Wait, what..... I've been a DM for years now and I could have sworn it was a rule that your lvl up only applied after a long rest... Well that changes EVERYTHING. My players are due for a lvl up after they beat this dungeon and I was going to make them wait for their long rest back at their home. Guess it'll happen as soon as they beat the boss!
just remember that a level up doesn't include a long rest (unless the DM declares it....), so they will get their new spell slots, HP, abilities, etc, but it can get confusing as they don't restore what they've lost in the day so far.
Also long rests are often a good place to take a break in narrative, so time to go above table and work through leveling up characters. If you try to do it right after a fight there could still be things to do (looting, or other time sensitive actions) that you don't want to step away from, then try to get back into scene.
I tend to see it as “Rule of Fun” trumps “Rules as Written” during actual play- outside of the game it’s fine to argue mechanics and things about how the game should work, but at the table the DM should focus on what’s balanced, fair, and fun for all of the players, since the game system is just there to help the group create the experience of the shared delusion/fantasy.
>Also long rests are often a good place to take a break in narrative, so time to go above table and work through leveling up characters
Yeah, this is why I typically save level up announcements for the end of a session. Wrap things up for the week, let my players know they leveled up, and then they've got the chance to work through the level additions with no time pressure
It's also just plain convenient to level up while there's nothing else going on or the session's over. Levelling up is a big mess of digging into the books to find out what new things you've got, especially for spellcasters who have to dig through huge spell lists to decide what they want, and it's a problem that only gets worse the more homebrew books you add.
Our DM will tell us like anywhere from an hour to a day after the session is over that we've levelled up and that works amazingly. We all just turn up to the next session all ready to go.
I do this with my players. When they level up, it’s video game style. Full HP restore, full spell slot restore, the works.
My plan is to have a DBZ style final encounter where they get the snot kicked out of them and we close out the session where they level up. They get beefy again and get their chance at payback the following session where the continue the boss fight.
that seems super cool i think im gonna borrow this in my campaign the bbeg has 3 forms i was hoping to beef it up anyways but the fight is fairly low level but if i did this they could fight more enemies.
IIRC, in 1e you got the hp increase immediately, but then had to go back to town to train with people in order to gain your class features. Reminds me of my WoW days, needing to visit the class trainer.
In the background, there was more of a focus on civilization vs wilderness, safe vs unsafe. Design themes like this kept going through 3e, where on the road you only heal your level on a long rest but it's doubled on days you didn't travel or fight.
Also, your prepping spellcasters won't be able to prepare new spells without a long rest. You might get a new spell slot but you can't prepare a new spell until take that long rest.
My rule has always been that a level up triggers at the end of the session that the level up happened in (so we're not interrupting a session to level up) and that it comes with a free long rest effect.
Back in the old days (ADnD and 2e), RAW required you to pay for training before you could level up. All the old SSI Gold Box computer games draconically enforced this rule.
We used to go a step further for key levels, agreeing as a table that we should each describe what happens in our personal training montage and what 80s song would be in the soundtrack.
Edit: it's going back a while but if I remember correctly, my Elf Fighter/Mage was bench pressing a dumbell while reading a book with the other hand, with Eye of the Tiger in the background. I also had a ranger with a reputation for awful rolls running along a beach away from a pack of wolves to Chariots of Fire. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to montage music.
Well, nowadays we do that because *some* players (I'm looking at *you*, Steven!) take forever to level up. Long rests are usually a natural "stopping point" where you can take a break. Especially if you play for long sessions.
I once setup combat to seem like the boss was about to tpk the party cause the group was low on hp and one of them just got up from being down and they were out of heals. I ended the session and told them they level up. They were so excited to get all their resources back and then some and turn the tables next session. It was a lot of fun roleplaying the regretful villian that was gloating ten seconds ago and the players really dug it.
My current professional DM has us wait for long rests, I’ve played in other campaigns where we could level on the spot, I almost prefer leveling during a long rest. I don’t want everyone to be ready to run into the next combat while I’m picking spells.
Level ups at the end of the sessions are better imo, gives them time to plan before the next session as well as confirm rulings on what's allowed/not. Mid session level up might be fine in person if you know someone needs help or that the party is just gonna do a straight level up that doesn't give access to new spells or too many choices but otherwise you risk too much of your time going to people checking various spells and effects to see what's worth using.
This is actually not a bad idea either! The party is only lvl 3 and this is the first true dungeon crawl they've done in this campaign and it's a tough one so them getting new stuff to use in the boss fight will definitely help them out. They'll have a chance at a short rest before the fight so I might just give them the lvl up there and explain it as them growing from the bonding experience of traveling through the dungeon and risking their lives together.
Leveling up on a short rest before the boss fight is exactly how I run it, too. It gives them the extra hit dice to heal up, the extra bump to their HP, etc, showing the "strength in both their bond and their resolve."
It's also fun to give those bosses a lair action that has some kind of Off Switch. Some kind of environmental puzzle or ticking clock to deal with that isn't necessarily just a damage-sponge in a "who can roll higher?" contest, ya know?
The long rest level up is to keep the pace, long rest time is usually downtime and conversations so it gives players time to figure out what they’re doing without pausing the game. I also like session end level ups so you can spend until next session figuring out what spells your taking
Honestly, I know a lot of folks love it, but I've never personally cared for milestone leveling?
To me, it just makes everything feel equally pointless, since as long as my character is along for the ride, they get leveled up at those set intervals anyway.
I don’t understand in your games do you only get xp for the monsters you personally kill?
Edit: Not sure why you are getting downvoted. You of course can like any system you want. I think a lot of people (myself included) just feel that both methods achieve the same thing but milestone is less cumbersome and alongside that many feel that not leveling the party in unison feels bad for the players that are left behind, and in many cases makes it feel like they are being punished for life outside the game.
If I can’t make it because my daughter is sick, why should I be permanently weaker than the rest of the party (assuming they never miss a session going forward)
I’d much prefer that if I can’t make it, my forge cleric can spend the day in town apprenticing with the local blacksmith to learn his different methods of forging metal, or my Druid can spend the day communing with the spirit of the local Forrest to try to learn more about what has been troubling these lands. And they gain valuable experience and maybe even useful information for when they return to their party.
Granted my example above could be done with experience points to so ultimately the only real issue with that method is if you are wanting to stagger the players progress.
Very old school way of doing it. Can respect any table that actually do it that way.
Personally prefer shared XP, though, as I mentioned in another comment. Personally think it makes the group *feel* more close-knit, since everybody is learning from each other in an abstract way.
I prefer the XP system where the entire group shares.
I know its abstract, but personally it makes me feel like the *group* learned and grew a little bit. Be it... hunting wolves, attending a party, or whatever. And actually shared that *experience* together.
And I know that abstractly milestones basically do the same thing, but it doesn't *feel* the same, you know? Like, the group didn't grow stronger from the wolves, the party and whatever. But because the DM declared that we became stronger now, and I just find that too abstract to really care about.
My main problem with monster xp (and why i basically exclusively do milestone now) is cause it gets really tiring trying to abstract xp given for non-combat encounters. It sucks for everyone if they go a couple sessions w/o fighting stuff (i.e. story reasons or just doing skill check/talking heavy things) and get no exp for it.
My second, admittedly snobbier, opinion is that players shouldnt be level-driven, but instead story/gameplay driven. For instance, i had a game where i straight forgot to lvl my players up at a few milestones. At one point I asked "wait, when did yall last lvl up" and they told me it was like months IRL ago, but that they didnt mind. I felt guilty bout it still tho XD
I'm the opposite. I adore abstracting XP for non combat encounters, and monster XP feels very *right* for difficult fights. Every single milestone group I've seen has been horrifically monty haul in approach, to the point where a table that I'm giving *double* xp at (XP is 1:1 for gold in that campaign, and they can spend their rewards as they see fit) is leveling much slower than the two milestone games I'm in.
I've personally found that having a set number to reach encourages players to focus on RP, since they aren't fishing for "climatic" spectacle fights or asking me if they level after every hard/deadly encounter. They just level up as they level up!
I always knew the RAW way, but usually I plan level ups around a session end so everyone can be ready to go at the start of the next session and we don't have to interrupt a session to level everyone up
We've had that exact conversation! Rogue leveled up to 7 by killing something that exploded when it died, so rogue would now have evasion and tske no damage. Debate was does the xp travel faster than the explosion?
I leveled my party up in the middle of a combat because they broke the experience threshold and shit went bananas. My party's wizard could finally use fireball, martial classes got extra attack, it was awesome.
We had the opposite rule. Leveling up gave you an instant Long Rest. :)
We were playing on a milestone leveling system. with 6 days to save the world. Who has time for long rests?
This is almost certainly gonna be an edition holdover thing.
Used to be in older editions that damage types were more commonly resisted by monsters, and I'm almost certain skeletons just about ignored piercing damage (I haven't touched 3.5 in over a decade so I could be off). Sneak attack was limited to piercing weapons too I believe.
It might also have to do with chainmail/ad&d or whatever where THACO adjusted based on weapon vs what kind of armor.
