ahdok

ahdok OP , 11 days ago

We basically run a system where we deal texas hold'em, and if you succeed at a relevant skill check, you get handed an extra card to use. It's not quite the same outcome for skill use as it would be, but it's a reasonable method to "skew the odds" in your favour.

ahdok OP , 11 days ago

And somehow my favourite character is still Dusa.

ahdok OP , 11 days ago

https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/05a4b29a-dd9d-45f0-832c-c767fe998244.png

ahdok , 9 days ago

https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/1d301a3a-c463-4911-8ce7-19536337aa81.png

ahdok , 9 days ago

https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/bda62a22-6d39-45f5-aa37-5a97871a2fe7.jpeg

ahdok , 1 month ago

Why hello Mr. Elminster.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

This one's gonna take a hell of a persuasion check, Raz.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

That's not enough to overcome Konsi's crippling embarrassment :)

although... Razira does have Heroism prepared.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

as a DM, I normally give situational advantage to anyone who makes an argument that appeals to the values of the person to be convinced.

ahdok OP , 11 days ago

I don't have a huge following, but the link in the watermark should show you the rest of my comics :)

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

The gambling angle is pretty much a Tower of Luck (the temple of Tymora in Waterdeep) orthodoxy. While gambling is somewhat in Tymora's purview, it's not a common focus of her followers, which tends to be more "fortune/fate/karma/adventure" focused. Most Tymora worship is done at small traveller's shrines, hoping for fortune or safety on a journey.

The tower of Luck in Waterdeep is unusual for Tymoran worship, it's the largest temple to Tymora in Faerun (and the only one that's remotely close is in Suzail) - part of the money for such a large institution comes from placing it in the noble quarter of town (the Sea Ward) and... not dissuading nobles that donate huge sums of money in the hope of it "buying" them fortune and luck in the future.

The other part comes from the temple sponsoring and supervising gambling houses in the city - most official gambling establishments have a resident Tymoran priest who blesses the proceedings, and is there to assure punters that the house is running a fair game, and not stacking the deck. There are non-sanctioned gambling houses in the city, and they often offer better returns on bets, but... they don't come with these assurances... so really if you go there you're making a different kind of gamble.

This relationship between the church and "sanctioned gambling establishments" might explain why, our of the extensive list of guilds in the city, there isn't a guild of gamblers or gambling houses.

---

As for Konsi herself, while she recognizes that gambling represents a form of worship to Tymora, she much more subscribes to the "good karma" theory of fortune and fate. Those who do good deeds will be smiled upon by Lady Luck, and their good deeds will be repaid in kind. She doesn't tend to go in for gambling games too much, because they tend to require a bit more calculation and mathematics than she's comfortable with, and thus her knowledge of these games is a little sub-par for the wishes of the church.

---

It's a fun religion, they even have a casino floor in the church itself where you can just hang out and play some chill cards.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

Side Note: If you read any of the 5e official books, they say the temple of Tymora is in the Castle Ward, not the Sea Ward... Despite the temples of Gond and Sune (which the Temple of Tymora sits between) being in the Sea Ward.

Here's a map.
https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/895cf956-06d6-4bfa-b3ce-fc2190848991.png

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

in 5e, Geas is a level 5 spell that compels someone to either do something, or refrain from doing something - the compulsion is in the form of the threat of massive damage for disobedience.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

Point of order, the spell on her spell list is called Geas. It's a 5th level cleric spell in 5e DnD

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

This is the study room in their house, although that's not super clear from the art. That's why it has a map table in the middle and some of them are wearing more casual clothes.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

I'm sure there's a bad reason why she hasn't already tried.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

I think for 5th edition they started with 3.5e and basically ignored everything in 4e other than death saves.

ahdok OP , 1 month ago

Oh, I'm just talking about the lineage of the rules systems, there isn't really a good concept of "changing something from 4th to 5th edition" because 5th edition comes from 3.5. 4th is an offshoot really.

---

It does make some sense to ditch "quest" I think - partly because the spell can be "don't do (x)" and that's not really much of a quest, and partly just for simplicity in rules.

ahdok , 1 month ago

I think this might be a joke.

ahdok , 1 month ago

Deception specialist with 1 charisma, let's go.

ahdok , 1 month ago

Europe gets information about Americans from American media.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

I'll make a nice transparancied version and post it :)

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

I think the illusory duplicates made by the magic are designed to "move around in your space" to make it hard to tell which one is actually you - the purpose of the spell is to make you harder to hit, so it's behaviour probably works to let that happen. It'd also be very difficult to get away with it in a social setting because you have to cast the spell first, it makes four duplicates, and they don't last that long...

---

Now on the other hand... Trickery Cleric "invoke duplicity" allows you to control the movements of the duplicate (which is incorporeal), so it might be possible to hide it inside you if you were really practiced. Konsi sometimes summons it in her exact position while standing still, then uses her second channel divinity slot to turn invisible and run away.

