|
homeless poster posted:I think it's Mouse Guard that has your inventory as just an empty box on your sheet, and your character can carry as much as you, the player, can physically write into the inventory box. So if you can get really tiny, mono-width handwriting, you can carry a lot more than someone who writes in big block letters. In the special box edition which is near impossible to get, the character sheet has a picture of your mouse on it and your inventory is whatever you, the player, can manage to draw your mouse carrying.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
homeless poster posted:I think it's Mouse Guard that has your inventory as just an empty box on your sheet, and your character can carry as much as you, the player, can physically write into the inventory box. So if you can get really tiny, mono-width handwriting, you can carry a lot more than someone who writes in big block letters. Colored inks and various colors of plastic overlay?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
xiw posted:
Well no wonder. There's no space between belt and shoes so presumably your character has their naughty bits exposed to the world at all times.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Well no wonder. There's no space between belt and shoes so presumably your character has their naughty bits exposed to the world at all times. Man, that would mean everyone can see your small sack.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Well no wonder. There's no space between belt and shoes so presumably your character has their naughty bits exposed to the world at all times. No presumably about it, there's a box for Skin *right there*
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
I will defend Torchbearer to my grave. It is the first game to get me excited about inventory management. My players continue to prefer Dungeon World to me cackling about needing a new torch, for reasons I can not comprehend.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
xiw posted:No presumably about it, there's a box for Skin *right there* It's a campaign specific thing. In that world, people know what the real threat is. The thing that conceals the hidden daggers, crossbows, and everything else that suddenly makes people dead. Pants are deadly, and have been properly outlawed. Sure, you're constantly exposed to a little full frontal. But isn't that a small price to pay for security?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:It's a campaign specific thing. In that world, people know what the real threat is. The thing that conceals the hidden daggers, crossbows, and everything else that suddenly makes people dead.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Yami Fenrir posted:Going by that logic, I can take climbing gear, books and maps, and a large staff and apparently be ready for trouble in some way/an operative on a mission. Given that Blades is set in a haunted industrial fantasy city, I'm pretty sure climbing gear, books and maps, and a large staff paints you as "probably some flavor of nefarious second-story magician," sooo...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I will defend Torchbearer to my grave. In the space of one character creation session, I went from disappointed that my elf ranger's randomly-rolled spell was not-Tenser's Floating Disc, to loving elated.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Given that Blades is set in a haunted industrial fantasy city, I'm pretty sure climbing gear, books and maps, and a large staff paints you as "probably some flavor of nefarious second-story magician," sooo...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Itinerant Window Washer
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Would I like Torchbearer if I think inventory management is a good mechanic, but loathe any time I have to care about if the party has appropriate torches? (Not in part because it always feels like there will only be one player that doesn't have special vision by default?)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:Would I like Torchbearer if I think inventory management is a good mechanic, but loathe any time I have to care about if the party has appropriate torches? (Not in part because it always feels like there will only be one player that doesn't have special vision by default?) Tracking light sources, including who has what kind of light source, is a pretty big part of Torchbearer. I mean, come on, Torchbearer. From memory, nobody gets special vision. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:29 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
I thought I remembered dwarves and maybe elves getting special vision, like low-light vision but it was always hosed over by any light sources near them, in Torchbearer. I don't know for sure because my book is all the way over there. But either way yeah light management is kind of a thing because it lays out specifically "this lightsource provides bright light for this many people, and dim light fort his many people and dim light makes you roll shittier" and stuff like that. Also the game encourages the GM to do stuff like have your torch get snuffed out if you screw up rolls.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah nobody gets special vision in TB., and time tracking is built into the core mechanic so it is very clear when your torches run out.. TB's mechanics naturally produce a variety of fun dramatic situations that never happen in d&d - I've had parties chased off my monsters and being lost in the underworld, and pcs stuck in the dark with no light and having to explore by feel and smell and hearing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
