OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Group B
Post Reply
User avatar
marine7312000
DUKE
DUKE
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:09 pm
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by marine7312000 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:55 am

OJT-on the job training. It's military jargon, specifically a Marine Corps phrase.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:14 am

Arpat wrote:OJT?
PBS?

wuts that?
sometimes i just hate abrevithingies..
PBS = Point Blank Shot

He is gunning for that small percentage chance to do something he shouldn't be able to do... :D

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:26 am

Marine is correct but it is also used in the US computer industry since that is where computers originated from in the US (the Military).

PBS is point blank shot - a DnD acronym... lol

And for Marine - Semper Fi!
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:27 am

cave_lion wrote:
Arpat wrote:OJT?
PBS?

wuts that?
sometimes i just hate abrevithingies..
PBS = Point Blank Shot

He is gunning for that small percentage chance to do something he shouldn't be able to do... :D

Hey now, Shai and you suggested it not I ... lol I just said that OJT was better and more realistic than training... :)

Besides, it is a good work in for role playing instead of here you go, you are granted with this feat.
Image
Image
Image

scarymike23
VISCOUNT
VISCOUNT
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:26 pm
Location: Madison, WI USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by scarymike23 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:39 am

Arpat wrote:OJT?
PBS?
On the Job Training

Point Blank Shot
-SM

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6926
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by Duniagdra » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:43 am

Arpat wrote:OJT?
PBS?

wuts that?
sometimes i just hate abrevithingies..
OJT is On the Job Training.

I've never heard of PBS, other than the Public Broadcast Station. I am unable to guess that one.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Agrous: Human Cleric
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:58 am

Duniagdra wrote:
Arpat wrote:OJT?
PBS?

wuts that?
sometimes i just hate abrevithingies..
OJT is On the Job Training.

I've never heard of PBS, other than the Public Broadcast Station. I am unable to guess that one.
PBS= Point Blank Shot.

To come to think of it. I think PBS came from the NWN(1 and 2) and DDO MMORPG community?
Image
Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:03 am

Here Arpat--to deal with these military gents (not to mention the DND freaks):
http://www.acronymfinder.com/

I will try to keep a running acronym list at the beginning of the rules wiki--if you use an acronym that hasn't been used before try and post the full meaning once and I will then add that to the list...

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:08 am

Speaking about Wiki - the TWLD Wiki needs a little help.

Do you want us all or some of us to update it?
Image
Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:17 am

greg_BSCIS wrote:Speaking about Wiki - the TWLD Wiki needs a little help.

Do you want us all or some of us to update it?
Well sure--it is there for the players--so if any of you have the time and inclination that would be great. I wouldn't want to stipulate that everyone needs to contribute something, since some are not going to have the desire to do that--but I would bet that most would get some use from it if anyone added stuff there. I use it for the Shackled City game I am in and refer to it quite a bit. That game is more a mystery/thriller setup though so it is a good thing to be able to refer to the past. TWLD is more straight forward quest (point A to B to C) with not much backtracking--so it may not be as useful. But you could still incorporate your "journal" quirk there if you like--I would read it...

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:22 am

That is what I was thinking and to add other "necessary" stuff.
Image
Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:32 am

The skeleton layout can be changed however you find it useful, by the way. I had to change Richards base starting page for The Shackled City because there was too much info on one page--so I made the front page an index to other pages. I did the same for TWLD to give everyone the room to expand things as they see fit--but you can edit that however you want really--it is open to be edited by whoever is signed up for it. You do have to PM Richard to get a login/password for the wiki to change it.

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:14 am

I don't have the rights to change (edit) anything.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6926
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by Duniagdra » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:24 am

greg_BSCIS wrote:I don't have the rights to change (edit) anything.
You need to register a user name on the Wiki and PM that to Richard. He'll then set you up.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Agrous: Human Cleric
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:41 am

Duniagdra wrote:
greg_BSCIS wrote:I don't have the rights to change (edit) anything.
You need to register a user name on the Wiki and PM that to Richard. He'll then set you up.

