Search results

But, but, but…those were part of the fun! One of my foundational experiences was a 5th-level magic user casting fireball (possibly for the first time) on the kobolds filling that cave. I think I took out like 49 of them. When I saw a player in a D&D group cast a fireball at a single target, I...

The only stronghold that says it covers your living expenses is the farm (and this one specifies it applies while you are in the same region, so it might extend to more than being able to crash at your own place and have food). I don’t see any other rules specifying that your stronghold supports...

Yes.

Figured I'd put a bump here, because I noticed we're still at 372 of the 500 needed patrons to launch.

So, so much nostalgia there.

Just make sure to convert any O5e content you bring in, because that‘s not how it does it. That‘s the issue here—it‘s doing something different without being clear about it.

And that’s where the “debatable” part of it comes in. ;) I‘m personally going to house rule anything kinetic back to bludgeoning because I like the way O5e did it (dynamite does bludgeoning in the DMG if there is any doubt as to the O5e design intent), but if I know they are intentionally going...

In O5e force damage never represents merely kinetic damage. While one can debate the extent to which it may or may not overlap with kinetic damage, it is always used only for magical damage. Clearly kinetic damage is represented in O5e as bludgeoning damage (even when part of a spell or other...

Personally I'm not going to allow the parry property to stack with two weapons because I think it's over-powered compared to other weapon properties. (I haven't worried about the Duelist yet.)

I'm not sure it adds much though. It's already an O5e rule that you can make that tricky ability check to cast a scroll that is normally too high level for you. It's been that way in other editions too. I've even used it as a plot point, letting a low level wizard cast a wish from a scroll. The...

Some good points all around. After some more thought I realized that there is a bigger concern I have, and my proposed fix would actually make that one a bit worse. The fighter is supposed to be super flexible. And they also get to specialize and be particularly good at certain things. These...

[Edit: I've decided this solution isn't going to work for me, but it helped inspire a better one I'm really excited about, described in my next post in the thread] I like the fighter in A5e. It‘s cool. But now that I’ve reviewed all the classes more thoroughly, I think it feels a little...

I think the way I might handle it is to say that it doesn‘t provide a haven at 3rd-level, but can be upcast at some higher level to do so. The component cost might vary based on usage. With the mansion, I‘d just say it’s a haven, since it is balanced to be so and it seems to require a lot of...

It's in the text description of tower shields. (Away from my books so I can't give a page number, but I was just reading it today.)

The language on the benefit of taking the Dodge action while using a heavy shield is unclear to me. Is the expertise die to your AC supposed to replace the Disadvantage to attacks against against you (as the word “instead” might apply) or to supplement it? It seems to me that it would be worse...

Yeah, warlock would be a lot easier to work with than my standard long rest spell slot caster. I'm doing it this way because it's the best solution I've found for a classic fighter/mage that has that AD&D multiclassing feel to it.

I have a homebrew warrior-mage that is basically comparable to a bladesinger but less wizard and more warrior. I'd like to make and A5e version of it, but I'm trying to figure out what to do with regards to maneuvers. Now, this class definitely should have them as part of it's identity. But with...

Seems to me that an expenditure of exertion would get the job done. I don't know how much though.

I've been sorting a list of the monsters from 2e into 5e categories, so I've had to think about this. The two trickiest distinctions are Beast <> Monstrosity and Aberration <> Monstrosity. An honorable mention goes to Humanoid <> Monstrosity, since monstrosities can be humanoid in shape. I...

Anyone know if D&D Beyond has (or is going to) change all this? I don't like the new spellcasting statblock changes, so I'll have to do something to preserve the rules I actually paid for.