Search results

You can arrange difficult circumstances and say they give a bonus to observer's perception checks. For instance, when trying to move quietly through dry leaves, you can give observers a +10 bonus to hear. With that mechanic, you can tune the difficulty as you like. It's not hard to come up with...

It seems like the most obvious way to interpret "darkness spreading to fill a sphere." Darkness doesn't normally "fill" things, it is actually just an "emptiness" of light. So if darkness fills a sphere, then I take it to mean that light is excluded from that sphere, which means that light...

Yes, I think the darkness spell specifically blocks line of sight through its area.

It is funny but probably not as useful as the standard version :)

Like this? .. / .- - - .- -.-. -.- / - .... . / -.. .- .-. -.- -. . ... ... -.-.--

My take: No and yes. (Assuming they are trying to perceive using sight. Nothing for the PC, but the NPC cannot see that PC. PC has disadvantage, NPC still can't see anything.

I like the giant kobold idea.

I should make a character whose spells are dad jokes. "Magic won't-miss-ile!" "Polymore-fun for you!" "I rename you William, and now you're invisi-Bill!"

Yes, as long as you can see yourself anyway. If you turn yourself into an object, though, you would not be able to concentrate and the spell would immediately end.

It is up to the DM if something like an amoeba counts as a "creature" in the rules sense. Or, for that matter, whether amoebas even exist in your world.

Yes I have the same feeling.

I'll buy these arguments if you play without multiclassing. But I don't see that big a difference between picking up expertise via a feat compared to via a 1 level dip into rogue.

I see, so in its most elementary form, your argument would be that if you observe something once, then you are using math because one is not equal to zero. So if you observe a single event that confirms or denies your hypothesis, then you are using math. I can't really argue with that, if you...

What maths are applicable here? Was Darwin doing science when he came up with the theory? What kind of math was he using? Of course, I do agree that one piece of data doesn't confirm the entire theory. But it does confirm that particular prediction of the broader theory. I don't know, I'm not a...

Hmm. Currently, there is no fossil evidence between a flightless, mouselike mammal and the flying proto-bat that it evolved into. The theory of evolution predicts that intermediate forms existed. If a paleontologist finds a fossil of a flying-squirrel-like animal in a geological layer in between...

"Simple" to a mathematician or physicist doesn't mean quite the same thing as simple to a layperson though. Maxwell's equations are paragons of simplicity and elegance, but they still involve pretty gnarly vector calculus. (You can simplify them even further using tensor notation, but now you're...

Well, the claim seems to have drifted from "scientists use complicated mathematical formulas to try to explain their theories" to "scientists use math." The second statement is certainly more defensible, but still I think misses the point. Science is fundamentally about having an idea, testing...

Yep, a couple hours for the big ones.

No, seals cannot breathe water, no mammal can.

Some scientists do, but not all. You might be thinking of physicists, but botanists are scientists too.