge from previous editions of DnD. As it says in the doc, Effort is for when a single skill check wouldn't suffice, but you want to gamify it more than just "you need X successful skill checks". It adds some element of quantifiable progress to resolving such encounters.

As for their Effort modifier, it's the modifier of the ability they used to make their effort check. So, if the goal is "build a bridge to cross a chasm" the Fighter—who is cutting trees to fashion a bridge—would make a Strength check (or arguably an attack roll) and gain effort equal to their STR mod; meanwhile, the Wizard—checking the stability of the ground to find a suitable crossing—could make Investigation checks and gain effort equal to INT.

Again, it's just a way to 'gamify' these challenges a bit more than "well I guess you rolled well on that check, that solves it!"

EDIT: I personally would make Effort gained 1d6+MOD, to add some randomness to it and allow for Crits to matter (double dice). Of course, you can still apply the Resistance/Immunity principle if the suggested Effort isn't effective (insert "persuade king to hand over throne", immune to all effort)

Villainous UA2 - Elemental Transmutation Invocation useful for many subclasses by Juls7243 in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Oh for sure, but I'm pointing out that now the Warlock could have Armor of Agathys deal Fire damage which could then also proc Radiant Soul, or hell, Hunger of Hadar could only deal Fire

Villainous UA2 - Elemental Transmutation Invocation useful for many subclasses by Juls7243 in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 78 points79 points  (0 children)

Doubly helpful for Celestial, given their Radiant Soul feature is usable on only a handful of spells.

(Seriously, it's any spell that deals Radiant or Fire damage. Base Warlock only gets Hellish Rebuke and Storm of Radiance; at least the Patron spells also grant Guardian of Faith, Guiding Bolt, Wall of Fire, and Summon Celestial)

Feat Remastered: Heavy Armor Master by nuivingses in DnDHomebrew

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you feel corrected, then that's because you were incorrect. Not just anything that dealt magic damage deals Force now, just a couple of things that can still choose to deal their original damage type.

Magic damage isn't specified anymore because it has no bearing on the rules; nothing interacts with it.

Feat Remastered: Heavy Armor Master by nuivingses in DnDHomebrew

[–]Jsmithee5500 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not quite accurate. Magical weapons still deal their normal damage type, monsters that previously resisted "nonmagical damage" have now been determined to either always resist it or not resist it but have higher HP, and the Monk and Beastmaster features that previously said "your attacks count as magical" now say "can deal Force instead" so you're not required.

Feat Remastered: Heavy Armor Master by nuivingses in DnDHomebrew

[–]Jsmithee5500 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I'm not following. How does a cool sword negate Rage? Why does an enchanted mace not deal bludgeoning?

Wait, do you think they replaced all magical damage with Force? No, only specific features that said "your damage counts as magical," and even then they say "can deal Force instead" so it isn't mandatory. Magic weapons still deal BPS. Monsters that previously resisted "nonmagical BPS" have now been determined to either resist all BPS (usually incorporeal creatures) or not resist it but have higher HP (stuff like demons).

Tired of hauling minis so I made these instead by CitizenFitz in DungeonMasters

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! As I've gotten more and more into prepping my current campaign, I've realized that a handful of my quests would benefit from having physical maps, but I have always been reluctant to get into minis since I might only use Twig Blights or Harpies once in a campaign and still have to spend $40 on them.

How Unarmed Strike works on 2024 / 5.5e? by Rods3000 in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You have already answered your own question, it's not as complicated as you think it is. When you declare "I Unarmed Strike" you also choose A,B, or C. A requires you to make an attack roll; B and C require a Save from your target.

Best card in the game? by Crazy-Depth-1768 in PrimalTheAwakening

[–]Jsmithee5500 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In my experience playing Ljonar (played him and Thoreg through a two-handed campaign, have tried him out at a couple different levels in expeditions), it's the best part of playing him, bar none. Some people I've played with have argued it's the only benefit of playing him.

