Search results

Unless the teleportation circle has an 'alphabet' on it (a la stargate), then I'm going to go with "However many words you need for the plot to work". The sigils themselves could be anything from letters in the common alphabet to complex interwoven symbols with a specific motion required for...

Meh, they're just a name. The clunkiness is coming from trying to make them piggy-back on other actions, which itself is caused by the laughable goal of trying to make people not want to have a bonus action by making them not always available. If they'd just left them as they were in the...

I don't really see any difference between your version and the version where you take the attack action, and then don't actually make any attacks (yet), and take the bonus action in the middle. JC seems to think that a bonus action in the middle of another action is impossibly confusing.

The problem is that he ends up indirectly being people's DM. It's hard to convince a DM that a feat should be run a particular way because otherwise it may as well not be in the game - the DM has limited time and scope to experiment with options, and tends to have limited play experience to make...

Technically correct but pointless argument hits you for zero! All I can say is that I think this just illustrates that JC is apparently incapable of considering the implications of his rules clarifications when he makes them. He just spits out an answer to the specific question in front of him...

My experience is that my player's evoker has literally never used the benefit of it, because getting a tiny amount of damage on a miss is nowhere near as good as using a cantrip that does something worthwhile on a hit.

"The orc walks around the corner, moves exactly 10 feet, then stops, because they didn't have an action to spend on stealth". "The foe creates a huge cloud of mist with the spell, blocking all vision.... and then you know that they walk 15 feet to this square here and stand still, because they...

What benefit? Hidden isn't required to get the bonuses and penalties for being unseen, and being untargetable is not actually that great - it typically just means that someone else will be targeted. The only thing this rule ensures is that most people can 'see' just fine in pitch darkness or...

Your example would be a railroad if any attempt to NOT track down the thief was met with a series of events that ends up on the same path anyway. ie - the players say "screw it, let her have the artifact" and then decided to walk back to town... but get lost and end up walking the same way as...

It would be pretty trivial to create appropriate spells based off of 'sacred flame', except that you run the risk of making poison spray redundant... which is almost ok, since poison spray is such an awful spell. Radiant should be getting a damage reduction for being radiant (which is resisted...

Mostly a thread derailment - how is it that you can't see a statue of a person, but you can see the person themselves, even if they take no action?

What about inanimate objects you cannot see?

It says that even moonlight is typically darkness, but an especially bright moonlit night might qualify for dim light. Which just seems nuts. I have no idea what the rules could do in the absolute best scenario... but not calling it out at all in any way would seem not to be anywhere close to...

The main problem with the book rules is that, like a lot of other things, they massively underestimate the non-magical capabilities of a normal human, somehow while simultaneously ignoring the drawbacks of the situation. Moonlit night? Humans are apparently completely blind. However completely...

Start with a person, someone with goals and things they want to do. With hobbies and pursuits etc. Then assume that somehow they become a barbarian. Work out why the person you started with ended up having the abilities and traits of a barbarian. Same thing works for basically any class -...

Often doesn't mean always.

I think his point is that such stories are all but innumerable.

They're only different if you're deliberately trying to misunderstand the former because you think you have a point.

Sure, but that difference would be whether each individual had some unique traits that meant they didn't match the population observation. This is fundamentally NOT the case when we are comparing rolls of a supposedly random and balanced d20.

I feel like you're being disingenuous. The latter suggests no such thing. It's common parlance for either "in the sample population" or "in a sufficiently large population". It's commonly used in all kinds of media. If I say "1 in 10 people have a problem with alcohol", only an idiot is going...