Search results

Allowing strength for bows won't really unbalance anything major. In a 3.5 based homebrew where armor provides DR, after lot of agonizing over how finesse weapons worked I ultimately settled on: you can use strength or dex for attack rolls for any weapon. If using Str, it adds to damage. If...

This reminds me of probably my single favorite moment of "tricking" PCs. There was a moment where the a player thought I had tricked him with a cheap gotcha rather than tricked his character... But it turned out a little different. The party had acquired a minor artifact that was clearly...

If anything, I would interpret that as: Jonny is ranging some distance from the group, trying to forage. So, yeah, his passive perception is not going to contribute to *the group's* chance. But if someone were sneaking up on him alone, I'd probably still roll against passive... Perhaps rolling...

Yep, that's the disconnect. Presumably you'd also say the dwarf automatically fails to sneak past a sentry? I'd consider these cases of uncertainty. For one thing, why even have things like negative modifiers and disadvantage when in armor, if being so disadvantaged instead results in an...

The critical issue is that "successfully" in there, and how you are determining it. I'm going to break this down a bit more to hopefully clarify why your method seems odd to me. Jump in when you disagree. We have Jonny Hawkeyes, a human rogue with expertise in Perception. He has +7...

I know your position on who decides when to roll, dude. That's not what I said. I said the *character* is capable of making a check. As in, the rules contain within them clear instructions on how being a a low dex dwarf in plate mail affects stealth checks. If someone was on sentry duty...

So, if you are a barbarian searching the woods for food, you have no passive perception. Goblin sneaking up on you? He automatically succeeds. How do you handle someone ill suited to stealth? A clumsy dwarf in full plate is approaching you... He also automatically surprises you? Or do you...

Sure.

Ah, I should have just kept reading. This view is just so alien to me, not sure where to find common ground to begin a discussion. The idea that you have *no* chance to notice hazards around you *while foraging* specifically... that is, engaging in an activity where you are carefully...

This seems ridiculous. People sometimes notice things even when they are not alert to them. Even if I am very engrossed in a task, I might hear someone sneaking up behind me. How do you model such phenomena? Passive perception seems to be a really elegant method, so if you rule it out...

Yeah, I prefer that one, too. Sometimes I think even it's too fast, but I haven't played an extended campaign with "short rest 8 hours long rest 7 days" yet. The one brief attempt didn't last for unrelated reasons.

Which one do you prefer?

Excellent point. I think anything from 8-10 is probably out for me. My preference is for maybe... 4? I don't mind a fair amount of humor but in nearly all cases I really prefer to to be humor borne of "real" characters in a "real" world cracking jokes when appropriate. An example would be...

So... E6? I love e6, so I'm all for it.

Lanefan's style of play really ought to be familiar with anyone who has read through all of the old rule books, supplements, modules, etc for BECM or 1e AD&D. It's consistent with the examples of play given and the assumptions of play most of the authors make. Character death is common. Most...

Then I misunderstood this: Particularly the last sentence.

Aren't most of your games online? Where by definition there is no need for visible side conversation because that can be done through a hidden medium? As far as there being no "rules discussions" to edit out of your games... That's debatable. Heck, podcasts sometimes edit out things like...

Sure, but I thought we were talking about existing podcasts that people like that do, in fact, have substantial editing (e.g. Godsfall or something). If they are having fun, and also editing it into something that thousands of people enjoy listening to... I'm not convinced that they need to...

If I were paying people to act out parts in a podcast, I would agree. I think most of these podcasts are also intended to be a fun game of D&D for the participants, though.

If it is more enjoyable for the participants to still engage in [whatever should be edited; in jokes, rules discussions, accounting minutia]... Why is it more wise to reduce their enjoyment and refrain, rather than simply edit out the stuff they don't think will appeal to the masses? Assuming...