Search results

Not in D&D. This continues to be your personal definition, no matter the real world synonyms or definitions. In D&D, even if some words are synonymous or related in the real world, Strength isn't Agility. Athletics isn't Acrobatics. Sorcery isn't Wizardry. Minstrels aren't Bards. Yes, you...

I'll mention this here, and try to keep this on topic in regards to Rogues being among the top skill-monkey classes. I think it would be interesting for every skill entry to include relevant examples how they may apply to any of the 6 ability scores for Ability Checks. Below are a couple...

100% Disagree with Strength-only, and with considering the system as one of "skill checks." Remember that the system is based on Ability checks. Not skill checks. Even if Acrobatics were removed, the DM should not be asking for an Athletics check, and then roll a Strength check no matter what...

I don't know, to be honest. I'm only seeing circular arguments about house rules based on alternative definitions that are not reflected in the current or playtest rules.

I too am curious about a (possibly smaller) list of skills that are not tied to specific ability scores. However, I doubt that will happen in the revised books due to backwards compatibility requirements. Want to climb a slippery slope or jump a chasm that you're not sure you can make? Make a...

The current organizational format is correct, in my opinion. The designers have it right. The purpose of a list should be for easy reference purposes, and if there are multiple lists, their categories should prioritized based on the most macro-sized choices to be made, down to the last choice...

Also, a good DM may sell you on it. A bad experience will sour you on it.

I disagree with this anachronistic definition. That is a modern take, not rooted in D&D. For going on 50 years, in D&D, the fighting man/fighter has been an armored weapon-wielder. It's like saying Wizards should not prepare spells with spellbooks because the Wizards of the Wizarding World of...

Oh yeah, having a pet back at one's base of operations is totally fine. But I'm mostly talking about having combat companions or pets used on the battlefield to enhance effectiveness.

Green Orcs and Goblins are prominent in the Warhammer universe. Wizards probably wants to differentiate their orcs and goblins a bit more. I suspect they won't be going away from their own Wizards-era depiction.

I will be using the updated rules for the most part. In normal conversation, I'm just going to call it D&D. If I'm talking to someone new, and they ask for clarification, I'm going to say the current ruleset. And if they want to debate gnomenclature, I'll politely decline the debate.

My response was to your claim "Until the casters use one of the many spells without a save..." Grappling spells are not automatic successes. There is going to be an attack roll or a saving throw. What are the many spells that inflict immediate grapples or other status effects without a saving...

Well, yes, but we were talking about overcoming a passable battlefield obstacle. I've had DMs that said you only ever get one shot at climbing a wall or picking any lock. I don't like that style.

Thanks for calling that out. I was pulling a number out of my arse based on how other DMs have ruled it for me in the past, as there was an expectation in this thread that Ability checks were necessary to move through the battlefield. But yeah, I was incorrect. All that said, it further...

When I was younger, I agreed with you. But after losing lots of mundane pets in games throughout the years (it's a matter of when, not if), that tangible effect was a 100% prescripted misery, and it is recurring misery if you keep getting more mundane pets. Every mortal animal companion dies...

And there are also some martial abilities that push and prone or do something on a hit, without a save. Those tend to be re-usable, as opposed to spells that need limited slots to implement. There is a balance between power-level and use-limitation (at-will vs. spell slots, for one comparison)...

Stop what? I'm not inventing a straw man. I am questioning your very assertion. You are advocating for distilling all movement-based challenges into one ability that the PC is good at, and that realism arguments don't matter. In fact, your suggestion is about making Dexterity more of a Super...

This is why I say "combat pet" concepts are flawed unless the pet is an immortal spirit, or is a manifested extension of oneself (I tend to run familiar as an aspect of oneself, but I've considered opening it up to becoming bound to a specific spirit (fey, fiendish, undead, celestial, etc.) In...

If your problem is an "odd kink", it sounds like you're assuming something not in the rules, or are inventing it. The rules do not say that a Dex-build PC is stopped cold if they have to climb a rope. It's pretty much a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to climb a rope. Even with a -1 total...

Right. Attack rolls are controlled by the player, which feel better than saving throws, and are especially beneficial for those players who fudge rolls. But the DM controls saving throws, removing that direct player agency, and nerfing roll-fudgers. (Historically, I have had several roll-fudgers...