Search results

I even went out of my way to post at the end about it being pedantic and technical. Nowhere in your quote of me do I discuss how I'd rule at my table. Also incorrect. I never told you to ask me anything. Only that it would be nice to ask someone what they think before making broad assumptions...

You choice of words here comes across strongly hinting at you being unhappy with 5e. Might I offer to help you find a more fitting system/edition? Or perhaps offer ways to alter 5e until it better suits your preferences?

You make assumptions on how anyone (other than you) would resolve anything. Doubly so given what I posted was "what's written in the book" in a discussion on a rules forum. Not personal musings a rulings/personal-campaign-storytime forum. More egregiously, you didn't even bother to ask any of us...

This is another important point. The Subtle metamagic option needs to have value. If you allow non-Subtle spells to be subtle, what's the point?

As to that... The spell says: Given the original casting is also a bonus action, I see no evidence that you avoid any of the original requirements of the spell (i.e., the components) when placing a subsequent curse. It definitely does not state that you get to transfer the hex subtly, nor...

Wow, really? I hadn't realized. If only someone hadn't already explained that...

Flamestrike, Ah. I must have missed that context. I just read what you said about hexing someone to their face and took it to mean casting the spell. Nevermind.

Yeah. The spell requires Verbal, Somatic and Material Components. The trifecta. I don't see how the spell can realistically be described as subtle in any way.

I had a lot of fun playing the first draft of the School of Blades Bard. We finished OotA before the revised version hit the streets. But I liked a lot of what they did to polish it up a bit.

I'd play him like Chris Pratt's character, Andy Dwyer, from Parks & Rec.

Totally. And then they need to nerf the paladin's HD down and get rid of their better armor proficiencies, too! Not to mention all the other things they have that are different. I mean, everyone knows smite is all the paladin really is, amIright?

Define "handy", I guess. I think it would be fun and interesting to play a character that never slept. But by the implied tone of your post, I agree, you aren't going to get the necessary advantageous mechanical benefits you are looking for from it. But then, I never said that was what I liked...

Aspect of the Moon. Me like.

Puh-lease. This is the internets. Maybe I should set my eyes first on an entry-level job such as a Dungeon Runner? Or maybe even Dungeon Facilitator?

Even setting the complainer issue aside, and look at what is expected of the role, I'll choose to be a Dungeon Master rather than a Dungeon Interpreter.

Agreed. I think the real elephant in the room is probably the hard truth that some DMs are just flat out poor fits for the role. They fail to challenge a party because they lack the skills to apply encounters in effective and interesting ways. And so they blame the system, rather than their own...

I'm curious what you mean by that. Would you please clarify? Why must encounters be scrapped and entirely replaced, rather than just modified to fit the group playing?

To be fair, you are probably blessed to deal with casual players, suffering from poor-to-average luck, and who do not know how to apply amazing tactics... ;)

I wonder if MM knew in advance his innocuous little comment was surely going to work all the internet posting hand-wringers into a fervor...

That bright, pale yellow banner effect for these wiki threads is really painful for those of us using the legacy skin. Ouch.