Search results

Obviously. That should go without saying. On nearly any topic. Sure, but even with good armor, a hole is a hole. It doesnt have to kill you to be extremely effective at stopping you being a threat. 👍

Absolutely. My point is that bows were better at penetration than crossbows. Armor was effective for many reasons, but no armor in history reliably stopped a direct good hit from a contemporary ranged weapon. If they did, armor would have been even more widespread and/or those weapons would have...

Okay. Ever done SCA? More importantly, this isn’t theoretical, people did it. Throughout history. It’s reality. And yet, archers were effective against armor. Armor made it harder, not impossible. Not hard enough to make archers lose importance. Bows were extremely effective all the way into...

Yep. That’s how I do it. You make a defense skill check when subject to a hazard or attack. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah the idea that you need both hands to climb a ladder is kinda funny.

Watch good archers shoot small moving targets some time. They don’t have to be dangerously close. Hell I’m not that good and I can shoot an apple at at least 40 yards, which is plenty of distance to shoot a half-dozen times before you can get to me, and I need to get my axe or mace out.

Just wanna point out that war bows (not just the famous longbow, either) could pierce plate armor. The only reason crossbows even had a strong place in war was that they were much easier to train someone to use. An equivalent bow was pretty much always better in terms of range and impact and speed.

Or maybe I know my friend pretty well and you shouldn’t assume the worst interpretation of what you read.

Hell yeah. Just make it all skills.

In my game, Crossroads, I have both types. Tall: Mostly by way of skill advancement. You gain skill ranks which increase your dice pool when making a check with that skill. This is fairly slow, and not a sharp incline because there are no flat numerical bonuses. You have a base d12 and then...

That makes sense. Even without hormone treatments, a change in perspective like accepting and leaning into your identity can change how you see other people. Add hormones (which IIRC do make your mind a little less crystalline while you are on them, almost similar to how your brain is more...

Man I will eventually lose interest in a game that doesn’t do this. And I mean that both as a player and a (much more often) GM. I have exactly one “problem” player in my extended group, and this is one of the issues I have with him, he is resistant to co-authoring the fiction. (He also...

Yes. Absolutely. And there’s soemthing about the like…relaxed confidence without any bravado that’s just…perfecto.

Hell yeah. Watching him amble up a tree and shoot at a decent draw length while holding himself in place with his legs really made me more ambitious with my archers. (I have always been permissive as a dm, but held myself back more as a player)

What I did is, your attacks are not directly tied to any of the four attributes, but instead are 100% determined by your skill and any circumstance modifiers, but you can use any attribute that makes sense to “Push” a check one step up the success ladder. Each Attribute has a pool of points...

Slings also. It may use momentum primarily, but your strength still plays a role in final velocity. Maybe add half your strength mod or something, idk. And crossbows could have a simple benefit to reload speed based on strength.

Small correction; He is fracking gorgeous. Lol But seriously, I just watched this yesterday and loved the video. He’s always entertaining and informative, and pulls from fantasy media, gaming, HEMA, and well researched historical knowledge. I loved his video on historical, mythical, and...

I’ve never seen a player object to the patron becoming a bother or even the bbeg. Just to their character getting nerfed as a dumb “plot” gotcha. That said, I prefer the Warlock to not even need to have an actual “patron”. I think the patron model makes the class thematically less good, overall.

I’ll be honest even as a very permissive DM, to me the world becomes less believable and less interesting and fantastical if everything anyone does has to be rationalized in the mechanics-as-physics.

Nope. Sorry, but as the DM it is my call if the Kai Shan Monks have trainees, and whether a player can play one, and there is no reason to assume that their techniques proliferate just because the PCs have met one of the monks. Hell, an ability can simply be one of a kind. Only this one person...