Відео

" Even if the creature is DETECTED that attacks are at DISADVANTAGE. " Depends on means of detection. Disadvantage can be cancelled out, and on a 31 roll for a player specifically built in such a way as to detect sneaky mage shit, it's absolutely reasonable to cancel it here, especially as the PC can literally see where the invisible character is. Detection is usually based on sound/smell, which aren't going to give the same level of information. "And you give you player (impossible) Stealth (without a Hide Action". - He isn't stealthing to hide here, He's having the player roll to see if he can draw weapons without being detected. Stealth is an appropriate roll and the DM clearly rolled perception for the NPC and failed the check With an absolutely, completely unsuspecting NPC, who has every reason to think he is safe and who failed a perception check, it's reasonable to grant surprise. Page 195 of player's handbook. This gives advantage, which gives sneak attack. I'd hate to play at your table...you've managed to 1) misinterpret what's actually happening 2) make rule mistakes, which is usually fine but 3)insist you're right 4) turn a very cool scene, handled extremely well by the DM, into a nitpicky, neckbeard rant. Grow up.

​@@elphabadota Simple reputable: Nope. Nothing I said was incorrect and you can't change that fact. Facts: 1- There was no Hide Action - So he had no Stealth- Fact. 2- The creature was INVISIBLE so the attack would at a minimum be at Disadvantage even if detected - Fact 3- Even if for whatever random rules breaking reason the DM gave the player Advantage to negate the Disadvantage from Invisibility (without and actual basis in the rules) ... but let's say he did, the two would have just negated and the attack would be as normal... but guess what- normal roll is NOT with advantage - so there were be NO SNEAK ATTACK AS WELL- FACT. All facts. Good day now. Bye now. :)

@@markhammil3148 it legitimately hurts to see someone be this stupid yet this confident. 1) you didn't read or understand what i said. the stealth role was for concealing the weapon draw, not a bonus action hide. 2) invisibility does not guarantee a disadvantage on attacks if detected as per RAW - only if detected via certain methods - not the ones used here. Again, you missed what I said. 3)Given that, the attack would have been made normal. However, advantage was given because of the stealth role for concealing the weapon draw. This makes sense both in a realistic sense and a RAW sense. It's actually really annoying to see someone who is so confidently incorrect. And even if you were correct? Who cares? Narratively, it makes sense, and everyone at the table clearly loved it, along with the audience. You're doing the thing that mediocre, unsuccessful nerds do where they try to tear down something over a technicality but miss the underlying context. In this case, you're also wrong about the technicality. It doesn't matter how many times you say "Fact" if you are not, in fact, correct. The facts just don't care about your feelings here.

@@markhammil3148 You are correct RAW, however RAW are not God. DM has final say, and Brennan's reasoning is pretty solid. He knows exactly where the target is on account of having been able to see where his pupils are (he doesn't have to give advantage to cancel disadvantage, you *can* just remove disadvantage), and he has the drop on the target because said target doesn't know Cerrit's onto him. Perfectly reasonable call.

I can already tell you’re the type of person who turns DND into a DM Vs Player game where you actively try to screw over your players

Sadly the dungeon did it for us and gave us no way back! Not my favorite way to go, as I think player death should come from our meaningful choices, not just "The module says if they go left they go to the super dungeon death room that characters of their level are very unlikly to survive when split off from thegroup"

Gulp! indeed

yeah we have a very diverse group with lots of fun little quirks and interactions!

But she got to teach everyone a lesson don't assume cause you have a cleric in your party you have a healer. 🤣

have you watched campaign 2? because I feel like dusk is an angel compared to the emotionally manipulative characters the mighty nein dealt with

the gang does great at translating evil classic d&d behavior and twisting it with modern toxic behavior. It made me feel gross too, but this has not been the worse character we've had to deal with in that regard.

did you watch ExU Calamity?

I’d recommend having a watch of the 4 sided dive with Erika. They explain their motivations and the collaboration with Matt about the character. It really fits when you know where she was coming from. It’s still definitely makes me feel icky to see the manipulation.

I don’t get it?

​@@aimeepollock4813 it means he has great wit,humor and timing.

@@bobloerakker7010 I meant the tone deaf comment. I don’t understand that bit.

@@aimeepollock4813 Chet and Fearne had been on-again, off-again flirting, but at this point in the story Fearne's parents are expected back in town, and so the "tone deaf" portion is Chet recognizing that continuing the flirtation this night would be ill-advised at best.

@@chromegaman I think it was also a subtle out of character burn on Dusk trying to get with not one but two members of the group on separate occasions that night.

She was so awesome and when they have guest on they just always become besties with them so it was awesome to have it backfire in such an amazing way.

did it not seem like the cast were enjoying themselves? im sorry i dont understand your reasoning, it is visibily obvious when orion gets on the casts nerves but the cast were laughing and smiling so, sorry if you could kindly explain to me. /gen

@@cardboardcreationsart Just look at Travis´ and Sam´s face on episode 26... She yells way too much and way too loud. The cast are pretty trained and wouldn´t like to make a scene about it but being beside someone screaming that loud for so long and stepping on the table cannot be ¨funny¨. Imagine someone stepping on your dining table. While screaming almost into your ear.

@@pascastro9928 well thankfully the cast + erika are pretty good pals and dont take it that harshly

i felt the same, even before reading your comment i was like "oh my god, they are so annoyed of her". EP26 was even worse. You can see in their faces, that they're unconfortable and that they're just smiling out of courtesy. Liams reaction says it all.

i, too, hate it when people get visibly excited about things