I could see a constitution argument for enduring a storm, but still think that the helm itself is mostly strength. "Hold 'er steady" is a stock (arguably cliche) phrase, after all and references literally holding the wheel steady while bracing against wind on deck and against currents pushing against the rudder below.
You can think that but you'd be wrong. It's the same reason why the PHB suggests a Con (Athletics) check for a very long swim.
And I repeat that it might have been one wheel and one man but that one wheel is nevertheless not the weight of the wheel but rather the weight of the rudder it is attached to and the weight of the water you are pushing against. The worst sorts of inclement weather is a red herring, in that the weather has little to nothing to do with steering. Furthermore, the 'worst sorts of inclement weather' literally sinks ships and short of someone the power of Heracles, no sailor has the strength to keep the ship from capsizing if the waves are too strong.
Not true. If the weather is bad it will affect how the ship handles and that will affect how difficult it is to stear.
Clearly, I see the world differently than you. If I was DM'ing and a player came to me with hard facts that make it a virtual certainty another player is cheating, I would be "oh damn, now I have a problem with a cheater", but not "I am going to toss the player that picked up on that."
But you aren't, are you? Which is the whole point. Well, one of the many very good points having been made in this thread.
*munching vociferously on various snack foods in between heavy, bated breaths*
This show is so good but what the heck is with these boat episodes?
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
I repeat: Con to endure the storm, to stay at the helm. But it is still strength to actually keep the ship steady.
And I, having actual experience, repeat, you are wrong.
Whether one refers to it as an ability score check or a skill check is out of character and RAW covers in character actions not OOC actions. Nothing in RAW speaks to how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to when discussing it in an open forum. Discussing things in forums is not part of RAW.
Except that wasn't what was discussed, which should be obvious from the context. Which i quite clear if you read the text. It had nothing to do with "how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to". Please stay on topic.
Con (or possibly wisdom) can help you focus out the elements but cannot help you actually resist them. It is a strength (or sometimes dex) based defence against shoves and various involuntary movement effects, not normally a Con save.
Really? Constitution, your "stamina" and "life force" and the ability used for resisting multiple damage spells and fatigue is of no use to help resist the elements? A kitten with a con of 1 can brave freezing cold winds for the same amount of time as a hardened barbarian?
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
Again, please read the context. And no, you are quite right in that none of us is the DM. That's not the point though, is it? This thread isn't about "how would you deal with this sitation if you were the DM?" (even though many people have motivated their answers by telling us how they would deal with this situation were that the case) but rather is vince asking us how he should deal with it. Which, due to the nature of the issue many would argue, means referring back to the DM. Who is not vince.
So when people point out that vince isn't the DM it's a perfectly valid point since vince keeps on telling us what he would do "if he were the DM". That's great, in vince's games, but it isn't vince's game to DM and unless he can convince the DM to go along with vince's wishes (which has been suggested in the thread), what vince would do in the games vince would DM is of no consequence in this matter.
You have actual experience manning the helm of a renaissance sailing vessel through a storm? Pardon?
18th century merchantman and not a storm, but weather bad enough to affect the handling, but yes. I wrote that the first time I replied to a thing about sailing. It would help immensly if you'd read what people write.
The same basic principles apply for pretty much any sailing vessel. Of course, modern ships and yachts have equipment that in many ways reduces the need for physical strength.
You complained that Vince used the term 'skill check' and asked where in any published material there was any reference to a skill check. That is the context. Care to explain how merely calling it a skill check in a forum is against RAW? If I am misunderstanding you, no worries. Explain what you mean.
Again, you have to read all the important bits, not just the ones that means what you want them to mean. The whole point is that there is no such a thing as "skill checks" which vince said there is. Can you get back on topic, please?
Yes, Con governs health and endurance and if you run out of hit points you will no longer be able to man the helm. But if you run out of hit points you will not be able do do anything else either. So should all checks therefore be Con based?
Well, that's a nice non sequitur. You claim was that Con does nothing to help you resist the elements. I asked how you came to that conclusion. HP are irrelevant. You do know that Con is more than HP, right?
We are not talking about being able to simply stay at any given ship's station for extended hours (which would be Con) but to literally hold the wheel steady on course. To use your kitten example, could the Kitten also move the wheel at all? We are not talking about the 'Endure the freezing winds' part. We are talking about the 'Hold the wheel steady' part.
Well, we are talking about resisting the elements since you claimed that con " cannot help you actually resist" the elements.
Again, just as I pointed out via my swimming example, tasks can be complex and require multiple checks. If you are docking the ship in the heavy storm, having just relieved whoever was manning the helm previously (or perhaps taking the helm that was left otherwise unmanned due to the storm) you may well not be out in the storm long enough to warrant a Con check.
And no-one has said that it should be, in that particular case. I'm merely pointing out that your claim that Con shouldn't be used for those situations I said it could be used is wrong.
As for how each of us would handle the situation as DM, we all have equal voices in that, since (again) none of us is the DM in question. If Vince is to be called out (who, again, does actually know the DM) over this, shouldn't everyone speculating on how the DM might react? Including you and I? And has others have said, it is not just ok for players to discuss problems or potential problems with the DM, it is usually better to do so. Simply leaving without any discussion is defeatist and non-constructive.
