unit: how do you allow a character's joints to fall freely based on gravity?

Thanks for contributing with a response to Game Development Stack Exchange!

  • Please make sure answer the question. Please provide details and share your research!

But avoid

  • Ask for help, clarification or respond to other answers.
  • Make statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.

For more information, check out our tips on how to write great answers.

How does the druid's Wild Shape shape interact with magical tomes and manuals that increase a character's skill scores?

Certain tomes and manuals increase the skill score of a character who uses them. As these tomes / manuals are, I suppose, & # 39; consumed & # 39 ;, can a druid who just entered Wild Shape benefit from such tome / manual (i.e.Dex, Con, Str)?

dnd 5e: Does the function Heard of Deceit of the Inquisitive Rogue become useless by a character's passive Insight score?

Mike Mearls is simply wrong.

Read the book, play, learn from their experiences, ignore the tweets.

He is wrong when he says that a skill check requires an action. It is not clear whether it refers to an action in terms of the turn structure, or an action in the informal sense of making an effort to do something, but in any case there are obvious counterexamples:

  • Initiative It is a capacity check to determine how quickly you realize a situation, and it is before someone takes any action.
  • A To struggle it requires an opposite Athletics control, which means that both the attacker and the defender make controls; It replaces a single attack of the attacker and does not cost the defender any action / reaction.
  • The examples in the rules for Acrobatics Controls include "staying upright on the deck of a rocking ship." You are literally doing a check to be there.
  • Speaking It generally does not require an action, and may result in a Persuasion or Deception or other verification to determine what effect your words have. This may (as in your situation here) be an opposite test, so even the character who is not speaking has to do a skill test.

You are also wrong about succeeding automatically when a DC is below your passive ability. As described in the PHB, passive ability does not apply to normal skill controls. It applies to passive controls, which are a different type of verification performed in different circumstances.

In general, if you are allowed to throw a check, you cannot apply your passive ability to that check.

Are there rules for a character's hand beyond the additional attack of the double hilt?

Is there an innate ability for the characters in Anima, or is it just something that applies to a specific situation? Here are all the applicable rules that I could find about it:

Attacks with additional weapons
A character can try to increase his offense by wielding a weapon in
each hand If you do, you can carry out an additional attack while
paying a penalty of –40 only for the second weapon. If the fighter is
Ambidextrous, the penalty for the second weapon is reduced to a mere -10.
Anima – Beyond fantasy Page 84

Ambidextrous
An ambidextrous person can use both hands.
equally good.
Effects: An ambidextrous character can perform
maneuvers with any hand. In combat he suffers
only –10 to attacks with an additional weapon.
Anima – Beyond fantasy Page 15

The first rule says that the game only cares about an "improvised hit" when used to perform an additional attack without incurring the penalty of usual additional action, however, the second rule seems to imply that all characters have an innate hand (it may be necessary to specify in the creation of the character) that if they perform any action (action is used as a synonym for maneuver in the book) with their right hand they would suffer this penalty.

The following issue raised the issue:
A character has the ability to perform multiple additional attacks through a ki technique and wants to distribute those attacks between the weapons in his two hands and end the additional weapon attack. The question is whether normal attacks made with your second weapon are affected by this penalty, or just the last one.

graphics: economical way to soften the character's point of contact with the ground

The view of my game is always semi topdown. I'm trying to make the point of contact between the characters and the floor plan more grounded without rendering hundreds of sprites.

One thing that I think might work well is simply hide Some pixels of each object that is, that is, 2 cm from the ground.

See the GIF below for an example I did in Photoshop:

enter the description of the image here

Things I'm thinking about:

  • Check the depth z before rendering: if it is very close, then randomly do not render the pixel
  • randomly write "incorrect" depth buffer values ​​for the ground plane
  • a small 2 cm layer on the ground plane that only writes z values; draw this before the character

As I am still in the research phase, I would also like to explore other possibilities.

  • Is there a game that has done something similar that I can seek inspiration?
  • Is there already a well established way of doing this?

dnd 5e: What happens if a character's statistics are reduced and the amount of spells they can prepare is reduced?