Oops, my bad, I missed Gordon's last sentence.
Image
Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Moving through an occupied square

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:03 pm

After re-reading the Movement Rules I have realized I was incorrect in how I was using the Squeezing Rule. Squeezing only applies to areas that are smaller than 5'. Moving through a 5' square that is occupied by a friend can be done without penalty. You just can't stay there at the end of your move. Sorry for the error.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:53 pm

greg_BSCIS wrote:
OUT OF CHARACTER
Thinking in a cool calm voice

 

... THINKING: Taedyn concentrate, focus on your shot... Aim...breathe ....
OUT OF CHARACTER
Taedyn is practicing - Weapon Focus - Long bow for his class progression path - can you roll please to see if I receive a +1 bonus or tell me to take a hike ... :lol:

 

OUT OF CHARACTER
Any Feat anyone wants to practice like this, just note the name of the focus with the description (something like "learning Weapon Focus") and I will roll for the chance the feat will actually apply. It will start as a 5% chance. You can only pick one feat at a time to do this with

 


cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Skill Checks

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:55 pm

Total side comment: under standard 3.5 rules, a roll of 1 is not an automatic failure on skill checks. The automatic 1 and 20 rules only apply to attacks and saves. Of course, this is Pathfinder and I am not the DM, so that could be entirely irrelevant...
I do like the auto failure/auto success on skill checks--otherwise there is no chance for the fluke success on very difficult things--and no chance for me to have the PC's do silly things if they roll a 1. So whether or not it is in the rules it will play that way with me as DM... You guys won't roll any 1's anyway right? I also give bonus success for a 20 roll if the check was a success (extra info or whatever is appropriate based on the skill check). If it was not a success due to a high difficulty I just allow some form of success--though it may not be a total success depending on the skill and difficulty...

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Skill Checks

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:06 pm

cave_lion wrote:
Total side comment: under standard 3.5 rules, a roll of 1 is not an automatic failure on skill checks. The automatic 1 and 20 rules only apply to attacks and saves. Of course, this is Pathfinder and I am not the DM, so that could be entirely irrelevant...
I do like the auto failure/auto success on skill checks--otherwise there is no chance for the fluke success on very difficult things--and no chance for me to have the PC's do silly things if they roll a 1. So whether or not it is in the rules it will play that way with me as DM... You guys won't roll any 1's anyway right? I also give bonus success for a 20 roll if the check was a success (extra info or whatever is appropriate based on the skill check). If it was not a success due to a high difficulty I just allow some form of success--though it may not be a total success depending on the skill and difficulty...
So, what you're saying is that if there's a skill challenge with a DC of 30 and higher, which means at our current level we have no business attempting or succeeding in, rolling a not 20 gives us some form of success, even though it shouldn't. The reason a DC is set beyond the scope a PC could hit, is because it's not meant to succeed. This means every time an impossible task is presented, we can attempt it with the hope of that nat 20 for some type of success. That's just wrong and broken since it seems only for the real purpose of amusement. There is not such thing as a crit roll in skills and never should be.

This is my opinion and this opinion will not change.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:06 pm

Well--you are free to your opinion as always Jim. I happen to disagree. Here is a counter argument, not for your benefit, since you have made it clear you are not open to discussion, but for the rest of the players.

First let me say, in my opinion, DND is not and was never meant to be realistic in many aspects. It is a high fantasy game designed to entertain and be fun.

A DC30 could, for instance, be a lock that is extremely complex for a 1st level character. I could go into 5 scenario's off the top of my head how this PC could successfully open this lock. It may be as a DM I would actually prefer for a player to be able to open that lock (even though the chance of it happening is slim to none)--so with a roll of 20 I get to say "Desna has guided your hand and the lock is now open". How cool is that? Or, if as a DM, there is a reason that I don't really want the lock opened and that 5% chance of rolling a 20 was made--I could just say that one of the tumblers has fallen into place and you are certain that there are two more you will need to move for a total success. This aspect has no relevance for control in the game--since as a DM, I can bend the story as I need to, to make sure that the players are entertained and the story is entertaining. Entertaining does not mean the player always get what he wants--quite the contrary. But it does mean that at the end of the day a story has been told that held interest and made each player want to keep taking one more step. Sometimes the best story is how that 1st level character hit that fluke gust of wind and made the 25' leap of faith across the cliff, thereby saving his life and more importantly, the life of the small child in his arms... Was it insane to take that chance? Yes of course--but if it was the only alternative, how sweet if it actually succeeds!

