Search results

This makes perfect sense to me. I remember back in the day people discussing how rubbish stealth was in D&D. To this day I don’t why it was so difficult for people to use. Creeping up on a guy? Stealth check. Pass? You did what you wanted. Failed? They detect you. I’ve yet to find and action...

Long enough for the party to do whatever shenanigans they are up to. I never said DM interpretation occurs in combat. Combat in D&D is very structured. Because it needs to be. But when a PC tries to trick a guard into going out of the room to confirm the orders that the party belong in the...

If they succeed the guards are gone for long enough. I don't understand why the DM interpreting the result of the player rolls into outcomes is a problem. That's what a DM should be doing.

Why not use a group check in 5E? Why not say “Okay guys, the guards lock the doors and stalk off laughing nastily about some guy called Gavin the Torturer. Now they are out of sight what are you going to do?”

Why should they need to? Getting turned to stone in round one of a fight that might take nearly and hour is fun in what way?

Ah, okay. I thought I might have missed an obvious application that people used routinely.

I see a few Manoeuvres that rogues can take let you make sleight of hand checks as bonus actions. When would you use sleight of hand checks in combat (apart from bomb in pants scenario)?

You never have perfect knowledge about the future. I don’t see how a had crafted set of routes is any different from a random set.

I dunno. I reckon minimising unfun goes some way to maximising fun. Isn’t that best? We only get to play a few hours every week so unfun time at the table seems counter productive.

Welp. I’m not going to spend time doing something for my players that isn’t fun. What’s the point?

Yeah, but as a DM I know enough about my player’s characters to know what they want to be doing. If there are no larceny oriented characters why am I going to out the time and effort into building encounters they aren’t geared up for?

How’s that fun? As a DM I do my best not to have the PCs have to search for the fun.

I dunno man, if you roll a thief type guy your DM should have some thief type encounters to show case their abilities. Can you manage without? Sure! Like if you don't have a dekker your DM shouldn't give you dekker only solvable challenges. Party mostly fighter type? Lots of fights. No monks in...

For me it would be ‘I Feel You’ on Songs of Faith and Devotion by Depeche Mode. It really showed the new direction they were heading in.

My table uses it quite a bit in our Level Up game. I’ll always ruled that the spell targets a course of action within 30 minutes so setting off down a road (within 30 minute from now) could have weal or woe that does not happen for a day or two. In that example if there are bandits along the...

They might have been the Thursday Nighters?

Magician. Raymond E Fiest.

Dunno about that. I use the journey rules and apart from some of the journey roles that seem a bit weird it works really well. I’d go as far to say it makes the travel bits in TOD more engaging (once you strip out the encounters in the module). That’s got to be a good sign.

When my players do a thing I just think about what would most likely happen if it were real. But one of the big things for me is that skill checks are not magic and even if a PC has a Cha of 20 they can't sweet talk the bodyguard to betray his boss with a single roll. Another thing is to make...

No love for Pow! Points?