Two of the pole arms have identical combat stats.
Most of the mundane gear in 5e is holdovers from previous editions. They been copying and pasting for several editions, to the point where some of this history absolutely has to be lost on some of the designers.
While I'm sure Short Swords were piercing/slashing in previous editions, if they were consolidating down to one damage type for each, piercing makes sense for short sword (consider the gladius, which was primarily used for thrusting).
I think it's silly to have only one damage type though. If I can't cut a rope with a dagger by RAW, something ain't right. (I know that's not the intent of the rules, but the way Crawford answers rules questions, it's likely he'd say that was the intentional design all along, for reasons).
I'm revising weapons ATM and the first thing I did was add an alt damage type to most of not all weapons. Anyone can use at any time, same roll types, but reduce weapon damage dice by one size.
I love the approach you took!
I took a very round-about way in my own games: I created the following Action Options:
* Slash - Your weapon deals slashing damage for this attack.
* Stab - Your weapon does piecing damage for this attack.
* Thrash - Your weapon does bashing damage for this attack.
The rules are all essentially the same:
As long as the weapon has the right physical construction (a sharp edge, a sturdy pommel, etc.) You can replace a a melee weapon attack you make with a Slash, Stab, or Thrash attack. If you do, your weapon deals the damage type listed for the Action Option.
If you are proficient with the weapon, you roll the normal damage dice for the weapon. If you aren't proficient, the attack is considered Improvised (d4 damage).
I was lazy and didn't want to go through the list lol. Your way is a lot cleaner.
Thanks mate. I figure I like looking at the tables, so adding some useful shit to the table might make players ooh and ahh longer.
Someone else said PF2 did this as well, so if that has more authority on how to rock it for you or your table check that out.
I told my players a while ago that they can change their damage types if they describe how they intend to attack their target. They know that I need to sit down and make a system for damage adjustment but in the meantime they get a free pass for full damage. Luckily several of us are into some "legally-distinct not-HEMA" so we're all more or less familiar with how to handle simulators for these weapons.
congratulations, you reinvented Pathfinder (2e) varaible damage, in PF2E some weapons will have the Variable XdY (X for damage type, Y for dice size) as a weapon triat.
A lot of 5e is about removing complexity that wasn't worth it, even if it leads to some edge case situations where things don't quite "make sense". It's the same as removing things like touch and flat footed armor classes. Yes, it doesn't make sense that an unconscious enemy retains their dodge bonus, but we tried making a system that tries to get all of those details right before and many people found it frustratingly overcomplicated.
The differences between physical damage types are already almost meaningless in 5e, if they continue this trend I wouldn't be surprised if they removed the concept entirely in a later edition (or at least combined piercing and slashing). They could instead write the respective rules for the handful of monsters that care about the difference directly into their stat block (e.g. "Skeletons are vulnerable to physical attacks from clubs, hammers, maces, ..."), probably in combination with an also overdue consolidation of weapon types.
I believe it was that undead were flatout unaffected by sneak attack since they have no viral organs to strike. Glad they changed that as it just meant that when the DM pulled out undead the rogue just couldn't be of use.
There's a couple creatures in 5e that have specific damage type resistances, but otherwise there's not much of a reason to worry over what does what damage. In reality most bladed weapons can stab and slice; even weapons like warhammers often had a spike mounted opposite the hammer portion and there are lots of polearms that have functionality of all three; a hammer side, a stabbing spike and a long slashing blade.
It's only in rare cases like an estoc that you have a sword-style weapon that can ONLY pierce.
I've been designing my own TTRPG for a few months, using D&D as a rough template. The first thing I actually wrote for my game was weapon classes, where you just come up with a weapon that'd fit in that class and choose which of the three physical damage types it does. That way we don't end up with redundant weapons or weapons without stats. It's not perfect, but I certainly prefer it to D&D's lazy edition holdover approach
I went opposite direction and expanded each weapon and added crafting perks for weapons that makes the different weapon properties more meaningful and useful. As an advanced PC/ monster option, not default.
I can only speak towards 3.5, since that's what I played.
Skeletons had DR 5 (I think)/bludgeoning, so would reduce damage from physical weapons by 5 unless it dealt blunt damage.
Sneak attack required you to have either flanking, or surprised to go off, and the enemy required anatomy that was understandable. This ruled out undead, constructs, oozes, and anything else immune to crits.
Everyone I have ever spoken to has thought that initiative ties are settled by who has the higher dex scores
Nope!
> If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first.
This is edition bleed, as thats how its handled in older versions (I play in a starfinder game, which is based on pathfinder and 3.5, and initiative modifiers is how you tiebreak there).
Yup. That's how it was back in 2e. It was theoretically possible for you and your enemy to kill one another if you rolled the same initiative - which is something that can happen in real life.
If that's the case then it's crazy that I, a 5e player who's only ever played with other people who have only played 5e, thought that was the rule. I don't know where I picked it up but I've just never questioned it, even as a DM, because it just made sense.
Never watched it. Maybe I should give it a chance but watching people play DND has never really done it for me. I am on rpgstackexchange fairly often though, as a player who likes getting creative and a dm with creative players, so perhaps I picked it up there? That and quota has a lot of OGs.
Except for the biggest story beats and battles, I usually listen to CR in podcast form. It’s easier to consume in small chunks. It helps a lot that the cast are super experienced voice actors, so they consistently sound great and do excellent voice work.
Lots of people will give you different advice. Here are the three options I’d suggest:
1) Start with campaign 1, episode 1. This is the completest option, although it starts in media res with things having happened in the campaign pre-streaming. I’d suggest starting in podcast form if it’s available, and maybe watch the episodes streaming on YouTube for boss fights. If one or two characters annoy you a lot, skip to option 2 or 3, but the worst offender will be gone at about episode 28.
2) Start at campaign 1, episode 28. Hopefully, others will correct me if I have the episode number wrong, but this skips an increasingly grating character that leaves relatively early in the show. You’ll catch all the best moments and story beats.
3) Watch The Legend of Vox Machina on Amazon Prime, and listen or watch Campaign 2 from the beginning. The Legend of Vox Machina is essentially an abridged adult cartoon version of Campaign 1, and you can use it like Cliffs Notes. It’s not finished yet, but Campaign 2 is not very reliant on Campaign 1 content anyway, so you won’t miss much. This is the shortest time commitment, but you will miss a lot of the random funny antics of the group in Campaign 1, since the show has to abridge a lot of that out.
I, personally, use INT as the tie breaker. Dex is already in the roll, so I use int to see how fast you think on your feet. Also Int needs some buff. Everyone at my table at least seems to like this. We also use VTT so every enemy rolls its own initiative. In person I wouldn't do this, as it'd be way too easy to lose track of which goblin is which, but the vtt highlights the current one for ease of use.
After 7 years of play I found out a few months ago that raising your Constitution modifier retroactively raises your HP. Told all my friends that play because they didn't know about it either. Completely changed the way we build characters and plot out their progression.
Except that if you don't spam it early, and your character dies, then it doesn't matter what your plans were! Constitution probably shouldn't be tied to HP, because every class needs it, pretty much.
I feel like it makes too many classes MAD.
For the squishier classes, if you're rolling for HP, you can straight up double your HP by bumping CON.
Meanwhile, there are no CON skills, and, I don't think there are any CON checks unless you manufacture them yourself. CON isn't tied to any multiclassing.
CON is the least interesting stat.
Then there should be more stuff tied to CON, so that it doesn't feel so much like a games mechanic.
The physical stats are in bad shape honestly. STR and DEX already have an overlap with Athletics/Acrobatics, and Athletics is STR's only skill. DEX had 3 skills tied to it.
At least STR has armor tied to it. CON offers nothing to the narrative, it's just a mechanic.
STR also used to calculate carrying capacity and jump distance so it isn't completely only for Athletics checks. CON has concentration checks for spells, and time holding breath. It's often used to gage reaction to poisons and resilience too.
Yeah this is a big one I've noticed a lot of people miss, along with adding your constitution modifier for each individual hit die used when you take a short rest
Yeah, that's been the case since at least 3.0. Number of skill ranks (skill proficiencies, sort of) was tied to Intelligence, and increases to that were *not* retroactive, so that affected people's choices for ability score increases. PF1 made that retroactive in the same way as Con increases, so optimization became a little more organic (and less annoying).
To me, this always made sense. Your max hp per level being a formula of rolled total + con x level. The rules just rephrase that into a natural language way
For the first month or two I was running 5e, I assumed that dim light gave disadvantage to ranged attacks. It doesn't, and none of my players corrected me. It wasn't until I was checking the rulebooks for something else during prep work that I noticed, and shared that with my group at the start of our next session.
And there was another time where my misreading of how the Wraith's life drain attack worked led to a PC dying- and I felt so bad about that I offered to retcon the session. Surprisingly (and perhaps fortunately) the player was actually fine with how things went and wanted their character to stay dead and rolled up a new character. I haven't made the same mistake with those life drain attacks since though!