Knowing the DM is irrelevant. Speculating on how the DM might react wasn't what I was talking about. But yes, you are absolutely correct in that it would be a lot more constructive for vince to talk to their DM instead of telling us what vince as a DM would have done.
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
This much is true. As I have mentioned, it may be that the DM in question would prefer to be presented with a thesis on why "THAT GUY" is cheating than have oddities brought to his or the table's attention early. I doubt that this is the case, though, and Vince has never said that the DM would prefer that, only that he would himself. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much myself, either (although I would vastly prefer someone to have raised their suspicions with me privately before launching into a full blown investigation and mathematical analysis). I have learned the hard way, however, that the vast majority of people do not want this, even those who understand and like maths themselves. It would raise suspicions between members of the group in almost any situation to find that one of the group had been collecting data for a while to prove that another had done something wrong. Most would consider it underhanded, sly and deceitful to do this behind the backs of the group.
I think the point is that jumping to compiling a record to present to the DM is skipping one or two steps, escalating the conflict and limiting the DM's options. An off-hand comment to the group about someone apparently never missing might have solved the whole thing without significant conflict at all. Maybe it wouldn't, and maybe the DM might ask Vince to start keeping a tally - totally possible. But maybe it would have helped, or maybe it'd be enough to make the DM or another player have a word with the alleged cheater while still being able to give them the benefit of the doubt, or maybe it'd have made the whole group consider using a public online dice roller - all of which would defuse the situation without creating unnecessary conflict.
I've asked Vince a couple of times what the goal is here. So far the stated goal has only been to collect 50 data points, but that by itself doesn't achieve anything (Vince was convinced anyway, more data points won't affect his opinion). He doesn't believe the other player will get booted, I assume he doesn't want to get booted himself. So I'm still wondering what he wants to happen. Whatever it is though, his course of action limits the potential outcomes and arguably in a way that's detrimental to the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
1) The DM absolutely chooses who plays at their table. If you're DMing at an established group, you're kind of stuck with everyone else if you don't want to offend anyone by not inviting them to play at your campaign, but you definitely have the say of who plays at your table and who doesn't. You've been playing D&D for longer than I have. I don't think I need to be telling you, or anyone, this.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to have everyone be part of the solution.
2) IME, no, it's not. The other players don't need to know if another player is cheating if the problem can be resolved by the DM without them knowing. Cheating does effect the whole group, but once the problem is resolved, it doesn't effect them anymore.
1) You have a say in who you invite. They get to decide if they want to play at your table. If I want Tom, Dick and Harry for my campaign but not Peter, Tom might decide he doesn't want any part of it and that's likeky going to affect Dick and Harry too. That's absolutely his call. At which point it might well become my call to either include Peter after all or not have any players. Same with playstyle, tone, adventure type or choice of system. The DM typically proposes a game, but if the players aren't feeling it then that proposal isn't going to become reality. The group absolutely has a say as well.
2) The DM doesn't need to know if a player is cheating if the problem can be fixed by another player either, and the issue with one player taking their issue with another player only to the DM is that it makes it a problem if it comes out. Maybe that other player decides to leave the table, and now there's some explaining to do to the rest of the group. Maybe the other player wants to stay, denies the allegations and tells the others he feels ganged up on by the first player and the DM. Maybe the other player asks where this is coming from and now the DM has to choose between covering for the first player or laying it all out. It just gets messy. Throwing something in the group without pointing fingers and making it personal is cleaner. If that doesn't work, ok, maybe then step it up (or let it go, for the sake of the game). But telling the DM they need to fix a player issue is like pulling the pin out of a grenade. Dlesn't necessarily mean it'll go off, but nobody's going to be happy with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Throwing something in the group without pointing fingers and making it personal is cleaner. If that doesn't work, ok, maybe then step it up (or let it go, for the sake of the game). But telling the DM they need to fix a player issue is like pulling the pin out of a grenade. Dlesn't necessarily mean it'll go off, but nobody's going to be happy with it.
I agree here. Although I would generally want to be informed by a player at my table (and hence would generally inform the DM at another table) before they raise an issue which is likely to be... disruptive, I would much prefer that player to raise the issue rather than them leaving it to me to solve. We're a group of grown adults, we should be able to deal with our problems without "running to teacher".
That's not to say I wouldn't help the player if needed, or advise on the best way to handle it, but it is the player who has the problem and they should handle it if they can.
There can be exceptional value in sorting one's thoughts out in advance.
I'm reasonably sure, by this point, that Vince has blocked me and my advice is falling on literally deaf ears. C'est la vie. Nevertheless, there has been nearly universal backlash to Vince's approach here, with a very large number of players saying "If I were the DM and someone at my table did this, I would be having a Talk with this player first and the alleged cheater second." It doesn't necessarily have to do with Vince's abrasive personality or tendency to go fishing for forum fights either, Kotath. Anyone who decided to cyberstalk another player to try and force the DM's hand the way Vince is doing as documented in this thread would be cause for significant concern. That is a breach of the social contract and a level of mistrust and hostility that makes the game impossible to play, and it would require resolution before a table I ran moved on.