A revival for a semi-interesting Murphy in 5e, in this case with it being unusually precise in its rules: The Way of Shadow is a monk archetype that monks can take at level 3, and is the choice for those monks that enjoy acting like ninjas and having shadow-like magical powers like shadow-stepping. They can use their ki to cast the Darkvision and Darkness spells, and have other abilities that let them do things in the dark. Darkvision is a spell that grants the 'darkvision' ability to the target. It lets you see in the dark. Darkness is a spell that creates magical darkness. As per the wording of the spell, it explicitly cannot be seen through with normal darkvision - you need True Seeing. But a level 2 and above warlock can see through it with the Devil's Sight invocation, which explicitly works on magical darkness. And so in DnD5e, a ninja can create a darkness so deep that even he can't see in it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
If you're melee and don't have blind fighting, you may as well just reroll anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:
I think what makes this into a real Murphy is that not only can the level 3 ninja not see out of the cloud of darkness he created to hide himself, a lower level warlock can see in. Teenage Mutant Ninja Ostriches?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Make Devil's Sight only work on magical darkness. He can't see through regular darkness.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I think what makes this into a real Murphy is that not only can the level 3 ninja not see out of the cloud of darkness he created to hide himself, a lower level warlock can see in. Teenage Mutant Ninja Ostriches? Teenage Mutant Ninja Squid anyway. On the bright side, it lets the warlock announce "I
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
If we're talking dumb 5e Murphy's, let's talk about Spellcasting Focuses. The rules in the players handbook read as such quote:Casting some spells requires particular objects specified in parentheses in the component entry. a character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell. If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to use these components but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. Now where does this get into Murphy's Territory? Why, for that we turn to the sage advice column, where apparently people think "Can a spell with an attack roll be used as the attack in the Attack action or as part of the Extra Attack feature?" is a properly formatted question. Seriously the sage advice column is a Murphy's Grogmine, Focuses are just the tip of the iceberg quote:If a spell's material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component? quote:What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? So, apparently spellcasting focuses oblivate the need for *all* components of a spell, which was not mentioned ANYWHERE in the PHB. But only if that spell has a material component and only if that material component does not have a cost listed and is not consumed in the spell's casting. One of the wizard focuses is a staff. Meaning that you would have to drop and pick up your staff depending on which spell you're casting. Fireball? You're A-OK. Thunderwave? Nope, no material component. Chromatic orb? Nope, material component has a given cost. The only way around this problem is to either A: not use focuses, because the only stated benefit they give you is letting you ignore components... which a spell component pouch and a free hand sort of does anyway since components aren't consumed. or, if you're a melee character and want to use a 2h weapon or weapon/shield and still cast spells, you need to pick up a feat. Did I mention that in fifth edition feats are an optional rule that you need your DM's approval to use? And if you're not a human you need to wait until 4th level to pick one up, and you only get to pick them in lieu of an ability score increase?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Did I mention that in fifth edition feats are an optional rule that you need your DM's approval to use? And if you're not a human you need to wait until 4th level to pick one up, and you only get to pick them in lieu of an ability score increase? Which is good, because feats are still stupid in 5e, though much better than they've been in previous editions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Wait, you can't even hold your staff in one hand while you're spellcasting (leaving your other hand free), and then grab it with both hands when you want to hit something with it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Wait, you can't even hold your staff in one hand while you're spellcasting (leaving your other hand free), and then grab it with both hands when you want to hit something with it? I ... would think you could? I mean, in every previous version, you're able to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, you just need both hands to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
kafziel posted:I ... would think you could? I mean, in every previous version, you're able to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, you just need both hands to use it. There was even a rule that changing the number of hands you were using to hold an object was a free action, which if I recall correctly had an associated Murphy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Maleketh posted:There was even a rule that changing the number of hands you were using to hold an object was a free action, which if I recall correctly had an associated Murphy. I know Pathfinder has a rules FAQ on this very subject - basically you can grasp/release a two-handed weapon as a free action, or swap items between hands (so a cleric, for example, using a shield and a weapon can swap her weapon into her shield hand, cast a spell, and then swap the weapon back). I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar line somewhere in 4E/5E. I'd be interested to see what Murphy is associated with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