Rolling a 1 or a 20, to me, represents a very subtle intervention by the divine--so it makes perfect sense that this will create twists in the game--both for the good and for the bad.
duni wrote:The reason a DC is set beyond the scope a PC could hit, is because it's not meant to succeed.
Well, if that is the case why bother? Do you still let a PC do a skill check on these high DC's when you know it is impossible for them to succeed? What is the point in that? Is it realistic for a PC to look at a lock and say--oh this is far to difficult for me to pick let's move on? Of course not--you try the lock and learn from your failure--thereby going up in skill level over time. And in an extremely rare case--you actually do something (maybe something you have no idea what it is) that opens that lock. This is simply a mirror of real life, and one example of how a student becomes a Master in any Craft or Profession.

I have always played, as have many of the people I've played with, critical success' and failures on skill checks in DND and other role playing games. We have done it since the game began in the late 70's. So it is certainly a viable game rule... No more nor less important than any other rule a DM may choose to use.

For me--it introduces an element of luck that I find very enjoyable, both as a player and as a DM.

Arpat
Arpat
Arpat
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Netherlands, Almere
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by Arpat » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:29 pm

I like the critical success and failure since it can let you do something heroic. or make the biggest hero look like a lvl 1 :-) and we all make clumsy mistakes. even in high fantasy ;)

although... i guess Dordolio is a perfect cluts when he wants to be...
Image
Arpat

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Skill Checks

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:42 pm

patransom wrote:I have no issue with this decision. As long as I know what the house rule is, I'm happy to play by it.

My only question is how it is handled in the opposed roll case (e.g., spot vs hide). If I get a natural 20 on my hide check and the goblin gets a natural 20 on his spot check, who wins?
This rule defaults in favor of the PC. It also only applies to Learned Skills, not Ability Checks. A 5% chance of doing something spectacular when you are totally untrained in it is too generous of a possibility in my opinion--a 1 or 20 in these cases may lead to an extra comment just for fun, but nothing that actually affects the players in any real way-(like Kev scratching his nose on the wall.)

User avatar
shai-hulud
EPIC Contributor
EPIC Contributor
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Meriden, CT

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by shai-hulud » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:46 am

An interesting variant from Unearthed Arcana is, if you roll a natural 1 or a natural 20, you count the roll as a -20 or a +20 and roll again. You keep rolling until you no longer roll a 1 or a 20. This way, a character who is particularly exceptional at something might be able to recover from a natural 1 if his modifier is high enough. I tried this variant in one campaign. One player rolled three natural ones in a row, then a two. His final result was negative forty something. I don't remember what the roll was, but essentially the result was bad enough that it set off a chain reaction that was about to cause a Total Party Kill (TPK). Then, the most ironic thing happened. One character who worshiped a god of luck attempted to Use Magic Device on a ring of his deity. He had been maxing out UMD, so with 15 ranks, +6 charisma, and a +10 item of UMD, he made the roll. He got three natural twenties in a row followed by a 9. With a 100 for his roll (yes, a perfect hundred), I had everyone around the table roll a D%. Each 100 would be granted a wish (I figured, I'd give them a chance to get out of it). Two players (including the one who had just rolled the 100 on the d20) rolled 100. I gave them two wishes!
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
"Danger is like Jello. There's always room for more."

Image Kolgu 'Sparky' Dermott: Android Rogue/Wizard
Image Garrick Cae'Sarr: Human Bard
Image Hormy Noodzo: Goblin Hunter

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:40 am

shai-hulud wrote:An interesting variant from Unearthed Arcana is, if you roll a natural 1 or a natural 20, you count the roll as a -20 or a +20 and roll again. You keep rolling until you no longer roll a 1 or a 20. This way, a character who is particularly exceptional at something might be able to recover from a natural 1 if his modifier is high enough. I tried this variant in one campaign. One player rolled three natural ones in a row, then a two. His final result was negative forty something. I don't remember what the roll was, but essentially the result was bad enough that it set off a chain reaction that was about to cause a Total Party Kill (TPK). Then, the most ironic thing happened. One character who worshiped a god of luck attempted to Use Magic Device on a ring of his deity. He had been maxing out UMD, so with 15 ranks, +6 charisma, and a +10 item of UMD, he made the roll. He got three natural twenties in a row followed by a 9. With a 100 for his roll (yes, a perfect hundred), I had everyone around the table roll a D%. Each 100 would be granted a wish (I figured, I'd give them a chance to get out of it). Two players (including the one who had just rolled the 100 on the d20) rolled 100. I gave them two wishes!
ha--how fun is that... Bet that story has been told more than once.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Low light vision

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:20 am

It is my understanding that the Low Light miss chance applies to everyone with normal and Low Light Light Vision. The difference comes in the distance that the penalty can be applied (as opposed to the greater penalty for attacking in darkness.)

