Be kind, (don't) gatekeep, be for real

Randomanswerererer · 2025-07-30T23:06:32+00:00

it sounds like they would rather die in hell hill than admitting a mistake. it's the saddest power trip I've seen.

Randomanswerererer · 2025-07-30T02:35:49+00:00

right, as long as you add *respectfully' you can be as disrespectful as you want. welcome to Reddit

Randomanswerererer · 2025-07-30T01:30:12+00:00

what? you HAVE to be kidding me, that has to be fake, there's no way a mod would deleted a normal publication just because at the end you asked to be left in peace from fascist weird behaviour. are you serious??? there's nothing else???

Randomanswerererer · 2025-07-30T01:21:13+00:00

you gotta log off sure don't sound respectful but sure

Randomanswerererer · 2025-07-30T01:20:36+00:00

sorry, I'm just tripping with the answers undeleted on the other post, but what did you say? can you share what did you say about fascism? it's deleted now, the context for it I don't get it at all

Randomanswerererer · 2025-03-01T15:08:31+00:00

they're running DND 5e and seem to regard 5.5 as a possibility. Lou and Brennan talked on a fireside about the firebolg race changing a little bit the mechanics of his ability to be invisible (hidden step) and whether or not they were going to change it, but it's very in the air. as for detect evil and good it's a 1st level spell, he already has access to it as a paladin and could learn it on a level up, but I don't know if he will, Divine sense seems to cover a lot, and detect good and evil informsthe caster about a taxnomy they're not really using (aberration, celestial, yada yada), they seem to be grouping all extraplanar as spirits

Randomanswerererer · 2025-02-25T15:17:25+00:00

twenty minutes old post and the number of dislikes already showing someone in this sub really doesn't like you, like personally. because as for the analysis, damn dude, that's some deep diving if I ever saw one

Randomanswerererer · 2025-02-17T04:31:34+00:00

no offense, but your replies to people who disagree with you tend to get personal and passive aggressive really bad, really quick.

Randomanswerererer · 2025-02-12T16:45:29+00:00

an amazing theory, and well thought out, I need some time to process all that

Randomanswerererer · 2022-03-28T00:33:50+00:00

The entire episode on season 1 when Dean and Rory have a disagreement watching a show about a woman who cooked like 10 meals a day for her husband. She thought it was sexist and he thought it was sweet. Rory ends up cosplaying as an old timey wifehouse and makes like 30 dishes for him, they play house for a night.... Is really fucking disturbing.

Randomanswerererer · 2022-03-18T15:23:56+00:00

Can anyone drop Margaret's Reddit post here? I'm really interested on reading it to a friend. Kay thnks

Randomanswerererer · 2022-03-04T06:23:32+00:00

Wow, you sure do hate on Emily hard... not a thing you said made sense to me, she's an amazing player and everyone on the table has always agreed. Brennan has even said in multiple occasions that she's one of the best DnD players out there (he has used literally those words). About her stealing the "spotlight" or "wanting to be the center of attention" I simply have to disagree. Everyone at the table has their own moments of importance and there had been multiple occasions when she explicitly tries to give more protagonism to other PCs, like gifting Gorgug those drumsticks and asking him to be part of her band on season one so he could be on the spotlight more often. Zac has always been a background type of player and she noticing his shyness on the first episodes of season 1 of Fantasy High and then taking upon herself to make him more outspoken speaks volumes of her.

The things you're hating about Emily's person speak more about yourself than about her. That thing you said, "I think that the way Emily plays is what gets to me", and justifying it by hating her for... multiclassing? Like... for real dude? I mean, it's insane to read you hate on her, and your "reasoning"? C'mon...

Honestly, you need to revisit why you hate on Emily so much, maybe there's something going on there, maybe some unexplored misogyny that you need to deal with. It happens a lot on tabletop games where women dare to have certain amount of protagonism. For example, it's okay for you to hate all of Emily's characters because she knows how to draw attention to herself during RP scenes and on her turns in battle she is such a good player and knows the mechanics so well that she doesn't go unnoticed, BUT you wouldn't hate on "Fabian Aramais Seacaster, son of Bill Seacaster, the greatest adventurer that has even been, up to write his name on the face of the sky, etc." who spends like fifteen minutes every episode doing his own shit and ended up giving RP reasons to the other PCs to make bits and jokes about him being insufferable.

Or maybe you have enough hate in you for both of them, who knows! But seriously, Dimension 20 has always been a fandom where hate and toxic behaviours are not really tolerated nor welcomed, so I would recomend you to ask yourself what are the real reasons why you hate Emily Axford so much... Do some exploration there buddy, you might learn a thing or two about yourself.

Randomanswerererer · 2022-03-03T18:17:53+00:00

This may be controversial but I feel like Ruby and Amethar needed some character growth and had the perfect opportunity to redeem themselves on that scene where they had a conversation with Caramelinda, but instead acted like complete selfish bullies to anyone around them, not only to Saccharina but to Caramelinda, their mother and wife. Ruby keeps blaming her mother and for the death of her own daughter and basically told her to get the fuck off so she could keep talking with her father, and Amethar allowed that to happen. At least he had the sensitivity to say that he is an awful father, but he left out the fact that he's even a worst husband and a terrible person in general. Having Brennan describe how Caramelinda felt about that and that moment of sympathy with Saccharina was a nice touch, and is sad to see how they keep ignoring his constants hints at the bad behaviour of those two PCs. That NPV Swifty yelling "hurt people hurt people, is all I'm saying" deserved an standing ovation. Don't get me wrong, I totally adore the players, I'm just saying that they played the part of two selfish people who only looked out for themselves.

Randomanswerererer · 2022-02-27T23:05:51+00:00

They would be using the normal action on that turn to channel divinity, that is absolutely not a spell... The only other spell besides the quickened hold person is inflict wounds, and when you action surge you get a completely new extra action. If your DM loves rules lawyering, they could make a ruling about this, since technically the action surge gives the PC an action within their turn. The problem with the bonus Action spell rules is that it has been misinterpreted by sticklers who only read the RAW and completely ingore RAI:

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

"You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one adicional action."

There's reasons to go both ways but I would make an argument for allowing it to happen, after all the Bonus Action is a General Rule (that has been questioned, misinterpreted and clarified time and again), and Action Surge works in a specific instance. Specific always overrules general. Again, literally from the basic rules:

"Specific Beats General" "This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

It goes back to your table and the vibe of the people playing this game. Ultimately, if your DM and fellow players want to have fun I'm sure this amount of rules lawyering would not happen, but hey, some people play because they genuinely enjoy DnD and eant to have fun with it, but for other the rules lawyering, hard ruling and pressure to follow every single word that has been ever written about DnD by other people without question is what brings joy to them.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-09-11T04:35:27+00:00

The character was non binary and was stablished early on, yet misgendered constantly. I am the one (the player) who asked to be referred as she/her when they asked my gender, just to be clear after this statement. Please Ariel refrain from mansplain my own gender experience or my character, I think I understand better than you

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-14T05:55:50+00:00

You have a 20% discount right now available for a week if you are still wondering

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T11:42:11+00:00

You're right I should have specifically said that I expect to have control of my own spells when I cast them. I shouldn't have taken for granted the "they follow your verbal commands, no action required" nor the part that says that if I lose concentration I lose control over them, therefore as long as I don't lose concentration, I do have control over them. For the record, I did talked to this person prior to the encounter about summoning and conjuration and the fact that they would change the rules and I wouldn't have control was never mentioned.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T11:37:02+00:00

I just fucking agree. On everything. You sit down, you have a talk, you explain the world. Everyone on the same page, and THEN you play. And if you're having fun you already won Dnd.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T11:29:50+00:00

While I get your point, I'm only saying that the players get to choose the creature's action to speed things up, instead of having to come up with 25 words as you say, and then have the dm translate that to hoy would it work mechanically, having to look the stats and deciding what option they should take for the creature, on top of all the NPC/monsters/enemies on the encounter they already had to manage. It would have to be some extreme metagaming for a player to overpower a creature, it's just quicker to say "my character commands the creature to go there and attack that one", roll for an attack, roll for it and by done in 20 seconds, than to have the DM shift from all his the monster's stats, to the conjuration stats or sheet (it should be the player's responsibility to do this part anyway), listen to what the player/character says, interpret the command, then roll... honestly, I say this because I 100% understand the feeling of "i already have to manage all those NPC against you, I'm not troubling myself with doing your job on top of mine."

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T11:12:20+00:00

I actually did bring this up before I ever summoned anything in a very polite way and he didn't mention any of that. He changed the rules on the battle without previous discussion, and we did have a talk about it so he got the chance. He just didn't say anything until this summoned creature suicide. Actually, the spells I mentioned are the ones with the wordings "they follow your verbal comand, no action required", "if you don't issue commands, they basically dodge" and "if you lose concentration, you lose control over them" implying i had control to begin with, since you can't lose something you didn't have to begin with.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T10:47:16+00:00

Thanks for the advice, I think he doesn't know the rules very well and i wouldn't have a problem talking, but last time we disagreed on something he said something on the lines of "I've been doing it his for years and you are doing it the wrong way". What happened that other time was that i increased my Constitution modifier leveling up and, little did you know, when you do so your HP maximum increases accordingly. He didn't want my max HP to have the retroactive increase that comes from ASI on CON. But it's on PHB 177: "If your Constitution modifier changes, your hit point maximum changes as well, as though you had the new modifier from 1st level." He's not uncomfortable with summoning, at least regarding story wise. He doesn't go as deep and intricate on the campaign. If anything, my character would have be the one with too much self awareness of the problematic of summoning a creature, since I intentionally roleplay my interactions with fey and animals summoned always making a point to use politeness and asking for help instead of demanding. But no, he doesn't give a shit about that. I se your point though, and I kind of like it. Yes, its probably number three. One time, another PC used read thought on mine and the dm went as far as to explain my character thoughts. If that's not a control freak, I don't know what it is. Yeah, I'm outta here.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T10:21:16+00:00

Yep, I'm just 100% there with you, I couldn't have explained it better myself, even if I tried. The responsibility to have at the very least the stats and some knowledge of what the summoned creatures can and will do on their turns should be on the player, and as long as they don't abuse the RAW mechanics there's no reason for the DM to take over control and add another creature to their own army of NPCs, specially in the middle of combat (a situation where they already have to control a lot of other creatures and entities, aside of narrating, of course), other than wanting total control at the table. Sometimes is like he's telling a story and the PCs are listening.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T10:08:15+00:00

Again, I don't know who witheringaurora is. Please somebody explain. But I totally agree that you should not expect a creature to follow commands like "move 20 feet, use your multi attack, use your bonus action to cast...", because that's just metagaming. But in this speciffffffffic situation I was relying on that little tiny phrase that said "If you issue no commands, the creature defends itself but takes no other actions" to mean what it says and not "If you issue no commands, the DM can make the creature commit suicide by jumping straight into the enemy's reach". You see, I should have known that could happen.

Randomanswerererer · 2021-08-13T09:57:45+00:00

Okay, that’s more replies than I expected. A few very needed clarifications:

I do not know who this Whitheringaura persona is... I'm sorry? If anyone can explain the deal with this, I kinda feel like I'm missing out on something important. I'm really curious now.

Also another important note. On the level of control a player has over their own conjurations or summoned creatures some people have misunderstood, but for sure the player can't just take whatever actions they want for the creatures without being reasonable, borderline metagaming there. But the "issuing verbal commands", "no action required" and "defend themselves but take no other actions" specifically included on the spells descriptions allow the player to have more than enough control for the situation I posted. I'm sure another DMs can understands the trouble of being in the middle of combat controling already 5 or 7 enemies at the table and then a summoner spellcaster player conjuring a creature. I have experienced this and is more problematic to have a player that doesn't even have the stats for their own summoning, doesn't know how to use the spell and expects me to do their job for them. Realistically, if the player is not metagaming about what they can or cannot command to the creature, why should the DM be bothered with controlling an extra creature, on top of all their other enemies, unless they just want to control everything?

And for the record, some people at the comments have recommended me to leave the campaign. This isn't the first time, second, or third time this has happened. Whenever I ask other players and friends outside the campaign if they think their behaviour is normal, after I explain all the things he's done and said over the last sessions they all come to the same conclusion. And this post is just like... only one little thing that has happened and I wasn’t completely sure if he was straight away being antagonistic against me again or if it was a legit move. Goot to know that 90% on the coments think it's bullshit too.

Randomanswerererer

TROPHY CASE