View Profile: Greenstone.Walker - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:41 AM
    Go back a few decades - Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood. More recently, Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones or Sean Bean as Sharpe. Look at literary characters like The Three Musketeers, Cyrano de Bergerac, Zorro, Flash Gordon. Also real-life (or possible "larger than life") characters like Calamity Jane, Annie Oakley, Gustavus Von Tempsky (from my own country's history).
    76 replies | 3494 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Thursday, 16th May, 2019, 12:17 AM
    You don't need rubies for the spell. In a world where fabricate exists, any gemstone will do (as long as it is of reasonable quality). The jadeite mine provides a caster with a barrel of chips of crystal. One casting of fabricate later, there is a ruby 5ft across sitting on the bench. You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why there is even such a thing as diamond dust or...
    129 replies | 5119 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 04:03 AM
    Well, stop saying "athletics check". :-) Seriously, though, if you consistently use the phrase "Strength (Athletics) check", it will help everyone at the table remember what is going on.
    179 replies | 8186 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
759
Posts Per Day
0.47
Last Post
The Charismatic Fighting "Hero" - Which Core Class does it Best? Yesterday 01:41 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:07 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 30th December, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
2
My Game Details
Town:
Christchurch
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
New Zealand

Friday, 17th May, 2019


Thursday, 16th May, 2019


Tuesday, 14th May, 2019


Wednesday, 8th May, 2019


Monday, 6th May, 2019


Sunday, 28th April, 2019


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 23 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 17th May, 2019

  • 02:25 PM - jayoungr quoted Greenstone.Walker in post The economics of Continual flame
    You don't need rubies for the spell. In a world where fabricate exists, any gemstone will do (as long as it is of reasonable quality). Ah, okay. Still, if you (generic you) wanted the spell to be rarer in your homebrew world, you could restrict it more.

Thursday, 16th May, 2019

  • 07:55 AM - Dannyalcatraz quoted Greenstone.Walker in post The economics of Continual flame
    You don't need rubies for the spell. In a world where fabricate exists, any gemstone will do (as long as it is of reasonable quality). The jadeite mine provides a caster with a barrel of chips of crystal. One casting of fabricate later, there is a ruby 5ft across sitting on the bench. A ruby or diamond is not a manufactured item. They're not things you can fabricate. The spell seems pretty clear what it's capable of. Hmmm...The 3.5Ed version: You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet. You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship. The 5Ed version: You convert raw materials into products...
  • 06:10 AM - S'mon quoted Greenstone.Walker in post The economics of Continual flame
    You don't need rubies for the spell. In a world where fabricate exists, any gemstone will do (as long as it is of reasonable quality). The jadeite mine provides a caster with a barrel of chips of crystal. One casting of fabricate later, there is a ruby 5ft across sitting on the bench. You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why there is even such a thing as diamond dust or ruby dust when a spell can combine them back into a single stone. A ruby or diamond is not a manufactured item. They're not things you can fabricate. The spell seems pretty clear what it's capable of.

Monday, 22nd April, 2019

  • 06:12 PM - Mike Myler quoted Greenstone.Walker in post EN5ider #267: Weapon Degradation
    I feel like degrading equipment sort of goes against the grain of 5E's design philosophy in general, which has been to create a game with no drawbacks for characters, only advantages. This is most immediately relevant in races, all of which conspicuously lost their ability score penalties but is evident in several other areas of the game. This feels consistent with the changes made in streamlining recent iterations of the Elder Scroll series of video-games, where between Oblivion and Skyrim the choice was made that instead of the game having the mechanic of needing to repair your weapon versus wear and tear, it would have a mechanic where you could improve your weapons by tempering them, which seems much more "5E" to me. Now, I am sure there are people playing 5E who would like a weapon degradation system without switching games, so yay for this article. But the idea seems better suited to almost any fantasy game but 5E. I have uncharitable feelings about the idea. Is it realistic? Probably. But ...

Wednesday, 17th April, 2019

  • 11:09 PM - Yardiff quoted Greenstone.Walker in post 5e Are Ioun stones supposed to need attunement?
    Now the headband of intellect becomes the most valuable item in the world. Wizard's player: Cool, an item that raises INT, I guess I'll take that. Every single other player at the table: Now wait a minute… Pointless for a wizard who already has an int of 18+.

