Search results

Never saw the appeal of the specialized classes. It seems like more of a prop than an actual character trait at that point.

I thought the templates were awesome when I first encountered them, but... Actually I don't miss them at all. The answer now is much simpler: The stats for mummy and mummy lord are the stats for mummy and mummy lord. That's it. It's not a "template". It doesn't need to reflect the stats of the...

I would say that "can't move" is a kind of "nowhere to move".

I think the key point is: They're intentionally generally-less-good than higher level spells would be, to make higher level spells more desirable, so you have a reason to know both low-level and high-level spells. You need low-level spells to use your low-level slots, and high-level spells to...

I've seen at least three warlocks who didn't take Hex at all, so I don't think it's significant power-wise.

... The logical inference would be that you disapprove of the thread and are attempting to make specifically-inflammatory posts which do not actually refer to or discuss the topic, only other posters, in the hopes of causing the thread to be shut down because you don't want other people...

Yes. On the other hand, if you were defining a thing, and said "these are the things that can prevent that", in the context of a rule, it's more reasonable to assume that the rule's intended to be complete, because that's how rules tend to be.

If you cannot quote explicit text which states directly that there are other things that break concentration, other than the list or the other factors mentioned in the paragraph below, then no, it can't be contrary to RAW. It's only contrary to RAW if the rules actually state the thing you're...

Hmm. Okay, so, I can come up with a sort of example. "Is there any way to view the source of a web page?" "Firefox can view source." This doesn't actually remotely imply an exhaustive list, and you might even interpret it, in that context, as implying there's probably other things which can...

Good point, because the entire concept of "maintaining the resource" is not actually present in the rules. Which makes it, pretty much by definition, not "RAW". It actually does. The entire point of "RAW" is that it is only the literal text of the rules, not including any specific rulings...

All of those examples are for a single specific thing. This is for a category in which only one thing has a chance-of-failure. I also don't think that the word really implies an open-ended list; when they intend that, they usually say something like "some examples of" or "for instance". This...

Is the list of reasons you can't move on your turn also open-ended? Is it RAW to refuse to allow a move action for a reason not indicated or even hinted at in the rules, because it seems consistent or because you think it makes sense? Because as a general rule, once you're to "there is no rule...

No longer the case in 5e. In 5e, reactions only interrupt their triggers when they say so explicitly. And Ready, in particular, absolutely happens after its trigger. PHB p. 193: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger."...

Balance it by letting the players balance it, and using the plot hooks they seem interested in.

Couple of observations: 1. It'd be more polite, I think, to let the other poster answer before you judge the quality of their answer. 2. I've had some really fascinating conversations with Ovinomancer, and I have never yet found it to be a waste of time. Generally, if I feel like someone's...

In what way does it differ from claiming that it's RAW that I can move up to my speed on my turn even if someone in the party is named Greg? In both cases, there's a thing you can do, the rules describe circumstances where you can't do the thing, and someone's asking whether a thing which isn't...

I'd say it's the actual rules-as-written. And the rules totally allow for you to change the list, or add things to it, but the rules as written say you can keep concentrating for 24 hours unless something stops you from doing so, and they give examples of things that would stop you, and I don't...

I'm not convinced that the rules as written don't say. Specifically, the rules say when you can or can't keep concentration, and so far as I can tell, they don't say anything that would even hint at "but you can't maintain it through a short rest". They don't explicitly say that you can, but...

so i've not previously heard of such a book, and as such, i'm not sure how much hype there is. anyone got links to more info? NEVERMIND, someone just answered that.

No real reason to comment on it, just make the thing you want to make as a thing that stands on its own and does what you want.