Search results

What I do for my games is reskin the races. I let players pick either human, human varient, or half-orc for the various human factons/countries (with suggestions based on the 3.5 book). For the races that are in the setting that aren't in the PHB (minotaur, half-orges, Irda, and Tarmak) I use...

No. But as someone who is a Dragonlance fan who is dyametrically opposed to them our wants for the setting cannot co-exist by definition. They want everything I like about the setting to be ignored and undone. This is by sheer requirement for me to acknowledge their existence and make my...

No. I'm not one of these purists. I'm in fact the opposite. A quick look at my posting history will reveal this, as well as in pretty much every Dragonlance thread on this forum there are always people whining about Age of Mortals and hoping they retcon it out. There are also numerous threads...

Except that this is just factually wrong for D&D 5e for that specific time period. War of the Lance or immediately after it does not work with the rules of the 5e players handbook without making a bunch of sweeping changes that will just annoy setting purists anyway. To name just what I can...

See here's the thing, as a game setting at least, I actually prefer Age of Mortals. Strongly in fact. At least for the lore (agreed on the SAGA rules, the 3.5 campaign setting set post War of Souls is great though). I actually frequently defend it on these boards fairly regularly, and while I am...

According to the actual cannon lore (which will likely just get retconned because WoTC likely won't want to go this route), yes. Sorcerers and warlocks would basically be considered renegades. There is literally an entire book about this call The Wizards' Conclave set during the age of mortals...

To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character"...

Only if you are using the definition of occult to be "mind altering". The more traditional use of the word often includes subjects like alchemy and older pre-modern medical practices, stuff very much on theme to the artificer. I am also not 100% set on that name anyway given the obvious pf2e...

Oh you're d%&$ skippy I'll be pitching a fit on the surveys if they pigeonhole the Sorcerer to limited spell schools like that. The bard and other hybrid classes are one thing, but as far as I'm concern the main and arguably only reason to even switch to a generic class list split is so that...

This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes. I could see the argument for a psionics...

I for one would prefer the base sorcerer to remain arcane, but I do think things like "Add the divine list to your spell options" would be appropriate for sorcerer origins like Divine Soul. I do, however, want warlocks to change based on patron. I think it makes way more sense than any other...

I have had a Mastermind Rogue player who enjoyed the hell out of it. She liked to fluff her help action as hitting on enemies mid battle in order to confuse them. She didn't have any issue with it what-so-ever other, though she's did end up taking a level of cleric randomly in order to add a bit...

It would definitely mess up game balance slightly if someone took advantage of it to simply change everything to thunder or force damage, though wouldn't necessarily break the game. I would, however, suggest you make them pick a damage type when they learn the spell and be stuck with it though...

Frankly I hope not. The best thing 5e did was remove feat trees and minimize prerequisites for feats. If I wanted to keep track of nightmarishly long and complicated character builds I'd play either edition of Pathfinder, not 5e. I'll be definitely giving them VERY negative feedback on anything...

I have done both. I played in a Fae'run game (set in the Lake of Steam) and ran Waterdeep Dragon Heist. To be honest I don't really like the setting, but I've come to enjoy it a bit more after doing Dragon Heist.

I will be purchasing both the book and the game, though I have no current intentions of running the adventure and doubt I will. What I do intent to do though is use it to bolster my current dragonlance post War of Souls Age of Mortals game. I'm honestly more interested at this point in the...

Honestly I hate the optional flanking rules for 5e as they completely trample all over other class features. We implemented a hourse rule for flanking to be a +2 bonus to hit instead and no way am I ever changing that back to advantage. More on topic, it's too early to say. I need to see...

I agree with Savage Attacker, but I'd not be so quick to assume all tables will have this same view. There are multiple players at our table who would LOVE to take Crafter and my wife and I both looked at Musician and said we can't wait to take this for a number of characters. The game isn't all...

Let's not gloss over the changes to grapple either! 1) A target being grappled now has disadvantage to hit any target other than the one grappling them. 2) The grappler is Slowed, which means other creatures have advantage to hit THEM. 3) Grapple is now an Unarmed Attack roll with a static DC...

Personally I think PF2E had it about right. We only really need one more list that is a hybrid of arcane and healing/buffs/debuffs for Bards and I would Hope Artificers. In PF2E they call this Occult. I care not what the name of it is but I will be VERY annoyed if Bards and Artificers lose the...