Search results

The problem isn't with alignments as personality aids. The problem was that from 1e on, you never had to stay just within 1 alignment for your entire PC personality. Even in 1e there were things like LG(N) for people who were lawful good, but had some neutral tendencies. 3e made that even...

Yeah. The roll was when the wizard tried to learn it in the game I ran and played in. When I used training in my games, and we did eventually stop using it, I did a mix. I determined the trainers spells known, and the PC wizard could select spells from that list to try and learn. It wasn't...

There is no omens table for 5e commune. It's yes or no questions with your god or a proxy(high level divine servant like an avatar of the god).

You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Commune does not appear on the druid or wizard spell list. Or are you conflating commune with nature and contact other plane, which are different spells, with commune for clerics?

Since it's up to me to run the gods of my setting, I have established that they are being used trivially. The gods of my setting are very serious about what it is that they do and stand for. They embody aspects of the world and spend their focus on seeing those things done. Not being...

Being at the beck and call of one of your clerics for a bunch of trivial(to a god) questions? Once for something so petty I can see. Repeatedly being used like some carnival fortune teller? No god is going to appreciate being used like that. Riiiiiiiiiight, because cure wounds is the same as...

Not to mention even a trickster god isn't going to be happy at being treated like a servant and having what he's doing constantly be interrupted.

None of the above. I'd let the player know that it was a bad idea. It would never get to the point of the cleric treating their god like a servant.

But you're missing all the cat memes!

No. I was never a bad DM. And yes, it takes being a jerk to be a bad DM. Otherwise you might not be good, and might even be poor at it due to mistakes, but you are not bad. Of course if we use your definition, then 100% of us encounter bad players, since they are about 5x more common than...

I made mistakes aplenty when I was starting out, but I've never been a bad DM. When I made a mistake, I learned from it and tried not to repeat it. In my opinion, someone who tries to improve their DMing in order to give the best play experience he can, will never be a bad DM.

It depends on how you look at it. In my experience problem players and problem DMs occur in about the same frequency percentage wise. So if 1% of people who play D&D are problems, for every 100 DMs one will be bad, and for every 100 players 1 will be bad. However, since players outnumber DMs...

Poor. Not bad. They are poor at the game, not a bad person. Bad DMs are jerks who abuse their authority. Short of that, you aren't a bad DM. You're a poor DM who will improve. Or maybe you were decent to good right out of the gate.

Commune is with your god. If a cleric in my game kept playing telephone with their god just to get good draws, drawing a bad card would be the least of their problems. The god isn't there to serve you as a card magician. Commune once, okay. Reshuffling and communing some more would be bad...

That way when a new DM asks for advice you can just pull down your pants and moon them?

The difference between you and a bad DM is that you wanted to improve, and you learned from your mistakes. A bad DM doesn't do that. A bad DM relishes what you are describing above and continues to do it, because he's a jerk. You were never a bad DM. You were simply a poor DM who improved...

I think because of the very end of the episode where they've discovered so many new planets to go see that it will take a 5 year mission. And what is that mission?! :)

No. You are potentially a good player who is bad at the game. Some of them, the ones who remain in gangs, abuse women, etc. are bad players. Bad DMs are not bad because they are bad at the game. They are bad because they ignore the social contract and punish players, railroad them, etc...

They don't have to predict the future. They can know which card is on top, which is second, third, etc.

Was portent in AD&D? I don't see it in the 1e or 2e PHBs. Augury had a qualification that the DM could make any adjustments he wanted for the circumstances, so you can rule that fails. Commune, though, I'd easily allow to work. You're talking to a god. If the god can't overcome the deck's...