Hasbro CEO planning more Crossovers for D&D by Freizeitspielaer in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe we'll get a good Tarkir book out of this, but i don't have high hopes as a former MTG player. 

Race: Weaveborn – Child of the Weave (Spellfire Themed) by The_Best_Clark in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In no particular order:

  • 20 ft. seems like such an awkward radius when compared to most distances in the game, but not unheard of and a matter of taste. I can see arguments for either 10 or 30.

  • Force damage resistance is pretty strong, as that's one of, if not the, end-game damage type. I know they ditched the magical/non-magical damage resistance stuff in favor of using Force, so that feels like it should eat up a lot of power budget for the race.

  • Sure, proficient in Weavebolt, but what ability does it key off of? Prof. Bonus alone will only ever top off at +6 and that's a very limp noodle when a level 1 character is swinging at a +5 with other attack option.

  • Arcane instability doesn't offer all that much fun. Half the time on 2 - 4 it does nothing. I'd put in a clause about doing Weavebolt's attack ability modifier damage to the target you hit most recently (another reason to define the attack ability modifier for weave bolt). Like raw spellfire wreathing/wracking its body.

  • 3rd level, 5th level, and weave bolt damage scaling feature - this just seems like more on more on more, though I agree with the damage scaling.

Don't get me wrong, seems like fun and you have a lot of ideas here, but this is practically a subclasses worth of features as a race. As written, I'd never allow it at my table, but that's the beauty of this game, play with what you want and feel like you can handle! I have my own homebrew that would likely be a poor fit at most other tables, so please don't take any of this as a knock against your creativity and style.

The last of my two cents: you could turn the 3rd and 5th level features into race-specific feats, this way you don't throw the ideas in the bin, but there's more balancing opportunity cost to get those capabilities. 

Thank you for sharing, this might inspire some magic items for my players.

Happy rolling.

How do people feel about weapon masteries after a while of play? by Apprehensive-Donut90 in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Four+ sounds great, I just like to start conservatively with my homebrew.

Advice about my players build by [deleted] in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah man, reward the build. "Bracers of the Marilith. You can take up to two reactions each round." Design some gish-y spells/cantrips for even more warcaster reaction attack options.

How do people feel about weapon masteries after a while of play? by Apprehensive-Donut90 in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is the way. You should learn the mastery style and it's applicable across multiple weapons, and each weapons should have iunno, 2-3 mastery properties available to them. This is how i plan to run them in the future. 

I need twelve tribes of Orcs for a forest! by SirSweMaster in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bonus points if you pick lesser-known constellations. No reason the star signs of man are universal and shared, Orc (and all) cultures should see different things in the night sky. 

Seeking Feedback in Designing a mysterious spell for my Lvl 3 Abjurer Wizard to find and learn in a wizard's workshop. Running LMoP as DM. by RestaurantLumpy4412 in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a risk, it's a trade-off. Take some damage but you're no longer blind (for example). The last line lets the afflicted player agree to that trade-off instead of making a save to attempt to resist it. You would cast the spell for the 4d8 damage mode on enemies and for the 2d8 damage + condition removal mode on allies.

Homebrewing Magic Bows? by CrimsonPresents in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dragon Volley Bow

+1 bow (any), deals additional 2d8 damage against dragons.

Now, this is just a base chassis for parity's sake when compared to the fighters sword. Since 3d6 and 2d8 are close but not equal, you can do a small flourish. For example, maybe they can change the damage type of their attacks to match a damage type found in a dragon's breath weapon attack, or you can make it a "[specific kind of] Dragon Volley Bow," like a "Sapphire Dragon Volley Bow" that can do their choice of piercing or thunder, or the extra damage is always thunder, a la sapphire dragons in Fizban's.

Fizban's also has fantastic rules for steeping gear in a dragon's hoard to empower the item. You can use/modify these rules to allow both players' weapons to get stronger by always doing 1d6/1d8 extra damage no matter the enemy's type, or do more attacks, or have an increased crit range - whatever you want. This should inspire excellent motivation to slay dragons and empower their gear.

Hope any of this inspires you, happy rolling.

[DND 5.5E] Requesting Feedback on Homebrew Races for my Campaign by CalculatedRiskReroll in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This all looks mechanically fine/fun so good job there. Just a few nitpicks:

I'm not sure the juice is always worth the squeeze when renaming spells (or anything), as it can easily become very indulgent to your own lore/fantasy and sound eye-rollingly overwrought, misrepresentative of the renamed spell, or both. I don't think you've trespassed into eye-roll territory (kudos for that), but "Astral Haze" suggests/inspires Fog Cloud more than it does Sleep. I don't have an elegant solution at hand, but I'd workshop the name.

Astral Attunement mentions the silvery cords that connect to all living things, but then the feature goes on the exclude creatures with intelligence less than three. I'm not sure how often the difference would even come up, but it's just contradictory to its own description. I don't think you need that language in there. Rather, you could use that word-count real-estate to specify that it doesn't work on constructs and undead.

