Recent content by UngeheuerLich

I am sure Treantmonk and Colby know what they are talking about. Even though they are looking through certain glasses. I don't know about Dungeon dudes.

I thought about some middle ground... Maybe half level bonus and an extra roll at the start of turn instead of end of turn.

I think that spells should have been changed to save every turn. Then we would not need such an ability.

Yeah. Tell me something new. Of course they were by far notnimmune to that. But a fighter comparably was better than most other characters. I was recently educated that in 1e, a fighter had a good chance to jever have the caster cast a spell. In 2e that was not the case anymore. But casting...

Ok. Your experience is really the opposite of mine. Of course fighters don't want to be dominated. A highly desireable ability. This is true for all the people I play with. Some of them, me included, started with AD&D, where high level fighter's identity was being highly resistant to many...

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 monsters... but that is the point. PCs are the protagonists. They should be winning in the end. A fighter that just gets dominated at the beginning of the fight...

I do see a difference there. It does not read: "...isn't restrained anymore." Those are two different things. Yes, odd. I checked: entangle and the like also does not explicitely say that. So I let it slide.

I really liked the previous goliath version more.

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) < 5) Then if (t.DexSave) Then { t.damage(8d8) Elemental.restrained = t) } Else elemental.restrained = NULL Else if...

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 UA8 was much clearer.

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 indentions are aligned. The structure suggests, that the last line belongs to the initial save if-clause. As I said above, if the wording was: on a successful...

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 or tell us that there is no effect? The whole spell seems messed up. The UA version told us that the creature is pulled into the space and restrained there...

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. Does it miss a "half damage" line? Or does it full damage on a successful save? It really really needs a wording update. And whlie we are at it: the cast at...