There's the old "tie a mouse to my hand" story relating to weapon cords. A free action became a swift action became a way to make sure it's still a pain in the rear end to recover a dropped weapon. Basically it comes down to "we don't want you to have fun with these martial characters"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Actually, the weapon cord originally made retrieving a dropped weapon a swift action, which someone then changed to a move action. Which is the normal action used to pick up an item on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Because one of the designers tied a mouse to his wrist by the cord and tried to catch it and said it was pretty hard 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Because one of the designers tied a mouse to his wrist by the cord and tried to catch it and said it was pretty hard
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
All that would make a tiny bit of sense if disarmed weapons had a chance to be knocked away from a combatant and the weapon cord simply made it always fall into the square.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Zereth posted:After an hour or so of practice. This is inevitably the reason martial characters get poo poo on. "I practiced with a bow over the weekend and couldn't hit much" versus "imagine how awesome throwing a fireball would be." Ignoring the fact that a martial character is practicing his craft for hours every day. It's much easier to imagine reading a book, nerding up, then overpowering thewdarians with your mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I once had a guy tell me that a two handed war hammer was stupid and shouldn't be usable because "try swinging a sledge hammer around and see how fast it is." He didn't really have a response when I reminded him how much a STR 24 raging barbarian could bench.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:I once had a guy tell me that a two handed war hammer was stupid and shouldn't be usable because "try swinging a sledge hammer around and see how fast it is." He's never seen a hammer throw competition then either. or a Caber toss. Alternatively he could watch some sledge hammer workout videos, I could see people using those in combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:I once had a guy tell me that a two handed war hammer was stupid and shouldn't be usable because "try swinging a sledge hammer around and see how fast it is." A lot of DnD weapons take the devices out of their historical context. Which is fine. The real weirdness is how swords are the baseline. It's an artifact of DnD, where being hit isn't a problem until you hit zero, therefore why not get in the face of the 25 foot monstrosity. No reason to harry it with spears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:I once had a guy tell me that a two handed war hammer was stupid and shouldn't be usable because "try swinging a sledge hammer around and see how fast it is." Warhammers were drastically lighter than a sledgehammer, for precisely this reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
I think it's worth talking about why weapon cords got nerfed. You see, most classes don't give a drat about weapon cords because no one ever tries to disarm you. You can't use another weapon with a hand that has another weapon hanging from it, so you can't even leave a crossbow on a weapon cord in case you need a ranged weapon. In fact, there is only a single build that wanted to use weapon cords: gunslingers that want to be cool and fight with two pistols. You see, no matter how quickly you're able to reload a gun, you need a free hand to actually reload it. You don't have a free hand to reload if you have a gun in each hand. Now, I'm sure you're asking, why don't people who want to dual wield pistols just carry a ton of pistols and drop them after firing them like Blackbeard did? Well, guns are also super expensive. One single shot pistol costs a thousand gold. By the time you get enough money to afford multiple guns, you're far enough into the game that you start to need magic weapons to do any real damage. It's just not feasible to have a ton of guns. Now, enter weapon cords. Without weapon cords you have to drop one of your pistols to reload the other and then drop that one to pick up and reload the thousand-gold pistol you just dropped on the ground and then pick up that one and basically you just wasted an entire round picking your weapons back up. Since tying each pistol onto a weapon cord makes it a swift action to pick it back up instead of a move action, they make dual-wielding pistols relatively feasible. Unfortunately, the Paizo forums think guns and gunslingers are way better than they are and the kind of people that get mad about guns in their fantasy game get really mad about people trying to be like John Woo and dual wielding pistols in their fantasy game. This means people raised a huge fuss about how dumb weapon cords are and this eventually lead to Bulhman nerfing weapon cords after playing with his mouse all morning. Now, weapon cords are objectively kind of goofy, but no one paid any attention to them before dual-wielding gunslingers started using them because no one before them cared about disarming enough to spend five gold on them. Oh, and the dual-wielding gunslingers that are really the only people hurt by this rules change? Don't worry about them, they have other ways to reload their guns at a reasonable speed. They just need to take enough levels of Alchemist to grow a mutant third arm which reloads their guns, or they can take enough levels in wizard/sorcerer to cast the "reload your guns without using your hands" spell. which are clearly more logical solutions to this problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Can't they get magic auto-reloading guns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Can't they get magic auto-reloading guns? Or have a follower do it. My theory is that once a rulebook hits 200+ pages, it can no longer use the Rule of Cool. Instead, it uses the Rule of Rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 01:22
|
|
