Search results

I don't find it incredulous, so much as I just don't understand what you're saying. My intent is to understand what your position is. There has been some back and forth with multiple people on this issue, some of whom explicitly said that you seemed to be speaking for them. So I've probably...

An oversimplification. There are multiple things that can be examined (as mentioned upthread: time of death, stomach contents, wound sites, etc.) And those things could each provide different, useful bits of information. Each one could yield a distinct clue. Your position appears to be that...

That's not my intent. It was a genuine question. No hostility here. This is too abstract for me to really understand your objection. One example was damage, the other wasn't. Not sure why "expediency in combat" is unique, per se. I gave some concrete examples earlier. If you're...

Oh... you did? I must have missed that. When did you demonstrate that the 5e list of skills is not arbitrary, with varied levels of specificity? I don't see the connection. Besides, how about this one: Imagine a DM asked you to roll your attack and damage at once. Or, slightly more...

Yeah, having the option might be nice. I imagine multi-class Fighter/Rogues with a heavy Rogue emphasis would probably prefer the accuracy boost, for example.

Because it seems to be predicated on the idea that Fighters are significantly under-powered and need some sizable boosts. If someone disagrees with that assessment, then this will look clearly unbalanced.

Looks great to me. Do you categorically think that involving a second check in this scenario would be automatically objectionable?

Maybe this is contributing to the confusion. If a player makes a more general statement, about e.g. examining a corpse for example, then there's room for the DM to interpret the precise details of the examination. Perhaps in your preferred level of specificity, a player would not make a...

That's not really at issue, though... at least not in what I said. Of course you call for an ability check. And if you call for an ability check, and a PC has two relevant proficient skills, and a reasonable person might think that both of those skills could yield useful results, especially...

At that point I'd just go all out and have dueling do the same thing, in that case. Offensive styles = bonus accuracy. Done. In a world with Sharpshooter, that makes sense to me. I think I've mentioned before that in a world without Sharpshooter, I see the Archery style as a sort of low-rent...

Yeah, Hemlock and I just seem to be in agreement that this is a bit lame. Particularly if the Paladin always (and exclusively?) declares smites after crits. Most other expenditures of spell slots for combat/damage purposes involve spme possibility of failure. It's always seemed a bit odd that...

Declaring smites after the fact is lame, agreed... I mainly use that rule to provide leeway for some of my more casual/forgetful players who (in total honesty) have those "Oh crap I wanted to smite!" moments. I then remind them they can declare after the fact, their horror turns to elation, and...

That's kind of you, but why is it necessary? Rogue damage is primarily delivered via sneak attack anyway. The loss is trivial.

Addendum: I don't usually consider myself a very punitive DM. I'm happy for players that find clever combos and exploits. I let Great Weapon Paladins re-roll their 1s and 2s on smites, contrary to errata or tweets or whatever claimed this doesn't work. But the sorlock thing has always seemed...

Do any of you guys actually allow the Sorlock spell slot abuse trick in your games? It seems like one of those cute thought experiments that I wouldn't allow at my table. Nobody has ever tried, so it's never come up, but I just can't see why I would ever let it fly.

I kind of agree with the first paragraph, but the bold part is total nonsense. Well... not total, because you say "could." Sure, it "could" be a sign of that... but I don't think there's much reason to think that's the most likely thing going on. This assumption presupposes that all action...

The two aren't really correlated. I don't allow all of the PHB either, in most games. But I often still allow 3rd party content. For example, Sharpshooter is a poorly designed feat (from a conceptual/design viewpoint, not from a game balance perspective, though perhaps that too.) So I don't...

Personally, I'd opt to just load him down with weighted clothes (or a Lecter-style jacket), since actually dressing him in heavy armor is a bit too silly for my tastes. Sound plan, though. Hilariously so. Solid. Hard to argue with this one. Ah yes, the Locke Lamora special. Tried and true...

I'm not convinced that's true. Upthread, someone else was also talking about how players expect a "boss" fight, that Strahd cannot deliver... with the implication being that such a boss fight ought to be an epic slugfest. But again, I just don't know that I buy that. More story time, I guess...

I'm not convinced that you're right about a fight with Strahd being anticlimactic. But, also... anticlimactic does not equal awful. "Anticlimactic" fights with "boss" enemies can actually be great fun in an RPG. A story my players still tell, from a D&D3.5 Colonial-themed Swords & Muskets...