Search results

Someone has been giving you false information, or talking about the internal playtest that happened. The public playtest, at least, had +X weapons and armor (in fact, they went up to +5 in the playtest, in contrast to +3 in the final release). Some of that power budget was moved to characters...

I believe we've also had it confirmed that the black dragon will return as the bog dragon. Overall, I would expect that the chromatics at least will return in some form. Personally, I'm less certain on the metallics as those are more obviously DnD. Or if they do, I'd expect larger changes for...

In addition to 4e like others noted, 3.5 also included rules for catching yourself when you fell. The rules were under climbing, and were pretty close to impossible (succeed at a Climb check, with the DC being equal the DC for whatever you were climbing +20).

Just checked, and they were all listed together under Fungi for 2e as well, so at least WotC is being consistent there. Personally, I have never used any of them and actually didn't think they were creatures but hazards. Learned something new as a result of this conversation, and that is always...

Without checking, my first thought was the three fungi weren't creatures. Heck, if they made a bigger thing of demons being different types, I would definitely agree they should group demons under those types. So we would have the group "Demon, type [number]" with stat blocks for two or three...

I am not sure if you agree with me or disagree with me. If you disagree, do you think monitor lizards should be grouped with lizardfolk, and sharks with sahuagin?

Just because something is different doesn't mean it is haphazard. The 2014 MM lists yochlols under demons, but goes out of its way to basically say that they have nothing to do with other demons except the title. A balor has much less in common with a dretch than a goblin boss has with a goblin...

But it isn't haphazard, is what I'm saying. A balor isn't a demon in the same way that a goblin boss is a goblin. The thing about a balor is that it is a balor; it being a demon is secondary. If we still had the distinction of some demons being tanar'ri demons, having tanar'ri as a grouping...

Based on what everyone has said here, it sounds to me that for the most part, the monsters are grouped together when the various stat blocks are considered variants of each other, and they're trying to avoid situations where you have a subgroup in a group. So they didn't want to have Dragon >...

That is not a 100% correct. At least for 3.5e, the monster creation rules were in the Monster Manual, right after the rules for customizing monsters. Edit: I see that was actually brought up already. Should've finished reading all the posts before replying.

Honestly, seems like a smart fire giant ruler. Makes sense to block your mind from being accessed when you know there's a mind flayer around.

Yes, but for a chatacter to Hide, they can't be seen by enemies. So Hiding makes the character Invisible to enemies... that can't see the character to begin with. And since the argument is that Hiding does not make the character transparent or otherwise prevent them from being seen, there is no...

It makes it entirely redundant, though. If hiding makes you invisible only while nobody can see you... it doesn't actually do anything. Unless you mean you can Hide (the action that makes you Invisible) using a disguise. In which case, see invisible allows you to see through disguises? Or...

So if someone casts see invisible but does not open the box, do they see the hiding character? If they do not, that implies that the hiding character is invisible (not the game term) even without being Invisible (the game term). So hiding doesn't actually do anything. If they do, it implies...

I think it's because we have an inclination to think that something that seems to fit must be absolute and true. And since many of these categories have been specifically made to fit most definitions (or known definitions at the time of being created), they feel right. A friend of mine made a...

Do note that the remaster introduced using Interact as a single action to swap one weapon you're holding for another. But otherwise agreed.

Honestly, thisis probably the best way to do it when rolling ability scores. I personally prefer point buy, but shared rolled arrays works. Especially if setting some rules that allow a player to reroll their array if the scores are low.

So this isn't you saying that the data I generated is wrong? Of course not, and that wasn't what I said, so I didn't think I needed to reply to that. Here, let me quote myself from the post this was in reply to: It is a fact that the array is slightly below expected values for rolling 4d6k3...

Well, it makes literally no sense to me that you think choosing 15 14 13 12 10 8 is overpowered, but rolling 16 12 12 10 9 (an extremely likely result) is not. So you'll have to explain it at least one more time. The only thing I got from you previously was that you didn't understand me when I...

None of these counter the fact that the expected result of rolling 4d6k3 (which is the standard for 5e) is slightly better than the array. The exact same points, then, must also apply to rolling 4d6k3.