jounniy @ jounniy @ttrpg.network

Posts

19

Comments

143

Joined

2 yr. ago

First Pete Complete now Ahdok. Why is everyone getting married these days?

Okay I didn’t even consider those two. I don’t get how casting it one more time after you fail would help though, it why failing would help in general.

Only if they somehow got access to the spell.

Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.

Ah I see. I was talking 2014, but yeah the means you have to make use of some other loopholes.

Good one. I also noticed that this version of imprisonment makes you immune against every instance of the spell for 24 hours. So a paranoid BBEG might just have underlings (like some divination wizards) to buff the hell out of them in the morning, then use something like another servant or a glyph of warding to trigger a casting of the spell to make themselves immune for the day. Incredibly unnecessary, but very funny.

But yes I think "high likelihood" really makes what was a situational spell into a very boring spell to use for players. You’re better off just killing the target now, as killing them permanently is more reliable.

Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.

Oh so nice to hear you decided to take this step. I wish you lots of success and fun doing this as your work. Maybe try to avoid getting a burnout over it (that’s what I found to happen frequently when people start freelancing their hobby).

I think the last one is not really necessary. Characters having flaws is part of the design philosophy. Martials actually have a small advantage here as it is easier for them to build around their most important abilitiescores.

Ah. Yes. Good point. Guess they'll have to work overtime.

Okay. I'll admit: I don’t get it.

You don’t have to specify. It says "You can specify" so you are free not to specify anything.

Beyond that, yes. I'd say even by RAW the slumber is supposed to be the restraint and no other restraint is listed so if not being put to sleep is enough to still get benefits you’re good to go.

I’d say RAI the answer is obvious. But by RAW it’s unspecified, so both could be true.

Well that’s a very general accusation for a stance that could have a multitude of reasons.

Yes you can. I've just made the experience that people enjoy balanced games more than unbalanced ones.

I think that’s a big strength of tabletops too, but I sometimes wish people would adhere a bit more to the rules, because while some things are not covered by them, changing the things that are is a good way to get me to be very hesitant to do anything because I can’t rely on achieving anything close to the intended outcome if I can’t rely on the rules.

Properly buffing martials without creating different problems in the process is actually far harder than it seems I'd say.

But yes other than that it’s a good solution as well.

I’d say it’s quite clear by RAW that once your third death save-fail happens your very much dead-dead. The DM is allowed to change any RAW of course (as this is RAW too), but without those changes it's very much not arbitrary.

That’s on the same level as disintegrate making you able to play a sentient pile of dust.

I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.