Search results

I'm leaning your direction!

I agree with you partially (I think). Teleport notes the target must be Large or smaller and forcecage has a size, etc. So those type of spells and effects would need to cover all parts IMO. However, banishment targets 1 creature. To my mind a creature in parts is still one creature. EDIT...

I think that is a valid approach. I also think it is ok to let the PCs just figure it out. In my mind, the players should assume a creature of this size and stature is a cut above and something more like a riddle they need to figure out rather than a target to blast away at. So they either do...

I can't justify that in my mind, but if it works for you go for it! To me 1 creature = 1 creature even if it acts mechanically like three.

Being an old time this "shift" occurred about 40 years ago for me (aka when I started the game). It has never impacted my games, but has been a part of the game from the start.

Curious, I have never had a problem with spell (mostly my players are not interested in it) and I am wondering how it could be used to avoid a portion of the game? Unless I am missing something the hut doesn't move, so how can the PCs avoid something? Never mind, I see you answered my question...

My wizard stopped taking the spell. So no, it has rarely had any impact in our games. I do think the spell is a bit ridiculous, but it also gives a false sense of safety which can be disastrous.

I don't have formal answers for all of these, but here is what I have done and/or what I might do in these situations: In my "rules," if the AOE would hit multiple parts it damages each part. However, I leave it up to the DM to determine if the AOE actual overlaps with multiple parts. I...

I've been using monsters in parts for years. I do like it for really big monsters; however, from experience having 3 parts is the sweat spot. I have a part be "disabled"* when it reaches 0 and there are consequences when a part is disabled, but the creature doesn't die until all parts are...

Dragons are always a part of our game, but the are not very often featured in play. The are to be feared and avoided if at all possible. The last time my group encountered one (a black dragon) they had to run for their lives and barely escaped. Dungeons / ruins / caverns make up about 25-30% of...

That is 100% not what @Zardnaar said I call BS - prove it please. So here is the first piece of art in the PHB. Please let me know how it is to "cartoony" and what pencil art is 5x better (whatever that means)

I am not sure 100% what you mean by "shiny cgi type," but I am pretty sure that is false. I see art that follows many different styles, depending on the artist. Digital art is often not of the shin cgi look. I had a conversation with another poster and they were adamant that a particular piece...

Did it go somewhere?

Having done both (and acrylic, pencil, and watercolors), I would disagree. It was much harder for me to become decent at digital art and I never was as good as it as I was with traditional art. For example, it was much easier for me to blend and shade with pencil or paint than it was with my...

I will admit I am having a hard time expressing what I am trying to say, so I apologize for that. However, I think this is a horrible analogy: Reading a story and playing a game are not even within the same realm IMO. I want to be clear that I am not saying a game shouldn't be designed to...

What is different, to my eye, about AI art is that if can look technically good, but the compositions almost always feel stiff and unnatural. Some human artist have the same issue, but almost all AI currently seems to have that issue IMO.

Question for you @Zardnaar: why are you so dismissive of artistic skill? I mean if someone on facebook has skills to match a published artist - great! That isn't a knock on either artist's skill. I mean before Elmore and Caldwell were published they had the skills, they were just not published...

Not sure were you get your AI art, but I haven't seen AI generated art better than what is in the core books (with the exception of one terrible piece in the MM IMO). Of course art is subjective, but AI general just looks off to me.

I think the 2e era of core book interior art was the worst. Some of the 1e art is pretty bad too, but that is the edition I started with so its nostalgia value is hard to beat. EDIT: Actually there is some bad art in 3e too. Now that I think of it more. Each edition has some good and bad art...