View Profile: Greenstone.Walker - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:58 AM
    "OK recruits, listen up. You all seemed to work together well during training, so you are grouped for your first assignment for the Order. A trade delegation has gone missing. They were traveling overland from Mirabar to Waterdeep. Their last communication mentioned stopped in the tiny village of Beliard, where some of the group intended to visit sacred dwarven sites before continuing on to...
    20 replies | 489 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th December, 2018, 11:25 PM
    Agreed. My response to "Can I make a Perception check?" is, "Why? What are you doing?" or (stealing a line from Apocalypse World), "Cool, what does that look like?" As a GM, I need to know details of what the character is doing, where they are moving, if they are touching anything or not (vitally important for contact poison traps and the plaintive cry "but I didn't say I was touching the...
    468 replies | 8617 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Monday, 10th December, 2018, 03:28 AM
    I think that is in the rules. The big rules, that is, the ones that underpin almost all RPGs, the ones that rulebooks are often really bad at explaining (D&D, I'm looking at you). Namely: How To Run an RPG 0. GM describes the scene. 1. Players state their goal and approach. 2. GM and players determines the result of the attempted actions. 2a. If the result is uncertain, use dice or...
    468 replies | 8617 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Greenstone.Walker

Basic Information

Age
49
About Greenstone.Walker
About Me:
Started with the Metzger red books in 1983. Played and GMed AD&D 1 and 2, CyberPunk 2020, Dragon Quest (with the Adventurers' Guild of Seagate) and GURPS a lot. Played lots of other systems briefly.
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Christchurch
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
685
Posts Per Day
0.47
Last Post
Campaign Elevator Pitch Yesterday 12:58 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:04 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 30th December, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
2
My Game Details
Town:
Christchurch
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
New Zealand

Wednesday, 12th December, 2018


Tuesday, 11th December, 2018


Saturday, 1st December, 2018


Friday, 23rd November, 2018


Wednesday, 21st November, 2018


Monday, 19th November, 2018


Tuesday, 3rd October, 2017

  • 06:19 AM - Yaarel mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post [Homebrew] − Rethinking the Ability Scores
    @Greenstone.Walker I like the way FFG reduces the abilities, here down to three. But then dividing them back up to make six seems problematic. D&D has been using six abilities for 5 editions, and almost that many decades. The six abilities have never worked. Ever. They have always been wildly unequal in value. And muddled. They need rethinking. For example, FFG Intellect=D&D Intelligence: ‘raw mental power, your memory, your ability to store and recall information and to make long-term plans’. The problem is, this almost never happens in the game. When was the last time anyone rolled an Intelligence check to see if they could ‘make a plan’? It is a mechanically useless definition that has no place in gaming mechanics. Consider how often a person makes a Intelligence saves? Rare. And even these can be better explained using an ability other than Intelligence. Consider the ‘knowledge’ skills, being little more than asking the DM for a hint, which the DM might need to refuse to answer or be forced to div...

Thursday, 20th July, 2017

  • 05:34 PM - Miladoon mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Gandalf Initiative...more Mearls Initiative Fallout
    I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge... I agree. I would also take a moment to reevaluate how the current system runs and make a comparison. You might be surprised how the current system is already favoring certain characters. It really boils down to table composition and round dynamics. (Who your players are, and rolling initiative every round over rolling once at the beginning of the encounter) .... If you care about a more realistic representation of the chaos and unpredictability of combat, gaming groups may want to consider a system like this. I just want to point out that gaming groups that keep to the current system are not entirely without those qualities when they play. I also wanted to say that I liked your input on the Greyhawk Initiative thread with @Greenstone.Walker. I am actually thinking of the Jon Snow Initiative based on your posts. I like the idea of naming the modes: Skirmish - Unrestricted move, action, bonus action - roll 1d6+DEX bonus Stand Fast - No movement, but you take an action and/or bonus action - roll 1d12+DEX Double Quick - Movement only plus Dash, Dodge, Disengage - roll 1d20+DEX EDIT: Pointing out that highest roll goes first. This is false. 1)Watch a tennis player. They do not move then strike the ball, it is one action. There are some that can make quick shots with bows I have not seen it done with a longbow. 2) The archer in your example has to lead the target unless they are closing with one another in a straight line. Thusly the archer is shooting at a square that is empty hoping that the arrow intercepts the target. Also arrows, while quicker than a sprinter, are having to cross the distance as well. The realism debates will rage on and that is ok. Ultimately, groups may try alternate initiative systems and compa...

