#Project Horizon (5e rebuild)

1 messages ¡ Page 3 of 1

dawn robin
#

eh, not really, exploding dice explode so much harder on many-dice spells

frank python
#

Well, it's pretty much +1 per die

dawn robin
#

more dice = more chance, and good odds you may never use the feature if no dice are maxed

frank python
#

You could do exploding and one more die, that balances out the many dice ones with the big dice ones (and always adds something at least)

#

Also there's always the option to explode on 1, maybe even both 1 and max. For those who value consistency

dawn robin
#

what if empowered just, let you add your CHA mod to the damage total or something?

#

great for aoes

frank python
#

Eh, dunno. That's better as a subclass ability

dawn robin
#

checking how onednd did em

#

not much changed overall

image.png
frank python
#

Also, y'know what'd be good? Exploding dice (your choice of 1 or max) after rolling

dawn robin
#

tho, on average, a d6 where you reroll 1's only has an average of 3.9 rather than 3.5

#

so not that great

frank python
#

Yes, that's why rerolls are pretty lame

dawn robin
#

given for something like fireball, that's pretty good due to so many dice

frank python
#

Exploding is just above 1 per die iirc, slightly stronger on small dice

dawn robin
#

~+.5 per dice gives you +4 overall damage

frank python
#

Well, fireball is just inherently unbalanced and that's it

dawn robin
#

ye...

#

I'd prob change it to about 6d6 or something similar, but that's another convo

#

hmm, I could make quicken like it is now, but scale the cost of the SP to match the spell slot rather than a fixed 2?

#

so the cost could be like, 1 + spell level SP

#

tho I did make sorc's Point Casters and "SP" is now just drawing from these points to do non-spell things

frank python
dawn robin
frank python
#

No, I meant exploding

dawn robin
#

I guess its a little higher as you keep the 1 in the total

frank python
#

Huh, is my math off? Maybe it is

#

Still, exploding on reaction sound fun, and if you add one additional die it's pretty strong

dawn robin
#

why not just add a dice? No explosion needed, or specific result

frank python
#

Oh, right, obviously it has to be around 0.5 per die, am dumb

dawn robin
#

just say "I use MM to add a dice"

frank python
#

Because explosion fun

dawn robin
#

but also makes it more situational/luck based

#

and further encourages the use of many-dice-spells

#

that's the issue with explosions... they are neat but oh so situational... 😔

#

might be better on specific spells, specifically the d4 spells

frank python
#

Slightly better, but I think most spells stick to d6s and d8s

dawn robin
#

ye, I'd have to make/adjust some

frank python
#

And that's why I added the additional die, it should kiiinda balance out

#

I just think that Sorcerous Smite wouldn't be as exciting... Useful if you play with open HP, but still. And this way, your blaster can get even more excited about high (or low) rolls

dawn robin
#

though its a nerf, isn't it?

#

compared to empowered rn

#

where you just spend 1 SP to reroll basically as many dice as you want

#

vs sometimes you can add +1 dice

frank python
#

More like you always add one die, but you only use it on occasions where you'd add more

dawn robin
#

I think I must've lost you, what do you mean by that?

frank python
#

also it's die you dimwit

#

When you deal damage with a spell, you can spend X sorcery points to add an additional die of the same size. Moreover, for any max or 1 (your choice) rolled, you add another die of the same size. This can chain"

#

Not quite perfect wording, but you get the point

dawn robin
#

that might be too much blasting power

#

get a little lucky with a few dice and auto-crit your fireball

frank python
#

Well, kinda. But I'd probably put it at 1+level or something

dawn robin
#

I don't think it should break the damage limit too hard

#

like, +1 dice is already pretty good

frank python
#

Eh, dunno. Smites exist

dawn robin
#

ye, but that burns a half-caster's slot

#

and has a damage limit

frank python
#

laughs in Warlock

dawn robin
#

this has the potential for a 3rd level 13d6

#

even with nerfed fireball

frank python
#

Extremely rare, but yes, technically the potential is even infinite. But that's gonna be extremely rare

dawn robin
#

and if you include chaining...

#

but why allow infinite?

frank python
#

Because fun

dawn robin
#

is it?

#

the DM isn't having fun when you use a 1st level spell to do 9th level damage

#

balance is as important as fun feel

frank python
#

Eh. I think it's rare enough. Wild Magic exists

dawn robin
#

and sucks

frank python
#

Like, I'm the first to yell about balance, but I do think we should trust the probability on this one. Most likely, there'll only be one or two huge rolls for a whole campaign, and those make for memorable moments

dawn robin
#

I've been on the dealing and receiving side of 0.05% odds before, and yes it was very memorable

#

but should that be something that a player can just decide to do?

#

if it was pure luck, then yah maybe

#

but this is triggered luck

#

what if the player has other features that let em reroll?

#

or its a critical hit, and thus many more dice on the table

frank python
#

Yeah, those are valid points (easily solved by non-crittable spells)

#

But the expected value increase is still less than +1 per die

dawn robin
#

+1 dice killing an enemy is also memorable

#

less flashy yes, but its the same result + no madness

frank python
#

Eh, not really? Definitely way less exciting

dawn robin
#

with current empowered, even tho its not great I've had my players use it and be very excited by it

#

it doesn't need a massive overhaul

#

its just 1 SP

frank python
#

I kinda think there should be two. One for consistency, and one that actually increases your potential

#

It's Sorcerer after all, the "unruly magic" class

dawn robin
#

wait what if

frank python
#

Of course it could be something less crazy, but I'd definitely try to come up with something exciting that actually raises the ceiling

dawn robin
#

upgrade the dice size of the spell

#

if not all dice, but a select dice

frank python
#

I could get behind that, yeah

dawn robin
#

feels way more impactful than it really is, but can be neat

#

a d6 where you can reroll any result you want has an average of 4.25, a d6 upgraded to d8 has an average of 4.5

frank python
#

I'd still keep the +1 die clause though, as it again strongly small dice spells

#

The size upgrade is literally just +1 per die

dawn robin
#

basically yes

#

tho a straight +1 would have a higher min and lower max

frank python
#

Well yes

dawn robin
#

what would happen to a d12? 🤔

#

lemme math real fast

frank python
#

2d6 is only +0.5 if you're wondering

dawn robin
#

6d6
avg: 21
min: 6
max: 36

6d6 (can reroll)
avg: 25.5
min: 6
max: 36

6d8
avg: 27
min: 6
max: 48

6d6 (+1 per dice)
avg: 27
min: 12
max: 42

#

that's a decent upgrade

#

hmm, the +1 is more effective overall than the +1 dice size, but doesn't feel as flashy and only does well on many-dice-spells

#

and ye I might need to "upgrade" d12's to 2d6's, even tho thats a little less effective

frank python
#

dude stop using "dice" as singular glare

dawn robin
#

but all my uses of dice here were plural?

frank python
#

+1 per dice
no they were not

#

3d4 is 1d12+1, but dunno if you wanna introduce so many caltrops

dawn robin
#

I suppose

#

and ye, prob no caltrips

#

caltrips?

#

caltrops, cantrips, lakjsdfkgh

frank python
#

Caltrops deal damage, caltrips inflict prone

dawn robin
#

time to make a cantrip called caltrip

frank python
#

You could do +1 size, but if it's d12s, it does something like explosion so that it also comes out to +1 per die

dawn robin
#

you are really on the explosion train huh

frank python
#

Kinda. But I just wanted to maintain the balance mostly, without doing stuff like "1d12 becomes 2d6 but also reroll 1s"

dawn robin
#

ya know.... that could be a way to do Wild Magic sorc actually

#

they can explode 1's 1/turn

#

even on d20's

frank python
#

Honestly, yeah, I could see that. Though I'd look for ways to make that more noticeable on stuff that doesn't deal damage as well

dawn robin
#

explode enemy 20's on saves (force rerolls)

frank python
#

If all of your conditions are graded, you could do "whenever you apply a condition, instead of applying a static amount, roll the appropriate die"

#

Well yes, but that's kinda rare and not terribly exciting. It just makes you slightly better, doesn't actually give the same improved effect feel that exploding dice do

dawn robin
#

hmm, not all conditions are graded, but that isn't a bad thought to keep in mind either

frank python
#

Condition 3 could either be 1d6 (which is an improvement) or an exploding 1d4 (which is funny)

#

Do conditions always drop by one level per turn?

dawn robin
dawn robin
frank python
dawn robin
#

indeed

frank python
#

But well, Wild Magic was always meant to be a little crazy

dawn robin
#

I mean, kinda ye

#

but I'd like to reign em back just a little to become more usable

#

rather than "congrats TPK"

frank python
#

I mean, we're already doing that. Anything that isn't "roll to check whether you deal 10d6 damage to all your party" is already more balanced expression

#

If your moderate stun actually kinda disables the enemy... Well, nice, but hardly as game-breking

#

But yeah, you could also do stuff like "roll 1d4, on a 1, lose one condition level, on a 4, gain one"

#

Alternatively: "you have a stability die. If you roll above 4, get a bonus/malus on an even/odd number". Dunno what'd stabilize or destabilize you, but it sounds like a fun concept. So at d4, you're stable. At d12, 2/3 of your rolls are modified

dawn robin
#

I’d need to hear more to understand that one

#

Might be a min before reply due to driving

frank python
#

Well, basically:

  • There's a stability die that goes from d4 to d12 (or maybe even d20)
  • Stuff can increase the die (similarly to triggering Wild Magic Surges before), and I suppose it resets on rest
  • Whenever you do relevant stuff, you roll the die. If the roll is 4 or less, nothing happens. Otherwise, even rolls give you a bonus (exploding dice, more condition etc) and odd rolls give you a malus (vanishing dice, less condition etc)
  • Other stuff could also use the die as a bonus to something
dawn robin
#

Hmm, could do

#

One of the things I’m doing in PH is making every feature that is magical indicate such, so I could say “anytime you use a magical ability roll stability”

frank python
#

Yeah, neat

dawn robin
#

Tho magical passives might mess with that

#

Whenever you take an action to use a magical ability?

frank python
#

Eh, "use an ability" sounds fine enough? But take an action works too, as long as it's clear that it includes Swift and Reactions

dawn robin
#

Ye, I’ve ensured that all fall under the “Action” umbrella, as the primary action is now called a Main action

frank python
#

Good

#

You may want to add "long action" if you haven't

dawn robin
#

Long action?

