Search results

Pickles hit the nail on the head here.. greater numbers of smaller creatures are simply better than fewer stronger ones. This is made worse considering the most powerful buffing effects also tend to disproportionately favor large numbers of weaker creatures- Necromancer's undead thralls and...

Which is why I pointed out that there is some overlap, but they are optimized for different tasks.

Axes designed as a tool are different than axes designed for fighting.. there is some overlap, but there are significant differences. A fighting axe is fast, agile and well balanced(for combat).. a wood axe really isn't.

Frankly.. yes, it does matter if you are expecting to be attacked by a goblin or a cougar. It is not the expectation _of_ danger... but what KIND of danger. You prepare for the situations that have a reasonable chance of occurring. Sure, a hatchet may be an adequate tool to fend off a hungry...

If you are expecting battle, you take a weapon- not a tool pressed in to use as a weapon. Going about day to day life while hunting/crafting shelter, etc.. sure, handaxe it is. Expecting trouble/adventuring? real weapon and armour time. In a world infested with orcs, goblins and other...

Your table plays things differently because it's opinion is that 5e is doing it wrong. But whatever, don't be a dick.

The fact is that your table plays it differently. Whether it is right or wrong is the subjective opinion of the table.

Yes, you did start a discussion on what is/is not overpowered in 5th edition... however, your views tend to be an outlier regarding things being overpowered. Bards are a winner in 5th edition.. but only because they are finally not awful.

Yes, I saw your opinion.

5th is a little more forgiving than prior editions... the body DOES have a chance to fight off the effect- *if* the save is made, or is failed by a small margin.. otherwise, instant petrification. What you are referring to is the medusas (absent in 5th) ability to beguile an enemy into...

The medusa's gaze doesn't attack the will, it attacks the body- thus fort/con.

Because it completely invalidates the Resilient(x) feat. You'd basically be giving everyone the 14th level monk ability Diamond Soul. Additionally, without any ability to target low saves, you'd substantially weaken any caster using Save vs. X spells.

Clearly, Tangelos must be outlawed, because it makes both the tangerine and grapefruit feel bad.

Best at what? Wizards come in many flavours. A necromancer and an abjurer are going to be exceptional at different aspects of wizardry. In a game where you aspire to be the best adventurer in the world, everyone else is second, third, fourth or fifth best in the room!

Your campaign, play it how you like.. but man, you really have it in for those poor bards!

I read it as this: case 1: object hits solid surface and stops, dealing 3d8 bludgeoning damage to object and surface case 2: object hits creature- if creature fails on save, object strikes creature and stops, dealing 3d8 damage (to object and creature) if creature succeeds on save, object misses...

I'd call it 90%, but no matter :) Point being.. the spell is worthwhile to cast, even without getting 100% effect.. it is just that good!

As far as I am concerned, the secondary component of Absorb Elements is basically irrelevant(D6 damage on being hit by a melee attack- once! meh).. The primary component is amazing for anyone that gets hit by a high damage elemental attack (or a flurry of smaller attacks in a single round).

Absorb elements primary effect looks to be a very potent defensive option as a reaction- resistance to diverse elements and certain dragon breath types is nothing to sneeze at for a first level slot.

Very much this.. no real summons for a wizard conjurer until level 7? (spell level 4) blech!