I guarantee Vince has not blocked everyone trying to tell him that he's on a collision course with his game's self-destruct button, but the man is so outraged over possible cheating, and so convinced that this guy who Plays D&D Wrong is also a cheater, a liar, and possibly a thief and a murderer to boot, that he's refusing to even acknowledge that what he's doing is not helpful to anyone in any way. Vince would rather destroy his game outright, ruin it for everyone at that table and ostracize himself from his friends in that group, than tolerate even the possibility of cheating.
If that's the way he do? That's the way he do. He's even said that he knows this is exactly what he's doing and he doesn't care. But the rest of us would like to try and warn off anyone else who wants to try this ultrahostile Imperial Inquisition method of resolving game troubles. If we can manage to convince even one person that this is a terrible way to handle group issues? Then the thread will have served at least one worthwhile purpose.
With due respect, Vince's OP actually presents a choice he felt he had, which included the option of talking to the other DM. So he himself acknowledged that as an option on the table right from his OP. Knowing the other DM, he clearly was struggling over how and when to do so and so posted here to ask for advice.
Pretty much every question ends up 'Talk with the DM' or 'Talk with your players.' There is still value in sorting out one's thoughts in advance.
To be accurate, Vince did not, in his opening post, ask for advice.
So now, I have the choice of letting this slide, quitting the game and/or telling the DM that one of his oldest friends is a cheater. I am sure that will end well.
And people wonder why I dislike rule of cool players. This ONE GUY has reinforced my beliefs. If a player is willing to ignore the rules to implement rule of cool, why should I be surprised that they cheat on other parts of the game.
He;
complained about a player who plays in a way he dislikes,
mentioned that he had spotted a suspicious pattern,
told us the three options he had (ignore, quit, or tell* the DM), and
used that to label an entire group of players as cheats.
Nowhere in that did he ask for advice. He wanted to whinge about how unfair his life was, and how every Rule Of Cool player was a cheater. He went on to dismiss or ignore every other option he was given, and decided early on that the only option he would even consider was collecting data on the player behind the group's back to run an analysis to prove what he already believed, so that he could present the DM with hard proof and force him to confront one of his friends.
* Note: tell the DM, not talk with the DM. There's a big difference. One implies a confrontation and is one way, whereas the other implies a collaborative discussion.
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
This much is true. As I have mentioned, it may be that the DM in question would prefer to be presented with a thesis on why "THAT GUY" is cheating than have oddities brought to his or the table's attention early. I doubt that this is the case, though, and Vince has never said that the DM would prefer that, only that he would himself. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much myself, either (although I would vastly prefer someone to have raised their suspicions with me privately before launching into a full blown investigation and mathematical analysis). I have learned the hard way, however, that the vast majority of people do not want this, even those who understand and like maths themselves. It would raise suspicions between members of the group in almost any situation to find that one of the group had been collecting data for a while to prove that another had done something wrong. Most would consider it underhanded, sly and deceitful to do this behind the backs of the group.
I think the point is that jumping to compiling a record to present to the DM is skipping one or two steps, escalating the conflict and limiting the DM's options. An off-hand comment to the group about someone apparently never missing might have solved the whole thing without significant conflict at all. Maybe it wouldn't, and maybe the DM might ask Vince to start keeping a tally - totally possible. But maybe it would have helped, or maybe it'd be enough to make the DM or another player have a word with the alleged cheater while still being able to give them the benefit of the doubt, or maybe it'd have made the whole group consider using a public online dice roller - all of which would defuse the situation without creating unnecessary conflict.
I've asked Vince a couple of times what the goal is here. So far the stated goal has only been to collect 50 data points, but that by itself doesn't achieve anything (Vince was convinced anyway, more data points won't affect his opinion). He doesn't believe the other player will get booted, I assume he doesn't want to get booted himself. So I'm still wondering what he wants to happen. Whatever it is though, his course of action limits the potential outcomes and arguably in a way that's detrimental to the group.
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
Why is anything involving the group as a whole, or bringing up the subject without pointing fingers, or making an off-hand comment in the hope of seeing some adjustment in behaviour going to make the DM angry with you or worse?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
An off-hand comment to the group about someone apparently never missing might have solved the whole thing without significant conflict at all.
Or better yet show some patience/trust and give the DM time to address it themselves like I said a bajillion pages ago. Vince has even been so kind as to apprise us of the fact that the DM (and another player) started to call out some of rolls of their own accord. The very next session. This season of VSS is going to wind down in a very anti-climactic way and the cold war brewing in Vince's head is going to be nothing but a red herring.
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
I've got Cool Ranch Doreets, Hint of Lime Tostitos with spicy pico de gallo, Peanut Eminems, and four different types of Haribo gummies. Oh and popcorn of course. I got you sailor.
Also it's super cool you have experience with boats, Lost. I'm crazy afraid of the ocean (although I think it's beautiful and absolutely love the sound of it when my feet are planted firmly on the ground). It's so powerful. Mad respect homie.
You seem to have misread me. I said that Con CAN and SHOULD be used with respect to withstanding the elements. But that the act of steering itself, is better represented as an application of strength. I also stated that other aspects of running the ship are arguably Dex and yet others Int or even Wisdom. Now it seems like you agreed with me all along. Welcome on board!
With due respect, Vince's OP actually presents a choice he felt he had, which included the option of talking to the other DM. So he himself acknowledged that as an option on the table right from his OP. Knowing the other DM, he clearly was struggling over how and when to do so and so posted here to ask for advice.