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:29 am

I read the rules and it it states that we see normally like full daylight so to me that means that no penalties apply since no penalties apply in full daylight.

Low-Light Vision (PF - pg 564)

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so
sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal
in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster
with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the
tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a
moonlit night as well as they can during the day.


To me, the above moonlight statement is currently recreated in the low light areas of this room. Low-light vision works better than today's night vision gear and you can see pretty well with some of today's gear. It sounds like it works more like a house cat's night vision which is much more advance than any of our night vision technology.

However, you are the GM and you have the final say.

I definitely agree that I am totally blind in total darkness.
Image
Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:37 am

greg_BSCIS wrote:I read the rules and it it states that we see normally like full daylight so to me that means that no penalties apply since no penalties apply in full daylight.

Low-Light Vision (PF - pg 564)

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so
sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal
in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster
with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the
tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a
moonlit night as well as they can during the day.


To me, the above moonlight statement is currently recreated in the low light areas of this room. Low-light vision works better than today's night vision gear and you can see pretty well with some of today's gear. It sounds like it works more like a house cat's night vision which is much more advance than any of our night vision technology.
That's pretty clear, and no reason to change it Greg--I never made it past the first sentence I guess... I apologize. So no penalty for characters with Low Light Vision up to the Darkness category (which falls at 2x the range of any normal Low Light range.)

User avatar
shai-hulud
EPIC Contributor
EPIC Contributor
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Meriden, CT

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by shai-hulud » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:52 am

Well, I dunno if Pathfinder has changed the rules, but the general description of the Low-Light Ability in 3.5 worked just as Greg is interpreting. Essentially, consider the breakdown with 30' bright light for normal vision:
  • Normal vision:
  • Bright light: Up to 30'
  • Shadowy illumination: 30'-60'
  • Darkness: 60'+

    Low-Light Vision (LLV):
  • Bright light: Up to 60' (30x2)
  • Shadowy illumination: 60'-120' (60x2)
  • Darkness: 120'+
Again, this is just how it worked for 3.5. I've not really read enough of the discussion in Pathfinder to see if they changed it, and if you have an interesting variant rule, sounds good to me :D
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
"Danger is like Jello. There's always room for more."

Image Kolgu 'Sparky' Dermott: Android Rogue/Wizard
Image Garrick Cae'Sarr: Human Bard
Image Hormy Noodzo: Goblin Hunter

cave_lion
Divine Rank 17
Divine Rank 17
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:01 am

shai wrote:Well, I dunno if Pathfinder has changed the rules, but the general description of the Low-Light Ability in 3.5 worked just as Greg is interpreting. Essentially, consider the breakdown with 30' bright light for normal vision:
  • Normal vision:
  • Bright light: Up to 30'
  • Shadowy illumination: 30'-60'
  • Darkness: 60'+

    Low-Light Vision (LLV):
  • Bright light: Up to 60' (30x2)
  • Shadowy illumination: 60'-120' (60x2)
  • Darkness: 120'+
Again, this is just how it worked for 3.5. I've not really read enough of the discussion in Pathfinder to see if they changed it, and if you have an interesting variant rule, sounds good to me :D
Thanks for posting that summary shai--no changes--I just was unclear on how it actually worked. The vision thing is one thing that has changed so many times over the years I don't have any good reference for it--but your summary looks good--I was surprised that (I thought) the rules had changed so much in a limiting way for Elves, etc. But it was just that I was wrong :)

User avatar
greg_BSCIS
BARON
BARON
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (B)

Post by greg_BSCIS » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:14 am

I hear that - vision has changed quite a bit over the years and remember Elves started with infravision which turned into darkvision. Excluding Drow, elves now only have LLV. Ultravision is no longer. Blindsense was introduced in 3.0 (if it was 2.0, I do not remember it) and now we have Blindsight. In some cases, I like Blindsight better :)
Image
Image
Image

Post Reply

Return to “{PbP} TWLD: Group B”