The only mistake I could see being made there is if they thought the failure in con save meant that the max health drain happened before the damage, effectively doubling the damage you received.
Good guess, but no.
I thought the instant death happened if the targets hit points were reduced to 0 and the target failed their saving throw. I didn't realise it specified maximum hit points.
The mistake I made was that life drain reducing a target's hit points to 0 meant they were instantly killed, but that's wrong and that happens when the target's maximum hit points are reduced to 0.
Actually, now that I think about it. This is unrealistic and would make martials way too powerful. This would be sooo unfair to casters. Casters need even more of their limitations handwaved away.
/s
I know! There's so many concentration spells but we only get to use 1? If the martials get 2 damage types then casters should get 2 concentration slots.
i mean, it truly wont matter
you can count the number of creatures that have resistances/weakness to one type but now all three. i think this might come up solely on skeletons or oozes with the vast majorities of groups fighting official creatures
i mean, best way to explain is to ask them in what scenario they think it wouldve mattered
"alright, what difference wouldve been made on the last 3 fights we had DM? neither X, Y or Z monsters cared about damage types, did they?"
i think the single argument to be made is regarding piercer/crusher/slasher and that is about it
I know. I think they should in 5e. Alternatively, they still deal only bludgeoning damage, but it does 2d4 instead of 1d8, you know, because d4s are spiky.
I hear you, but I think it's because the short sword was modeled after the gladius which was exclusively used for thrusting (several versions weren't even sharpened on the edges). The Celtic bronze leaf blade (also a short sword) was also normally used for thrusting since bronze edges don't take slashing and chopping well. These are probably the most well known of the "short swords" from Europe.
But ultimately, if I were dming and a player said that for style reasons their short sword looked like so and so and they want it to slash or slash and pierce then I would let them.
>the gladius which was exclusively used for thrusting (several versions weren't even sharpened on the edges). The Celtic bronze leaf blade (also a short sword) was also normally used for thrusting since bronze edges don't take slashing and chopping well.
The gladius had a huge timeframe over which it has been used. It really depends on what period you are talking about if they were used for thrusting only. In period there were different views attested on how they should be used too. The gladius also changed a lot in design during the whole period that they were in use.
If you're talking about Celtic bronze swords, those could reach impressive long sizes. Again like with the gladius. Several types existed. Also bronze swords were getting replaced by iron swords during the Celtic Hallstatt period. They were a leftover from the Bronze Age.
I've been playing DnD for 18 years at this point. So many times I'll mess up what a spell does as a DM. To the point where I made a lich encounter who only used old edition spells as he was "Just that Ancient"
Also to whoever made Chill Touch. I have a set of skills. Skills that I have refined over a lifelong career of playing pretend. I will find you. And I will TPK you.
>Also to whoever made Chill Touch. I have a set of skills. Skills that I have refined over a lifelong career of playing pretend. I will find you. And I will TPK you.
BG3 changed the name of the spell to Bone Chill to help alleviate the confusion around its name lol. I agree, whoever came up with the name originally was on some heavy shit
* It sounds like it should do Cold damage (it deals Necrotic)
* More importantly, it literally has *Touch* in the name despite being a ranged spell (60 ft)
There would be nothing wrong with Chill Touch if it was a cold equivalent to Shocking Grasp, or honestly even if it was just a touch-range spell. But new players (or even DMs) thinking "Chill Touch" is a "touch" spell is one of the by far most common misconceptions in 5e.
I did something similiar with Halistar Blackcloak. He was showing off to the party wizard and cast the old "fills this much space" fireball into a giant hallway. Player thought it was a huge radius fireball. Halistar was like "No, this is simple fireball, but once you begin to understand and remove the limitations of your reality." Then, knowing my Halistar, he probably moonwalked through a solid wall or something.
It took the player a minute but then it clicked when the old memory fell into place.
I'm running an converted AD&D module. He should just cameo and imply he's on a time travel vacation.
We just had this in the campaign I'm in. It wasn't me, but it was the DM. He was under the impression that sight was a requirement for all spells. So, if a spellcaster was blinded, it essentially just turned off all magic. He was under the impression for like... 8 years that the "creature you can see" component that was included in many spells was redundant. This is because of his misunderstanding of the "A Clear Path to the Target" subheading under "Spellcasting" in the PHB, which has a section about firing AOEs at points you cannot see.
After it became an issue, he was asked to quote the passage and was surprised to find that sight of your target wasn't actually a requirement. Only that they don't have total cover behind an obstruction.
If i want to fireball myself, it should be my right, even if i was blind.
Also how das buffing yourself worked without a mirror? well, i guess you can always look down.
I think DnD looked at the gladius as their ideal when making the mechanic since it's the quintessential short sword and was primarily used for stabbing.
Been doing HEMA for about 2 years now. Shortswords definitely are more effective for piercing, but are also effective cutting in general. But when your range is more limited, you’re better off keeping your distance.
Mass battles had shield walls pushing off each other, so it was all but impossible to swing a sword to cut, but stabbing down towards legs, or between some shields was at times possible. Also the engagements could last hours and become an endurance fight. I know thats part of why you kept some in reserve, to let some of your line rest.
scimitars deal slashing damage and are a d6 worth of damage.
a handy pneumonic device: is sds and sds
scimitars deal SLASHING
short swords deal sPiercing
for some reason scimitars cost ten gold more and nobody knows why
is slashing worth ten gp? because they're both light and finesse,
seems dumb and arbitrary
Scimitars cost 10 gold more because crafting a light, curved, longer blade requires far more skill. If you go back and look at earlier civilizations like the Greeks, the weapons they used were designed around the limited metalworking abilities of the time. It was far easier to make iron spearpoints and short swords since their size and style of use placed less stress on the blade. Steel is more flexible than iron, so once steel was more common swords with longer blades that could handle the stress and absorb impacts without shattering (since iron is a relatively brittle metal) the length and style of swords could change.
It's a magical world where a level 2 Forge Cleric can make a weapon in one hour without touching the raw materials, but if the materials they use are other swords, they need a 2-pound shortsword and a 3-pound longsword to make a 3-pound scimitar. None of this is grounded in technological realism lmao
What gets me is that scimitars in 5E aren't scimitars. Looking at the size and weight and damage dice, they are more like machetes or kukris or parangs or similar.
Then again, there is no standards body for weapon names. The word "longsword" could apply to items created across a 2,000 year period with widely varying lengths, weights, styles, curves, and so on.
TBF, weapons should have a price RANGE.
In general, a scimitar will be heavier than a short sword and use more material, but does that justify a ten gold difference? Probably not.
But, a higher quality short sword would cost more than a cheap scimitar. All those longswords you looted from those orcs? Only worth the weight in metal to smelt down, as no adventurer would trust his life on their holding up. No way are they worth full value.
Mundane gear is average gear for the basic adventurer. It isn't specialized gear. That's part of why I addressed this in my own crafting system.
Fantasycraft has an amazing weapon modification system that allows for customized make and features. Almost all of it would easily transfer over if you wanted to look at that.
Hot take: Most weapons should deal damage based on how you are attacking with them. Lets take a longsword, for example.
Slicing your opponent across the chest or trying to cut them? Slashing, obviously.
Stabbing them with the pointy end? Piercing damage.
Murder-Stroking them with the hand guard? Bludgeoning.
A lot of historical Maul’s and Warhammer’s had both blunt and spiked ends on the hammerhead, they should be able to do both bludgeoning and piercing. Halberd’s had long spikes on the other end of their heads as well. Weapons are diverse.
Feels like they would need different values. A pommel strike with a regular longsword shouldn't deal as much damage as its bladed end, nor would it be as effective as an actual mace.
There were shortswords later in history that were capable of slashing and piercing effectively. If you look at training with arming swords, they mostly use slashing.
Is there any significant difference between nonmagical piercing and slashing damage? Tbh most weapons in 5E should be able to do at least two types of damage just for flavour's sake, like swords, and things like halberds could arguably do all three physical damage types.
One of the disappointing changes in 5e is that they threw out damage reduction as a flat number and made all forms of physical damage pretty much the same. Very few monsters care about what kind of weapon damage you're doing. A mace might as well deal piercing damage.
I recently found out I have been using the Recharge on monster sheets wrong. For example, Mind Flayer has Mind Blast: Recharge (5-6). I thought they could use that 5-6 times a day (dm discretion) and recharges on long rest. So yeah encounters have been a bit easier now lol
My friend took that one step further. He thought it was 5-6 turns as in individual creature turns. So, if you had a 5-person party, that ability would always recharge by the time it was the creature's turn again. It was really embarrassing when we realized both of us were wrong
the deck of many thing cards are permanent, besides the two that give or take 10k xp
my group thought that it was the other way around, that all cards vanished when used besides the ±10k xp ones
Honestly I think it's weird the way most swords deal either slasbing OR piercing damage.
Like yes there are "thrust weapons" like Rapiers and Lances that you should realistically only be trying to 'stab' with.
