View Profile: iserith - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Today, 01:52 PM
    I also probably would have applied the "half-speed" movement penalty to carrying an ally (a la moving a grappled person). After all... whenever a player had ever tried lifting and moving/dragging an unconscious ally I always applied the have-movement as a matter of course, so there's no reason to think doing the same to an upright conscious ally should be any different. At this point, it...
    11 replies | 308 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Today, 08:46 AM
    During 3E and PF we whinged about the difficulty of obtaining +Dex to damage. 5E gives us +Dex to damage, and we whinge about it existing. Never change people. Never change.
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Today, 08:40 AM
    Youre OK to do it that way, but if a Rogue with 30' movement dashes twice and moves, he has 90'of movement that round. Dashing is an action that grants you additional movement equal to your speed. Nothing in that prohibits a Rogue from using the same action twice and gaining aditional movement equal to 2 x speed. Same deal with action surging fighters who + + move, or Action surging...
    69 replies | 1475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Today, 07:12 AM
    Stewart's quote seems a tad disingenuous and a bit disrespectful to their business partners. They are licensing content to D&D Beyond, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc. So they are allowing for digital options. They don't like PDFs because it makes piracy easier. Also, yes, PDFs are not a great experience IMHO, but DriveThru RPG and the many publishers who offer PDF versions of their print products...
    10 replies | 219 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Today, 06:52 AM
    Fair enough. I'm a fan of one-shots, but get it that character growth and getting to dive deep into storylines is the secret sauce for many and that such folks would find one-shots lacking.
    24 replies | 722 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Today, 06:47 AM
    Sorry for my ignorance, but was that not the case in other editions of D&D? I played 1e in the 80s and I don't have the 1e DMG anymore, so I'm not sure if it was a rule that the DM called for rolls, but I recall playing that way. Or maybe my memory is being shaped by my recent experiences with 5e. I never played 2nd though 4th edition.
    30 replies | 962 view(s)
    0 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:30 PM
    Getting 6 identical clones in Paranoia.
    30 replies | 962 view(s)
    3 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:00 PM
    I allow it, but: 1. I enforce encumbrance rules 2. It is not "treasure": You don't get XP for the GP value of the sold items For those scratching their heads or taking umbrage at these two points: For point one: we use D&D Beyond, so tracking encumbrance is pretty easy. But it is enough of a hassle that they generally do not want to bother. That said, they've recently been building up...
    20 replies | 595 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:45 PM
    I'll echo "stunt points" mentioned above from the AGE system. I was introduced to the mechanic with The Expanse. I also like "fortune" in The Expanse. I think this also comes from the AGE system. Basically, you have an amount of fortune points that refresh after an "interlude" (kinda a mix of an extended long rest and downtime) and you get more as you level up. You can spend fortune points to...
    30 replies | 962 view(s)
    1 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 PM
    jaelis is absolutely right on what the rules are in this situation. That being said... this is the sort of interesting character design concept that I as a DM would be happy to work with a player on to eventually allow to happen. Adding Martial Arts to Primal Savagery would basically be along the lines of the damage gained by certain magic items, so there's nothing inherently unbalanced by this...
    3 replies | 165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:16 PM
    DEFCON 1 replied to Double Dash
    As a table rule I allow every PC to triple-move, as well as double-move with disengage. My table rules for the Dash action and Disengage action are as follows: Full Sprint: If you use your action to Dash, you may also Dash with a bonus action. Tactical Retreat: If you use your action to Disengage, you may also Dash with your bonus action. When you take a PC's movement also into account,...
    69 replies | 1475 view(s)
    2 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:10 PM
    I've found that feeling you have to put together a campaign can be a block to enjoying the hobby. One shots are a great way to get people together without worrying about whether that same group will be available next week/month. Also, it makes it easier for players to say yes as they don't feel pressured into a long-term time commitment. Also, you can play more characters and try different...
    24 replies | 722 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:00 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    For what it's worth, the rules also specifically call out a character's or monster's speed as being "short bursts of energetic movement in the midst of a life-threatening situation."
    69 replies | 1475 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:00 PM
    . . . Okay, I'll ask: How does the Linguistics skill work in Pathfinder?
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:14 PM
    You're right and it drives me crazy when I turn up in a game where a DM rolls individual initiative for monsters. Though it's still the same amount of actions to resolve, it really does slow things down because the initiative rolling takes longer and then, if those monsters are interspersed with PCs or other monsters, there's a "gear-changing" that eats up additional time. It really adds up!
    13 replies | 440 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:53 PM
    The RAW is that like creatures share initiative anyway. It's still 10 creatures on one initiative count, but it's not like you're rolling 10 different initiatives for them, if that's a concern. As for your swarm, it seems a sound idea, but someone better at math than me will have to say if it has parity with the spell as written. But anyway, players have an obligation to pursue the goals of...
    13 replies | 440 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:36 PM
    What Hriston said - most monsters' stuff is just junk. There are some exceptions that I will make an effort to describe, such as a hobgoblin in plate armor or the like. Sometimes I'll describe something resplendent a monster wears that would be damaged in combat and made less valuable in order to set up a challenge for the players to take out the monster without damaging their loot. It makes them...
    20 replies | 595 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:49 AM
    Oh absolutely. But I dislike the D&D version. They are like crossbow machineguns. I recently got the Pathfinder Ultimate Equipment book, (which is an amazing comprehensive book btw) and my eyes almost shot fire when I read the description of Studded Leather Armor. It was so dumb. How do they keep getting this wrong? Is anyone going to correct this at any point? "An improved form of...
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:42 AM
    And those are great, if you paint them yourself. But I don't like painting miniatures, and I'm also not very good at it. I prefer to have them pre-painted. There's been two excellent sets that I recently acquired: Dungeon of the Mad Mage has some awesome laboratory props, and there's an amazing Pathfinder cemetery set as well.
    23 replies | 2617 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:27 AM
    That's basically what my players do. They police themselves for speed and that includes just keeping them on a single target. It's not really about banning the spell BlivetWidget. It's just players realizing that it can slow down play and taking reasonable steps to mitigate that.
    13 replies | 440 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:59 AM
    Alright, can you give a breakdown of the two PCs (Rogue and Paladin) for me, so I can see why this Rogue was leaving the Paladin feeling second rate?
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:13 PM
    The mob rules worked fine, but also working in my favor is that the table rule is that if you're the sort of player who can't manage this sort of spell without bogging down the turn, you simply don't cast it. The player has a responsibility here in my view. (Same for summons, pets, etc.)
    13 replies | 440 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 09:20 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    Yes on the double-dash. There tends to be a LOT of movement in my games due to terrain, so it comes up quite a bit.
    69 replies | 1475 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:41 PM
    You can resolve by applying the mob rules in the DMG (pg. 250) which foregoes any attack rolls, saving time. Then use average damage.
    13 replies | 440 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 06:55 PM
