Search results

While looking through the 5e DMG this morning, I came across the section oh shipwrecks and thought of you. Here you went and came up with super rules for ships and fighting, and 5e came up with... "There aren't rules for determining when a shipwreck happens; it happens when you want or need it...

No. Because the narration has to match the mechanics, meaning if someone falls while climbing, the narration can't be pixies. It has to directly relate to the climb. A loose rock. The rope breaks or is cut by a sharp edge. The climber slips. And so on. The exception would if pixies actually...

I agree, but it was AI vs. telehealth. I wonder if AI vs. in person doctor visits would yield different numbers.

Few rules means that the rules in place need to be broader. The broader the rule, the more likely you are to encounter a corner case that the rule isn't fully appropriate for. On the other hand, the more rules you have the more the game gets bogged down by rules searches, misinterpretations...

It doesn't help that a lot of them get proposed because someone or a lot of someones were doing something stupid. Arizona's "stupid motorist law" as an example.

Strict liability is her dad telling you to have her home by 10pm. Absolute liability is the third wheel on a date. ;)

Laws would certainly be more fun if they did, though! :P

I heard a story on the radio that young people were turning to AI to write Dear John letters, responses to text messages where the other person was emotionally hurt, etc.

I saw that! But 10k was it just reminding her that she had 10k sitting in an account. I suppose that qualifies as help, but not in the way people are probably hoping. :P "But other ChatGPT answers were much more fruitful for Allan, including one idea to search for money she may have...

The context was the Age of Umbra combats and their deadliness to the combatants. I followed it back several posts to be clear. Are you unclear on the context of your own conversation?

You didn't seem to want to know. If you had, then rather than the second post just repeating yoursef, you'd have asked, "Then what did you mean, because it seemed like X to me?"

Yeah. It seems pretty clear they just removed a math step when they made the armor table with the base ACs for armor. It was still base 10 + 2 for hide = 12. They just saved new players a little time and effort, and said hide = base 12. With shields they couldn't do that since not all classes...

This still misses the point. Nothing I said was about "needed" or "not needed." It wasn't about anything you've responded with.

It's harder to encounter a corner case with rolling where the rule would need to be changed/ignored on the fly. While corner cases are rare individually, there are enough rules in 5e that some corner case popping up is not all that uncommon. When a corner case pops up where a rule should not...

This response misses the point.

Because that's also what happened in 5e, despite it not explicitly saying so. It's very clear than there was the same privileged base of 10 in 5e as there is in 5.5e, but they didn't bother to spell it out on the armor table. Armor adds to what already exists. It makes no sense for it to...

So base = 10 with no armor and base = 12 with hide, and you really think that hide isn't building off of the base 10? It makes more sense to you that the game would go... "Hmm. It's better to subtract 10 from 10 to get to 0, then add 12 for hide, rather than just adding 2 to the base for...

It does and doesn't have it as a concept. Unarmored is AC 10. Hide is AC 12. 12-10=2, which is how much hide helps you over having no armor. Clearly that base 10 is included in the armor numbers on the chart.

See my edit of that post. It sticks natural armor, which is still armor, after both the base 10 and the dex bonus.

What's the difference between 12+2 and 2+12? Those equal one another. But as you say, we can agree to disagree. :)