#

Oh like 1 min things?

frank python
#

Yeah. Just to cover all the long spells and stuff like talking to people and such. It's primarily an out of combat thing, but it could intersect combat sometimes, and it should be specified for the sake of features like this one

dawn robin
#

Longer Actions
Sometimes an activity requires you to take more than 1 action to complete, such as a spell that takes 1 minute to cast. Such activities are still considered an Action, but while you are performing the action you are unable to use your Main Action as you are considered to be using it to complete the activity.

#

Does that work?

frank python
#

"take more than 1 round to complete"

#

I'd also list more examples: "Such as casting identify, talking to someone, or activating a magical artifact". Make it clear that this is the catch-all even for stuff with no listed length

dawn robin
#

Is talking to someone an action?

#

I’d consider that a “free action”, unless you are making ability checks

frank python
#

Yeah, I kinda meant that (though can't you still do Persuasion through broken sentences mid-combat?). But you can replace it with something better, I just wanted something explicitly non-magical and free-form

dawn robin
#

Certain activities are incredibly simple or a component of another action, and thus do not consume any action by themselves. Actions such as drawing a weapon to make an attack with it, dropping (not throwing) a held item, or speaking -provided you are not making an ability check- do not take an action.

frank python
#

So you're totally removing Object Interactions?

#

And I'm not sure about the "no ability check" rule. It makes some sense, but I feel sometimes just a single word in combat could totally be a check ("Help!", "Yield!", "They attacked us for no reason!")

dawn robin
#

Is that a check? Or a choice?

frank python
#

It's a weird sort of non-action check, but I feel like those totally should happen sometimes. Unless you wanna use passive scores for that?

#

I mean, if you want any attempt to intimidate the enemy into giving up to be a (Swift) Action, go ahead. But dunno

dawn robin
#

I have a utilize action but discord is being weird in my phone

#

Utilize
Uses: Strike/Swift
You use an object, pull a switch, pick up an item from the ground, or say a command word.
Simple Utilize actions do not require you expend an action; unsheathing a single weapon, pulling an arrow from a quiver, or pressing a button each do NOT require an action.

frank python
#

Huh... This is gonna be horribly annoying to make clear and precise

dawn robin
#

Indeed

#

Might have to make it a “here’s many examples but your DM has final say”

frank python
#

I feel like you're gonna need to go a little meta and just say that "worthless" manipulations of your character are free, but anything that affects the environment or other characters isn't

#

That being said, maybe drawing weapons should take at least a Swift action? Y'know, make all the little things matter a bit. Then you get to waive or utilize the costs as an ability for a subclass or feat

#

Also specifying "single weapon" is annoying for dual wielders, unless you fix this somewhere else

dawn robin
#

Eh, just penalizes dual welders

#

And anyone relying on swift, like barb/rogue

frank python
#

Weren't you gonna give everyone some Swift actions?

dawn robin
#

Not everyone no, but opening a few more options

#

Or if you mean actions that anyone can take, ye there’s a couple (like utilize)

#

ATM I think only utilize is a universal Swift…

frank python
#

I feel like Rage shouldn't have a cost, or, alternatively, it should totally allow pulling out weapons as part of it. Or even require

dawn robin
#

I have toyed with the idea of rage auto-activating

#

The gameplay of barb being trying to maintain it, no longer requiring they balance limited charges

#

Tho I’ve also considered them having to do something to trigger it, like once they hit someone they can activate it

frank python
#

Oh, no Rage limit sounds neat. But then I could see it having a cost

#

I think HoMM 7 did something similar, I like it

dawn robin
#

It could be neat to have like a “rage meter” they wanna build to get stronger and stronger as they get more and more enraged, but with combat being so fast that doesn’t feel great

dawn robin
frank python
#

Yeah. If anything, have it start at some level and drop partially under some conditions

#

Build-up sounds more like a Ranger thing anyway

dawn robin
#

Make rage a tiered condition 🤔

frank python
dawn robin
#

Hm, tho I’ve already rewritten mark for ranger, but I’ll consider it

frank python
#

Note the subabilities in the table, some of these could be adapted to D&D really well. Either in the base ability or somewhere else

dawn robin
#

Thoughts on barb rage being tiered tho? You seemed against it

#

Could be a little complexity to spice up their playstyle

frank python
#

I did? I was only against it ramping-up, I wouldn't really mind a ramping-down one. I guess it really depends on what you do with it though

dawn robin
#

Tho it could start in the middle, and both go up and down

#

Hit a guy? +1. Didn’t? -1. Turn ends? -1

frank python
#

Maybe?

dawn robin
#

Maybe with limits based on your Prof bonus

frank python
#

Though I'd be worried about stuff like ranged-heavy encounters just bullying the Rage out of the Barb completely. Wouldn't want to encourage particularly cheesy tactics from either side

dawn robin
#

Could +1 on being hit too

#

Or being attacked

frank python
#

That being said, I think a ramp-down one could greatly encourage typical Barb "tactics" such as rushing into the thick of it as soon as possible, so I like that

dawn robin
#

Hmm, tho you’d need to like… spend the rage somehow for ramp up to matter

#

Like spend 3 rage to do a big cleave or something

#

Oop, gotta drive again

frank python
#

Do you? I think it could simply be "+1 damage and DR per point, lose one at the end of a turn, lose more if you didn't do anything from the list"
Yes I know DR may not be the best idea, but it's just an example of something scalable. Could be Temp HP at start of turn or something

dawn robin
#

Could be neat to expend charges to do something so you have an up and down

#

Maybe nothing cuts your rage other than current 5e stuff (didn’t attack or get attacked this turn)

#

But many things give bonuses you can then burn for powers

#

So it’s less of a “don’t do this or have this happen or you suffer” and more of a “if you do this barb-y thing you get powers”

#

When I get back to a PC I’ll draft up a quick imagining

frank python
#

Eh, dunno, I think that's getting too complex for being the flavorwise simplest class. You could make a subclass, but I'd keep Rage simple and linear

dawn robin
#

Yah, that's the issue imo

#

barb being simple is very on brand

#

Maybe I can make some smaller changes to get them into the Combo system I'm pushing onto the other martials

#

something with Reckless perhaps

#

could add the fancy stuff to the new Battlerager, make it actually usable

frank python
#

Eh, more like some other subclass

dawn robin
#

Berserker frenzy?

#

also updated wording

image.png
frank python
#

I was thinking more like some kind of energy you accumulate, magical or adjacent

dawn robin
#

So, as I was getting some ideas in #quick_questions message, I realized something with my plan to completely remove Hit Dice

#

I wanted short rests to instead just restore a flat amount of HP, but I'm not sure how to calculate that

#

should it just be like, half your hit points? The idea is to do this like BG3 where you only can regain HP from short rests twice a day (though you can take more, you can only regain HP twice)

rough kite
#

what's the downside to using hit dice for that purpose?

ancient bolt
# dawn robin I wanted short rests to instead just restore a flat amount of HP, but I'm not su...

Roll dice with the face decided by what class you have (so weak classes stay weak), you have more dice as you level (so it scales), you get back half your dice when you long rest (not all of it, so you don't burn it all in one adventuring day)
huh, 5e's system works well here
Tweaks about the exact math could be made - it could be a lot crunchier, for example, or less swingy - but I like the basic system 5e already has implemented.

rough kite
#

the rolling? random nature of the healing?

dawn robin
#

That hit dice are only used for that

ancient bolt
dawn robin
#

and are a whole mechanic that needs to be kept track of just for that

ancient bolt
rough kite
#

yeah to me the solution isn't to ditch them, it's to utilize them in other ways

dawn robin
#

I'd say otherwise, HP is a very valuable resource, people don't wanna "spend HP" to gain features

#

that's how you die

#

I'd much rather be able to say "short rests restore X hp, long rests restore full hp"

#

as that's literally all you need if you remove hit dice from the equation

rough kite
#

but then you also want to track the number of rests you've had between days right?

dawn robin
#

Replace the hit dice box on the player sheet with two pips

#

cross one out when you take a short rest

rough kite
#

simple solution, I just like to roll rocks

dawn robin
#

Ye, but how many can you roll?

#

without looking, can you remember the rules for it? How you get them back?

rough kite
#

up to half of your max per rest right? and you get half back on a long rest?

dawn robin
#

and how do you expend them exactly?

rough kite
#

as in restore health with them?

dawn robin
#

because I'll also say you already got one thing wrong (this isn't saying you are dumb, this is saying the rules are really weird)

rough kite
#

roll them on a short rest, add CON to the rolls, restore that much HP

#

mostly used them in Solasta

dawn robin
#

so, RAW, you can roll as many as you want on a short rest. You do regain half on long rest

#

also, you roll them one at a time

#

roll one, add con, add to HP, decide if you wanna roll more

#

repeat until you are happy

rough kite
#

they're definitely funky, and if you only want to worry about restoring HP then cutting them is the move for sure

#

I just wish there were more features that could utilize them in other ways, assuming you had a few more to use

dawn robin
#

They could, but then the issue is while maybe a specific wizard blood mage sub has it, and barb class has use... what about everyone else?

