Search results

Don't forget the wailing! A necessary component.

Sure. My core approach for 5e (and 3e and 4e before that) is that every character in the setting, PC and NPC alike, are unique. The class rules are simply a gameable model of options that are open to players at the start of the game, and are only a small subset of the limitless options that...

I'll be honest, I've lost track of what this argument is about. What's your core argument?

The only difference between a genius with 18 Int and a genius with 5 Int is the result. :)

I've had players completely rebuild characters from the ground up (new race and class) due to events within the campaign. To my mind, that should be a relatively common thing in D&D games.

That has massive worldbuilding implications, though. If we assume that Command: Flee works that way, the only possible supporting narrative is that the spell creates a function that does perfect information gathering for an area several hundred feet in radius around the target, AND has...

I don't see a design problem. These issues only seemed to get raised around classes like cleric, paladin, and (now) warlock. I don't see any examples like: GM: "There's a precious musical instrument trapped in that burning inn over there!" Player: "So?" GM: "But you're a bard!" Player: "The...

It's a misstatement of the rules? The rules you posted literally say this: "This is possible only if there are currently fewer than nine druids in the region, or if the character defeats one of the nine druids in magical or hand-to-hand combat, thereby assuming the defeated druid’s position."...

That's the thousand dollar question.

Are you not complaining about the player and his actions? Pretty clear you are from that post. The player was not in the wrong for invoking that rule. The player was in the wrong for not pursuing a story-relevant hook without offering a narration as to why. A good player elevates the table...

Just pick some gear that can be used as a weapon. Problem solved!

You did read the post that was linked, right? That's a player not engaging with the game. Their DM was complaining about them.

I don't have players who need consequences just to play appropriately. Good players jump on hooks that allow them to demonstrate their character concept.

I'm pretty much always OK if the player is on board. The "willfully violate" portion of the text is important, and definitely eases concerns I might otherwise have.

I agree with all of this. The point where we may differ, I believe, is that I don't feel like removing a character's power (like is often advocated for clerics, paladins, and warlocks) is ever an appropriate consequence within the game, and I actively shape my settings' cosmological...

But we all had fun, and isn't that the real goal?

Agree with all of that. It's why I generally prefer to use Wisdom as a the stat for general awareness, which can be both physical and supernatural, rather than "common sense".

There was no criticism. "GM fiat", and the expectation of the setting acting with agency that goes along with it, is a necessary and desired component for principled approaches to sim/trad play.

Theoretically, a low-Wis character who keeps warning the party away from rash decisions could be viewed in "violation" of expectations, I suppose.

<cracks knuckles> Let it begin.