This slip of the tongue is just the absolute best. I know Vince has been putting on a good performance, but there is only one DM in this story.
And now I totally get the boat episodes. Sheer genius if you ask me.
The biggest irony of this is that if I were the DM, I’d be happy to know if someone were concerned about cheating, but not if they came off as a pretentious jerk like Vince seems intent on doing. Like, Vince, I think you’re a smart guy. You have to see how your attitude sours your whole case.
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
Why is anything involving the group as a whole, or bringing up the subject without pointing fingers, or making an off-hand comment in the hope of seeing some adjustment in behaviour going to make the DM angry with you or worse?
It is a delicate dance to bring up unpleasant issues, especially if it is only one person involved, in a group setting. An off-hand comment, yeah, that has potential. But I have lived in the corporate world long enough (hell, any RL setting), to know that bringing this kind of thing up in a public setting is a dangerous gambit.
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
Why is anything involving the group as a whole, or bringing up the subject without pointing fingers, or making an off-hand comment in the hope of seeing some adjustment in behaviour going to make the DM angry with you or worse?
It is a delicate dance to bring up unpleasant issues, especially if it is only one person involved, in a group setting. An off-hand comment, yeah, that has potential. But I have lived in the corporate world long enough (hell, any RL setting), to know that bringing this kind of thing up in a public setting is a dangerous gambit.
All of your scenarios except the first one involve a chance of questions being asked or people deciding to go public with some or all of it. This is not something you can avoid. And if that does happen, everything that's being going on behind the curtain is pretty much guaranteed to sour the mood.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
Why is anything involving the group as a whole, or bringing up the subject without pointing fingers, or making an off-hand comment in the hope of seeing some adjustment in behaviour going to make the DM angry with you or worse?
It is a delicate dance to bring up unpleasant issues, especially if it is only one person involved, in a group setting. An off-hand comment, yeah, that has potential. But I have lived in the corporate world long enough (hell, any RL setting), to know that bringing this kind of thing up in a public setting is a dangerous gambit.
All of your scenarios except the first one involve a chance of questions being asked or people deciding to go public with some or all of it. This is not something you can avoid. And if that does happen, everything that's being going on behind the curtain is pretty much guaranteed to sour the mood.
Yes, there is the potential of the DM or THAT GUY going public with the whole matter, if I took the private route. But in my experiences, it is unlikely that would happen. Most people, including me, don't like public confrontation. (I can see so many rolling their eyes at that statement). The real world is not Twitter, or DBB forums, where people can hide.
The biggest irony of this is that if I were the DM, I’d be happy to know if someone were concerned about cheating, but not if they came off as a pretentious jerk like Vince seems intent on doing. Like, Vince, I think you’re a smart guy. You have to see how your attitude sours your whole case.
Indeed. My takeaway from these 16 pages is that cheating is bad but Vince is worse.
I could see a constitution argument for enduring a storm, but still think that the helm itself is mostly strength. "Hold 'er steady" is a stock (arguably cliche) phrase, after all and references literally holding the wheel steady while bracing against wind on deck and against currents pushing against the rudder below.
You can think that but you'd be wrong. It's the same reason why the PHB suggests a Con (Athletics) check for a very long swim.
And I repeat that it might have been one wheel and one man but that one wheel is nevertheless not the weight of the wheel but rather the weight of the rudder it is attached to and the weight of the water you are pushing against. The worst sorts of inclement weather is a red herring, in that the weather has little to nothing to do with steering. Furthermore, the 'worst sorts of inclement weather' literally sinks ships and short of someone the power of Heracles, no sailor has the strength to keep the ship from capsizing if the waves are too strong.
Not true. If the weather is bad it will affect how the ship handles and that will affect how difficult it is to stear.
Clearly, I see the world differently than you. If I was DM'ing and a player came to me with hard facts that make it a virtual certainty another player is cheating, I would be "oh damn, now I have a problem with a cheater", but not "I am going to toss the player that picked up on that."
But you aren't, are you? Which is the whole point. Well, one of the many very good points having been made in this thread.
*munching vociferously on various snack foods in between heavy, bated breaths*
This show is so good but what the heck is with these boat episodes?
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
I repeat: Con to endure the storm, to stay at the helm. But it is still strength to actually keep the ship steady.
And I, having actual experience, repeat, you are wrong.
Whether one refers to it as an ability score check or a skill check is out of character and RAW covers in character actions not OOC actions. Nothing in RAW speaks to how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to when discussing it in an open forum. Discussing things in forums is not part of RAW.
Except that wasn't what was discussed, which should be obvious from the context. Which i quite clear if you read the text. It had nothing to do with "how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to". Please stay on topic.
Con (or possibly wisdom) can help you focus out the elements but cannot help you actually resist them. It is a strength (or sometimes dex) based defence against shoves and various involuntary movement effects, not normally a Con save.
Really? Constitution, your "stamina" and "life force" and the ability used for resisting multiple damage spells and fatigue is of no use to help resist the elements? A kitten with a con of 1 can brave freezing cold winds for the same amount of time as a hardened barbarian?
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
Again, please read the context. And no, you are quite right in that none of us is the DM. That's not the point though, is it? This thread isn't about "how would you deal with this sitation if you were the DM?" (even though many people have motivated their answers by telling us how they would deal with this situation were that the case) but rather is vince asking us how he should deal with it. Which, due to the nature of the issue many would argue, means referring back to the DM. Who is not vince.
