Kickstarter: Clever Girl by Matthew Gravelyn. A 1 or 2 player tabletop roleplaying game about survival in a failed dinosaur theme park.
Sean K Reynolds shared on twitter "some TTRPG financials from the "olden days," my salaries at various years and companies." Some of the replies are... revealing about the industry's practices.
Kickstarter: Remember August by Shing Yin Khor. A live mail-based keepsake game played by writing and mailing letters to your childhood friend, who is lost in time.
A THOUSAND THOUSAND ISLANDS now has shipping fulfillment out of the USA, reducing prices for Western buyers. A series of zines inspired by Southeast Asia, for use with fantasy adventure tabletop RPGs.
Note: 2021-09-29 0400Z- Upgrade attempt failed. We have reverted to the previous configuration. We will be trying again during the next window.
Due to a planned network upgrade, all Stack Exchange sites will be read-only for a maximum of two hours this week. The first window will be Tuesday, Sep...
@doppelgreener I would be interested in playing more Fate sometime! I've played a few sessions in one sort of post-apocalyptic setting, and a few sessions in another A:TLA game that was intentionally limited to a few sessions.
It's an interesting system, though the GM of the former was not very used to the system and how to make best use of it.
The Scorching Ray spell reads (PHB, p. 273; emphasis mine):
You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range.
You can hurl them at one target or several.
Make a ranged spell attack for each ray.
On a hit, the target takes 2d6 fire damage.
The Metamagic Seeking Spell states (T...
@Medix2 Your answer's title and the paragraph that you derive it from are unclear rpg.stackexchange.com/a/191815/44723 which is unfortunate because you make a compelling argument in the rest of your answer. As of now, I'm not sure if it is a phrasing issue or a different conclusion with a logical leap, so I abstained from voting.
The OP is claiming that "foci can replace material components" and "consumed components must be provided" are contradictory. Even if they were then "costly components must be provided" would be too. And nobody thinks that part is unclear
@Akixkisu I need more detail, obviously I think it works
I Quote the rules in questions, point out what they imply, state that this just isn't a contradiction in the first place, and then give two alternative explanations to reach the same conclusion
Try using less flowery phrases like "continuity of language" and more specific references (which paragraph do you describe as "derived from the title"?)
You introduce this weird phrasing of "must be provided" which just doesn't make sense? And none of your sources use that language, it is super confusing.
How does "the caster must provide this [consumed] component" have any significant semantic deviation from "consumed components must be provided"? I'm not seeing any change in meaning. In fact, it's clearly a deliberate re-phrase with two purposes:
@Medix2 sure but I'm not interested in that answer. I like your answer and I want to make sure that we are actually on the same page befoe I upvote it.
First, simply copying out the book text would be pointless and condescending as the asker presumably could have just read the text if that's all they need.
What ambiguity? Who provides the component? Because that's not the question so the title answering the question doesn't need to state it--that detail is in the body.
And I have no idea what the phrase "leaves open what I'm buying into" means.
> By using this material, partially or wholly, you agree to punch fascists and stomp on bigotry. You will respect your fellow players and their needs, concerns, and traumas. At any point for any reason, a player can veto elements of the narrative that are being brought in. You will not use my words in this game to justify harming others.
A lot of indie games have a blurb like that inside the book, but I don't see it blurbed on the sales page nearly as often.
As an attempt to put the head on the robot it's insufficient but helpful, and as a way to avoid a game getting a particularly undesirable fan base it's probably rather effective?
I think it can be very helpful to be explicit about intent, especially in a medium where so many people try to intuit intent from unclear text and then use their interpretation as a cudgel.
I think it's better to make a game that's clear in itself, so that if you include an explicit caveat it's a supplement rather than a band-aid.
I suspect Sol is careful throughout its text (haven't read it yet), but unfortunately I've also seen a lot of games that slap on a 'please don't misuse' label instead doing the work to make it game that's hard to justify misusing.
