So, following a previous question about dealing with love interests in a 1-on-1 game this has been brought into our current game.
It was one thing to have it in our one-on-one game, but now we have 2 other players, and a new DM (I am now one of the players), and this relationship between our PCs...
There's nothing graphic involved, thankfully. But there's times where we do spend about 20 minutes at a time just playing out a bit where the characters go off and rp their feelings for eachother
But I didn't immediately recall it saying you asking to stop, with maybe your reasons for it
Whether it's incredibly awkward all around or is more so simply because,... It's literally taking up valuable game time, and not just from you but from other people
Yeah. It's a different situation now because there are more people involved. So no, I haven't spoken to them yet about it in this situation. Which I am unsure how to approach
Montages are usually just a transition from bad to good at [skill]. So you'll probably just go through a Rocky montage, then just be good at [skill] by the end :P
@doppelgreener any news on the undershirt experiment?
@trogdor It was a bit... but I hoped it was an obscure enough reference that anyone who caught it would appreciate it.
Protip: If you want to amaze your friends on Saturday morning by answering one of Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me's famous "Paula, on Saturday a man in Germany was arrested for riding what?" "A pair of manatees." "Yes!" questions, loweringthebar is a decent blog to read. (I feel like the majority of weeks there's an overlap.)
Yeah, when she basically sits Peter down and takes the show's reins for five minutes it's usually pretty classic. "What study is this!? I gotta... you know, I'm not sure about these scientists you're finding, Segel."
So it's this episode. But she really hits is out of the part at one point where she takes the show over Paula-style and pulls in a few callbacks (including one from an incredible study). So you'd kinda have to listen to the whole thing.
Or I could put together a playlist containing enough of the segments to make the last one land, but that'll be later tonight. Gotta get the kids down!
@NautArch I have reviewed the PHB, and it doesn't flow as effortlessly from topic to topic in char concept and chargen as I was recalling it without the book today. Arrgh, sorry for that misunderstanding.
By that, I mean I perceive it as a problem, but since I'm heavily involved in the situation, I could really use some outside perspective to help me see if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here.
I've got a player in my D&D 5E homebrew game that doesn't roleplay that much. This isn't an issue for the most part, but there's a few things he does/doesn't do that I feel would really benefit the verisimilitude/enjoyability of the game for others (or maybe just for me) if he did/didn't
I've talked to him about how much he likes and doesn't like, and I understand that RP isn't everyone's jam (at least not to the extent that I enjoy doing it)
That's the broad strokes, now for the fine details
He's playing a GOO Blade Pact Warlock with riding as a part of his backstory. Being a new DM, I gave him what amounts to a familiar mount horse with better stats and some resistances
We're playing in a magic-outlawed setting (you may remember from earlier), so understandably he doesn't bring the horse out unless there's a real need (combat, travel, etc.)
My problem is just that: he never interacts with the horse unless he needs something from it. He just summons it when he needs it and then dismisses it immediately after when the task/travel is finished
It's a tool to him, a class feature to be used or disregarded as such
I'd really like for him to RP just a little of actual horse-keeping, brushing down, spending time with, etc.
A few things off the top of my head... first, he may not have the schema for horsecare, and isn't confident he can roleplay it properly because he doesn't know what it entails.
@KorvinStarmast No. The horse doesn't need food or water (possible thing I may kick myself for later, but fits with flavor), and needs to spend 8h a day in its own pocket dimension (think Guenhwyvar from the Drizzt series)
@KorvinStarmast The horse has an intelligence of 6, so it can understand languages and communicate basic concepts, just like the Find Steed paladin spell. I plan on "upgrading" the horse later on to possibly include intelligence
@BESW He asked for it, but I went above and beyond and gave him a not-a-horse aberration horse
If it has 6 Int, why not have some occasional "insight" checks so that he perceives the steed's emotions? Now and again, when the plot is a good fit for it.
Third, how does your group handle spotlighting? a scene of the warlock taking care of his horse is liable to sideline other players who just sit around and watch; that'd be a major reason I'd gloss over that sort of scene as a player.