    Level 5 Rogue. 1 attack (rapier) at +7 dealing 3d6+1d8+4 damage (presuming adjacent PC to trigger sneak attack) = around 19 damage. Level 5 Paladin. 2 attacks (Greatsword) at +7 dealing 4d6+8 damage -re'roll 1s and 2s = around 25 damage. The Paladin also has roughly 6 x smites and/or smite spells, 3 x divine channels (including either +Cha to hit and damage or advantage to hit), and damage...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:44 PM
    Its your game and do what you want, but not only do I not see the need to do what you're suggesting, I think it's a poor choice. Will you be imposing a similar rule forcing Spell Casters to use Int for Spell Attack rolls (spell power), Wisdom for Spell save DC's (will power) and Charisma (force of will) for Spell damage... or will they continue to use one stat for literally everything, while...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:39 PM
    But they do anyway, seeing as Paladins and Barbarians already suck at ranged combat. Every single Paladin or Barbarian I've seen packs some Strength based throwing weapons and focuses on mobility (getting toe to toe as soon as possible). Why are we forcing MAD on Martials anyway? They already need , and Con. And why are we forcing them to use two different Stats for combat, when Casters get...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:20 PM
    No I'm saying if the game presumes Multi-classing and Feats, Strength is clearly superior to Dexterity on Paladins and Barbarians (at a bare minimum). Seriously how many Dex + Sharpshooter Barbarians or Paladins have you seen exactly? And dont try and sell me that the combo is any good'; it's awful on those classes. When it comes to Fighters, for every Dex based Fighter with Sharpshooter...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 04:10 PM
    ??? How many casters exactly. Ive run games of over 20th level (epic boons) with a 5 man party dealing with a half a dozen encounters per long rest featuring death knights, Liches, Vampire shadow dancer mooks, undead Cleric 'leaders' and so forth. Examples include: Encounter 1:
    18 replies | 624 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:38 PM
    In my games all weapons can be re-fluffed. It's not just a thing Monks can do. That includes damage type. For example a Sabre (same stats as a rapier, deals Slashing damage) is a thing. As is a Sap (same stats as a dagger, deals Bludgeoning damage). Bam presto: archetypal finessable bludgeoning weapons now exist, and the weird mental image of someone dual wielding rapiers is resolved....
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    1 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:28 PM
    In my humble opinion, I suspect the REAL issue here is that there is only a single d8 Finesse weapon in the game, and thus people are just tired of seeing the word 'rapier' everywhere. The mechanics are negligible enough that most people probably don't really care about it (okay, a d8 finesse weapon, great)... they just want to cut down on the number of "rapiers" used across the game. The...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:25 PM
    So Finesse weapons are only a problem: 1) In featless games with no multiclassing, in which case it amounts to (at best) a minor if indeed any benefit to fighters, and a net loss to Paladins and Barbarians. 2) In games with feats... due to Sharpshooter (i.e. on characters that dont even use Finessable melee weapons)? If we're doing Dex to hit and Str to damage for martials, lets also...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:15 PM
    It doesn't matter if you keep track, really. The PCs should be counterspelling everything anyway.
    18 replies | 624 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:59 AM
    I've got one more: You roll a die to hit, but you don't roll a die to defend, unless it's a saving throw. I've always felt there's a lot of missed opportunity there regarding how dynamic and strategic D&D's combat could be. It would probably also become way more complicated, but it just feels like something is missing.
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 08:47 AM
    So what's our assumption here? A feat-less game that also bans Multiclassing (where Str 13 is required for Paladin and Barb?). Failing a Str save often means being knocked prone or restrained or pushed somewhere you dont want to go. They're rarer but often have bad status effects imposed. Failed Dex saves usually just mean 'more damage'.
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 08:38 AM
    If they're taking either of those feats, they're ranged characters and the rapier is for show only. Finesse is a non issue. No, they're not. Firstly, you need Str 13 to MC as a Barbarian or Paladin. Secondly Dex based barbarians miss out on Rage damage with dex. They miss out on using reckless attack + advantage to land GWM hits. Their capstone becomes half useless. The advantage on...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:59 AM
    Shadow Hound (Shadow Sorcerer) is a bonus action + 3 sorcery points summons that (in addition to the monster summoned) imposes disadvantage to ALL your targets saves while it's adjacent to your target. Instrument of the Bards imposes disadvantage to saves vs Charmed condition from spells cast through it. Combine with Hypnotic pattern for encounter auto-wins against anything that isnt immune to...
    7 replies | 341 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:44 AM
    Like seriously. Give me 4 fighters. At 5th level - 3 are Dex Fighters (defence style) using rapiers and sheilds. (15+Dex AC). AC 19, 1d8+4 damage (8.5 average), +7 to hit, 2 attacks, +4 Initiative. No feat exists to make rapiers better; shield master might be an option? The 4th is a Plate wearing Greatsword guy (same style). AC also 19, 2d6+4 damage (11 average), 2 attacks, +7 to hit, Power...
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:33 AM
    Is Dex to hit in melee any good? I mean when it comes to Melee damage the main offenders are: 1) GWM 2) PAM (and GWM!) 3) Barbarians 4) Paladin smites (And Paladins need Charisma, Con and Strength, and get heavy armor meaning they invariably dump Dex) I've never known 'Rapier' to be any sort of 'go-to' for damage builds. I mean Rogues often use one (unless TWF) but so what?
    82 replies | 2254 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 08:31 PM
    You could. Or you could assume that there are different distinct sentient, humanoid races, that can or can't interbreed and enjoy worldbuilding and roleplaying around what that might look like. I've been thinking of creating a campaign based on real-world archaeology. Set 50,000 to 80,000 years ago when homo sapiens was spreading out an encountering the neandrathals (homo neanderthalensis),...
    100 replies | 3174 view(s)
    2 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 07:53 PM
    Yeah, non-elves either want to eat them or breed with them. Exception being Dwarves, the bitter jealous brothers of the elder races. Yet, it is humans who actually breed most indiscriminately. Why do all half-breeds tend to be half-human? Looking at the flavor text for Orcs in the MM, I would think that half-orc/half-elf should be as common, if not more so, then half human.
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:01 PM
    It's a question that I've struggled with on occasion as well. Every time I decide on a new campaign and I start going through the lists of races, backgrounds and classes the list keeps getting larger and larger with more and more overlap in identity and ideas until it just becomes the Mos Eisley Cantina again. And I keep trying to find ways to shrink things down but it never seems to work. ...
    100 replies | 3174 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 11:55 AM
    1. Dragon Alignments and breathweapons by color. Just because a dragon has a certain color, doesn't mean it isn't evil, and it doesn't mean it spits lightning/poisongas/ice instead of just fire. 2. Automatic Crossbows. Get that nonsense out of here. 3. Studded Leather Armor. What do the studs even do? 4. Elves and orcs. Yawn! 5. Classes that have boring new abilities (filler) at higher...
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 11:48 AM
    I'm playing 3.5 right now, and we use some PF1 content on occasion, simply because it is compatible. I'm curious to see what PF2 is like, and I wonder if elements of it are still compatible with 3.5. If it's not compatible, but still better, I might give it a spin.
    18 replies | 896 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 07:11 AM
    Other than D&D I run one-shots. I'm on my third campaign since 5e came out. First campaign. Homebrew setting. Twenty eight-hour sessions, one level per session. Second campaign, Curse of Strahd, using a form of party-milestone leveling bases on locations explored, antagonists defeated, macguffins found, and quests accomplished. Were 9th level when they defeated Strahd. Ten 8-hour...
    47 replies | 2157 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:39 AM
