Search results

If we really want to be pedantic, "and" is a conjunction, the latter does not necessarily modify the former. You could put a period there and it would still make sense as two thoughts, as in, "Move 15 feet. Make a check to jump." I also don't think you would say to make a jumping Athletics check...

I am a native speaker and I agree it could be more clear. It says you move 15 ft, not that you jump 15 ft. It also says that you make the check to jump, which implies there is a possibility of failure for that jump. After that is resolved, it says you also use that roll as your attack roll. As...

I don't even know where to begin with this weird take. ENP was not given a "broken" version. That was the only version at the time. Many people, including myself, expressed frustration with the class. The author gathered feedback, improved it, and put out an improved version, over a year later...

Why? ENP does not own the rights to creations published in the GPG, they simply retain exclusive publishing rights for one year, after which anyone can do whatever they want with the content they submitted. He hasn't broken any rules.

If you haven't already, you might want to check out the revised artificer, which I believe addresses at least the first point (it was a big sticking point for me that he thankfully fixed). It's called Advanced Artificers, technically it's 3PP but it's the same guy who wrote the original A5e...

Right, but you can't really make a list of possible reactions very effectively as some reactions are spells, some are maneuvers, some are attacks, etc. A reaction can be anything, hence why it is not specifically defined.

I believe reaction is not explicitly defined on purpose, because every reaction is a little different. The details of what a specific reaction is are always spelled out in the description of the thing that does it. I'm pretty sure there's an older thread here about this, but I'm on my phone...

Off the top of my head, these are the two that we use. Level prerequisites for knacks are based on total character level rather than class level. Feels a little better for multiclass characters, though truthfully we started this rule because we didn't see the bit about it being based on class...

My own two cents here, I'm certainly of the mind that the title doesn't really make sense to me, but I also understand there's no changing it now. And honestly, it has some intrigue to it anyway. I know that when I read it, my first thought was "What even is that?" That drove me to click on it...

I think the idea behind this is that you are essentially temporarily swapping out your heritage for another, thus you can't benefit from having stone skin while in a shape that doesn't have stone skin (and things like that). However, I do think it could use some errata as I don't really see any...

It becomes a magical weapon and you get to use your spellcasting ability instead of of strength.

As Morrus has said many times, A5e rules are not O5e rules, so I wouldn't use anything from O5e, especially not 2024 (which came out years after A5e), as reference. As far as I am concerned, all great clubs are clubs but not all clubs are great clubs, which is to say that for the sake of things...

I am also generally of the mind that if I wanted it to be simpler, I wouldn't play A5e in the first place. I specifically picked it because I donn't like how simple o5e is. However, I do think it's possible to speed it up. VTTs definitely help a LOT. We've been using Foundry for years now and...

I can't really speak to playing with just one person, but I do agree that PF2e is much crunchier and requires a lot more intention when building out the party. A5e provides each character with a lot of utility and options, so it's probably doable. As for Foundry, we run our games there...

Sort of, it's covered in the section on making an attack: Making an Attack | Level Up. I'm not sure that it makes it less confusing as it does not specifically call it out as separate from the attack, but keep in mind that if you cannot target a creature, you generally cannot attack them. Hence...

I could be misremembering, but usually if it's meant to happen before damage is dealt, it will say so. Otherwise, it's fair to assume the triggering event must resolve first.

This is not really an answer to any of your questions, necessarily, but have you checked out the revised version of the class in Advanced Artificers (DriveThruRPG)? Same author, but it includes a number of tweaks based on feedback from the community, so it's definitely the definitive version and...

The background images (currently) seem a bit low quality, particularly the dark mode one. It's very, very pixelated. Maybe less of an issue on a lower resolution screen, but very noticeable on a 1440p screen. Just FYI.

Regarding multi attack, as I read it, the enemy makes one attack, you shoulder check them, if you succeed and push them, you potentially stop future attacks (the first attack already happened) because they are out of reach, though they could just move back if they have enough movement.

Completely fair, the search on that site is absolute garbage. I mean I know it's hard to have the engine crawl through so many key terms but still.