Recent content by Sorinth

Free movement possibly without provoking or maybe just imposing disadvantage on OAs whenever you use your BA would fit the skirmisher theme that some Rangers will go for. I suppose making a revised Zephyr Strike where it follows the new template of not needing concentration and triggering after...

Just fix Hail of Thorns and the problem is mostly solved. The '24 edition did fix the issue with concentration and when it gets cast, but it just fails to do what it's supposed to be good at which is dealing with groups of mooks or a boss standing next to their minions. My personal pet peeve...

I don't really buy into the idea that it's even a problem when it happens. But to stay productive I'd offer puzzle battles as an option. You could for example have a shadow based boss that is immune to damage unless they are within bright light. Obviously this boss would either snuff out or...

I wouldn't invert the d20 test. Part of the fun of rolling, is the instant gratification of rolling high which you've now taken away. The players rolling but not seeing their roll is probably the best solution to this problem. However if with these knowledge/insight type checks you want to...

Retrying with a different character is still retrying.

It's intrinsically linked, your making a distinction between retrying with the same character vs retrying with different characters and that's a dubious distinction even if you used a better example then kicking in a door.

Obviously play the game how you and your players like it, but that's not the advice of the DMG. And a big reason they called out failure but not success is precisely because if players can just repeatedly re-roll they will be successful even without spending resources making it pointless. So in...

While I get the appeal for transitioning into a group check, I think the root problem is the DM didn't follow the advice of when to call for a skill check. There should only be a skill check if there's a meaningful/interesting consequence for failure. Without something interesting that happens...

I would just point out how the world and all the species were factually created really doesn't matter much if at all. How different cultures "think" the world was created might matter but whether it's actually true or not is basically irrelevant to how much it matters for the PCs since they are...

Says who? There's no standard for how all the species even came into being, was it a god, was it evolution, was it a magic experiment, etc... And then on top of that, the world creation myths that have been "cannon" in the past can't all be true since they are contradictory, so it's already a...

I would even say there's nothing wrong with no goblins because the game is going to be about looting goblin filled dungeons and the DM just wants a straight forward murder hobo dungeon looting game and not some morally complex story. Just be honest and don't pretend like there's some deep...

No offence but if you want cultural differences to matter and be important parts of your world then you should probably think of going beyond all species except humans having a monolithic culture. But sure you do you.

The Witcher became popular with the video game series not the TV show. And the games started in 2007, long before 5e came into being. I really don't feel like going through each point, but to be clear my point isn't that the 5e Ranger is supposed to be a perfect replica/version of the Witcher...

Yeah Drizzt came in and took over from Aragorn as the main influence, and even though in the books his dual wielding was clearly his Drow heritage and not a Ranger thing, it still became a Ranger thing because people associated Ranger with Drizzt and Drizzt with dual wielding and a pet.

Somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand, but why does each of your species need a unique culture & history? In a cosmopolitan world, you just need to create the culture/history of the kingdom/empires as normal. For example a Dwarf that comes from an evil empire ruled by a Lich has the culture...