Upload
Login or register
x

didn't even need a charisma modifier

I managed to be alpha while playing d&d.
>be me
>fairly nerdy
>find out school has d&d club
>decide to check it out
>not to big, only about three others
>have a real good time
>start going every week
>become pretty close friends with most of them
>one day, a girl shows up
>she's fairly popular, so we all figure she's just there to make fun of us
>nope.mp4
>turns out, she's a freaking beast at d&d
>has character handbook, dungeon master's guide, monster manual, everything
>becomes perma DM
>no one makes a move on her b/c all too beta/ don't want to make it awkward
>one day, I've been rolling pretty great and start to feel good about myself
>decide to move
>ask her if she wants to go see a movie or something with me
>she shoots a wry grin and says, "roll persuasion."
>I play along and roll a 1d20
>motherofsolinari.jpeg
>a natural 20
>everyone else's jaws drop, I don't break eye contact
>say, "see you Saturday," and leave
+983
Views: 36225
Favorited: 79
Submitted: 01/02/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to maxattax Subscribe to dungeons-n-drags

Comments(224):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
1234>
[ 224 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
154 comments displayed.
Reply
+141
User avatar #3 - littlebatty (01/02/2016) [-]
why the **** are you on funnyjunk then?
Reply
+168
User avatar #5 to #3 - littlebatty (01/02/2016) [-]
go have sex
Reply
+30
#10 to #5 - Sunburn (01/02/2016) [-]
GIF
I wonder how far he got.
Reply
+3
User avatar #181 to #10 - PoisonGoth ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
with a natural 20? as far as he damn well wanted
Reply
0
#79 to #10 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**anonymous rolls 15**
Reply
+3
User avatar #179 to #98 - severepwner (01/03/2016) [-]
What a specific gif.
Reply
+193
#1 - twentyfourseven (01/02/2016) [-]
Yeah but did it work? Did she go?
Reply
+366
#2 to #1 - maxattax [OP](01/02/2016) [-]
Yep.
Reply
+99
#4 to #2 - twentyfourseven (01/02/2016) [-]
Well damn m8 well played
Reply
+122
User avatar #25 to #2 - Einsty (01/02/2016) [-]
You may not be the hero we deserve, but you are the hero we need.
Reply
+8
#152 to #2 - Customer Services (01/03/2016) [-]
GIF
TEH KING IS PLEASED.
Reply
-2
User avatar #156 to #152 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
multiple people have already called ******** and OP never delivered.
Reply
0
User avatar #159 to #156 - Customer Services (01/03/2016) [-]
Even if its fake, it's a good story.
Reply
0
User avatar #160 to #159 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
no doubt, but I'm getting irritated about people constantly going "hurr durr this story is fake" on any tumblr story, and then acting like anything from 4chan or funnyjunk is real.
Reply
0
User avatar #163 to #160 - Customer Services (01/03/2016) [-]
Many things used to irritate me here too. Then i started to just stop giving a **** . You should try it mate, it makes your browsing getting more enjoyable.
Reply
-1
#168 to #163 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
I didn't know people had the autism to block and then keep tagging someone. Holy hell.
0
#167 to #163 - Customer Services has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #166 to #163 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
>>#101, usually I do, but one of my biggest pet peeves is misconceptions about D&D, which is what this is built upon.

take this autist for example
Reply
+1
User avatar #132 to #2 - bdayskeleton (01/03/2016) [-]
What was your plan if you rolled a 1?
Reply
+1
#158 to #132 - maxattax [OP](01/03/2016) [-]
Go home silently and cry.
Reply
+1
User avatar #157 to #132 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
rape
Reply
0
User avatar #50 to #2 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
if the chick's a beast at d&d she'd probably know you can't get criticals on skills.
Reply
+8
#77 to #50 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Where in the content did it even mention that she perceived it as a "critical" on the skill check?