    As a DM, create the world you want to run and find players who want to play in it. If you are not stuck running games for organized play, there is no right or wrong decision here as a long as everyone is having fun. I've run games where races were limited, because of the history and worldbuilding for that campaign. In my home-brew campaign, you can only select from human, dwarf, halfling, or...
    100 replies | 3174 view(s)
    4 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:20 AM
    Interesting that most of the pet peeves shared here don't bother me much. For example, I agree that 6-seconds is an eternity in combat and you can do A LOT in six seconds when it comes to punches, movement, and sword play. BUT I would like to see many more spells taking longer than an action. And I think it is silly to be able to take something out of your bag as a free action. But I'm happy...
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:17 AM
    I hate Concentration saves as mechanic. Too easy to forget. I saw a cool House rule that ditched the 'make a save when damaged' rule, and instead imposed a rule that had you instead only make the Concetration save when casting while threatened (spell fizzles if you fail). Thought that was pretty neat. For minor pet peeves; the Trident. It's a heavier, more expensive, and harder to...
    145 replies | 4959 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:08 AM
    Is there anything you can do to give him temporary HP? That should work.
    145 replies | 2868 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 05:41 AM
    This post BEGS for a follow-up. Sorry that you've had a fall out with a group you've been playing with for 20 years. Sounds like it is more than just leaving the group, if you've not even seen any of them outside of gaming for over half a year. Have your tried organized play, meetup.com, or Roll20 for one shots? Good way to try different games, meet new players, and if things don't gel, well,...
    24 replies | 722 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MNblockhead's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 08:02 AM
    The longer and more accurate question is: If you ever quit or stopped playing tabletop RPGs for an extended period of time, at what time in your life did that occur and why? And why did you pick them up again (which I'm assuming you did, if you are hanging out in these forums)? This thread is inspired by the conversation in the thread about D&D's portrayal in Stranger Things, Season 3. ...
    24 replies | 722 view(s)
    4 XP
  • DEFCON 1's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:03 AM
    You probably already know this, but Ignores and Blocks only apparently work via the website forum program. The ENWorld app on mobile devices does not having the block/ignore feature I don't believe. It's an interesting and confusing quirk, as I occasionally see threads on my phone that I never knew were there when I normally hit the forums.
    34 replies | 1117 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Imaculata's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 07:42 AM
    They pretty much explored that idea with T3D.
    36 replies | 848 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 01:11 AM
    I was literally just talking up +1d6 to a save at will, and 'auto pass a save while also attacking the caster/ origin of the save' abilities as being great. In the other thread we're chatting in, you're bemoaning the lack of abilities of some classes (the fighter) to pass high DC saves in poor ability scores when non Proficient. The Monster Hunter auto passes every save he wants to (1/...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 01:05 AM
    Ive just never known a game where balance rests in the hands of the players. Barring a Pathfinder or 3.5 type game, where the difference between optimisation and non optimised PCs is so vast that those games require a gentlemans agreement at the campaigns start. No, that's a false analogy. You preferring not to use a game mechanic (even an optional one) is fine. Demanding other...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 12:46 AM
    You're a 9th level Ranger. 4 x black bears, 2 Dire wolves, or 1 Sabre tooth tiger is probably the best option at a glance (there may be others). From memory, our Druid used it (at 5th level) to summon a giant constrictor (actually Huge from memory). At this level, they'd be lucky to last a single encounter (of which you're getting 6 or so per adventuring day as a median average going by the...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 12:21 AM
    It's not. Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise. I ran a balanced game featuring a bonus feat at 1st for everyone, artifacts and legendary items galore, every PC with at least 1 stat above 20, multiple epic boons and so forth. Personal preference I guess.
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:57 PM
    Defensive tactics is OK but it's easily at least matched by they get as class features from levels 6-15 are much (much) better than that list. All the full casters smoke it. Paladin smokes it. Monk, Rogue, Warlock smoke it. Id literally take 10 levels of Battlemaster Fighter over Ranger 6-10 and be happy (and be one level away from my 3rd attack per round) or take 10 levels of Scout Rogue over...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:30 PM
    Why do you prefer playing without feats? Ignore everyone else at the table. Why do you personally not like having those options? I have. Are magic items also excluded as well, because again, Fighters get the most out of them than any other class.
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:13 PM
    Yes they clearly were. I'll start with something like Ranger 5 + Scout Rogue 3. Its better than a Ranger at being a Ranger. You lose an ASI and a single spell of 2nd level per long rest (and 2 extra spells known). 3 HP, some useless exploration pillar abilities and the moderately useful Defensive tactics. In exchange, you gain 3 extra skills known, Expertise in 4 of your skills...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:51 PM
    DMing or playing, and why? Monks are great, but they dont come close to Fighters in sustained DPR, and shockingly good spike damage with Action surge. Fighters bring the pain better than anyone (barring a Barbarian with really good dice!). There is a reason they're the number 1 played class man.
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:36 PM
    Dude, the whole point of the exercise is to show that Rangers suck mechanically after 5th level. In order to do that it's pretty important to compare them (mechanically) to other classes and 'builds'. You can build a more 'rangery' ranger (i.e. better than the Ranger at sneaking around, doing nature and surival and scouting stuff, mobile fighting and damage) by leaving Ranger and taking levels...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:23 PM
    No, the argument is they get boosts elsewhere to compensate for poor saves. More feats or ASI if you dont use feats, and a huge amount of DPR. Compare them to a Monk, that gets all saves (plus a re-roll) and a ton of immunities and maneuverability. Fighters deal considerably more damage than Monks in every game I have ever seen barring 1-2 level when the Fighter has the better defences...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:06 PM
    Pretty sure rangers get a spell that lets them befriend an animal. Lasts 24 hours. Requires DM permission and Handle Animal skill but you can probably achieve more with that spell than you can with the entire Beastmaster archetype. If you're a Paladin, just cast Find Steed and then Find Greater steed. Summon whatever animal you want. You dont have to ride the thing, and it doesnt even have...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:02 PM
    What do you mean they take too long to mature? From levels 1-5 they're identical to a single classed ranger! It's only after 5th level that you take levels in other classes because Ranger 6-20 sucks. Ranger 6-20 is full of sub-par class features (such as covering itself in mud at 10th level, a woeful capstone, getting better at stuff you never do in most campaigns with favored enemy and...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 09:36 PM
    Any DM that says no to a Toitle Monk, likely isnt a DM I would want to play with. The Character portrait alone would have me in stitches each week. My all time favorite Character portrait was a Pathfinder Grippli Zen Archer Monk. Portrait used was:
    42 replies | 1441 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 09:19 PM
    Dude, I've told you three times now. The 'Weak Build' is I presented is (take your choice) at 15th level: 1) Ranger 5, Battlemaster Fighter 3, Scout Ranger 7 (the remaining levels in Scout) 2) Ranger 5, Scout 3, BM 3, Druid 4 (the remaining levels in Druid) Each class is better at Rangering than the Ranger.
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 09:05 PM
    If you're curious, that High level party would also run around with Heroes feast active, Death wards, Mind Blanks, the mental communication ritual spell, and water breathing active, plus an upcast Aid spell (I think it was). Both the Lore Bard AND the Warlock had counterspell. They could counterspell my enemy spellcasters couterspells even if someone else trued to counter that spell! The...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:57 PM
