Not me- the hosts.
D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int
Not me- the hosts.
What are you smoking? Where in modern America do secretaries do manual scribework? Did you miss the phrase "D&D type tech levels"?
Never said that.
Receptionist is a modern job. Didn't exist when people were writing with quills.
A man of means would probably have house stuff, to be sure, but a professor at his place of work probably wouldn't have much more than one assistant. Two at the outside.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Passive Insight scores, dude. And he has a good shot at telling whether she's crazy or lying, too. Master Bruce does have some experience in the field of abnormal psychology, after all.
I wasn't the one who compared Insight to zone of truth to start with.
What the hell, man? It is Eloelle's "look at me, I'm too cool for natural language" 5-Int genius character concept that requires the other PCs to give her a pass whenever she lies to them, and you say it's Bruce's choices that are causing problems? Maliciously? Do you honestly have no other mode of dealing with people who don't think or act according to your expectations than to recast them as evil caricatures? This has got to be the third or fourth time I've called you out on this. And your only response is... to incorporate being called out into your caricature. I'm not sure whether that's more Kafkaesque or Helleresque, but it's pretty messed up either way.
Hmm... Kafkaesque. Definitely more Kafkaesque.
What I hear reading this is the class clown giving a smarmy and blatantly insincere "What did I do? I was just trying to help!" Hamlet was shining a stage-light on the barriers of communication that separate man from man. You are by your own admission "tailgating them with your high beams on". Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to dress up an act of passive-aggressive spite as a literary endeavor.
But since you've stated quite clearly that you think it is the case, you seem to be owning that this is indeed a childish way to respond. And if they're not trying to undermine you, and you act out anyway, doesn't that make you even more childish?
You're doing a perfectly fine job of that all by yourself.
BoldItalic
First Post
No, I know you didn't. I did.
The Threbean word for the assistant who follows you around, writing down what is said and reminding you later, is σηκτρός. Goofle translate did its best. Likewise, the person who answers the door and delays visitors whom he judges to be unimportant, is called the δεσήπτϖν. Again, Goofle did its best.
Now you're applying your own rules again. In my fiction, he can have as many assistants as he cares to employ. If he wants someone just to carry his lucky dragon's foot* around, he can have that. He is wealthy.
Plus, his university is exempt from taxes because his old adventuring buddy Olaf the Ready is now King Olaf IV of Threbes and he makes the rules. Another buddy, Gen. Chariot "Blood" Carver is now Olaf's brother-in-law and in charge of the army. They have an arrangment whereby students and staff of the university are exempt from military service, which is otherwise compulsory, and this ensures a steady supply of suitable students who are only too aware that soldiers who turn out to be brighter than their superiors are regarded by the army as unpleasant and in need of being shouted at.
*There are several schools of thought about lucky dragons' feet. Some point out that the person who removes the foot from the dragon was lucky. Others point out that it wasn't so lucky for the dragon. Some say there's no such thing as luck. Others say there's no such thing as dragons. A few insist that although there are dragons, they are wyrms and don't have feet. No-one take much notice of the last lot.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
As a house rule, sure. As far as RAW is concerned, that's false.
Players can't fail a saving throw. They roll to see if the PC has failed. Saves are an in-game mechanic that only the PC can make or fail.
This is a house rule, since you've altered the game to make the player and not the PC the target of the spell, and therefore the player, not the PC makes or fails the save. Seems rather silly to me to make such a change in order to allow the PC to lie under a zone of truth, but whatever makes you happy.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Entirely irrelevant. His strength is his strength regardless of what he chooses to do. That he CAN do those things with his full strength is all that matters. What you just argued is the same as, "I choose not to own a gun, so I have a harder time pulling a trigger than if I owned one." That's an equivalent argument to your, "Since he's a sorcerer and chooses not to bash down doors with his 18 strength, he has a 7 due to one arm being hurt."
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
If he doesn't do it, there is no can. You're trying to assert something to similar to saying "Your 18 Cha character must be magical, because he can take a level in sorcerer, by RAW."
Plus, you're still trying to force people to accept the necessity of associated mechanics, which I reject absolutely. As long as I can retcon the result of any roll to tie into the advancing narrative, that's all that matters to me.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
pemerton;6870122 First said:
First, it's a figure of speech. I know very well that the game has an int, wis and cha of 0 and doesn't actually care about things. The game does require certain things, though, and that is that the PC tell the truth as he knows it if the PC fails the save. Well informed or not well informed doesn't play into it.
In the case of Eloelle, since she absolutely knows the answer (even if it is the wrong answer), she must tell the truth and say what it is that she knows. She is incapable of lying and saying, "I don't know" and she is incapable of lying and saying, "My patron scoffs at your puny magic and I don't have to answer." She does have to answer. The mechanics force her to.
Baring a house rule to void those mechanics, her true answer would something along the lines of, "My patron scoffs at your puny magic (true in her mind). The answer is goonygoogoo (true in her mind, but wrong for the riddle).
He has in fact denied that it is a house rule. I think that's the only reason most or all of us are still debating this with him. If he just came out and admitted it, there'd be nothing left to argue. We'd either say we like or dislike the house rule, but then we'd be like, "It's your game to house rule how you like. Have fun!" and move on.
It's broken because D&D doesn't model things like that. 5e isn't Marvel and as [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] has said repeatedly, other games will model what is being tried far better than D&D. You have to house rule mechanics in D&D to cludge together that sort of story ability.
None of us here have a 5 int. We understand what he is trying to do. The issue is that he doesn't want to admit that it's a house rule and he thinks 5e RAW allows what he is saying.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Did you bring an extra set of pants and underwear with you before becoming that "immersed?"
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That defies logic to an immense degree. I don't kill people and never will, but I assure that I can do it if a tried. I won't ever jump off tall buildings, but I absolutely can do it. The same applies to PCs unless you are playing in some bizarro world fantasy where PCs literally can't do anything that they've never done before.
Also, if a strength 7 pixie were trying to force your burly hobgoblin PC off of a cliff to his death, your PC would use his full 18 strength body to resist. He wouldn't need his arm for that, and he'd have a huge advantage over that pixie with a REAL 7 strength.
Nope! Different circumstances are different. An attribute is a constant, unlike whether or not to take a class which is only a potential.
Not me. 5e is doing that very nicely. I'm just explaining the rules to people. If you(general you) want to house rule things to be different, then I have no objection. You have acknowledged the house rule, but [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has not.
Similar Threads
