Search results

True, it does show how "challenging the player" does involve the character sheet, too. And it does show the sort of mix of player decision and character stats that is seen a lot in my game. So yeah, it was simply an excellent example that does show what we mean when we talk about challenging...

It's an excellent example, I think, but would've been made better with less complexity in the first option. As you quickly saw, the bit about the characters passive ability score confused the issue.

Well no. Unlike my dungeon crawl campaigns, my drinking game is not like a mindless boardgame, and so you gotta judge the context of their actions. In your example, there is no hint of sincerity, so there's no need to take a drink . . . and I see I need to errata in that the phrase must be...

:hmm: I've been reading that sentiment a lot lately :uhoh: This needs to be a drinking game: Drink a mug of ale every time someone says something like "I'm just saying what I do; you do you." :lol:

I think that was in the playtest . . . was that one of the things you argued for? On topic: I didn't like the flanking when my table tried it, and I haven't found any value in adding more tactics stuff to the game (apart from using the grid). But you might as well give it a go. Mote usefully...

I don't get that impression, but maybe I'm wrong. Raise your hands, forumites, if that's what you do! . . . *Sheepishly raises his hand* Oh. I kinda see my method in that. When I tell the player to roll a check, I do tell them the DC and briefly mention what failure will look like. But what...

At one point their conversation shifts to discussing the possibility of building a rocket so they can fly to the moon and live in peace.

When I get my time machine working, I'm gonna send you back in time to the playtest so you can argue against the roll-under skill checks of AD&D. Right after I attend every Rush concert ever. Oh, and kill baby Hitler (but not until I attend every Rush concert ever, just in case they vanish from...

It's not that I don't like the answers. I reject the foundation of the question. To me, the PCs are adventurers with a broad range of skills that aren't represented by game mechanics. The proficiency bonus just applies to a subset of this that they are especially focused on. The mechanics...

So that's what was in the trash compactor!

Oh! Let's go get sushi and not pay. Maybe that will draw out the Bone Breaking Sect looking to collect.

Life hack: Make friends with someone who makes sushi, and invite yourself to dinner. Often. Pro tip: If you want more realism in your sushi, the friend should be Japanese.

Danggit! I'm in the majority. This feels so wrong; my whole schtick involves being apart from the crowd.

This hasn't actually come up at my table. I'm mightily swayed by DM Dave1's "wrong tool" comment.

Maybe none. Maybe lots. I don't know, and since the feat already exists I see no harm in leaving it available.

Yeah, you get me! Also, I guess "fudge" is one of those loaded words, one of our many many many loaded words. I'm definitely talking about what you describe you describe as "influenced."

I think you're saying that you don't fudge the DCs, and your players are confident that you're impartially setting and following them. I'm a little flawed in this regard and need a method to keep me from fudging . . . I'm glad my flaw is interesting to you, though.

Neat. But I'd call it Real Weapon Mastery so it can co-exist with the PH feat. I totally agree that the book feat is poorly named - and I'm not even sure that anyone anywhere has ever taken it - but I'd leave it available on the far off chance that one of players decide it was just the thing...

But you should think I might fudge it! The very fact that I value a method because it prevents me from fudging tells you that I might very well fudge a DC if given a chance. I have in the past, in a couple different ways. When I kept the DC private from my players, and they rolled close but...

This seems like a rhetorical question, meant to mock me or someone else.