Saturday, 8th July, 2017

  • 06:32 PM - Satyrn mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    But isn't the solution then one of the following? Tell people they need a free hand. If you want to use the weapon for the remainder of the turn or until the start of your next turn, don't use a shield or the the war caster feat. Change the rules so you can sheathe and draw your weapon on your turn Change the rule so they don't need a free hand (possibly with other restrictions). You can dress it up any way you like but if you don't want silliness (and I agree dropping/picking up a weapon is silliness) those are basically your options, right? At a certain point I'm not sure what the debate is any more. Choose one of the options and move on. Well of course. I was just trying to help Greenstone.Walker identify his ephemeral feeling of dislike for the scenario by telling him why I dislike it. My solution is not fit for print. (Well, not fit for print under Zapp's authoritarian rule)

Wednesday, 5th July, 2017

  • 04:27 PM - dave2008 mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    Oh, I agree that the rules as written are not good. I'm just saying that your proposed replacement for them is also not good. Arguing subjective degrees of not-goodness seems like a pointless semantic diversion, so I'll pass on that. Perhaps I missed it, but did you submit some better ideas? If so, can you point me to their location? Personally I am not in favor of stances and prefer something more like the intuitive rules approach that Greenstone.Walker proposed in post #63.
  • 04:41 AM - TheCosmicKid mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    ...attooed on your forehead, or whatever, surely that doesn't prevent you from also having the symbol emblazoned on your shield. In fact, if you're a cleric and you use a shield, it'd be kind of weird if you didn't, right? We should simply ask the players to describe what their character looks like when he or she does heroic stuff, and from that simply say what actions are restricted or outright impossible. You fight with two axes? Way cool... but you can't also carry the lantern or cast any spells. Fiddling about with "can't I shuck one of my axes and cast real quick and then draw the axe again" is micro-management. Within a single round that's a waste. Much better and more in the spirit of 5e to simply define what weapon/shield combos that are available for you if you want to cast a spell. All assuming "that round". Nothing stops you from choosing "I hold a single axe" the next round and cast your spell then.That makes sense to me. I'd suggest a system much like the one Greenstone.Walker just outlined, boiling down to "Just say what your hands are doing this round." I think doing it on a hand-by-hand basis would be simpler and more intuitive than the stance system you outlined -- you don't have to worry about defining every combination.

Friday, 2nd June, 2017

  • 11:46 PM - Ilbranteloth mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post No Combat Rounds?
    As for movement. Walking 3 mph is about 4.4 feet per second. So I think it's reasonable to say you can move 5 feet per second (count). Double that (Dash 1x) at 10 feet is a little less than 7mph Double-Dash (or 3x move speed) is 10 mph. Since the Usain Bolt has reached 28 mph I think that these amounts are reasonable. So if we are simply measuring seconds during combat, and assuming a base move of 30 feet then: Normal speed is 5 feet per second (3.4 mph) Dash is 10 feet per second (6.6 mph) Double-Dash is 15 feet per second (10 mph) Triple Dash is 20 feet per second (13.6 mph) That keeps it simple for folks using grids. The additional modifier to your initiative count (+2 is what I suggested) also has the effect of limiting the number of actions during the duration of a spell. As Greenstone.Walker noted, spells can just be a fixed amount of time. If we look at a spell that has a duration of 1 minute, it would account for 60 segments. Modifier +2, minimum 3 steps between actions, maximum 10 steps, means that there could be between 6 and 20 actions for a a given creature in that time. Modifier +3, minimum 4 steps, maximum 11, then it's 5 to 15 actions. Modifier +4, minimum 5 steps, maximum 12, then it's 5 to 12. That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. So initiative modifiers would be: D4 + 4 Attack with finesse, light, or ranged weapon. Grapple Ready Spellcasting (level 0-2) Unarmed Attack D6 + 4 Attack Spellcasting (level 3-5) D8 + 4 Attack with heavy or two-handed weapon Spellcasting (level 4-9) Ready works as normal - you specify a trigger, and you use your reaction instead of your action. The advantage being that you are interrupting their action (and potentially stopping it). For the folks that like to wait, my rules cover that very simply. They roll their regul...