Friday, 5th April, 2019

  • 10:24 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted Greenstone.Walker in post (5e) Should Rogues be able to sneak attack with all light weapons?
    Would it do any harm to let a Rogue sneak attack with a club (d4, light, bludgeoning)? Coshing the victim seems appropriately thematic! How about hand axes? Are there any balance issues? I straight-out removed the Finesse requirement for Sneak Attack, so it can be performed with any weapon. I have yet to see any balance issues. Rogues get much less out of a large damage die than say, Fighters do. I say no, because "blunt object" and "finesse" do not go together. Any study of cane fighting disproves this notion entirely. I think that there might be some confusion between the common use of "finesse" - to handle with skill (or similar) and D&D's usage of "Finesse weapon" - a weapon whose damage may not be determined by the speed and force that it strikes with, but rather the grace and balance of its wielder.
  • 01:05 PM - Blue quoted Greenstone.Walker in post (5e) Should Rogues be able to sneak attack with all light weapons?
    I say no, because "blunt object" and "finesse" do not go together. But "finesse" and "sneak attack" are not the same at all. Think about hitting someone with a cosh (a heavy stick, bar, or such - definitely a bludgeoning weapon), blackjack or sap to knock them out -- that's a classic real world application that fits sneak attack. So, starting from the point that sneak attack as a concept works just fine with bludgeoning, what are your thoughts about allowing any light weapon to sneak attack?
  • 06:57 AM - S'mon quoted Greenstone.Walker in post (5e) Should Rogues be able to sneak attack with all light weapons?
    I say no, because "blunt object" and "finesse" do not go together. I was thinking allow it with a STR attack.

Thursday, 4th April, 2019

  • 11:00 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Greenstone.Walker in post (5e) Should Rogues be able to sneak attack with all light weapons?
    Would it do any harm to let a Rogue sneak attack with a club (d4, light, bludgeoning)? Coshing the victim seems appropriately thematic! How about hand axes? Are there any balance issues? None at all. I'd also allow a club to be used as a finesse weapon, because canes don't need a whole extra line in the weapon table. I say no, because "blunt object" and "finesse" do not go together. Any study of cane fighting disproves this notion entirely.

Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019

  • 02:05 AM - Chaosmancer quoted Greenstone.Walker in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Somewhat out of order to keep people's posts together. Multi-replying is easier than posting 3 or 4 times in a row. Don't you think, if Insight was intended as lie detection, it would have read something along the lines of, "Insight decides whether you can tell if somebody is lying." Why go through all the circumlocution of "determine the true intentions..." Maybe, just maybe it's because it's not intended as "lie detection". Here's an example: you're talking to your mechanic, who tells you that your rotors are out of true by 3mm, but that there's not enough material left to resurface them so they'll have to be replaced, and it'll take about 5 hours to do all four of them, and with parts and labor that's going to be $1,300. You succeed at your Insight roll and the DM tells you that he's hoping to make a lot of money off of you. That's his "true intention". Is he actually lying? You don't know (not unless you succeed at an Arcana check involving brake rotors). And you certainly don...

Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019

  • 01:05 PM - Oofta quoted Greenstone.Walker in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    That is an important question for GMs to ask, to avoid the following situation. Player: I search the door for traps. GM: As you touch it, contact poison seeps into your skin, make— Player: Hang on, I never said I touched the door! That's not fair! I think 5ekyu responded with better details, but the simple answer is "don't be a dick DM". If you are, I'll walk. After all I could also have Player: "I look closely at the trap, leaning in to examine it. I'm being careful not to touch it while rubbing my arm stub where we had to cut off my hand to stop the poison from last door." DM: "Ha! A needle springs forth and stabs you in the eye! Not only do you take 20 points of damage from the poison but you're permanently blinded in that eye!" Player: "Gah! Not my good eye!" I can play "gotcha" with whatever style of play you want. ;)
  • 02:20 AM - Yardiff quoted Greenstone.Walker in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    That is an important question for GMs to ask, to avoid the following situation. Player: I search the door for traps. GM: As you touch it, contact poison seeps into your skin, make— Player: Hang on, I never said I touched the door! That's not fair! The tables I've played at, this example would only happen on a failed check to find traps. Since contact poison on the door is a trap then a successful investigation would have spotted it. Edit: Depending on the edition it would only happen if the investigator failed by 5 or more. Not sure of the rules in 5e.

