|
Enlarge/Reduce Person is a spell  Ask Your DM if you have to make concentration checks to maintain the spells for the minute.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Enlarge/Reduce Person is a spell Just the one minute? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Just the one minute? True, there is a 5% chance of rolling a 20 for you to last longer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Half-kender Jesus gently caress no
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
I wouldn't exactly call the question NSWF but it's not a particularly good question. Is there an opportunity for romance between characters? Sure, why not; whether or not those relationships are sexual or result in productive offspring is sort of irrelevant from my perspective as a DM unless everybody wants and is cool with the question of pregnant/baby characters. Even then I'm more likely to screen wipe for a couple of years and say, "congrats, you've got a three year old now". Like seriously this flow chart never fails. "Is the group okay with romance? If yes, is the group okay with pregnancy and childbirth? If yes, can you make that work without it becoming the focus of the entire game or retiring the characters? If no to any question, abort." If two players want to RP a sexual relationship I'm far more interested in what that looks like when they're not having sex then I am about knowing what's happening between the sheets. Intimacy in the form of little harmless dialogue barbs or the like is fun and interesting. Knowing when and how two characters are banging is not. That rules the whole issue for me, not that sex act or its actual results. If the player of an owl man and the player of a robot woman want to hook up and tell a story about their baby, then I'm okay with that in the limits outlined above, no matter how nonviable it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"If yes, is the group okay with pregnancy and childbirth? ... If no to any question, abort." This made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Sprites can breed with minotaurs, centaurs, and also giants (with a slight reduction in % of fertility). Jesus Christ, how does that even work? It's easy. You're not thinking like a 5e designer. The answer is always magic. Enlarge on the Sprite, Reduce on the Minotaur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:If two players want to RP a sexual relationship I'm far more interested in what that looks like when they're not having sex then I am about knowing what's happening between the sheets. Intimacy in the form of little harmless dialogue barbs or the like is fun and interesting. Knowing when and how two characters are banging is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I would think that whether or or not two people can make babies together would be mostly irrelevant in terms of the scenarios usually found in D&D. "We can have offspring" isn't a requirement for a romantic relationship. Mendrian posted:If two players want to RP a sexual relationship I'm far more interested in what that looks like when they're not having sex then I am about knowing what's happening between the sheets. Intimacy in the form of little harmless dialogue barbs or the like is fun and interesting. Knowing when and how two characters are banging is not. Yeah, ideally a roleplayed relationship makes for fun/funny dialogue and occasionally drives or starts a subplot. Like Zoe and Wash in Firefly. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I would think that whether or or not two people can make babies together would be mostly irrelevant in terms of the scenarios usually found in D&D. "We can have offspring" isn't a requirement for a romantic relationship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
The issue I've seen is when in-character relationships start affecting real-world relationships. This is a very bad problem when it occurs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Play a Half-Mimic if you want...
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Play a Half-Mimic if you want... This is why you should never trust gloryholes in a fantasy world. Either they turn out to be a mimic, or they lead to a Sphere of Annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
We're really rolling initiative with the CR1/2 copypasta instead of stealthing past it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:We're really rolling initiative with the CR1/2 copypasta instead of stealthing past it? Sometimes it's fun to fight a bunch of low-level enemies and just tear right through them. Or in the case of the aforementioned fertility chart, tear through their cervixes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
here you are, talking about loving treasure chests, yet you all thought I was crazy for talking about whether a fetus counts as a living being for the purpose of a spell component. im the only sane person in this entire thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:here you are, talking about loving treasure chests, yet you all thought I was crazy for talking about whether a fetus counts as a living being for the purpose of a spell component. is the fetus a component with a listed cost? If not, any wizard can generate as many babies as he wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:here you are, talking about loving treasure chests, yet you all thought I was crazy for talking about whether a fetus counts as a living being for the purpose of a spell component.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:here you are, talking about loving treasure chests, yet you all thought I was crazy for talking about whether a fetus counts as a living being for the purpose of a spell component. Life begins at spell component eligibilty
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Life begins at spell component eligibilty
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:here you are, talking about loving treasure chests, yet you all thought I was crazy for talking about whether a fetus counts as a living being for the purpose of a spell component. If you can find a way to hold a living foetus in your hands while casting a spell I guess so?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