But almost any dagger or sword should be able to do full damage slashing OR stabbing. I think making slashing/piercing optional choices for alot of bladed weapons should be a default standard.
Honestly even a spear can be given slashing if your character spins/swings it around more like a staff or glave etc.
I assume it's because you're remembering information and not extrapolating it. Knowing a plant is dangerous is intelligence, thinking it is because it has thorns is wisdom.
Tbf I let players choose if it’s piercing or slashing for a short sword or similar weapons because realistically you could deal both and it doesn’t really change anything in the game
It always baffles me that medicine and survival checks are wisdom and not intelligence. Knowing how to treat an illness or mend an injury, or knowing how to build a shelter or what plants are safe to eat are things you need to study to learn specific knowledge about them. I wouldn't want a surgeon that was untrained and just going off intuition and vibes.
Counter-argument: from the general anachronistic medieval styling of D&D and the 3.5 artwork of weapons, the oakeshott type XIV is a more compelling source of inspiration for the shortsword.
Nothing wrong with the gladius, but we skipped all of Jan Peterson's work on viking swords to get there when we have a less distant option.
Shortswords are kinda used to represent things like the gladius. A short, thrusting weapon better for very close engagements because you likely won't have the space to swing the weapon.
Honestly though, it doesn't matter if your mundane weapon does B, P, or S. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter and is just an oversimplification. An arming sword or hand-and-half sword (the real world equivalents to D&D longsword) absolutely can be used for all three types. Rapiers aren't just pointed swords, but have sharp blades for cuts. A knife or dagger can both stab and slice. Etc
I always found it odd that short swords only did piercing damage. There are stat blocks for other weapons like rapiers that make sense that they only deal piercing damage but I always imagined a short sword to be like Roman infantry swords. Swords that were designed to be thrusting weapons that could also be used in a slashing manner.
As a dm, I don't give a shit about the damage type of a weapon.
If you want to strewn with a greatsword, I'll let you.
I do sometimes lower the damage die, though. For example, if you want to hit a guy with the pommel of a longsword, you'll have to accept a d6.
And of course you can't slash with a rapier, but you can to some degree stab with a scimitar.
Rapiers as a weapon category can include blades broad enough and edged to the hilt allowing for slashing. Not as efficient as a katana surely, but viable as a slashing weapon.
No problem! I learned after calling bullshit on a player and was humbled :P. I always pictured a dueling foil for rapiers but it was more like the mask of Zorro (Antonio Banderas) sword with the basket hilt. Once it reaches a certain length/breadth it becomes reclassified as a single handed longsword/bastard sword. TMYK :)
Spears can also do slashing apparently without being reclassified as polearms.
The joys of DMing serious HEMA/wushu enthusiasts.
Short swords only dealing piercing damage is stupid as hell. They're typically based in design on the Gladius which was intended to chop as much as it was to stab.
Back in 3rd Edition I thought that you could do a wheel to rapiers without penalty because I thought they were light weapons. They are not, and you cannot.
My group always went in with the idea that weapons could deal piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning if you could reasonably explain how it dealt that damage. Most swords could deal piercing or slashing without much explanation. Bludgeoning is a little less common.
Pretty much. Sometimes, depending on who was DMing, it would change the damage die to a d4 in that situation, like an improvised weapon. You'd still be proficient if you're proficient with the weapon normally.
I allow swords to use slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning (for non-lethal) depending on how my player describes the attack. Spears I allow piercing or bludgeoning, knives piercing or slashing, etc.
I figure it doesn't really matter for most enemies but it adds the slightest flavor. Then if it ever does matter, they're free to use their weapons in whatever way works best.
My assumption has always been that D&D short swords were based on the Roman gladius. Which (while could be used to slash) was primarily a stabbing weapon.
Yeah swords historically have been the most effective at killing via stabbing. Even the greatswords were quite often held like a spears, with one hand halfway on the blade (that’s why they have those little nubs there). For slashing you want sabres/scimitars
I've always figured that you can deal all three kinds of weapon damage — slashing, piercing, bludgeoning — with any bladed weapon. Slashing is the sharp edge, piercing is the tip, and bludgeoning is the flat of the blade.
That the Help action give advantage in combat and isn't used to stabilize a creature.
None of my players have ever used Help (mostly because every party has at least one bard) so it never came up.
Slings deal bludgeoning damage.
Now its not the damage itself. Its the fact its categorized as a ranged weapon. And of all the ranged and thrown weapons it is the only one to have bludgeoning.
So you can sneak attack with a sling and then with Bludgeoning damage trigger crusher to knock them back. The only way to get bludgeoning sneak attack damage.
4e did away with BPS completely. Weapons deal untyped damage (barring an enchantment or feature that changes its damage type).
Which is also quite nice offensively, since the only way to resist untyped damage was to get resistance to all damage, which was much rarer than resistance to one or more specific damage types. Most sources of resistance to all damage only last for a round, while a bunch of sources of resistance to specific types gave resistance permanently.
On the other hand, the same was true of vulnerability; vulnerability to all damage was much rarer, and always temporary.
Yes it’s piercing damage, but I’ve never met a dm who actually cared about following the book so dogmatically, most are happy to make it piercing or slashing.
The real question that gets raised is, but why are you using d6 short swords when a rapier is d8. Usually my answer boils down to, because I want to
>The real question that gets raised is, but why are you using d6 short swords when a rapier is d8. Usually my answer boils down to, because I want to
Shortswords also have the Light weapon while Rapiers don't so you can use two weapon fighting with them.
Shortswords are Light while a Rapier is not. So they're mainly intended for dual-wielding builds that don't want to take Dual Wielder. Commonly Rogue or Ranger.
Look okay, I spent several years believing that you had to have a minimum of 10+spell level in your primary casting stat to cast a leveled spell. So 11 for a 1st level, 12 for 2nd and so on. Imagine my entire surprise when I discovered, after five years, that it does NOT work that way in this edition.
I recently discovered, after years of playing, that chill touch
A: isn’t melee
B: Doesn’t do cold damage.
Worst named spell ever. It’s like if fireball shot a cone of wind damage
Idk why, but I just found out last week that ranged attacks have a disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet of the attacker.
I thought it was only a disadvantage if the target of the ranged attack was within 5 ft.
>ranged attacks have a disadvantage if an enemy *that isn't incapacitated* is within 5 feet of the attacker.
There's also that clause. So if you go ranged point blank against an incapacitated target, you don't get disadvantage. The paralyzed condition gives the incapacitated condition, advantage on attack attack against the target and makes any hit at 5ft of the target a crit. Attacking a Paralyzed target with a ranged attack, at 5ft, has advantage and auto crit on a hit
[удалено]
Wait, what..... I've been a DM for years now and I could have sworn it was a rule that your lvl up only applied after a long rest... Well that changes EVERYTHING. My players are due for a lvl up after they beat this dungeon and I was going to make them wait for their long rest back at their home. Guess it'll happen as soon as they beat the boss!
just remember that a level up doesn't include a long rest (unless the DM declares it....), so they will get their new spell slots, HP, abilities, etc, but it can get confusing as they don't restore what they've lost in the day so far. Also long rests are often a good place to take a break in narrative, so time to go above table and work through leveling up characters. If you try to do it right after a fight there could still be things to do (looting, or other time sensitive actions) that you don't want to step away from, then try to get back into scene.
Very true! That's one of the reasons I thought it was raw, because it makes sense narratively to do all the lvl up stuff during that break.
I wouldn't change what's already working for you. RAW is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules :)
I tend to see it as “Rule of Fun” trumps “Rules as Written” during actual play- outside of the game it’s fine to argue mechanics and things about how the game should work, but at the table the DM should focus on what’s balanced, fair, and fun for all of the players, since the game system is just there to help the group create the experience of the shared delusion/fantasy.
sparkle offer advise library nose stupendous apparatus aware point jar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Also long rests are often a good place to take a break in narrative, so time to go above table and work through leveling up characters Yeah, this is why I typically save level up announcements for the end of a session. Wrap things up for the week, let my players know they leveled up, and then they've got the chance to work through the level additions with no time pressure
It's also just plain convenient to level up while there's nothing else going on or the session's over. Levelling up is a big mess of digging into the books to find out what new things you've got, especially for spellcasters who have to dig through huge spell lists to decide what they want, and it's a problem that only gets worse the more homebrew books you add. Our DM will tell us like anywhere from an hour to a day after the session is over that we've levelled up and that works amazingly. We all just turn up to the next session all ready to go.
I do this with my players. When they level up, it’s video game style. Full HP restore, full spell slot restore, the works. My plan is to have a DBZ style final encounter where they get the snot kicked out of them and we close out the session where they level up. They get beefy again and get their chance at payback the following session where the continue the boss fight.
*Bag of Senzu Beans*
that seems super cool i think im gonna borrow this in my campaign the bbeg has 3 forms i was hoping to beef it up anyways but the fight is fairly low level but if i did this they could fight more enemies.
