Is this idea for a Ki option for a monk starting at 2nd level balanced? Based on playing experience, are there any foreseeable problems with it?
Immediately before you take the attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to increase your unarmed strike damage dice to the next rank. This lasts until the end of your turn, and does not effect hand held weapons or other monk weapons only the unarmed strikes.
In 5e, Tenser’s Floating Disc
follows you so that it stays within 20’ of you.
The spell description does not make mention of its travel rate, but in 3.5e the description says:
It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round. (3.5e PHB294)
Could the lack of follow speed in 5e be extrapolated from the description in 3.5e?
We have SQL Server 2016 Web Edition on production currently. Since this edition supports replication as Subscriber only, I set up a new server with SQL Server 2019 Standard edition. I want to configure SQL Server 2019 as Publisher and SQL Server 2016 as subscriber. To initialize data for Publisher database on SQL server 2019, I created a backup on SQL Server 2016 and restored it on SQL Server 2019. Since our database is very large, I tried to initialize replication from a backup. So I did reverse backup-restore again by creating a backup of Publisher on SQL Server 2019 and restoring it on Subscriber on SQL Server 2016. But this did not work because [SQL Server 2019 backups cannot be restored by any earlier version of SQL Server] (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/databases/copy-databases-with-backup-and-restore?view=sql-server-ver15). Could you please tell me what is the best method for initializing the replication in this case? Thank you very much for reading my question!
A former DM has had the same recurring NPC/GMPC since I started playing in his game. This was 20+ years ago and we started in 1st edition and slowly made our way through the years and editions. We updated our characters as we went to the new editions. Now this NPC/GMPC is the most reviled in his games, any time he shows up all the players immediately want him dead. We stick to character though.
The question will be broken up to hopefully get expert answers from each of the editions in which we played in this particular question it will be specific to 3.Xe. I am skipping 4e (as we all hated it and only played one session) and 5e because I know for a fact that it is not possible there (yet).
The question is as follows:
Give the following constraints what is the maximum number of attacks in this edition:
- NPC is an Elf (In this edition it is irrelavent I suppose).
- He was a Thief-Acrobat in previous editions and I assume multiclassed, probably Fighter-Thief, due to how 3.X prestige works let’s assume just Rogue for this edition, although any official prestige class is fair game. Character focused on tumbling and thrown knife attacks.
- The weapon of choice was throwing knives.
- Assume unlimited ammunition as he had a bandalier that had the knives return.
- I know he could throw 3 knives at a time (pretty sure this was a thing for shuriken from Oriental Adventures).
- Assume all official sources and Dragon Magazine since the first issue are open.
- I know of this question and assume there is a variant with knives.
- If I recall he threw with both hands as well.
- Assume prestige classes are open, this DM even as a player had a tendency to stack multiclass options with min/max precision but assume Rogue is the primary focus.
- Assume Quick Draw.
- We were always between 8th and 15th level when I met this character.
- I do not recall spell-casting but not ruling it out entirely but main build would likely have been focused on mundane means.
- Assume focused magical item augmentation as well, just calling it out even though the aforementioned bandolier alluded to it, but for the most part official items other than that.
- Assume no flying invisible helpers as suggested by HeyICanChan or for that matter third party interventions or Aid Another.
The end result in game was quite literally at least 2 dozen attacks per round, perhaps more. Which I have questioned him multiple times about the build and legitimacy but he as refused to provide any answers. I know DMs do not have to justify but this, combined with a number of other things over the years has lead to distrust. I have since stopped playing his games altogether, so this is just a verification on whether I have overreacted.
This was broken into 3 questions for each of the editions.
AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, and Dungeons & Dragons 3.X.
I’ve been creating a character and thought that it was cool for her to have brass knuckles to fight, but then I’ve seen that in the Core book (pg. 180) says that brass knuckles deal 0 damage (appart from the damage that you deal with raw brawl. In the Chronicles of Darkness 2nd Edition core book says the same.
Is this an errata, or there’s something I’m missing?
While creating a homebrew monster based around eyes and vision, I looked up monsters that had both darkvison and truesight, surprisingly only two have both, the Avatar of Death and Canoloth, I’ll use the Canoloth as the example here.
When reading the descriptions of both vision types, darkvision allows a creature to see in dim light as if it were bright light and darkness as if it were dim light but it can’t discern color and only sees shades of grey, with truesight not only can you see in normal darkness but also magical darkness, as well as many other benefits, so what confuses me is why any creature would have both forms of vision (especially when it only has darkvision out to 60 feet but truesight out to 120 feet) when truesight already has the only benefit of darkvision along with all its other benefits?
Have I misinterpreted the mechanics of these different sight types, is their a hidden reason behind having both? Or is it just a slipup of the designers to give a creature like the Canoloth both forms of vision?
The 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide indicates that Chondath was among the lands "most changed by the Spellplague" (p. 50), inasmuch as the entire nation was "obliterated" (p. 100) in the violent merging of Abeir with Toril. "[T]he strip of land formerly called Chondath" was either subsumed into the Abeiran realm of Akanûl (p. 86) — now littered with "[t]he shattered ruins of Chondathan cities" (p. 90) — or else became part of a frontier called the Vilhon Wilds (p. 193).
All of that happened in the late 14th century DR, with 4th Edition officially starting in 1479 DR (see FRCG p. 40).
Starting in the 1480s, the Second Sundering separated Abeir and Toril once more, and 5th Edition is set circa 1489 DR.
Popular opinion seems to hold (not without evidence, granted) that 5e was intended to roll back some of 4E’s more drastic lore changes, leaving the state of the world roughly compatible with pre-4E lore. However, even with Akanûl returned to Abeir, the ten-year stretch between 1479 and 1489 seems awfully short for Chondath to have been rebuilt from blasted ruins into the functioning nation it was before 4E.
Mysteriously, the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide mentions various other nations around the Sea of Fallen Stars, such as Aglarond, Chessenta, Impiltur, and Thesk, (see p. 11-13), yet there is no mention of Chondath.
Is there any available information on the state of Chondath as of 1489?
Yesterday I saw a pre-packaged full D&D set, and it had the familiar red box of the first edition. I was pleased to see it, but reading on the back it appeared like a 4th edition pack. Was I dreaming (I have a very bad cold, so I may have indeed) or did they indeed recycled the 1st edition design for the box ?
I have an PDF of a traveller core rulebook, but I can’t seem to figure out what edition it is. There is a character sheet in the back, but I haven’t been able to find the sheet anywhere else.
The cover looks like this:
And the Character Sheet looks like this:
I haven’t been able to find a definite publication date.
Reading the Nobilis 3rd edition book, I noticed the character sheet at the end does not include any place to write the current Will of the character.
I understand that Nobles will still use mortal actions when they want to keep a low profile or are our of their Estate properties.
Was it forgotten? Or for some reason maybe it is not necessary?