It'll only give you cover for a moment, but if they're doing some sort of "check every visitor for vampirism" check on the door, it might get you past.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

I don't I can make a good case for "looking in a mirror" to use the "attack" rules. If it's an attack you'd have to make an attack roll (if you're not making an attack roll, it's not an attack.)

Likely, if there was a d20 roll involved, it'd be a perception check.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

...All of this is pretty sketchy though, it's definitely pushing the limits of what these spells or abilities are intended for, and "having your image move around inside you perfectly so nobody notices" would require an extreme level of control that I imagine most, if not all casters wouldn't have.

If we're trying to design an NPC vampire to foil the mirror check, it's probably better to have them use a custom spell or magic item that's explicitly for this purpose than to try and repurpose an existing spell to do it. "This amulet creates an illusory duplicate of you that fills the same space as your body. When you turn invisible, the illusion remains visible and moves in a random direction away from you" for example.

This approach has a lot of advantages I think.

1. If you let NPCs do it, then PCs can do it.
2. It doesn't feel like you're creatively abusing the rules to give NPCs an advantage
3. When the PCs beat the vampire and get the treasure they get a lightbulb moment when they realize what happened
4. The players get an interesting niche treasure out of it they can come up with clever uses for later.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

It's a common trope in media and fantasy lore, Quite a few tropes of vampires are listed in the flavour text, rather than the statblock, and this is one of them.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

I'm pretty sure that the rules as intended for this one are that it just affects attacks, I'm afraid. Sage Advice repeatedly argues that the intention of wordings like this is that they don't extend to other effects.

Of course, it's perfectly fine to run your table different to sage advice. There's a lot of stuff in there that I think is rather silly, or bad design.

Were you able to see the whole space, you should be able to see the illusory duplicates fine (they're not "vampires" mechanically), but not the real vampire, so I'm in full agreement there.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

It's a classic. I wish the movement didn't require your full action though - the spell is level 5.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

Well, you could just buy one.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

She likes to pull her hair back out of her face, and wrap it around a bone to hold it firm - but some of the front tufts always escape.

ahdok , 2 months ago

Oh no! the last remaining soul who knew the hiding place of a holy avenger... guess it's lost forever.

ahdok , 2 months ago

This is why you polymorph the fastball into something small and fuzzy first.

https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/4cf7001a-45bb-4909-9dcf-c1a28df556af.png

ahdok , 2 months ago

It's true. The fastball special is all about positioning, and closing the gap.

ahdok , 2 months ago

When I first picked up the Nobilis RPG, I read it cover-to-cover, the margins were always crammed full of stories and examples that really helped develop the setting and ideas and contextualize everything. I think the majority of RPGs that I've picked up have been read back to front... because what else are you going to do on your first pass?

I'll definitely agree that it's good to have books that work as decent reference manuals, especially for rules heavy games... but... have you tried to use the indexes in the 5e books - the PHB index is an experience and a half.

ahdok , 2 months ago

If you want the best rules to base a videogame on, I'd probably recommend you look at 4th edition.

4th edition rules are, largely, designed around running a systematic, balanced, combat simulation - most of the rules are deterministic and leave little ambiguity, or room for interpretation.

Most other editions of DnD have... more freeform rules, in places they read as guidelines for running a game, or they are ambiguous, or leave it up to the DM to decide how to run that particular thing. They're more conducive to roleplay but much less useful if you're trying to adapt them for a computer to run.

ahdok , 2 months ago

I think the idea of the initial post is that, when presenting someone with a "guide" for running a game, you kind of expect someone to have read the whole thing at least once, and then use it for reference.

With the case of the 5e DMG, it actually has quite a lot of good advice in it, but most people running games haven't read it fully... You constantly see complaints about 5e saying "there's no advice for (x)" where the advice is just in the DMG

ahdok , 2 months ago

There were some fairly major studies in the UK last year, across many companies and multiple industries, where they reduced the 5 day workweek to a 4 day workweek, whilst keeping the compensation of workers the same overall (i.e. salaried workers got the same salary, hourly workers got 25% more per hour)

The majority of companies involved in the study found that their workers were significantly healthier and happier after adjusting to the new schedule... and as a result significantly more "productive". Profits even went up despite the reduced working time. Most of them elected to keep with the new system once the study ended.

Obviously you can't do this with every industry, certain industries need 24/7 coverage or the like... you can't run an ER 4 days out of 7 - but the takeaway is that it'd be better to employ more people for less time and pay them well - you'll get better results than you will with an exhausted and depressed workforce

ahdok , 2 months ago

Your first argument is, again, very American-centric - yes the rate that wealth inequality is growing in the USA is less pronounced than in other places, but it was always pretty bad in the USA. The argument that "trends are similar in almost every developed country" is also a little disingenuous - it's true for the G8. In many European countries, they're actually taxing the wealthy sensibly and putting that money into public services to make everyone's lives better, the wealth gap is much smaller and the quality of life and happiness of regular people is better.

