Search results

But you can be good at provoking people. Just give your fighter 20 charisma and proficiency/expertise (by feat) in ... performance, I would say. Now at the table you say "I wanna taunt that thug over there so he attacks me", and the DM will say "of course. Roll me a charisma check." "Can I use...

Have you never seen those candy crush clones? Where you fight monsters and dragons and undead by playing an offbrand version of candy crush? There are all-over the playstore/istore. I just use them as an extreme example of a game's mechanic that is extremely far removed from the game. This...

Depends on how you see Hitpoints in the game. By RAW hitpoints are more than Body. It is a mixture of resolve, luck, endurance and body. So second wind is more of a regaining of resolve. If you see Hitpoints just as meat, than second wind is definitely magical/supernatural/unnatural. Hrm...

No. But it is always an uphill battle to remove a class ability or nerf it. Like in my Spelljammer Campaign when I said no Clerics and Warlocks at level 1, because of Inworld-Reasons I suddenly had an hour long discussion of how that is unfair and taking away player agency ...

Yeah, I already get that you disrust the DMs you play with.

Of course the DM decides, if a creature takes the dodge action ;) Ingame, an attack is an attack, if that Hits it Hits. That is not comparable to speaking and having the exact same 100% reaction. And I already said, that player characters and monsters can impose ninmagically certain conditions...

But if the fighter has such an ability that reliable works whenever he wants, that he compell NPCs by speaking to do something they normally wouldn't do, that is mind control. D&D is a fiction first game. What you are describing is a mechanics first game, where the mechanics determine the...

Of course it is important to keep up appearances. We need a feel of reality in order to have an RPG game at all. It is part of the game design. Some proposed rules destroy that illusion. From a game design standpoint especially in RPGs the mechanics need to be there to support the fiction. If...

I never said it is the only method. I said it is a valid method to get fights where you can exchange blows, where you can get hit and keep going. It is a design decision for a specific style of game.

Of course there are other ways, but making characters super tough is done often. From Counter Strike to like 95% of any shooter to a lot of RPGs from Fallout to Skyrim to JRPGs ...

But you need the illusion that they are real. It is not fun to engage with Game Mechanic NPC 721, it is fun to interact with Grodi the Goblin Marauder. So everything that is done to NPCs by players needs to be supported by the ingame fiction. Narrative controlling player facing rules that can...

Okay, let me try to explain it: First I will differentiate some vocabulary: Ingame fiction is the game inside the world how the characters would see it as ifnthey would really exist. At the table is the game experience fornthe players. In D&D at the table, the players decide how their...

It is not breaking D&D if it is a magical effect. Because magical effects (Spells) are governed by its own set of rules ingame and out of game.

Looks like an awful rule ready to be misused and leading to a lot of discussion about what a reasonable request is.

I If you want to make it a spell or magical ability, it's fine. It actually already exists and is called command or (mass) suggestion.

Let's just say, that in D&D (5e, I haven't played the older editions) anything that compels Player Characters, NPCs, Creatures to do exactly something is a magical ability. That is one of the Design principles of D&D 5e and I completely agree with that.

I as a DM would allow any character in and out of combat to try to taunt one or multiple enemies. If a PC wants to make them angry, so be it. I wouldn't give the Player Character more actions outside of the action economy (free attack) and the NPCs still have free will on how to react to that...

Just no. There is a difference in talking to somebody and mind controlling them to do exactly what I want. Sure. But you don't controll if the barkeep is running screaming away or calling the firepaladins or running straight into the kitchen. And the panicked condition does not exist anymore...

Ah, come on. If you have a player facing rule that says "use (mundane) ability X to always (saving throw) get reaction y" and than as the DM decide it is not applicable for reasons you get a 40 page thread on EN worlds about that rule discussion.

No. It breaks D&D. It would make it unplayable and it would stop to be D&D. You need to build an RPG around narrative control of the players. D&D is not that RPG and if it transform into that I definitely wouldn't wanna DM it.