Search results

Everything I've seen so far leads me to believe the human variant option will be my choice not only if I'm playing human, but for the majority of my characters. It opens up so many possibilities for the lower levels.

Same boat here. it's just not worth it to me to get it 10 days earlier by paying twice the price. It's unlikely that I would be playing in that time anyway. My curiosity is definitely piqued knowing that the book is out there however.

I agree with you; I don't think it's right. I live in the Toronto area and I could probably have a copy already if I'd ordered from Chapters, but there's a reason release dates exist. As much as I would like to get the books now, I'm also not in a position to pay twice as much just to get them...

By RAW, I don't believe that's an option. Check the description for the light spell.

1. The devs have already stated that some classes may be better suited to Themes/Backgrounds in this edition and will end up there. 2. There is absolutely no reason to believe that placing Ranger elements into Themes/Backgrounds reduces the possibility to customize. The devs have...

I for one would be perfectly happy to see Ranger removed as a class and split into Theme/Background. Off the top of my head, the various things that have distinguished the class in the past are: Spells. I'm hoping that the multi-classing is robust enough to handle this if desired. (Or going...

You're doing exactly the same thing you're complaining about. Surges by themselves represent a limit to healing, not allowing more of it. They simply mean that you have to spend another resource in order to get hit points back. If you want to complain about how easy it is to spend that...

Totally disagree. I see absolutely no need for the default assumption of an option in the book to be that you can't play it. It is entirely sufficient to say that the DM decides the setting of your campaign, and in that setting some races (or whatever other options you decide) do not exist.

QFT. A degree of out-of-turn actions has all kinds of benefits IMO. It gives a greater sense that combat is really interactive, rather than simply "can you do x damage before I can do y damage". It can increase player involvement, and IME that can actually speed up play, since people are...

I personally would use whatever the system is set up to use. There's nothing wrong with higher numbers, and the math can work just fine as long as everything is designed to work together. That said, if the math assumes that you have a weapon of a certain bonus, it certainly changes the nature...

That post was intended in part to show the real complexity behind the study of probability. The difference between 6 and 6.02 is very minor, but that particular example is very narrow since it will almost always require 6 attacks. d4 damage per attack to do 5 or more damage is a better example...

What you're discussing then is not about starting away from 0, but the size of the interval between what we consider baseline and proficient. There's no reason that +0 is the baseline, and indeed it isn't in many cases. (IIRC a 3.5 individual with average strength, no BAB and lacking weapon...

I want to take a time out here and mention one falsehood that I believe is popping up repeatedly in discussions of damage. Namely, that if you take a person's hit points and divide by the expected damage of a hit, then you get the expected number of attacks to drop them. There's a reason I used...

But mathematically it doesn't matter in terms of how likely you are to hit. If I understand what you're saying correctly, you're referencing the idea that if you have a larger bonus for a larger difficulty, then the random portion of your check is "smaller" relative to the impact of skill...

I think the point is that none of those actually has anything to do with what you were previously referencing: how important the die roll becomes. They all lead to exactly the same probabilities.

That's fair. Options should definitely be considered. I would suggest however that you underestimate the negative impact of scaling everything in this way. Keeping numbers smaller when possible does have an aesthetic appeal and an approachability factor, even in cases where it may not matter...

Ok. I missed the point that your issue was the level given to a +1 item rather than the impact a +1 item has on the way damage scaling worked. I think what you're identifying is a separate issue however, and one that has already been identified as something likely to change in Next.

To add: The funny thing is that the one place it was said it was unnecessary to change the scale (starting level) is one place I absolutely would like to see it change. If they're thinking about 3.5-style multiclassing, then one of the big issues that came up before is that taking a level in...

But again I find this a more compelling argument for changing the way magic items are treated rather than requiring increased granularity in damage scaling. Firstly, +1 weapons were, IMO, far more important for their bonus to hit than damage. There is indeed no reason that a magic weapon...

There is however a question of how the results you want can best be achieved. I'm trying to think of how many things in D&D work in this kind of fashion. It's not likely for the game to have anything along the lines of receiving a number of actions equal to your dex bonus, for example. The...