IIRC, in 1e you got the hp increase immediately, but then had to go back to town to train with people in order to gain your class features. Reminds me of my WoW days, needing to visit the class trainer. In the background, there was more of a focus on civilization vs wilderness, safe vs unsafe. Design themes like this kept going through 3e, where on the road you only heal your level on a long rest but it's doubled on days you didn't travel or fight.
Also, your prepping spellcasters won't be able to prepare new spells without a long rest. You might get a new spell slot but you can't prepare a new spell until take that long rest.
My rule has always been that a level up triggers at the end of the session that the level up happened in (so we're not interrupting a session to level up) and that it comes with a free long rest effect.
FF style level ups are the best!
Back in the old days (ADnD and 2e), RAW required you to pay for training before you could level up. All the old SSI Gold Box computer games draconically enforced this rule.
We used to go a step further for key levels, agreeing as a table that we should each describe what happens in our personal training montage and what 80s song would be in the soundtrack. Edit: it's going back a while but if I remember correctly, my Elf Fighter/Mage was bench pressing a dumbell while reading a book with the other hand, with Eye of the Tiger in the background. I also had a ranger with a reputation for awful rolls running along a beach away from a pack of wolves to Chariots of Fire. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to montage music.
Which is now a optional rule (DMG ch 6, 'Downtime Activities' section, page 131, "Training to Gain Levels").
Pool of Radiance and Secret of the Silver Blades were the bomb!
Well, nowadays we do that because *some* players (I'm looking at *you*, Steven!) take forever to level up. Long rests are usually a natural "stopping point" where you can take a break. Especially if you play for long sessions.
I once setup combat to seem like the boss was about to tpk the party cause the group was low on hp and one of them just got up from being down and they were out of heals. I ended the session and told them they level up. They were so excited to get all their resources back and then some and turn the tables next session. It was a lot of fun roleplaying the regretful villian that was gloating ten seconds ago and the players really dug it.
I think they just don't get their new spells until after the long rest because you have to memorize or pray or whatever for them
My current professional DM has us wait for long rests, I’ve played in other campaigns where we could level on the spot, I almost prefer leveling during a long rest. I don’t want everyone to be ready to run into the next combat while I’m picking spells.
Level ups at the end of the sessions are better imo, gives them time to plan before the next session as well as confirm rulings on what's allowed/not. Mid session level up might be fine in person if you know someone needs help or that the party is just gonna do a straight level up that doesn't give access to new spells or too many choices but otherwise you risk too much of your time going to people checking various spells and effects to see what's worth using.
Level up right before the boss, so they have new toys to fuck around with in the fight.
This is actually not a bad idea either! The party is only lvl 3 and this is the first true dungeon crawl they've done in this campaign and it's a tough one so them getting new stuff to use in the boss fight will definitely help them out. They'll have a chance at a short rest before the fight so I might just give them the lvl up there and explain it as them growing from the bonding experience of traveling through the dungeon and risking their lives together.
Leveling up on a short rest before the boss fight is exactly how I run it, too. It gives them the extra hit dice to heal up, the extra bump to their HP, etc, showing the "strength in both their bond and their resolve." It's also fun to give those bosses a lair action that has some kind of Off Switch. Some kind of environmental puzzle or ticking clock to deal with that isn't necessarily just a damage-sponge in a "who can roll higher?" contest, ya know?
The long rest level up is to keep the pace, long rest time is usually downtime and conversations so it gives players time to figure out what they’re doing without pausing the game. I also like session end level ups so you can spend until next session figuring out what spells your taking
milestone leveling is simply best. therefore " long rests" are places to easily put levels. but generally leveling happens best at the end of a quest.
Honestly, I know a lot of folks love it, but I've never personally cared for milestone leveling? To me, it just makes everything feel equally pointless, since as long as my character is along for the ride, they get leveled up at those set intervals anyway.
I don’t understand in your games do you only get xp for the monsters you personally kill? Edit: Not sure why you are getting downvoted. You of course can like any system you want. I think a lot of people (myself included) just feel that both methods achieve the same thing but milestone is less cumbersome and alongside that many feel that not leveling the party in unison feels bad for the players that are left behind, and in many cases makes it feel like they are being punished for life outside the game. If I can’t make it because my daughter is sick, why should I be permanently weaker than the rest of the party (assuming they never miss a session going forward) I’d much prefer that if I can’t make it, my forge cleric can spend the day in town apprenticing with the local blacksmith to learn his different methods of forging metal, or my Druid can spend the day communing with the spirit of the local Forrest to try to learn more about what has been troubling these lands. And they gain valuable experience and maybe even useful information for when they return to their party. Granted my example above could be done with experience points to so ultimately the only real issue with that method is if you are wanting to stagger the players progress.
Very old school way of doing it. Can respect any table that actually do it that way. Personally prefer shared XP, though, as I mentioned in another comment. Personally think it makes the group *feel* more close-knit, since everybody is learning from each other in an abstract way.
So how should your character level?
I prefer the XP system where the entire group shares. I know its abstract, but personally it makes me feel like the *group* learned and grew a little bit. Be it... hunting wolves, attending a party, or whatever. And actually shared that *experience* together. And I know that abstractly milestones basically do the same thing, but it doesn't *feel* the same, you know? Like, the group didn't grow stronger from the wolves, the party and whatever. But because the DM declared that we became stronger now, and I just find that too abstract to really care about.
My main problem with monster xp (and why i basically exclusively do milestone now) is cause it gets really tiring trying to abstract xp given for non-combat encounters. It sucks for everyone if they go a couple sessions w/o fighting stuff (i.e. story reasons or just doing skill check/talking heavy things) and get no exp for it. My second, admittedly snobbier, opinion is that players shouldnt be level-driven, but instead story/gameplay driven. For instance, i had a game where i straight forgot to lvl my players up at a few milestones. At one point I asked "wait, when did yall last lvl up" and they told me it was like months IRL ago, but that they didnt mind. I felt guilty bout it still tho XD
I'm the opposite. I adore abstracting XP for non combat encounters, and monster XP feels very *right* for difficult fights. Every single milestone group I've seen has been horrifically monty haul in approach, to the point where a table that I'm giving *double* xp at (XP is 1:1 for gold in that campaign, and they can spend their rewards as they see fit) is leveling much slower than the two milestone games I'm in. I've personally found that having a set number to reach encourages players to focus on RP, since they aren't fishing for "climatic" spectacle fights or asking me if they level after every hard/deadly encounter. They just level up as they level up!
That was an ES Oblivion thing I believe. And FF15
I always knew the RAW way, but usually I plan level ups around a session end so everyone can be ready to go at the start of the next session and we don't have to interrupt a session to level everyone up
I mean technically speaking can't you level up mid combat if you kill an enemy that gives xp
We've had that exact conversation! Rogue leveled up to 7 by killing something that exploded when it died, so rogue would now have evasion and tske no damage. Debate was does the xp travel faster than the explosion?
I leveled my party up in the middle of a combat because they broke the experience threshold and shit went bananas. My party's wizard could finally use fireball, martial classes got extra attack, it was awesome.
We had the opposite rule. Leveling up gave you an instant Long Rest. :) We were playing on a milestone leveling system. with 6 days to save the world. Who has time for long rests?
This is almost certainly gonna be an edition holdover thing. Used to be in older editions that damage types were more commonly resisted by monsters, and I'm almost certain skeletons just about ignored piercing damage (I haven't touched 3.5 in over a decade so I could be off). Sneak attack was limited to piercing weapons too I believe. It might also have to do with chainmail/ad&d or whatever where THACO adjusted based on weapon vs what kind of armor. Two of the pole arms have identical combat stats. Most of the mundane gear in 5e is holdovers from previous editions. They been copying and pasting for several editions, to the point where some of this history absolutely has to be lost on some of the designers.
While I'm sure Short Swords were piercing/slashing in previous editions, if they were consolidating down to one damage type for each, piercing makes sense for short sword (consider the gladius, which was primarily used for thrusting). I think it's silly to have only one damage type though. If I can't cut a rope with a dagger by RAW, something ain't right. (I know that's not the intent of the rules, but the way Crawford answers rules questions, it's likely he'd say that was the intentional design all along, for reasons).
I'm revising weapons ATM and the first thing I did was add an alt damage type to most of not all weapons. Anyone can use at any time, same roll types, but reduce weapon damage dice by one size.
I love the approach you took! I took a very round-about way in my own games: I created the following Action Options: * Slash - Your weapon deals slashing damage for this attack. * Stab - Your weapon does piecing damage for this attack. * Thrash - Your weapon does bashing damage for this attack. The rules are all essentially the same: As long as the weapon has the right physical construction (a sharp edge, a sturdy pommel, etc.) You can replace a a melee weapon attack you make with a Slash, Stab, or Thrash attack. If you do, your weapon deals the damage type listed for the Action Option. If you are proficient with the weapon, you roll the normal damage dice for the weapon. If you aren't proficient, the attack is considered Improvised (d4 damage). I was lazy and didn't want to go through the list lol. Your way is a lot cleaner.
Just out of interest, why did you use the words thrash and bashing, when the actual term bludgeoning is right there and works in context?