im the half mimic half kenderSon of a Vondruke! posted:It's easy. You're not thinking like a 5e designer. The answer is always magic. Enlarge on the Sprite, Reduce on the Minotaur. i prefer scientific games that model anal circumference
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Life begins at spell component eligibilty very nice
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Doresh posted:This is why you should never trust gloryholes in a fantasy world. Either they turn out to be a mimic, or they lead to a Sphere of Annihilation. Anybody wanna see my Sphere of Annihilation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Anybody wanna see my Sphere of Annihilation? Think it can handle this Rod of Cancellation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Anybody wanna see my Sphere of Annihilation? I've only ever seen Sphere of Annihilation used for traps or comedy. This is a pretty efficient combination of the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
I just retired a Desert Half-Orc with 18 CHA from a 3.5 game. His first level feat was Nymph's Kiss and the group assumed for a very long time that he was stupid and had fallen in love with a cactus, but in reality he had seduced a Spirit of the Land out in the desert. Just so happens that Wanda was a very cactus-like Spirit of the Land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Think it can handle this Rod of Cancellation? I heard your rod is actually Immovable
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
lifg posted:I've only ever seen Sphere of Annihilation used for traps or comedy. This is a pretty efficient combination of the two. I think the one time we used it in a game I was running was so they could throw a dragonlich's phylactery in it. Said dragonlich was not happy, keyed onto the location where they were and poo poo went down rapidly. If I recall, I rolled a 1 for his saving throw on a save-or-suck spell and he died instantly after killing 3 of the 5 party members. loving 1s...
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
So a question about the ranger 2.0; does Natural Explorer require a favoured terrain? Or is it how I read it- it works in any kind of 'wilderness area'? DM seems adamant that I have to pick a specific terrain for the features to work in, which would really cripple my ranger. edit: like, the DM cannot comprehend that it'd work in any kind of terrain. "Hunters don't master every terrain."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Does your GM have the text of the UA Ranger in front of them, or are they still looking at the PHB text of Natural Explorer? The UA Ranger has zero text about choosing terrain types, nor any mention of terrain types. However, the PHB ranger relies upon terrain choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Does your GM have the text of the UA Ranger in front of them, or are they still looking at the PHB text of Natural Explorer? The UA Ranger has zero text about choosing terrain types, nor any mention of terrain types. However, the PHB ranger relies upon terrain choice. Yeah, they were going off the PHB one at first. But even after reminding them I was using the UA (again) they still thought not having a favoured terrain was dumb. Hence the "hunters don't master every terrain" quote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Wizards should have to pick a phase of the moon to be able to cast spells in because wizards don't master all lunar phases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
The moon doesn't vanish just because the bard goes away, I assure you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Wizards should have to pick one school for all their spells, except cantrips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:So a question about the ranger 2.0; does Natural Explorer require a favoured terrain? Or is it how I read it- it works in any kind of 'wilderness area'? If he objects on balance grounds explain that the UA gives all terrain because they finally realised that picking individual terrains is really bad game design. Also in case you didn't catch it, the first few things (ignoring hindering terrain, advantage against anyone who hasn't acted yet etc) occur everywhere, not just wilderness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Wizards should have to pick one school for all their spells, except cantrips. There should not be a single "wizard" class whose area of expertise is "magic". They should be split up into battlemages, illusionists, enchanters, nature wizards etc etc etc where they're all focused, interesting-to-play classes that function well mechanically. Likewise clerics should be split up by deity type - a cleric of the desert god should be utterly different to the cleric of the sea god, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Tell him that Rangers master all terrain because Fighters master all weapons. Don't tell him that Fighters 'master' jack poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:Yeah, they were going off the PHB one at first. But even after reminding them I was using the UA (again) they still thought not having a favoured terrain was dumb. Hence the "hunters don't master every terrain" quote. Ah yes, D&D at its finest: wizards get to do everything because wizards, and the simple muggles need to be hamstringed because of "realism". I mean, what are we even talking about here? Being able to forage food in all sorts of terrain? Being able to track sort of well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsuokWmEZI
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
How do you handle tracking of spell components for casters? Like if my warlock needs a snake tongue or whatever it may be. I'm asking as a dm, and I don't feel he needs to take time to always find spiders and random stuff for low spells. I understand some of the very rare components for higher grade spells, but what do I do about the little things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 16:49
|
|
