Search results

Some people like that, and consider it a feature rather than a bug. You don't have to like it for someone else to have fun with it. No one's forcing you to play by rules that you don't like. You don't like this table, then don't participate and DBAD.

There are other reasons. How about a Rogue 5 / Champion Fighter 3? They don't want the 2 extra levels of fighter, but still want to feel like they are part fighter. Seems like a reasonable scenario to want Extra Attack without investing 2 more levels in a class that you don't find all that...

Sorry, but this is incredibly disrespectful. You don't have a right to act as a gatekeeper for what other tables or players consider fun or worthwhile. If you are so strongly opposed to a concept that you personally wouldn't use at your table and you are unable to see past your own biases, then...

Here's how I would create a feat that grants extra attack. Extra Attack Prerequisites: 5th level, Proficiency with at least one martial weapon When you take the Attack action, you can make one additional attack as part of that action. This feat cannot allow you to make more than two attacks as...

Personally, I think the scenario in the OP is cool as heck and is the whole point of why a player would choose Eldritch Knight. So just off rule of cool and rules as intended, I would say it works. But I also think it works as rules as written as well. Let's imagine that instead it's a...

I would start by asking the player what kind of powers or abilities might be cool, or which ones they already possess that they might like to enhance. This is good practice to do with all your players. And just because you ask them, doesn't mean they will get it. But it should give you plenty of...

Ok. I think we're on the same page here? We're both saying that WotC has been inclusive with how a play style without gods can be considered. My main point was arguing against someone's perspective that publishing such an out was somehow wrong. Well I started playing when Eberron came out, so...

@mamba You've made it clear that you have no interest in a good-faith discussion. You just want to assert the superiority of your personal opinion over others and ignore arguments and descriptions of ways that others have managed to create internal consistency with ideas you consider abhorrent...

Yea, and what you consider "coherent" is a narrow perspective based in personal bias and ignores the fact that others find it coherent. This is a personal limitation, not one based in any system. Speaking about physics in a game where you can crap on the laws of thermodynamics and create...

This was my point exactly. I was referring to another poster who argued that WotC should maintain a narrow perspective of what is "allowable." It's literally published in Eberron as mentioned with how the Blood of Vol functions as a religion. This has been published many times in many...

Reading your post made me wonder if I was missing something in your responses. So I went back and read all of them. First of all, you never define what makes something coherent or incoherent aside from your own gut feeling. So it seems to be completely subjective, and you seem to refuse to offer...

This! This is what is bothering me about the discussion. It's feels like its devolved from a discussion on the merits of different play styles and how to incorporate non-traditional explanations for a character's capacities, and has shifted into "Your idea is bad" or "My idea is good." I can...

See that's the problem. You say it doesn't work for you, but that's not what the premise of the thread is. We are discussing the merits of a variety of play styles around the fiction used to explain a character's capacities. We can't engage in a discussion of those merits if your criteria is...

It sounds like you are really just using your gut to figure out what you might enjoy. Which hey, nothing wrong with that. But it makes a discussion on the topic at hand much more difficult. I'm not trying to convince or persuade anyone to my side. But if you don't have an objective standard to...

That's only true if you take the perspective that there are no limits. In this example, there's no limits on what belief can accomplish. But that doesn't mean that belief can allow a person to do anything. A fighter still functions as a fighter. A wizard still functions as a wizard. The fiction...

Honestly, I think its a really cool idea. Reminds me a little of how the Avatar RPG handles leveling up.

Well, better is a highly subjective standard. What would you consider "better" or "acceptable"?

I would argue that it works for all classes. A wizard believing in themselves so hard that they can cast spells is completely doable. A fighter just having lots of self-confidence that allows him to fight like a beast without any training is also achievable. The mechanics are separate from the...

In Eberron it is explicitly stated within the lore that the gods do not interact with mortals in the way they do in other settings. Religions are much more like in real life, since there's no way to actually communicate with or confirm the existence of gods. The Silver Flame is the closest...

It is offensive when you state an opinion as if it is a self-evident fact, thus insinuating that those who disagree are wrong or misinformed. You provide no evidence for your position anyways, aside from "I don't like it, don't make sense."