Search results

I can kind of see the confusion. The usual term for a character that has low armor/HP and is easily killed is "squishy" IME (both tabletop and digital games). In a tabletop context, I've only heard "crunch" used to describe content that is rules-facing, as opposed to "fluff", which is story-facing.

He means that if the DM plays opponents intelligently, treating spellcasters as the true dangers they are.

I started playing in 1989 with 2E, and have played in 7 groups playing 2E, 3.0, 3.5, d20 Modern, PF1, and 5E. The latest group I'm still playing with, and I joined through a Gamers Seeking Gamers post on this very site. This is the first group I've ever played in where I didn't have any...

Come again? Spellcasting is the only feature that has any cross-class stacking at all. Channel Divinity: You gain variety by multiclassing, but explicitly don't gain extra uses. Extra Attack: No stacking at all, multiclassing among classes with this feature delays acquiring/advancing the...

To be honest, it never occurred to me that it would be pronounced anything other than grog-nard. Considering the definition of the word as context, that pronunciation fits better.

I played a wizard using the spell point system, and I really enjoyed it, being a fan of 3.5 psionics. That campaign only lasted until 4th level, so I didn't get to really exercise the flexibility of spell points, unfortunately. If you want to see what a warlock using spell points might look...

I remember being pissed off that 3.0's 3rd level negative energy protection spell was removed in 3.5, and its effects merged into the 4th level death ward. I was only a 5th level cleric, and we really needed that spell to get past a horde of undead something-or-others!

The locate object spell is crap. To quote a very wise poster of yesteryear: In case you can't glean it from context, I was responding to a DM that was complaining locate object was making it too easy for PCs to find their gear after being captured. I am of the opinion that this is the only use...

Right. I'm sure including Sneak Attack dice would push the number so low so as to never be desirable when Sneak Attacking, but as others have pointed out, he may not be Sneak Attacking all the time, and if he already has Sharpshooter, it would be helpful to know when to use it.

There is no such thing as overkill when it comes to gathering boni to hit in the era of bounded accuracy. Also, I can't remember where I found it, but someone calculated when it is beneficial to use the -5/+10 mechanic. I have this written on my PAM fighter's sheet for GWM, but I'm pretty sure...

3.x was very helpful in this regard with the use of Spell-like abilities and Supernatural abilities that explicitly spell out how they interact with detect magic, dispel magic, antimagic fields, etc.

Not so sure about that.

It will encourage more multiclassing. As the rules are now, dipping out of Fighter is discouraged because you seriously delay the acquisition of Extra Attack. I like it, because I actually like free multiclassing (and fractional BAB/Save optional rule that your suggestion brings to mind) from...

Can you explain how you got to that number? If you're thinking of two-weapon fighting, you only get a single attack with your bonus action; Action Surge doesn't double that. If you're thinking of Horde Breaker, that's conditional on two adjacent targets to get the free extra attack.

I never played 4E (I didn't have an active gaming group at the time, and my brief perusal of the PH while waiting for my wife at the mall didn't inspire me to find one to play it), but I have a friend who did play it extensively (and D&D vet going back to at least late 1E), and this is pretty...

I'm not a fan of Session 0. It's hard enough getting the calendars for a handful of adults to align and be in one place at the same time, I don't want to waste time watching people create characters when that time can be better spent actually playing. Infodumps and feedback to those infodumps...

Simple isn't so bad in and of itself, but 5E is not only simple, a lot of things that there should be rules for, there's just "whatever the DM says". On the other hand, although I haven't read the various threads discussing it, I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people that DON'T think 5E...

A "rulings, not rules" game is a bad fit for a computer game? You don't say.

From a game mechanics standpoint, 3E was the golden age. The unified d20 mechanic, wealth of player options, and the first non-vancian spellcaster were all things I loved. From an accessiblity standpoint, 5E is the golden age, as others have said (although that might be coincidence). From an art...

I can. It's right in his name, Tim the Enchanter, as in a wizard specializing in the Enchantment school. :)