Search results

Hmmmm... off the top of my head, I would pick either the X-Men graphic novel, "God Loves, Man Kills" or Green Lantern (/Green Arrow) vol.2 #85 "Snowbirds Don't Fly".

As long as each of these forms are not hard-coded into the class leveling and there are various beast forms so that the DM, can say, for instance, no dinosaur forms, no plant forms, and no elemental manifestations in this campaign and the player still has viable beast forms to choose from, I am...

I am fine with such restrictions such as the above dwarves for specific settings or homebrew, but I don't want the game to be tied to a single setting

Well, you are entiteld to your opinion. I preferred the flavor of the Paladin in older editions.

I'd take a spell-less Paladin with divine features or one that receives spells much later.

No Yes, but if I want something manga/anime, I am going to use Mutants & Masterminds 2e (with the Mecha & Manga supplement), a version of Big Eyes Small Mouth, OVA, or either Icon: Assembled or BASH: UE (the last two with Mecha & Manga as a reference). I'd also most likely recommend the first...

I was not referring specifically to listed class specific skills (e.g. the various Thieves skills). I am referring to things like a Fighter climbing a non sheer wall or controlling a spooked horse, a wizard trying to move silently, etc. Edit: I agree about designers and the interaction of magic...

That is not true. While there was no skill system in the earliest editions, class (or secondary skills and/or class in AD&D before the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies) were often used to determine what skills a character knew and "skill checks" were often resolved by ability checks...

edit: I should have mentioned not requiring feats as it is an optional rule. The above is just your opinion of what a ranger should be. Not all campaigns use magical wilderness hazards or fantastical environments (e.g. the groups I have played with and campaigns that I have run myself have...

The only spellcasting ranger's in my campaigns serve as priests for a deity. They will get a mixture of some cleric, druid, and ranger spells. Looking at the SRD (I don't have my PHB handy), the type of Ranger spells they get are 1st Level: Animal Friendship, Cure Wounds, Jump, Long Strider...

As a player and DM, these are the type of spells I don't want in a campaign (and I remove as a DM). Examples of other spells that I remove include Create Food and Water*, Heroes Feast, Rope Trick, and Leomund's Hut. *If I allow Create Food and Water, the spell is limited to clerics of one...

If (and when) I get around to running 5e (I still need to get past some long covid issues), I want to give Agenderarcee's Martial Ranger * a try. Version 4 recieved over 1.5K upvotes on reddit/ua (I think v7 is the current version after various minor tweaks and revisions to take into account...

I want the ranger as spell-less by default with a subclass option to cast spells.

I think there should be a tanky variant (e.g. iron body monks) included similar to how the cleric and druid have variants available at first level given that there are examples of big tough monks in kung fu and wuxia cinema that soak damage from punches and kicks.

I like the Holy Order being moved to first level, but I am disappointed by the thaumaturge and lack of a robed Cloistered Cleric option. Don't have much more positive to say about the rest of the class.

As bad as I have, personally, found Tasha's, the playtest classes, and several other design decisions in the playtest ( there are admittedly, a couple of things worth stealing in the glossary). I don't think he could. OMMV

I don't think Mearls can do worse than this design team. Don't know if he could do better, but I don't think he could do any worse.

I have no problem removing 7th-9th spells for PCs as a variant (or even as a default rule). 0D&D spells , originally, went to 6th level (I think Clerics originally went to 5th). Higher level spells were added in later supplements. However, some of Gary's own players have stated that his...

It is not my problem. I tell players my house rules before the game. It is up for them to decide if it is a game in which they want to play. I may or not play depending upon the house rules the DM uses. However, it is, imo, the DM's perogative to use the house rules they choose to run the best...