So when people point out that vince isn't the DM it's a perfectly valid point since vince keeps on telling us what he would do "if he were the DM". That's great, in vince's games, but it isn't vince's game to DM and unless he can convince the DM to go along with vince's wishes (which has been suggested in the thread), what vince would do in the games vince would DM is of no consequence in this matter.
You have actual experience manning the helm of a renaissance sailing vessel through a storm? Pardon?
18th century merchantman and not a storm, but weather bad enough to affect the handling, but yes. I wrote that the first time I replied to a thing about sailing. It would help immensly if you'd read what people write.
The same basic principles apply for pretty much any sailing vessel. Of course, modern ships and yachts have equipment that in many ways reduces the need for physical strength.
You complained that Vince used the term 'skill check' and asked where in any published material there was any reference to a skill check. That is the context. Care to explain how merely calling it a skill check in a forum is against RAW? If I am misunderstanding you, no worries. Explain what you mean.
Again, you have to read all the important bits, not just the ones that means what you want them to mean. The whole point is that there is no such a thing as "skill checks" which vince said there is. Can you get back on topic, please?
Yes, Con governs health and endurance and if you run out of hit points you will no longer be able to man the helm. But if you run out of hit points you will not be able do do anything else either. So should all checks therefore be Con based?
Well, that's a nice non sequitur. You claim was that Con does nothing to help you resist the elements. I asked how you came to that conclusion. HP are irrelevant. You do know that Con is more than HP, right?
We are not talking about being able to simply stay at any given ship's station for extended hours (which would be Con) but to literally hold the wheel steady on course. To use your kitten example, could the Kitten also move the wheel at all? We are not talking about the 'Endure the freezing winds' part. We are talking about the 'Hold the wheel steady' part.
Well, we are talking about resisting the elements since you claimed that con " cannot help you actually resist" the elements.
Again, just as I pointed out via my swimming example, tasks can be complex and require multiple checks. If you are docking the ship in the heavy storm, having just relieved whoever was manning the helm previously (or perhaps taking the helm that was left otherwise unmanned due to the storm) you may well not be out in the storm long enough to warrant a Con check.
And no-one has said that it should be, in that particular case. I'm merely pointing out that your claim that Con shouldn't be used for those situations I said it could be used is wrong.
As for how each of us would handle the situation as DM, we all have equal voices in that, since (again) none of us is the DM in question. If Vince is to be called out (who, again, does actually know the DM) over this, shouldn't everyone speculating on how the DM might react? Including you and I? And has others have said, it is not just ok for players to discuss problems or potential problems with the DM, it is usually better to do so. Simply leaving without any discussion is defeatist and non-constructive.
Knowing the DM is irrelevant. Speculating on how the DM might react wasn't what I was talking about. But yes, you are absolutely correct in that it would be a lot more constructive for vince to talk to their DM instead of telling us what vince as a DM would have done.
One is not obligated to have memorized every post in a 15 page thread.
No, but one should at least read the messages one replies to.
So you are claiming that you were have helmed an 18th century merchant ship,
Yes. I have also rowed a viking ship and been onboard a late 14th century cog. Replicas of course but that goes without saying.
that this took no significant strength,
No, I never once claimed this. Please read what people write instead of making things up. But to adress this particular strawman and depending on how you define "no significant strength", no more than average strength is needed. Moving things through water is easier than moving things through air (since the water takes part of the weight through buoyancy) so for example, the heaviest part of lifting the anchor (since that was used as an example) is when they anchor is out of the water. Steering a ship is usually the job of one or two people, not because it requires great strength but just as a safety precaution. Depending on the conditions (of which weather is one, btw) I'd say that anyone of average strength can do it. The way the steering mechanism works makes it a lot easier.
but somehow required a strong constitution?
As I said, had you bothered to read the messages you reply to "keeping the helm at a steady course in hard winds would probably be constitution". "Keeping", not "changing" or "setting", "keeping". Which suggest an extended period of time which is further clarified by the comparison to the swim check from the PHB. But yes, keeping a course for hours at an end would, in my experience, be more of a con check than a strength check, especially in adverse conditions.
And that holding a course in the short term (i.e. rounds) is somehow a Constitution check?
If you can find where I write that, please let me know. Otherwise I accept your apology for putting words in my mouth.
And no, we are not talking about modern ships.
Never said we did.
Vince referred to something as a skill check.
Again, it helps if you read what people write and what they reply to. If you did you would have noticed that there was a small side discussion about how ability checks are a thing and skill checks aren't. Vince replied to the statement "All 'skill' checks in D&D are actually ability checks" by claiming " Well, while I would like to agree with you in principle, I don't believe I have ever read any documentation that proves that every skill check is associated with any particular ability." Which, according to RAW, is wrong. Or at least he hasn't shown any examples backing up his claim.
You understood what he meant. I understood what he meant. Everyone here understood what he meant. You insisted his doing so was somehow breaking RAW. It isn't.
Except that you are not talking about what actually happened. I don't think even vince agrees with you. This is just a strawman of windmill proportions.
You seem to have misread me. I said that Con CAN and SHOULD be used with respect to withstanding the elements.
I quoted you. You literally said that constitution cannot help you resist the elements.
