Search results

OK, so I agree that HM on Ranger is not an inherently bad design, but this take is like calling the spell slots full casters gain at even levels "extra". Sure, you don't have to expend those slots, but it's not a "ribbon" feature like bonus languages. It has a real, tangible effect on combat and...

As though the rest of us don't bash 5e.14. Or 3.x or 4e or AD&D or B/X. There's almost nothing fans of D&D hate more than D&D.

I've had similar observations, particularly the third one. However, the only change I've really considered is elimination of concentration saves from damage for PC spellcasters. I'm fine with the PCs using attacks to break the concentration of the NPCs, but I don't think the NPCs breaking the...

I'm just going to generally rule that you can't be affected by the same DOT effect more than once a round, but allow an exception for egregious instances at DM's discretion. The rules don't really need the general rule to handle corner cases like, "What if you zig-zag through a wall of fire?"...

Of course it won't. D&D -- especially the TTRPG -- is a small brand, and D&D is overwhelmingly large within it's market space. A new edition is unlikely to attract people away from other games, and TTRPGs as a whole aren't a very popular hobby. They're already the biggest fish in a rather small...

What type of feedback would you expect from a misleading presentation except similarly misleading feedback?

It wasn't a long adventure. Or, well, there wasn't much left. It was just that I got hit immediately after we got to the important part of The Abyss at the start of the session, which was actually supposed to be close to the very end of the adventure. We had already killed just about everything...

Looking at the changes made for 5e.24, and the design of 5e in general, I think the one word that would never cross my mind about them would be "consistent." There are parts that are well designed. There are parts that are just 1974. There are parts that are 1979. There are parts that don't make...

OK, sure, I did forget about that. But that's kind of just it. The first background they present is the Custom Background rules to build your own. They don't present a pick list. They present a system for making your own. It's presented in Playtest 1 like the custom rule is the default with a...

I don't think sensitivity really had anything to do with it at all. I think the reason they removed Feeblemind is because it says this: That effectively removes a player from play. Having played characters in 3e that got Feebleminded, it was a miserable couple of play sessions, especially...

This is torturing the language. There is no way they wrote it with this level of precision. They would need to have "make" and "result" be defined keywords in the glossary at this rate.

While a Rogue always has stuff to do with a bonus action, I think gaining the option to make a third attack is worthwhile. That was the primary reason Polearm Master was such a dominant feat in 5.14.

I remember the discussion or feedback being "more significant backgrounds are fine" or "backgrounds with actual feats are fine." I don't remember them having ASIs tied to backgrounds at any point in the playtest. (But I admit I don't recall anything after 6.) I just don't understand why they...

I think what mostly aggravates me about the new backgrounds is that they made a pretty significant design decision and did not float it in the playtest like this at all. It really feels like a blindsiding change. It's not how the game has ever worked and they did nothing to allow us to have...

Sure, but D&D doesn't do that, right? It's either complete tower of babel or effectively fluent with no in between. Like there's never a proficiency check with language. That's going to take more than a school year.

So in 2014, #1 didn't exist. It's been imported from races, effectively, although they were pretty universally Common + 1. But the rare language rules are from 2014. In Chapter 4 of the PHB.14 or Basic: "Choose your languages from the Standard Languages table, or choose one that is common in...

I would be more comfortable with the change if I didn't already have the impression from prior editions that people wanted to play paladins and warlocks without involved patrons simply because they don't want to be beholden to some greater power or organization. It's like how some players tend...

But level 4 is Hero and level 8 is Superhero!

No, it isn't. The problem is that Shield works that way with anything that improves AC, right? It can combine with anything that improves AC. So Shield is only a good design in a game that doesn't let the caster's AC ever get beyond AC 14 or AC 15. That's not the case. Meanwhile, Bladesong...

I don't think I've ever had a problem with Shield working as written on low AC characters. Like the Wizard in Mage Armor with AC 14-15 casting Shield is fine. I think the only time we really have had a problem with Shield was when we had a high-level Bladesinger. He had Dex 16 and Mage Armor, so...