If it were my group, I might consider suggesting that another PC with more animal experience offer to help the warlock learn how to take care of his new steed, and have a group scene where the warlock's player doesn't have to take point. One-on-one scenes where there's just a player and a GM are definitionally intense, he may be more open to it if he's sharing the spotlight.
@BESW Another detail that may or may not be relevant: He hasn't named his character. It's been 11 sessions and ~6 months and he still refuses to name his PC
@KorvinStarmast They did have a name, it was "Frank". Then three of the other four players and PC's left the game and the other one's PC died. The joke is that no one who knew the nickname is still around/alive in the game anymore, so no one really uses it
@Shalvenay That's one possibility, yeah. I've definitely encountered players who consider their PCs to be extensions of their mechanical agency in a tactical game, more than characters in a story; I've also encountered players who have learned to remain unattached to their PCs because they don't have fun when bad things happen to characters they've bonded with.
@Shalvenay He's a friend (we go wayyyy back) and his usual PC style is to RP characters from a book/world setting that he's creating. This was his one exception, as it's in the same setting, and he was going for more of a Ringwraith vibe.
I still have a 70's era miniature that's a dwarf with two pistols and a Clint style wide brimmed hat. Often called "Dwarf With No Hame" as a riff off of a song by the band America (horse with no name)
@KorvinStarmast Perhaps; the ranger's player just joined this last session.
Though the ranger is playing a sort of surly type, so nicknaming another character and sticking to it regardless of the consequences would probably fit
Ok, hope the various ideas we all tossed in are helpfu. I must get my beauty rest, as I work early in the AM. Be well, all. Hope the ranger's player is up for it.
I've seen a number of similar theme questions that keep being put on hold for similar reasons. Their questions are not technical in nature, or encompass so many balance or design issues that it would take a rather lengthy back and forth to sort it out.
This site excels at specific technical and...
I used to play with one friend, who is a hobbyist writer, who kept importing characters from his work without checking against what the game expects. It was a bit of a bother.
But I must add, it wasn't his fault. We were all very new to RPGs and if someone had said "table expectations" to me, I probably would've said gesundheit or somesuch.
It really broadens what you can expect from your tabletop games
And no I don't mean switching from D&D to like,... Pathfinder XD
I mean try some fate, or Great Ork God's, or Lady Blackbird
Or Golden Sky Stories if you are ok with the premise, I realize it's a little niche, no violence (or at least heavily discouraged), playing basically as anime kid animals with magic more or less
The point is, I recommend branching out to some different stuff to any group willing to give that a shot
There's also Inspectres, sort of a Ghostbusters themed thing that seems fun
Basically I'm concerned that having a shield equipped seems to remove nearly all of the ranged options. I had thought a hand crossbow was the way forward but I've realised even that requires a free hand to load. I'm planning this to be a melee based ranger primarily but not having a good ranged option at all feels wrong - was just wondering what enyone else had donw to get round that?
I don't know 5e, but in the previous two editions there have been weapon enchantments for self-loading crossbows and/or floating shields that don't take a hand; more mundanely there's often a smaller shield which straps to the arm and you can choose per round to either have a shield bonus or a free hand.
Might check if 5e has similar options.
(I've also seen crossbows with magazines of bolts so you can fire maybe five times before needing to reload.)
One solution is to bite the bullet and go full STR based, and give him Javelins instead (with Disadvantage over 30 feet).
@BESW Thanks - No RAW weapon enchantments that do exactly that AFAIK - floating shields exist but wouldn't be common at low levels - there's no smaller shield (buckler option) specifically, but that might be reasonable houserule.
@Szega I'm afraid I agree with Carcer - bring that question back to the front page is most likely just going to earn Rubiksmoose more upvotes. Whether or he's right RAW the JC quotes make it look pretty conclusive.
@Szega I think your answer is good but I still disagree and think my reading is proper regardless of RAI
Also nothing wrong with putting a bounty on the question yourself BTW. I've done it in cases where the top/accepted answer is lacking or wrong but I've put a better one before
@Szega I'm actually coming around on your answer I think. The point about the clear path to the target is interesting because generally that is thought of as the same rule as total cover rule. But I guess technically they are separate? It is kind of weird.