He got a nat 20, the BEST POSSIBLE result for the d20 roll. Where is "critical" implied, anywhere?
Reply
-3
User avatar #82 to #77 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
natural rolls are critical rolls. a natural 20 is an automatic success on Attacks and Saves

any story that involves "and I got a natural 20 on x skill" is ********
Reply
+4
#87 to #82 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
ok that's fine and all but,

the natural part refers to only the die roll itself, it's a type of semantics
Rather than saying "I got 20" and having to figure out "okay do you mean your die roll was that, or your total combined result?", you can just say "it was a natural 20".

Again, there was no mention of a "critical" in the story. Just that he rolled a natural 20, a 20 on a die roll.
Reply
-4
User avatar #90 to #87 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
"didn't even need the modifier"
Reply
+3
#96 to #90 - anon (01/03/2016) [-]
That's way wordier than "Natural 20."
Reply
0
#92 to #90 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
maybe it's because she only cared about the die roll anyway, and was using the die roll as a way of making his request interesting.

if she was already interested in him to begin with, then i'm sure she would have bs'd a successful result even if he rolled bad. Say he rolled a 6 on the d20, she could have said "that roll, PLUS your high Charisma mod of +6, and Circumstantial bonus of +2, gives you a 14. see you this weekend "

clearly that wasn't needed, since he rolled the highest possible result.
again, no "critical result" mentioned in the story.
Reply
0
#99 to #82 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
source plz
Reply
0
User avatar #100 to #99 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
on what?
Reply
0
#101 to #100 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Book and page where criticals are explained to only include attacks and saves or exclude skill checks
Reply
0
#193 to #101 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
From the Wizards of the Coast compendium, this is the only thing to show up when I searched for "natural 20s", "automatic success" and "crits"/"criticals"

In some editions, there are tables for what an epic level check gets you. As in, a performance where you roll a total of more than 50 has a chance of catching the attention of a god. It simply doesn't make sense for a skill check to be an automatic success on a 20 - What if I was rolling athletics to jump over the moon?
Reply
0
#195 to #193 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
But it makes sense for a natural 20 for an infant attempting to hit a diety with a spoon to actually succeed?
Reply
0
User avatar #200 to #195 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Yes. Maybe the deities attention was elsewhere. Maybe the deity was psionically attacked by a greater threat. Maybe the deity just wanted to see what would happen, or his defenses were constructed in a way to not consider the baby a threat, allowing the baby a sheer luck hit. Maybe the baby was superhumanly strong, or aided by outside forces. Why the baby even gets a standard action to make an attack is beyond me, but it is within the babies power to slap a spoon against a deity, doing an imperceptible amount of damage.
Reply
0
#202 to #200 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
I think the misconception here is the rules are infallible and you bend the story to match the rules, which is actually the opposite.
Reply
0
#201 to #200 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
So these are more acceptable than say maybe someone rolling an athletics to jump over the moon accidently reversed gravity and actually jumped over the moon? You stretch the truth to meet the rules, when even the rules know they're flawed in extreme situations.
Reply
0
User avatar #203 to #201 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Yes. No one can jump over the moon, but plenty of people have battled gods and even won.

Further, you're ignoring all the stuff that would stop a baby from hitting a god. Besides the DM just ruling over it, because rule 0, the baby has to start a fight. Okay, deity goes first. Because nat 20s aren't an automatic success, deity goes first even on a nat 1 vs the babies nat 20. The baby then has to wade through the deities first attacks, superior move speed, auras, opportunity actions, interrupt actions, allies, et cetera. You're saying taking away 99% of what makes a deity difficult dangerous and saying "But it's ridiculous that the baby could hit them given they've already passed literally every other defense besides the physical barriers of skin and air between the two"

