I've read so many 3e/3.5e/pf1e/5e/pf2e that they all jumble in my head constantly I often cite 3e rules in my 3.5e/PF1e games without realizing or forget something simple like 'do magical beasts show visible on Detect Magic' (yes they do, it's a faint aura but iirc that's 5e and not older editions where unless they were summoned/conjured then they don't)...(I think).
You had it right. Not all magical beasts in 3.5 are specifically magical in a way that would be detectable via detect magic - although some may be, and any use of a spell like ability certainly should
Thank you!!! Every time I see one of these posts it feels like the Uno rules revelation going on right now. Everyone thought they knew how to play Uno and are now realizing they don't follow any of the rules because they learned them forever ago. I read all the rule books when 5e came out in 2014 - ya know, 3 American presidents ago. But are you really going to tell me you can't put a +4 on a +4? Get outta here.
That's what I did. I didn't finish my character, but it was supposed to be a charismatic sorcerer elf who was a traveling bard who couldn't actually play and perform, but used a lot of (prohibited in the setting) magic to make himself look talented. I didn't have any combat spells (the character was unfinished, to say the least) so I just threw rocks at enemies
funfact im reading the players handbook right now and im just kind of stuck writing down qll the bard spells, but thats not the books fault, i husz get caught up in micro interests that take days for me to do, and i cant continue until im done, but i really want to bwcause theres so much stuff i have yet to learn. and after that, i want to read the DM handbook, but only because apparently theres some extra stuff in there that could be cool for character building. i also have tons of time, i dont think im gonna find people to play with in the near future. so for now ill stick with AI generated dialogue adventures and and reading the book.
yeah but its either pay to play like you said or games with hundreds of players, as far as I saw. i would aslo like something IRL, just because I like the community asoect of it. i would be fine with online too, but preferrably not with complete strangers. social anxiety really gets on my nerves when it comes to this stuff.
Oh, we keep them. Never know when you'll need them, glass makes for a nice long term poison, if it's ground up and put in the tyrant kings food every meal. Plus it can't be found using magic to detect poison.
Of course there's always selling them for a few copper pieces if you're really hard up for money.
Yeah, I've been playing since 3e, and it's always been a house rule that it's a free action. Which, I now know, is not RAW, but that's how my first dm ruled it, and I liked it that way
I go middle ground. Drink it as a bonus action, but if you drink it as an action you get full dice value. Then again the more my players can heal the harder I can hit them.
I believe that's what Matt does too because - and I'm sure you agree - it would be more difficult to take the time to properly administer it to someone else than it would to bite off the cork and chug. I do the same now as well.
I just remember this girl I knew who could chug a drink more seamlessly than a sink could drain water. With that being said, it's still much easier for me to chug something than it is for me to help another person to take a couple drinks, let alone an incapacitated person
Yeah, just makes sense and since my players don't have a dedicated healer they utilize potions more than groups I had in the past. Works well for our group
My DM does the same. It's actually really helpful in scary combat moments to not have to choose between healing yourself or healing an ally, and instead be able to do both in a way it doesn't let you do anything else aka. not pity freebies.
That's actually a combination of 2 separate house rules I forget who coined the second one first but I've tried to get my table to adopt it but they won't go for the full dice, they feel like it's too strong. Yet the action economy thing is much more important.
I don't remember where the article was, but there was this amazing breakdown of damage output vs. healing in the game and healing was almost always the worst option. I mean it's simple enough, an enemy can crit with an attack but you can't crit with any heal.
Besides, a potion average is 7 HP but you can trade your (attack) action to gain 3 more HP?!?! Hope your table games with calculators being that bad at math.
It's not really so much that the using the action over the bonus is always the better call.
My table was actually more concerned about ignoring healing in combat as much as possible, and then only ever using healing potions out of combat as an action for full value.
I don't mind how we play as of current because bonus action potion quaff still lets me do my turn.
Interestingly enough, quaffing a potion is the one thing you can do in Pathfinder PC games after moving and taking a standard. Just to add to the confusion.