    Again, I can tell you it's really not an issue. In my high level party the Swashbuckler 14 + BM Fighter 6 had Resilient as a feat (and would have had Slippery Mind if he took one less level of Fighter) giving him Dex (+14), Int (+7), and Wis (+8) saves. As for other saves he had a high Charisma (+4) and Con (+6) as well (bonuses include his cloak). He also had Evasion and a few immunities...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:39 PM
    It's more the exploration pillar is A) rarely used and often hand-waved, and B) when it is used, it's all too easily circumvented from mid levels onwards. For a low level Tomb of Annihilation campaign with a hardcore DM, having a Ranger with 'Favored Terrain: 'Jungle' and Favored enemy 'Dinosaurs, Undead and Yuanti' is amazing. It's just waaay too situational and rapidly is...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:36 PM
    I didnt ignore them mate. I called you out on your own dishonesty for handwaving abilities at mid to high level away, while sneaking a few of them in yourself to prove a point. I did adress your point. It's mainly taken as a ribbon ability. Scout is taken for the fluff (it fluffs with Ranger well) more than anything else. But mechanically it's still a great ability. Your turn ends. A...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:26 PM
    Again; the Fighter is not worse. He's the same (even a bit better). It's the Wizard that got better. Not the Fighter getting worse. Why do I get the feeling this is turning into a 'High level Wizards are broken' argument more than a 'Fighters need better saves' argument?
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:22 PM
    And your high level fighter who fails a save for half damage (taking full damage) would be turned to Ash at 1st level regardless of his save. Now at 20th, a fireball doesn't really bother him that much, passed save or otherwise. Seriously. I've literally ran games all the way to 20th+ epic boons. The problem you're arguing exists, doesnt. (One caveat: I do use a natural 1 fails a save,...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:15 PM
    Who is this NPC that the PC has known since 1st level and why are they advancing in level? But OK, presuming the guy that has gotten to god like powers alongside the Fighter decides to hit him with a Save spell, then unless he targets the dudes Con or Str saves, yes there is a difference. But the difference isnt from the Fighter getting worse against the same effect; its from the Wizard...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:05 PM
    Yet here you are below using spells of 4th and 5th level (conjure volley, swift quiver etc - neither of which are online till 17th level, and conjure woodland beings at 13th level) to outline your point. Scout was selected to gain Expertise to Survival and Nature. The Skirmish ability (movement as soon as a creature finishes its turn next to you) and bonus land speed is just gravy to a...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:51 PM
    Its a Dex based Fighter/ Scout/ Ranger. Not sure how that's a 'multi-class monstrosity'. It's entirely thematic. It's basically a special forces soldier. And I disagree that it points to Multi-classing being unbalanced. The Ranger (as a whole) sucks after 5th level even if you're forced to stay with the class in a game where there is no Multi-classing. Its class features after 5th level are...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:17 PM
    There are three problems with DnD's ranger. 1) Its a worse Fighter than the Fighter in the 'combat pillar', balanced out by a ton of 'exploration pillar' abilities that rarely (if ever) get used. Hunting, foraging and getting lost are rarely things that most groups worry about. Nature sense is pointless. Even favored enemy does nothing in the combat pillar. 2) Spell-casting is built into...
    352 replies | 12242 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:02 PM
    You stat out NPCs as PCs? I've literally never bothered. I just grab a NPC, and tweak as desired (slapping spell-casting on them from a different class, changing out spell lists, gear load out and maybe porting over a Parry or Leadership ability or similar). Unless you're talking about the NPC Swashbuckler.
    14 replies | 388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:31 PM
    Its actually better for a crit fisher. The crits are automatic on any hit. You still have to hit though. 8 rolls should be enough. The only advantage of the above is that normal expanded crit ranges (as opposed to auto-crits) is should you ever find yourself in a situation where your target has an AC that you cant hit with any other roll other than a 20. Assassin auto-crits still...
    37 replies | 916 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:25 PM
    He hasnt gotten 'worse'. Against the same caster or effect, he's just as good (in fact he's now better, thanks to increasing his Ability scores or Using feats for Resilient or Lucky, and gaining re-rolls via Indomitable). He hasnt even gotten 'worse' at saving against spells cast by 20th level Archmages. He's always sucked at saving against those guys. At 1st level he needed a 19+. He still...
    71 replies | 2009 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:10 PM
    You could really stitch the PCs up if suddenly several other Pirate Captains come looking for the fabled Parrot (they believe its story and want its treasure). The PCs will think it's incredibly valuable and obviously telling the truth, if other NPCs go to great efforts to get it for themselves. Try not to laugh your backside off as DM for the next few months of game-play while they...
    14 replies | 388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 06:03 PM
    Or the parrot repeatedly squawks it is really a totally powerful bad-ass NPC who was the prior victim of a True Polymorph spell that become permanent. If the PCs can find a way to remove the spell, it promises to reward them with loot beyond their dreams. Squawk! True Polymorphed was I! Remove the spell and great treasure will be yours, Squawk! It's either: A) Telling the truth. The...
    14 replies | 388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 05:47 PM
    Variant Half-Drow Blade pact Hexblade 5 (Thirsting blade, Eldritch smite, Devils sight), Vengeance Paladin 3 , Assassin 3, Sorcerer (any) 3, Battlemaster 3, Gloomstalker Ranger 3. ASI: Elven accuracy. Pre combat, you're hiding in the darkness (invisible to all creatures with darkvision thanks to Gloomstalker) with your pet Owl (obtained via the Animal friendship spell as a ranger). With...
    37 replies | 916 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:51 PM
    That's kind of the plan. Plus turning equivalent stuff to high level Wizard spells into 'mundane' abilities for Martials. Wizards at high levels might get access to abilities that allow things like long range teleporting, the ability to magically create a castle or tower or even their own Demi-plane from nothing, attract an apprentice, craft a golem, dimensional travel, the ability to...
    24 replies | 799 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:41 PM
    Will do.
    104 replies | 2853 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:39 PM
    How about this for a fix? New Feat: Advanced Fighting Style. Prerequisite: Knowledge of at least one fighting style; extra attack class feature. Benefit: You gain +1 to Strength or Dexterity to a maximum score of 20. In addition, select one fighting style you know. You gain extra abilities based on that fighting style:
    232 replies | 9628 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:02 PM
    Swords Bard 6 + Sorcerer 3. Just 2 levels higher and it does both. I'm currently playing a Half Drow - (refuffed the patron to Elistraee from the Raven Queen, and the weapon to Elistraees moonsword) in Undermountain. Valas D'Vir. Darkmoon Knight. That's if the DM ever runs it again. He sucks with running games.
    37 replies | 916 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:57 PM
    The bit where you keep reading it, posting in it anyway, and replying to post quotes.
    104 replies | 2853 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:55 PM
    It encourages more rounded characters, and makes a '20' something special. Basically a PC with the 'default' array (plus racials, presuming +2/+1) winds up with a 17 (main stat), 2 x 14's, a 12, a 10 and an 8. If he is dedicated to maxing out a single ability score (in his main stat) he will require at least 2 full ASI's to do it (1st ASI gets him +2 to 19, and the second one at 8th gets...
    51 replies | 1231 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Flamestrike's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 03:44 PM
    My Shadow Sorcerer would love this rule. Shadow Hound (bonus action) + Heightened Spell (no action) + Save or Suck spell (action) = tri-disadvantage (3 saves, take the lowest). Hilariously if the target was Lucky (the feat) they could then roll an extra d20... and take the highest of the 4 rolls! That's one lucky SOB.
    37 replies | 916 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About iserith

