Search results

Maybe you should rename:- (1) Rules Ultra-Light (your Rules Light, ish) (2) Rules Medium-Light (your Rules Medium, ish) (3) Rules Medium-Heavy (your Rules Heavy, ish) (4) Rules Heavy

I have changed the name of this thing to Implodarc, to be more distinctive. (You can, after all, make the "story arc" implode quite easily in this game too.) Still looking for playtesters if anyone is vaguely interested.

If anyone would like to playtest an as-yet-possibly-unplaytested RPG, please drop me a message and I can send you the PDF or the private link to the download, on your promise to please playtest it and post your feedback publicly no punches pulled! The game is a fairly simple affair, fantasy...

It's explained on the Kickstarter:-

If you want to have a look at my Implosion! Tabletop RPG, I can send you the PDF for free (or private link for download) if you playtest it for me :-) You can probably read the whole thing in a couple of hours. It does have a tied setting but the tied setting is rather vague in many ways. And...

It is cheesing me off that the release date of the DMG (Nov 19) is after Indiecon 2014 (which is early November) so no-one can run 5e with DMG at the convention! In time for Conception of course but I won't be there.

At some risk of confusion with the Dinomancer, whose signature spell is Summon Tarrasque... ... a spell feared above all not for the Tarrasque's actual attacks as statted in the MM, nor for its reflective carapace and 676 hit points, but because it can be summoned to appear 20' above the heads...

If you're going to go with "-mancer" which I think has Greek origins, shouldn't you go with a Greek prefix? So Cheiromancer meaning hand-mancer? [Ed. or Chiromancer?] Bear in mind I don't speak Greek. Then again, this is very silly. Why on earth would a spellcaster specialise in big hands...

How many spells known does a Paladin get again? I am bookless right now but I thought from reading the rules a few days ago it was half level (rd) + ability mod (min 1). That's 13 at 20th with an ability of 16 right?

I can see why they've done these spellcasting class features for AT, EK, paladin, ranger - to let you gish up without having to master the complexities of multiclassing. But I can't help wondering whether it would have been better to make Paladin a sort of prestige class for people who've gone...

What if he were Ranger 1, Paladin 1, Wizard 18... should he have 19th level spell slots? Anyhow the specific bit of the rules where it actually says how a paladin's known spells are worked out says something like half level (rounded down) plus ability mod, min. 1. Min. 1! I think it's ambiguous...

Provided you don't add anything for Paladin level 1, Ranger level 1, EK levels 1-2 or AT levels 1-2. Otherwise using the above a level 1 Paladin would get spellcasting...

Well I have thought about it some more and I guess if WOTC have done their job in what I would consider to be the proper way (which presumably they have) then the boost in spell slots that a single-classed partial caster receives at each new level will have been balanced against the other boosts...

All good druids start out with a couple of levels of Ranger first?

Ah yes! I am bookless at the moment. Good point. In fact I think the comparison best combining ease of comparison and usefulness is probably Fighter (Champion) 7 / Wizard 4 versus Fighter (Eldritch Knight) 11. Though I am bookless at the moment (book is with intending DM), I think I am right...

This, on top of the fact that a 20th level Eldritch Knight has basically the spellcasting abilities of a 6th level wizard while still being a 20th level fighter. What is the stronger build:- Multiclassed 14th level Fighter (not EK) + 6th level Wizard versus 20th level Eldritch Knight...

Just a query, throwing it out there for those who have spent more time reading the books than I have. Is there anything in the rules as written to say that a cleric or paladin can't multiclass to warlock pacted with a fiend? (Or for that matter a Great Old One?) I'm not sure if this is an...

Yes but are Paladin and Ranger classes with the spellcasting feature at 1st level? You could be cleric 5, druid 5, paladin 1, ranger 1 and get nothing slot-wise from ranger/paladin.

Damn, foiled again. On looking more carefully at the rules I see that this is true, and likewise a level 1 Rogue cannot be an Arcane Trickster. Even so, in principle I think everyone should use the same rules for spell-slots, whether multiclassed or not.

Well spotted, but do you realise that this actually makes the problem worse than I first suggested? See below. In this instance it is you who gets NO marks for reading :cool:. Because my example very clearly included multiclassing eldritch knight. To restate my example corrected for the rules...