Search results

I address this in a later post and agree with that. But the trigger CAN be something very easy, whistling, even blinking. The point is, you're not casting with the reaction, it's just a trigger for the earlier magic action. Which is why the OP player's "work around" doesn't work.

This is far from universal. The trick is to root the characters in the campaign world and to make the players actually care about what happens. Once this is true, you can have all sorts of issues that have nothing to do with character death. You can have many different failure conditions...

This never leads as anywhere good! Much better to discuss and contain the problem then to get into some kind of escalating loophole war! Forgetting everything else, it's just bad for the rest of the table as they get caught up in it.

Sure, upon reflection, that's correct. But since the trigger can be, as you said, whistling, blinking, whatever - it doesn't change my answer at all. The bigger point is, since a magic action still has to be used to cast the spell, further holding it to then trigger as a reaction doesn't make...

I think, as @FarBeyondC just pointed out, it doesn't work that way. Per ready action: When you Ready a spell, you cast it as normal (expending any resources used to cast it) but hold its energy, which you release with your Reaction when the trigger occurs. "Cast as normal" means using the...

I tend to run in Greyhawk, a kitchen sink setting. But campaigns tend to get pretty narrow, focusing on something specific like the Scarlett Brotherhood (intrigue heavy and very political for that one) or the war against the demigod Iuz. I've found the players like narrowing the focus of the...

I'll let someone else check the math, but this statement? It's subjective, so saying "absolutely" is a HUGE stretch. But, IMO: The 2024 monk is much closer in effectiveness to other classes than the 2014 monk- that ALONE likely makes it much more fun to play in a group. More importantly, the...

One confound with 2014 monks, how often the party was allowed to rest. If the DM allowed the group to rest/reset whenever they wanted, monks performed better. If the DM didn't, monks ran out of gas FAST. Too many of their abilities required very significant Ki output. 2024 has been a huge...

One of my players loves barbarians and will typically only play them. When we moved to 5.24 for the new campaign I explained weapon masteries and he complained for 10 solid minutes, too complicated, more to think about etc. Kept right on complaining until the first combat where his battle axe...

Oh, I get it. Preference is preference. But I don't like the "well it just doesn't make sense in the fiction..." justification often presented. Because all it is, is an attempt to frame the preference as somehow superior. Just call it a preference and move on.

This argument never makes sense to me. A non caster fighter exists in the same world as the casters. By a certain level has seen what they can do and presumably figured out some ways to mitigate - without magic. It makes perfect sense in the fiction.

That's not quite right. You pick a skill (like stealth or athletics) not an ability (which could apply to any number of skills). For the duration of the spell you add 1d4 when using that skill. For situations where you need to use a skill more than once, it's much better, it only has to be...

Was wondering about that! Because I agree, it's not about skill at the game, it's mostly about attitude. The truly bad GMs I've encountered are bad because of their approach to GMing. Such as really adversarial, really condescending, really contemptuous toward their players - that sort of thing.

It was MUCH more pronounced in 3e thanks to cheap scrolls and the spell system in general. It's lessened in 5e, but if the DM doesn't control the pace of play (as in lets the party rests whenever they want, consequence free) then I've still seen it happen. It also depends on how permissive...

Definitely a distinctive way of speaking. There have been several times when I missed what she said, had to back up and watch it again with subtitles.

Right at the beginning during the party scene. Pelia mentions spending time with a time traveling doctor.

This, IMO, is the critical difference between a "killer DM" and a DM where sometimes the PCs die. It's clear retaliation, and there's no place for it. Yeah, I've seen something similar. I managed to last 2 sessions in such a campaign, because I was overly forgiving of such behavior back then.

Good, clear, rules can help somone be a better "good" GM. No amount rules help can turn a truly bad GM (IMO things such as a proud "killer GM" or one that proudly doesn't actually bother with the rules because they "know" them, and many other things) into a good GM.

In all my years of gaming I've never understood boasting about being a "killer DM." It's extraordinarily easy to kill PCs or to take their stuff, make them depowered etc. As the saying goes the DM has infinite dragons. Anyone who thinks that's, in any way, the mark of a good DM, is not...

I'm not usually a big fan of threatening equipment. But in this case there was a huge deposit of Adamantite - which would be a massive haul for the PCs. It was dwindling because the rust monsters where (rather rapidly) devouring it. So it was a risk vs. reward calculation for the players. And...