Search results

Iuz. Greyhawk has the dark overlord thing going on.

Armor Class is your meat threshold. If you take damage, you lose meat, but not in any specific, literal amount of meat.

The 5e monk from 3rd level on is doable. But at 1st level, you're a person with a stick. Literally all the abilities you gain just mitigate some of the disadvantages of being someone in a robe with a stick. At 2nd level, you have just enough ki to get overconfident. Once you get to 3rd level...

Okay. Maybe a weird choice for a character that often attacks bare-handed, but cool. Well, they're weak. I don't know that they would be better off as a weak striker than anything else. There was also the Slayer Fighter, which blended the striker with the defender. Hence, even in 4e, class...

Is a monk a striker? Do you think it's cool 4e had a defender fighter and a striker fighter? Should 5e have both striker and defender options for monk?

I guess. I don't think marking where a monk is on the martial-magic-psi by striker-defender-controller grid is immediately going to sprout insights into how to build a low-gear character in a high-gear game.

There's no warlord equivalent in 5e because classes in 5e aren't defined primarily by their role. A warlord is just a warrior in the support/healer role. The only way you can remotely imitate one is to look at support/healing abilities in 5e and graft them onto something similar to a fighter or...

A little tricky, while wielding a greataxe, but doable, if you have a foe within throwing distance.

I've come to find I really don't enjoy fighters with a lot of finite resources.

"I'm an unstoppable rage monster, waiting to be uncorked! ... But is now the right time? What do you think, guys?"

One of the things that doesn't get enough consideration is that movement, alone, will not keep rage going. So if you don't have an enemy in reach, you need to find a source of damage. If nothing readily presents itself, you can punch yourself, costing your action.

I guess that depends if you classify having to injure yourself as a problem.

That's because people usually don't point out when they becoming ineligible to continue raging. I'm not making things more complicated than they are, I'm stating them exactly as complicated as they are. A frenzy still has to follow all the rules of rage. But now, not only do you have to remember...

Whereas I use "story games" that involve narrating action, but you don't necessarily have a character. Eg. Once Upon a Time.

Various. Solo RPGs. Diary games. Premise games. Adventure games. Just "indie games" in general. Most of them aren't strongly generic enough to have a category, but "journaling games" are a thing.

I think role-playing game, as a term of art, has a specific meaning. It means one or more players take on a role, and they can attempt to do anything that is an intelligible choice in the game. Donkey Kong, for instance, is not an RPG, because even though you play Mario, you can't decide to do...

No, that's actually just a basic rule of barbarian rage. The fact that you've forgotten it says all I really need to say about barbarians and rules complexity.

As long as they make an attack or take damage every round. And if they fail to do so, they gain exhaustion, a heavy penalty. Complex. If you use hold person, you can conceivably stop AND exhaust them. Tactical. Are they using finesse-able weapons? Rules knowledge. There is a lot more baked into...

I've seen enough enough Elmore art to know that wasn't a woman, because I've seen how he paints women. As a kid, I was quite sure it was a man. However, looking back at it, and setting aside my familiarity with Elmore, there actually isn't a lot to indicate one way or another. To me, the fact...

Spells in 5e are generally not complex. OTOH, a Mad Berserker Barbarian using frenzy is quite the beast, mechanically speaking.