Search results

Not in your case, no. The players made a choice not to follow a possible branch. But imagine if Gwaihir tells his players about Ireena's kidnapping and they all go "WTF? I thought she was with us? When did this happen?" That's not good for anyone's game. If the players deliberately left...

Consider asking them, before the next session, whether they meant to do that or just forgot to mention it. Don't punish the players for a mistake.

There wasn't a rule for counterspelling in early D&D because the way to prevent a spellcaster from casting was to hit them with a rock when they tried. Magic Missile was always our go-to - with a casting time of 1, you could frequently break a caster's concentration even if they beat you on...

My google-fu is weak, but I remember reading an article about what made anime different - specifically, that certain cultural values were considered primary in Japan, and that they were strongly encoded in the idea of heroism. The one I remember most is the importance of loyalty to one's team...

Tournament Arc!

It's not supposed to be "could of done that", it's "could've". So it's legitimate, but misspelled. And probably obsolete.

I just use index cards with everyone's names on them. I usually note their DEX and Init. bonus too, just in case I need to compare quickly. I also like the monsters take 10 rule, but I usually use 15 for boss monsters.

Personally I think the primary problem comes from the aforementioned +4 CON item (and to a lesser extent +4 DEX). Most of the time giving the wizard a 19 CHA or the thief a 19 INT isn't going to unbalance their character. But lots of people would love a large bonus to HP without paying for it...

It probably works best as what it was built for: "I have a player in my Pathfinder game who is using a gunslinger, but we're converting to D&D 5e. Let me write something up."

My first game of 5e - my wife played a cleric with Sacred Flame. I'm not sure it EVER worked. The monsters just had freakish luck when she used that cantrip. That's the risk you take when you use save to neg. spells for damage.

I am now imagining a warlock who gets spells from generous internet supporters.

I'd just go with God of Rainbows and extrapolate from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_(mythology)

I seem to remember in 4e that a given solo was intended to be equivalent to a certain number of normal monsters of the same CR - I think it was 5? Anyway - does a 4e solo monster have more HP, as a rule, than the group of monsters he replaces added together? I'm curious what the building...

I think you should have that guy from the commercial with the tiny giraffe.

So you're saying a "failed" saving throw should always advance the story in some fashion?

The new sorcerer themes are an improvement, but they don't quite go far enough. And the balance issues vis-à-vis the wizard remain difficult to resolve. I like the ENWorld thread with suggestions, though.

Why is this a matter of discussion? Didn't we all agree that alignment questions are subjective? Why shouldn't I be able to be chaotic neutral in melee if I want?

Yeah, let the player misdirect all he wants. As I think on it, you might make a note of whether a lawful angel is more likely to be fooled on a technicality than a chaotic one.

I dunno - I read it the opposite way. The purpose of the Glibness ability is "fool people who have the ability to detect lies" - the angel qualifies as a person with the ability to detect lies. If this were 3rd edition, or another rules-picky system, it would have to say something specific...

I did, actually. But I didn't place them - one of the players wanted to make Message earrings in my City of Brass game, and I told her to acquire six blue dragon teeth as the component. They got the joke after a moment.