UngeheuerLich's latest activity

as much as i hate HM, i'd be more conceptually interested in them having (in practice i'd still very likely never pick it though) a...

What really worries me is that you think that having a get out of jail free card is a bad thing for players. Yes, it sucks for the...

I do see a difference there. It does not read: "...isn't restrained anymore." Those are two different things. Yes, odd. I checked...

I really liked the previous goliath version more.

Yeah, I mean, what, Fighters at high level adding a large bonus to ad20 roll is bad, but a level 2 Cleric doing it is ok? Channel...

The trick is that at level 9, it isn't auto-success on a bad save. If you have a -2 to a save? A +7 is good, but not guaranteed. The...

That is the only spell that uses that wording to end the condition... It really makes no sense semantically.

That is exactly my problem. I think your code is wrong, I try to fix it. If (elemental.restrained == NULL) && (t.distance(elemental)...

I think one can make sense of it. But I really don't know how that ended in a final product... Especially when the playtest version in...

No, it does not. It says: it does not have the condition. Not that it ends the condition. It is also unclear, in python speach, how the...

Because of the wordings. Why is there a line that tell us what it does not do on a successful save? Why not just leave that line out...

Ok. Still makes no sense... I just read the UA version... which actually did make sense.

What happens on a successful save? Why do we need a line that tells us that the target is not restrained? Why need a line at all...

The fighter already has a weakness: no magic.