Search results

If you think so, you haven't seen an edition war.

What do you mean? Isn't the modularity supposed to be in the DMG? I've browsed the PHB and I'm not sure there's anything there I'd call modularity, except, perhaps, the fact that you can ignore feats or just take stat increases instead. Is there something I'm missing? It certainly appears to be...

Fair enough. I don't know, why is it a problem that a 3E/Pathfinder character specialized for tripping can trip opponents and other characters can't? I thought you disliked being a huge gap between the specialized and the non-specialized, and that gap is the largest when one side is "you can't...

I have never met anyone who played 2E without non-weapon proficiencies. Have you? My impression was that they were as optional as feats and the grid in 5E, i.e. optional in name only. Again, I think you need to explain what exactly you mean by "skills and feats". If you mean those exact labels...

Wait, what? Isn't this one of the most common TWF combinations in real life, in fiction, and in D&D up till now? How is it disallowed in 5E?

Isn't inspiration only usable on others?

In this context, skills and, especially, feats, are just the 3E label for a very general concept: an activity with a variable success rate, and a exceptional special ability, respectively. What is, specifically, the issue you see with skills and feats? Are you suggesting the very fundamental...

This seems to me a better argument against an over-setting: obviously, a huge variety can fit within a single setting, as in the real world. But doesn't it allow for even more variety to also allow for other, more thematically focused (even if that makes them less "realistic") settings...

Why is the over-setting desirable? It seems to me that its main effects were a clash of incompatible aesthetics and tropes, and the implication that all other settings were ignorant and parochial. What is gained?

All that is presumably just as available to the 37th-level wizard, so I figured it was a wash, and that it was their differing class abilities that would be relevant. But if the argument is "a 37th-level fighter can keep up with a 37th-level wizard if the fighter is also actually a wizard"...

How in the world does an enemy without magic get within reach of someone invisible, perfectly silent, flying, ethereal, astrally projected, protected by repulsion, contingency spells keyed to enemies getting within reach, gated-in angel bodyguards, who can predict the future...?

... aren't both LotRO and DDO free to play?

... aren't both LotRO and DDO free to play?

Don't expect many answers you'd find useful.

If you feel the very assumptions behind your question will need to be defended, and you can't defend them, maybe there is no correct answer because you're asking the wrong question?

To me it looks like there's a very good case for +2 to attack if you're proficient; carried over from 4E, explicit for magic attacks, seemingly included for everyone, implied by the comment about improvised weapons getting no bonus. On top of that, fighters and wizards apparently get another...

You're assuming Dex bonus increases, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

I'd be the cleric's bonus is a typo, after all he has +6 with radiant lance. The wizard has +6 in three different places, so maybe there's a +1 bonus to magic for wizards? There does seem to be a +1 bonus to attack for fighters (and +2 to damage).

Oh god please yes.

I'm all in favour of dials and options in theory, but I'm having great trouble getting into games that first require work to construct the game I want by tuning the dials and options. A clear and workable baseline + dials and options is what'd work best for me, probably.