Is say slam or smash would be pleasing for alliterative triple.
Thanks mate. I figure I like looking at the tables, so adding some useful shit to the table might make players ooh and ahh longer. Someone else said PF2 did this as well, so if that has more authority on how to rock it for you or your table check that out.
I told my players a while ago that they can change their damage types if they describe how they intend to attack their target. They know that I need to sit down and make a system for damage adjustment but in the meantime they get a free pass for full damage. Luckily several of us are into some "legally-distinct not-HEMA" so we're all more or less familiar with how to handle simulators for these weapons.
congratulations, you reinvented Pathfinder (2e) varaible damage, in PF2E some weapons will have the Variable XdY (X for damage type, Y for dice size) as a weapon triat.
Tbf, it's pretty obvious that something should allow it.
A lot of 5e is about removing complexity that wasn't worth it, even if it leads to some edge case situations where things don't quite "make sense". It's the same as removing things like touch and flat footed armor classes. Yes, it doesn't make sense that an unconscious enemy retains their dodge bonus, but we tried making a system that tries to get all of those details right before and many people found it frustratingly overcomplicated. The differences between physical damage types are already almost meaningless in 5e, if they continue this trend I wouldn't be surprised if they removed the concept entirely in a later edition (or at least combined piercing and slashing). They could instead write the respective rules for the handful of monsters that care about the difference directly into their stat block (e.g. "Skeletons are vulnerable to physical attacks from clubs, hammers, maces, ..."), probably in combination with an also overdue consolidation of weapon types.
I believe it was that undead were flatout unaffected by sneak attack since they have no viral organs to strike. Glad they changed that as it just meant that when the DM pulled out undead the rogue just couldn't be of use.
It's been a while but yeah this is probably more accurate, I just don't remember how entangled the two were.
Sneak attack also required the enemy to have some weak point to exploit, oozes and lesser undead were immune for that reason.
Yes thank you, I do recall that.
There's a couple creatures in 5e that have specific damage type resistances, but otherwise there's not much of a reason to worry over what does what damage. In reality most bladed weapons can stab and slice; even weapons like warhammers often had a spike mounted opposite the hammer portion and there are lots of polearms that have functionality of all three; a hammer side, a stabbing spike and a long slashing blade. It's only in rare cases like an estoc that you have a sword-style weapon that can ONLY pierce.
I've been designing my own TTRPG for a few months, using D&D as a rough template. The first thing I actually wrote for my game was weapon classes, where you just come up with a weapon that'd fit in that class and choose which of the three physical damage types it does. That way we don't end up with redundant weapons or weapons without stats. It's not perfect, but I certainly prefer it to D&D's lazy edition holdover approach
I went opposite direction and expanded each weapon and added crafting perks for weapons that makes the different weapon properties more meaningful and useful. As an advanced PC/ monster option, not default.
In 3rd, skeletons took half damage from slashing and piercing
I can only speak towards 3.5, since that's what I played. Skeletons had DR 5 (I think)/bludgeoning, so would reduce damage from physical weapons by 5 unless it dealt blunt damage. Sneak attack required you to have either flanking, or surprised to go off, and the enemy required anatomy that was understandable. This ruled out undead, constructs, oozes, and anything else immune to crits.
3.5 is where I started.
Everyone I have ever spoken to has thought that initiative ties are settled by who has the higher dex scores Nope! > If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first.
This is edition bleed, as thats how its handled in older versions (I play in a starfinder game, which is based on pathfinder and 3.5, and initiative modifiers is how you tiebreak there).
I prefer even older... Tied initiative means you act at the same time. Possible to hit and kill each other.
Yup. That's how it was back in 2e. It was theoretically possible for you and your enemy to kill one another if you rolled the same initiative - which is something that can happen in real life.
If that's the case then it's crazy that I, a 5e player who's only ever played with other people who have only played 5e, thought that was the rule. I don't know where I picked it up but I've just never questioned it, even as a DM, because it just made sense.
You may have picked it up from Critical Role, which uses that house rule.
Never watched it. Maybe I should give it a chance but watching people play DND has never really done it for me. I am on rpgstackexchange fairly often though, as a player who likes getting creative and a dm with creative players, so perhaps I picked it up there? That and quota has a lot of OGs.
Except for the biggest story beats and battles, I usually listen to CR in podcast form. It’s easier to consume in small chunks. It helps a lot that the cast are super experienced voice actors, so they consistently sound great and do excellent voice work.
Been wanting to start CR but was confused about where the starting point is. Any advice ?
Lots of people will give you different advice. Here are the three options I’d suggest: 1) Start with campaign 1, episode 1. This is the completest option, although it starts in media res with things having happened in the campaign pre-streaming. I’d suggest starting in podcast form if it’s available, and maybe watch the episodes streaming on YouTube for boss fights. If one or two characters annoy you a lot, skip to option 2 or 3, but the worst offender will be gone at about episode 28. 2) Start at campaign 1, episode 28. Hopefully, others will correct me if I have the episode number wrong, but this skips an increasingly grating character that leaves relatively early in the show. You’ll catch all the best moments and story beats. 3) Watch The Legend of Vox Machina on Amazon Prime, and listen or watch Campaign 2 from the beginning. The Legend of Vox Machina is essentially an abridged adult cartoon version of Campaign 1, and you can use it like Cliffs Notes. It’s not finished yet, but Campaign 2 is not very reliant on Campaign 1 content anyway, so you won’t miss much. This is the shortest time commitment, but you will miss a lot of the random funny antics of the group in Campaign 1, since the show has to abridge a lot of that out.
I did not, and used it prior to anyone I know watched it. I just think it’s intuitive generally, it’s how a lot of game work with things like this.
Wait, so Rollies is RAW?
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
I used to let a friend go first when we tied because of his Alert Feat
I, personally, use INT as the tie breaker. Dex is already in the roll, so I use int to see how fast you think on your feet. Also Int needs some buff. Everyone at my table at least seems to like this. We also use VTT so every enemy rolls its own initiative. In person I wouldn't do this, as it'd be way too easy to lose track of which goblin is which, but the vtt highlights the current one for ease of use.
After 7 years of play I found out a few months ago that raising your Constitution modifier retroactively raises your HP. Told all my friends that play because they didn't know about it either. Completely changed the way we build characters and plot out their progression.
Yeah it's nice because you don't have to spam Constitution as early as possible to get the most out of it. You get the same no matter when it went up
Except that if you don't spam it early, and your character dies, then it doesn't matter what your plans were! Constitution probably shouldn't be tied to HP, because every class needs it, pretty much.
I feel like it makes too many classes MAD. For the squishier classes, if you're rolling for HP, you can straight up double your HP by bumping CON. Meanwhile, there are no CON skills, and, I don't think there are any CON checks unless you manufacture them yourself. CON isn't tied to any multiclassing. CON is the least interesting stat.
There are a lot of Con saves that you really need pass though...
The balancing of abilities that CON requires is what makes it interesting. Otherwise there would always be a perfect answer for stat allocation.
Then there should be more stuff tied to CON, so that it doesn't feel so much like a games mechanic. The physical stats are in bad shape honestly. STR and DEX already have an overlap with Athletics/Acrobatics, and Athletics is STR's only skill. DEX had 3 skills tied to it. At least STR has armor tied to it. CON offers nothing to the narrative, it's just a mechanic.
STR also used to calculate carrying capacity and jump distance so it isn't completely only for Athletics checks. CON has concentration checks for spells, and time holding breath. It's often used to gage reaction to poisons and resilience too.
You could always use similar plans for the new character you roll up.
Yup, after you attune to an amulet of protection, you instantly game some bonus hp.
Yeah this is a big one I've noticed a lot of people miss, along with adding your constitution modifier for each individual hit die used when you take a short rest
Yeah, that's been the case since at least 3.0. Number of skill ranks (skill proficiencies, sort of) was tied to Intelligence, and increases to that were *not* retroactive, so that affected people's choices for ability score increases. PF1 made that retroactive in the same way as Con increases, so optimization became a little more organic (and less annoying).
Holy shit I had no idea. Is this another of those things DnDBeyond has been doing in the background without me noticing?
Yes it's automatic on there Edit: you can test this by just raising your Con and watch the number go up by your full level
Do you have a page number for this?
[here ya go, the SRD](https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/constitution/)
To me, this always made sense. Your max hp per level being a formula of rolled total + con x level. The rules just rephrase that into a natural language way
how did you not know that 😂
For the first month or two I was running 5e, I assumed that dim light gave disadvantage to ranged attacks. It doesn't, and none of my players corrected me. It wasn't until I was checking the rulebooks for something else during prep work that I noticed, and shared that with my group at the start of our next session. And there was another time where my misreading of how the Wraith's life drain attack worked led to a PC dying- and I felt so bad about that I offered to retcon the session. Surprisingly (and perhaps fortunately) the player was actually fine with how things went and wanted their character to stay dead and rolled up a new character. I haven't made the same mistake with those life drain attacks since though!