@AncientSwordRage "You will not use my words in this game to justify harming others" "you agree to punch fascists" Not that I'm a fan of fascists but the sentiments here don't align
Like I said it's a deep topic, that I have thoughts on, but I'm 15 minutes from two largely-unprepared for presentations, so I'd rather either leave things unexplored or circle back later on elsewhere
I mean, it was pretty much called at the end of the previous session, but the players wanted an epic battle.
They were even all down but the life cleric and he brought them all back with a mass healing word. Just to go down again.
The forces were overwhelming, even with one player cheating by clearly giving himself more spell slots, sorcery points, and HP.
At this point, I'm not even upset with him. If that's what he needs to do for fun, that's fine. But I am going to start tracking his resources moving forward.
@G.Moylan It's the Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Players had earlier completely wiped out a drow town and then ran into a large outpost from that town. Drow knew and when recognized, they mobilized.
During the impressive fight, they decided to bring the characters back to life, give them new memories, and true polymorph them into new bodies.
These are those new characters and bodies.
Moving forward - and acting as manchurian candidates for the drow.
@ThomasMarkov DGtS isn't like fully out of the window though: I there would have been indications that it would be 5E, sure... but like it is? That question is fully guesswork, where the original spirit of the DGtS lived.
It's "Hey, you guys are smart and mature, I expect you to be civil and make wise choices." So like, that thing our parents told us when we were 16 that we promptly ignored.
@ThomasMarkov There's a chicken somewhere still warning me about the sky falling, but I think it's just rain.
@NautArch Did you play Bon Jovi's "Blaze of Glory" song as it came to its inexorable end? (.. Go down, in a blaze of glory! ... being the chorus lead in)
@Medix2 Frame Challenge: Seeking Spell is by far the worst metamagic, and Empowered Spell is not even top 4, so the chances of even having both are approaching 0.
This might be a duplicate but I can't find it.
To be clear this has nothing to do with Halfling Luck trait. Or similar abilities that allow the reroll of a die that rolls a natural 1. (I was apparently incorrect though.)
This has to do with a situation such as the Path of the Zealot barbarian's...
"When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice. You choose which one. "
I didn't realize this rule actually used the phrase "the d20"
@ThomasMarkov I'm not sure how helpful potential duplicates are in comments when we don't guess the system. It's effectively guessing it if it's right and gives the user no reason to return.
@NautArch yeah it's fairly standard not to answer in the comments if question is closed or nearly closed across a few different stacks, but it's by no means a rule
[amused] Within the domain of the premises and begged questions, he's not wrong.
A few pushbacks: - A choice that everyone feels compelled to take is a red flag in the paradigm of D&D 'balance,' but it's not a universal bad thing; sometimes it's a deliberate false choice. Guidance isn't that, but this isn't a design principle that can exist in an intentless vacuum. - D&D is famously balanced around combat, so "this is balanced only in combat" is not the gotcha he thinks it is. Still a problem, but not some massive deviation from the overall ecosystem. - And, well. Same deal with "no narrative presence." Isn't the big draw of 5e that the table gets to add whatever the sy…
All that aside yes, repetitive spellcasting that doesn't change the landscape is probably gonna get tedious super fast, and "you have five options and but only one real option" feels bad unless it's clearly feeding the game's overall goals.
In 4e there was one feat everyone took. It gave a bonus to attack that was statistically significant in ways no other feat could compete with. So in their later books Wizards left it in, but added a dozen new feats which gave the same bonus and a weapon/implement-specific feature/ability/effect.
There was still "everyone is going to take the attack bonus feat, always," but it became an interesting tactical choice that added depth to your item choices and could define unique builds or add unusual utility to a standard build.
Has he complained about how cure wounds has no flavor text and is a no-brainer that every healer should take and cast repetitively every time someone gets hurt?
The Scorching Ray spell reads (PHB, p. 273; emphasis mine):
You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range.
You can hurl them at one target or several.
Make a ranged spell attack for each ray.
On a hit, the target takes 2d6 fire damage.
The Metamagic Seeking Spell states (T...
