Search results

My vote is that there will be infinite quivers, but they will inexplicably only contain crossbow bolts.

I hadn't had a chance to watch video this when it went up. Then I noticed the thread was 150 posts complaining about the artwork which tells me they didn't actually talk about the book's content in any way in the video, so I'm not going to bother. If y'all can't find anything worthwhile to...

That's partly because the TSR people seemed to think it was normal or common to have 8 to 12 PCs in a campaign. Plus hirelings and followers that also needed equipment.

So, if it had been "you can switch when you gain a level" instead of "at the end of a long rest" then it'd have been an identical feature for you? Did you switch because of gaining a Fighting Style? Or, rather, you choose Heavy Crossbow at level 1 only because it was mechanically better than...

That seems to me to be a confusion between mastery and proficiency. Clearly, a Fighter can be proficient in all weapons. Mastery is another thing entirely. Either way, though, a Champion Fighter could have Mastery of four weapons and possess two Fighting Styles at level 7.

I should have been more clear. I don't think it's a power level problem to have access to all masteries. I think it's narratively much, much worse. It's called golf bagging and juggling because it's even more unrealistic than switching masteries overnight. I think the limit exists because the...

We let Life clerics take Toll the Dead. We let Abjurers take summoning spells. We tell Warlocks they make a permanent pact with an otherworldly patron like Asmodeous, but then say he doesn't have any special ability to influence, manipulate, or compel you. You just get to sell your soul to the...

Yes, and the Player's Handbook is not a suicide pact. I doubt anyone is going to seriously entertain Polymorph as: "One 7th-level creature you can see within 60' gains 157 temporary hit points." I can see exactly zero DMs allowing that, but that is the literal result of this interpretation...

Eh. The low HP of wild shaped Druids in 2014 is kind of an illusion, though. If you're reduced to 0 hp, you revert to your normal form and keep taking damage against your real hp. In 99 cases out of 100, that's basically temp hp. 2014 just creates this bizarre mechanic for it. The only "risk"...

I don't think that assumption is actually supported by the text of Nick. I think it's left intentionally ambiguous. Every other mastery property explicitly states "this weapon". Nick does not. Indeed, it just backreferences the Light property. It would have been really easy for Nick to read...

I can attest to this. My cousin has some land that's in a mostly undeveloped and forested area known for hunting and trail riding. Well, he went up there and found a vehicle, a cargo trailer with a big air compressor on it, and a bunch of other stuff on his land. Like ruggedized toolboxes, work...

So it's real weird. In the original 2e PHB if you look at the list of acceptable multiclass combinations for half-elf in the multiclass section, it lists fighter/druid and ranger/cleric. But if you read the entry for half-elf, it specifically says "ranger/cleric (or druid)". Yeah, probably...

Almost never. With that group we mostly played 2e, so I don't think we ever threatened to reach the level limits. If you happened to roll well enough to play a ranger or druid, you played a half-elf to multiclass it. Everyone wanted to play the elusive half-elf druid/ranger. Somebody in the...

From my memory, the classic party was a Fighter/Thief, Thief/Mage, Fighter/Cleric, and Fighter/Mage.

One thing that disappointed me about TWF in D&D 2024 is that it's heavily keyword-oriented, very synthetic in its language, and even more obtuse in how it functions. Instead of giving an example or providing clear guidance, it tries to write something that will dodge disingenuine rules lawyering...

No, that's not always the case. Communication is always a two-party affair, and you cannot universally put the blame on one party. Language is inherently abstract, and most words have multiple meanings. Meanwhile, if there are two possible interpretations of a given statement, and one doesn't...

I would guess... making Paladins no longer able to nova smite? Maybe making TWF semi-decent again? Honestly, most of the changes I really like are balanced by changes that feel like shuffling deck chairs. They barely touched spell balancing, and walked back a lot of changes that were nerfs...

I don't see why I'd want that. And I say that not to poo-poo your idea. I say it because over those 30 years we have strongly favored rolling dice for characters for D&D. I can't imagine one time in the past 30 years across all the editions that I've played that I've ever wanted to play...

Funny, I've noticed that people only make this objection when they also dislike the opinion being expressed. Being upset that people state opinions without carving out an exception for their opinion to live in is a form of sealioning. In effect, it sounds like you're saying, "I don't like that...

If we're talking about what I select, then, yeah, about 1/3 is probably closest to what I never use simply because the situation doesn't come up. Like I often have Feather Fall prepared above level 5 or so. I essentially never need it, but when I do need it, there's almost nothing else that...