But that the act of steering itself, is better represented as an application of strength. I also stated that other aspects of running the ship are arguably Dex and yet others Int or even Wisdom. Now it seems like you agreed with me all along. Welcome on board!
Again, if you would have read what people wrote, this shouldn't come as a surprise since I actually made this very point, except for the steering is strength bit (which I didn't really comment on since that wasn't the point I was making), in my first reply.
With due respect, Vince's OP actually presents a choice he felt he had, which included the option of talking to the other DM. So he himself acknowledged that as an option on the table right from his OP. Knowing the other DM, he clearly was struggling over how and when to do so and so posted here to ask for advice.
Urth has already pointed out that you are wrong on this point.
Pretty much every question ends up 'Talk with the DM' or 'Talk with your players.' There is still value in sorting out one's thoughts in advance.
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
I've got Cool Ranch Doreets, Hint of Lime Tostitos with spicy pico de gallo, Peanut Eminems, and four different types of Haribo gummies. Oh and popcorn of course. I got you sailor.
Thanks! I'll have some popcorn and gummies, please. :)
Also it's super cool you have experience with boats, Lost. I'm crazy afraid of the ocean (although I think it's beautiful and absolutely love the sound of it when my feet are planted firmly on the ground). It's so powerful. Mad respect homie.
Thanks. Sailing sure is an experience but I can absolutely understand the fear of the ocean. The ocean has to be respected.
The biggest irony of this is that if I were the DM, I’d be happy to know if someone were concerned about cheating, but not if they came off as a pretentious jerk like Vince seems intent on doing. Like, Vince, I think you’re a smart guy. You have to see how your attitude sours your whole case.
Indeed. My takeaway from these 16 pages is that cheating is bad but Vince is worse.
Unlike some, I don't go running to the mods when someone takes a shot at me. We are all grownups here, and words don't "make someone unsafe". Word of advice, some don't believe that.
This show sucks. The main character is now making meta commentary about other shows, but not in a clever way, it's just pot shots about the bad reviews that other seasons have gotten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Unlike some, I don't go running to the mods when someone takes a shot at me. We are all grownups here, and words don't "make someone unsafe". Word of advice, some don't believe that.
This is objectively, unequivocally wrong. Someone can be unsafe (dangerous) based on their words, and someone can also make someone else feel unsafe based on their words.
It's nice that you have lived a life that has not made you experience these truths, but in reality you could not be further from the truth on this one.
Yes, there is the potential of the DM or THAT GUY going public with the whole matter, if I took the private route. But in my experiences, it is unlikely that would happen. Most people, including me, don't like public confrontation. (I can see so many rolling their eyes at that statement). The real world is not Twitter, or DBB forums, where people can hide.
People don't like public confrontation, so you're thinking of privately confronting the DM with your file of evidence, expecting them to privately confront the other player, and expecting that other player not to let the other players know that hey, you know what, Vince thinks they're cheating and went to the DM? Maybe it's just me, but that feels a lot like banking on passive-aggressiveness to carry the day... and that's not really a great situation either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
18th century merchantman and not a storm, but weather bad enough to affect the handling, but yes. I wrote that the first time I replied to a thing about sailing. It would help immensly if you'd read what people write.
The same basic principles apply for pretty much any sailing vessel. Of course, modern ships and yachts have equipment that in many ways reduces the need for physical strength.
Again, you have to read all the important bits, not just the ones that means what you want them to mean. The whole point is that there is no such a thing as "skill checks" which vince said there is. Can you get back on topic, please?
Well, that's a nice non sequitur. You claim was that Con does nothing to help you resist the elements. I asked how you came to that conclusion. HP are irrelevant. You do know that Con is more than HP, right?
Well, we are talking about resisting the elements since you claimed that con " cannot help you actually resist" the elements.
And no-one has said that it should be, in that particular case. I'm merely pointing out that your claim that Con shouldn't be used for those situations I said it could be used is wrong.
Knowing the DM is irrelevant. Speculating on how the DM might react wasn't what I was talking about. But yes, you are absolutely correct in that it would be a lot more constructive for vince to talk to their DM instead of telling us what vince as a DM would have done.
I think the point is that jumping to compiling a record to present to the DM is skipping one or two steps, escalating the conflict and limiting the DM's options. An off-hand comment to the group about someone apparently never missing might have solved the whole thing without significant conflict at all. Maybe it wouldn't, and maybe the DM might ask Vince to start keeping a tally - totally possible. But maybe it would have helped, or maybe it'd be enough to make the DM or another player have a word with the alleged cheater while still being able to give them the benefit of the doubt, or maybe it'd have made the whole group consider using a public online dice roller - all of which would defuse the situation without creating unnecessary conflict.
I've asked Vince a couple of times what the goal is here. So far the stated goal has only been to collect 50 data points, but that by itself doesn't achieve anything (Vince was convinced anyway, more data points won't affect his opinion). He doesn't believe the other player will get booted, I assume he doesn't want to get booted himself. So I'm still wondering what he wants to happen. Whatever it is though, his course of action limits the potential outcomes and arguably in a way that's detrimental to the group.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) You have a say in who you invite. They get to decide if they want to play at your table. If I want Tom, Dick and Harry for my campaign but not Peter, Tom might decide he doesn't want any part of it and that's likeky going to affect Dick and Harry too. That's absolutely his call. At which point it might well become my call to either include Peter after all or not have any players. Same with playstyle, tone, adventure type or choice of system. The DM typically proposes a game, but if the players aren't feeling it then that proposal isn't going to become reality. The group absolutely has a say as well.
