Search results

I'm kinda bummed they didn't offer buffed versioned of the existing feats that are underpowered but otherwise cool and thematic in theory.

The wording says "...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects..." and then goes on to describe the additional effects. So whatever the weapon would do as a normal attack is what it would do for this part.

I find this to be statement to be false in practice. I've seen plenty of games with optimized characters, where it all came down to the wire in combat, and none that I would call "trivial". Also the designers did a pretty good job of balancing out so uber-minmax isn't too far ahead of a "normal"...

I wasn't the DM, but I was at a con where the assassin asked if he had surprise at the beginning of every single fight - never stealthed once.

The fiction and the stats SHOULD be bent together - they are apart of the same reality. The only question should be is if they are ever out of step with one another. Whether you bend one or the other fixes the problem equally. Assuming one is more "right" than the other (to me) itself breaks the...

A mix of the first two categories most likely - and again, I'm saying what actually happened was bad. It was probably the best thing that could have happened given those circumstances. But even there, the end was kind of tense and awkward, as it became clear to everyone that the group as a whole...

I should have been clearer - there were optimizers in the group - a couple, in fact. And I hear what you're saying about buffing/debuffing/CC/etc, but this person wasn't even doing that either. I think it was apparent to everyone (including the DM) that this person wasn't the most "strategic in...

I'd like to add that often times (in my experience) the players that have problems with optimized characters also have problems with "normal" characters as well, but to a lesser degree. It's much easier in 5e to make a very under-powered character than an overpowered one. For example, I once...

Might as well just change "turn" to "round", and then it clears up all problems with surprise, since initiative order doesn't negate surprise anymore.

To be fair, I think some of the pushback is due to the implied objectiveness of the "problem" the OP of a thread brings up (not meaning to pick on this one, but it is an example). Namely, rather than saying "I don't like whack-a-mole healing, help me with a fix" vs. this thread's title. Again...

I have a char with 4 classes (rogue assassin, shadow monk, hunter ranger, arcane cleric (Mask as deity)). He's fun. Very versatile. Designed to get into back ranks and shut them down quickly. Certain sub-classes thematically go well together as well as mechanically. I would say hold out on...

This release was cool and all to read, but honestly I'm hitting the point where I've been teased enough with unofficial material that isn't fully baked.

"Marriage" that only lasts 24 hours? I think that's usually called something else...

And furthermore the stats still get rolled on - they aren't absolutes by themselves. An 8 INT will still roll high and succeed sometimes. An 8 INT fighter will sometimes beat a 20 INT wizard at a check. That's what the rules are, and where they stop.

And I in turn agree as well, especially the beer part. :)

You are right that there are no issues to resolve as far as personal playstyle preference goes. There is definitely an issue to resolve when that "preference" extends into judging others and disrupting the table for their preference - which I say has nothing to do with preference and everything...

But really neither of these extremes has anything to do with the problems that show up. I've seen plenty of tables where both sides get along just fine, and everyone has fun.

Along these lines, it seems like perception/stealth is also a good candidate for expertise. Feels very rangerish, and then you don't have to have the scout role be solely owned by rogue.

Shadow monk + mobility feat. Shadow step, stun and run :).

Actually this is a replacement for colossus slayer, not hunter's mark. You would have this going along side hunter's mark.