Search results

I'm really not sure what bearing this has on the substance of my argument. What actually happens at the table is that a player chooses to have their character attack a target and then makes an attack roll to resolve the attack. If the attack succeeds, they can then choose to apply Divine Smite...

Choosing to deliver a smite at the moment an attack makes contact is completely plausible from an in-character perspective. It's only a "retcon" if you make the choice to interpret it that way. As for the spellcasting comparison, I don't actually think spells with their own attack rolls are...

I'd argue Smite actually does follow this pattern. In stating that an attack hits, the DM is describing an aspect the environment. At that instant, when the character has landed a blow but is still in the process of following through with it, the player describes their intent to empower that...

I think this would be a good approach if executed well, in that it would allow specifically designated diseases to be treated with low level magic, but wouldn't create the same worldbuilding implications as universal disease curing effects.

Personally, I think that the strength of ranged attacks relative to melee attacks is a balance issue more broadly (especially in outdoor encounters). I do see the point that it's odd to insist on this point for Paladins when it's not applied to any other class's design, but the Paladin's already...

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the approach the developers follow, but I don't think the result would be nearly as compelling as the 2014 subclasses. A single subclass could do a good job of giving abilities that increase access to a chosen school, but it would probably mean missing out on...

While it hasn't been transformed to the same extent as Wild Shape, the Paladin's smite mechanic still sees some noteworthy changes in the recent playtest packet. I think it would be helpful to have a discussion thread focused on these changes and have included some of my thoughts as a starting...

To me, this looks like a simple editing error. I assume one draft version of the feat worked only as a bonus to friendly rolls, while another version also gave the option to apply a penalty to opposing rolls. In preparing the playtest document, someone changed the effect from the former version...

I really like the general idea of a Channel Nature ability with Wild Shape as one of several options. It's great for Wild Shape to be one thing a Druid can focus on, but it's also important to support Druid concepts that don't focus on that particular ability. Unfortunately, with so many other...

WotC didn't try to renegotiate the OGL. They announced their intention to violate the OGL (as understood by the parties that wrote and agreed to it). And they weren't tied to a contract in the sense of having to do anything on an ongoing basis. They simply had to respect other parties' rights to...

I'm not sure what the terms being open to negotiation is meant to prove though. The underlying point is that Wizards attempted to coerce publishers into new licensing agreements based on the threat that the OGL would be rescinded and replaced with something similar to 1.1. Even if the details of...

While I no longer feel the need to abstain from WotC products, I find the argument that doing so would harm 3rd party creators profoundly unconvincing. Reduced sales of 5e might indirectly harm 3rd party creators through complex network effects. But increased sales of non-WotC products would...

Class-subclass mixes could have also have issues if subclass-based features from the 2014 rules become class-based in the 2024 rules (or vice-versa). A Cleric built with the 2024 PHB and a subclass from Xanathar's, for instance could have both heavy armor training and bonus cantrip damage, while...

I think the plan was for the next playtest to be the other two "Priest" classes anyway, so including the Cleric shouldn't be an issue.

Weighed on the scale of Hasbro's overall finances, the costs of attempting to deauthorize the OGL were likely small. But the costs didn't just have to be absorbable, they also had to be worth the perceived reward. Evidently, the Hasbro/WotC leadership stopped beleiving that to be the case. Which...

I'll return to worrying about the second biggest mistake WotC has been threatening to make: Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists. To be fair it's the second biggest by a rather significant margin.

Good-Evil and Chaotic-Lawful as PCA axes!

Wizards knew that forever is a long time when they wrote the OGL. And publishers relied on forever being a long time when they chose to work under the OGL's terms. It's also only forever with regard to the content that's already been released as SRDs, not the content being produced by Wizards'...

"Imagine" being the key word here. WotC's reasoning seems to rely on a number of significant assumptions: There is a profitable market for the advanced VTT products WotC is working on. A competitor's VTT can compete for this market even without the D&D brand and the non-SRD parts of the D&D...

This is an important point. The CC licensing and 1.2 initially looked like they could be a positive step forward. It took a bit longer to actually analyze the documents and realize how little was included in the CC license and how much power WotC was giving itself to manipulate the terms of 1.2.