Search results

Nice points about lack of genre-awareness, in both directions. Also: In addition to non "basic attack" vectors of defeating such a fighter, I'd just also mention that most high level NPCs aren't going to be tricked out in the way you describe, and a very wide variety of viable PC archetypes...

Bingo. For example, per Pauper's post a few notches up... The 20th level fighter from the previous campaign can't singlehandedly defeat a whole army. I think the assumption that a lot of high level people exist is probably fine... Because high level people are substantially less intimidating...

I love the simplicity of Zardnaar's idea, converting the % to a more appropriate "feel" d20 roll. But I fear it's too rough... 1e had a sort of checks and balances system, where wizards were gods except when they weren't. 5e has a bit of 4e sensibility in that it tries harder for everyone to be...

It's definitely way less common, but it does crop up. At minimum, Abjurer PCs get this at 14th level (they get both advantage on saves vs magic AND half damage from magic), Oath of Ancients Paladins get it, and the Archmage NPC in the MM gets it. Though to be clear, in these cases it's not...

That's true, and I'm not trying to break any rules of ENworld. And if I am I'm sure a mod will let me know ASAP. But like I said, free speech isn't about laws to me, it's about moral principles. Superzero, yeah, I know you quoted me, man. I'm just letting you know that the context I intended...

First two replies nailed it. Advantage/disadvantage and bounded accuracy all the way. Bounded accuracy is more crucial to me, but advantage is more fun.

I didn't say they're trying to insult them, but the offended party perceives it as such. I left it intentionally vague on details, and said as much.

Absolutely, yes. The principle of free speech doesn't distinguish between people saying the right thing or the wrong thing. That's the whole point. It recognizes that discussion and freedom is better than squelching uncomfortable, or immoral, speech.

I guess I view "fault" a little differently, in that I don't usually see it as a resource that needs to be shared collectively between both parties. My take is this: Everyone is responsible ("at fault" in a sense) for whatever they had control over. Intent matters. If someone intends to hurt...

That's not what I'm saying, though. I advocate free speech even outside of a purely legal standpoint. I think people should be encouraged to say what they want to say, even if I disagree. It's a moral principle for me, not just a matter of legalities. I would rather disagree with them, argue...

I don't disagree with you here. One of the things I am objecting to is the inverse; hand waving away the responsibility of the other party. Also, that there are often other factors beyond just someone's feelings; it's often not just about the cost of changing your language from a personal...

See, you're helping to illustrate my point here. Yeah, even the U.S. has some forms of unprotected speech, but generally speaking insults are not one of those cases. You do have the right to insult someone, so long as you avoid certain things (e.g. Clear threats, sustained harassment, etc.) In...

I categorically disagree. I think there's a fundamental difference between words and physical blows. I strongly disagree that people have no control over their feelings. However, that debate isn't even really necessary, because setting that aside there's another problem with what you're saying...

The first thought I had when I read about bounded accuracy was that the 5e designers had decided to take the E6 variant of 3rd Edition (where you stop leveling at level 6), and stretch it across 20 levels of play. Since E6 formed a pillar of my favorite D&D-inspired games, that's exactly what...

Right, what Pemerton said is accurate: by default, 4e absolutely had nothing remotely like bounded accuracy, and actually codified the "treadmill" effect even more explicitly than any edition before it. This house rule Pemerton suggests, though, probably would have worked pretty much...

Your contention is that if someone takes offense, then either the speaker and the offended party share responsibility for that offense equally, or the speaker bears more responsibility? In no situation is the person getting offended responsible for their reaction? I take a fundamentally...

Nah, I'm not offended, sorry if it came off that way. Though I'll admit the first part of my post was perhaps needlessly sarcastic... but given SuperZero's signature line I figured they wouldn't have trouble parsing it. My point was that it's foolish for SuperZero to try to garner extra...

Hey, so, since I’m also a member of that minority group, you think my thoughts on this topic are extra insightful too, right? ‘Cause that’s how it works, right? It’s not about what makes more sense or who has the more persuasive argument, we should just listen and believe if the person is in the...

I don’t really have any disagreements with this (though Hemlock raised some interesting related thoughts.) So, it reads to me like you are saying here that heterosexuality is… unacceptable? What am I misunderstanding? I know “heteronormativity” is an evil buzz word… but what exactly about...

I don't actually object to what you're trying to say here. There are a collection of non-genetic things that are outside our control due to birth circumstances. Agreed. I was more bringing it up because it's a thing I've run into many times in the past; when I criticize the idea that...