Search results

You said a competitive mindset came from the RPGA, right? So, when ability scores were first used, in 1e correct? they obviously weren't used for legacy. Or whatever the real origin of ability scores is.I don't really care what they're meant to do, per se, but what they do is determine how...

@xechnao: Well, you'd be wrong to say that ability choice doesn't affect winning or losing. If it was only a matter of differentiating characters, then D&D should have a point-buy sort of system where instead of putting a high charisma you get a feature like "Smooth-talker" "Diplomat" etc. The...

(Hypothetical) I feel like if D&D really wanted to go the route of no matter if you succeed or fail, it's fun! then a lot of skills shouldn't really exist. Why would you want to be a bard with his +diplomacy ability when it doesn't really matter if you succeed or fail? If both routes are going...

@Loincloth: I like that. The way I would run it is if they are pretty much defenseless or going to die, then yeah they'll do what you want in a normal circumstance. The intimidate check can be how scared you make them, and thus, affects if they'll take the very first opportunity to get out of...

What? No. I'm saying that if its okay to have one guy in the party with thievery, it should be okay for one guy in the party to have diplomacy. Does that suddenly mean everyone should dump charisma? No more than they would dump dexterity. Now, allowing the high diplomacy person to roll his or...

A lie is still a lie no matter what the skill is called. Allowing you use bluff/persuasion to be convincing when you tell the truth doesn't change the ethical implications of using bluff/persuasion to lie. In other words, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a distinction between skills...

Are you okay with those disadvantages causing a player not to participate? Or rather, having the potential for causing it? Anyway, good points. But the goal isn't realism, it's getting players to participate and have fun. Here is what happens at my table when there is a social skill check or...

Thanks. Interesting. But I can't agree, if the fast-talking con-man and the diplomatic person are so starkly different, how could anyone believe the fast-talking con-man when it's clear he can only use the bluff skill? I think that's why that's just a cliche or trope or whatever now. Wouldn't...

Sure, that's reasonable, right out of the books. But my players would take that and just clam up and let the guy with diplomacy trained to talk. I think this is more than just my experience. This is a funny analogy given the above, because most of the time the wizard won't even attempt a staff...

Imagine the SEALs nat oned on their intimidation check. They still have guns. Maybe guns give such a bonus to intimidation that it's essentially auto-success?

I agree, for the most part, with allowing free successes for good role playing, but if I haven't really thought up a good scenario for failure. Otherwise, a +2/+4 does the trick. Both success and failure should have be interesting outcomes that both open more doors. The king has you thrown out...

So, I was DMing the adventure in the back of the 3E Eberron campaign guide adapted to 4E, and came across a realization of some flaws in the social skills of D&D. After taking down a warforged named "Cutter," or she runs away and you are left with her victim, the Sharn City Watch run up and ask...

Would you accept "Any time you hit by a melee attack..."? If so, why not accept "any creature that hits you with a melee attack takes 1d6 damage." But yeah, make whatever ruling you want, but the wording is pretty clear to me.

It's for every attack for the entire encounter. Otherwise it would worded in a different way like "Once this encounter," or it would be an immediate reaction or free action to deal damage in response to an attack.

@kugelkj You seem well convinced, but if you want to convince anyone else you're going to have to address points more directly. You are convincing no one by saying a rule "specifically excludes" anything without justification for how. This goes for any of your points. You ignored how I said...

"If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover." (Emphasis...

Yes. Very yes. If they don't make intimidate checks and basically throw their weight around all the time they eventually become hated, then they get bounty hunters in the form of assassins, powerful royal guard, that kind of thing. The King goes to Sigil to seek people to kill the group, or...

Imagine, $30 for the gift of D&D: The coming "Red Box" + a 1-month 'subscription card' to DDI. :)

Huh, well kugelkj does bring up an interesting interpretation. Maybe cover from allies is only meant to apply from ranged attacks. He's certainly right that the "Creatures and Cover" section applies specifically to ranged attacks. But, determining cover section is not nearly as clear. Emphasis...

Good call, I missed that "any one square" part. I thought it was drawing lines to every corner of the target's space. So the picture is correct, after all. Thanks.