Search results

I can see the logic in that, especially the way the Giant Centipede's poison is worded and the amount of damage it does. The Carrion Crawler as it appears in the MM would have a really hard time dropping something with poison damage - much more likely it'd take someone down with an auto-crit...

TonyVargas - I just remembered why I originally had the poison damage per turn: it allows the carrion crawler to do hit and run tactics. Basically, a crawler would try to get in one or two hits, then run off and come back later hoping that it managed to score a 'kill.' I felt like this really...

I think once per hour is too punishing - a save per turn seems to be the standard for negative conditions in 5e, but the caveat that once reduced to 0 hp there are no additional saves for one hour allows the carrion crawlers to do what their text claims they do. It's not perfect since dropping...

Yes, it's intended to apply both the poisoned and paralyzed conditions, which is how the crawler's poison works already. Good point on the damage, though. I think doing it your way rather than as an ongoing damage effect is more in line with 5e standards while still allowing the enhanced...

Waltershurl, I realize you're probably a bot, but can you please stop spamming my thread?

One thing that always struck me as odd is the description of Carrion Crawlers as using their poison to paralyze their prey and then drag them away to eat at their leisure, and the poison allowing a save each turn to end its effect. So here's my take on the Carrion Crawler that I feel gives it...

If that doesn't describe the internet in a nutshell, I don't know what does! ;) That said, the OP's opposition is equally adamant in refusing to acknowledge that the rule seems to be the only one in 5e that, according to people arguing against the OP, completely denies the player an in-game...

I may be late to the party (i.e. only read first page of thread so far), but if you go this route, you should always be prepared for your PCs to not only still defeat the villain, but now also have a Ring of Spell Storing. A guideline I believe I read in 2e AD&D's Complete Book of Villains...

It seems, then, that we are fundamentally in agreement. Carry on.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my stance here. I am NOT saying that anyone should be able to create a druid character that non-chalantly wears metal armor at any 5e D&D table anywhere in the world. I am NOT saying that a player should be allowed to break the group's social contract - a group...

We're discussing 5e here, but even in AD&D that kind of hard-line dismissal of a player's choice was unnecessary due to mechanical backing (in most cases) of the lore-based rules, nor do I think the AD&D rules were intended to fully negate player agency in that manner (at least in this case -...

So when a player playing a paladin decides that their character is going to lie or cheat or steal, you tell them that they can't?

That's exactly right. That is RAW. However, we both know that as written, it will not actually prevent a player from playing a druid that decides to wear metal armor, just as a Paladin might break their oath or a Cleric turn away from their deity. The failing of this particular rule is not...

Agreed - in older editions, that's how it was, but even then, at least in my experience, they were ignored far more frequently than non-lore-based rules. How many non-human Paladins were roaming around in 2e? I saw many. :P Each edition has become more and more lenient with regards to...

2nd AD&D is when I first started playing. I understand that viewpoint, and I agree with it except for when it comes to forcing player decisions. Compare, for example, to the Paladin oaths. Yes, they swear to uphold these and "won't" break them, except that they might - what if the player wants...

I'm not saying it's tyrannical, nor am I saying it's not a rule. The point is that the rule says "won't" - in English, that does NOT mean "can't." Would a player that refuses to abide by this rule be out of line, assuming that the DM did not explicitly exempt them from it? Absolutely. Would a...

But there kind of is - isn't the whole point of this discussion that there isn't anything physically preventing a druid from donning some metal armor? Regardless of what's in the proficiency block. It seems to me to be the main point: "Druids won't wear metal armor" - okay, but my character is...

Now now, this is about medium armors that are metal, not heavy. ;) I find myself on both sides of the argument here. On the one hand, I agree with the OP in that the way the "rule" is portrayed in the PHB is less than ideal, and I'd prefer that if they want it to be a hard "can not wear metal"...

When I run a game, I stick to the default rest rules when doing encounter-heavy adventures such as dungeon crawls; when the characters are traveling, I prefer to use the Gritty Realism rest variant in the DMG so that the encounter pacing feels more natural while maintaining balance for all the...

Just one more reason to never play a druid. :P Having metal armor (not shields) hinder wild shape would, in my opinion, be a fine compromise and restore player agency. But then one would have to wonder, why doesn't metal armor hinder Polymorph?