Search results

The truth of the matter is that if you really want to balance the five abilities scores in this heavily combat-based game you have only two options. 1) You force every ability score to matter to both Warrior characters and caster characters. Or 2) You tie to combat one aspect to each of...

Early D&D was balanced around imbalanced play. Like @FrogReaver stated, the second you added or changed a major part, it crashed. And everyone added and changed stuff.

The real issue is there is no word for someone who "learns on the field". A person who enters dungeoneering with little training and either picks up informal knowledge from the experience, bits and pieces of aptitudes from allies and locations, hondles their natural talents via hard work, or...

Are the ideas for a specific table or for public publish content? Because this is typically where the entire problem that Ranger has resulted in. For Rangers some things are tolerated at some tables and abhorrent at others. The 2024 ranger is the LCD version of the class in the 5e framework.

In OS D&D, yeah. In old school Only 1 class could afford to be in combat. (STR class) Only 1 class could roll extraordinary skills. (DEX class) Only 1 class could cast healing and buff spells. (WIS class) Only 1 class could cast attack and debuff spells (INT class) Most of the imbalance of...

The issue D&D has that there are basically 3 types of Ability scores 1) Ability score which has core aspects that all characters desire having a bonus in 2) Ability score which has core aspects that all characters like having a bonus but not enough to invest a high roll or point buy points in...

In one of my dungeons, the fungi and oozes tap into the inner planes for energy and matter to grow without sunlight. Then cave critter eat them. Then monster eat the critters.

I once toyed with the idea of a Prime score Your Prime score was a separate score that could be substituted for certain rolls of other abilities. And it was based on level. So a Wizard could have Intelligence 15, Wisdom 17, Prime 16. For arcane spells the wizard can use the Prime +3 over the...

Natural English would be too confusing. People will forget the correct wording and use the wrong ability. STRENGTH Fist "Stunning Fist" Strike "Heavy Strike" Throw "Axe Throw" Touch "Vampiric Touch" DEXTERITY Flourish "Slick Flourish" Flurry "Flurry of Punches" Ray "Scorching Ray" Shot...

I think one of the editions has the nonHerioc classes like merchant and Sage But I'd argue the Fighter and Rogue of 0e to 2e were just Associates Degree level.

Exactly. And 5e doesn't let you play a 20 year old straight out of high school who only took his level adventure courses.

Not really. 5e 2024 1st level is really something like In-Universe 4th So you'd get you background at IU level 1. Then have your 5e level 1 features spread across IU levels 2-4. Same how people want to play at level 3 when you get a subclass. Which is like your 2nd focus and In universe...

It would be great if Modern D&D had both a 0th levels and a XP by Training system. Really a level 1 human wizard is 3-10 years of study.

Ideally if it were up to me there would be 4 tiers of classes. Basic classes represent classes that require almost no training to get into and train on your own. At most there would be an adjustment period to understand your basic powers. The requirements outside of story would be easy. You...

There was a time when I wanted to standardize magic and tie different types of attacks to different scores via Keywords. Touch Spells would be Unarmed Attacks. Unarmed attacks are Strength attacks unless you are a Monk. Touch Attacks would be renamed to include the world Touch. Shocking...

The question is whether Bob say he has Weapon Mastery in longsword, greatswords, and longsword or describe an in world practice that world similar. The premise is to create a PC who could fill one of the warrior, expert, priest, or mage roles without the years of study or implied mastery the...

And even if you say the classes are descriptive, you have to design them that way. 3e, 4e, and 5e were designed heavily into single concepts. You couldn't squint and play anything. This is why 3e and 4e bloated with classes and 5e with subclasses. That's why the barbarian and sorcerer even exist.

Both would be a survivalist with an option for a bit of minor skills as they would be learning as they adventure. Both archetypes are coming to adventure "empty-headed" and be absorbing information and skills like a sponge

That's why the original name and name in the title is The Adventurer Class A class that can encompass the farmer who learned on the fly, the baker who is secretly a reincarnation of a hero, or a urchin born under a special sign and watched over by a minor god.

That to me is short sighted design. 5e has a bunch of ideas it locked itself into that designers wished they could change. D&D assumes you are taught the entire basis befind a class at level 1 and it take the winds of time or fire of XP to advance. One of my hopes for 6e is that training time...