Monday, 20th February, 2017

  • 04:14 PM - pming mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Retrofitting SKT for a monstrous party (or, how Volo's guide ruined my campaign idea)
    Hiya. I opened the game to any of the main books out so far: PHB, SCAG, VGtM, and EEPG. UA playtest upon request with some heavy cavaets. We didn't have a session 0 per se, but we did discuss character ideas for the game. And that's when the wheels fell off. Actually, I think where the wheels fell off was with the sentence: "I opened the game to any of the main books out so far..." Y'see, you want to play through a pre-defined story via an AP. That's what they are, lets face it, a pre-written story outline that the players get to fill in some blanks...but the story is already done. Not my cup 'o joe (and definitely not my players), but they can be used as "adventure filler" for the more standard open-ended type campaigns. What I would do is go for your Option #2. As Greenstone.Walker said...choices have consequences. If you don't have the world react accordingly, then you may as well just say "everyones human, but you can pick a racial background and get all that stuff...but you're human". But if you do that, then every other monster out there is also, effectively, reduced to "just humans in funny suits" (as is the saying, I believe). So, yeah, Option 2. If/when the players get annoyed that they are fighting on two fronts (giants on one, civilized folk on the other), you'd probably get a lot of requests to 'change' PC's. Unless your players are into that kind of masochism... Anyway, you could take Option 2 and then just use the 'mechanical innerds' of the AP to build your own adventure(s)...it wouldn't be SKT anymore, but it has the potential to be much more rewarding and memorable! (hey, remember that time when we played almost all goblinoid bad guys and had to fight a bunch of giants who wanted to turn all our tribes into slaves to fight the humans?...man.....

Friday, 10th April, 2015

  • 05:02 PM - Fabio Andrea Rossi mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    Thank you all for your understanding. @Grakard yes, it’s a challenging but very fun table, that’s what’s keeping us all together in the face of real life issues. That, and relatively quick commuting times due to us living at an hour driving distance at most. @Greenstone.Walker this is very good advice and I may just do that…sparingly. To us, combat is a minigame in the role playing experience, one which we enjoy playing with not too many moral issues, more on the tactical side. But, out of combat this aspect is very present, actually the whole campaign world has strong morality/ambiguity elements, mainly in the form “destiny from the gods vs. individual will” which often challenge the players from this point, effectively I could insert more of this in the battlefield, good point. Just don’t want this as a permanent solution to offset power level aspects. @Celtavian & @Tormyr sorry for the confusion (and many thanks for your time and interest!): I refer to long rests. I should probably follow your advice and allow less resting and require more long term character sheet precision :eek: The point is that more you advance in levels, more things players have to track in the field of expended resources. With an ever shifting party I could not blame if somebody...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 10th December, 2018

  • 11:01 AM - clearstream quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Skills used by players on other players.
    I think that is in the rules. The big rules, that is, the ones that underpin almost all RPGs, the ones that rulebooks are often really bad at explaining (D&D, I'm looking at you). Namely: How To Run an RPG 0. GM describes the scene. 1. Players state their goal and approach. 2. GM and players determines the result of the attempted actions. 2a. If the result is uncertain, use dice or some other randomiser. 3. GM and players narrate the outcome (results, costs and consequences). In the case above, it went something like this. 1. Player A states their goal (get character B to help defend the town) and their approach (reasonable discussion and diplomacy). 2. Player B determines the result of the action, since they control character B. 2a. Player B might call for a CHA check from player A, but it is their call, not player A's. 3. Player B narrates the results (character B either helps or doesn't), costs (probably nothing more than a little time) and consequences (perhaps character B i...

Friday, 2nd November, 2018

  • 08:10 AM - Hussar quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?
    I would phrase it differently: my house, my rules. When I play Monopoly, fines will not go into the middle for people who land on Free Parking. When I watch movies, there will be no gorno. When I eat pizza there is no mushroom on it. When I play D&D, there are no evil PCs. Everyone has deal-breakers - things they won't compromise on. These are some of mine. If you want to play the "fines to Free Parking" rule or allow evil PCs then all power to you. You can run your game at your house any way you like; I just won't be in it. At my house, I'm not willing to sit around and watch you play a game I'm not in, so we play by my rules. For the GM role, replace "my house" with "my time and/or financial investment". In other words, if I'm paying for the pizza, it won't have mushroom on it. So, we're back to the DM holding the game hostage if he or she doesn't get what he or she wants. No compromise, no just picking the mushrooms off your slice. Nope, it's your way or no way. And people keep a...

