I assumed it to be about weird interpretations/effects of spell that are either Raw but stupid (like find traps finding intentional clauses in legal documents) or common sense interpretations that still lead to weird outcomes (using bead of force+levitate+thunderwave to blast the BBEG into orbit). Because why make a video about people misinterpreting spells without making clear that this is unintended?
Oh. Yeah. But why afraid?
Not to worry. The Zenths tend to be pretty chill.
I still don’t get the ,would".
Okay. Maybe I’m outing myself as an idiot… but I don’t get it.
"So what do you have? "
“A sword!”
“A sword?”
“Yes. And I can hit with it twice as often twice every hour.”
“… I’ll stick to my spellslots thank you.”
“… It sounded better in my head.”
I should be more like ,is paralyzed when struck with a stake through the heart". But thats ruins the joke.
Meanwhile I’m impressed by the fact, that Konsi used EXACTLY 25 words.
Hm. That could work. But it would be quite tedious.
Also: why 12 and not 8? Doesn’t a DC calculate 8+prof+ability?
Right. I correct: It’s not what 5e is best used for.
For the rest: That’s what I’m saying. From what I picked up (personal opinion) people really don’t like it when they don’t know what’s going on. But each their own. If your table is happy with it, go for it. I’m just advising against using it as a general rule, because some people don’t have much fun when the game goes this way.
So he’s pretending and his companions don’t notice, or they all are?
Yeah. But I’m really not a big fan of that. The strategic nature is a part of DnD. If you remove that you end up making it less engaging, since you just shoot sh*t into the abyss, hoping it might do something, or not. Thats not particularly fun to me. Not knowing things is interesting, because you can figure them out, or have to plan and think to work around what you know and don’t know.
It just feels… pointless if you never understand what’s going on and also have no way of figuring it out. You just go somewhere vague, do something vague and accomplish something vague.
That may be fun for some people but its not what DnD was designed for or what I hope to get out of my games. Thats why I also don’t recommend using it in every game as a general rule.
I really don’t like that. Its not taking agency away from the players most of the time, but they:
Only problem I can see with that is, that passive scores take away from the randomness attributed to DnD but I generally agree with you. I also don’t like rolling checks for my players.
Still worse, since you don’t know how low you rolled. If you get a 11 on an attack and miss, but you have a bardic inspiration and you know a 14 hit last round, you can safely assume that your chance of success is reasonable, while the inspiration would be wasted if you rolled 7. It just takes away from the strategic nature of the game.
I really don’t like this, since it makes shield a blind shot, for the chance of making an attack miss. Wich is not a big deal for characters with high AC (since +5 is enough to make almost all attacks, that would otherwise hit, miss instead), but for characters with low AC it is. So the nerf doesn’t really work well.
Besides: It makes it even harder to do something I really like: figure out things about the monster by ,reading" their roles and thus adapting my characters strategy.
And lastly it makes the PCs feel… babysitted, since the DM does not seem to trust them and just plays the whole thing for them. (Why even bother rolling any check yourself if the DM can just do it all the time?)
I did. Please don’t tell me I fucked it up.
Casting a spell and holding it uses visible components the hobgoblin could react to.
Incite greed also explicitly says that the creature avoids obvious harm while approaching you and does nothing beyond approaching you. If the would always run after the gem (forsaking personal safety to do so), this would be noted in the description.