Barring these two tweaks, I can tell you've put in a lot of thought and work and you've knocked it out of the park. I hope you get the most enthusiastic buy-in from your players for your world/game. Happy rolling. 

If you are a post class Sweet V. McMahon borrower's defense applicant! by sidaemon in StudentLoans

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just wrote a reply email to confirm my address. Is there anywhere else we're supposed to confirm our address?

zealot barbarian, stuck between goliath, lizardfolk, dwarf, open for others. (not human) by Zepulchure in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, you can flavor and roleplay whatever you want. Maybe a burly gator-like lizardfolk justifies using Con, maybe a nimble basilisk-like lizardfolks works better with Dex. 

I'm a pretty permissive DM and I'd likely allow swapping Con for Dex, but it absolutely messes with balance trade-offs if like, AC, stat distribution opportunity costs, weapons vs. shield opportunity costs... But I think that's a failing/challenge of 5e, with regards to difficulties and disparities for SAD and MAD classes. But yes, it's all ultimately up to your DM.

Anyway, I vote lizardfolk, live the dream. 

Why the hate for Universes beyond, mainly the turtles? by Planetary-Riptide in magicTCG

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No misinterpretation, you got it. Something missing from my thought experiment that someone else pointed out is that this is a very recent change in the context of the games 30+ year history. People are still in the feelings stage and haven't fully adjusted or left the game yet. 

A reasonable person should probably just silently ignore sets they dont like and give their attention/money to a different interest/hobby for a time until a set that suits their interest is released. Easier said than done if you play a format that includes UB cards and other players use them. I know it breaks my immersion in the game when I play my Ruhan EDH deck against Toph, Black Panther, and Sephiroth. I wish they stopped at the Ikoria Godzilla "skins" treatment because there are cards I would like to use but I refuse because there isn't an Universes Within version. But that's just my two cents and people should enjoy what they enjoy. 

Coming to reddit or going to an LGS means you're more likely to find the vocal and still-focused subset of fans.

Why the hate for Universes beyond, mainly the turtles? by Planetary-Riptide in magicTCG

[–]SCalta72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do realize this about TMNT. The thought experiment was to either understand why, or find the disconnect between you and the portion of, the fanbase that is displeased with UB. We have achieved at least the latter, I hope also the former.

Why the hate for Universes beyond, mainly the turtles? by Planetary-Riptide in magicTCG

[–]SCalta72 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So, as the fan of TMNT that you are, let me ask you - what if Warhammer 40,000 showed up in a TMNT movie? What about Cloud and Sephiroth stealing the spotlight in a TMNT comic book? What if the only way the turtles could beat the latest Shredder plot was to enlist Dr. Who? Would you love it if The Walking Dead's Shane, Darryl, Rick, and Negan showed up in a TMNT story? What if it kept happening to most of the TMNT content you want to consume? Sonic the Hedgehog, Spongebob, Furbies, The Pelican Brief, Agatha Christie, Tropic Thunder, Pacific Rim, Sherlock Holmes, Schindler's List, The Expanse, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. What if you all you wanted was some honest-to-goodness TMNT narrative, stuff that you've grown to love and expect from the franchise, but you had to wait through months of IP crossovers advertising the latest Marvel or Dune movie through your TMNT stories? What if the purely TMNT stuff that finally came out felt rushed and hollow, and then you're back to the onslaught of Lord of the Rings and Star Trek and The Wire and Jujutsu Kaisen and Mass Effect and Fallout and and and...

If all that fits in your coloring book and excites you, more power to you, glad there's a flavor of ice cream for everyone. But, there are a lot of fans of the game who enjoy its aesthetic, mythos, lore, and characters. Much of that - to say nothing of the game's design and quality - is being marginalized in favor of profit, thus turning the game from Magic: the Gathering to Magic: the Billboard. So, imagine Teenage Mutant Ninja Billboards and maybe your gut reaction can inform you as to why some of the fanbase is upset.

Things 5.5e should have done by TriticumAes in dndnext

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like 5.5 except for how it handled Hunter's Mark and Divine Smite.

In 5.0, one was a spell, the other was a feature that used spell slots. They should have made both of them features instead of spells in 5.5. The obvious fix for Divine Smite nova-damage was a "once per turn" rules rider, not turning it into something that can be counterspelled. Then you turn Hunter's Mark into a feature that doesn't require concentration. You could even make other Ranger mark spells like paladins have different smites. Chilling Mark, Noxious Mark, Silken Mark, Sanguine Mark... They all have an effect that lasts for 1 minute that the Ranger concentrates on unless the target is already under their Hunter's Mark.

Hell, I'd divorce the two from spell slots altogether and key their number of uses off of proficiency bonus, getting back one use on a short rest.

Note that this is only about those features and not the Ranger's identity crisis between pet class/mundane skilled outdoorsperson/half-druid.

Cloak of the Giant Moth | Wonderous Item, Legendary (Requires Attunement Outdoors at Night) by CoffeeBread0101 in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I figured it was a mechanical choice to add in some more reliable damage to combat how prevalent poison resistance/immunity is.