#

they just have a thing on their sheet that has no use?

#

either every class has some alt-use for em, or there's really no reason to keep em

#

better for the blood mage to have some internal resource that they use

rough kite
#

I could see them used as an action surge type effect, since they can represent your overall vitality between rests

#

push your limit briefly at the cost of future restoration

#

but that's a whole nother can of worms to address

dawn robin
#

ye, and opens up more pacing issues...

#

if you don't pace correctly you now have everyone spamming surges lol

dawn robin
#

fixed

#

Also, as a totally different topic, I also wanna fix the "two people blind swinging in the darkness have neutral attacks" issue

#

I might already have it solved, but weirdly?

#

so RAW 5e, you have adv due to being unseen, then disadv due to not seeing your foe, so its neutral

#

in my version atm, you'd have advantage due to being unseen, but they'd have a +5 bonus to AC due to having "Hard Cover"

#

could also add this

Seeing your Foe

If you are unable to see your foe but there is no physical barrier between you and the target, you are still able to attempt an Attack. The foe is considered to be in Hard Cover (+5 AC), and you do not gain advantage on this attack due to being an unseen attacker.

#

I'll call it "Fighting Blind"

#

I'm putting it in the Sight rules. Tho I also need to make rules for unseen attackers and such...

image.png
frank python
#

Dunno, I don't really mind Hit Dice. Having pips for healing surges or whatever wouldn't really save much space compared to a number. And like, nobody complains that HP has only a single use. If you fixed the pacing a little, tracking Hit Dice would become as natural and engaging as tracking HP. Doesn't matter if there's only one use if that use is what's keeping you alive.

And then all the blood mages and limit-breaking warriors can use them in a natural way, I agree those should exist a bit more. Also I guess if you want Hit Dice to be a bit more interesting, you could have them work when dropped to 0, but less effectively (possibly no Con bonus?) - you can expend them to push your limits and not fall down just yet, but at the cost of future recovery. I'd also make them equal to level just for simplicity (and, assuming the pacing is fixed, having some more HP to expend over the day won't be a bad thing)

dawn robin
#

The pips can also be placed in the HP area instead

#

instead of being their own box still

#

you don't need that full wide area to mark your max hp after all

frank python
#

Eh, technically. I don't think that matters much

dawn robin
#

no, it doesn't, that's a very minor benefit of removing hit dice compared to others

frank python
dawn robin
#

"Hard" in this case doesn't mean literal durability, but instead how significant of cover it provides

#

I do hope to rename it eventually to something other than the military term

frank python
#

Eh, I guess. Still, kinda weird if it can be avoided by the other type of feature that should avoid it. I really think visual and physical cover could be separated pretty easily

#

I assume you're gonna fix yoyo healing, right? In such a case, letting Hit Dice prevent you from falling unconscious could make them way more important by itself

dawn robin
#

I plan to have a condition that is applied to a creature that goes down, increasing in severity as they repeatly go down

frank python
#

Sometimes, cover only blocks view (like fog) or only attacks (like glass). Physical cover provides X bonuses, visual cover provides Y bonuses, and to calculate Z bonuses, take the higher of their levels

dawn robin
#

I mean, but they do the same thing

#

like, there's 1 or 2 things in the game that only requires sight and nothing else

frank python
#

Uh, most spells?

dawn robin
#

no, most spells require a direct line to the target, glass interrupts it

frank python
#

I'd argue at least all of Enchantment should work

dawn robin
#

afaik, only two spells: Misty Step and Sacred Flame can work through glass

#

misty because it targets you, not the space you teleport, and flame because it explicitly ignores cover

frank python
#

Hiding is a pretty big thing too

dawn robin
#

ye, the goal will be to say that Hiding can give you a type of cover, as well as potentially make enemies unaware of where you are

frank python
#

It's the other way around - you need cover to hide

dawn robin
#

true, so if anything it might... increase the quality of your cover?

#

as "cover" here is used to define "harder to see/hit"

frank python
#

This is certainly getting messy. I think at least with your current system you could have cover be numerical, and Hidden just give advantage on top of that. May be way too strong though, depending on how it's calculated

#

How about "Hidden lets you preserve the quality of your cover for a few moments". So for example you get to attack with the bonus, which normally wouldn't count (as you're already out of cover when attacking)

dawn robin
#

I think this may be helped if I rename cover

#

because cover feels like sandbags and arrow slits, and not fog and invisibility

frank python
#

Yeah, definitely

#

Or, y'know, separate visual and physical cover expression

dawn robin
#

but like, why?

#

they do the same thing, just have a confusing time calling them one thing

frank python
#

They don't, fully

dawn robin
#

person you can't see very well (because there's a wall)
person you can't see very well (because they are invisible)
mechanically almost the same

frank python
#

One literally blocks physical weapons from passing through, that's a pretty big difference. Total physical cover means you can't be hit, total visual cover only means disadvantage to hit. Total visual cover means you can't be enchanted, total physical cover can allow that.

dawn robin
#

ye, so visual cover can never become total

frank python
#

Sure, but if you're fighting ghosts, visual is the only type that matters

dawn robin
#

hm?

#

oh you mean like invis ghosts

frank python
#

I mean like ethereal ghosts that don't care about walls

#

I'm not saying they should be two separate mechanics, but I'd at least allow a distinction by separating bullet points in the effects

dawn robin
#

well, does their attacks care?

#

if they can't see the player due to a wall, even one they can phase through, they can't hit em

frank python
#

I'd say no. A ghost archer firing ethereal arrows doesn't care about glass

dawn robin
#

but just because they can phase through walls doesn't mean they see through walls

#

so, Hard Cover but not Total

frank python
#

But there's glass and mirrors and other senses and whatnot

#

Force fields may be a pretty big one

#

Plus then you can just make Blinded be total visual cover for everything, I guess

dawn robin
#

soft = visual or physical barrier partially obscuring
hard = visual or physical barrier greatly obscuring
total = physical barrier totally obscuring

frank python
#

Eh, dunno. I mean that's pretty much how it works now, but eh

dawn robin
#

I mean, I agree the terms make it hard to really put the two together

#

I think it can work, just the terms "cover" and "hard/soft" don't really help

frank python
#

Well, the current system is kinda better in this regard

dawn robin
#

half/three-quarters/total cover, then light/heavily obscured sorta thing?

frank python
#

Yeah

#

I guess light/heavy/total cover isn't horrible if you want to unify them

#

Still, unification means you can hide behind glass, and I don't really like that

dawn robin
#

but you already can

frank python
#

In vanilla 5e? I don't think so

dawn robin
#

spells can't pierce glass, at least most can't

#

and attacks consider that attacking the object

#

sure attacks can probably break the glass, but you can't target the creature

frank python
#

Yeah, but you can't use the Hide action, no advantage for your attacks

#

Even forest elves can't

dawn robin
#

Right, so if I had a separate rule for "Unseen Attacker", that should cover that right?

#

that rule specifying "you must have visual obscurity from the target"

#

ironically, glass has a decent AC

image.png
frank python
#

I suppose, but then you end up needing to define a variant of obscurement anyway. I think you're better off doing it my way, i.e. here are the main benefits (take higher), here are the visual-only benefits, here are the physical-only benefits

#

Glass is totally a high AC, low HP thing

dawn robin
#

so, one of the reasons I combined them was to avoid them stacking

#

like, you are in cover, then lightly obscure, both give a +2 AC bonus, do you have a +4, etc

frank python
#

yes, which is why I said take higher

dawn robin
#

what if one gives like, +2 AC and +2 Reflex, the other gives +4 AC no reflex

#

what's higher?

#

do you get +4 AC +2 Reflex?

frank python
#

argh, give me a while to type it out

frank python
#

Cover

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.

Cover is counted either on a numerical scale or as light/heavy/total, whatever, both work.

Cover provides the following benefits:

  • +X to AC
  • +X to Hide, Sleight of Hand, and Initiative checks
  • +X to saves against effects with a physical trajectory (I guess just Reflex saves)

Physical and Visual cover

Most types of cover (such as walls, trees, or creatures) provide visual and physical cover in equal measure. However, that is not always the case. For example, a pane of glass would provide only physical cover, while a dense fog would provide only visual cover. Something like a soft clay wall could provide total visual cover, but only light physical cover.

When a creature isn't affected equally by both types of cover, calculate the benefits in the following way:

  • use the higher of the two cover levels for the AC bonus
  • use only visual cover for the second bonus
  • use only physical cover for the third bonus

Most effects that bypass cover only work against one type of it. Special senses such as Blindsight or Lifesense will typically help you bypass visual cover, while physical cover may be bypassed for example by ethereal or homing projectiles.

#

This is obviously missing lots of key points and is written horribly, but hopefully it'll let you get the idea better. The point is that they don't really need to be written as separate, but rather the separation is another layer of it

dawn robin
#

I'm gonna be back to a PC soon and can see what I can do

frank python
#

Y'know, this allows summon spells to work through glass and peepholes. I think I like that option

#

Maybe you should formalize it somewhere. "All spells travel to their target as a small bead, unless otherwise noted. The bead is roughly 1 inch in diameter, and can/cannot pass through matter. It cannot pass through lead or lead-lined materials."

dawn robin
#

not perfect wording, but I think this is a clean way to put it?