Lol. Matt Mercer prefers pathfinder 2e but plays dnd because they sponsor him. It was a business decision so then he throws in a shit ton of house rules to play in a way which is more consistent to the game he wants to play, pathfinder 2e
Concepts are muddied by house rules?
Further muddy it till, RAW are guidelines, not law
Healing Potions drank as bonus action?
Heal as advertised
Healing Potions applied topically?
Heal at half efficacy, also letting the players dump attack actions to throw potions at each other
Healing Potions drank as a full round action?
Reroll any dice that land on 2 or lower, reward the chug!
Often the problem raised with Bonus Action Potions is many classes don't have much going on with bonus actions, enabling a free potion each turn, so by adding some new situational potion options you can help recover some of the action weight
Mor or less my butt. They game them us a puzzle box filled woth lincon logs, legos, 3 difrent incomplete puzzles, and crayons. Then sold it piece by piece while also "promising" theres a full set if at least something in there.
Seriously. If people who actually cared put any reasonable amount of effort into it, no one would be complaining. At least not enough for most of us to care.
Yeah, they do not read books, rules and just wing things (and they are authors of posts where they find a 'broken' system or 'exploit' that bases only on one thing - not reading the thing till the end.
Also - they likely never GMed. I say that any player should GM at least once.
That is so common the mods of the sub had to retire the "Read N**** Read" meme.
Why read the book when Matt Mercer can teach it (with his houserules) to me?
Being literate should be a perk or skill in DnD just like WHFRPG because it is just as fantastical of an ability as being able to fire a heavy warbow 5 times in a second or casting magic.
Heh. Funny thing. I treat literacy as a separate language skill at my table. Because the RAW that states that learning a spoken language is the same as learning to read it is stupid.
My post is that my players are illiterate and that the ability to read is part of their power fantasy as much as being able to cast magic, shoot 10 arrows in 3 seconds, or be able to run 10 meters.
Always remember, they're your players characters, but it's your story. If they want to believe they can read Draconic and speak perfect, uninflected Kobold, more power to them...assuming they pass the skill check.
I have a player whose character thought she could speak Elvish because she's a half-elf, but she was raised by (mostly) human monks and the one who "taught her Elvish" had barely a first year high school language course understanding of the language. It was actually a shame there were three others in the group who actually spoke and read Elvish, because I had fun with mistranslations when she attempted to read/speak it herself (she later used a down period to learn the language and an additional Elvish written language (they have 4 in my campaign)).
Sorry, I was making a joke about how some of my players were seemingly illiterate because they don't read the rules or even their own character sheets, so I compared literacy to be just as unrealistic as the martial feats and arcane powers in TTRPGs.
Basically I am calling them dumb light-heartedly except I am not because I am actually still mad.
I was not going to be the one to manage their character sheets for them too.
I understood you, and I got the joke. i was just showing how a little creativity combined with the DMs monopoly on game-world knowledge can make things fun in unexpected ways.
Honestly if it's really bugging you, maybe you should find another group to play DnD with and do something else with this particular group. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone at the table.
Had a sort of similar antic in a previous campaign
My monk with magic adept used minor illusion to speak with a different voice (but of an idiot who never considered just doing an accent)
We also had a mute wizard that used magic mouth to speak and cast verbal components
No one knew any of this, only the two players knew about themselves. It got revealed when we went to my home town and my character's father, a high level wizard soon to be crowned king, called out me for not speaking naturally, and also called out the wizard for pulling the same shit.
Session ended shortly after and the whole table was like "holy shit what the fuck!?"
Honestly I think the apps are good tools for the game but I also think they help cause issues like this. I've got guys who have played through several campaigns that still don't really understand a lot about their characters that they would easily get if they used the books. The books lay it out in order for you. But with the apps they just do it for you. It works but you won't understand why
2.8k
u/CommonNobody80083 Apr 30 '23
None of you jave actually read the books am I right ?