Search results

Okay, I know some of y’all are all about the ominous, scary, possibly malicious and insidious, Warlock Patrons. But what if….the Patron is just kinda a disaster? Like, the warlock is woken in the middle of the night by a cat curling up against them, and sighs. “Aroth Brindisceil Aerendiel...

Yeah but if you use the optional rule to start at level 3, it’s only 1 level until you can take a basil feat.

I voted Gnome, Goliath, and Halfling. If it included motm, then Halfling might lose out to Shadar-Kai “Elf”, but then again I mostly use a homebrew version that isn’t an elf.

What is the distinction in Shroud between more and less shrouds? I’m not getting it.

Yeah and crossbows and muskets didn’t take nearly as specific or high quality materials, especially as metallurgy got better and better. I mean hardly just them. There are examples of similarly ranged bows that are usuable on horseback or are simply smaller all over the world. For mid-range...

I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen the same (and similar) test produce different results, because metallurgy wasn’t perfect. And, guns weren’t all that great until well after they became ubiquitous. They didn’t proliferate because they were better than bows, but because you could field a whole army...

I very clearly never suggested any such thing.

Obviously. That should go without saying. On nearly any topic. Sure, but even with good armor, a hole is a hole. It doesnt have to kill you to be extremely effective at stopping you being a threat. 👍

Absolutely. My point is that bows were better at penetration than crossbows. Armor was effective for many reasons, but no armor in history reliably stopped a direct good hit from a contemporary ranged weapon. If they did, armor would have been even more widespread and/or those weapons would have...

Okay. Ever done SCA? More importantly, this isn’t theoretical, people did it. Throughout history. It’s reality. And yet, archers were effective against armor. Armor made it harder, not impossible. Not hard enough to make archers lose importance. Bows were extremely effective all the way into...

Yep. That’s how I do it. You make a defense skill check when subject to a hazard or attack. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah the idea that you need both hands to climb a ladder is kinda funny.

Watch good archers shoot small moving targets some time. They don’t have to be dangerously close. Hell I’m not that good and I can shoot an apple at at least 40 yards, which is plenty of distance to shoot a half-dozen times before you can get to me, and I need to get my axe or mace out.

Just wanna point out that war bows (not just the famous longbow, either) could pierce plate armor. The only reason crossbows even had a strong place in war was that they were much easier to train someone to use. An equivalent bow was pretty much always better in terms of range and impact and speed.

Or maybe I know my friend pretty well and you shouldn’t assume the worst interpretation of what you read.

Hell yeah. Just make it all skills.

In my game, Crossroads, I have both types. Tall: Mostly by way of skill advancement. You gain skill ranks which increase your dice pool when making a check with that skill. This is fairly slow, and not a sharp incline because there are no flat numerical bonuses. You have a base d12 and then...

That makes sense. Even without hormone treatments, a change in perspective like accepting and leaning into your identity can change how you see other people. Add hormones (which IIRC do make your mind a little less crystalline while you are on them, almost similar to how your brain is more...

Man I will eventually lose interest in a game that doesn’t do this. And I mean that both as a player and a (much more often) GM. I have exactly one “problem” player in my extended group, and this is one of the issues I have with him, he is resistant to co-authoring the fiction. (He also...

Yes. Absolutely. And there’s soemthing about the like…relaxed confidence without any bravado that’s just…perfecto.