Besides which, I don't get how this is an argument for your point that skill checks should include criticals. Pointing out that another thing is ridiculous doesn't make your point any less silly. A barbarian shouldn't have a 5% chance to pick the most complicated lock known to man, and a legendary thief shouldn't have a 5% chance to fail the most simple lock in the world.
Reply
0
#204 to #203 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
And the same rule should apply to the most insignificant being hitting the most powerful being under ANY circumstances and the most powerful being failing to destroy the most insignificant being under ANY circumstances.
Reply
0
User avatar #205 to #204 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
There are plenty of powers that do damage on a miss, including auras which do damage when you get too close. So the deity won't fail to kill the baby, but the baby could still physically manage to slap the deity with a spoon if you ignored literally everything about the deity except that it's physically there. At which point, you're essentially ignoring that it's a deity.

I accept that it's a ridiculous situation, but reject that it's ridiculous the baby could hit in that particular situation.
Reply
0
#206 to #205 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
I think you're assuming combat is a skillset separate from other skillsets. Being able in combat is just as in-depth as any other skill; regardless. Like I said, I think you're using the story to warp it around the rule when the rules are a guideline; like I said, ever Gary Gygax and Wizards admit the rulebook is not infallible. And in a world where a baby could have a 5% chance to hit a diety, whats to say you dont have a 5% chance to jump the moon? It sounds MUCH more believable.
Reply
0
User avatar #208 to #206 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
I think what's happening here is you're conflating rolling the dice with the application of the characters skill. Which it is, in skill checks. But combat is different. Combat is a multi step process, which is why there are seven types of action in 4e, at least which can be used for dozens of things each.

Ignoring everything but the to-hit roll is similar to giving someone a +30 to their check.
Reply
0
User avatar #207 to #206 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Did you even read >>#203, or are you just completely ignoring me?

YOU'RE the one giving a situation that's impossible. In no ordinary game, it's not even possible for a baby to get close enough to the deity to strike it, for half a dozen mechanical reasons. YOU'RE the one placing the baby a single standard action away from hitting the deity. At which point, sure, I'll accept that it's a 5% chance to hit it and do absolutely no damage, because of resistances.

To compare it to jumping over the moon, that'd be impossible from the ground, but if you were somehow already standing on the moon and completely insulated from all damage, I accept that you could stop over the "North pole" of the moon.
Reply
0
#214 to #207 - maxattax [OP](01/03/2016) [-]
In the groups I play with, natural twenty just means it was a twenty that was rolled, not just a twenty that you got because of a modifier. I guess it might not be the technical term, but D&D isn't about technicalities, it's about making and telling a story. You shouldn't get too caught up in the rules: they're just a guideline. If the DM wants to let a baby hit a deity with a spoon, that's his call.
Reply
0
User avatar #103 to #101 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
it's literally the basics.
www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
dnd. read the "skill checks" section.
Reply
0
#105 to #103 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
but dis is not wizard publication
Reply
0
User avatar #106 to #105 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
it's an srd. legitimately all it is is the recordings of all of the books and their rules in an easy to find website. there's one for pathfinder as well.

also, this is advocated by wizard
Reply
0
#107 to #106 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
What DM would throw a skill check in that's fate cannot be determined by the 20 and still allow a player to roll

hint a bad one
Reply
0
User avatar #108 to #107 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
what dm would allow a character to be completely god tier at a skill 20% of the time?

hint: a very god damn bad one
Reply
+1
#109 to #108 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Uhhh....I don't think 1 out of 20 is 20%??
Reply
0
User avatar #110 to #109 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
I always **** up with that. it's 5%, my bad.

still that's outrageous. "oh, why should I put skills into anything if there's a 5% chance I can succeed/ **** up badly"
Reply
0
#111 to #110 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
its kk. I think it's pretty fair in a balanced game. Though I've had issues with this slightly in the past too. But I often think the game's success and merit should be dictated by the average level of player as opposed to extreme ends. And trust me, this was a HUGE issue to get over for me when creating my homebrew trpg. I just realized its incredibly difficult to stay consistent while awarding both balanced and specialized levels of play without rewarding or punishing either side too much or too little.
Reply
0
User avatar #112 to #111 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
it makes sense from the combat and save perspective. You can get lucky when dodging, you can get lucky when cutting.