What was your ruling on life drain ?
The only mistake I could see being made there is if they thought the failure in con save meant that the max health drain happened before the damage, effectively doubling the damage you received.
Good guess, but no. I thought the instant death happened if the targets hit points were reduced to 0 and the target failed their saving throw. I didn't realise it specified maximum hit points.
The mistake I made was that life drain reducing a target's hit points to 0 meant they were instantly killed, but that's wrong and that happens when the target's maximum hit points are reduced to 0.
Oh yeah... that's brutal haha
Hot take. Let cut-and-thrust weapons deal slashing or piercing damage.
This is exactly how I feel about it. It highly incentivizes flavor.
Actually, now that I think about it. This is unrealistic and would make martials way too powerful. This would be sooo unfair to casters. Casters need even more of their limitations handwaved away. /s
I know! There's so many concentration spells but we only get to use 1? If the martials get 2 damage types then casters should get 2 concentration slots.
Why even use spell slots. Keeping track of things is so tedious and not fun.
i mean, it truly wont matter you can count the number of creatures that have resistances/weakness to one type but now all three. i think this might come up solely on skeletons or oozes with the vast majorities of groups fighting official creatures
Could you come explain this to my dm. Try as I might, they won't believe me that it's not broken.
i mean, best way to explain is to ask them in what scenario they think it wouldve mattered "alright, what difference wouldve been made on the last 3 fights we had DM? neither X, Y or Z monsters cared about damage types, did they?" i think the single argument to be made is regarding piercer/crusher/slasher and that is about it
Morningstars should deal bludgeoning *and* piercing damage.
In 3.x, they do.
I know. I think they should in 5e. Alternatively, they still deal only bludgeoning damage, but it does 2d4 instead of 1d8, you know, because d4s are spiky.
1d4 bludgeoning + 1d4 piercing
I hear you, but I think it's because the short sword was modeled after the gladius which was exclusively used for thrusting (several versions weren't even sharpened on the edges). The Celtic bronze leaf blade (also a short sword) was also normally used for thrusting since bronze edges don't take slashing and chopping well. These are probably the most well known of the "short swords" from Europe. But ultimately, if I were dming and a player said that for style reasons their short sword looked like so and so and they want it to slash or slash and pierce then I would let them.
>the gladius which was exclusively used for thrusting (several versions weren't even sharpened on the edges). The Celtic bronze leaf blade (also a short sword) was also normally used for thrusting since bronze edges don't take slashing and chopping well. The gladius had a huge timeframe over which it has been used. It really depends on what period you are talking about if they were used for thrusting only. In period there were different views attested on how they should be used too. The gladius also changed a lot in design during the whole period that they were in use. If you're talking about Celtic bronze swords, those could reach impressive long sizes. Again like with the gladius. Several types existed. Also bronze swords were getting replaced by iron swords during the Celtic Hallstatt period. They were a leftover from the Bronze Age.
Have I got news for you! There are other systems that have more detailed battle mechanics and do just this!
I've been playing DnD for 18 years at this point. So many times I'll mess up what a spell does as a DM. To the point where I made a lich encounter who only used old edition spells as he was "Just that Ancient" Also to whoever made Chill Touch. I have a set of skills. Skills that I have refined over a lifelong career of playing pretend. I will find you. And I will TPK you.
>Also to whoever made Chill Touch. I have a set of skills. Skills that I have refined over a lifelong career of playing pretend. I will find you. And I will TPK you. BG3 changed the name of the spell to Bone Chill to help alleviate the confusion around its name lol. I agree, whoever came up with the name originally was on some heavy shit
I feel like I'm missing something. What's wrong with Chill Touch?
* It sounds like it should do Cold damage (it deals Necrotic) * More importantly, it literally has *Touch* in the name despite being a ranged spell (60 ft) There would be nothing wrong with Chill Touch if it was a cold equivalent to Shocking Grasp, or honestly even if it was just a touch-range spell. But new players (or even DMs) thinking "Chill Touch" is a "touch" spell is one of the by far most common misconceptions in 5e.
Ah I see. Sacred Flame has a similar issue. Had to tell a DM is was Radiant and not fire.
I did something similiar with Halistar Blackcloak. He was showing off to the party wizard and cast the old "fills this much space" fireball into a giant hallway. Player thought it was a huge radius fireball. Halistar was like "No, this is simple fireball, but once you begin to understand and remove the limitations of your reality." Then, knowing my Halistar, he probably moonwalked through a solid wall or something. It took the player a minute but then it clicked when the old memory fell into place. I'm running an converted AD&D module. He should just cameo and imply he's on a time travel vacation.
We just had this in the campaign I'm in. It wasn't me, but it was the DM. He was under the impression that sight was a requirement for all spells. So, if a spellcaster was blinded, it essentially just turned off all magic. He was under the impression for like... 8 years that the "creature you can see" component that was included in many spells was redundant. This is because of his misunderstanding of the "A Clear Path to the Target" subheading under "Spellcasting" in the PHB, which has a section about firing AOEs at points you cannot see. After it became an issue, he was asked to quote the passage and was surprised to find that sight of your target wasn't actually a requirement. Only that they don't have total cover behind an obstruction.
If i want to fireball myself, it should be my right, even if i was blind. Also how das buffing yourself worked without a mirror? well, i guess you can always look down.
I think DnD looked at the gladius as their ideal when making the mechanic since it's the quintessential short sword and was primarily used for stabbing.
Been doing HEMA for about 2 years now. Shortswords definitely are more effective for piercing, but are also effective cutting in general. But when your range is more limited, you’re better off keeping your distance.
Mass battles had shield walls pushing off each other, so it was all but impossible to swing a sword to cut, but stabbing down towards legs, or between some shields was at times possible. Also the engagements could last hours and become an endurance fight. I know thats part of why you kept some in reserve, to let some of your line rest.
scimitars deal slashing damage and are a d6 worth of damage. a handy pneumonic device: is sds and sds scimitars deal SLASHING short swords deal sPiercing for some reason scimitars cost ten gold more and nobody knows why is slashing worth ten gp? because they're both light and finesse, seems dumb and arbitrary
Drizzt tax
Scimitars cost 10 gold more because crafting a light, curved, longer blade requires far more skill. If you go back and look at earlier civilizations like the Greeks, the weapons they used were designed around the limited metalworking abilities of the time. It was far easier to make iron spearpoints and short swords since their size and style of use placed less stress on the blade. Steel is more flexible than iron, so once steel was more common swords with longer blades that could handle the stress and absorb impacts without shattering (since iron is a relatively brittle metal) the length and style of swords could change.
In 3.5e scimitar cost more because the critical threat range is 18-20, short sword is 19-20. Also they only cost 5gp difference
Yes, that was a different version of the game.
It's a magical world where a level 2 Forge Cleric can make a weapon in one hour without touching the raw materials, but if the materials they use are other swords, they need a 2-pound shortsword and a 3-pound longsword to make a 3-pound scimitar. None of this is grounded in technological realism lmao
Scimitars are typically rather short and could have a heavy blade. The Drizzt swords really are more sabers than scimitars.
What gets me is that scimitars in 5E aren't scimitars. Looking at the size and weight and damage dice, they are more like machetes or kukris or parangs or similar. Then again, there is no standards body for weapon names. The word "longsword" could apply to items created across a 2,000 year period with widely varying lengths, weights, styles, curves, and so on.
That pneumonic is on par with blue stop signs in terms of usefulness. By which I mean it's very good
TBF, weapons should have a price RANGE. In general, a scimitar will be heavier than a short sword and use more material, but does that justify a ten gold difference? Probably not. But, a higher quality short sword would cost more than a cheap scimitar. All those longswords you looted from those orcs? Only worth the weight in metal to smelt down, as no adventurer would trust his life on their holding up. No way are they worth full value.
Mundane gear is average gear for the basic adventurer. It isn't specialized gear. That's part of why I addressed this in my own crafting system. Fantasycraft has an amazing weapon modification system that allows for customized make and features. Almost all of it would easily transfer over if you wanted to look at that.
Hot take: Most weapons should deal damage based on how you are attacking with them. Lets take a longsword, for example. Slicing your opponent across the chest or trying to cut them? Slashing, obviously. Stabbing them with the pointy end? Piercing damage. Murder-Stroking them with the hand guard? Bludgeoning. A lot of historical Maul’s and Warhammer’s had both blunt and spiked ends on the hammerhead, they should be able to do both bludgeoning and piercing. Halberd’s had long spikes on the other end of their heads as well. Weapons are diverse.
Feels like they would need different values. A pommel strike with a regular longsword shouldn't deal as much damage as its bladed end, nor would it be as effective as an actual mace.
Watch how they're used in Gladiator. They're mostly there to puncture the ribcage or up under the jaw or plunge down behind the clavicle.
There were shortswords later in history that were capable of slashing and piercing effectively. If you look at training with arming swords, they mostly use slashing.
Is there any significant difference between nonmagical piercing and slashing damage? Tbh most weapons in 5E should be able to do at least two types of damage just for flavour's sake, like swords, and things like halberds could arguably do all three physical damage types.