2) The DM doesn't need to know if a player is cheating if the problem can be fixed by another player either, and the issue with one player taking their issue with another player only to the DM is that it makes it a problem if it comes out. Maybe that other player decides to leave the table, and now there's some explaining to do to the rest of the group. Maybe the other player wants to stay, denies the allegations and tells the others he feels ganged up on by the first player and the DM. Maybe the other player asks where this is coming from and now the DM has to choose between covering for the first player or laying it all out. It just gets messy. Throwing something in the group without pointing fingers and making it personal is cleaner. If that doesn't work, ok, maybe then step it up (or let it go, for the sake of the game). But telling the DM they need to fix a player issue is like pulling the pin out of a grenade. Dlesn't necessarily mean it'll go off, but nobody's going to be happy with it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree here. Although I would generally want to be informed by a player at my table (and hence would generally inform the DM at another table) before they raise an issue which is likely to be... disruptive, I would much prefer that player to raise the issue rather than them leaving it to me to solve. We're a group of grown adults, we should be able to deal with our problems without "running to teacher".
That's not to say I wouldn't help the player if needed, or advise on the best way to handle it, but it is the player who has the problem and they should handle it if they can.
There can be exceptional value in sorting one's thoughts out in advance.
I'm reasonably sure, by this point, that Vince has blocked me and my advice is falling on literally deaf ears. C'est la vie. Nevertheless, there has been nearly universal backlash to Vince's approach here, with a very large number of players saying "If I were the DM and someone at my table did this, I would be having a Talk with this player first and the alleged cheater second." It doesn't necessarily have to do with Vince's abrasive personality or tendency to go fishing for forum fights either, Kotath. Anyone who decided to cyberstalk another player to try and force the DM's hand the way Vince is doing as documented in this thread would be cause for significant concern. That is a breach of the social contract and a level of mistrust and hostility that makes the game impossible to play, and it would require resolution before a table I ran moved on.
I guarantee Vince has not blocked everyone trying to tell him that he's on a collision course with his game's self-destruct button, but the man is so outraged over possible cheating, and so convinced that this guy who Plays D&D Wrong is also a cheater, a liar, and possibly a thief and a murderer to boot, that he's refusing to even acknowledge that what he's doing is not helpful to anyone in any way. Vince would rather destroy his game outright, ruin it for everyone at that table and ostracize himself from his friends in that group, than tolerate even the possibility of cheating.
If that's the way he do? That's the way he do. He's even said that he knows this is exactly what he's doing and he doesn't care. But the rest of us would like to try and warn off anyone else who wants to try this ultrahostile Imperial Inquisition method of resolving game troubles. If we can manage to convince even one person that this is a terrible way to handle group issues? Then the thread will have served at least one worthwhile purpose.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be accurate, Vince did not, in his opening post, ask for advice.
He;
Nowhere in that did he ask for advice. He wanted to whinge about how unfair his life was, and how every Rule Of Cool player was a cheater. He went on to dismiss or ignore every other option he was given, and decided early on that the only option he would even consider was collecting data on the player behind the group's back to run an analysis to prove what he already believed, so that he could present the DM with hard proof and force him to confront one of his friends.
* Note: tell the DM, not talk with the DM. There's a big difference. One implies a confrontation and is one way, whereas the other implies a collaborative discussion.
I believe I have said this before. It is likely lost 3 or 5 pages back.
Best case scenario: Player suddenly starts rolling normally, without any intervention from me with the player, with the DM, or anyone else. Chances of that happening, well...pretty much zero.
2nd best scenario: I go to the DM about installing a dice bot (still waiting for text response from on something totally unrelated, so have not brought up the bot yet), and he thinks it is a great idea, and everyone starts using it. Chances of that happening are also pretty much zero, since when when I went to our Discord channel and visualized how this would work, I realized I can roll the dice and do the mental calculations faster than the combination of flipping between separate sub-channels and typing in what I want. Additionally, there is the very high potential of the DM asking "why would you want this", and there are pages of discussion on what happens then.
3rd best scenario. To the DM response of "why do you want this", or "nope, we don't need a roller", I PRIVATELY present my data. That leads to him saying "geez, I had no idea, thanks, I will figure out how to delicately deal with this privately", or "omg, those numbers are crazy, and I will start tracking them myself". And then he quietly, privately deals with this the player and the dice rolls magically normalize.I think the unanimous response from various posters to that is "not going to happen".
4th best scenario: DM is angry with me, but deals with with THAT GUY privately. And the dice rolls magically normalize.
The scenarios get progressively worse.
And as I have said before, I have to choose between playing with THAT GUY because the rest of the game is good, and not ever saying anything about it, or saying to myself "I can abide his playstyle and trying to break every RAW rule, but I cannot abide this outright cheating and will do something about it, knowing there are consequences".
