Search results

Even if attrition worked that way (it doesn't), all that means is that the DM has to have slogs of encounters just to wear down resources and hope one of the latter is that encounter-ending control spell. So what happens? Players learn to always save a spell. DMs have to come up with reasons...

Campaign is becoming absurd at this point though, and probably not what the GM had in mind as "fun."

So...hopefully the DM wants to run this. Hopefully the DM is ok with tossing out a bunch of his ideas into the trash and now, come up from scratch, a whole new campaign theme of "PCs on the Run!"

It isn't, you're absolutely right. I am not sure WotC, specifically, care all that much about any other standard, though...especially if it doesn't impact sales in a big way.

...wha? Why on Earth would they think that's a good idea? It's clearly not meant to be an in-combat spell...any spell with a casting time measured in minutes isn't. The spell is hardly worthless. The PCs strategy skills OTOH...

If characters don't know their abilities mechanically, wouldn't there be moments where the wizard tries to cast Fireball but fails to do so because he doesn't know he only has 2nd and 1st level slots left? So...the player loses her turn or something?

Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was obvious. My apologies.

D&D makes a ton of money. There is no problem to be fixed.

I was addressing the specific example of "Thespianism vs. Roll Ability check." That's a false dichotomy; it's thespianism resulting in bonus to ability check.

Why? Thespianism just gives context and perhaps a circumstance bonus to the Charisma roll.

Can't groups just do "Roleplay it out, if the table loves the performance get a bonus to the CHA roll?

It does. Using a VTT allows for a bunch of modifiers without trying to remember every single one. For example, my dhampir investigator had a racial feat that allowed her to do +x damage to undead, and +2x to vampires...Foundry took care of all of that without me worrying about remembering to...

Can I say "flavour?" I know it seems vague, but...not sure how else to describe the uniqueness of Al-Qadim, my favourite setting of all.

Sure, there are people who prefer boring games, who prefer TPKs, who prefer Orcs SAing PCs... Whatever, sure.

You're seeing a lot of crap that's not there, when I'm offering a simple way to measure. There are different measures of "bad"...there's no conflating. But no...everything's subjective, less than 3% of DMs are bad, bad players are worse than bad DMs somehow...whatever. I am going to ask...

So just using the examples provided before, I guess being boring isn't bad; rejoicing in unfair TPKs isn't bad; having orcs r**e the PCs isn't bad... Whatever, man.

It's a thought construct designed to help see if one's behaviour needs to change or not. If you can't see that, there's nothing for us to talk about.

" I don't like running games for evil characters and I have players that don't want it either." So that's a table decision, not a behaviour in-game or something else.

It's not that subjective. If the DM engages in behaviour that would drive a player to another game that is exactly the same except it doesn't have said behaviour, then it's bad. Not "evil person"-bad, but bad in that the behaviour needs to change.

Maybe "bad" means something other than "abusive or controlling."