Search results

Again I disagree about Abjurers. The word itself brings up exorcists to me (with the rite actually using adjure but not abjure). But again the worst this way are the ones where the image is wrong; stage conjurers, magic item enchanters, and alchemist transmuters.

Evoker = blast mage. It's not a meaningful word because evoking has too wide an array of meaning but the concept is 100% clear. Sorcerers are better at it but why should they have all the fun? Abjure is a "near occult" word meaning to reject or cast out. It's something that people could have...

On the other hand they picked the four with a strong practical identity that is distinct and accessible, doesn't require D&D lore (conjurer and transmuter I'm looking at you), isn't all about the summons (necromancer, possibly conjurer), and isn't trying to be charisma-based (Enchanter)...

Ok. Try and play an Eldritch Knight as an archmage, a paladin as primarily an archer, or a melee sorcerer. You can technically do all of these but you are going to have a bad time because that's not how those classes work. And it is a problem with the warlock that (a) the playstyle is subtler...

When someone has a problem with things there are a number of possibilities. Of which one is that it is inherently a property of what you are trying to use and another is that you have a skill issue and are doing the equivalent of hitting your thumb with a hammer and then saying that using a...

To me everyone gets a tune-up and rebalance but there are three major differences: Martials all are much stronger out of combat than just their stats and the same number of skills everyone else gets Combat is a lot less about playing paty-cake with sponge enemies until someone runs out of hp...

For a cleric a spell is equipment. Changing spells is like going to your wardrobe in the morning - and (with a couple of very minor feat and race exceptions) every cleric of the same subclass has access to exactly the same wardrobe. There is no difference in the character building choices...

Assuming it remains unchanged and doesn't e.g. come with a stat boost and free cast of a ritual spells in a non-ritual amount of time the way it did in Playtest 2 As is a fighter should take the book but a wizard or cleric might want Ritual Caster

When you play a warlock, sorcerer, bard, or ranger each time you get a new spell known you pick that spell and it is a permanent character choice. If you're playing a cleric, druid, paladin, or artificer whenever you get a new spell level you just add all the spells known for that level ...

You mean the few people who make it past level 9 and want to taunt despite being a rogue? Because 3 is absorbed, 13 is bad, and 17 is an epic feat. I have little doubt there will be a new swashbuckler ... who will be at least as overhauled as the Archfey or GOOlock

Spells for divine casters (and druids) are set at level 3 - and after that it's just a matter of what they requisition from the armoury each morning and their level. Invocations can be huge and character defining. Depends on invocations and playstyle. How much work do you get out of your...

Mmmm... Much of that weird experimental 3.5 came from prototypes of 4e. In particular the Bo9S was what could be salvaged from Project Orcus when they went back to the drawing board.

Partly "looks great" doesn't give much to discuss. Paladins have a lot to discuss because there's a genuine serious nerf in there, and rogues do because the class with no limited use resources has the lowest highs. But the rest are all good I think other than people complaining about the wizard...

A background that adds to Int? Seriously that's one benefit of the three stat backgrounds; you can have feats like thatand still make them expensive for wizards and sorcs.

The warlock base class is pretty good at illusions with both Disguise Self and Silent Image as at will invocation options at level 2 - and the short ranged teleports are mechanical representations of the trickster's "haha! You thought I was over there?" Seriously the Archfey Pact is a very good...

In the sense that the core rogue can duel 1vs1 and get Sneak Attack easily from Vex or Steady Aim, and can disengage from foes they hit (at a 1d6SA cost). That's most of the stuff people use (and Advantage on skills ain't all that with Reliable Talent)

They don't. But someone has to be best, and warlocks, thanks to invocations, are the most build-your-own class.

Absolutely. Pact of the Tome gives me a familiar. Pact of the Chain's is better. But an entire invocation better? That's a definite maybe. And I'd forgotten the other reason to not bother with Blade if you have tome: Shileleagh. I think if I'm a casty tomelock I probably pass on Blade and Chain...

Of those three two are I think dead, with the big things about swashbuckler and Hexblade rolled into the base class. And they've only put non-PHB classes into the 5.24 PHB when there weren't enough. That said I'm expecting a book with thinks like a fixed storm sorcerer.

A cantrip is in no way worth a decent invocation. That said there's also a case for Blade Pact before level 5 then switching to Agonizing Blast. And if you're Dex 14, Cha 17 then +1 to hit and damage and a mastery isn't all that.