Search results

i mean, i won't dispute that. whether it is or not isn't particularly relevant. it's not helpful to bring up third party content when discussing first party content, because it isn't first party content. it was also kind of strange because...well, bringing up third party content wasn't even...

well, we were discussing balance. not so helpful to bring up third party content when discussing the balance of first party (well, for level up anyway) content.

why are you even grabbing third party content for your example? tyrannized -> scars gives you a resistance too, and that's in the AG alongside the dragonborn.

a5e has some rules for characters leaving retirement. you could, theoretically, make the master the same approximate power level as the apprentice and then use rules in that sort of vein to represent the additional experience of the master.

it's page 175.

tl;dr: the bandwagon fallacy is a FALLACY for a reason

i mean...you want to supplement 5e, not replace it, right? replacing most of the character options seems to go against that goal to me.

98 is WILD

well. i think that's a sentence that's never been spoken before.

the subclass/prestige class change alone would require rewriting all the subclasses at minimum, and most likely the base classes as well. removing absolute abilities would require a similar overhaul.

the banneret's features (aside from at level 7) hinge off of the fighter's base class features. you thus cannot use those banneret features if you use your class resources normally - you instead need to wait until you can trigger the riders to make use of those features. this concern exists for...

ignoring the suboptimal comment because we've been here all day about it, you didn't specify a non-combat priority as a criteria. if you wanted it to be one, you should have specified as such, and i would have accounted for it. but not only that, you went ahead and picked a subclass that has...

because that's a cavalier. ;) but seriously, ignoring that you're already pigeonholing your options down to suboptimal ones by single classing fighter, you have a bunch of better options just in the fighter. cavaliers, again, are much closer to archetypical knights with how they work with a...

that doesn't follow. the numbers are still the numbers - whether DPR matters or not doesn't change that. and if i'm looking at DPR, clearly for whatever purpose i'm evaluating it for, it matters. this is what i mean by your distinction not being helpful - you're just saying "your criteria are...

that's not what "objective" means. you can't look at an objective evaluation of something and go "well, you chose the criterion, so it's not objective". of course you have to start with selecting the criterion - what makes an evaluation objective or not is how you go about examining that...

subtle...

yeah, this is almost certainly for video games. seems like a total nothingburger.

i mean, this would track with tolkien's intention to create a mythological piece for the english that isn't arthur and his knights.

UH - YOINK???? HELLO????????

bulletproof kevlar vests.