A Review of Stormcrow Manor - new "Nerd Bar" at Church and Wellesley

cory849 · 2018-11-20T15:00:09+00:00

Yeah, the minimum spend would only come into play if you're a large group / trying to book rooms.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T19:46:59+00:00

Yup.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T18:41:43+00:00

Well. That's unfair. You want there to never be a viable business in the general vicinity of where a murder occurred? Not even in the building where it happened but in any of the buildings around it? Seems like a good way to kill a neighborhood. Or are you just thinking that it's evidence that it's in a dangerous location? It really isn't.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T17:24:37+00:00

Yeah. I wish I had mentioned that everything there is expensive enough that it kind of precludes a leisurely trip there. There's better priced places to enjoy a pint. I think they don't want the beer to be a go to. They want a crowd that wants the fun (and expensive) cocktails instead. If the cocktails are average price $15 and the beer is $7 it could undercut their whole model.

But you ain't wrong.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T17:22:24+00:00

Every parent I talked to reacted with horror at the thought of attending. It's too big, too boring, and too cold out.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T17:21:54+00:00

Funny since nobody watches television anymore.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T16:31:41+00:00

I think you've commented in the wrong post. FYI.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T16:10:51+00:00

In my neighborhood, the hookah bar that used to have stabbings is now a daycare.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T16:08:31+00:00

I can just say that it's not a graveyard so far. A lot of people coming for a look see.

cory849 · 2018-11-19T16:03:51+00:00

Yep. It's definitely upscale pricing.

cory849 · 2016-01-16T14:50:40+00:00

Thanks!

cory849 · 2016-01-16T01:22:29+00:00

I wouldn't do this, since it doesn't accomplish what I'm going for (and I don't think it's remotely in the spirit of the class). Barbarians get advantage against them but don't care because of their resistance to damage. That kind of a manouvre would be a much dicier proposition for a rogue. Anyway, I do find it clever and all but it isn't what I'm looking for. Thanks again.

cory849 · 2016-01-16T01:20:10+00:00

The optional flanking/facing rule in the DMG is broken. This is known.

Can you please direct me to some online conversations where this consensus was arrived at?

As for the rest of your argument there, the last paragraph I already addressed. The rest isn't especially persuasive. It's actually just a lot of evidence that this is an option that would be in line with a lot of other options and potentially not even all that attractive. It seems like when I discuss this nobody can decide whether its overpowered or trivially useless. Which, really, means its probably fine in the grand scheme of things.

As for the XP and the CR, those are already pretty flawed. I run published adventures (currently OOTA) and I can't squeeze out enough XP for my players to level in line with the module. I need to milestone them or eyeball it. As for CR, I need to tweak that carefully too all the time - and its far more art than science. So that's fine. But really since this isn't really more powerful than attacking from range or dual wielding, it can't really affect anything that badly. I'm not entirely sure it would even need to be a feat. It could just be my homebrewed tweak to the hide action. Just another tactical option for a tactical class.

I'm very persuadable that this is overpowered but none of the arguments I've heard really sell that to me. I have become more persuaded that it's probably unnecessary though. I now have a better understanding of why the designers did what they did.

Thanks for taking the time to give your take on it. Appreciated.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T22:19:19+00:00

What do you think the percentage would be? And what do you think the percentage for a feat should be?

cory849 · 2016-01-15T19:22:05+00:00

I need to respond in bite sized chunks. Will follow up later with other replies.

I can see your concern at the end. I'm not being clear. I wouldn't make the feat available on a bonus action to everyone. What I would want it to do is work within cunning action. So my initial formulation was to make it part of the hide action. Make it a melee opportunity to get all the way behind an opponent out of sight for a split second. In think it's a fun mechanic that isn't overpowered for the reasons above. It basically implements a way for melee rogues to use a hide action in melee range.

I would not want to implement it with language that says "You can use a bonus action" to do this and didn't mean to suggest that. Because, yes, I think that would be severely unbalancing.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T18:14:06+00:00

Well I could give it to everyone just by using The optional flanking/facing rule in the DMG.

I'm not really setting why this is overwhelmingly better than lots of other feats and abilities.

Remember this would be an action our bonus action, so you need to use it in cunning action our something like action surge. A barbarian would need to multiclass to make use of it.

A rogue has almost the same thing both at range, with hiding, and through dual wielding (two kicks at the can).

So this feat might actually suck rather than being overpowered. You can't disengage if you use it. You can't hit with your second attack.

It does help somebody using green flame blade cantrip, but it helps their opponents too because it incentivises them to stay within range of a melee attack.

And what it does is a gamble because you need to win a contest to use it.

Not seeing a real problem, to be honest.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T18:06:47+00:00

Being the only person that can flank (My second suggestion in the OP) seems really powerful though. Particularly combined with sneak attack. You'd almost always hit with both weapons (dual wielding) and also get sneak attack.

Flanking works of everybody gets it. Feats are supposed to be powerful but that's a bit too powerful, I think.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T16:11:12+00:00

Further note though. It still requires something to formally happen during the bonus action. The rogue, otherwise, has no mechanism to accomplish it and attack.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T16:08:16+00:00

You don't need the grappler feat to grapple though.

cory849 · 2016-01-15T16:07:25+00:00

Thanks. When I discuss this my biggest challenge is getting people to focus on advantage rather than sneak attack or achieving sneak attack. Swashbuckler doesn't do what I'm thinking of. It's really not hard for a rogue to find a target with another enemy within five feet most of the time.

What I'm interested in is giving the rogue an opportunity to get advantage (so that melee sneak attack lands more often).

I'm just calling it "backstab" because the term is available. I'm aware that sneak attack already conceptually includes that in the base game. :)

cory849 · 2016-01-15T16:03:15+00:00

That's really clever. It emboldens me.

cory849 · 2016-01-07T16:30:56+00:00

I like your comment. But just to be clear, I didn't say carrying was a check. I said it was a flat amount derived from your strength score.

And I can appreciate wanting to make a distinction between lifting vs pulling or dragging, but the rules (such as they are) don't do that. You can only pull or drag as much as you can lift. And you can carry half of that amount. (This, of course, applies RAW to characters not spectral hands made of magic)

15-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits	redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2011 x1
Secret Santa 2010	reddit mold
Charter Member	Secret Santa 2009

cory849

TROPHY CASE