Skills are extremely different. there's no reason someone who has a -5 to cooking should be able to make a ten layer marbled chocolate cake.
Reply
0
#113 to #112 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
I mean perhaps, but the same extremes can be taken into combat. Could a nigh-infant *actually* do physical open hand damage to an adult human?
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #113 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
not exactly, but in certain circumstances it's arguably possibly. However, you're forgetting that open hand damage can't be lethal unless circumstances allow it. a nigh-infant can't be a monk.

a child with a sword could, however, reasonably kill someone if they get lucky.
Reply
0
#162 to #115 - anon (01/03/2016) [-]
Try to hide instantly when you're about to lose. kk concentrated autism.
0
User avatar #164 to #162 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
I'm not hiding **** you retard.
Reply
0
#154 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Don't be mad that you being a rules lawyer doesn't make you a good dm homie. You still are assuming that in combat a 20 represents an automatic success even in cases where it clearly should never. Such as an insignificant being being able to defeat a diety. Since "deities have stats" and a child has stats, mathematically, it could happen to where a diety rolls constant's 1's and a child roll's constant 20's. Though, in skill challenges, it wouldn't allow you to have the best or worst possible outcome, in combat, all of the sudden everything changes and no matter what in combat if you roll a 20 you can not fail. That's bad DMing, plain and simple.
0
User avatar #155 to #154 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
there are no stats for children under a certain age.
Reply
0
#148 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
It doesn't matter if a diety has stats or not. How about you present arguments for either if a diety has stats or not? Both? And get that out of your system because this concentrated autism is killing me. Exactly, 1's and 20's, as best possible scenarios, only apply to skill checks, but as best possible scenarios *do not apply to combat*, even though honestly, combat is just another skill set.
0
User avatar #151 to #148 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
If a diety has stats, then it is not all powerful. that is the entire point of the creed "if it has stats, we can kill it."

Anything with stats and does not exist purely as part of the narrative is subject to the rules.

You flipped those, and the rules as written are exactly what you're arguing against.

nice ad hominem attacking me instead of presenting a good argument.

A) a baby can not usually kill something because it's not possible. A natural 1/20 result has to be possible as I pointed out
B) you wouldn't roll to kill a baby. it's considered helpless and can be coup de grassed.
C) A legitimate diety could not fail something. however, there are in fact dieties in dungeons and dragons with stats, and they are subject to failure and success as is anything else with stats.

you asked for proof, I gave proof. you presented your flawed argument, which I entertained until you started to be a cunt.

legitimately go **** yourself, dude.
Reply
0
#146 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
If you're just going to ignore the post, I think the argument is over here.
0
User avatar #147 to #146 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
you're the one who ignored my question, twice now.

and stop trying to use the "baby" and "diety" point, as natural 1s and 20s are, and I ******* quote: the best/worst thing that can POSSIBLY happen.
Reply
0
#144 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Okay so let me get this straight. TO YOU, all these scenarios sound reasonable.
A diety attempts to pick a paltry lock, rolls a 1. Succeeds. No chance to failing whatsoever, cant drop the pick, cant trip, cant break the log, literally cannot happen.
A diety attempts to attack a newborn infant with all of its divine might. Rolls a 1. Fails. Falls over or breaks it weapon, or misses or anything of that nature revolving around the diety failing a task EASIER than picking a lock in ANY sense whatsoever.
A baby rolls a 20 to climb a slightly too hard rock. Fails no matter what, will never happen.
A baby rolls a 20 to injure a diety with a kitchen utensil. Diety is actually hurt by an infant with a common kitchen utensil.