The cleric's spell casting function sets about spell preparation:

Prepare the list of cleric spells you can cast by choosing from the list of cleric spells. When you do, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell).

When preparing a spell list, create a completely new list; Do not add or remove spells.

If you are a Level 1 Cleric with 18 Wisdom, then you can prepare 5 (4 + 1) spells.

If you have the Ioun Stone, then you can prepare 6 (5 + 1) spells.

If you unclog the Ioun Stone, then you can prepare 5 (4 + 1) spells.

If you had to tune the Ioun Stone and then prepare 6 spells, then, without tuning the Ioun Stone, you will continue to have the 6 spells ready. When you decide to prepare a new spell list, you can only prepare 5 spells.

dnd 5e: What should I do with a character's magic items when his player leaves?

This question already has an answer here:

I have a group of three adventurers and a member of the group leaves the group permanently. Don't worry, everything is on good terms and we are having someone else replace them. My concern is that my group can be quite volatile, which means that players come and go with some frequency, and I'm not sure what would be the best way to handle their magic items. I could allow the remaining players to select the magic items that belonged to the player who is leaving, but that could cause balance problems if my player counts decreases and is loaded with unnecessary magic items. Not to mention that it doesn't really make sense for a character to give up all of his most valuable possessions just because he is retiring from the adventure. On the other hand, I don't think it's right for me to steal from the party the loot won with effort for which ALL risk their skins. Does anyone know if there are guidelines for this scenario, or have any advice?

dnd 5e: Can a bard inspire another character's inspiration roll?

Recently I was thinking of great ideas for my new character, when I thought of something. Is it possible for another bard to inspire my inspiration? Or is it possible to inspire another bard's inspiration roll? I don't think it's too innovative.

Example: a fighter makes a check, for which he throws badly. The fighter uses an inspirational dice, then realizes that he probably still won't succeed. Another bard at the party gives him inspiration, which he uses immediately.

Pathfinder 1e – How does the perception of your character's world affect failing a Reason for Sense verification against a Bluff?

The wording of & # 39; Sense Motive & # 39; It is quite simple:

A successful check allows you to avoid being cheated (see Bluff ability). You can also use this ability to determine when "something is happening" (that is, something strange is happening) or to assess someone's reliability. (Basic rules, p. 104)

The problem I have is that default A reason check is not described in the skill itself. The closest I can find is in the description of the check & # 39; Bluff & # 39 ;:

Bluff is a test of opposite ability against your opponent's Sense Motive ability. If you use Bluff to fool someone, a successful check will convince your
opponent that what you say is true. (Basic rules, p. 90)

Because of the way the game I am structured is structured, most of the people we know are hostile to us or, at least, they don't want us to succeed. In addition, most of the people we interact with have absurdly high lantern checks, to the point that I don't remember that none of us have successfully detected a lie with “ sensory motive & # 39; & # 39; (even though they lie to us almost constantly).

For example, recently we had an encounter with a demon that we were sure to know the whereabouts of a MacGuffin. We also knew that this demon had a history of deceiving the adventurers by giving them bad addresses that sent them to ambush. Then, we talked to this demon, and he effectively gave us instructions for the MacGuffin. The interaction went like this:

Devil – "Oh, yes, I know where that is. You just have to take the winding path and turn left into the great twisted tree. Nobody uses that path, it will take you there safe and sound."

Fighter – "I really don't believe this guy a bit. I'm rolling with common sense to see if he's lying to us. I threw a 29"

GM – "(wheel) Do you think he is telling the truth"

Naturally, I wasn't telling the truth, and we ended up being ambushed.

