Search results

The amount I heard it talked about, I felt it MUST have made it into Sage Advice! But... when's the last time Sage Advice got updated?

It's weird because if you hit one target with two missiles and one target with one missile, the rules don't really apply without bending them a lot. Crawford reached quite a bit in that ruling, IMO, but the rule he relied on has now changed. :) Cheers!

Level of automation, I believe. Roll20 doesn't automatically apply conditions to your character when you make a Hide check, for instance. I'm not sure what level of automation Project Sigil is going for. But I know that people keep telling me Foundry is awesome since it automates various tasks.

I am a programmer, and it's really easy until you go into the land of VTTs and whatever Project Sigil is. For a game like BG3? Really easy. Cheers!

I see that as a change to make it easier for people. Computers can handle passive Perceptions MUCH better than people. EDIT: Oh, then there's their Project Sigil. Yeah, perhaps you're right!

35. Obviously! A large part of my (classical) understanding comes from the idea that when you are really hidden, enemies lose track of where you are. They might know where you last were, but not where you are standing at the moment. Back in the 3E days, you'd have to say "I shoot at that...

Don't know if this has been covered before by anyone, but anyway... For the 2014 rules, Jeremy Crawford made the ruling that when you hit several targets with missiles from a Magic Missile spell, you rolled 1d4+1 ONCE and applied it as the same damage to each missile. This surprised a few...

"Hiding" is at least a more ongoing-meaning word than "Hide". It's a problem in a few sets of D&D rules, in fact - do you need to keep the initial conditions to remain hidden?

Did you notice that Mike Mearls agreed with the reading that the new Invisibility spell as written doesn't actually make you invisible (as in, fading from sight, etc.)? Incidentally, Legacy definition of "invisible": An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a...

I really wish it was clear one way or the other! Cause it's not like passive Perception got removed from the game - and it's in every monster stat block. What is it there for if not Stealth? And of course, there's still this paragraph on Hiding in Chapter 1 on the PHB: "Adventurers and monsters...

It really does raise the question of what assumptions do the designers make that they assume we're also making? Some things are explicitly stated; others are included because "this is how it was done before" and they can leave a new player wondering why the rules work that way... or why...

The 2014 Hiding rules had this text: "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is...

I sort of miss the AD&D underwater rules. Fireball didn't work. Lightning bolt became a fireball effect based on the point of origin. :) There were a few DDAL adventures set underwater, where the 5E rules came up at my table.

I don't use facing rules as part of combat. :) I use facing (and it's a stretch to call them rules) as part of exploration. So, a lone rogue can sneak behind guards when their backs are turned. Once combat begins, I'm assume they're trying to perceive things everywhere, though I'd probably...

Facing rules (for stealth purposes) lie under that DM discretion part. I would definitely adopt facing just for the purposes of stealth (under the heading of "Distraction"). They're not part of the core rules because there are so, so many things they break. (Look at the fear spell - you can only...

Chapter 2, Running the Game, Running Combat, Miniatures. (IIRC - I discussed it earlier in the thread).

The more I think about it, the more the Invisible condition doesn't work for me. I think it's badly named, sure, but I think the entire point of the condition has too many areas where it falls apart. One of the things that sort of annoys me about "Invisible" is that it's an all or nothing...

Do you have line-of-sight with 3/4 cover? Seems like the answer is "yes", but the conditions for taking the Hide action make it seem like 3/4 cover is okay. The 2014 rules had a concept of a clear line-of-sight, without really defining it. It's a useful one to keep in mind. Cheers!

I'm now just imagining that cover with the Mexican orcs as the antagonists... :)

Just curious if you've perused the Pathfinder 2 rules on Stealth? Stealth-as-an-action is a rather odd concept. Cheers!