Basic Information

About iserith
About Me:
A 25+ Year Veteran Dungeon Master and Player
Location:
Medellin, Colombia
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
is3rith
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Online
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
Colombia

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
6,341
Posts Per Day
1.99
Last Post
Double Dash Yesterday 06:00 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
30
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:36 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 20th October, 2010
Home Page
http://community.wizards.com/user/85271/blog
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

24 Friends

  1. 76512390ag12 76512390ag12 is offline

    Member

    76512390ag12
  2. Bawylie Bawylie is offline

    Member

    Bawylie
  3. blueherald blueherald is offline

    Member

    blueherald
  4. ChrisCarlson ChrisCarlson is offline

    Member

    ChrisCarlson
  5. clutchbone clutchbone is offline

    Member

    clutchbone
  6. Corwin Corwin is offline

    Member

    Corwin
  7. DEFCON 1 DEFCON 1 is offline

    Member

    DEFCON 1
  8. Delazar Delazar is offline

    Member

    Delazar
  9. Demorgus Demorgus is offline

    Member

    Demorgus
  10. Fast_Jimmy Fast_Jimmy is offline

    Member

    Fast_Jimmy
  11. Flamestrike Flamestrike is offline

    Member

    Flamestrike
  12. Greybeard_Ray Greybeard_Ray is offline

    Member

    Greybeard_Ray
  13. Imaculata Imaculata is offline

    Member

    Imaculata
  14. intently intently is offline

    Member

    intently
  15. kelvan1138 kelvan1138 is offline

    Member

    kelvan1138
  16. Kit Hartsough Kit Hartsough is offline

    Member

    Kit Hartsough
  17. Liane the Wayfarer
  18. Matt McNiel Matt McNiel is offline

    Member

    Matt McNiel
  19. mexicangringo mexicangringo is offline

    Member

    mexicangringo
  20. MNblockhead MNblockhead is offline

    Member

    MNblockhead
  21. Ohillion Ohillion is offline

    Member

    Ohillion
  22. pukunui pukunui is offline

    Member

    pukunui
  23. Valmarius Valmarius is offline

    Member

    Valmarius
  24. Wyvern Wyvern is offline

    Member

    Wyvern
Showing Friends 1 to 24 of 24
My Game Details
Town:
Online
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
Colombia
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

No results to show...
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Sunday, 21st October, 2018

  • 07:31 PM - Laurefindel mentioned iserith in post Ideas for Improving Inspiration
    My favourite way to play with inspiration is when players claim their own inspiration for themselves. Otherwise as a DM I don't always think of it, or don't always realise that this situation applies for this player's trait etc. Same when other players give inspiration to each other, not all players are equally good at it. my preferred approach is to have each player write their traits on four separate cue cards. When they role play their trait, they raise their cue card, announce to all that they claim inspiration, and put this cue card away for this game, for a possibility of 4 inspiration per game. [edit] ...which is what iserith from two posts above wrote in his own tread!

Thursday, 18th October, 2018

  • 05:23 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned iserith in post Quicksand spell counters
    To build on iserith's excellent suggestions... Three of the spellcasters in our group (divination wizard, enchantment wizard, and vengeance paladin) typically bust out misty step to escape grapples. I could see the war domain cleric casting water walk if faced with quicksand, then calmly climbing out of it.

Thursday, 11th October, 2018


Friday, 5th October, 2018

  • 11:47 AM - pemerton mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Though you wouldn't have to, as those editions can also function just fine with a higher level of detail in things like action declaration. It's just that in those two editions players can go into less detail if they like and let the dice cover for them, which isn't so easy in 0e-1e-2e-5e.I think this is exaggerated. Gygax in this DMG expressly describes two ways to adjudicate a search for secret doors - direct play of the fiction, or rolling a die - and says that either is fine. In the 4e DMG the skill challenge rules make clear that a player has to say what it is that his/her PC is doing. Otherwise the GM can't properly narrate the consequences for the fiction of either success or failure. (Which isn't to disagree with iserith that 5e is different from 4e - but the difference is about the method in which the mechanics are invoked, not the extent to which players have to describe what their PCs are doing.)

Thursday, 4th October, 2018

  • 07:33 PM - Rya.Reisender mentioned iserith in post Do you allow Acrobatics and Athletics to be used interchangeably?
    iserith If you want another example, in PotA: "The wall is rough fieldstone, so it can be climbed with successful DC 10 Strength (Athletics) checks." In any case, you quoted it yourself "with few handholds". This applies to pretty much all vertical surfaces, except maybe if they had intentionally be designed to make climbing easy. Or they are rendered that way (e.g. by using pitons).

Tuesday, 2nd October, 2018

  • 11:50 PM - Valmarius mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    the campaign you're running is designed to last the rest of your life, isn't it? If not, why not? This might just be the root of the divide between your two playstyles or approaches. Of the three @iserith campaigns I've played, one ended at session 20, one at about 25, and the current one is at about 25 and feels like we're 80% through. Each one told a self-contained story about dealing with a specific big threat. Afterwards, we typically retire the characters and start something new. Maybe this approach requires a different handling of pacing. While my homebrew campaigns run a little longer than that (roughly 70 sessions) I definitely keep an end point in mind. I don't think I could run something indefinitely, but that's just me.

Monday, 1st October, 2018

  • 10:15 AM - Lanefan mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    OK. 350+ posts in to this lot and after reading it all it's time, I think, to make myself unpopular. Pacing: there is nothing wrong with a slow and detailed pace of play. If a campaign isn't set up to be open-ended in how long it'll last I'm probably not interested unless it's specifically designed to be a one-off; and if it's open-ended then it doesn't or shouldn't matter whether it takes 3 sessions or 19 sessions to get through a particular adventure as long as we're all having fun in the process. (ditto for level advancement - slow this down too) Here (and maybe only here) I agree with how iserith does it, in expecting/demanding a reasonable level of detail from the player in describing not only what her character is trying to do but how she is going about it. But that said... DM assumptions: the DM has to be able to assume that barring unusual circumstances a PC is always using his or her senses in a manner sensible to the surroundings. This means, for example, a DM can reasonably assume a higher level of alertness from a PC walking down a passage deep in a dangerous dungeon than from one who is walking along a quiet country road toward a well-known village. The DM has to be able to assume the PCs are looking where they're going and paying at least passing attention to sounds, smells, movement, and so on occurring around them. But the DM cannot assume what the PCs know or don't know or remember about things that might be obscure e.g. an old statue. Here it's not so much the DM who gatekeeps the knowledge but the dice, and somewhat-random determination of these things ...

Sunday, 30th September, 2018

  • 06:57 PM - Satyrn mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    What if it's painfully clear to anyone who recognizes it, but someone who didn't recognize it would have no clue? Because that explains half of what I've seen on the internet. You either get it immediately, or you don't; but if you don't get it, then you don't know whether or not you're missing out on something obvious. And if you don't get it immediately, then you might be able to figure it out through context clues, but it would take time to put things together. In my experience, if you walk into a room that has a statue, then the outcome of that action is uncertain because I don't know whether or not you would immediately recognize the statue upon entering the room. Failing to ask for a roll, in that circumstance, is denying the player a possibility of success to which they are rightfully entitled. But what happens if you ask iserith to make that roll and he says "My character hates art. He wouldn't even give the statue a glance?" He thinks you're taking that possibility away from him. Imaculata is waiting until her player makes clear that character actually is looking at the statue. I really don't see this as denying the player a possibility of success. It's just delaying that possibility until the player shows they care about succeeding.