The problem is that when deciding to carry out a verification of reasons, we basically oblige ourselves to accept the results of the verification instead of our own intuition. As we know that we have a good chance of failing controls, no matter how well we get out, we find it advantageous to make as few motive controls as possible. That way, we can at least have some chance of recognizing when they lie to us. In the previous example, if we simply had not tried to develop a sensitive motive, we would all be almost 100% sure that the devil was sending us into an ambush, and we would have planned to go another way. However, since we tried to determine if it was a lie, we ended up failing the check and then believing it was the truth, which put us in a much worse position than if we simply had not tried to determine if it was a lie to lie in the first place.

the Hunch The Sense Motive option seems to try to address situations similar to this:

This use of the skill involves making an intestinal evaluation of the social situation. You may have the feeling of another person's behavior that something is wrong, such as
When you talk to an imposter. Alternatively, you may have the feeling that someone is reliable. (Basic rules, p. 104)

Unfortunately in our game, I know that everyone we know is not & # 39; trustworthy & # 39 ;, and that & # 39; something is happening & # 39; at all times. Knowing that the devil is not reliable gives me nothing useful; I know he is not reliable, he is a demon. However, sometimes it is necessary to work with people who are not reliable, and in those moments it is important to be able to try to discover what they are telling the truth and what they are lying about. With Sense Motive in the way it is written, it seems that it is better not to roll unless you are almost 100% sure that you will succeed, or else you will be convinced that the lie is really the truth, rather than simply not Be sure if they are lying to you or not.

Is there anything official that deals with the limits of believing a lie? In my example, failing to verify a sense of meaning means that you really believe that the devil is being honest, no doubt? Does the failed check relieve feelings of uncertainty about the situation? What should the characters do when they are quite sure that they are lying to them, and they are also quite certain that they can never pass their motive checks?

dnd 5e: How can I persuade my DM to be my sorcerer's employer in a way that respects my character's concept?

Your problem is not that you need to persuade your GM to change the way the Warlock class works; His problem is that he has fallen prey to what I am going to start calling "the Bugbear nomenclature.""

Each character class is a collection of skills built around a concept that is frequently found in works of fantasy fiction. These classes have names, presumably because it becomes awkward to say "I am playing a person who uses really competent weapons and armor!" all the time. Therefore, the fighter is someone who can use armor and weapons well. The wizard class is someone who uses magic and keeps spells in books. You will have solved this a few minutes after reading the class descriptions.

However, being a member of a class does not mean that your character identifies with the Name of that class: a fighter could also be a Viking assailant, a wandering knight, a conqueror or any of the thousands of other possibilities, and similarly, there are many characters in fiction who cast spells and maintain a library, and most of them are not called "magician". The Bugbear nomenclature arises when we forget that class names are only a convenience of game jargon and we begin to think that they are recognized in the universe.

To be fair, this is an easy trap to fall, since often the words used for class names do they exist in the universe: they were taken from the fiction that inspired the game, and most campaign settings are also inspired by that same fiction; So, most D&D settings do they have people called magicians, and most of them They are members of the assistant class, because the assistant class is good enough to represent which attendees are in that environment. You just need to remember that in many of these environments, the nomenclature in the universe does not necessarily align perfectly with the terminology of the game; In most environments, you can present yourself as a "thief" and people will not necessarily assume that your character is a rogue with the archetype of the thief, since the only qualification on the stage to be a thief is to steal things and any class can do that.

Returning to his example: You want to make a character that is a sorcerer in the campaign universe; a person who uses subversive magic as an alternative to physical power and social skill. You want this to be backed by the mechanics of the game and its GM. That is all reasonable. Your goal is twofold: You want to find a class that suits your concept, and you want to work with your GM to have a shared understanding of what your witch pretends to be.

As your GM has pointed out, the sorcerer class is not really what you are looking for. But its concept is still quite broad, and that means it is flexible; With the permission of your GM, you can choose any class that fits your concept, be it magician, cleric or, well, anything that uses magic, and that your character calls herself "witch" in the conversation.

Once you've chosen a class whose skill list sounds like your vision of a witch, explain your idea to your GM. It seems that your GM is not opposed to the concept of your character, so I hope he is receptive. As long as he agrees that there is no great dissonance between what your character can do and what she calls herself, you will find that this solves your problem. You might have a little round trip if you have existing nomenclature plans for magic users in the environment, but eventually you will have a character that you are happy with and that your GM understands well. It is win-win!