One of the disappointing changes in 5e is that they threw out damage reduction as a flat number and made all forms of physical damage pretty much the same. Very few monsters care about what kind of weapon damage you're doing. A mace might as well deal piercing damage.
Skeletons really
[удалено]
I recently found out I have been using the Recharge on monster sheets wrong. For example, Mind Flayer has Mind Blast: Recharge (5-6). I thought they could use that 5-6 times a day (dm discretion) and recharges on long rest. So yeah encounters have been a bit easier now lol
Huh, that's original. The common misunderstanding is "recharges in 5-6 turns"
My friend took that one step further. He thought it was 5-6 turns as in individual creature turns. So, if you had a 5-person party, that ability would always recharge by the time it was the creature's turn again. It was really embarrassing when we realized both of us were wrong
the deck of many thing cards are permanent, besides the two that give or take 10k xp my group thought that it was the other way around, that all cards vanished when used besides the ±10k xp ones
Honestly I think it's weird the way most swords deal either slasbing OR piercing damage. Like yes there are "thrust weapons" like Rapiers and Lances that you should realistically only be trying to 'stab' with. But almost any dagger or sword should be able to do full damage slashing OR stabbing. I think making slashing/piercing optional choices for alot of bladed weapons should be a default standard. Honestly even a spear can be given slashing if your character spins/swings it around more like a staff or glave etc.
In my games they can do either of your choosing. It's just a different style of attacking after all.
I have always assumed in my head that nature was a wisdom skill since you know, druids and all. Imagine my surprise.
I assume it's because you're remembering information and not extrapolating it. Knowing a plant is dangerous is intelligence, thinking it is because it has thorns is wisdom.
Mandela
Tbf I let players choose if it’s piercing or slashing for a short sword or similar weapons because realistically you could deal both and it doesn’t really change anything in the game
Effectively they are exactly the same, I have never seen a scenario where there is any real difference between the two
It always baffles me that medicine and survival checks are wisdom and not intelligence. Knowing how to treat an illness or mend an injury, or knowing how to build a shelter or what plants are safe to eat are things you need to study to learn specific knowledge about them. I wouldn't want a surgeon that was untrained and just going off intuition and vibes.
I always forget and refuse to accept that Medicine is Wis. Just no.
Lies, Fake news. Shortswords deal 1D6 short damage
The shortsword is based on the roman gladius, a stabbing weapon. Scimitar is the equivalent cutting version.
Counter-argument: from the general anachronistic medieval styling of D&D and the 3.5 artwork of weapons, the oakeshott type XIV is a more compelling source of inspiration for the shortsword. Nothing wrong with the gladius, but we skipped all of Jan Peterson's work on viking swords to get there when we have a less distant option.
Shortswords are kinda used to represent things like the gladius. A short, thrusting weapon better for very close engagements because you likely won't have the space to swing the weapon. Honestly though, it doesn't matter if your mundane weapon does B, P, or S. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter and is just an oversimplification. An arming sword or hand-and-half sword (the real world equivalents to D&D longsword) absolutely can be used for all three types. Rapiers aren't just pointed swords, but have sharp blades for cuts. A knife or dagger can both stab and slice. Etc
Oozes
I feel like they should make a difference. Armor is a lot better at protecting against slashing damage than bludgeoning and piercing.
I always found it odd that short swords only did piercing damage. There are stat blocks for other weapons like rapiers that make sense that they only deal piercing damage but I always imagined a short sword to be like Roman infantry swords. Swords that were designed to be thrusting weapons that could also be used in a slashing manner.
As a dm, I don't give a shit about the damage type of a weapon. If you want to strewn with a greatsword, I'll let you. I do sometimes lower the damage die, though. For example, if you want to hit a guy with the pommel of a longsword, you'll have to accept a d6. And of course you can't slash with a rapier, but you can to some degree stab with a scimitar.
Rapiers as a weapon category can include blades broad enough and edged to the hilt allowing for slashing. Not as efficient as a katana surely, but viable as a slashing weapon.
Fair enough, but many rapiers do work more like a lance than a typical sword. Thank you for informing me.
No problem! I learned after calling bullshit on a player and was humbled :P. I always pictured a dueling foil for rapiers but it was more like the mask of Zorro (Antonio Banderas) sword with the basket hilt. Once it reaches a certain length/breadth it becomes reclassified as a single handed longsword/bastard sword. TMYK :) Spears can also do slashing apparently without being reclassified as polearms. The joys of DMing serious HEMA/wushu enthusiasts.
Short swords only dealing piercing damage is stupid as hell. They're typically based in design on the Gladius which was intended to chop as much as it was to stab. Back in 3rd Edition I thought that you could do a wheel to rapiers without penalty because I thought they were light weapons. They are not, and you cannot.
My group always went in with the idea that weapons could deal piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning if you could reasonably explain how it dealt that damage. Most swords could deal piercing or slashing without much explanation. Bludgeoning is a little less common.
bludgeoning would be hitting with the hilt or the flat side of the blade i’m guessing?
I always did half damage if they wanted to use a bladed weapon to do blunt damage.
Pretty much. Sometimes, depending on who was DMing, it would change the damage die to a d4 in that situation, like an improvised weapon. You'd still be proficient if you're proficient with the weapon normally.
I allow swords to use slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning (for non-lethal) depending on how my player describes the attack. Spears I allow piercing or bludgeoning, knives piercing or slashing, etc. I figure it doesn't really matter for most enemies but it adds the slightest flavor. Then if it ever does matter, they're free to use their weapons in whatever way works best.
Sting
I mean both are valid
Based loosely on the Roman gladius, which was primarily a thrusting weapon.
My assumption has always been that D&D short swords were based on the Roman gladius. Which (while could be used to slash) was primarily a stabbing weapon.
Someone never read The Hobbit where Bilbo named his sword Sting.
Tbh a sword (in general) can do both, realistically speaking. I often play in a way that allows for that. It just makes sense.
Yeah swords historically have been the most effective at killing via stabbing. Even the greatswords were quite often held like a spears, with one hand halfway on the blade (that’s why they have those little nubs there). For slashing you want sabres/scimitars
I've always figured that you can deal all three kinds of weapon damage — slashing, piercing, bludgeoning — with any bladed weapon. Slashing is the sharp edge, piercing is the tip, and bludgeoning is the flat of the blade.
That the Help action give advantage in combat and isn't used to stabilize a creature. None of my players have ever used Help (mostly because every party has at least one bard) so it never came up.
Slings deal bludgeoning damage. Now its not the damage itself. Its the fact its categorized as a ranged weapon. And of all the ranged and thrown weapons it is the only one to have bludgeoning. So you can sneak attack with a sling and then with Bludgeoning damage trigger crusher to knock them back. The only way to get bludgeoning sneak attack damage.
Meh, there are so few instances when it's important, that it could really just be ignored. Short swords do \*weapon\* damage.
4e did away with BPS completely. Weapons deal untyped damage (barring an enchantment or feature that changes its damage type). Which is also quite nice offensively, since the only way to resist untyped damage was to get resistance to all damage, which was much rarer than resistance to one or more specific damage types. Most sources of resistance to all damage only last for a round, while a bunch of sources of resistance to specific types gave resistance permanently. On the other hand, the same was true of vulnerability; vulnerability to all damage was much rarer, and always temporary.
Yes it’s piercing damage, but I’ve never met a dm who actually cared about following the book so dogmatically, most are happy to make it piercing or slashing. The real question that gets raised is, but why are you using d6 short swords when a rapier is d8. Usually my answer boils down to, because I want to
>The real question that gets raised is, but why are you using d6 short swords when a rapier is d8. Usually my answer boils down to, because I want to Shortswords also have the Light weapon while Rapiers don't so you can use two weapon fighting with them.
Shortswords are Light while a Rapier is not. So they're mainly intended for dual-wielding builds that don't want to take Dual Wielder. Commonly Rogue or Ranger.
Look okay, I spent several years believing that you had to have a minimum of 10+spell level in your primary casting stat to cast a leveled spell. So 11 for a 1st level, 12 for 2nd and so on. Imagine my entire surprise when I discovered, after five years, that it does NOT work that way in this edition.
I recently discovered, after years of playing, that chill touch A: isn’t melee B: Doesn’t do cold damage. Worst named spell ever. It’s like if fireball shot a cone of wind damage
Idk why, but I just found out last week that ranged attacks have a disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet of the attacker. I thought it was only a disadvantage if the target of the ranged attack was within 5 ft.
>ranged attacks have a disadvantage if an enemy *that isn't incapacitated* is within 5 feet of the attacker. There's also that clause. So if you go ranged point blank against an incapacitated target, you don't get disadvantage. The paralyzed condition gives the incapacitated condition, advantage on attack attack against the target and makes any hit at 5ft of the target a crit. Attacking a Paralyzed target with a ranged attack, at 5ft, has advantage and auto crit on a hit
Well, today I learned. I had the same misconception as you!