Search results

The simplest answer is he's telling the truth and voluntarily left because he had been there a very long time and had done what he wanted to do with it and wants to go do other things. But that doesn't feed the conspiracy theory that he's lying and WOTC fired him for nefarious reasons.

Ha, yeah I randomly grabbed a monster to represent "foe"

Interesting point. 5.5e did change it. Here is how it now reads: "If you have Blindsight, you can see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can see anything that isn’t behind Total Cover even if you have the Blinded condition or are in Darkness...

That makes sense for when it's the enemy turn. For this set of questions I am only asking if the Rogue qualifies as hidden on the Rogue's turn, since the Rogue is trying to fire off a spell and apply disadvantage to the foe's saving throw on the Rogue's turn using a subclass ability.

85 views and not one comment? I must have written too much. All this thread is really about is look at the 5 pictures and quickly off your instincts rule on which enemy the #4 rogue has 3/4s cover, full cover, or concealment from.

I am about to play a Halfling Rogue (9th level, Arcana trickster) / Sorcerer (3rd level, Draconic or Wild). He is attuned to a Dagger of Blindsight, and has the spells Fog Cloud, Minor Illusion, and Tasha's Hideous Laughter (in addition to many others). I have a lot of questions about how to...

I think your opinion is wrong, this is in fact being done with expert Biologists in the field, and you depending on rando person who claims to be a biologist on BlueSky is not sound scientific evidence. The provable biologists disagree with you.

I can definitely see a TPK against him, particularly if his spells are swapped from what's listed. One advantage we had, briefly, is we landed a Fog Cloud and Silence spell on him, and had him grappled in those fields. For a period he was pinned down and getting hammered. But he managed to get...

How odd that it put three figures there.

We just beat Acererak (we think - he was nearly down and teleported away). It was an incredibly epic! Almost every one of our resources were exhausted (all spellcasters had almost no spell slots left, which has never happened before). We had to first fight the Hags, who were incredibly tough...

I have to admit this does fit the concept stated pretty well, which was "a changeling scribe and clergy of the Silver Flame. They’re also a divine assassin of sorts, blessed by the Flame to kill supernatural evils." Assassin rogue war cleric works quite well. Which also fits well with, "no...

Command always scaled though? From 2014, "When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can affect one additional creature for each slot level above 1st. The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them." The only change is the range, but that...

I think the #1 impact will be a shift to digital.

He thinks there is a universal worldwide culture?

"The new tariff on goods manufactured in the EU is 20%, while those which originate in China are 34%. This is in addition to a recent 20% tariff on China, raising that level to 54%." This is, sadly, not complete. There were already existing tariffs. Example: We had existing tariffs on all China...

What on earth are you talking about. This art form is literally JAPANESE in origin made by people alive and still doing it in Japan and it's relatively new. It's not our culture! And Lord of the Rings isn't American either!

You've fallen victim to "replacing actual argumentation to linking to random argumentation definitions and pretending you made a cogent point." You need to make an argument yourself. The law isn't immoral. Indeed, it has a longstanding basis in humanist philosophy, including those which the US...

I don't care that you don't care if it damages the IP holder. They literally, directly, in black and white international law, have a right to not be damaged by the unauthorized alteration of their IP. You not caring doesn't change that fact.

Yes, there is when you yourself create something for sale under agreement, and then someone else copies that something without consent or attribution and resells it. There is 100% a moral entitlement to consent to that re-sale, or be compensated for it. IT'S LITERALLY CALLED MORALE RIGHTS TO...

You cut the full response so spun it as not theft because they still have it, but that's not what you or I had said. You had claimed there was no " negative moral implication " remember? There absolutely is a negative moral implication if you profit off someone else's labor without their consent...