#

so no matter the cover type, you get +x AC. If its visual, you get +x (dex checks), if its physical you get +x reflex. If its both, you get all three

frank python
#

Yeah, that's what I meant. Though Total Cover should still be type-dependent

dawn robin
#

well, complete cover is complete. The only things that can ignore any form of "total coverage" would need to just specify that they do, like things in 5e that specify that full cover doesn't grant protection

#

if you don't know where someone is, you can't do anything except look for em

frank python
#

And "cannot be targeted" is kinda bad in general, because you often have cover from an effect, not a creature. Y'know, a fireball

dawn robin
#

true, "directly" targeted may be better

#

like, if its glass (complete physical, no visual), neither spells nor attacks can pierce

#

if its invisibility + hide (complete visual, no physical), neither spells nor attacks can pierce

frank python
#

Well, something like an Enchantment spell (or just Magic Missile) could. For the latter, a fireball still catches you

dawn robin
#

ye, I'll need to note only direct targeting matters

frank python
#

You've already made the split, don't avoid making it here as well

dawn robin
#

but complete is complete, there's no in between?

#

and magic missile and such can't pierce anything

#

like, the only spell I know that could pierce both is Psychic Lance, and that explicitly says it ignores all cover

frank python
#

Sure, but you can still have complete visual and no physical (pretty common actually) or the other way around

dawn robin
#

right, but in both situations, you can't be directly targeted

frank python
#

Depends

dawn robin
#

does it?

frank python
#

Yes

dawn robin
#

if u can find an example lmk

frank python
#

Seriously, why do you keep avoiding it so much?

frank python
dawn robin
#

What kinda enchantment?

frank python
#

Unless you go for the bead interpretation anyway

dawn robin
#

all spells are the bead interpretation by default

#

you cannot target a space that there's not a physical direct line to

#

even an invisible object can stop a spell

frank python
#

Is that so?

dawn robin
#

yes

frank python
#

Well, maybe. But why not future-proof this anyway?

dawn robin
#

Isn't that what I'm doing?

frank python
#

You don't lose anything by just continuing the split

dawn robin
#

But why split into two when the effect is truly identical now

#

like, I agreed with you for the rest but, no is no?

#

you can't if its physical, you can't if its visual

#

you very can't if its both

frank python
#

When your cover is fog, it has no effect on the fireball blast, even if it's "total"

dawn robin
#

fog isn't total

#

fog is heavy

frank python
#

could be

dawn robin
#

right, so, you cannot be directly targeted if the creature doesn't know where you are

#

that's how it be

#

you could get blasted from the side by a random fireball ye

frank python
#

Sure. But you have cover from the fireball someone blindly tossed in your direction

dawn robin
#

but you can't be targeted by a hold person

#

yes that's why I updated the wording

image.png
#

directly

ancient bolt
frank python
ancient bolt
dawn robin
#

The rules for areas of effects would specify such

#

wouldn't need to be in cover rules

#

I think that's how 5e did it?

#

I will note I also said "target" not "creature" as this includes spaces and points and such

frank python
#

Pretty sure it isn't, and even so, it's backwards. Won't you specify it there using cover rules?

dawn robin
#

I mean, I could throw in a line saying that complete visual cover may not protect you from aoes?

frank python
#

Sure. But why are you being so weirdly adamant about this. Why can't you just copy the scheme of the three bullet points you have?

dawn robin
#

A target in Complete Cover cannot be directly targeted by any means. You may still be affected by effects that target an area, such as the blast of a fireball that you happen to be too close to despite being hidden from the caster.

#

mostly as the game doesn't have but like, a handful of edge cases that would be bothered by this?

#

like, "homing attacks" or "ethereal attacks" are like... 1 spell?

#

I can just have those be a "specific beats general" moment

#

if there were more ethereal attacks, would they also ignore armor? 🤔

frank python
#
  • Any kind of total cover prevents the beneficiary from being targeted by attacks (wait wasn't this supposed to be disadvantage?)
  • Total physical cover prevents the beneficiary from being affected by effects requiring a Reflex Save
  • Total visual cover prevents the beneficiary from being directly targeted by any action
frank python
dawn robin
#

and losing nothing by not?

frank python
#

No, you lose some consistency in the rules and future-proofness

dawn robin
#

Players and GMs alike already ignore so many rules

#

its way better to have it be much more generalized, then have specific cases note their exception

#

at least imo

frank python
#

Yes, because they're bad. That's why you should be trying to write them better

#

If someone wants a ghosthunting campaign, it'll suddenly become a pretty important ruling

dawn robin
#

if I can just write a single sentence, bold it, and say "if you ignore everything else, just know this", I'm good

#

if they wanna look closer and go "wait what about XYZ situation", they can read the little notes after

frank python
#

The problem is that you're writing the rule in a specific way - "can't be directly targeted". So this isn't just a "do what seems logical" suggestion, but an actual hard rule. So it should be at least a little consistent

dawn robin
#

but you still can't?

#

like, in 5e, the one spell that breaks this that I know if is Psychic Lance

#

If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell's target even if you can't see it. If the named target isn't within range, the lance dissipates without effect.

frank python
#

Maybe. What about the Enchantment Wizard feature where you hypnotize someone? It's not a spell after all

dawn robin
#

isn't that a touch range?

#

As an action, choose one creature that you can see within 5 feet of you.

frank python
#

Not really, glass is thin

#

Besides, it doesn't matter. What if someone later makes a similar one with 60 feet range?

dawn robin
#

afaik, the ability fails

#

its in full cover

frank python
#

Which is completely stupid

dawn robin
#

"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."

frank python
#

The point of rules is that it's best to cover stuff as generally as possible where possible, not to delegate stuff to exceptions

#

If you write cover properly here, you don't even need to mention it at the AoE rules (though you probably want to as a reminder)

dawn robin
#

but then the person has to look back at the rules and go "wait is this considered just a complete physical cover? So I refer to this rule..." vs "ah ok this spell ignores cover so I don't need to worry about cover"

#

I would need to specify on every spell "choose a creature that is not in complete visual cover from you"

frank python
#

I mean, if it ignores cover, then it ignores cover. If it ignores only physical cover, it's rather intuitive it ignores fog but not glass. Don't pretend this is some artificial distinction

frank python
#

Also that's why I mentioned you may want to potentially formalize the bead thing

#

But personally I feel like Enchantment and such should just work through glass (or walls, if you have the means of targeting)

dawn robin
#

when you say Enchantment are you constantly referring to the wizard subclass?

#

or the whole school of magic

frank python
#

school of magic, it's the most basic example of spells that don't really travel as a projectile. Most conjuration should also apply for example

dawn robin
#

I mean, they kinda do?

#

you point somewhere, you form a connection between yourself and that point, the point has an effect

#

you don't just instant transmission the power over to the point

#

it goes there

frank python
#

Well, maybe. That's up to you to rule somewhere. But I've always felt that psychic stuff like that doesn't care much for matter (though it may for sight), except for lead at least

#

It's direct mind-to-mind contact, Weave radio

#

But that's not so important. Your rules shouldn't just be tailored to what content currently exists in the game. Yes, obviously don't write five pages of rules for modern tanks if your game has a fantasy setting, but don't avoid writing a single sentence just because it technically doesn't change anything at the moment (or, more likely, you're not aware that it does)

dawn robin
#

How would I write that distinction?

#

What could I say in a spell to indicate "this thing just needs sight" vs "this things needs sight and a direct physical path"

#

95% would be the latter, so that would hopefully be the simpler one

frank python
#

Well, the best way to do it is not to. Write the general rules in such a way that you won't

dawn robin
#

That doesn't work when both are spells

#

how do I say hypnotic pattern needs only visual, while banishment needs visual and physical?

frank python
#

Which is pretty much how 5e does it, no? Spells require a physical path, so it's written as a general rule which you yourself quoted

dawn robin
frank python
#

...which should show you why you should make your rules more robust than they did

#

Well, option A is to go with logic, though that can be faulty. Option B is to figure out a shorthand for it

dawn robin
#

A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
is the official one

#

supplemented with

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area.

frank python
#

Yeah, which is what we were kinda trying to do as well (use the same conditions for different things)

#

You can always do option C and just say all spells require a straight line without physical cover to arrive, I'm not arguing against that part

dawn robin
#

I do already have this line

A target that is in Heavy Visual Cover is also unable to be targeted by spells.

#

but nothing about physical yet, as atm only total physical blocks em

frank python
#

Hm, that's kinda weird. Heavy isn't total yet, shouldn't stop targeting imo

dawn robin
#

mostly a nerf to spellcasters, requires them be a little more clever with targeting

#

in my mind the reason would be "spells need a clear target"

frank python
#

Hm, maybe? I'd probably make it a check though, you can still kinda see them after all

dawn robin
#

tbf, this is kinda already how it is in 5e too

#

heavy obscurity blocks spells, but you can still attack through it with disadvantage

#

you can shoot someone in the darkness spell but you can't cast on em

#

as in 5e, there is no "complete visual cover"

frank python
#

The levels should match. Light is just sorta there - a low wall, or some rain. Heavy is significant - dense natural fog or a thick tree. Total is, well, total. Magical darkness or a solid wall

frank python
dawn robin
#

ye, there is now. Total visual even stops attacks now, but "total visual" is more than invisibility, its being totally gone. Stealthed. Not even there

#

note that Invisibility is considered a Heavy Visual Cover

frank python
#

Or, alternatively, we could just switch the whole thing around and make "visibility levels" or vision distances. "Cover" is kinda misleading, because it totally depends on the distance - in melee range, regular fog doesn't matter, but it's disadvantage at 20 and no visibility beyond 60

dawn robin
#

this is because you can also attack an invisible person, but you can't cast on them

frank python
#

This could neatly work with all the stuff like light levels, special senses and so on

dawn robin
#

this is why I didn't wanna specify complete visual cover

#

Invis is already Heavy and handles all the rules super cleanly

frank python
#

It does force a detachment of cover and obscurement again, but eh

#

Or, well, maybe it doesn't? Is Dim Light lightly obscured in 5e?

dawn robin
#

yes, but lightly obscured just means disadvantage on Perception checks in 5e

#

nothing else

frank python
#

Yeah. But it could just be attached to the above. Literally have it act as visual cover

dawn robin
#

indeed

#

it is light visual cover :P

#

+2 stealth = -2 perception

frank python
#

It'd make light levels and other senses way more relevant, help compress rules, and otherwise be neat

dawn robin
#

also grants +2 AC now on top

frank python
#

Which is good, because it actually matters in combat too

#

You only need to add short/long ranges to senses, but you could literally just say that short is always half of long for any sense

dawn robin
#

Do I?

