Search results

I remember "barber," but I don't remember "Mad" in front of it. It was like a rogue who could also kinda heal.

Was it unpopular? I don't know that I've heard anyone say anything bad about the Al-Qadim line.

You might be right...but maybe Snarf simply didn't like the self-appointed thread police coming in. Not sure why people like doing that.

Agreed. I would rule "no" as well. Then, when the player argues that the rules as they are printed allows for it, is there anything other than "I'm the DM, and I say no" to point to for my reasonable ruling? If yes, what is it? If no, why aren't the printed rules supporting a reasonable take...

Post #377, the bolded part.

Did you read what they sent to @SlyFlourish ?

TIL that "harsh and oppressive" means "fair." There's just so much to learn on these boards.

About how nothing is ever WotC's fault. ;)

Agreed. We have @SlyFlourish telling us exactly what happened on the one hand, and on the other we have misinformation being peddled by someone who wouldn't criticize WotC if the fate of the world depended on it. I'll go with @SlyFlourish, myself.

What are you, the thread police? The history of the game, specifically stealth rules, was brought up. @pemerton correctly pointed out the fact that it's most similar to the 4e stealth rules, so not such a huge departure, historically speaking. At least he's on topic; what do you think you're...

I am playing an Investigator in the Blood Lords AP and this jumped out to me as well. When I look at the changes and then look at the conversation about the new Stealth rules in 5.24, I am glad things are being streamlined and classes will more consistently feel like they are supposed to (as...

I just picked up the Player Core 2 yesterday, and started going through it...wow. Some fun changes were made! I like how Swashbucklers always have Precise Damage on, even when not in Panache; I like how Panache is a given (though for less time) even on a fail; my Investigator is going to start...

Literally no one. It's an insane bit of hyperbole.

For sure. Some of my players really like using the Icon Dice this way, and two others feel less comfortable...but I'll tell ya, the more those latter see the former doing it, the more they are willing to try. And you're right that it's easy enough to ignore.

Just wanted to say how much I agree with this, especially the bolded parts. I used to be that type of GM*, and the players (and myself!) had less fun. You are 100% right that learning to say "yes" is a skill, and it would be great if games gave solid advice on how to do so. "No" is easy...

Like, a skill check, for example?

Fail at what, exactly? EDIT: Ok, since @CreamCloud0 edited their post to include "sometimes your idea wasn't a valid one." I understand what they're trying to say now. It brings up the question about who determines validity, and I suspect I know what their answer would be, but that's another...

So it's not D&D, but in our 13th Age game, the use of Icon Relationships is a hard-wired mechanic in the game for the PCs to generate fiction (and more) into the ongoing narrative. Mechanically, the necromancer in our game once used an Icon Die with the Lich Kiing to capture some of the essence...

Ah, ok. I understood "facing off against" as a combat situation.

It's possible I'm not remembering the rules myself; isn't Coerce an out-of-combat ability?