Search results

It's not that it's secretly a monstrosity, it's that it's secretly a werewolf. There will be creatures where PCs just don't know what category they fall into. They don't get that information because they learned a spell that only has an effect on that type of creature. There is no implication...

It's literally in the video we're discussing?

I don't assume a school but yes I'm sure it was mentioned, but they don't know all the possible creatures on all planes of existence so it's not like they will know on first seeing a humanoid-shaped-but-unusual creature what it is necessarily. I mean sure they will know all the standard races...

They know their magic can charm/hold a humanoid. It is not, however, a humanoid-detector. That's not part of either spell. Indeed, there are even explicit powers mentioned in the game to detect/sense a type of creature. If you cast a spell on an invalid target, generally you waste the spell.

It's roughly from this article from DnDBeyond, but really dates back to 3e. Article

I think I'd call for an appropriate skill check to get that knowledge. DC 10 Arcana check, or Nature check.

When I DM I try to give a hint. It's up to the player to pay enough attention to pick up on the hint, but if they are paying attention they will get it, regardless of their hint-detecting natural skills. Like, "Your arcane senses feel like something odd happened with your spell. Like the spell...

I do not care at all. I like seeing some classic monsters for nostalgia, but I also like brand new things I knew nothing about. When I DM though I do care the monster is usable, and vaguely balanced for that challenge rating.

We need Spiderhorse back!

I think Charm Person and Hold Person got big stealth nerfs. The pool of targets for these spells shrank by a meaningful amount. Which I am fine with. But it's the kind of thing a player might not realize when choosing those fairly classic spells. I expect there will be a lot of wasted turns on...

I plan to buy the special cover at my FLGS, as I have the PHB and DMG.

Sandboxes often have throughlines. I think we're confusing terms here. Players drive the path in a Sandbox, but it doesn't mean DMs don't use that player-driven path to craft a throughline for them. It's not a railroad to propose "Well, since you're seeking out cultists, I'll through a cultist...

I was just reading the Greyhawk setting example and it's literally the opposite of what you're saying? It's almost all sandbox. Adventure hints of areas out there, with no prepared adventure. Wildnerness areas, notes on types of monsters you might find in those areas, random table suggestions, a...

"Why don't vampires like a water elemental doing the dash action?" groan...

Ah yeah flaming skeletons. I've used them before. I was hoping for rules on upgrading a skeleton based on creature size it was from. A kobold skeleton should be a lower CR threat than a storm giant skeleton.

Have we heard if there is more than one skeleton? I always liked having at least upgrades for Giant Skeletons [Edit: Yes he says "we have another type of skeleton"]

I disagree. Most of the changes made were editing to make verbiage more concise from 2014. They trimmed a huge amount of fat. I do not think the new rules are too wordy.

In the small amount of play I've had with these use, using the hardcopy only, I found the glossary to be super helpful. Not only did it not push me to the digital (which I have) but I found it about as easy to use as digital.

I find it to be one of the best changes in the PHB. One of the most useful sections in any PHB to date. Oh how I wanted this in 2014.