#

do they need a short/long?

#

why not just be a set distance?

frank python
#

Because it's weird to go from +5AC to zero immediately. And to match normal sight

dawn robin
#

I guess, but is that level of realism worth it?

#

forcing players to measure how far away a foe is every attack to see if they have a +2 bonus to AC?

frank python
#

Good question... But the alternative is what, removing dim light completely?

dawn robin
#

is that the alt?

frank python
#

Well, I guess it can depend on sense. You could just define Darkvision as "move light categories one tier up (not blinding though)", then it doesn't have a range. Darkvision having range is kinda weird

dawn robin
frank python
#

Ah, right, that's how you defined it

frank python
dawn robin
#

Ye, tho only a few actually have a long range that comes up in typical combat

#

most just use a bow and don't worry

frank python
#

Rogues and cantrips exist

dawn robin
#

cantrips don't have a long range tho?

frank python
#

No, but they have a very noticeable range of 60 feet

dawn robin
#

ye but I'm saying it might be ok to go 100 to 0 rather than have gradients

frank python
#

Maybe? But I feel like tying obscurement/visual cover and sight level together is neat anyway

#

I guess you can always make it an optional rule

#

But like, I feel like there should be a range that the ambush is detectable but at disadvantage

dawn robin
#

I mean, with light levels that's true atm

#

dim light gives that +2 to Stealth, so harder to see em coming but possible

frank python
#

Right, I suppose there just isn't a dim light equivalent for other senses...

dawn robin
#

ah, I see

frank python
#

Also, should it be +2 or rather +5?

dawn robin
#

yah, only normal light, but 95% of people only worry about normal light

frank python
#

It's... weird

dawn robin
#

disadvantage is roughly -3.3 so, +2 is closer than +5

#

and lines up with 5e cover rules

frank python
#

I'm tempted to say obscurement should be mildly stackable. So if the target has light visual cover, it could be at +2 if it's close, at +5 if it's at 100 feet, and invisible at whatever the longer range for dim light was

dawn robin
#

Hmm, just realized I actually still have dim light also give disadvantage on perception

#

so that kinda stacks

frank python
#

So there's still four tiers (none, light, heavy, total), but they actually add up. And then there's a table of distances for each light level, and each sense has three levels... Eh, dunno, I may be overcomplicating, but I don't see a great way out

#

Alternatively just say screw it, have light/heavy/total visual cover, and then separate short/long distances for light (and possibly obscurement) levels. Enemy behind dense foliage while also in dim light? Tough luck, that's -5 and disadvantage

dawn robin
#

I'm ok with that

#

I don't think the other senses need distance marks, but doubling up is OK imo

frank python
#

The difference being that fog goes to light levels instead of cover

dawn robin
#

there's a reason people not only sneak through dense foliage, but also at night

#

if it didn't stack that'd almost be weird

frank python
#

Yeah

#

So I guess give each light level two distances (normal and at disadvantage), then have some sort of rule for fog (presumably halve or quarter, depending on severity)

dawn robin
#

but do they need it? You don't see well in dim light at any distance

frank python
#

Don't you? I don't think it should matter in melee

dawn robin
#

so its just disadvantage, then nothing

#

ye, you don't make ability checks in combat

#

attacks are unaffected by dim

frank python
#

Well, I think they should be

dawn robin
#

Eh... I think we're going too deep there

#

lets not make darkvision more required

frank python
#

Well, torches (and shining gems) exist. Let's just make light relevant, while not granting darkvision to every race

dawn robin
#

but what player wouldn't want to be at an advantage while their foe isn't

#

why light a torch when it makes you easier to hit

frank python
#

Well, the foe presumably does have darkvision if it lives there. Maybe even light sensitivity

#

I do think there's an important decision to make here. Do we want light to have a range, or sight? Because preferably not both

dawn robin
#

Well, its kinda both?

image.png
#

you can only see so far away, you are limited by both Cover and Light

#

if in a dim light area with foliage, your vision is cut even harder

frank python
#

Yeah, but like, if there's a guy carrying a torch, how well you see a given goblin depends only on the ring it's in (bright, dim, darkness)?

#

And not your distance to it

dawn robin
#

right, so the light level is centered on the torch

#

Though, technically...

#

if there was a torch 200 feet away, you wouldn't be able to see anything in its dim light radius, but you could see things in its bright light radius

frank python
#

Well, maybe? Or perhaps it's all just disadvantage from the distance and that's it

dawn robin
#

I think that's ok tho, it makes sense and is realistic

frank python
#

Yeah, but more complex mechanically. We are trying to keep it simple

dawn robin
#

Also, fun fact! In RAW 5e if you were in Darkness and a torch was 45 feet away, you would see nothing

frank python
#

So I suppose there should just be short and long ranges for sight in general, simply giving disadvantage, and then light does its own thing separately. Disadvantage continues to not stack

dawn robin
#

as RAW 5e, darkness fully blocks vision through it

#

not magical, just normal darkness

frank python
#

Yeah that's why I'm trying to make sure your rules are more robust kekdog

dawn robin
#

I might need to take a break from this, my sight is getting disadvantage

frank python
#

Fair lol

#

But I think we have the makings of a decent system here:

  • Cover split into visual and physical (though they're commonly linked). It works with flat modifiers. Magical fog presumably goes here
  • Cover could potentially be numerical instead of just three levels. Maybe as optional rule?
  • Light levels simply give disadvantage or not, range doesn't matter. On attacks, or only checks?
  • There's a short and long range for sight that also gives disadvantage. Potentially stacks with the above? Natural fog presumably goes here
  • Special senses may or may not get a short range (it could just be half of long range and that's it)
  • Invisibility is still kinda separate
  • Spells targeting could be affected by both, either, or none
#

This would be easier if every spell had scaling. Maybe every (combat) spell should be a save? (which honestly is almost true now?) Then "harder to target" could work very easily with visual (or any?) cover and light/fog

dawn robin
#

not sure how best to word "disadvantage distance isn't added onto the clear distance, its its own distance"

frank python
#

Steal from weapons?

#

So you did go this way after all, huh

dawn robin
#

makes it a bit more clear with the disadvantage at least

#

mostly due to bright light being the weirdo

#

unsure if dim should be nerfed in its clearness

#

also, the issue with senses having a disadvantage radius, the DM now has to tell you that they are in that radius

#

"I wanna find X guy"
"Ok it has disadvantage"
"Oh...?"

frank python
#

Use the passive rule or give him advantage

dawn robin
#

but they have advantage only vs you?

#

but not the guy closer?

frank python
#

Yeah. But you can just roll in secret

dawn robin
#

so I have two stealth levels then?

frank python
#

...you mean?

dawn robin
#

they have 12/16 stealth now? 12 if you are close, 16 if you are at "long range"

frank python
#

Sure

dawn robin
#

that's dumb

#

and annoying

frank python
#

No? The guy further away simply has -4 to perception, that's logical

dawn robin
#

I more meant they rolled twice, once with advantage once without

#

so now they have 2 stealth results

frank python
#

Well, sure

dawn robin
#

potentially could've rolled worse on the advantage too

#

which is even weirder

frank python
#

Which is why you just use the passive -5 rule

dawn robin
#

passive would be much better, but even still

#

I'm just not seeing the worth of long range senses beyond normal sight

frank python
#

The alternative is that the guy 100 feet away from you sees you just as well as the guy 5 feet from you, so...

dawn robin
#

like, ye its realistic, but is it worth it

frank python
#

If it's like that for normal sight, it'd be more difficult not to have it for other senses

#

Normal sight is what you use 95% of the time

dawn robin
#

is it? They are special

#

little snowflakes that get to just work

#

no special rules, they just do da thing

frank python
#

optional rule then?

dawn robin
#

I guess

#

Hm, tho I should also adjust normal sight

#

because it has the same stealth issue

frank python
#

I think I kinda liked the range separate from light better

#

Or like, range/size table, I guess

#

Spotting a giant and reading something aren't exactly the same

#

Also you get to give elves the Legolas sight

dawn robin
#

or, using the new terms

When a creature takes the Search action to find a hidden creature, if the creature is in the Obscured range for the light level it has a +5 bonus to its Stealth.

#

or that

image.png
frank python
#

Bleh, that's too specific. I'd make it a generic malus to Perception and add a blurb that says "typically you'll want to roll hidden...". Also I'd make it Disadvantage for feature reasons

#

Or that, the image option is better

dawn robin
#

didn't we just talk about how disadvantage doesn't work?

frank python
#

We did?

dawn robin
frank python
#

That's hardly "doesn't work"

dawn robin
#

doesn't work as in, weird and better to do something else

#

getting too late to do more now tho

#

slep

frank python
#

Yeah, true

#

I'll write some stuff and you can respond tomorrow

#

The thing is - (dis)advantage is the 5e thing. It's how you do stuff like that. It interacts with other stuff. It really just belongs here

#

But dunno, I'd go for the separation of distance and light.

