Search results

Here's a different way of looking at it that might help. Let's say you as the DM plan out an encounter in a fun location with a particular difficulty level in mind, and then the PCs spend 30 minutes of real time trying to lure the enemies onto a different battlefield where the PCs would have a...

Cool. I disagree that your approach is simpler (I think they're equally simple), but I doubt that disagreement is surprising. :)

@FrogReaver, I forgot to include how I handle silhouettes: I interpret a silhouetted creature in a dark square as not heavily obscured from the perspective of anyone in a position to see the silhouette, but the light level of the square the creature is in remains dark.

Based on this description... ... I interpret you as ruling that a silhouetted creature isn't in a dark area. So you're willing to increase the light level of the square the silhouetted creature is in even if it's outside the bright or dim light radius of any light source, so that the...

My claim is that ALL takes on silhouettes involve changing (i.e. adding to or removing from) the darkness and obscurement rules, even yours, because the rules are silent regarding silhouettes, leaving them up to "DM Decides".

My interpretation of the exchange was that @Hriston proposed an example, @Crimson Longinus pointed out that the position of the observer was relevant to apparent lighting levels due to backlight/silhouette issues, and you and other declared that was an incorrect way to account for backlighting...

Fair enough! I was trying to define the gaps broadly enough to account for everyone's differing interpretations/readings/rulings/etc., as I understand them. But there's so many different perspectives in this thread I can see how that led to the examples appearing unhelpfully broad. Not sure how...

For reference, here's the exchange where multiple posters were saying @Crimson Longinus was wrong by RAW despite the rules being silent on silhouettes and backlighting. And, to better place this reply in its context: my related point is that since the rules are not comprehensive, when...

Hard disagree there. I find Combat-as-War vs Combat-as-Sport an insightful take on common differences in table expectations for how PCs interact with the DM's prep: are the PCs expected to accept the presented encounters as-is (Combat as Sport) or are they expected to try to engineer encounters...

There's no magic shop at my table either. The Great Market I referenced consists of thousands of individual dealers in various sorts of goods (everything from basic commodities, to futures, to priceless treasures) and the even larger network of middlemen and agents who try to connect buyers and...

I think there's been some confusion caused multiple lines of conversation being mixed. My list of examples that @FrogReaver was referring to was provided in response to @Hriston's mention of not being sure what sort of general gaps in the vision/light/obscurement rules I was referring to. In...

I put together your first and last paragraphs, because read together they're making me think we're talking past east other. I'll try to explain--maybe we can better isolate where we agree and disagree. First, I entirely agree with you that "DM decides" is an explicit part of the rules. The...

I agree that the rules are silent on that question. That was my point--it's a gap in the rules. :) I also agree that it isn't logically inconsistent to rule differently regarding different types of heavy obscurement to address gaps in the rules. But there are multiple ways to fill those...

Excellent synopsis! In terms of what that looks like at the table, in Combat-as-War games the parameters of the actual fights that occur (foes, location, etc.) tend to dynamically depend on the PCs' and NPCs' actions prior to the fight. If the PCs are doing well, then they're controlling who...

Two points: First, Combat-as-War can be played straight, with the enemies using all the same strategies and tactics as the PCs. In such a game, success depends on the PCs being extremely careful about not becoming a target for any individual or group that could crush them. There are multiple...

The gaps created by the non-comprehensive vision/light/obscurement rules are myriad: Can an observer see anything on the far side of something opaque? To use a previous example, can a dog see a bunny when the two are on opposite sides of opaque heavy obscurement? Does the answer change...

Fair enough. I'll rephrase my claim to make it more style-specific: in a game where dungeon inhabitants are proactive about responding to the PC's presence (whether that's a coordinated response, a chaotic response, or simply panic/flight), it's much harder to get six separate encounters on one...

I once ran a joke adventure in 3.5 that was specifically designed to cater to traditional tropes and D&D "traditions". It was originally going to be a one-shot, but was popular enough we turned it into a three-shot. It featured: Minimal backstory. The characters were trying to rescue a princess...

By "going beyond the text", I simply mean that the written rules aren't comprehensive enough to resolve issues relating to silhouettes and opaque objects. There are many ways to fill in the gaps in the rules, and it sounds like your approach works well and is consistent. :) I see the other...

At my table, when items are first acquired the party collectively decides who can put the item to best immediate use. If/when there is a chance to sell the item, and the party wants to sell, any PC can opt to pay that price to buy the item from the party. If multiple PCs want it, it goes to the...