Search results

I houseruled that witchbolt gets half the extra dice on following rounds when cast higher level. Party sorcerer's been using 3rd level slots for, say, a twinned witchbolt, and it is pretty solid.

I would change that you can't use your regular action for a bonus action. That means that, depending on your specific build, the cost of a "bonus action" varies.

From a recent gaming session:

They sorta do, though, because there's games in which the accepted outcome would be "okay, we've just established that this is a world where you could find a Porsche, why didn't we know that before?"

There's a remark in an old scifi novel referring to a culture which distinguishes between "bias" and "prejudgment" in judges. "Bias" is "I will rule for this side if I can", while prejudgment is "I will rule for this side regardless." Bias is permitted. I think there's three things that can be...

This is sorta fascinating. The closest thing I can think of is I've had a GM rule that contingencies would fire on-death, or within the next minute-per-caster-level or so if suppressed by antimagic. But that may have been part of their ruling on contingency specifically.

Distinguish "broken" as a verb and "broken" as a completed state. The staff explodes when you break it. If it has already been broken, it's not going to explode in the future. Whatever happens already happened. It may be that's nothing.

I don't think that works, though. Antimagic suppresses continuous effects. It can't "suppress" an explosion; it's just that either the explosion happens or it doesn't. Right. That is a fascinating idea, and it's actually a sort of interesting trap idea. But my thought is: When broken, the...

Why on earth would you think that removing an antimagic field would retroactively trigger an instantaneous effect?

But we have pretty solid evidence that PDF sales increase hardcopy sales for B&M stores. That's what makes this offensive to me; they're not just having different priorities, they're doing something which has been empirically shown to severely undermine their claimed goals. If they really want...

Even if I grant that they're concerned, so what? Dude. Chill. I am not trying to "score points", and there is no possible reason this needs to be treated like a life-or-death battle. But the question is: What benefit does Wizards gain from not selling PDFs? The opinions of distributors and...

Talked to guy running FLGS, have also noted that everyone else seems to be able to sell PDFs, and yet I see their books in stores. If selling PDFs made people not carry your books, I wouldn't be able to find GURPS and Pathfinder books in stores.

Is it really? Steve Jackson Games said that distributors objected to PDFs a long time ago, but have since started selling them, and these days I don't see any evidence that distributors and retailers care.

Look I don't even have an opinion, but I gave you five stars for the title. I'd say you could do it pretty well with diviner and magic initiate (cleric). Or... Just don't even have actual clerical abilities, and just do it purely as a reskin of wizard. You just explain it as flavor that your...

I'd treat this as a post-20 thing. About every level-equivalent amount of adventuring, you get to add one more level of class features from subclasses of a class you already have at 20. Lowest-to-highest order for any subclass. But that doesn't totally solve things; for eldritch knight, you need...

I think that games in general tend to push this, but that 5E does so the least of any D&D I've yet seen. So I have players who feel like they have to make optimal choices, but also players who don't care. I don't think it'

... okay now I get it, I've been trying to figure out for AGES why people thought "brilliant energy" was like "lightsaber", because in my mental map, "is effectively solid" was essential, and nothing not-solid would count as being much like that. But if you're focusing on "made of energy" rather...

I think it was "wand of force" in 1e that did the "blade that can cut anything".

I'd say it's less like a lightsaber than a flame tongue is. It does not in any way make me think "lightsaber" because the defining characteristic of brilliant energy weapon is "no effect on inanimate objects", and that's... pretty much not even part of lightsabers.

The 3E "brilliant energy" weapon always gets pointed to as "like a lightsaber", but it's nothing like a lightsaber. Brilliant energy: NO EFFECT ON INANIMATE MATERIAL. Lightsaber: Cuts metal and stone.