Fine objects like writing are visible at 5 feet. Tiny at 20, Small at 40, Medium at 100, Large at 200, Huge at 500, dunno I can't into imperial units. At twice that, you have disadvantage to spot and attack (or need to make a check at all for stuff like reading or discerning gestures), at quadruple that, you don't see the thing (or the detail).

Now, separately, you have disadvantage in dim light. Unless you have Darkvision, in which case any dim light is normal to you, and darkness it dim light - regardless of range. Total darkness is still darkness and you don't see a thing

Global things like rain or fog decrease the sight ranges (probably halve or quarter), but localized effects like spells are cover

#

Is this technically unrealistic? Yes, but only insofar as disadvantage doesn't stack. And besides, I feel like sight ranges and light levels will come up at the same time pretty rarely - one is for the surface, the other for caverns

#

Yes, the level of detail table can get a little complex, but how often will it really come up? It's mostly just reference for those rare cases when someone is trying to spot someone at a huge distance or read some text that's just out of reach.

It will make fighting Fairies an annoying mess, but that's exactly what it should be, so no issue there. Also you get to give Elves Farsight, which is cool

dawn robin
#

our senses are actually really good

frank python
#

Well, probably. You can specify that exceptions exist. But a table like that seems convenient

dawn robin
#

my only reason for not doing advantage is its more burden on the DM. They already rolled stealth for the guy, now they have to roll again with advantage, keep track of both numbers...

#

just rolling normal stealth then +5-ing it if the players are too far away when they search is much easier

#

also prevents any possible metagaming there

frank python
#

Well, yes, but that's what you're supposed to do anyway, no?

dawn robin
#

hm?

frank python
#

Replacing (dis)advantage by +-5 is standard practice, you could even explicitly say so. "In practive, it's usually easier...". But this way it still stacks with advantage and disadvantage-reducing features and so on

dawn robin
frank python
#

Maybe. Fixed does make sense too, and then it's kinda independent on size of what you're trying to see

#

I'd be tempted to say fog is fixed, rain is fraction

dawn robin
#

I guess I could say that all distances for natural obscurity is "how far can you see into the obscurity"

#

so if the distance you can see into fog is 100 ft, and you are 200 feet away from the fog, you can see 300 ft

#

if you are in the fog, its simple and easy 100 ft.

frank python
#

Yeah

dawn robin
#

I think its in a good place now

#

at least, I'll leave it until more playtest

dawn robin
#

Now I need some of these

image.png
dawn robin
#

Simplified the wording a bit for Cover again

image.png
dawn robin
#

First take of the Wounded condition, a creature adds +1 to their Wounded condition each time they fall to 0 hit points. This is the anti-yoyo mechanic

image.png
frank python
#

It's... weird. But I don't have time right now

dawn robin
#

I'm working on the actual Dying condition next, which is more important in the long run

#

we'll see how that goes, at least its something that many have done in the past

dawn robin
#

Not finished, but here's what I got so far

image.png
#

keep in mind, the Main action can be used to take any type of action (movement, bonus, strike, not reaction)

#

ATM it has no end condition besides luck (not even healing removes it currently) but I'm not sure how it should go... should any amount of healing instantly end it? Should there be certain spells or effects that can remove the Dying condition? Does a medicine check auto-end it?

#

The goal of this is such that a Dying player doesn't have to just sit back and do nothing, but they should be greatly impaired from continuing to fully contribute to the fight

rough kite
#

yo-yo healing is weird but I’m curious of what other changes you’re going to make

dawn robin
#

A good question, I do want to mess with it but I'm not certain on my approach yet

#

I don't like that combat healing kinda sucks (other than 0 hp), and I want combat healing to be viable.

#

I don't like that so many healing spells are almost only useful outside of combat (like aura of vitality), other than those that should be (like prayer of healing)

#

And, to be fair, if I "fix" healing enough I may have no need for the Wounded condition

#

but this is my band-aid for now

rough kite
#

I almost want to do death saves as a death’s door mechanic before you go down, and healing gives some of that back

#

not explaining it well but something like that could be a way around it

dawn robin
#

death's door mechanic?

frank python
#

Well, the standard fixes are either:

  • permanent death save failures (or just get one every time you get up), or
  • simply track hp into the negatives
dawn robin
#

track HP into negatives could work

#

works well alongside the Dying condition too I think, and then just say it ends when you have positive HP

frank python
#

Yeah, seems about right

dawn robin
#

tho players already struggle to add two positive numbers together, negatives can only make it worse

#

not a big concern, but a thing to keep in mind

frank python
#

I doubt people seeking out system reworks are that dumb

#

most of the time anyway

dawn robin
#

Talked with my players yesterday about some rules, we found the Engagement rules to be a bit too weighted in enemy favor and makes it harder to combo with other aspects of the system when you have to take a specific "engage" action to lock down any foes. So, its been updated!

image.png
#

The goal of the engagement rule from the start was to prevent the whole "enemy dashes past the frontline, steps within 5 feet of the ranged martial, prevents them from having fun" thing

#

With this, an enemy could still dash up to someone, but unless they make an attack they do not engage and thus you can still move away

#

There is no penalty to making this "Engage" action anymore, as its now just part of every basic attack to retain its ability to combo with the rest of the system (because its not a unique action anymore, its an "Attack" action)

frank python
#

sounds reasonable

#

However, is there some sort of emergency engage option? Because as it stands, there's still the option to just randomly run past people

#

Also does ceremony supercede engagement?

dawn robin
#

So, if you wanna form a line/blockade to prevent enemies from passing, your best bet is readied actions

#

if you are melee boi and you are not yet at your foe, readying an attack for the foe to run past so you can smack em and lock them down would be the way to go

frank python
#

Are readied actions still lame for martials?

dawn robin
#

there's a few (I think one rn, I'll need to improve that) weapons that have a new trait I made too where you can ready an attack by spending 1 attack rather than 1 main action, which makes you better at that

frank python
#

huh, interesting

dawn robin
#

called the "Brace" property, I think only Spear has it atm

frank python
#

I feel like something like that should be the default though. Fighter shouldn't suck at Readying

dawn robin
#

Brace. This weapon can be readied easily to keep opponents away. You can take the Ready action as a Strike action to ready a single attack with the weapon. When you trigger this, you don't need to use your Reaction.

#

Ye, I could make that more universal

frank python
#

Yeah, the no need for reaction is cool

dawn robin
#

maybe the property has the fancy "no reaction needed" part but the base martials can just do it with a reaction?

frank python
#

If still too strong, it could also take your Swift action maybe

dawn robin
#

I could make that part of the Ready action, as only martials would have extra attack (normally)

#

Actually, would this wording already work?

image.png
#

technically "Strike" is a type of action, which is a single attack

frank python
#

Alternatively, you could make Brace a main action, where you prepare to defend (e.g. infinite reactions and infinite engagement)

frank python
dawn robin
#

Would it work without the word "otherwise"?

#

and is otherwise the same?

frank python
#

I assume the intention is to say "and didn't use it"?

dawn robin
#

ah, right

#

If you readied a spell or ability that consumes a resource when used (such as a spell slot) and do not trigger this reaction, the resource is consumed as though you used it at the start of your next turn.

frank python
#

Which, for the record, I'm not sure we should keep either. Or at least allow maintaining it via another action

#

I know Ready sucks purposely, but it sucks a bit much

dawn robin
#

Oh, that's not bad. Though the issue comes that you get the wizard saying "I prepare fireball for the next 5 hours"

#

now you always start a combat with a free fireball

frank python
#

Yeah, true

dawn robin
#

There are ways around it, but you'd almost have to be combative with the wizard to make it not work as well

#

like, forcing them to cast a different spell to solve a problem

frank python
#

Well, the easy option is to have it reset when initiative is rolled or somehing, though that's gamey. I'm sure there's a middle ground though

#

Also, make a Metamagic that makes Readying good

dawn robin
#

Potentially, tho idk if Sorc needs a constant "free fireball at start of combat with small cost"

frank python
#

Yeah, I know. It'd need some limitations still

dawn robin
#

maybe they can hold it for a minute or something

dawn robin
#

Ok so, totally different topic

#

I was working on moving around the advanced weapons to their own table, and moving firearms over, when I reached a point that I needed to figure out

#

my party at least, whenever there's a gun toting person around they have an artificer to add that repeating shot infusion which is... not meant for guns I think

#

as RAW it means you could get an RPG and just... infinitely fire rockets? Or a musket firing fully automatic?

#

This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it's used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.

If the weapon lacks ammunition, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when the wielder makes a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.
For reference

restive idol
#

considering artis baseline inclusion of firearms (as an optinal rule) I'd say it is meant to work on them.
The only sort of fuckywucky bit is how WotC is unclear on if firearms are martial - be we've been more explicit that they are, so that bypasses that.

dawn robin
#

they are martial, afaik the DMG lists each in a table labeled "martial ranged weapons"

restive idol
dawn robin
#

So, I think repeating shot is a neat infusion, but I don't want it to break the firearms

#

I could have it magically move your ammunition into the right place, sorta like a magical speed-loader rather than manifesting its own to avoid the RPG issue

#

perhaps via doing so only reducing the reload time, and maybe you still need to always take at least one action to reload a gun, but it reduces the reload of all "longer loading" guns by a bit

#

Tho then how does it help single shot weapons, which are the standard? It still makes it a +1 weapon, but they already have that with just a standard weapon infusion

#

maybe... it can reduce the reload to 0, but you still need a free hand to reload?

restive idol
#

not entirely sensible suggestion, but also kind of works - infusion adds a "load" button.
When loaded, it lights up.
Basic stuff it's quick.
Bigger guns you need to hold the button for longer for it to load things with longer loading times

dawn robin
#

I mean, yah that works too

#

or the artificer gives you a fancy like, micro-crane attachment to the gun that reloads for you and you just gotta hit the button

#

Actually, that could do the opposite

#

you can just hit that with your thumb, you no longer need a free hand

#

except like, two handed weapons ofc, but that goes by default

dawn robin
#

Ammunition. This weapon requires you have available ammunition to make an attack with it. You can pull a piece of ammunition from available supplies whenever you fire this weapon (no action required).