Friday, 28th September, 2018

  • 07:39 PM - MNblockhead mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Wow, I guess we just enjoy very different play styles. I don't want to make assumptions on how you run your games @Gradine, anyone who gives as much thought to the game as you do is likely to be run a good game and I can enjoy all manner of GM styles if the GM is dedicated and cares about everyone having a good time. But I have to say that I love the style of play that iserith describes. From how he describes his style, it brings me back to how we played 1e but without the annoying prepubescent "gotcha" style that immature DMs have. I like having to explain how my character is acting with the world. It makes the game more immersive for me to have to give some thought to specifying not just that I do something but how I do it, not just that I may have some knowledge, but how I have that knowledge. When other players do this, it makes the game more immersive for me. When everyone does it, its magic. What I feel is missing in many of the games I play in, is that everything seems on autopilot until there is a "big challenge" or "combat." Or everything is reduced for a call for rolls and the players stating roll results. As a DM, in my 1st 5e campaign, and the first game I ran after a long time of not playing TTRPGs at all, I started to get bored and disillusioned with many dungeons crawls once you had rogues in the mid tiers. It seems I either had to set DC ...

Tuesday, 25th September, 2018

  • 03:39 PM - Hriston mentioned iserith in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Actually, I think @iserith's take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if @Hriston agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it. (Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.) I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what iserith's reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.

Monday, 24th September, 2018

  • 06:34 AM - pemerton mentioned iserith in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Let's start with surprise. "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." What does that even mean? In a game where shapechangers abound and illusion magic is common, and where everyone can be an evil villain in disguise, literally everyone and everything a PC sees is a noticed threat. That would mean that it's impossible to sucker punch someone as the threat is noticed so no surprise can happen. However, if you ask people you'd probably get a nearly universal consensus that sucker punches are possible? Does that mean that you have to notice an active threat? It doesn't say active threat. What if the sucker punch happens after the start of the encounter? Is it impossible then? The DM has to decide these things.Actually, I think iserith's take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if Hriston agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it. (Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.)

Saturday, 22nd September, 2018

  • 04:13 AM - pemerton mentioned iserith in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency.I think it often does, but I also think this is something of an illusion - unless the dice-rolling player has deft wrists and quick fingers! Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice.Maybe, though is perhaps a bit sucky for the person who invested PC build resources in WIS and Perception! In AD&D there is only 1 surprise die rolled for the party, using the best die (eg one ranger means the whole party is surprised only on a 1 in 6) - so 5e in this respect seems consistent with that strand of D&D tradition. You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.I've asked him about this and so hopefully will soon learn! As for the example 'with context', take the example in isolation for a moment. There's a few contextual factors that might change the needle here but I they also change the purity of the example, I guess. Whatframing do you think underides the mechanics as set out?What I'm getting at here is my version of iserith's "telegraphing". When I GM, I don't do telegraphing in that way - rather, the telegraphing comes from what the PCs put at stake via the build and play of their PCs from the "story"/narrative point of view (see also my reply to Nagol not far upthread).

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 09:00 AM - pemerton mentioned iserith in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    I've found this discussion/debate about the role of Perception and similar checks quite interesting. As I understand it, iserith treats it all as an issue of GM framing - it is the GM's job to establish the scene ("describe the environment" is the term used in the Basic Rules, but I think the GM can reasonably add in other stuff too, even in 5e, eg after a particular bit of action has been resolved the GM might narrate "You've outrun the imperial guards and are back at the castle, panting and sweaty. What's next?") If the GM wants the scene to include the PC's noticing missing gauntlest, then s/he incorporates this in his/her framing. Otherwise s/he doesn't - but if the players want to mention that they look around the castle for strange stuff that might give clues to whatever-it-is-that-matters, then they're free to do so and the GM might tell them some stuff, or call for a check, as seems appropriate depending on the details: how you describe the environment is entirely up to you as DM. <snip> Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on h...
  • 03:44 AM - Quickleaf mentioned iserith in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    ... other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage. Furthermore, the rules clarify the requirements of helping... Working Together Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9). A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or m ore individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help. I believe it was iserith who was saying that Help and Working Together are fundamentally different, the first only applying in combat and the latter only applying out of combat. However, that interpretation creates dissonance on the player's side – "why is it different?" – and even the language in the "Working Together" paragraph mentions the word "help" multiple times. When you start getting into arguments that, well, "help" isn't "Help" with a capital H, in my opinion that's a breakdown of the rules. And, essentially, they have the same effect: providing advantage. The only question is, does 5e not have as stringent restrictions on who can Help as it does on who can Work Together? And if it's intentional that Working Together is more stringent out-of-combat, why is it that in combat Help is less stringent? IMO, that makes no sense, so I interpret the "Working Together" paragraph as applying equally to the "Help" action, meaning it's the DM's prerogative to say: "Well, how are you helping your companio...
  • 12:27 AM - Inchoroi mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Maybe so. But as a show of hands, how many players here are comfortable with a DM that privileges a process of play that allows him to deny you fortune tests when he wants to mess with your character? One thing that in my experience players don't like is a feeling that they were being treated unfairly. How many players have you had who would be ok in the long term with ideas like, "You don't even get a resisted check to oppose the pickpocket because you didn't say the magic words I wanted to hear?" I can't think of any. With respect, I have to say I'd disagree with @iserith and his way of doing things, but probably not enough to quit a game over; it would take me a while, but I'm a fairly proactive sort of player (depending on character, however; I get very into character and if the character is dumb, well, I'm dumb, too) so I think I'd get used to it eventually.

Thursday, 20th September, 2018

  • 08:08 PM - Celebrim mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...t or move it?" and so forth, and for that sort of thing we do need propositions that take the form of an action. But just seeing something? Just trying to understand a language spoken to you? Or just trying to understand the significance of a mural you see on the wall and needing to call the right skill to use and match it to its significance? Then yes, that very much is a "Mother may I?" sort of thing. Player: May I understand what my character sees yet? DM: No, you may not. Player: If I say 'Religion' may I understand then. DM: No, you didn't say the magic word. Player: Is Arcane the magic word? DM: No it is not. Player: Is Investigate the magic word? DM: No, it isn't that either. Player: What about 'history'? In regard to the application of passive checks, the approach and goal of a "passive" task is likely to vary a great deal from table to table. Agreed. I think that several different potential processes of play have been outlined here, and I agree that iserith seems to have adopted additional non-rule based processes of play to compensate for his hard-nosed insistence on the letter of the law - telegraphing to the players for example what things that they should call out that they are paying attention to. Without watching his process of play, I can't really speak to how well that would work out.
  • 02:34 PM - Ristamar mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    And this brings us to my biggest objection to being hidebound about this, and that is that you are "pixel bitching". (I don't know if I can use that term here, but it is the technical one.) By that I mean that you are waiting for your players to say the magical words or phrases that unlock the content, and until they say the right things you aren't going to let them use their abilities. I don't care to speak for anyone, but having read enough posts from iserith, I feel I can refute this assertion. Asking for an approach is not an exercise in pixel bitching. Quite the opposite. Pixel potpourri might be a more appropriate term. If a player describes any course of action that would inevitably facilitate success, there's no need to roll or say the magic words, the action simply succeeds. Simple adjudication. When the action has a questionable degree of success and there are consequences for failure, the dice come into play. Without a stated approach, the DM has to take a best guess at the form of the action, perhaps even guess the true goal. If negative consequences occur as a result of that action, the player may object to the DM interpretation and cry foul. Any subsequent arguments or discussion that follow would have easily been avoided if the player simply provided a clear approach with an intended goal. If there's any confusion about the approach or the goal, it can be resolved before the dice are cast (if necessary). In additio...
  • 07:30 AM - Celebrim mentioned iserith in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    iserith: Well, at least I think I understand where you are coming from now. I had totally misunderstood the thrust of your argument, hence your confusion over why I was talking about rail roading. I had thought you were standing on the principle of player agency. In fact it seems more the case now that you explain yourself is that you are standing on the principle of the rules are the rules, and ought to be followed strictly as written. So all my discussion about process loops, player agency, and railroading was only tangential to the point you were trying to make. Ok, I get that. And for the record were I to try to run 5e, I would certainly endeavor to play it by the rules at least until I understood what the rules were trying to accomplish, and what they were really good at and what they were not so good at. It certainly is the case that writer's of 5e try to go out of there way to frame ability checks as occurring as the result of some task resolution. However, I think that whi...

