Search results

But the independents only ever do things out of the love of their heart and not out of any profit motive at all! I mean, it's not like they are also a business who are generally gonna be making good business decisions!

I've played too much Ace Attorney, so it's more likely that I'd be the lawyers.

Yeah, I might just be seeing more of them because of this whole kerfuffle, but still, it's a amusing observation.

At first glance, I was wondering why there are (apparently) a lot of lawyers who play D&D. Then I thought about it some more, and it all made sense.

Or they want the players to suffer from the consequences of their actions that the players won't just blow off or ignore.

The player and the party kills them and doesn't care. Actually, I'm pretty sure a Druid can lose their abilities. And honestly? You're the one who explicitly signed up for the classes that straight up tell you "You get this power from something that is not you" and what happens with two...

was talking specifically about Rogues there, but I understand the confusion. But this part also goes into the next point But if you give them something in addition to Stunning Strike, which you just said is really good, then you just end up with something too good. However, if you replace...

Haven't played 5e in a while, but I'm pretty sure the zeitgeist is still generally "wait, feats and multiclassing are optional?" Might've changed, I dunno. The opportunity cost isn't super bad for Rogues, at least though, they get extra feats and only really need DEX. Pretty sure just straight...

That's a feat now. Mage Slayer, to be specific. and it's a pretty good feat. AoO on creatures within 5. ft casting a spell, advantage on saves against spells cast by creatures within 5 ft of you, and when you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, it has disadvantage on the...

Roleplay out how you feel about how your Warlock Patron is commanding you to do something against your oath as a Paladin then.

I like how you imply I don't have an adult conversation about those rules with the players. Seriously, why do people always default to the DM being the bad guy in these types of situations?

The customer isn't always right, everybody who has ever worked in retail knows that for a fact.

Look at the amount of spells that are in the game. Then look at many things Fighters can do. Like, Wizards factually have more abilities they can use than Fighters. It's no contest. And with more abilities, they come more ways to solve problems.

That both sends the wrong message and is like trying to kill a fly with a nuke.

It's not that alien. You're more likely to side with the people who are more like you than not, especially if you have a (perceived) power imbalance between the groups.

That's assuming that the other players wouldn't side with the person being coercive. And honestly, why wouldn't the players want to side with the player who is just trying to make them just a teeny bit more powerful against the DM?

Cool. That's about as anecdotal as it gets, though.

well it's more like being forced to be it because nobody else wants to do it. People don't choose to be Forever DM's

I've also had That Player pull these kind of things on me before.

You've never been a martial who was made useless by a Wizard casting a single spell, then.