Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9438204" data-attributes="member: 55680">Reply backlog down to 11 pages of comments. Am doing my best to catch up...Yeah, I've had issue with people giving suicidal commands, easy enough to clear up with people reading the spells description.Got mixed up, it's flagstones not cobblestones and balance not tumble. Been a long while since I've played 3.5e. To quote the 3.5e DMG:As with walls, dungeon floors come in many types.Flagstone: Like masonry walls, flagstone floors are made of fitted stones. They are usually cracked and only somewhat level. Slime and mold grows in these cracks. Sometimes water runs in rivulets between the stones or sits in stagnant puddles. Flagstone is the most common dungeon floor.Uneven Flagstone: Over time, some floors can become so uneven that a DC 10 Balance check is required to run or charge across the surface. Failure means the character can’t move in this round. Floors as treacherous as this should be the exception, not the rule.Exactly. I want to know CLEARLY what an ability is doing in fiction terms so I can change its effects depending on the fiction. For me, changing the fiction to better fit the mechanical effects is exactly backwards. Again, just my opinion as well, mileage my vary for different DMs.For example, some people recommend reflavoring Eldritch Blast to make it a gun if a player wants to play a gunslinger class. I don't like that since I'd feel like a dick if someone rolled up a warlock reflavored as a gunslinger and tried shooting their gun in a pouring rainstorm and I told them their powder was too wet and it didn't work, but I WANT things like rain making a gunslinger's powder wet to be a factor in the kind of game I want to play. If the flavor is built into the game I feel fine rewarding or punishing players depending on that flavor and I really like that and enjoy making flavor matter, but if the flavor is stuff that players make up themselves I feel a lot less comfortable as a DM rewarding them or punishing them depending on how their flavor fits specific circumstances so "flavor is free" is an annoyance to me as a DM.If games rules are so restrictive that they actively disallow letting players be immature dicks then they're probably going to be too restrictive for me to enjoy. Not because I'm an immature dick, but because I don't need game rules to do that sort of thing for me and any system that is that restrictive is going to disallow a lot of other good stuff as well as the immature dickery (case in point: the Command spell and how 5.5e gutted it).Another case of people's milage varying. Having it MATTER if critters can speak Common or not really matter in fight makes the fiction of the world feel more real to me. For example in another campaign the DM had us attacked by a giant snake that mocked us in common and I nailed the stupid snake to the wall with Command, much to the whole party's enjoyment.Agreed.Exactly.In my last campaign I had a trickery cleric who loved pranks and, well, trickery. Her go-to spell was Command and she cast it over and OVER and OVER, and I always tried to come up with entertaining new ways to use it which was very much in keeping with her personality (and no, no "defecate" she had more class than that). This kind of change completely removed one of her three main shticks and would make her a lot less fun to play. That would make me sad as she was a fun PC to play and nobody had a problem with her shenanigans as I'm not a dick OOC so I made sure to not use "it's what my character would do!" as an excuse to be dickish.Yup, and that can still be very useful. In keeping with a first level spell.</blockquote>

Verification