If you answered yes to any or all of these, I suggest you look into the HARDBACK publications of wizards and look around for something called a "RULE LAWYER" and read up to understand why even wizards doesn't want you to be one.
0
User avatar #145 to #144 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
does this diety have stats.
Reply
0
#139 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
I'm not talking it happening in the game realistic, I'm talking about it physically being a thing. If the universe in which this was happening was real and not determined by the roll of a dice by a third party, does this sound even remotely feasible?
0
User avatar #142 to #139 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
again, yes.

if you have a deity in dungeons and dragons, does it have stats?
Reply
0
#137 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Btw I'm talking realistically speaking, visually. Not mechanically. I'm not sure you're making that connection.
0
User avatar #138 to #137 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
the entire reason that it's not realistic is the reason I'm arguing mechanics.

I can't walk up to any lock, especially one that's incredibly hard to pick, and pick it through sheer luck.
Reply
0
#133 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Plus, you're saying theres not a 5% chance for someone to do something hard even though theyre normally bad at it but theres a 5% chance for a divine diety of great power to fall over?
+1
User avatar #135 to #133 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
yes
Reply
0
#130 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
And plus is it honestly fair to say that a god could trip but a character couldn't accidently succeed a lockpick when fiddling with a lock even though they're naturally bad at it? I think one seems much more reasonable.
0
User avatar #134 to #130 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
the points in skills also represent how much training they've had. if someone has no clue how to pick a lock, then how could they stand a chance to miraculously succeed, especially if the lock is challenging even to those who are skilled in the ways of lockpicking
Reply
0
#129 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
The baby retaliates with a butter knife. It cuts and wounds Lloth.
0
User avatar #136 to #129 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
still possible.
Reply
0
#127 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
Lloth attempts an attack on an infant. She rolls a 1. The baby dodges.
0
User avatar #128 to #127 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
the baby wouldn't dodge. it's entirely possible she would trip
Reply
0
#124 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
But then why treat them that way in combat?
0
User avatar #125 to #124 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
explain what you mean
Reply
0
#121 to #115 - Hurro (01/03/2016) [-]
See, its all about circumstances. Thats where I think the line between realism and balance needs to be drawn for each DM. I usually judge the game by average level of play, and allow extremes to go wherever. Rarely do I ever fudge rolls, unless it is absolutely plot essential. Think it adds more unknown to the game. Thats just me though. Usually I think criticals on skill checks "hand of god" moments.
0
User avatar #122 to #121 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
they aren't though. they're the "Best possibly outcome"

people treat them like they're reality breaking super mega roles
Reply
0
#161 to #115 - anon (01/03/2016) [-]
Okay, since you are just going to continue to fight circumstances instead of meaning how about the. The absolute most insignificant being with the LOWEST POSSIBLE MEASURABLE STATISTICS. against the most powerful being with the HIGHEST POSSIBLE MEASURABLE STATISTICS. According to "crits work in combat" it is possible for the insignificant being with the LOWEST POSSIBLE MEASURABLE STATISTICS to defeat the most powerful being with the HIGHEST POSSIBLE MEASURABLE STATISTICS. Now that you can't hide behind vague details, I'd like to hear your explanation on this aside from *Snort* "The book says so and the book is infallible because *I* said so even though wizards and Gary Gygax acknowledge that they aren't"
0
User avatar #192 to #161 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Crits aren't automatic wins. A crit automatically hits, and if the total roll is still enough to hit the defense they do max damage, plus critical damage from magic weapons and such. The creature with the lowest measurable statistics is going to do a whopping 1d4 damage against the creature with the highest measurable statistics, assuming it somehow manages to go first.
Reply
0
User avatar #176 to #110 - nanako (01/03/2016) [-]
it seems to me that the defining factor there is time.