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 01:43 AM - CleverNickName mentioned iserith in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    I agree with iserith. The only thing I'll add is that I'm pretty good at remembering the first dice rolled and its result, but I'm deliberately rubbish at remembering everything else when players start talking over each other or calling actions out of turn. Player 1: I check for traps...rats, I rolled a three, for six total. I'll... Player 2: *interrupting* I'll help you search! Player 3: *interrupting* I give you guidance! Player 4: *interrupting* I'll check too! Player 3: *interrupting again* Wait, let me give you guidance too! Player 5: *interrupting* Let me sing for inspiration first! Me: *waits for everyone to stop throwing dice all over the place* Me: *proceeds with the story as if all results, of all rolls, for all characters involved, no matter what or why or how, amounted to a result of six.*

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 07:48 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned iserith in post Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?
    @iserith @robus @ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing. Whether you love or hate his shtick, The Angry GM has some good advice on this (and many other) topics: https://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/ Every session since I started DMing this group about 11 sessions ago (January), I’ve found myself doing this kind of policing. Some players are more egregious than others, but it’s definitely a group issue. They came from a Pathfinder background. Not sure if this is a system difference thing, but it really feels like I have to keep reminding everyone. Heck, I’m even making the cr...


No results to display...

Wednesday, 1st May, 2019

  • 11:22 AM - pemerton quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    In D&D 5e, players describe what they want to do. They decide what their characters do, how they think, and what they say. That's all they can do.Does this mean that you don't agree that the player can establish the backstory for Gord the Barbarian that was flagged upthread? Or - and I'm not trying to impute views to you, just trying to map out some of the relevant space of possibilities - would you see that as a suggestion to the GM which the latter is free to accept or reject? if we're talking about boundaries, mine are basically the same as @iserith's, although...I'm hazarding a guess, here...I think mine are a little looser.That's what I'm getting at in the paragraph just above this one. I welcome players adding to the fiction outside of their character, especially if it's about their background; not sure if iserith does that. In last night's session some low level characters encountered a partially used necklace of fireballs. One of the players announced he was going OOC and said, "I'm pretty sure I know what this is but I don't think my character would know." I said that's cool, he can have his character know or not know; it's all the same to me. But if he chooses to know, maybe he also knows why. The player said, "Ahhh..." and immediately invented a 'well-known' fairy tale from his homeland. Another player (first time at my table; he kept saying things like, "I'll use Insight...") wanted to know if he had any friends/associates in the city who might have some particular information. I said, "Describe this friend."...
  • 05:01 AM - Chaosmancer quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    You say that like it's an objective fact, but this lich and his dungeon don't actually exist. You made the scenario up. You didn't have to set it up specifically to make any telegraphing not make sense, that was a conscious choice. Maybe you think that's more fun. I don't. Do you know that the Russo brothers killed Quintillions of people by having Thanos snap his fingers? And man, if you haven't, go rewatch those fights with Thanos in Infinity War, there is no way that was a balanced fight. Seems completely unfair, especially when he got the ability to manipulate reality at his will. Wasn't it a great show? If I create a lich that is an undead sociopath, with no regard for mortal life except as a fuel source to delay it's own death for as long as possible... Why on earth would I have it sandbag the heroes by posting a riddle before a trap? "Oh, if the heroes are clever enough they'll bypass my defenses, right into my inner sanctum, but of course they'll never be more clever than me ...
  • 02:36 AM - Hussar quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s. Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes. Or... and this is just spitballing here... have enough experience running games to know what you like and play the way you like. And, again, shocking I know, realize that the game runs perfectly fine this way and that folks can be perfectly happy playing 5e with a tad less DM entitl... err ... empowerment and with players who are on board, have a rocking good time. I know, it's almost like the game is robust enough to encompass more than one play style. Totally shocking.
  • 12:35 AM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I've said nothing to the contrary. That is true. That question wasn't directed at you and your answer makes little sense to me.Yeah, we may be in violent agreement on some points here. (The last one was my un-patented lame attempt at humor.) I advocate running the game by its rules which includes the DM deciding when the rules come into play to resolve uncertainty. I would say "How to Play" and the DM's adjudication process are the fundamental aspects of the game and it is tinkered with at your game's peril. The rest of the rules come into play at the DM's discretion (so say the rules). That sure sounds clear & reasonable, to me. I find it too much fun to shout the superficial contradictions. I should probably just shut up.
  • 12:09 AM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously? Also between the /game/ being better and the experience of running it smoother. The latter is less a claim of quality about the game itself. Though I would go right ahead and say that 5e is a better game if run the 'right' way by the right DM. with iserith being a pretty fair example. Just needs a bit more shameless illusionism. ;) And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets. Because it's just fun to type silliness like this: no, it's by following the rules that you're working at cross purposes to the game's rules which rule that the rules should be over-ruled selectively whenever ruling with the rules would detract from the rule of the DM. Or something like that. Yeah, I'm joking, but I'm also serious. The brilliance of DM Empowerment is that you can't take refuge in "just play'n by the rules," you have a greater responsibility than that as DM. Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear.Well, iff you're running 5e (or TSR era D&D), and iff you're insist...
  • 12:07 AM - Hussar quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game. I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game. But, iserith, don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 11:30 PM - Ovinomancer quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves. I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.Oho, so now even your way of posting is better than ours! Poe's Law Disclaimer: the above is intended as humorous satire. Any resemblance to honestly held views is intentional.
  • 10:21 PM - Chaosmancer quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I don't deny the rules can be ignored or changed. Would it be reasonable to say that you consider all of the rules books simply to be advice? That they contain no rules at all? Even the parts that specifically use the word "rules?" You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both. However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book. If that is indeed my tactic, and I don't say it is, wouldn't you rather be aware of your unr...
  • 09:32 PM - Elfcrusher quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s. Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes. Or maybe find a game more suited to your preferences, even.
  • 09:28 PM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I'd have to go back and read those ancient tomes before I could agree with that assessment. I've not even looked at them since the 90s. Either way, I think the safest bet is to run the game as its rules say to do, then assess that game experience before making changes. Oh, you probably don't want to actually dig them up and read them. ;) SAN is so hard to come by (he said, mixing classic RPG systems). But, the way 5e spells out you should run it - DM describes the sitch, players declare actions, DM judges how to resolve those actions & describes what happens, leading players to declare new actions... That's pretty close to the 1e expectations (no 'caller,' but I hardly ever saw anyone do that, anyway) - and it was how I always ran the classic game, personally. It's the flow of play of a DM-centric system. It's a mistake in my view, one I've made myself when transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e and won't make again. Sorry to repeat that quote, but something else occurred to me: ...
