Search results

Sunday: Roper TPK in two installments.

Are you saying that the proposed change to the rule is not actually a change at all, because the natural 20 would auto succeed if the DM allowed you to roll but they won't allow you to roll? If so, that is certainly a take. If not, I refer you to my earlier comments.

Yes, but a rule about when to allow skill checks above the hitable DC and when not to is only required because of the proposed 2024 rule, so cannot possibly be in the 2014 DMG. Ah, sorry. It can be difficult to tell sometimes.

You quoted me so I assume this is supposed to be a response to me. But it is a non-sequitur since my entire point is that we do not know what the new rules will be beyond a tiny subset. But unless it says on what basis the DM decides, that is not terribly helpful. Does it say? I am guessing...

So you are guessing what will be in the new DMG. It is probably a good guess, but that does not alter the fact that you do not know because it has not been written yet.

Except that it very much is a change. At the moment, natural 1s and 20s do not do jack (except on attack rolls).

Why do "minimal rule changes" require a length public playtest. If they can make the gods of capital-G-Good a bit less evil, that will be an improvement. What DMG? This was about the 2024 revision, for which the DMG does not exist yet. Anyway, the art is amazing. It is disappointing but not...

I was supposed to be playing a paladin literally right now, but the session was cancelled due to a personal issue for the GM. Not 18th level, though (3rd, with a level of bard for a total character level of 4).

Interesting idea. As much as I prefer short rests that are actually short, I have never liked it when the system incentivises doing multiple short rests back to back. Limiting them to one per hour would certainly prevent that, although I would worry that it would prevent "legitimate" short rests...

I do the closest equivalent (swift action) in PF1. Is that "max 1 per hour"?

My preference is to revamp the ability scores to make them more balanced. Oddly, while neither is terribly likely, I feel like ditching them entirely is probably more likely that ditching them in favour of an improved version.

Yes, you are clearly right. ENworld needs an :embarrassed: smiley.

Is there any reason, at all, to suppose that what "newbies like" is in any way consistent. Rather than varying dramatically, just like what veterans want is all over the map. What's the Paladin, chopped liver? No, it is not confusing the issue; it is the issue. An untrained character in 4e...

It really doesn't. Dividing half-level by two (or anything else) cannot get you to level*0.

You know what, you're right again. My comment about backing up your arguments was...ill-judged. I should just have thanked you for the information and left it at that. EDIT: I really did look for corroboration on my own, but could not find any, hence why I asked you. I could have been more...

Well there you go, your were right. Two points: One: It is not my job to back up your arguments for you, it is yours. And when you do that, reasonable people will change their position (as I have just done). It is almost like magic! Two: Google is really, really not your friend. Which is why I...

I know nothing of the sort, and a quick DDG search suggests that they are still the minority (albeit a larger minority than previously). If you have a link to something more definitive, by all means post it. EDIT: Snarf Zagyg did in fact provide such links, and it appears they were entirely...

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

You state that a revision that has not even been entirely written yet let alone released to the public will be fully compatible with O5e, based on the developers' say so - in which I will refer you to what they were saying about O5e two years out. Interesting that despite that supposed...

Did you mean "hit the lower AC", or is it kinda blackjack thing that I am not quite getting my head around?