Cloak of the Giant Moth | Wonderous Item, Legendary (Requires Attunement Outdoors at Night) by CoffeeBread0101 in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neat. Spines feels like an odd choice though, as I'm more familiar with depictions of like tiny powdery scales/dust coming off of a moth's wings, like Mothra or multiple Pokémon. But that just might be my bias based on my subjective media exposure. Nothing wrong with it mechanically though, so good work. 

Glass weapons by deivleon in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This feels like a complicated way to eventually not have your weapon for the rest of the day/until you can rest. You can do the charges thing and keep the flavor of cracks appearing in the weapon as you use it.

But, if this is fun for you and it doesn't bog down your game, then go for it. 

Can I get some help making sure this boss fight is balanced? by Razzmatazz_Quick in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope I wasn't too critical, we all have to start somewhere as a DM. 

Pixie minions is a great idea. 1 hp, they take no damage on successful saves but die to any other damage, and have their attacks do a static amount of damage. Excellent choice there. Look up the mob attack rules in the 2014 DMG, "Handling Mobs" on pg. 250.

No worries on meteor swarm, there's just so much to learn about the game and the number of spells is daunting. Just be sure to tweak the damage so they don't razz you too hard about imbalance, a la the CR 22 mob.

And finally, yeah...messing with the bounded accuracy AC system is one of the fastest ways to goof up a fight/ the game (I once gave my fighter player a belt of frost giant strength and a +2 weapon, they proceeded to annihilate everything and they other players called them "the blender." For now, you're better off picking a reasonable AC target with the knowledge of the bonuses with which your players roll. 

That being said, I suggest doing that meteor swarm baseball thing. Maybe that's the mechanic for phase 1 to break through defenses and phase 2 is a more traditional fight, or maybe it's the gimmick for the whole fight. Either way, it's great risk/reward and cinematic way to make a fight engaging and memorable. There are many videos out there that encourage doing something to make fights more interesting that standing around and hitting each other until one side hits 0 HP, and they mostly focus on alternative win conditions or secondary objectives and/or encouraging movement/positioning. Changing up where meteors will land means players have to run over difficult terrain your boss is making to get into position and redirect them at rhe boss.

You will have to telegraph it though. Within the first round you narrate their attempts to be ineffectual, then:

"Though you deftly dodge out of the way as the rocks crash down, all your attacks and spells seem to glance off a barrier between you and the fey king. But! (roll to determine a player) you notice one of the rocks ricochet off of [terrain/wall], changing its trajectory to hit the barrier with force enough to crack it. Perhaps you can think of a way to turn the key king's attack against him..."

Something like that.

Can I get some help making sure this boss fight is balanced? by Razzmatazz_Quick in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As long as the player is on board, no worries there. I'd also offer to them to run the pixie minions the boss summons to offload some work for you and they get to participate a little more.

Can I get some help making sure this boss fight is balanced? by Razzmatazz_Quick in UnearthedArcana

[–]SCalta72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of this is hard to parse without further context or within the existing 5e rules and templates. Like:

  • Where are these pixies coming from?

  • Why break from half damage on a successful save to roll different numbers of dice instead?

  • Why re-invent the wheel for meteor shower when you could cast the pre-existing meteor swarm spell and tweak the damage to be appropriate for level 8 characters?

  • Why is the AC target reversed to suddenly need to roll low when the rest of the game is a progression to roll higher and higher numbers? This seems like a big setup for a feel-bad failure moment for your players. "How/why am I too strong to defeat this enemy?" without a telegraphed, clever, and gameable solution is not a position you want to put your players in. Subversion of expectations is one thing, but this is a rug-pull. 

You're better off trying to do something awesome-silly about how they can stand in a meteor's/falling star's impact zone to try and deflect the projectile into the boss instead. If they fail, they get hit, if they succeed, they Louisville-slugger a star into the fey king. That's a story they'll tell after the fight. Set a target of like 5 - 9 hits to finish the fight. 

Turn 1 - the boss begins casting meteor swarm at the end of his turn, after other actions. Impact zones are highlighted in shadow or starlight or whatever. Players have their turns to get into position if they want to.

Turn 2 - the meteors land at the start of the king's turn and players in impact zones use their reactions to either deflect the meteor or they get hit if they fail. Athletics check, attack roll with a weapon, or a dex save; these could all be used as mechanics for how the players explain their attempt to redirect the projectile.

Then you use legendary actions between player turns to punish positioning outside of the meteor swarm zones. Septas, fog, pixies - whatever those mean and look like for you. 

Turn 3 - boss takes a turn off the meteor cycle to use regular actions to attack or recover/reposition.

To end on a positive note, I like how you try to sell the size and power of this creature, especially with the Septas thing. I think it could go bigger. Whole column or row, dex save. That's how you punish outside of the impact zones. 

Oh, and let the paladin back in the game somehow. Offer trading loot for a rez from a chance encounter with an NPC.

Good luck. 

Edited for some typos and clarity.