Wednesday, 31st October, 2018

  • 10:12 PM - Saelorn quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?
    Let me turn the question around. Why should a GM be required to allow any WOTC material?Why would a DM even want to run a game that has all of the official material in it? Can you imagine how nonsensical and unfocused that world would be, if you had to deal with all of those different elven subraces and sorcerer origins and weird rock monsters and warlock patron entities? It would be horrible. It would be like playing in the Forgotten Realms.
  • 10:01 PM - Panda-s1 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?
    Do you really think he's obligated to allow a player to make a pc that isn't human? I never implied this. Let me turn the question around. Why should a GM be required to allow any WOTC material? How is that turning the question around? No one here is saying a DM must allow official content no matter what.
  • 12:00 AM - Hawk Diesel quoted Greenstone.Walker in post I need some help with a few basic rules clarifications
    Some distinctions that come to mind: Weapons can be disarmed; fists cannot. Weapons can be silvered or enchanted or made of cold iron, etc. I would argue that fists can be disarmed, you just can't pick them back up and use them afterwards (at least not without a regenerate spell). Additionally, what about magic rings, bracelets, or even brass knuckles? Those are all ways that a fantasy setting could allow for enchantments with unarmed strikes or making the as effective as certain special materials (cold iron, silver, adamantine, byeshk, ect). But while there are these minor discrepancies, it does not change the fact that an unarmed strike or natural weapon can effectively be used in every way the weapons could. If I am wielding a shortsword in one hand, why could I strike with a second shortsword in my off-hand but not with a fist, kick, or headbutt? Not only is this kind of fighting widely portrayed in cinema, but it is also realistic and effective. Also, how does a second shortsword count as a...

Monday, 22nd October, 2018

  • 05:46 AM - Hawk Diesel quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    I can't. Shields are 6 lbs in weight and take an entire round to put on. That's not light. In my games, I rule that weapons are something you pick up and use; not something you wear. If you want to hit someone with something you wear, like a shield, then I use exactly the same rules as if you wanted to punch or headbutt or elbow strike or kick someone, that is, an unarmed attack. I do allow for extra damage depending on the armour you are wearing (kicking someone with plate boots hurts). It's also an item meant to be actively used by your off hand and has historical precedent as being used offensively to deadly effect. To me, this is not a big leap, even if RAW might not agree.

Tuesday, 9th October, 2018

  • 06:15 PM - OB1 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Using Wands/Staves and Misty Step
    How do you rule when someone casts a spell without using a spell slot, using a feature like magic initiate or spell master or signature spell? How about Action Surge? And am I right in saying that a paladin or cleric with multiattack can't smite on two or more attacks? Why not? I rule that magic initiate does provide a spell slot of the appropriate type. Like any spell slot it can be used for other things. And a Wizard Initiate can learn new 1st level spells to use the slot for. If it’s not using a spell slot it doesn’t count towards the limit. The restriction is for your entire round. So action surge double up is out as is using spell slots on reactions if you used one during your turn. Counterspelling for example, can only be done if you didn’t use a slot on your turn (or you can cast it without using a slot). On the flip side of this, I also rule that players can decide to counterspell after they have heard what the spell is and also know what level it was cast at. Correct on Paladi...

Monday, 8th October, 2018

  • 01:27 AM - neogod22 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Using Wands/Staves and Misty Step
    From the magic item rules in the DMG, "Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item." The user is casting the spell. The user has to maintain concentration, if required. On the other hand… You don't spend spell slots when casting a spell from an item. You can't use metamagic. You are casting a spell but you are not using the "Cast a Spell" action. I'm not even sure you can counterspell such a casting since there are no verbal, material or somatic components for the counterspelling mage to witness. Does the mage slayer feat apply? Does it trigger a readied action "when the foe casts a spell"? Agreed. And now I'm not sure what I think. Reading this thread has made me doubt my previous ruling. That one is not correct. From the same section of the DMG, "Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell…" Concentration spells from potions do not require the user to concentrate - they always last their full duration (unless dispelled). I'm happy with ruling that drinking a...

Friday, 28th September, 2018

  • 01:37 AM - guachi quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Sell me on D&D Beyond
    As for the "paying for it twice" issue, well, you don't get to say to Amazon "give me the Bluray cheap because I've already paid to see it at the movies" or 'Give me the Bluray cheap because I've already bought the DVD at Barnes and Noble". I say "give me a 4k disc, a blu-ray disc, and a digital code (preferably in 4k) all-in-one package" And they do. They do. But wait! There's more! I can watch a Disney movie (for example) in the theater at Regal Cinemas and I get points from Disney for Disney stuff, like movies. So I do basically "get to say" to Disney, "give me the Bluray cheap because I've already paid to see it at the movies". Each point Disney gives you is roughly worth 1 cent. So Disney gives me $1.00 for watching a movie in the theater, $1.50 for every Blu-ray, and $2.00 for every 4k disc.

