Search results

On the one hand, having a skill that specifically calls out these kinds of activities..good.. On the other hand, requiring it to be a separate skill from athletics..less good.

Maybe, maybe not. Need isn't like a super relevant metric here. Ultimately, the mechanic would work out very similarly to an opposed skill check, and the places where those arise seem, to me, to be very close parallels in terms of narrative (e.g. how different is it narratively to cast Hold...

One way of potentially using the casting roll for save spells would be to set the spell DC.

I dunno. The "I didn't comment in another thread" and the "Hungry Happy Hagrid....something H something" threads are out there too with some pretty high post counts. Not sure where they fall on the arguability spectrum.

Hmmm. Seems like a testable hypothesis.

Perhaps there is a causal link between spellcasting and hair growth?

1. I get that why you object to the example case. I don't think anyone has proposed something that extreme though, and I think there is quite a bit of ground between that example and current 5e D&D. 2. More or less fair. I'm not sure the OP excludes adjustments to the other classes, but I see...

1. Effectiveness..you've set up a bit of a strawman here. There is a range of unpredictability/risk between zero and "equal chance to TPK as solve the problem at hand". Moreover, the other extreme, 100% chance to solve the problem at hand, seems equally unreasonable and unfun to me. It's just...

I may not agree with some of the conclusions, but the post is littered with indications that it is their opinion/preference.

"Wizards of the Coast LLC" doesn't seem that bad..

I'd be curious which specific changes you feel are punitive and why? And what game experiences you need the wizard to have access to for it to be fun? Then also, at what point you think it would be balanced?

Sounds like making them canonically more flavorful could be an effective nerf then. :p Magic = monstrous catnip

This is a plus thread, no?

The fun part of this is that since the surnames are patronymic, you've also gone ahead and named their dad too.. Seems like you could potentially generate a whole male lineage this way.

Why should buff and heal spells have a chance of failure? BC you are still fiddling with the arcane. The narrative is still "learned skill gained through study and practice" Wizards aren't robots, with the precise combination of performance elements programmed into them. Think of it another...

All of this is to say, there is zero rules support for how one disables people's hands through any method other than Paralysis Petrification Unconsciousness or Death I fully agree that we can make rulings on such things..and we should..and yet.. If a PC is frightened of a creature, they...

I'd be inclined to agree..logically. That said, I've never found anything that says that manacles (or any other equipment) actually prevent the use of your hands. (And there are some interesting knock-on effects if we say that they do, like how a rogue could pick a set of manacles without...

Because sickened isn't a 5e condition 😜? Otherwise, yeah, I'm with you.

Re: risk of failure. 1. Neither saves nor attack rolls apply to buff spells, heal spells, or quite a few environment manipulation type spells. Those can be executed perfectly..every time..everywhere. 2. Perhaps there is a difference in narration, but I think there's a bit more. Typically attack...

Most of what I'd do would be to change some of the stuff that's at odds with a lot of genre fiction. 1. Spell failure. Wizard casting is a learned skill. Spells shouldn't be automatic. There should be a risk of failure and consequence for it. (Note: with that in mind, I'd be open to easing...