Group 1: OOC I

[dmw71]

OOC I
Please try to limit out of character chatter in the actual action posts and post that "stuff" here instead.

[dmw71]

This will be unlocked once the game actually begins. For now, please use the Pregame Discussions topic instead.

[dmw71]

Okay, it's technically past midnight here in the Central time zone, so I missed my New Years Day kickoff... which, honestly, feels like a bit of relief. I'm very close to being ready, but I'm not quite there and rushing to launch the game prematurely is probably not the best decision.

Expect to launch sometime later today (Wednesday), but please allow for another day or two delay... just in case.

I have created a new 'Groups' post where I've broken down the ten players into the two groups. For each character, I have the start of their 'footer' information (ravenn4544 and BearSiren817, your character details will be more complete). I will eventually be adding these extra details to all characters, but it is an extremely time consuming process and, at this point, I'm resigned to making this a more gradual process.

In the meantime, two requests:

1. Can you each please review the information for your character? The topic is locked (I think I might literally cry if anything happened to it), so point out any errors here in the OOC thread. If everything looks good, please provide that confirmation as well. ravenn4544 and BearSiren817, the more information for your characters can be found
2. I would also like each group to begin discussing group tactics (e.g. marching orders, sleeping orders, etc...).
   • Note: I have created the following new threads to house these group-specific discussions:
     • Group 1: Discussions
     • Group 2: Discussions

While not actually so, for all intents and purposes, I am considering the game to be officially in progress. Feel free to begin using this OOC thread instead of the one set up for pregame discussions.

[Scott308]

My character info looks good. However, looking at the other characters' general race/class stats, I noticed for the elf fighter, you have him listed as d8 instead of d10 for HD. Also, as an elf he has Darkvision. I didn't catch any other general errors and can't speak to character specific details.

[dmw71]

I noticed for the elf fighter, you have him listed as d8 instead of d10 for HD. Also, as an elf he has Darkvision.

Thanks for checking. I have fixed the two errors on Gerrin's elven fighter.

[drpete]

There's a strange feature that the ones you completed seem to have gender/alignment in a different order than the others.

[dmw71]

There's a strange feature that the ones you completed seem to have gender/alignment in a different order than the others.

That doesn't surprise me. Lol

I added the gender field late and had a feeling I copied it into the wrong position a couple of times. I'll go back and clean that up.

Thanks!

[BearSiren817]

My AC is 14 HP 9

[dmw71]

There's a strange feature that the ones you completed seem to have gender/alignment in a different order than the others.

This has been fixed.

My AC is 14 HP 9

I might be losing my mind, but I think I'm pretty sure that's what I have:

• BearSiren817 | Dr. Catarina Jones | Tabaxi | Rogue (1) | Alignment: Chaotic Neutral | Gender: Female | HD: 1 (1d8) | HP: 9 | AC: 14 | SP: 30' (Climb: 20') | Initiative: +3 | Darkvision: Yes | Inspiration: No

[Rex]

Strega looks good to me.

[BearSiren817]

Oops yep looks good

[Monsieur Rose]

So I have a question about the Tabaxi claws. Can they be used to dual wield? Can Tabaxi attack with one claw, then with the other as a bonus action?

[dmw71]

So I have a question about the Tabaxi claws. Can they be used to dual wield? Can Tabaxi attack with one claw, then with the other as a bonus action?

Interesting question. I did a bit of search and found this Tweet from Jeremy Crawford:

"Check out the rule for two-weapon fighting (PH, 195). It relies on weapons that have the light property, which unarmed strikes lack. #DnD"

It kind of makes sense that the 'light' property should apply to a natural weapon, but I'm also trying to play this game rules-as-written and avoid creating too many exceptions.

Let me think on this one.

[Scott308]

No. The description of the Tabaxi claws calls them "natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."

This does not satisfy the requirements for two-weapon fighting: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Monks have an ability that specifically allows them to make an unarmed attack as a bonus action. Without a specific exception to the rule, both attacks must be made with light melee weapons. If you attack with claws, that's the only attack you get. Sorry.

[drpete]

It also seems that if they could attack with 2 claws as a default thing, it would say that...

[dmw71]

If you attack with claws, that's the only attack you get. Sorry.

I was honestly leaning this way as well.

A quick look at the lion (as a monster) shows they have two attacks:

1. Bite
2. Claws

A lion can quite clearly use any (or all) of their four clawed paws when making a claw attack, but they all count as the same attack process and they only get one attack/damage roll.

[Monsieur Rose]

Not trying to rules lawyer, just ran into an oddity. So, for clarification, tabaxi can attack once holding a dagger, then again with a dagger in the other hand as a bonus action. But they cannot do the same thing with the same hands if they aren't holding daggers. RAW, I know. Just odd.

Edited:
If you think about the attack as a whole, then it makes sense. It's not one punch or kick, it's the 6 seconds of bare-knuckle fighting that does damage. Same with the claws.

[dmw71]

Edited:
If you think about the attack as a whole, then it makes sense. It's not one punch or kick, it's the 6 seconds of bare-knuckle fighting that does damage. Same with the claws.

This.

I'm pretty sure making a claw attack is a process, and does not consider each claw individually.

[Scott308]

It does seem counterintuitive, but I think looking at it like Monsieur Rose describes makes the most sense.

[Rex]

Seems fair and appropriate. If you allowed the claw as a bonus action then everyone wielding a light 1 handed weapon should get a bonus attack with their free hand, may not be the best attack but would seem to be allowed by the same logic.