Talk:Trolling (5e Race)

• Talk:Trolling (5e Race)/Archive, pertaining to earlier revisions.

Regarding "Troll searching grants them conditional proficiency with investigation on the condition that they use it. It should really just give them proficiency with the doubled "expertise" bonus."

Like the dwarven stonecunning, this feature grants proficiency and double proficiency bonus to a subset of the Investigation skill; I don't want Trollings to be proficient in all Investigation tasks.

I've included the regeneration values, thanks for catching that.

I'm not sure what to do about the wording for Taunt. Any suggestions? To clarify, this is how it works. Anyone can do this: You make an Intimidation check to taunt someone (this is a normal use of the skill). There is a contested check by the target (this will normally be Wisdom check or a Wisdom saving throw, may vary with DM). On a failure, the creature is incited into anger or hostility. The Trolling Taunt feature gives the target disadvantage on that contesting roll. Marasmusine (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

I was making a note about phrasing mainly, not balance. The problem is that the subset of usage was never specified. It literally says that if you use the investigation skill, you have double proficiency, in the most jumbled way possible. In fact, it still does! Aside from using the investigation skill to INVESTIGATE SOMETHING, what other use could it ever have? The conditional circumstance encompasses the entire usage of the skill!

As for taunt, by having a contest initiated by a check, you are making a very basic effect needlessly complicated and very unlikely to succeed. First off, you need to make an intimidation check against your target. This works fine in most cases, as your opponent will be an NPC, and having the DM decide a DC for an NPC is all behind the curtain anyways. However, if you ever have party infighting for any reason (For example, one of the players was secretly the main villain and has been in cahoots with the DM since the start) then you have a DM arbitrarily setting a DC for someone else to successfully intimidate another player, without that player having any meaningful say in it. This intimidation check is then rendered invalid, because it's basically just a hoop to jump through before the trait begins to do anything! The success needs to be reconfirmed by a wisdom contest (Which, by the way, is a type of ability check, not a save) between the character and their target. A wisdom contest, really, should be the only step necessary to use this trait. If you really want to incorporate the intimidation skill, you could make that a contest of wisdom (intimidation) vs wisdom; but I think that would unfairly advantage the attacker if they have proficiency with that skill, and encourage a very restrictive build type that 5e has, so far, been averse to. (But even then, contests are basically coin flips, as they ammount to 1d20 vs. 1d20. The modifiers are typically less than +6, which is only a 25% advantage at most, and both characters have at least some type of bonus, which just neutralizes the bonus of their opposition.) As a result, the character will usually have less than a 50% chance of successfully taunting an opponent, and will waste time doing extra rolls and math for a single trait-based action. Generally, if there is only one event resulting from an action, that event should be dictated by only one roll. --Kydo (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

Investigation

The Investigation subset is "systematically search an area for something". The PHB gives you some example uses of Investigation:

1. Look around for clues
2. Make deductions based on those clues
3. Deduce the location of a hidden object
4. Discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it
5. Determine the weakest point in a tunnel that would cause it to collapse.
6. Pour through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge.

Troll searching would apply to #1 #3 only, but not the others (noting that #6 isn't an "area", and even #1 doesn't apply if the clue isn't a thing [maybe I should specify "particular object" instead of "something"])

I'll look at your notes about Taunt later, I gotta dash out :) Marasmusine (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

But #1 is so broad it encompasses all the other examples! (Except the weapon injury thing, if the injury is on a still-living person) That's the problem! I can look around an area for clues to the location of a hidden item. I could systematically search an area for structural weaknesses to exploit. I could investigate a battle scene for evidence of what caused the deaths of those present based on their injuries. And the things in a place are part of that place, so yes, looking in the books in an area for information is the same as searching that area, especially since you noted that the investigation should be "systematic". I would agree that, yes, you should rephrase it to "specific object". --Kydo (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

I'll rephrase it, I had meant "something" to be a physical thing rather than anything abstract, and I might define what the area is (30 foot cube maybe). Marasmusine (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

What about limiting it to your general surroundings, such as the interior of a large room, small house, an empty lot, etc. That's more flexible than a hard number, but clearly limits you from searching, say, an entire community, or the universe at large. --Kydo (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

Remembered that another major use of Investigation is to discern illusions, so "searching" is more of a subset than I first thought! Marasmusine (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2016 (MDT)

Taunt

Sorry, I'm struggling to follow your notes about Taunt. The issue seems to be, what happens if a PC uses Intimidation against another PC? I'm not tackling that here. What happens if a PCs use Persuasion or Deception on one another? It's DM Fiat - they might ask that the PCs roleplay it, or they might ask for rolls. And what is the contesting check? DM Fiat. It might be Wisdom, or Charisma, or Wisdom (Insight) or a Wisdom save (which I have no problem with, it scales correctly) depending on the context. All this trait does is enhance a regular use of the skill. Marasmusine (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

Lolwut? I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. Go to PHB p.174 and read "Contests". There is no DM fiat in a contest, because that would defeat the purpose of it. It's just the two characters rolling the same check, and whoever rolls higher wins. They are not rolling against a DC, they are rolling against each other. Your description in the trait has the player roll an intimidation check which, if it succeeds, leads to them rolling a wisdom contest against the same target before anything happens. That's two rolls to produce one effect. Why not just have them roll a wisdom (intimidation) contest against the target? A contest is always valid, regardless if it's a PC v PC, NPC v NPC, or NPC v PC. Alternatively, making the target of the trait roll a wisdom save against the initiator's passive wisdom (intimidation) would also be practical in any situation. --Kydo (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

I will re-read this later, as i just got home and am not up to par. I got sick because of selfish careless idiots on the way to and from my trip. McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (MDT)

Is it OK with everyone if I just give it a go on rephrasing Trolling Taunt so that it makes sense? --Kydo (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2016 (MDT)

The feature says "When you make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to taunt a creature, that creature has disadvantage on any contesting check to keep calm. " I mean that to be one contested check: Charisma (Intimidation) vs. the contesting ability check. It's not a skill check followed by a contested check. If that needs clarifying, please give me a chance to do so. Marasmusine (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2016 (MDT)

'K --Kydo (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (MDT)

Deletion

This was original work of that tierarea person and they requested all their work be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Instead of deleting this page outright, I think we should move it to a new name and reword some of the fluff. Mechanically, this is different from Tier-Area's original creation, and I'd like to see it preserved. Moving it would erase the original form, without erasing the later contributions of other authors. Also, the current name is an awful pun that makes it look like a joke article. --Kydo (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2016 (MDT)

The race is the pun. I should add the april fools message. It just needs a suitable description.

On the other hand, although I spent a lot of time on this making it playable, I'm not that invested in it, so if you want to rename and reword it, that's okay. Marasmusine (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2016 (MDT)

I dont know, i kind of like it too, its just seems messy with all the you know like arguing over stuff. I kinda like the point the OP was making and i like what you been doing with it. I kinda like silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:ce16:7ac0:e9e9:9bbb:46f5:3504 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.