@Szega If I do come around I may write my own answer contradicting my current one. Though if you add a section discussion RAI I may not need to. I think discussing the RAI is important here because that information is out there and people know about it. Telling people that RAW and RAI conflict is important information so they can make a decision on how to play the rule at their table. (IMO)
@Rubiksmoose I am unsure how to address RAI here, because there have been multiple occasions where JC has retracted a ruling he made (in haste I presume)
If I wrote an answer from your perspective right now I would bascially just swap your RAW section for the one in my current answer and then change the first sentence to say that RAW and RAI disagree and that tables and DMs are free to choose which interpretation they wish to follow.
@Szega Sure DM are free to do whatever. But this is a specific ruling by the designer and many people take that word as law (which I disagree with but that is another matter) that supercedes what is written in the books.
@Szega There is a pragmatic effect as well though: you won't have to deal with comments or downvotes because "JC disagrees" if you preempt them and acknowledge it.
Not saying you have to, but I find it very useful to at least say if the designer disagrees and why that doesn't matter or shouldn't matter for RAW and how it clearly differs.
In this case, I think I agree that what they intended is not what they wrote.
I also find it clears my conscience a bit because I like at least giving a nod to the fact that an authoritative source disagrees with my RAW interpretation since (as we are seeing here) there are indeed multiple ways to read RAW.
(not saying you have to do so or whatever. Just my 0.02)
Just what I would do and what I may do if I think you are right here.
My view is that answers should be of the greatest benefit to the answer-seeker and if there are multiple "correct" answers out there I will point them all out and give the reader the options laid out. If one is clearly superior I like to point out the reasons for that.
@Szega I've removed my checkmark btw until I'm confident again. That will give your answer also a greater chance to shine I think if people are wanting to vote that way.
@Rubiksmoose @Rubiksmoose regarding your answer, it seems a little self-defeating, unless I'm misunderstanding. One of the requirements of Total Cover is "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." So, I'm not sure how you can have Total Cover and still be visible?
@SirCinnamon I guess, feels a little weird though. Seems that considering that, Total Cover is a little poorly defined. Because it's used both for being unable to be seen and blocking direct paths
@Szega "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." In particular the last sentence.
The clear-path rule is about there being a path clear of total cover. It's not about visibility. #DnD https://twitter.com/philmordeshev/status/798361968088387584
Yeah I'm not saying that they couldn't or shouldn't have been much more clear about this, but I think that is widely accepted as the way to apply the rules.
I personally would definitely rule, in my own game, that you can cast Sacred Flame on a target that has Total Cover as long as you can see them (Behind a window etc.). If Sacred Flame descends and centres on a person from above then in my own headcannon if it can't get past a window then it would be completely useless in the underdark.
I suspect the question wouldn't have so many downvotes if he'd just said "we tortured the dude a bit" rather than having to specify they stomped on his balls
@ravery My personal ability to review your diagram work is just not there. I can't confirm if it's correctly diagrammed or not. That's something for the english stack :)
@Rubiksmoose I think the core mechanic has it: player describes action, GM decides if a roll is necessary, GM narrates outcome. In step 2 I probably don't default to combat mechanics, but it might be an ability check. Persuasion/Intimidation (Str), perhaps?
(Of course, if this happens at my table before step 2 engages we have a table-level convo about what we want in our game. Because I really don't care for visceral descriptions of violence, but I may be in the minority at a table.)
In other news, TIL I can do a John Larroquette impression. So I'm filing that one away in my "NPC go-to" file =)
@nitsua60 @Rubiksmoose I'd probably still require an attack roll if someone was trying to physically hurt someone. Just for the pure joy of them rolling an automiss 1 and the subsequent narration.
@nitsua60 Sounds like you need to do a courtroom encounter...in the evening.
@nitsua60 Good point, I don't actually say the core mechanic in my answer. I will add it. I would lean toward the exact same things depending on the circumstances. I don't think I would have this be a damage thing at all.
@nitsua60 Well you aren't alone here. Torture is straight up banned at our table.