Again "a century ago" or longer doesn't matter because it's pre-industrial revolution. The total amount of "wealth to go around" was much smaller, and we were living under very different systems.

If a king or an emperor owns 50% of the wealth of a nation, and everyone else is equal, then yes, your graph will show "the top 1% have 50% of the wealth" but also your system is specifically designed to give all the money to one person. Arguing "well 100 or 200 years ago this was worse" is moot, because we're comparing different systems... Unless your point is that our current system is also designed to deprive all wealth and comfort to the masses to enrich a select few, and we should be "thankful" that it's less good at it.

We have to compare within the same system, and look for the best we can do. Unless you're specifically arguing that the wealth distribution in the 1970s is unsustainable, then that's an example of when we were capable of doing better, and it's okay to find that as something to aspire and build towards.

---

Lobbying your representatives for better worker protections is a joke, especially in America. Many representatives in the USA don't even hold surgeries, you can't talk to them directly. You can write them a letter, which they ignore. Rich corporations pay our representatives massive donations to their campaigns (or in other countries, they pay them via more circuitous routes), and they get the policy that benefits them.

Here's an example - Back at the start of the Trump administration, a bill was written by the house to make it legal for ISPs to sell your private information and browsing history to corporations for their own profits. A number of polling institutions went around and took some credible large-scale polls of public opinion about this. 98% of respondents opposed the bill. The legislation passed congress and is now law. Who's "lobbying" of congress matters? individuals, or Comcast?

There are a very small number of US representatives who refuse to take money from large corporations - and those, in general, seem to hold the interests of the people to heart. Before "lobbying your representatives" can work, there needs to be widespread grassroots movements to elect more of these people. Until that happens, there aren't representatives, there are rulers.

---

It's not inflammatory to argue for better systems. It's not a lie that while we've had a massive industrial revolution that increased the productivity of workers, those benefits have not been seen by the workers. We still work just as long, and just as hard, for an ever diminishing amount of the pie. You can say "oh but you have a fancy car" but... just look at the percentage of people who own their own home by generation. The current trends are extremely concerning and need to change.

ahdok , 2 months ago

While it's true that new inventions do make people's lives materially better, the point that's being missed is... this is an inevitable consequence of the development of society, we'd have these new inventions regardless of our economic systems or choices of where to tax people, or economic policy. Those benefits aren't caused by the widening wealth gap, and the wealth of billionaires isn't required for new inventions to be made.

What we're talking about here, specifically, is that people are producing more wealth, but not getting wealthier. The wealth of people has "effectively stayed constant since the 1980s" but the total wealth we're creating has gone up significantly. It's certainly nice that we have more things we can spend that wealth on, but that's a distraction from the issue of where the rest of the wealth is going.

---

If you actually look at people's lives, "materially" and look past the inevitable march of technology, what else is happening? 70% of people are "living paycheck to paycheck"; poverty, and child poverty are massively increasing; many schools can't afford to give children textbooks; and teachers have to buy school supplies out of their own meager paychecks; the cost of healthcare is increasing, leaving many unable to afford it (or in non-USA countries, where everyone can afford healthcare, waiting lists are increasing due to poor funding); Towns are bankrupt and can't afford to repair infrastructure; the quality of most goods (clothes, houseware, and furniture especially) are decreasing to the point where they fall apart in a few years; and most public services are on the verge of collapse.

The cost of housing is so high that younger generations don't even aspire to own a home any more, the cost of higher education is so high that people expect their student debts to never be paid.

So yes, it's nice that we have Facetime and Playstations, Those things do make our lives better... but you have to consider, if the "increased productivity" of workers was going towards society and making our lives better instead of enriching billionaires, could we address some of this?

ahdok , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

The main thrust of my argument is simply, and throughout, has been this:

In the last 50 years, "worker productivity" has increased dramatically. compensation has not. The increased wealth that we are all generating is not making our lives better - it's going into the pockets of billionaires.

As you put it "the real median wage has not changed since 1980". As you showed with the graph you posted, the increased wealth that is being generated is increasingly going to the wealthiest people. This is all the data we need to support my argument, and they're both claims you have made.

The "improved living conditions" from better technology and industrial processes do not REQUIRE us to be giving all the extra wealth we're generating to the wealthiest people. These would still exist if we were taxing billionaires and large companies more, enforcing better wages for regular people, and investing that wealth into social programs.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

Fortunately, Faelys is an unreliable narrator.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

I think this happened once in Buffy.

ahdok OP , 2 months ago

Yeah, she has a few goblinoid features, larger ears, lack of pronounced tusky teeth. She's taller and prettier than most goblins (4ft) because she's free of Maglubiyet's hold, which twists and corrupts his servants.

ahdok , 2 months ago

It shows extreme confidence to draw that many horses... One of the three impossible artist feats.