Search results

Friday, 7th October, 2016, 11:40 AM, I said a thing. Today (25th April, 2019), 6:16 PM, that thing is quoted but not at all contradicted. Is it normal for folks to respond to 2+ year old statements without actually bringing anything new to the discussion? Because "But it still doesn't make the...

It's only 49%, but your point still stands that it isn't just a 10% edge. However, I would say that looking at just single die damage attacks won't provide an accurate picture of how much influence a 2 higher attack bonus has. For example, if you just go to a 2d8+3 @50% accuracy vs. 2d8+5 @60%...

33 if using the standard "always round down unless told otherwise" D&D rule. One of the many bits of knowledge from running AD&D 2nd edition that is still stuck in my mind.

I don't tailor adventure content to try and push the limits of what an optimized character is capable of, so if someone sits down to one of my campaigns with a character optimized for something they are going to stomp all over that something (and hopefully enjoy doing so, as that's about the...

I hate the effect he had upon the ranger class... but I love that the character has resulted in people wanting to play D&D.

Why don't you?

Congratulations on the true, but entirely irrelevant comment.

You likely don't know where I was going with that because you, and I really don't know how you did it, confused a thing I was describing as being hilarious to me when people do it as me saying saying I do that thing.

Which is why I think it is hilarious that people insist on keeping players in the dark about game information like this - they are effectively going "If this spell requires guess work, then it sucks. I know what I'll do! I'll insist it requires guess work even though nothing in the book actually...

That's no problem - other people's opinions of the spell are definitely contingent on the player not knowing a target is susceptible, and numerous other assumptions (some of which, like talking about the effect of power word kill as if it is effectively the same as dealing 100 damage, are...

I've told you repeatedly that I don't think this edition is flawless. Are you incapable of experiencing someone having a differing opinion from you in a way other than to wildly misrepresent that differing opinion with a dreamed-up straw man? Only if by "countless" you mean having no number to...

This is a case of their not being a "standard way" of handling things. However, I would note that the game rules are not being changed by interpretation going either way on this matter because the game does not outline a rule that information must be shared, nor that it must be concealed (and...

Nope. What I'm saying is this: You are wrong about the spell being "useless" or "utter sh***" for player characters - full stop.

Treantmonk saying something isn't actually any more valuable or accurate than you or I saying something. Also... I must be missing a rule somewhere if "I'm 17th level or higher" + "I cast a cantrip" = anything close to dealing 100 damage (or the actual effect of the spell in question, which is...

False.

They are only the same if your deliberately trying to misunderstand that different arrangements of words are often used to convey different ideas.

That's the difference between the subject matter of both examples - you've missed the difference in the phrasing which I was using a different subject matter as a means of highlighting. To reiterate the point as clearly as I can: "2 times out of every 20 rolls" and "a 2 in 20 chance on each...

There is a significant difference between "1 in 10 people have a problem with alcohol" (an observation of outcomes) and "each person has a 1 in 10 chance of having a problem with alcohol" (an observation of probability) - the same as there is a significant difference between "2 times out of...

In the introduction section of the Monster Manual where it covers what a multiattack is it says "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability." (emphasis mine). Given that 5th edition's rules are written in "casual language" and are meant to do only what...

No, it's not. Here's 20 rolls: 10, 14, 15, 10, 17, 1, 13, 5, 13, 9, 20, 4, 1, 18, 12, 9, 3, 15, 6, 3. A +2 bonus would only affect the outcome of trying to hit DC 10 on 2 of those rolls like you said it would... but against a DC of 15 it affects the outcome of 3, and against a DC of 20 only...