Search results

I think cantrips should be weaker than they currently are, but be upgradable through equipment. It would nicely complement warriors' need to use weapons. For example, ray of frost dealing 1d4 damage, but normal damage if a caster wields an ordinary icicle.

I find it stupid that animate dead must be an evil act? Is it in the books so catholic church has less ammo to fire at D&D? I can easily imagine a fantasy culture where volunteers pledge their souls as guardians in afterlife to be later raised and used in battle.

So what? I could kill any unconscious being with a fork or stick instantly (just drive it deep into the eye)

Or Vitamancy, yeah.

About spells, I hope they have more changes in mind still. I dislike healing as conjuration, and too low levels for flying & co.

Gnomes have no penalty to strength? This is ridiculous (same with other small races).

Was there ever a difference? No it wouldn't. Plus spells have been consolidated in most editions in various ways. That is true, but if ever casters were to become too versatile, it's a simple matter of reducing their number of prepared spells.

He does, and specifically 3rd edition. 2nd had 8 attributes, 1st had 14. Yeah, I'm starting to lean the same way. There was something nice and simple in having straight up abilities for melee combat, ranged attacks, or spellcasting.

I understand the benefits of divorcing perception from manual dexterity, but then you run into an issue of having some abilities more useful than others. One of them will be subpar to things like strength, probably manual dexterity. Strength - no change Constitution - no change Agility -...

how would they look? My ideal setup is: Strength - no change Constitution - no change Agility - mobility based portions of dexterity, sneaking, initiative, armor class, finesse melee weapons Precision - manual dexterity and perception, open locks, crafting, spot and listen, ranged attacks...

Indeed. I would even go as far as to combine that shifter class with the monk. IMO: Types of "Barbarians" Berserkers that enter an exhausting rage. - fighter subclass Mystical warriors that transform into wild animals in combat literally. - either a (new?) class or speciality A fast-running...

I think I would prefer this setup as well.

Should barbarian be rather a fighter subclass than a full class? I can see it working either way, and I'm curious about opinions of others. Why it should be fighter's subclass: - barbarian seems rather one-dimensional as a class, compared to fighter and even to 5e paladin - warlord is roughly a...

A little part of me died today :(

Just to make the issue even less clear ;), resisting temptation can be equal to keeping going when it hurts. For example, fighting off addiciton.

SUre, I already proposed some time ago that spells should have descriptors that work with such rules. Any spell that has mass keyword would be possible to cast as a mass version ,and rules for mass version would be somewhere in spells chapter.

Aid seems totally unimpressive for 2nd level, could be 1st. I would move some transporation spells up a level. Make levitate level 3, fly level 4, air walk level 5 and so on. Healing spells should be of necromancy school. If there's a problem with conotations, just rename damn thing to vitamancy...

Thinking about high level spells I also realized that it's very hard for me to "feel" the difference between 6th or 7th level spells, or 7th vs. 8th, and 8th vs. 9th. Maybe those last 3 or 4 levels should be contracted a bit. Make 6th and 7th level the new 6th. Make 8th and 9th the new 7th. It...

I'd say simplicity is paramount when grouping spells. In this case it probably would be simpler in play to have one cure wounds spell, and one mass cure wounds spell. Cure Wounds already has level-up mechanic, so adding another one might be unwise. Then again, perhaps a general rule of...

You can befriend an enemy with a spell, doesn't mean it should be possible with an ability check.