"So what do you have? "
"A sword!"
"A sword?"
"Yes. And I can hit with it twice as often twice every hour."
"... I'll stick to my spellslots thank you."
"... It sounded better in my head."
I should be more like ,,is paralyzed when struck with a stake through the heart". But thats ruins the joke.
Meanwhile I'm impressed by the fact, that Konsi used EXACTLY 25 words.
Aw. This is so cute. And dark. But mostly cute. I hope. More please.
Depends on the amount work put into the magic systems lore from the DMs side. (I once wrote the ,,Theorie of magical trinity: Command, energy and will" and there's a lot of other work out in the internet as well)
I guess Heroes feast does not really count as cooking so...:
- You could use wish and wish for the meal to be cooked perfectly
- Mage hand is very helpful when you want to lift a hot pot or pan.
- Since objects made by creation are real for the duration of the spell, you could create some food, it eat and even give your stomach time to... salvage the valuable parts before the spell ends
Hm. That could work. But it would be quite tedious.
Also: why 12 and not 8? Doesn’t a DC calculate 8+prof+ability?
Right. I correct: It’s not what 5e is best used for.
For the rest: That’s what I’m saying. From what I picked up (personal opinion) people really don’t like it when they don’t know what’s going on. But each their own. If your table is happy with it, go for it. I’m just advising against using it as a general rule, because some people don’t have much fun when the game goes this way.
Yeah. But I'm really not a big fan of that. The strategic nature is a part of DnD. If you remove that you end up making it less engaging, since you just shoot sh*t into the abyss, hoping it might do something, or not. Thats not particularly fun to me. Not knowing things is interesting, because you can figure them out, or have to plan and think to work around what you know and don't know.
It just feels... pointless if you never understand what's going on and also have no way of figuring it out. You just go somewhere vague, do something vague and accomplish something vague.
That may be fun for some people but its not what DnD was designed for or what I hope to get out of my games. Thats why I also don't recommend using it in every game as a general rule.
I really don't like that. Its not taking agency away from the players most of the time, but they:
- Sometimes have situational bonuses you might not know about
- Rerolls/temporary bonuses they may like to use (Like Inspiration, oder lucky)
- Might feel cheated should they ever find out, since you kind of used their character without informing them
- Generally like rolling the dices themselves, as it creates a feeling of excitement and ,,action".
Only problem I can see with that is, that passive scores take away from the randomness attributed to DnD but I generally agree with you. I also don't like rolling checks for my players.
Still worse, since you don't know how low you rolled. If you get a 11 on an attack and miss, but you have a bardic inspiration and you know a 14 hit last round, you can safely assume that your chance of success is reasonable, while the inspiration would be wasted if you rolled 7. It just takes away from the strategic nature of the game.
I really don't like this, since it makes shield a blind shot, for the chance of making an attack miss. Wich is not a big deal for characters with high AC (since +5 is enough to make almost all attacks, that would otherwise hit, miss instead), but for characters with low AC it is. So the nerf doesn't really work well.
Besides: It makes it even harder to do something I really like: figure out things about the monster by ,,reading" their roles and thus adapting my characters strategy.
And lastly it makes the PCs feel... babysitted, since the DM does not seem to trust them and just plays the whole thing for them. (Why even bother rolling any check yourself if the DM can just do it all the time?)
I did. Please don't tell me I fucked it up.
Edit: A lot of people say, that GWM needs a melee weapon attack, but they miss Jesses point: While GWM requires a melee attack with a heavy weapon, Sharpshooters only criteria is an attack with a ranged weapon (not a ranged weapon attack). Jesse bases his claim on the fact, that a crossbow is still a ranged weapon, even if used as an improvised weapon for melee combat. That’s why it deals 1d4(!)+20 damage. (It works with any ranged, heavy weapon btw., so Longbow qualifies too.) Of course Jesse is playing the devils advocate here and of course, no somewhat sane Walter will allow this in any campaign ever, as it’s obviously not the intention behind these feats. But you could read it that way and that’s Jesses (paperthin) point. Besides: he finds the image of a barbarian running around recklessly smashing a crossbow over everyone’s head to just be hilarious.