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 05:44 PM - neobolts quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? Scenario 1 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is? GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17. Player: I roll an 18. GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. This is totally fine. Players can either act as a player as shown [requesting to use a mechanic] or instead act as a character [describing character activity and letting the DM pick the mechanic]. The two are equally valid from my perspective. Scenario 2 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is? GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. I am okay with veteran players taking the initiative to roll. After all, if I don't care about the roll, they'll never know. I would not encourage new players to assume they should roll. Side note: In combat, everyone shoul...
  • 01:19 AM - iserith quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Correct. He is using an surprise round, where the monsters get an attack on us and then we roll initiative. I think its a 4E thing, but I only ever played that edition for 1 hour. Oh, right, that would totally screw up your build. I'd wonder how often the monsters are trying to or able to surprise the PCs. Maybe something's going wrong there, too.
  • 01:12 AM - iserith quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    I have a situation at the moment that has made me think about leaving a game, and that is "surprise rounds". I'm playing character class which gets some really nice abilities on the first round of combat and some other nice abilities if I act before another combatant. Surprise rounds screw with all of those. We've also had some situations where combat starts with the monsters right next to us. Those of us with features like the polearm master feat, and all of us with missile weapons, are being screwed over a little bit. I don't know how the player with the alert feat is feeling but if I were him I'd be annoyed that taking the feat has essentially done nothing. Is the DM just not running surprise correctly? There are no "surprise rounds." I've seen a ton of DMs get that wrong. Sometimes I even slip and call it that, even if I am running it correctly!

Thursday, 20th September, 2018

  • 06:36 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? Scenario 1 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is? GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17. Player: I roll an 18. GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 2 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is? GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 3 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please? Player: I roll a 18. GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 4 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18* GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of ...
  • 06:33 AM - S'mon quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? Scenario 1 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is? GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17. Player: I roll an 18. GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 2 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is? GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 3 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please? Player: I roll a 18. GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 4 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18* GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue o...
  • 03:38 AM - MNblockhead quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Not directed at me, but I'll give my thoughts anyway--and give them knowing that I am not always consistent, breaking rules intentionally and unintentionally sometimes, and am overall a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to gaming. In other words, I'll compromise my gaming beliefs and preferences to better ensure I and the group have fun. With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? Scenario 1 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is? GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17. Player: I roll an 18. GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. This is my preferred style as DM and player and the flow that seems the most like a "textbook" example of playing D&D. Scenario 2 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is? GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Fine by me. I know som...
  • 03:14 AM - iserith quoted Greenstone.Walker in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? Scenario 1 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is? GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17. Player: I roll an 18. GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 2 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is? GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 3 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please? Player: I roll a 18. GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Scenario 4 GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18* GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of ...

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 02:56 AM - pukunui quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Suitable Rewards for Successfully Saving the World?
    The reward for doing a good job is a harder job. :-)That gives me an idea! I can run the second half of Out of the Abyss. In thanks for stopping the death curse, the Sword Coast’s power brokers ask the PCs to lead an expedition into the Underdark to deal with rampaging demons!

Monday, 17th September, 2018


Thursday, 6th September, 2018

  • 12:15 AM - Oofta quoted Greenstone.Walker in post 5e invisibility and Detect Magic
    That's because you do. Whether a creature is invisible or not, when it walks on dust or sand or snow you will see its footprints. In some cases footsteps may be visible. But on a hard surface? Somewhere with a lot of traffic? You'd be hard pressed to notice someone was walking across a mowed lawn. There can be all sort of signs ... or none at all. It's up to the DM to decide based on the circumstances unique to the scene.

Wednesday, 5th September, 2018

  • 04:40 PM - ehren37 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post 5e invisibility and Detect Magic
    No, you aren't. To be hidden you must be unseen and unheard and unnoticed. For example, an invisible creature walking on a surface covered in dust or leaves is not hidden. You know where they are because you can see their foot marks. Even if the ground is clean you know where they are by sound (e.g. rustling clothing, rattling gear, footsteps, breathing) or by the breeze of their passing. To become hidden, the unseen creature must take steps to muffle its sound and obscure its tracks. In combat, this generally requires the Hide Action. Ruling that unseen = hidden causing misunderstanding, as seen by the number of posts on forums like this one. It also makes a level 2 spell way too powerful and creatures like invisible stalkers and poltergeists (and Assassin Rogues) much stronger. I like how you automatically see footprints when they're from an invisible creature. Clearly the best way to track someone is to cast invisibility on them, as they then have huge glowing footprints. No roll needed then! TH...


Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Greenstone.Walker's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites