Search results

Speed Boots save dead cleric.

I don't have the set, so, I decided to google the image of a the class boards. Came up with this one: Seriously? You're claiming you couldn't find the spell save DC's on THAT? Ummm, how did you miss that? I'm color blind and even I can see the giant red (or possibly green) boxes, all three...

BTW, @Echohawk, are you still doing the evolution of monsters thing? I ADORED those articles.

I think my jaw also hit the floor when I saw that there is a sale on the 130 DM's Guild titles just for Strixhaven. :boggle: Good grief.

I wonder if the drop also might have something to do with the fact that there are so many alternative D&D games on the market now, all drawing from the 3pp pool. Is, say, ((and this isn't flinging poo at all, it's an honest question)) a supplement for Level Up considered a "D&D" 3pp supplement...

sonovabitch! :wow: I... there are just no words.

Is it really that shocking that they're going to update/recycle older material? I mean, good grief, Tasha's is already 5 years old now. A new "complete Player book" every 5 years is not exactly a big ask.

Yeah, I'd echo @I'm A Banana . Have a premade or three and let her choose from them. Maybe just a paragraph background for each just to get a leg up. I'd add to the idea of "how does your character react" with "what do you want to achieve"? Maybe not phrased like that but, I think it might...

Honestly? Because that's where most of the WOtC AP's have been set and I've been running a lot of WotC AP's.

Well, yes. I've encountered bad players. Has anyone here NEVER encountered a bad player? Like, ever? But, of course, this is just more deflection - now we're talking about players instead of DM's. Why? Who cares? Edit - sorry, posting answers out of order. Yeah, I'll be stepping away for...

Who cares about "types of bad"? Why does "type of bad" matter in this context?

Did you ignore the "make mistakes aplenty" part of what you quoted. This is getting so frustrating. It's time for me to back out because there's just no way that this is going to be even remotely productive when EVERY SINGLE statement is twisted, turned and interpreted in the most ludicrous...

Then you were, at the time, a bad DM. Just like me. We learned. We got better. We improved. But, if we were GOOD DM's, then we wouldn't need to improve and wouldn't make mistakes aplenty. Thus, we were bad. 🤷 But, again, if your definition of bad is "malicious jerk" then sure, I imagine...

Being called bad, when you yourself recognize that you are bad, is insulting? Heck, being called bad at something is insulting? As in something that would seriously bother people? I'll admit that it's hardly complimentary, but, insulting? Seriously? I wonder if this isn't a cultural thing...

Maybe I missed it, but, who in this thread ever suggested that?

Oh, I'm sorry for not using academically accurate language. Good grief. Look, if you are below average ability in something, you are ... not good... oh, yes, bad at something. You might not be very bad. You might only be a bit bad. You might be terrible. But, at some point, yes, if you...

Why would I disagree with any of that? Are bad players a bigger problem? I honestly have no idea. Probably, just simply because of math. If the percentages of "bad" ((Note, are we talking about bad players, or malicious players as the definition of "bad" seems to be rather floating))...

Being a bad DM =/= being a bad person. You have somehow added this idea that being a bad DM somehow only applies to people who are bad people. Yeah, the level of semantic gymnastics going on here is absolutely astonishing. But again, given this thread, I suppose I should not be surprised...

Again, that's not how bell curves work. But, yes, below average is bad by definition. The fact that you have your own definition that you're working from comes as zero surprise given the rest of this thread.