Like, if a monster is about to eat you unles you convince it not to, you're going to want some diplomacy skill there because a 5% chance for success still means 95% chance to die, and there wouldn't be a second chance there
Reply
0
User avatar #209 to #107 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Your players aren't meant to know whether or not it's possible to succeed, so a good DM will make them roll anyway.
Reply
0
User avatar #185 to #2 - zaxzwim ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
nice, what did you go see
Reply
0
#93 to #2 - nigasd ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Keep us updated brah
Reply
0
User avatar #37 to #2 - imofcnotharveydent (01/02/2016) [-]
Sooo, how'd it go?
Reply
+7
User avatar #51 to #37 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
it's fake m8
Reply
+13
#38 to #37 - maxattax [OP](01/02/2016) [-]
This is getting a bit too personal...
Reply
+44
User avatar #40 to #38 - synchron (01/02/2016) [-]
So you two smashed
Reply
+20
User avatar #48 to #38 - chaossniper ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
hey we need details man you cant just post ad leave
Reply
+5
#60 to #48 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
He rolled a nat 20. I'm pretty sure we can imagine how it went.
Reply
+2
User avatar #62 to #48 - bodox (01/02/2016) [-]
Implying this is not copy paste from half chan
Reply
+2
User avatar #56 to #38 - erotictentacle ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Damn, sorry to hear.
Im sure you'll do better next time!
Reply
+1
User avatar #141 to #38 - thymarx (01/03/2016) [-]
SAO Abridged Parody: Episode 07 Come on man, the few people who actually are sexually active on funnyjunk are us other funnyjunkers sexlife, you can't just leave us hanging like that
Reply
0
#173 to #141 - michaelrock (01/03/2016) [-]
GIF
sao content
Reply
0
User avatar #143 to #141 - thymarx (01/03/2016) [-]
hmm, i assumed it would start from the point in the video that was in the actual link, guess that doesn't work, oh well

What i wanted to show from this video is from 00:51 to 00:57
Reply
0
#42 to #38 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Because it's made up and there are no details. Pics of girl club member or it didnt happen
Reply
+2
#57 to #42 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Why would anyone put pics of someone they're dating online?
It's a dick move to post pics of anyone without their consent
Reply
-1
User avatar #61 to #38 - zight (01/02/2016) [-]
sounds like avoiding a fairly simple question, like "good we are going another date" or "bad" etc. Which makes me just suspect it didn't go so hot
Reply
0
User avatar #39 to #38 - imofcnotharveydent (01/02/2016) [-]
Guess I'll have to accept that
Reply
0
User avatar #33 to #2 - alucardexplain (01/02/2016) [-]
Just as important, what did you go see?
Reply
+15
#34 to #33 - maxattax [OP](01/02/2016) [-]
Episode VII.
Reply
+6
User avatar #36 to #34 - alucardexplain (01/02/2016) [-]
Nice.
Reply
+55
User avatar #6 - Nihatclodra (01/02/2016) [-]
And then everybody clapped.
Reply
+85
User avatar #13 to #6 - ghirahn (01/02/2016) [-]
I clapped.
Reply
+4
#86 to #13 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
i slapped
Reply
0
User avatar #210 to #86 - Nihatclodra (01/03/2016) [-]
I fapped.
Reply
+49
#11 - warlordstuart (01/02/2016) [-]
My wife and I play D&D and pathfinder on a regular basis. Have a good one OP
Reply
+63
User avatar #8 - jeffthellamaking (01/02/2016) [-]
Alpha nerd is still alpha.
Well played.
Reply
+12
User avatar #67 - dehnoobshow (01/02/2016) [-]
**dehnoobshow used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**dehnoobshow rolls 01**
dndxplain, wanna see a movie sunday?
Reply
+6
User avatar #68 to #67 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
I work sunday
Reply
+4
User avatar #88 to #68 - perform (01/02/2016) [-]
**perform used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**perform rolls 09**
How about saturday?
Reply
+6
User avatar #91 to #88 - dndxplain (01/02/2016) [-]
I think we should see other people
Reply
+2
#94 to #91 - anon (01/03/2016) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**anonymous rolls 15** You wanna **** ?
Reply
+4
User avatar #95 to #94 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
sure
Reply
+1
User avatar #114 to #95 - highkingtorygg (01/03/2016) [-]
he's an anon, thats a -3 to CHA rolls
Reply
+1
User avatar #117 to #114 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
my DC is 11
Reply
+2
User avatar #118 to #117 - highkingtorygg (01/03/2016) [-]
u a ho
Reply
+2
User avatar #119 to #118 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
nothing qwrong with liking sex faggot
Reply
+1
User avatar #126 to #119 - highkingtorygg (01/03/2016) [-]
**highkingtorygg used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**highkingtorygg rolls 12**
alright then