Why is anything involving the group as a whole, or bringing up the subject without pointing fingers, or making an off-hand comment in the hope of seeing some adjustment in behaviour going to make the DM angry with you or worse?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Or better yet show some patience/trust and give the DM time to address it themselves like I said a bajillion pages ago. Vince has even been so kind as to apprise us of the fact that the DM (and another player) started to call out some of rolls of their own accord. The very next session. This season of VSS is going to wind down in a very anti-climactic way and the cold war brewing in Vince's head is going to be nothing but a red herring.
I've got Cool Ranch Doreets, Hint of Lime Tostitos with spicy pico de gallo, Peanut Eminems, and four different types of Haribo gummies. Oh and popcorn of course. I got you sailor.
Also it's super cool you have experience with boats, Lost. I'm crazy afraid of the ocean (although I think it's beautiful and absolutely love the sound of it when my feet are planted firmly on the ground). It's so powerful. Mad respect homie.
This slip of the tongue is just the absolute best. I know Vince has been putting on a good performance, but there is only one DM in this story.
And now I totally get the boat episodes. Sheer genius if you ask me.
The biggest irony of this is that if I were the DM, I’d be happy to know if someone were concerned about cheating, but not if they came off as a pretentious jerk like Vince seems intent on doing. Like, Vince, I think you’re a smart guy. You have to see how your attitude sours your whole case.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
It is a delicate dance to bring up unpleasant issues, especially if it is only one person involved, in a group setting. An off-hand comment, yeah, that has potential. But I have lived in the corporate world long enough (hell, any RL setting), to know that bringing this kind of thing up in a public setting is a dangerous gambit.
All of your scenarios except the first one involve a chance of questions being asked or people deciding to go public with some or all of it. This is not something you can avoid. And if that does happen, everything that's being going on behind the curtain is pretty much guaranteed to sour the mood.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes, there is the potential of the DM or THAT GUY going public with the whole matter, if I took the private route. But in my experiences, it is unlikely that would happen. Most people, including me, don't like public confrontation. (I can see so many rolling their eyes at that statement). The real world is not Twitter, or DBB forums, where people can hide.
Indeed. My takeaway from these 16 pages is that cheating is bad but Vince is worse.
No, but one should at least read the messages one replies to.
Yes. I have also rowed a viking ship and been onboard a late 14th century cog. Replicas of course but that goes without saying.
No, I never once claimed this. Please read what people write instead of making things up. But to adress this particular strawman and depending on how you define "no significant strength", no more than average strength is needed. Moving things through water is easier than moving things through air (since the water takes part of the weight through buoyancy) so for example, the heaviest part of lifting the anchor (since that was used as an example) is when they anchor is out of the water. Steering a ship is usually the job of one or two people, not because it requires great strength but just as a safety precaution. Depending on the conditions (of which weather is one, btw) I'd say that anyone of average strength can do it. The way the steering mechanism works makes it a lot easier.
As I said, had you bothered to read the messages you reply to "keeping the helm at a steady course in hard winds would probably be constitution". "Keeping", not "changing" or "setting", "keeping". Which suggest an extended period of time which is further clarified by the comparison to the swim check from the PHB. But yes, keeping a course for hours at an end would, in my experience, be more of a con check than a strength check, especially in adverse conditions.
If you can find where I write that, please let me know. Otherwise I accept your apology for putting words in my mouth.
Never said we did.
Again, it helps if you read what people write and what they reply to. If you did you would have noticed that there was a small side discussion about how ability checks are a thing and skill checks aren't. Vince replied to the statement "All 'skill' checks in D&D are actually ability checks" by claiming " Well, while I would like to agree with you in principle, I don't believe I have ever read any documentation that proves that every skill check is associated with any particular ability." Which, according to RAW, is wrong. Or at least he hasn't shown any examples backing up his claim.
Except that you are not talking about what actually happened. I don't think even vince agrees with you. This is just a strawman of windmill proportions.
I quoted you. You literally said that constitution cannot help you resist the elements.
Again, if you would have read what people wrote, this shouldn't come as a surprise since I actually made this very point, except for the steering is strength bit (which I didn't really comment on since that wasn't the point I was making), in my first reply.
Urth has already pointed out that you are wrong on this point.
See above.
Thanks! I'll have some popcorn and gummies, please. :)
Also it's super cool you have experience with boats, Lost. I'm crazy afraid of the ocean (although I think it's beautiful and absolutely love the sound of it when my feet are planted firmly on the ground). It's so powerful. Mad respect homie.
Thanks. Sailing sure is an experience but I can absolutely understand the fear of the ocean. The ocean has to be respected.
Unlike some, I don't go running to the mods when someone takes a shot at me. We are all grownups here, and words don't "make someone unsafe". Word of advice, some don't believe that.
This show sucks. The main character is now making meta commentary about other shows, but not in a clever way, it's just pot shots about the bad reviews that other seasons have gotten.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This is objectively, unequivocally wrong. Someone can be unsafe (dangerous) based on their words, and someone can also make someone else feel unsafe based on their words.
It's nice that you have lived a life that has not made you experience these truths, but in reality you could not be further from the truth on this one.
People don't like public confrontation, so you're thinking of privately confronting the DM with your file of evidence, expecting them to privately confront the other player, and expecting that other player not to let the other players know that hey, you know what, Vince thinks they're cheating and went to the DM? Maybe it's just me, but that feels a lot like banking on passive-aggressiveness to carry the day... and that's not really a great situation either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].