Search results

To put 60 points of damage in 1e context, that kills most things in the monster manual in one round. Even most giants had fewer HP than that.

No. Science does not prove anything, least of all reality. Experiments seek to discomfirm hypotheses, and if they fail to do so, then we consider the hypothesis stronger, but never proven. Trying to prove things is exactly how you get pseudo-science. And trying to prove things is why, prior to...

Respectfully, I disagree. We can't reliably observe them because they haven't been defined in any measurable sense. You can't do science on something that has no recognized properties.

I started re-reading the Harry Potter series - I was in Porto on vacation a few weeks ago, wanted an easy vacation read, and it was the obvious choice given that Rowling started work on it while she lived there, and there are all kinds of nods to the books throughout the city. Anyway, I just...

Sorry, but step 4 isn't possible until your friend clearly defines what "ghost" means in quantifiable terms. Otherwise, you can't even know what the variables are. So they've already failed to pass step 3. You can't build a hypothesis off of a supernatural entity. This is why "God did it" can...

I play 5e using milestone leveling and player characters are all the same level, period. If your character dies or retires, you start your new one at the same level as the rest of the party. It just keeps things balanced and with 5e's mechanics I don't see any good reason for having disparate...

Wish I could tell you, as this has long been a bucket list item and my childhood best friend/D&D buddy and I were all set to go, with our passes, hotel, and tickets to the Critical Role show all set. But we're Canadian and with everything that is happening we decided we couldn't go in good...

Raises hand. I greatly prefer their D&D games, but it is hard to discern how much of that is because of the system and how much is because the more CR becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS, the less fun it is to watch/listen. Age of Umbra is a slog; I’ve made it to the final episode but am glad it’s slmost over.

Notebook LM also has a really fun podcast feature - I just had it make one where the two podcasters reviewed our most recent campaign arc based on character notes and session summaries.

Noted. Troll Lord Games is now on my "don't buy from these guys ever" list.

This is significant in the history of D&D as Gygax didn't drive, which affected some of his business decisions.

True. It's also giving WotC more and more control of the market. Which is saying something. And it sucks for those 3PP who dont get a golden ticket. Like, say, the publishers of this forum. I'm a perfect example of why DDB is bad for a lot of 3PP. DDB is amazing! It saves me a ton of time and...

For me, the only thing I care about is that they change the name of the subclass so I no longer have to explain it to beginners. Banneret is fine. "It's a knight."

Except when grifters use those beliefs to rip people off, as they do all the time everywhere in the world. I didn't know the only reason for a discussion was to change someone's beliefs. As I already posted, ghosts are a magical belief, so I am well aware that it is not susceptible to evidence...

If they’re lit in a dungeon that I am running, it’s by inhabitants who need the light. I’m confused by your initial statement - if you’re the DM, you aren’t “noticing” that a lot of dungeons have torches lit, you’re deciding to make it so. If you’re a player, then ask your DM about it. If...

That’s one way of looking at it. At the height of the OGL fiasco, I made a thread arguing that if WotC really wanted to gatekeep D&D they shouldn’t worry about trying to control all of 5e and thus pissing everyone off, but should instead use DDB to control anything associated with their D&D...

Let’s change tack here. Science doesn’t attempt to prove hypotheses, it attempts to disprove them. So how do we test the “ghost” hypothesis? What specific predictions does it make that we can measure and check?

I am saying that there is no definition of what a ghost is, so there is nothing that could count as evidence towards their existence or non-existence. I'm not sure what evidence you think a cameraphone would provide. I suppose I'm not making my point clearly enough: without a quantifiable...

Sasquatch's, sure. Seems pretty unlikely that something like that could exist without some credible evidence surfacing long before now. Ghosts...what would even count as evidence?

Good for you, and that's not being a killjoy, that's being rational. Also, Von Daniken's assumptions were extremely racist as well as being ludicrous, so double good for you.