Ironaically enough, you just take either the horizontal or the vertical distance (whatever is longer) instead of calculating. I hate that rule and never use it, but that's what RAW says.
Partially. I think its fine to have that kind of thing. But not all the time. Bandits who are actually good people will avoid murder if possible. And while bad people can also have loved ones, that does not invalidate self defense.
Just as you said: Self defense is not murder-hoboing. If we are talking murder-hoboing then we should apply that list to city guards and commoners, who are not meant to be fought.
I get you wanted to do it for fun, but you sound like a horrible player to have at the table. There is a social contract involved in playing DnD and while disagreements between party members are all fine, your character was basically hindering the other characters at every step (at least from what you described).
While it has nothing to do with the first point: I also reject your interpretation of alignment. It's (at least from how I see it) not that you choose an alignment and then build a character around it, but that you build a character and then classify them with the alignment that fits their actions best. I know that some classes require certain alignments but even then there are a multitude of different ways to go about that alignment.
I think it would depend on the table. I for one know I would not like it.
I think it is - in fact - the exact opposite of it. It's gaslighting and player vs. DM mentality. If I was a player, I would have a serious word with the DM afterwards and when I am the DM, I refrain from such actions altogether.
I agree. I normally don't do it, but I still like to know when I'm about to get hit with some of that stuff. There are... some bad memories attached to it.
What? Don't you dare insult kneebreaker. He's one of the finest works from the 42th generation of smiths.
I love it. The drawings, but especially the moments of characters looking back at how far they have come and remembering all the happened along the way. There is a certain... bittersweet melancholy to it.
What!? Who is short here? I'll show you short!!
I might inject, that this is a very drastic measure that some groups will find to be annoying. As long as they are actually debating constructively, then the example above isn't even needed. If, as the comment says, the debate is going in circles, some groups can be brought back on track by simply telling them: "So guys... What are you going to do? Because you've been doing the same back and forth for half an hour now?"
Not saying that you should not use the above method. Just saying that some players will find that to be an "extreme" solution. Instead, simply reminding them, that they should probably get to a result within the next five minutes can do.
Please. Its not that bad. Baldurs Gate is a nice place. With a lot of crimes. And horrible Living conditions. There are also a lot of politicians. Did I mention all the noise reporters...? Okay maybe it's that bad.
Thanks. He seems like a really cool guy.
Ah yes. Good ol' Volo. Nice to see him from time to time. I should use his books more often.
Fortunes Favor doesn't seem like the optimal spell to use in a situation like this (even if you could). Unless the games include no social component, enhance ability would be better.
About the house rule: I get why you'd use the rule for simplicity, but especially if your not playing a cleric, but instead a wizard or an artificer, it seems weird to make the PC a chosen one by having those spells.
I usually give NPCs a set selection of spells they use. But this set is only their prepared spell-list, it varies depending on the NPC and most preparation-casters will have access to the other spells on their list, should the need arise (as it most likely won't, so there is no extra work on my part).
Oh. That sounds very interesting. Thanks.
Edit: A lot of people say, that GWM needs a melee weapon attack, but they miss Jesses point: While GWM requires a melee attack with a heavy weapon, Sharpshooters only criteria is an attack with a ranged weapon (not a ranged weapon attack). Jesse bases his claim on the fact, that a crossbow is still a ranged weapon, even if used as an improvised weapon for melee combat. That’s why it deals 1d4(!)+20 damage. (It works with any ranged, heavy weapon btw., so Longbow qualifies too.) Of course Jesse is playing the devils advocate here and of course, no somewhat sane Walter will allow this in any campaign ever, as it’s obviously not the intention behind these feats. But you could read it that way and that’s Jesses (paperthin) point. Besides: he finds the image of a barbarian running around recklessly smashing a crossbow over everyone’s head to just be hilarious.