OOG Chatter

[archolewa]

Assuming monsters have the same rules we do, it would be pretty easy to largely negate monsters without a range option (or a range option much weaker than their melee) considering how impactful Disadvantage is. Even more so if there's a Ranger on the team. Just Move+whatever or whatever+Move. This forces melee monsters to at best attack at disadvantage. Sure, melee characters couldn't make any sort of attack if they have to Move out of range beforoe they can attack, but it might be worth if you have a spellcaster (or *especially* a Ranger). Especially since on the next round, if the monsters move and attack, the melee character could attack and move, and basically force the monster to attack with disadvantage while the melee characters attack normally.

[terrymixon]

Assuming monsters have the same rules we do, it would be pretty easy to largely negate monsters without a range option (or a range option much weaker than their melee) considering how impactful Disadvantage is. Even more so if there's a Ranger on the team. Just Move+whatever or whatever+Move. This forces melee monsters to at best attack at disadvantage. Sure, melee characters couldn't make any sort of attack if they have to Move out of range beforoe they can attack, but it might be worth if you have a spellcaster (or *especially* a Ranger). Especially since on the next round, if the monsters move and attack, the melee character could attack and move, and basically force the monster to attack with disadvantage while the melee characters attack normally.

As a Ranger, I approve!

[Rex]

I am OK with it, but maybe to balance the second ranged attack it should be at disadvantage like the melee attack is?

[subaltari]

Wait, wait for me...!

Eris was kind enough to add me to the game, and be I'll off to make a Shadowdarkling shortly. A big tip of the hat to him, as well as those I've seen before (Marullus, Rex, rredmond, shaidar, Tiglath) and to the many I haven't!

~ JP, aka subaltari

[terrymixon]

Wait, wait for me...!

Eris was kind enough to add me to the game, and be I'll off to make a Shadowdarkling shortly. A big tip of the hat to him, as well as those I've seen before (Marullus, Rex, rredmond, shaidar, Tiglath) and to the many I haven't!

~ JP, aka subaltari

Hi!

[subaltari]

Hi Terry!

I'll weigh in on the proposed action rules: whilst I'm not very familiar with 5e, they look like a way of importing 5e bonus actions & reactions. I would suggest starting them off in "playtest" status unless they already come well recommended by other Shadowdark GMs. I've heard some of the author's (Kelsey Dionne) very articulate defense of her design principles, one of which is action economy. She gives PCs one attack (and some monsters 3 or more) for a reason.

As archolewa points out, it looks like rangers could get two attacks with a bow at no penalty if they don't move. That's a much better perk than the second melee attack, and it adds a significant ability to a class which (as written) is evenly balanced between melee/ranged. Agreeing with Terry, it could only benefit the party... until goblin ranger longbowmen start appearing on rooftops and rock shelves around us.

[Tiglath]

Hello there subaltari!

The ruling dovetails with Rangers not being able equip shields (a significant +2 AC) and therefore maybe leaning into being "twangy". Of course Elven Rangers might now become "uber twangy" but only initially as per their (D&D) +1 bonus but I'm alright with all of that as part of Shadowdark's access all areas of a PC's stats / everyone can do everything approach to adventuring.

[subaltari]

Hello Tiglath... very good points! The absence of shield and two-handed weapons practically begs for Drizztean dual wielding, don't it? Has any rule been decided on...?

[Tiglath]

Hello Tiglath... very good points! The absence of shield and two-handed weapons practically begs for Drizztean dual wielding, don't it? Has any rule been decided on...?

You can see where they are perhaps "opening a door" here but (admittedly as an AD&Dist) I really embrace the "fuzziness" of the character classes allowing the player to morph them to their own play style.

[joertexas]

Proposed House rule for Combat Actions. It gives PC's a few more options during combat such as second Melee attacks, some Ranged ones as well, and a couple of Defensive maneuvers you can call as Reactions. Although this makes things a bit more complicated, I don't think it will slow things down and might be a good extension.

What do you think?

I think it's a good rule - at least until we try it and see how it works

[shaidar]

No love for warriors with weapon mastery in the bow then

Generally it looks good.

Hi subaltari!

[Tiglath]

No love for warriors with weapon mastery in the bow then

Generally it looks good.

You do get all weapons and all armour and shield (no platemail for twangy forest lads) and, given your stackable talents, are always going to be the better warrior (not a position AD&D achieved). So I'd say there looks to be some balance.

[Rex]

Welcome Aboard subaltari!

If we are going to give it a try I think the suggestion of doing so with the intent to reevaluate it once we have seen a couple of combats where it was used is a good idea. And no mater what it must be balanced by the "bad guys" having something equivalent to use on there side. Dark Rangers or whatever.

[archolewa]

Welcome Aboard subaltari!

If we are going to give it a try I think the suggestion of doing so with the intent to reevaluate it once we have seen a couple of combats where it was used is a good idea. And no mater what it must be balanced by the "bad guys" having something equivalent to use on there side. Dark Rangers or whatever.

As a squishy, low AC wizard, I'm going to put in a formal request to...erm...*not* use rules that allow enemy archers to shoot me twice...

[shaidar]

No love for warriors with weapon mastery in the bow then

Generally it looks good.

You do get all weapons and all armour and shield (no platemail for twangy forest lads) and, given your stackable talents, are always going to be the better warrior (not a position AD&D achieved). So I'd say there looks to be some balance.

Now, there's no need to introduce logic and balance into the conversation.

You're right. Rangers don't get weapon mastery. I'm not sure I'd wear heavy armour and use a bow, but I don't think there's anything rules wise that makes doing so a problem.

[shaidar]

As a squishy, low AC wizard, I'm going to put in a formal request to...erm...*not* use rules that allow enemy archers to shoot me twice...

I guess MUs are getting the raw end of the deal with the extra melee attacks as well, although they are at disadvantage at least.

[archolewa]

I guess MUs are getting the raw end of the deal with the extra melee attacks as well, although they are at disadvantage at least.

I'm sure a big, beefy warrior type will be happy to use their second action to block/parry for me instead of making a second attack at disadvantage...

[Rex]

If we want to add some history and experience with weapons to it I can, but it will be a long post (at least by my standards LOL). But it is likely not to help since realism isn't exactly Shadowdarks or other versions of D&D's strength (and to be clear that is just fine as it isn't its goal).

When beefing up melee and/or missile combat MU always get the raw deal, but since in everything else they get the advantage so be it. I still think the ranged attacks and melee attacks should be treated the same, if melee has disadvantage why not missile? But seem to be in the minority on that.

I also like the idea of goblin dark rangers with bows and mounted on dire wolves, LOL. Think of the bragging rights of killing one.

[shaidar]

I guess MUs are getting the raw end of the deal with the extra melee attacks as well, although they are at disadvantage at least.

I'm sure a big, beefy warrior type will be happy to use their second action to block/parry for me instead of making a second attack at disadvantage...

That's a good point, the parry option is useful to protect our squishy friends, but I was thinking more about those 2nd attacks from the enemy.

[archolewa]

When beefing up melee and/or missile combat MU always get the raw deal, but since in everything else they get the advantage so be it.

Sort of. Every time I cast sleep there is a small, but not insignificant chance that I put some or all of our team to sleep instead (and thus get everyone killed), straight up kill myself, start screaming loud enough to bring every denizen of the dungeon down on our heads...

And I don't even *know* what kind of horrific backlash we might endure if I were to get high enough level to miscast fireball...

I don't think there's a "oops you done stabbed your friend in the chest" mishap table if a fighter rolls a nat 1.