TOPIC: QTR 2021 Beta

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Tankard of Celebration: user heals 10 HP any time the party’s initiative is a natural 20, but only if the user yells, “Who-ha!”;

Long-live roeplay in the dungeon!

I still propose we should have an answer for any of these we hear in the dungeon.

“ After entering the adventure, no single statistic can be reduced by more than 6 points. This limit applies to spells or effects that affect ability scores (Strength,
Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), Saving Throws, Armor Class, Maximum Hit Points,”

Since this limit applies to Maximum Hit Points, does this mean a -4 CON effect in the adventure could not cause more than -6 max HP?

Anthony Barnstable wrote: “Axe of the Dwarvish Kings: ... this is not a Dwarven-made weapon (e.g., it does get a +1 Damage bonus from GLOVES OF DWARVENLORE)“
Should say does NOT get a +1 damage bonus.

The other way to read that, could be that the first not is a typo. Perhaps it should be:

“Axe of the Dwarvish Kings: ... this is a Dwarven-made weapon (e.g., it does get a +1 Damage bonus from GLOVES OF DWARVENLORE)“

That said, while that would be very new player friendly, cool, and quite awesome that commons modify a UR, I expect that is not the case, and the likely way to read this is that it does NOT gain the +1 damage....

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Charm of Double Harm: wearer gains +1 To Hit when attacking with a 2-handed weapon (melee or missile) and suffers a –1 Damage penalty when attacking with a 2-handed weapon (melee or missile)

The verbosity is to remove any ambiguity regarding when to apply the penalty. "+1 To Hit when attacking with a 2-handed weapon (melee or missile) and –1 Damage" might be interpreted to mean the -1 damage penalty applies in all situations. You may roll your eyes at that, but I can tell you from experience there are some TD rules lawyers that would kvetch about it.

7th Tooth and 50 GP Traveler's Cup are out of alphabetical order.

Figurine of Power: Fire Newt is missing "of".

Necklace of the Songbird would be more clearly not an instrument if it said something like "When wearer performs bardsong, this item gives the entire party +1 bonus to all saves."

Ring of Expertise description should say [1/room].

Jeff321 wrote: If Power Attack is usable every round, can I just declare in coaching I'm using it every round and have the coach adjust my party card stats -10/+10?

See this post for the answer. Thanks for suggesting it be on the party card!

Anthony Barnstable wrote: Since [the Cumulative Penalty Limitation] applies to Maximum Hit Points, does this mean a -4 CON effect in the adventure could not cause more than -6 max HP?

Interesting question. I don't think we've ever had a CON penalty in a dungeon. And because of all the problems it would cause, I highly doubt it ever will be an in-dungeon thing.

So to address your query, we'll cross that bridge when and if we ever come to it.

Under AMP, I believe there is a typo on fork

Ice elelmental's takes 5 extra damage

Ice elemental takes?

The description of Fork under Ashenne's is different from Mage Medallion. In the former, "taked" should be "takes".

I just re-read the Mage Power on page 7 Intensify and realize my prior understanding of how this works may be wrong.

A Note in the QTR for Intensify says:
"Intensify reduces the target's SR to 25%, not by 25%. This if the target had SR of 25% or less, using this ability would be ill-advised."

Does this mean Intensify can grant spell resistance to a monster that otherwise didn't have it, or increase the spell resistance of a monster with SR < 25% to 25%?

If so I strongly request this mechanic be changed to: Sets targets SR to the lesser of 25% or its current SR

a. It is not a fun game design element to spend 5 HP and your FA to increase a monster's defenses

• Especially because there are numerous reasons why spells can fail to have an effect and SR is only one of them, and there is no way for the player to know the cause of the failure with certainty
• e.g. Wizard casts fire dart at a monster that is immune to fire damage and is told it's not effective. They mistakenly believe the cause was SR, not fire immunity, and they spend 5 HP and a free action to accidentally give the monster 25% spell resistance on their next action. This is not fun.

b. I know "it's magic" can answer anything, but it makes no sense how a concerted effort to Intensify a spell could grant spell resistance to a monster that doesn't have it, or increase the spell resistance of a monster.

Finally - if this mage power can in fact grant or increase spell resistance to 25% the description needs to be changed to say:

"sets the target's spell resistance to 25%"

Rather than it:

"reduces the target's spell resistance to 25%"

Because in order to "reduce" something it must decrease, not increase.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I just re-read the Mage Power on page 7 Intensify and realize my prior understanding of how this works may be wrong.

A Note in the QTR for Intensify says:
"Intensify reduces the target's SR to 25%, not by 25%. This if the target had SR of 25% or less, using this ability would be ill-advised."

Does this mean Intensify can grant spell resistance to a monster that otherwise didn't have it, or increase the spell resistance of a monster with SR < 25% to 25%?

If so I strongly request this mechanic be changed to: Sets targets SR to the lesser of 25% or its current SR

a. It is not a fun game design element to spend 5 HP and your FA to increase a monster's defenses

• Especially because there are numerous reasons why spells can fail to have an effect and SR is only one of them, and there is no way for the player to know the cause of the failure with certainty
• e.g. Wizard casts fire dart at a monster that is immune to fire damage and is told it's not effective. They mistakenly believe the cause was SR, not fire immunity, and they spend 5 HP and a free action to accidentally give the monster 25% spell resistance on their next action. This is not fun.

b. I know "it's magic" can answer anything, but it makes no sense how a concerted effort to Intensify a spell could grant spell resistance to a monster that doesn't have it, or increase the spell resistance of a monster.

Finally - if this mage power can in fact grant or increase spell resistance to 25% the description needs to be changed to say:

"sets the target's spell resistance to 25%"

Rather than it:

"reduces the target's spell resistance to 25%"

Because in order to "reduce" something it must decrease, not increase.

Homestly, I just hope DMs won’t be a dick and will tell the player “yes, doing that did decrease SR”. Instead of the player finding out their spell failed because of SR, casting Intensify, and then during riddle reveal they learn the monster always had 25% SR so their Intensify was 5 HP for no effect, because they couldn’t have known. It would be really nice if all monsters’ SR was publicly clearly stated. Like printed on the table.

Not in agreement that players should know ahead of time what SR a creature has. It is one of those things that is unique to the creature.

Reduction of SR should be reduces to 25% if higher and no effect if lower. There is no reason to provide feedback on effective of this action to the player.

Sometimes players take actions that work and other times players take actions that don't work.