Search results

I know. But this isn't a LotR thread. There are already threads elsewhere for that sort of arguing. If it wasn't clear that I was trying to apply the Rivendell aesthetic to an otherwise elven cultural paradigm (by intentionally inserting the word 'style' between 'Rivendell' and 'city'), I...

Yeah, wood elves mingling, scattered among the trees, living off the land. Okay. That's easy enough. But what about high elves? Those ancient, more "civilized" elven peoples who do live in large, more formal communities? Anyone out there do anything other than the typical Rivendell style city?

...or even, dare I say, a local temple or church dedicated the the bard's chosen faith?

In the default Forgotten Realms setting, pretty much everybody has a patron deity.

Spell selection for rangers has an opportunity cost, yes. I recommend reading page 209 of the PHB (Ranger's Spell List). You will find there are spells on it that are quite useful to the other two pillars of play.

That is demonstrably false.

The thing about friends that slightly irritates me, is that I have trouble getting the narrative of it all. I mean, you don't even cast it on the other person, you cast it on yourself. Yet you have to designate one person to which the spell "works" on. And the spell goes on to say the spell...

I've played a 5e ranger. And seen another in play. I think they are pretty great, actually. And as much as we both did have hunter's mark on our known spells lists, and used it, he and I did use other spells. And did go whole encounters without using it. And performed just fine. The spell has...

I don't see how that is possible without first defining what you mean by 'balance'. Are you continuing to focus solely on DPR? Seems a bit of a shortsighted metric for a game with three pillars of play. And even if you do want to hamstring yourself by concentrating on combat alone to measure...

I appreciate you explaining your (superior) playstyle. I get it now. Thanks.

Aren't you one who is fond of calling out strawmen? I don't recall telling you your method was 'wrong'. Only pointing out how it impacts certain potential opportunities in play. One method presents at least a fair chance. The other kills it at inception. I prefer the former over the latter. But...

I would counter with the question, "If the devs intended all rangers to take hunter's mark, in order to be balanced, why is it only one of many spell's known choices and not just a class feature?" If that's true, I've got another one for you: Is a ranger only considered 'balanced' when he has...

So, as part of his declared action to turn the dial, he is also verbalizing and narrating his character's "dumb logic" idea as justification for all to hear? I see. Seems a solid way to make sure no zinger roleplaying moments, like the one in my example, can ever play out at your table. And for...

Then you have me at a bit of a loss. To help me see what you mean, would you mind presenting the same brief interaction in a format more fitting to the style you and your table play? Thanks in advance.

If you trust your players to "play stupid" as appropriate, but then you stop play to demand justifications for some actions, that's a paradox. Which is it? Are you confident the barbarian's player has a "validly dumb reason" to turn the dial, or not? You can't have it both ways.

So why would you say you were okay with it? Clearly you are not. Also, we call that 'gatekeeping'. IMX, it tends to happen more frequently when there is a lack of trust at the table.

Are you missing the fact that there was no explanation given before the DM adjudicated that the puzzle was solved? Only afterward was there a roleplaying reason given through PC-to-PC interaction. What if Player 2 (nor anyone else) hadn't mentioned anything and just moved on? No opportunity for...

This is a great point. Player 1: My barbarian steps up, grabs the dial, and turns it to 'S'. DM: Okay, you hear a click as the door's lock releases, you have solved the puzzle. Player 2: "Wow! That was amazing, Grog. How did you know the answer was the last day of the week?" Player 1: "Huh...

Adult-ish warning: So back in 4e my gruff dwarf was rummaging around in a musty ol' library while the other PCs were doing some research. The DM advised me that I had managed to uncover a rather risque book of elven carnal knowledge, replete with illustrations (he described it as the elf...

To be frank, that's not for you to say. I reject that entire premise. Under what criteria would there be a lack of balance if the ranger did not take that one of numerous spells they have available to choose from? Please defend your opinion that you cannot have a "balanced" ranger at 1st...