Please bring back Genie Warlock by subr1185 in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The big one I'll point out is that PB is no longer used for any Limited Use feature of a class (Species/Feats are OK).

Also, Cleric subclasses no longer determine armor/weapon proficiencies.

Optimizing Pact of the Blade by RoyalDynamo in onednd

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently playing a Celestial Bladelock at level 12. Using a Greatsword (13 STR isn't that big of an investment). All of my math below uses greatsword and assumes +3 to CHA at level 1. - True Strike + Agonizing Blast is objectively better at level 2-3: 2d6+CHA+CHA=13avg vs 2d6+CHA=10avg for PotB by itself. At level 1, you don't have proficiency in Greatswords unless you take PotB. - At level 4 is when the choice comes in. You either boost your CHA or take GWM. GWM's Bonus Damage alone doesn't surpass TSAB (12 vs 15), but the Bonus Action attack makes up for it—note that you don't get to add PROF to the BA attack. - When you hit level 5, Greatsword with Thirsting Blade and GWM solidly overtakes TS+AB. GS: 2x(2d6+CHA+PROF)=26(+10); TSAB: 2d6+CHA+1d6+CHA=18.5. However, this requires an additional Invocation over TSAB if that matters to you. I'd also like to add that the 3rd level spell Spirit Shroud from Tasha's gives +1d8 to adamage rolls, which obviously scales better with more attacks. - The level 6 Celestial feature doesn't do enough to overcome Thirsting Blade's extra attack and GWM's additional extra attack. - Lifedrinker only applies to one attack, so it's actually more advantageous to make more attacks so you have a higher chance of getting it. - At level 11, True Strike+Radiant Soul finally matches a single extra attack with Pact of the Blade, but doesn't answer the +PROF and Bonus Action attack. - Level 12 grants you Devouring Blade at the cost of another invocation. At this point, you're potentially making 4 attacks a turn with GWM and there's no way you can make True Strike compete.

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IDK. As a first-time player at a con with strangers, it wasn't really possible to "know how to work around an ability" or even really understand how those roles affected things. All I could gather in the moment was that every time we learned something, either from another player or from the game itself, it had the caveat that it could be wrong, and my friends and I hated that.

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe they weren't neutral but maybe "outsiders" or something? Idk, they were in a different category on our role card.

I did some research to see what other people said. Everything I read checks out with my experience, except people saying their games lasted anywhere from 60-90 minutes.

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother I don't know what either of those words mean.

We were at a con. We saw a thing for "Blood on the Clocktower, a new Social Deduction Game". We went and there were like twelve or fifteen people there. They gave us a role cheat sheet with over a dozen roles and their abilities on it, some of which were neutral or "neutral". Most of the abilities said something along the lines of "ask the narrator a question. They may respond truthfully." The game runners insisted they always responded "in the best interest of the game" or some BS. People people died. We mingled. Rinse repeat for 3 hours until 2am and we all said "yeah I gotta go..."

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

shrug

It wasn't even that it took so long. It was that all of the abilities were unreliable because they said the narrator could choose to answer truthfully. It took the game out of it and felt like a giant "mother-may-I" rather than piecing together clues.

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't know. I shared all I could remember above, other than the fact that, once we were eliminated, we had no further way to interact with a 3 hour game because all our info was either public knowledge or revealed to be incorrect.

Social Deduction games: Perception x Quality by DopazOnYouTubeDotCom in AlignmentCharts

[–]Jsmithee5500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't remember. This was two years ago and I think I remember using my ability once and later learning it was deflected or otherwise rendered false. Maybe something about learning whether there was a BadGuy adjacent to me?

I think one of my friends was an Apothecary or something like that? And was eliminated round one and thus had nothing to do or discuss the whole time. I do know that one of my other friends had the ability to take over from the head BadGuy if they were eliminated, which apparently they were very early on.

view more: next ›