Recent content by roguish

It did name drop Robin Hood (as Ranger), Little John (as Fighter), Alan-a-Dale and Will Scarlett (as Bards), and Lancelot, Gawain, and Galahad (as Paladins). Not Arthur, Aragorn, or Conan though. I'm ambivalent about these examples, because on one hand they were really cool and inspiring, but...

Yes, it's an old trick. IIRC Walt Disney started it, or at least enforced it ruthlessly enough to make it A Problem™, and the US comics industry ran with it for some time. I think it's extremely messed up, a gross abuse of labour and indeed human rights (if you owe anything at all to your...

You're right, I was thinking of Rogues (and forgetting the Nick property), it's as many attacks as you get in an action (or bonus action or reaction). I'll correct it. Good catch!

My understanding of OD&D has always been that the rules (probably) make mostly sense IF you're a wargamer, and have Chainmail handy. If you don't know what wargames are, and "RPG" is not even a term yet, and you haven't seen another group play, and you just pick up Men & Magic and read through...

Huh, I'd never thought of the DM (or referee / umpire, this is directly inherited from wargames) being conceived in the early days as a teacher making up problems for Prussian officers in training students to solve, hence the Gygaxian adversarial DM style. And the benign version was "the...

I'll emphatically say don't. Ages ago (AD&D 2nd Edition), our DM gave out XP bonuses or penalties, for roleplaying according or contrary to your alignment. Not for every little thing, it only came up a few times. A few were enough. It was by far the WORST d&d rule I've ever had to deal with. I...

That's all VERY on point, but I think there needs to be some agreement within the group too, because some things are mutually exclusive. If I don't do Theatre of the Mind combat, and Derek doesn't do grid combat, we can't have fun together. We can still enjoy the same edition, but we have to be...

Thanks, I added it! Yeap. See the rules glossary. Incapacitated neither reduces your speed to zero nor does it give advantage to attacks against you. You can't speak or take actions / bonus actions / reactions and you lose concentration, but you can move and defend yourself normally. Yeah...

Update: I added DMG material, which was only a few magic items and an optional rule (not flanking!).

This is hilarious. The auction ended at $6,766.66, which is apparently because the second highest bid was $6,666.66.

The DMG has a section on house rules, and says the DM can change or make up rules, as long as they think that it will improve the game, and the players will like it. It also suggests DMs take player feedback on house rules, and remove or revise them as necessary.

Ah, this exciting new development means I need to not only update my Rule Zero Timeline, but redefine the rule. It used to be "rules are a suggestion" via "the DM's word is Law", and now that's decidedly not how we get there, and I like it. No gods no masters! Ahem.

I agree, and I find 5e's total aversion to flat bonuses/penalties unnecessary. Though I understand the need to rein in 3rd's exaggerations in that regard (it could get silly there, sometimes it took me a paragraph to write down all the little things I added to a roll). I like Advantage better...

I was reading an article by Justin Alexander roasting the 5e skill system, and arguing (among other things) that Expertise is bad because it breaks Bounded Accuracy, and Reliable Talent makes it worse. And with this, I disagree. I think that Bounded Accuracy is excellent for combat's standard...

5e doesn't give details or DCs for even the most bog-standard skill uses that you expect to come up at every campaign, and I think that's a serious design flaw. A generic DC table from 5 (very easy) to 30 (nearly impossible) is GREAT as a guideline* for when the DM doesn't have other resources...