Recent content by jmartkdr2

I'm in favor of "all of the above" - as a dm, I want a many pre-calculated monsters to work with as possible.

I do recall not really caring about editions other than basic/advanced back in the day; we just mashed up all the not-AD&D stuff and used whichever rule we remembered/saw first. The differences weren’t big enough for this to become a problem.

My best guess is: players have no ay to guess how likely negotiations are to work. There’s no DC, no procedures, just dms making stuff up in the spot. I know how the Attack Action works, I know how combat works. If I try to switch to negotiations, I just have to hope the dm lets it work somehow...

Indeed, 5e’s multiclassing rules work best for career changes, but those are the least popular reason in my experience.

Yeah it's two distinct features that add a bonus. So cleric 1/druid 1/wizard 2 with an Int and Wis of 16 could have a +11 Arcana check at level 4. It's not good but it's definitely a concept. (Or, just to annoy the single-class wizard you can get that +11 as a cleric 1/druid 1/rogue 1. (this...

IME there are three main reasons to multiclass: 1. Career change: for whatever reason your character decides to stop persuing the path they're on and start a new path - the most obvious version of this is finding religion and starting to train yourself as a cleric, but it can be as simple as...

This wording would remove any bonuses to hit with the weapon, so you'd need to add in a line about that.

When I run it's technically "no apocalypse" (I mean maybe there could be one in the setting but it's irrelevant to the game we're playing) But all of the games I'm currently playing are post-apocalypse. Two of those are sequel campaigns to pre-apocalypse campaigns.

Exalted 3e does something similar: you can attack to gain initiative, or you can spend initiative to do damage (after hitting with an attack) - so you want to build up to the big hit rather than start with your best attacks. Also, gather power for certain spells is an action. Of course, these...

Which is an attack from one of your sorcerer spells, correct? So Innate sorcery should apply, yes?

Hmm. Fair point. Of course, I still disagree that the spell calling out the rule means that the rule doesn't apply.

That's only for Spell Attack rolls, not Weapon Attack rolls caused by spells.

Also this makes no sense, since the Attack Action can allow for multiple attacks, and is already distint from many other ways to make attacks like bonus action attacks and opportunity attacks. The Attack action is exclusive with the Cast a Spell action, which is the action you use the cast a...

Source on that?

But you're not using the Attack action. You're using the Cast A Spell action, and the spell is calling for an attack.