Reply
0
User avatar #196 to #119 - dehnoobshow (01/03/2016) [-]
**dehnoobshow used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**dehnoobshow rolls 03**
Alright then
Roll for doing the sex
Reply
0
User avatar #198 to #196 - dndxplain (01/03/2016) [-]
aaaand
you fail
Reply
+14
#44 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
I managed to be alpha while playing d&-

Let me stop you right there.
Reply
+6
User avatar #47 to #44 - lolollo (01/02/2016) [-]
Meanwhile, when was the last time you saw a real breast?
Reply
+7
#53 to #47 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
at least he doesn't lie
Reply
+5
User avatar #32 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (01/02/2016) [-]
Played DnD once, most unfun thing ever. Bunch of ******* tryhards ganging up on me. Only good thing about it was the DM who was 10/10.

DnD isn't fun unless you have fun people to play it with
Reply
+1
User avatar #41 to #32 - nimba (01/02/2016) [-]
Yeah, can't play to win D&D, it's about the adventure not just pressing x through all the dialogue
Reply
+1
User avatar #43 to #41 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (01/02/2016) [-]
These people were taking it way too seriously, they forgot it was a ******* game to have fun I swear.
Reply
+1
User avatar #49 to #43 - zacoren (01/02/2016) [-]
You just got the wrong nigs.
Reply
0
User avatar #52 to #49 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (01/02/2016) [-]
I know fam
Reply
0
#46 to #41 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
I don't think that was what he was saying.
Reply
+4
User avatar #89 - megatheman (01/02/2016) [-]
Thats ******** but I believe it
Reply
+4
#83 - maxattax [OP](01/02/2016) [-]
Holy crap, guys. Thank you so much for all the thumbs. I've never made front page before, this is awesome.
Reply
0
User avatar #175 to #83 - captchakid (01/03/2016) [-]
Did you **** ?
Reply
0
User avatar #187 to #83 - truesmokewolf (01/03/2016) [-]
Don't even give a **** if true.
Story was gud.
Reply
+1
User avatar #123 to #83 - repostforlife (01/03/2016) [-]
No problem bro. We all should be there once. So how true is the Story. Cause if it is you should post a follow-up
Reply
+4
User avatar #15 - mentlgen ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
**mentlgen used "*roll 1, 1-20*"**
**mentlgen rolls 17** what I rolled
Reply
+4
User avatar #12 - thatonederpyguy (01/02/2016) [-]
Well how far did you get
Reply
+3
#75 - zeldapronmaster (01/02/2016) [-]
>playing D&D in community room at college
>bunch of black kids picking on DM
>he reaches for his bah
>"He's packing!"
>they run awy
>pulls out 20 sided di
>"roll intimidation"
>20


MFW this never happened
Reply
+3
User avatar #55 - stealthnull (01/02/2016) [-]
The gods want you two to bang.
Reply
+2
#116 - Muppetz (01/03/2016) [-]
....and then the whole library applauded?
Reply
+2
User avatar #85 - Iven (01/02/2016) [-]
Holy **** , I can hear the panties drop from over here
Reply
+2
User avatar #149 to #85 - twiceasfun (01/03/2016) [-]
Sorry, I have very large panties
1234>
[ 224 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)