  • 09:03 PM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    Nobody seems to read that section. And if they do, many just ignore it and say it's "advice" and not a statement on how to play THIS game. It's hard to miss. And repeated. And elaborated upon. ::sigh:: you can lead a horse to water, but it's a lot of work to drown it... It's a mistake in my view, one I've made myself when transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e and won't make again. Sure, running 5e like it's 3.x or 4e would be a problem - because they're player-centric editions, and 5e is DM-Empowering. But running 5e like it's AD&D or another TSR edition (or, really, many another RPG of that era), it's not so bad, because those past eds had similar expectations for the DM. If you ran them, you're used to making judgements about the player's actions throughout the game. 5e just makes the judgement simpler, because you can always just call for a check if you're uncertain. Quelle surprise.… it was a shocker, I know, I should've said "brace yourselves … "
  • 07:53 PM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    It should be noted that if the task is trivially easy or impossible, there is no ability check even if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. So in those cases there's no reference to ability scores eitherWeeelll… what's trivially easy for an 18 stat/Expertise character might be impossible for an 8/non-proficient, and call for a check from anyone in between. (Or not, it's all the DMs judgement, there). That is, the DM can choose to consider the character when judging the declared action. (Some of the disagreement here might over whether he should or shouldn't?) That whole NPC expert bonus thread is steeped in a fundamental misunderstanding of how tasks are resolved in D&D 5e. As are a lot of the issues in this thread and others in my view. People commonly view and treat a given game as some other game they played in the past and that sometimes leads to undesirable outcomes.It's not like it isn't spelled out in a simple step-by-step-by-step (there are only three steps, how hard is...
  • 07:41 PM - Elfcrusher quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves. I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though. He was quoting Charlquin. And apparently not actually reading what she wrote. But, yeah, I think there are two (more) people in this thread I need to put on "manual Ignore."
  • 07:16 PM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    While the rules (and here I'm referencing D&D 5e) do say that the character's ability scores and race are taken into account when imagining the character's appearance and personality, there is no particular prohibition on action declarations for a given ability score. Further, the DM is told that it's "when a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores." Well, sure, something like walking across a room, or ordering a drink at a bar, or getting out of bed in the morning. Resolving a social interaction with meaningful consequences to success/failure, OTOH, maybe not what it was talking about. So far as I can tell, some posters are adding an additional requirement about who can propose what based on some idea of what, for example, an 8 Intelligence or Charisma means.No additional requirement, no. Though I do know what you're getting at, it's an old stereotype, really: 'That Guy' who would...
  • 05:23 PM - Mort quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    This sounds like the DM got pushed around by the player's talky-talky.? Noble background on his sheet. Seems like a clear example of the player using the assets/abilities of his character.
  • 04:59 PM - Elfcrusher quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    So far as I can tell, some posters are adding an additional requirement about who can propose what based on some idea of what, for example, an 8 Intelligence or Charisma means. This is not supported by the rules of the game and, in some cases under examination here, it causes them to have to change the game to one of random number generation followed by description in order to enforce this additional requirement. Which as Celebrim notes appears to be a means by which they try to control dysfunctional player behavior. That was well-expressed.
  • 03:56 PM - Celebrim quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    What is the "talky talky?" Do you mean coming up with an efficacious approach to a goal? Such as using a key on the locked door instead of bashing it down with a portable ram? In a dramatic situation, the former approach likely doesn't require an ability check. The latter likely does. What's the minimum Intelligence required to use a key instead of a portable ram to open a door? I think your questions are spot on, but I think I also know where Hussar is coming from. And at the risk of offending him (again), I'll guess that the "talky talky" is actually his past experience with high charisma (but socially dysfunctional) players browbeating or bullying the DM into getting their way. That is to say, I suspect that what Hussar is really guarding against is not problem solving in character per se, but a player playing the metagame where he tries to talk the DM into yielding to him. And that is I agree totally dysfunctional and yes I've seen that in play, and Hussar's strategy of usin...
  • 03:56 PM - Tony Vargas quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    Ask 10 different people what "min/max" means and you're likely to get 10 different answers, especially since it's obvious it's all wrapped in some emotional response you're having. If you want to talk about it, you'll have to define what it means to you. You might get 10 different opinions - 9 of them negative - but I've only ever heard two meaningfully different definitions. 1) Minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths - fanciful under most build systems. 2) Minimize investment in some areas to maximize it in others (often one other) Few build systems actually model anything like diminishing marginal utility, so they tend to encourage extreme trade-offs. If you've ever played an 8 STR 18 INT wizard or an 18 STR 8 INT fighter, you've min/maxed, and you've nothing to be ashamed of. It's just following a pattern that the system incentivizes. What is the "talky talky?" In this case, specifically using speaking in character, alone, to resolve a social challenge, without refe...
  • 03:28 PM - Elfcrusher quoted iserith in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    It's just the character might not always be right. Yes! Elsewhere I gave the example from last night of my players finding a necklace of fireballs. If I were really concerned about so-called 'metagaming' I would have either: - Described something that doesn't look like a necklace of fireballs. (E.g., bracelet with pearls) - Made it look like a necklace of fireballs but do something totally different. If I'm concerned about "knowledge the characters wouldn't have" and I include a necklace of fireballs that looks like what it is, then who's to blame but me?
  • 09:44 AM - Hussar quoted iserith in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...y that the game is better if you follow the rules. I do say it runs smoother because you're not working at cross-purposes to the game's design. But whether the game experience is better is in the eye of the beholder. You don't appear to enjoy the game experience that D&D 5e's rules support, though it's not clear you've every played in such a game or even understand it. And that's okay. It doesn't affect me at all. Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously? And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets. And it's hardly vilifying is it? That's pretty strong. I'm not vilifying anyone. Simply disagreeing. Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear. See, the problem is, iserith, you're presuming that the rules ONLY support one experience. That unless I play exactly the way you do, I cannot understand it, nor have I apparently ever played that way. Despite repeatedly being told that I have, in fact, played the way you play, done it for years in fact, and didn't enjoy it, I'm apparently unable to understand what you are saying. Or, to put it another way, only people who agree with you apparently understand what you are doing. That's pretty convenient no? That doesn't appear to be the case with others who can't figure out why I mention the rules. I think the safe assumption is that the rules were written for anybody who wants to play D&D 5e, being a manual on how to play the game and all. So that includes novice and experienced gamers alike. Whereas I look at the fact that a very large chunk of the books are written very much for those with little or no gaming experience means that there are large chunks of the book that I can safely ...


iserith's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites