Recent content by Vilify

Yeah, in regards to things like Weapon Mechanics and armor mechanics, I feel that adds a good bit of depth to an otherwise lacking equipment system from O5e, those port over nicely, and things such as Parrying and such adding a 1d4 to AC is pretty simple without any translation needed. As for...

I am entirely embarrassed to see the same after you've pointed it out. Lmao Sorry for the mistake on there, and thanks so much for clarifying! Apologies again!

Heyo! Been enjoying everything A5e so far, and while working with a player of mine on his future artificer character for our game, I noticed something I was a bit lost on. Just thought I'd post this as I've searched about this forum for a response somewhere, but haven't found anything yet. A...

I haven't looked at o5e in this context, but for A5e's Spellcasting Targeting rules, check out P. 494 which states, "Some, but not all, spells have a target listed in the spell block. This type of spell operates on the specified type of creatures or objects within range. For instance, the target...

I'm not sure what you interpreted as condescending exactly, I'm just arguing for an interpretation, apologies if it seemed that way. I believe what you're saying is understood by both of us, my point in it is that @Stalker0 's rules lawyer argument doesn't hold up, and I was giving examples...

A Warlock/sorcerer multiclass can subtle spell cast Infernal weapon while unconscious by the logic, as it does not have concentration, does not have to target someone seen. The spell would go off, then immediately fizzle out as your hand cannot hold the weapon while unconscious. This seems...

Indeed, I'm very familiar with it. However I think it's a matter of the A5e team merely not bothering to update the incapacitated condition's wording. However the hole in your logic was mentioned by Damos. Stalker0, by your logic, you can subtle spell misty step as a sorcerer freely whilst...

If you're looking to skirt the rules, the wording for incapacitated is "you cannot take any actions or reactions." A bonus action is still an action, it merely requires a bonus action to use by my interpretation. (This seems to be just as vague as o5e's wording on it, which is one of the few...

I've actually been keeping an eye on this thread hoping Morrus would chime in perhaps with a response about it, as I feel this is a bit of a core issue that unfortunately isn't touched upon