Search results

For sure, I want an artificer class so I can be an overpowered game winner. Thanks for understanding.

Sure, to a point I agree with that. But I'd say you could come up with an interesting mechanic for any class idea. The artificer has a bunch of obvious stuff that could go with it. You could maker a pastry chef class with a unique mechanic. And you can still boil a lot of classes down to...

Eh, some people just use their authority to crap on others. D&D was just the excuse.

What warrants anything being a class? Interest and fun ideas for mechanics. A Ranger in 5e could a been a fighter who takes Animal Handling or multi classes into druid a little, but people wanted a Ranger class. There really isn't a huge unique destinction. The Sorcerer could have easily been...

Its actually the same rule as in 4th edition.

He didn't want Tolkien in D&D and yet he added elves and dwarves. Gygax was a businessman for good and ill.

Absolutely, they are the murky Neutral leaning oath. It says it right there in the description. People call it the Batman oath, but that's not true at all. Its the Punisher oath. The Moon Knight oath. The Rorschach oath.

People think Vengeance paladins are evil? Yikes. That's why alignment is a terrible game idea.

Hey I'm fine with that too. Clarity is the strength of mapping after all.

Also it can have a roleplaying effect. PCs might be less prone to being lippy to Prince Albert if they can see the minis for 10 guardsmen and the royal mage on the table.

Alrighty then. Actually using a map for an encounter you don't intend to involve combat is a psychological tool for a DM, as is not whipping out a map for a scene you know is going to devolve into a fight until after initiative is rolled.

Now that is a lot more of an issue I've seen myself.

Uhhhhh what? I wouldn't. Actually that's not true. If the PCs wanted to pull off some sort of caper or plan in the throne room while talking to the Prince I might.

If my players were interested enough to take an hour to talk to the Prince (and it wasn't a lot of ummmmm and uhhhhhh) I'd be so happy.

Mapz 4 life!

Aaaaaaand I'm out.

I think the start of that conversation was= players can't know you aren't fudging unless everything is exposed. So rolling in front of the screen isn't a guarantee of no fudging. D&D isn't a pure game for reasons already stated ad nauseum. Me fudging a monsters hit points down or up a few...

The mystery of the capabilities of traps and creatures and all the things behind the DM screen is a big part of D&D, I would assume to most people. Having the monsters stats out for all to see is a very different play experience to me. Didn't mean to offend. As I've said before in this...

Who decided the word we use should be fudging in the first place? Let's decide to call it DM tweaking. There, its not cheating anymore problem solved.