Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8392989" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Good for you, we find it very controversial because the effect is much too strong and it invalidates more clever tactics, but to each his own.Grids are not accurate, grids are boardgamy. How can grids be accurate with the way 5e counts diagonals ? It's actually ridiculously INaccurate. For accuracy, use a VTT measuring distance as you move, but honestly, it's usually not important except when you want a gamist approach. Grids are an option in 5e anyway, and a badly defined one because it's just an option.And I don't need that technical information. If the player tells me "And I smite him for 10 damage", that is enough for me, the player can count his slots for himself, I don't need to know.It's not even HIS character. So first, he should not even be talking. Second, he just spoke as much as the DM did to another player. So what would happen if everything did that ? The game would grind to a stop. Finally, and more importantly, the DM gave all the information in the initial description. The character of the Player 5 might not even have seen any of it, and even if he did, it's none of his business. He even actually forced the DM to repeat some information, and he is fishing for more that has nothing to do with him.Enemies are not forced to have classes, and they don't have their specificities tattooed on their forehead.Basically, he takes all the verbal space of the game for his personal consideration. Extremely rude.Why ? It's only a verbal spell, with no visible effect, and the muttering was described. Do your PCs always have detect magic on ? Do they have natural +20 on arcana to recognise all spells when cast ?They don't have any right to demand anything. The DM has already given them all the information about what is happening in the game world.Not "they", one of them did, whoever was the target.Nothing in the rules say this. Re-read the SAC, and it has nothing to do with combat.No it's not, again you are giving away arcana for free. It's not even obvious who is the target of the spell, by the way, it could have been the "ranger" himself.Because it might be something else entirely. You gave no description, and that is much worse than not spelling out technical details.And again, spirit guardians might be very different from one caster to the next, and I might design a power that looks like it, but is subtly (or not so subtly) different. Why spoil it when the PCs have no knowlege of what is being used ?He wants extreme details about the class of the NPC, what exact spell was used (it it was even a spell), all things that his character probably not even saw, nor had any reasonable reason to know.And we have a different balance, we don't care about the initial scenario, actually we might derail it completely with our actions as players, and there might be huge pans of complete improvisation.Next time, you will require auditing on the scenario to check that the DM did not deviate ?Well, I come from a different culture, and from years and years of associative work in particular around caritative and LARP work. And even if people have personal reasons (including fun or not) for doing some work, respect is always due for work that has been done, especially by people who did not do anything themselves.Not always, like any work of that kind, there are parts to be enjoyed and others less so, but in any case it's still more than doing nothing.Once more, no. Again, read the SAC, it depends on the spell.Again, not necessarily, read the SAC: "You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it." It's certainly not the case with hunter's mark.And I also mentioned major battles, that we have now and then, and yes, these can take a large part of an evening. But quick scuffles can last a few rounds.While in general, I agree that characters, living in the world, should have lots of basic knowledge about it, that does not give them the all-seeing eye especially during combat, and in particular automatic magic detection and identification.It's totally different. What I'm saying is that total coordination during fights as if you have a tactical net deployed giving you total information about what's happening on the battlefield seems a bit too much to me.Well, we have not perused the sam media, obviously.D&D is not presenting anything remotely like the way you are playing it either, certainly not in 5e. You are assuming way too much here, none of the examples presented support this.Again, technical discussions might happen, but it it's once in a blue moon, there is no reason to slow down the game all the time and change an adventuring ambiance to a tactical boardgame in permanence to allow very rare technical discussions.Not necessarily, no. They might not want help, you might be butting in.And sometimes the PCs are discussing amongst themselves, and don't want the DM butting in. Happens all the time. They might be making mistakes, they might not be remembering things differently from the DM, they might also just be roleplaying, it's not an invitation to force your views.That is one player out of the whole lot, and it's so much less technical than what you advocate. And of course, they note a few things down, but do you hear them butting out during other people's turn to ask about technical details of what is happening there ? Certainly not.The fact that I don't need it for a whole evening does not mean I'm not playing the character defined there, and thinking about what I could technically do. It's a bit insulting that you claim that I'm not playing D&D because I'm not using rules and dice for a while. Tell me, where is the rule that says you are right about this, that you stop playing D&D when you don't use rules visibly for a certain amount of time ? Because, on the contrary, I have shown you the place in the books where they tell you that rules and dices are not important for playing the game well, and not what is best in the game.And when we say that we ruin the game more by having technical discussions and pointing out others' mistakes than by making small mistakes, that's just clearly our preference, please don't tell us that it makes the game worse.And if I did not ? And why should they get any information before they try anything ? Right at the centre of the dreaded Tomb of Horrors, and they have no clue that they could find terrible and unknown magic ? Does it all have to be scripted and tame and according to the RAW ? You will have a very bad time proving to me that it's forbidden, especially since I have given you plenty of official excerpts that prove that what I'm doing is not only according to the rules, but also full in the spirit of the game (especially 5e).No, you are the one defining the game that your players are playing because you impose the rules. But again, nothing in the game rules and in its spirit forbid you from doing differently, and im particular completely improvise any situationl, including their abilities and the effect that it has on players. If the players do something so absurd or so clever that it completely falls out of the realm of the rules, why do the rules matter more than the story ?Again, you have very specific assumptions about the game, it's fine to enforce them at your table if this is what your players expect, but don't try to enforce that on the overall community, especially when the rulebooks tell you that you are wrong about your understanding of the spirit of the game. And don't call us cheaters for improvising monsters on the fly.OK, I'll drop this, 4 other contributors have told you that you are incorrect in this view, it's your right to stick to your guns, but don't think that you'll ever convince me of anything there, or the other contributors either.And again, WHERE IS THIS OBGLIGATION TO CLUE THEM ? WHERE ? You are inventing constraints and trying to pass them as absolute laws, but not only is it written nowhere in the rules, I have shown you time and time again that it's not in the spirit of the rules as written, it's actually the contrary which is written.This is childish. If a DM was bad enough to want to win, he does not even have to change the rules. Just being 100 tarrasques. Instant win, no cheating according to your definition.</blockquote>

Verification