Thursday, 28th March, 2019

  • 11:20 AM - ardoughter quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Scientist background
    Magical darkness. Heavier than air creatures able to fly without corresponding wing surface area. Flying castles and carpets and mages. Temperature variations of hundreds of degrees in less than a second, then reverting back with no residual effect. Variable gravity. Cursed locations that are actually cursed (not just Hollywood Haunted Houses). Gods that exist and affect the material world in response to who-knows-what. High-, low- and wild-magic zones. Flaming swords that consume no fuel or oxygen. Creatures that can change your atomic makeup simply by looking at you. Storms that pay no attention to meteorology. Stars that follow their own path. Astrology that actually works. Nature in D&D is not stable. How do you formulate laws of physics in a world where the outcome of experiments is subject to random factors (the whim of the gods, wild magic) or factors you can't perceive (a curse applied to an ancestor of one of your lab techs, an auspicious day in a religion you don't follow)? Physical...
  • 02:27 AM - D1Tremere quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Scientist background
    This assumes that science works in your world, which is not a given. For example, in the game I run, the scientific method is not reliable. In short, magic messes with the laws of physics. A 20th century scientist might be incredibly handicapped because their assumptions make them less abvle to deal with the fantasy world. How can you make the scientific method (Observe, Question, Hypothesis, Test, Reject/modify/strengthen) unreliable without throwing out the rules? The nature of the game makes the scientific method reliable, unless every caster is a wild mage and no structure exists to how skills/feats/attacks function.
  • 01:19 AM - ardoughter quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Scientist background
    This assumes that science works in your world, which is not a given. For example, in the game I run, the scientific method is not reliable. In short, magic messes with the laws of physics. A 20th century scientist might be incredibly handicapped because their assumptions make them less abvle to deal with the fantasy world. The scientific method is a process of doing science and should be valid in any universe where nature operates in a stable manner and magic is reliable, which it is, by default in the D&D'verse. That does not mean that the laws are the same as the ones the scientist is familiar with. The biggest issue most scientists would have, is unless they have some handy text books and lab manuals brought over with them is that they would spend a lifetime reinventing the foundations of maths and physics and maybe some of chemistry before they are of any use.

Monday, 25th March, 2019

  • 11:09 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Greenstone.Walker in post How Should Taunting Work?
    It's definitely Persuasion vs Insight. As for how it should react, there's no one way even for a single species, let alone every create. Part of it also depends on what you're taunting it into doing. Great point on the reaction. Setting a specific behavior is more in line with 5e simplicity, but leaving it open ended works fine, as well. A feint would be deceiving your opponent into thinking there's an opening that isn't actually there, and thus Deception. A taunt is persuading your opponent to take a course of action, and thus Persuasion. Both would have different outcomes. For instance, I can't see a feint granting disadvantage against other targets, because if the feint succeeds then the creature isn't going to be attacking other targets. Great points. A feint, IMO, is a move you do to get advantage against a creature, primarily, but I can also see using it to get them to overextend using their movement to come into a space they won't enjoy being in. This is probably a little more c...

Friday, 22nd March, 2019

  • 01:47 PM - Blue quoted Greenstone.Walker in post I Do Declare! Do you? (POLL)
    I like declaration but my current players hate it. The thought of somehow losing an action is apparantly the most henious thing that can ever happen at the table, at least according to the reaction I got from them when we tried a couple of alternatives. When you get one action every 15-20 minutes because of the speed of combat, then losing an action is the most heinous thing. It's long stretches of boredom, which is the most critical lose condition of any game.

Monday, 18th March, 2019

  • 10:48 PM - CleverNickName quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Perception should be an intelligence proficiency
    I think that's a gret description of what Investigation is for and I'm going to start using it when I talk about it in my games. WIS notices a thing, INT makes connections between multiple things. If you haven't noticed a thing then you can't make connections, but just because you noticed it doesn't mean you'll make the connection.The shorthand I like to use at my table (we moved to 5E from 3.x): Use Perception instead of Listen or Spot. Use Investigation instead of Gather Information or Search. Use Insight instead of Appraise or Sense Motive. If you learned something from a book, a school, or a teacher, it's probably Int. Otherwise, it's probably Wis. It's not perfect, but it'll do in a pinch.

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 11:38 PM - dnd4vr quoted Greenstone.Walker in post I Do Declare! Do you? (POLL)
    I like declaration but my current players hate it. The thought of somehow losing an action is apparantly the most henious thing that can ever happen at the table, at least according to the reaction I got from them when we tried a couple of alternatives. Oddly enough, "losing" an action has never played in all my years of gaming with always declaring actions. At worst, character might have had to change targets for an attack or spell if the original target was dead or out of sight, but that's about it. I don't have any issue with using declarations as it makes sense to me from playing this way for so long. Our biggest reason in trying NOT using it was to see if things sped up, which so far it seems to have done so.

Thursday, 14th March, 2019

  • 01:43 PM - Oofta quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Not your average HIDE questions
    I would phrase it the opposite way: if no-one knows where you are then you are hidden. A roll is simply one way (of many) to change from "someone knows where you are" to "no-one knows where you are". For example, an invisible, silenced, flying creature is hidden because no-one knows where they are (or even that they are there in the first place). No need for a DEX roll or a WIS roll. The word "hidden" implies that there has been a stealth roll involved at some point. In addition in 5E there is no hidden "status" per se, and there is no requirement to make a stealth role to be undetected. In other words if A cannot be detected by B then A is hidden from B but may not be hidden from C. Perhaps A made a stealth check to hide from B but C never lost sight of him. Then again you could also say that nobody knows where D is because they're on the other side of the continent. I don't say that Bob Smith from Scranton PA is "hidden" from me simply because I don't know where he is. In the same way,...


Page 1 of 23 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Greenstone.Walker's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites