If you're on keyboard (I'm sure controller has it but idk the button) the T key will let you hover over keywords to get more information. Ie, if a spell says it paralyzed the enemy, hitting T will let you mouse over "paralyzed" and read how it prevents the enemies from acting, and makes all melee attacks against them crits.
FunctionFn
joined 2 years ago
I broke my own haste concentration at least twice a play session and I've been DMing 5e for 6 years at this point. Would have saved me a few wipes on tactician
This video shortly and succinctly shows this a few times: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
I'm only responding to the assertion that asking "what cis women think about playing trans women" is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people.
But I think this part is where the disconnect is happening. Before this decision, cis women and trans women were both components of women's chess. The act of conferring with only a subset of that group implies that the other does not fall into that category. Relying only on the majority group's opinion on the status of the minority group is itself an assumption that one of the groups inherently belongs less than the other.
Nah, I don't buy it. The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don't inherently belong to that class of participation. The majority of a group (cis women) do not get to unilaterally decide who is/is not a part of the greater group (women).
If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.
But following this analogy through, you're not asking all PoC. You're asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.
In this case, the organizers of these tournaments are picking and choosing their own definitions for who qualify as "women" and listening only to those opinions. The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards from that conclusion.
Controlling 4 digital 5e characters in rapid succession feels very different from controlling 1 character in a tabletop setting. Idk if it's better or worse this way, but (to me) they're pretty distinct experiences so it's worth at least trying
You don't really lower a target's AC, it usually stays constant. The AC is just the number you have to roll against to hit.
Ie, you roll a 10 on a d20. You have a bonus of +8 to hit. That means you'll hit the enemy as long as it's AC is 18 or lower.
Saving throws are the reverse. The enemy who's getting targeted by a spell gets to roll and add their save bonus to try and beat your spell DC, which is usually somewhere from 15-20 ish.
You don't really need to know the maths going on, it's all represented by the % chance that pops up when you go to target something. If a hit says 95% chance, that means you'll hit as long as you don't roll a 1 on a d20.
As for Karlach's AC, that's just a barbarian thing. Barbarians are usually unarmored, but they get to add their Con stat to their AC as well as their Dex. They have a lot more HP to make up for getting hit more often, and they resist all physical damage while raging so they're still quite tanky despite having a lower AC.