Loading (X). The weapon can be fired X times (default 1) before you must reload it. You can spend a Strike or Movement action to reload early, or reload without an action at the start of your next turn. You must have one free hand to reload a weapon.

Misfire (X). If X or lower (default 1) is rolled on the d20 for an attack, the weapon fails to fire. The weapon cannot be used to make a ranged attack until a creature uses a Strike or Swift action to correct the failure.

Slow (X). This property extends the Loading property on a weapon. It is only reloaded after performing a reload action X times instead of once.

image.png
#

So with those properties, lemme type up how the reload infusion would work

restive idol
#

So, something I've been thinking of, cos like.. slow feels off as a thing different to loading, and loading including the capacity feels off.
And it was an issue I've had.
But, at least with my system, where Loading is an attack, action or BA, then making it Loading (Capacity (#)), and if longer loading Loading (# Capacity (#)) might work.
Or maybe just "Capacity" being its own thing...

dawn robin
#

This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it's used to make a ranged attack. Additionally, the weapon no longer requires a free hand to reload as a magical device assists in reloading the weapon for you.

Slow's value is reduced by 1, if present. If this would reduce the value to 1, the weapon reloads so quickly that it can reload as quickly as you fire it, requiring no reload action be taken.

dawn robin
dawn robin
#

I might not even need to include the Type considering... they are all firearms when in the table called "Firearms"

restive idol
dawn robin
#

Maybe Ammunition and Loading are mutually exclusive?

#

hmm, I think its ok, because technically you could have like, an energy weapon that has a loading thing (cool down overheat or something) but doesn't have ammunition

dawn robin
#

Blunderbuss. When you make an attack with this weapon, other creatures in a cone centered on the target within range of this weapon in a cone must make a Reflex Save against your Attack result. Creatures not within the X range of this weapon have advantage on this saving throw. On failure, a creature is also considered to be hit by this weapon.

Range (X/Y). This weapon is considered a ranged weapon and can be used to make ranged attacks out to a range of Y feet. If an attack is made against a target more than X feet away, the attack has disadvantage.

Does this make sense for the blunderbus's shotgun spread?

#

goal is that it acts like a normal ranged weapon vs the single target (aka, you make an attack vs the target, on hit you deal damage, on miss you don't), and other creatures within the spread of the weapon need to Dex save or get hit too. This would include any buffs to the weapon, it makes it still considered a "weapon attack", and... yah?

#

I have used the phrase "against your attack result" before as well, so there's some precedent

#

it would mean that if you target someone outside the short range of the weapon, your attack has disadvantage and thus the whole shotgun spread is worse (because your attack result is worse), which... might be ok? Encourages getting close with that shotgun

#

This would be the weapon properties

image.png
restive idol
dawn robin
#

Sick

#

I also do not like skill contests, and weapon DC's never made much sense to me, and I really liked how you can combine the attack and DC generation in a single step, improvements to the weapon = improvements to the DC, just saves time

restive idol
dawn robin
#

My main departure from the previous iteration which was more like that is a couple things

  • Its an attack, and thus benefits from all bonuses to attacks and combos with features that trigger on attacks (like my new Combo action)
  • you focus the fire on a single creature rather than a full spread (Might wanna rework this, as you can't fire centered on the air to hit two people that are a little further apart)
#

maybe like this? (Edited)

Blunderbuss. When you attack with this weapon you do not choose a singular target though you do still roll a single attack. Instead, you fire in a cone with a length equal to the long range of this weapon. Creatures in that cone must make a Reflex Save against your Attack result. Creatures not within the normal range of this weapon have advantage on this saving throw. On failure, a creature takes the attack's damage. On success, a creature takes no damage.

#

ya know what, lemme ask overflow, they are kinda quiet atm

#

#overflow message sent

dawn robin
#

I want to figure out a way to shorten all the "you can use this x times per y rest" lines in features

#

I already did something like this for races, which seem ok

image.png
#

but for features without the bold name ahead of them, how would it be done?

#

like this?

image.png
frank python
#

I guess you'd just need to put it in the title

#

Is it really necessary though?

dawn robin
#

no, but saves a lotta unneeded space

frank python
#

I guess Hanshrug

dawn robin
#

putting it in the title looks... terrible tho

image.png
frank python
#

Not any worse than the level number

dawn robin
#

and with OG text, 3 whole lines

image.png
frank python
#

Align it to the right and use minuscule letters, as titles have this capitalized style anyway

dawn robin
#

what, next to the 6?

#

or like, underneath the feature text?

#

it would need to be very noticable so a player doesn't accidentally miss it

frank python
#

next to the level, yeah

#

Hm, yeah, it does make it more likely to be overlooked

#

By the way, are you removing flavor text from features?

dawn robin
#

Not all of it, but atm I'm just focusing on getting the mechanics in order

#

flavor can be added later

dawn robin
#

Though this becomes much harder to do on any feature that has like, a passive always on feature and an X/Y feature

restive idol
#

can you square box text?

dawn robin
#

as in, put a border around it?

restive idol
#

yeah

dawn robin
#

yah

frank python
#

and can you not circle the level?

dawn robin
frank python
#

alternatively have named bullet points the way races do

restive idol
#

cos if in the text, it was like STUFF, DOES THINGS USES in the text would make it stand out, and remove the concern of split features, save space, and still be clear

frank python
dawn robin
frank python
#

Dunno, to me they look goofy. Can you do like, a lower index "lvl" instead?

#

not just a raw number, but not the circle either

dawn robin
dawn robin
frank python
#

the way there are symbols in the bottom paragraph here

dc00fd1b-3dd9-492a-9ed4-0b6743074730.png
dawn robin
restive idol
# dawn robin Like this?

yeah, closer.
Wherever the uses would be.
Need to figure out wording and spacing.
If you're full tagging / condensing you can do like:

Swift Action Wis/LR. Regain hit points equal to Martial Arts die roll + Wis.

dawn robin
frank python
#

Also, you could write the features normally, and then have "flashcards" for each class, subclass, and so on, that are just highly condensed versions fitting on a single sheet (A4 for class, A5 for subclass and so on)

dawn robin
#

I mean, cutting 3 lines of text that can easily be conveyed in 6 characters feels like... a good idea?

#

especially when its used everywhere

frank python
#

It's not a bad one, yeah

#

Though my preferred solution would be to have more interesting resources more often

dawn robin
#

I mean... yah

restive idol
dawn robin
#

I could easily alter this feature for example to a 1/encounter feature, but I'm more doing this for future reference on other features

dawn robin
frank python
#

Oh yeah, hexagon would be nicer

dawn robin
#

the black circled numbers break sometimes, wierdly

frank python
#

also these should totally just be diactrics/modifiers anyway

#

try 6ₗᵥₗ

dawn robin
#

another method

image.png
frank python
#

bleh

dawn robin
#

or this...

image.png
#

which feels worse but is more noticable

#

a little better

image.png
frank python
# dawn robin or this...

better, but works weirdly in text. I'd rather put parentheses around it and start the sentence normally with a capital letter

frank python
dawn robin
#

like... this?

image.png
frank python
#

definitely parentheses, not a box lol

dawn robin
frank python
#

Hm, I take it there aren't tall parentheses?

restive idol
dawn robin
#

That might not be a bad idea either, compress in the trigger action

dawn robin
restive idol
#

(Cos Heal is a keyword, that means "regain hit points, up to your max", so that doesn't need repeating every time.
That said, it might even be Heal (Martial Arts + Wis), cos that may be super easier. While sim has 99% backwards compat, the wording will take a minute to learn. Then it'll be super smooth)

dawn robin
#

tbf, "regain hit points" also includes by default "up to max" as you regain

#

you cannot regain that which you never had

#

I think this is a little better

image.png
#

Now, the issue is I think this can't hold up for everything

restive idol
#

yeah, cos regain is a pseudo keyword as it is.
But, regain hit points being Heal saves space.
It's amazing really how you can condense it and it really reads exactly the same...

Wholeness of Body
6th-level feature
As a bonus action, you can regain hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die, plus your Wisdom modifier.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier. When you finish a long rest, you regain all expended uses.

And you don't... really need to explain anything (aprt from maybe uses) for this to read the same

Wholeness of Body xth-level feature
Swift Action (Wis/LR). Heal Martial Arts roll + Wis.

dawn robin
#

like, how would I do stunning strike? My stunning strike is

  • 1 focus (ki) cost
  • unlimited uses
  • 1/turn
  • used on landing a hit with an attack
#

like, it doesn't cost an attack, its used on an attack

restive idol
dawn robin
restive idol
#

that's what the fluff sections for.
5e is already Fluff > Mechanic anyway, so it's all gud imo

dawn robin
#

I think reading a class with English text is easier than reading a condensed class where I gotta translate acronyms and shortened keywords every other word

#

but after I've picked them, its easier to have the condensed version to quickly reference

restive idol
#

can expand it a touch more yeah, like (1/turn)

#

most of my stuff won't be acronyms, just keywords (and short stats)

#

but I'm doing quick on the fly bits atm xD

dawn robin
#

ye, I getcha

#

but I gotta be careful with how hard I condense things too

#

What would be the shortened version of "once per encounter"

#

aka, regain use when initiative is rolled

restive idol
#

if you have encounter defined, 1/Encounter would work

dawn robin
#

Hmm, I worry that that would get confusing with social encounters and the likes

#

maybe 1/Initiative?

restive idol
#

maybe.
Though I mean... if you're using a combat feature in a social encounter that's... something xD

But really, I'd say "combat encounter" == encounter.
"social encounter" == interaction or some shit.

dawn robin
#

or 1/Combat?

restive idol
#

or define it as combat yeah

dawn robin
#

ye I think that'd be the best

#

Like, this might be a nice way to do it

image.png
restive idol
#

the problem with 5e base, is it isn't especially clear on "Combat"and "Encounter" as a well defined unit.
If it is a well defined unit, then you can easily do that sorta shit

dawn robin
#

tho, does it make sense that you could use it outside of combat?

