Recent content by Neonchameleon

Not to exclude them. Just to empower the DM to apply the rolled up newspaper. But this is where the "rules as user interface" and "rules as physics engine" people are on different sides; weapon juggling is as much an obvious exploit as the bag of rats or the peasant railgun.

To me there were tactics in 3e - but it was more strategy. Bringing the right spells to the fight. 5.14 had less in the way of tactics than 3e due to archers switching to finesse shortswords and casters just using anti-save spells in melee rather than taking opportunity attacks or being nerfed...

On the other hand a trivial and blatant exploit is far from the worst sin; the GM is entirely recommended to apply the rolled up newspaper to that as they would a bag of rats. It's systems that encourage bad behaviour I object to.

Weapon juggling to me feels like an obvious use of a game exploit, like the peasant railgun or the bag of rats. And should really just be treated with either the rolled up newspaper or not playing at tier 3 or 4.

Absent? No. But in general to e.g. Bull Rush in 3.X you needed to either have a build where that was your One Trick or to give up your entire attack for the push. While the only push spell I recall was Wind Blast (and possibly Wind Wall) and that's basically all it does. Meanwhile 5.24 like 4e...

I have actually been known to change players' subclasses on them as a consequence. But I have two hard rules: Not without the consent of the player You don't nerf a character enough that the other PCs have to carry them. I also consider Oathbreaker extremely ham-handed compared to Vengeance...

My primary hope is always to learn. I'll now defend GP for XP as very legitimate because of a thread like this.

B - This used to be a D&D general thing. It hasn't been true since 2008. It's now an archaic D&D thing like XP for GP or THAC0; the way we used to do it in D&D back in the day but only a few holdouts still do. C - No it doesn't. D - Hardly my opinion only. I'm pretty sure that the consensus of...

And? But this doesn't change the fact that your claim "they can do that in the fiction" is (a) arbitrary, (b) no longer true, (c) doesn't match real world analogues, and (d) is bad for the game. All you have here is "because my fiction says so" and that's just because you want it to when it is...

God as claimed by real world religion as cited? Literally omnipotent. Gods as claimed by D&D? Less than omnipotent and literally subordinate to an overgod. I have no clue what you are trying to claim other than "Because I can invent a fiction in which Gods can do this then I as a DM should be...

And I was there too. Literally no one was saying that the GM can do no worldbuilding and that the worldbuilding belongs exclusively to the players - in order to do that the GM would have to run every single NPC past all the players for approval before introducing them into the session the way...

The thing is "Paladins lose their powers for an evil act" hasn't been part of mainline D&D's rules since 2008 and has never been a part of the most popular version of D&D in history. You are either not playing 5e or are dumpster diving through previous editions to pull out a bad rule from them...

Yes you can justify anything if you say "it's magic" or "they are a God". Very good. But ... you do realise that in a polytheistic theology god's aren't omnipotent? And that what you are asking for doesn't happen with a real world monotheistic god?

Fair. You can do most things in stories where the author has control over everything and there is a single main character. All the examples I can think of where it works that way are stories with a single main character and it's about that character. Why it's a miserable failure even as a...

This thread literally exists because a DM feels that they don't have enough leverage. I do think that there should be e.g. offered bennies for doing what the patron wants.