Search results

I think this is the crux of the matter - I don't think anyone here has a zero tolerance policy (though I may be wrong...), but due to the limitations of the medium, loss of nuance, etc. it can easily be misunderstood to be that way. I've said it before and I'll say it again: watch games run by...

Apologies, then - I thought it was pretty clear from my first post that I was agreeing with you that the rules are more like guidelines and that there isn't any "one true way" to play the game, but that having everyone on the same page as to which way they are playing helps players like me make...

I don't disagree with any of that. The climbing thing is merely an example of how a shared understanding of the rules facilitates play. As a player, I can expect to be able to climb no check required OR receive a decent in-game reason that should be apparent to my character why I'm going to...

I'm sure you know what I mean... but in case you don't, I'm not saying the DM can't ask for a check, I'm just saying that unless there is an in-game reason for it or it was previously discussed that climbing works differently, as a player I'm going to expect to be able to just climb things.

True, but they also set player expectations about what their characters can and cannot reasonably accomplish. A shared understanding of the rules is important to me when playing, it allows me to better engage with the story. If I want to climb to the rooftops and there are no extenuating...

I wish this was the only cover - it looks great. EDIT: Just saw the other thread about the other being a placeholder. While relieved, I still really like this cover, but I'm not a fan of the "special edition" marketing model. Curious to see what the regular cover will look like.

Which edition of the game are you playing? In AD&D 2e, characters often varied widely in level due to the different class progressions, multi-classing, xp bonuses / penalties, etc., so in that game I'd say it doesn't really matter which way you go. In 3e, being behind not only the level curve...

Perhaps I'm not a fun-loving DM or perhaps there is more context that wasn't presented, but that would have required much more effort in my games. I'd never let a PC persuade an NPC to change religions with a single die roll unless that NPC was already practically on the verge of it themselves...

Then there is kind of the opposite issue, where a player rolls a natural 20 on their ability check and thinks that means not only automatic success, but critical success of some sort. PC: Rolls Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. PC: "Natural 20 baby! That dinosaur is now my permanent follower and...

That's a fair, logical ruling. As a player, I'd be disappointed, but I'd be fine with it, especially since it means that disintegrate remains a viable method of keeping the BBEG down, at least until a few levels later.

Never played in Eberron, but I really like the alternate cover art, enough that I'd probably buy it despite not playing or running games in this setting. Definitely not a fan of the first cover art option.

Rolling dice is fun. It's exciting. They could roll a natural 20! Or they could roll a 1. I agree it's not the most optimal, but it can be a large part of the fun. Many a tale has been altered due to the fickleness of dice, and those are the stories that tend to be remembered and re-told years...

Allowing it also gives reincarnate a decent use case, when most people would prefer raise dead as it is the same spell level, doesn't randomly change your race, and has material costs of only 500 gp instead of 1000 gp.

When the goal and approach are pretty self-evident, I have no problem with a player asking for a {whatever} check, whether directly or as "Do I know anything [history | arcana | religion]-related about this item?" I may be wrong, but I think that in actual play, most of our approaches to skill...

Taking a 3-level dip into Fighter (Battlemaster) or the Martial Maneuver feat to get Riposte is probably the most reliable way I know of to get off-turn Sneak Attack reactions, best if you're a Swashbuckler as you then basically always qualify for SA. I've never seen it in play, but I've...

If the examples by Fanaelialae (see below) are not convincing to you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Running 5e surprise by the book, nice! In your example, would you allow the assassin to Assassinate the same target twice (w/Sneak Attack both times)?

Yes, it's cyclic, but as soon as someone goes down they are no longer in the cycle, so if they didn't get to go yet, they've effectively lost a turn, no matter which round it is. Going first prevents you from ever losing a turn in that manner, that's all I'm saying.

In my experience, rogues are one of the most popular classes and deal a pretty significant amount of damage in combat. They are also a lot tankier than they used to be, with d8 HD, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion. Fighters are better at fighting and deal more consistent damage due to having Extra...

Speaking of skills and editions, I remember back when I was playing AD&D 2e, probably 8 or 9 years old, and thinking how strange the proficiency system was - "why does taking the Riding proficiency give me a +3 bonus to Dex, and why would I ever take a proficiency that gives me a penalty???"...