#

like, you regain use at start of combat, but if you don't use it during combat you could use it after combat

restive idol
#

honestly, easier to have X/lr uses imo, certainly for this

dawn robin
#

maybe this?

image.png
#

or this

image.png
restive idol
#

I'd say a 1/combat thing would be more.... iunno something specific to that combat, like marking an enemy or applying a buff/debuff sorta thing

dawn robin
#

ye, maybe 1/combat must be used in combat

#

but this kinda thing can be spread out like this

restive idol
#

(I also prefer PB uses over stats just cos it scales nicely. If using stat, you're basically saying "You get 4-5 uses from tier 1+ if it's a primary stat, 2-3 uses tier 1 if secondary (and 3-4 tier 2+), and 1-2 tier 1 tert (with 2-3 t3+), while PB is just 2/3/4/5/6 bam, scaling, smoooooth, pleasing to my brain juice)

dawn robin
#

ye, I getcha

#

mostly was just seeking a format for similar things

restive idol
#

though part of that is definetely my own bias / craziness

dawn robin
#

actually

#

You have (WIS) uses of this feature, regaining uses on (Long Rest).

#

Much shorter still, but also more "english-y"

#

You can do this (WIS) times per (Long Rest).
Even shorter

#

I find it funny just how short I was able to make this subclass... good ol PHB short subs

image.png
dawn robin
#

I did this update mostly because one of my players we are doing testing with rn is wanting to be an open hand monk

#

the other atm is using... gunslinger fighter. Which I've updated to this

image.png
dawn robin
#

How can I make disarming useful... I've made picking up an item from the ground a Swift action (not free anymore) so its a little harder, but most monsters have no use for their Swift action anyway

#

at melee you can pick up the weapon, but at ranged....

#

Its hard to do for like, big massive fire giant two handing a massive greatsword, and somehow you disarm their weapon with a little bullet

#

without a ton of wording

restive idol
#

I mean, for that that's simple

#

add a knock around trick

#

attack 1: disarm
attack 2: bounce weapon ~10ft direction of choice

dawn robin
#

Actually... I could put that into ricochet shot

restive idol
#

It's part of why older gunslingers have those utility trickshots

dawn robin
#

"if the target is airborne, you push it x feet in a direction of your choice"

restive idol
#

moving stuff at range has in and out of combat options

dawn robin
#

older gunslingers?

#

I know Mercer based a lotta stuff off 3.5, it only now occurred to me that gunglinger might've been ripped from 3.5 as well...

#

or PF

#

ye seems to be PF

dawn robin
#

Wow, some of these are... almost useless in 5e and others are real neat

#
Deadeye Shot (2 grit)

You gain advantage on the attack roll. If both d20s would hit the target, the attack is considered a critical hit.
Would that be OP?

#

wow that's just... funny? "You gain these rogue features"

image.png
dawn robin
#

now you can

  1. Disarm foe, cause weapon to fly 10 feet
    2-4) Shoot the weapon and ricochet to the foe to shoot them again
  2. End with the weapon 40 feet away and the target shot 4 times
#

Another update

image.png
#

A surface is only valid for this if it has an AC higher than 15, so wood and glass is not valid but stone and iron is.
Considering this added to ricochet? Maybe too much micro-management

#

This is a neat optional rule too

image.png
restive idol
dawn robin
#

Posting a request in #brew_14 message

dawn robin
#

Ok so, I'm back to the weapons themselves now, specifically the guns

#

I think I got the subclass in a good place after yesterday, but now I need the tools to be in line

#

Current list

image.png
#

They are already a step above typical weapons, at least in some ways

#

blunderbuss is unique in its ability to do a cone attack, many of these guns have multiple shots before reloading, and the pistol/palm-pistol are Light weapons that deal 1d8 damage (best non-firearm is 1d6)

#

most of them have multiple dice, making them a little less swingy in damage but less likely to do max/min

frank python
#

That's probably the opposite of what I'd expect from a firearm tbh, but I understand you needed halves

dawn robin
#

being less swingy you mean?

frank python
#

yeah. They should be more swingy

restive idol
dawn robin
#

eh, if anything I feel like there's an argument for both ways

#

but I did feel like more leans on firearms being a bit more steady

#

and, I did want something that makes them a bit different to other weapons, more than just visual

restive idol
#

the only ones that are somewhat inconsistent, are early 22's and some crap-load stuff

frank python
#

Early firearms definitely hit all over the place, while a decent archer should have more consistency (and it's not like there's a ton of variance in draw strength either). But this is a small thing, it hardly matters even without Extra Attack

dawn robin
#

I mean, hit chance yes

#

before rifling, it was a lotta crossing fingers it goes where you point it

frank python
#

eh, hit location is more damage. Hit chance should be consistent-ish due to piercing power

dawn robin
#

true, tho if hit location mattered, it would also matter for normal weapons

restive idol
frank python
restive idol
# frank python Early firearms definitely hit all over the place, while a decent archer should h...

hit =/= impact force.
arrows and bolts due to flight and weight, and any disruption were more swingy.
guns, with smol fast, consistent fps impact force in a much smaller range ultimately.
less prone to tumbles and such until its past effective range.

Hit location also matters less, as an arrow / bolt is more like a stab, it's mostly the impact and the foreign object being inserted into you doing the damage.
Bullets heavily damage via shockwave and jellification.

dawn robin
#

I do wonder if I should apply some fancier properties to em

#

as I made a bunch for the melee weapons

#

like, higher crit chance, higher crit damage, gets around parry/block moves...

frank python
#

Well I mean it's still better to have your arm than your heart jellified. But then we get to the fact that HP isn't even meat points and the whole thing starts breaking down even more. But fantasy-wise, I'd definitely say (early) guns should be less consistent

dawn robin
#

I wonder how terrible it would be if I made a property that gave the weapon -1 to hit... lol

frank python
#

Honestly, if it's just -1, I wouldn't really be against

dawn robin
#

tho, I'm not going for high historical accuracy here, mostly just "player wanna pew pew, so now they can pew pew"

frank python
#

Yeah, that's why I specified fantasy-wise

dawn robin
#

tho, higher crit damage could be interesting... might break with my gunslinger tho as they do a lot to mess with crit chance/damage

frank python
#

Yeah, crits are problematic for balance, as you have two mutually multiplicative upgrades. Technically that's also true of to-hit and damage, but you don't usually get enough of the former

dawn robin
#

ye, tho, typically +1 crit range is only a little more than 5% damage increase, and if the damage is like 15 damage, 5% isn't much

#

but, things stack

restive idol
dawn robin
#

I'm accounting for players somewhat reliably getting advantage with the "little more"

restive idol
#

cos crits just dice, it's like +4.something%
but ~5% is easier to quickmaf

dawn robin
#

tho ranged advantage is harder

frank python
#

I mean, dice are typically comparable to modifier. However, +1 to hit isn't +5%, it's about +10%

dawn robin
#

hm?

frank python
#

if you go from 10 hits to 11 hits per 20, that's a 10% increase in DPS

dawn robin
#

10/20 = 50%
11/20 = 55%

frank python
#

Don't confuse percent with percentage points perish

dawn robin
#

oh, 10% compared to original damage

#

yes, you increase the original damage by 10%

frank python
#

Though admittedly it's less than obvious whether we should care about relative or absolute increases here

dawn robin
#

yah...

#

well, +1 crit range isn't too bad, could be neat to put that on some of the lower damage weapons

#

like the pepperbox

frank python
#

I guess, yeah

dawn robin
#

or palm pistol, as that weapon has a long reload

restive idol
dawn robin
#

what about +2?

restive idol
frank python
#

I mean, it's still an increase in damage, I'd hardly call that a ribbo

dawn robin
#

is it the revolver trait where you can partial reload?

restive idol
#

when misfire, lose some barrels

image.png
dawn robin
#

lol

restive idol
#

cos pepperboxes were terrible for powder leaking between chambers

dawn robin
#

do you think it'd be neat if the pepperbox required three reload actions, but each action added back two rounds?

#

so you could partial reload?

restive idol
# dawn robin what about +2?

it's effectively a ~+3% dpr increase per level, so +2 to +3 is probably equal to a +1 to hit sorta thing.
Its... weird.
Though for 5e, for items, I wouldn't do more than +1

dawn robin
#

atm, only the blowgun has a +2

#

I wanted it to have a little weird thing

restive idol
dawn robin
#

brutal = "on crit, add to weapon damage (its also multiplied)"
critical = "crit range is X-20"

frank python
restive idol
frank python
#

Huh

dawn robin
#

These two properties are also more notable on these weapons than base

image.png image.png
#

so, a weapon with Slow (2) must be reloaded 3x. You can do that in one turn, though it takes your whole turn at low levels (start turn +1, spend attack +1, spend movement +1)

#

This basically is meant to say "this weapon isn't meant to be used more than a couple times per combat", though with the right traits and upgrades this could be reduced a fair bit

#

Those with only Slow (1) or no Slow property at all will be the main utility of the gunslingers, with the Slow (2) weapons being your openers/aces