Search results

Please remember that if you're making statements that assume a given house rule is in place, you need to always mention that.

One could argue it should be if it isn't already.

In my experience, 3E healing spells were mostly irrelevant, since wands of Cure Wounds were basically free and unlimited. (Yes they cost gold, but they were stupid cheap)

What do you mean by "currently"? Because if you mean 2014 rules, you're out of luck - 2024 rules will increase healing.

A couple of Ranger spells?

It's okay to feature spells that are only relevant in specific campaigns. Assuming the campaign is internally consistent, there's no need to feel bad for PCs in such campaigns; the content is presumably balanced on the assumption Magic Weapon will be a significant source of magic weaponry.

You have successfully deduced the purpose of this (and every) new edition.

Yes. You wouldn't just automatically have NPCs lose their Concentration spells. That would be playing the game on easy mode for no good reason.

Not sure what you're calculating here. A d4 averages +2.5 A d6 averages +3.5 A +d4 weapon is thus exactly between a +2 and a +3 weapon.

When they say "it's compatible" the intent is to stop complaints to the contrary. Its not meant to provide actual compatibility. After all, WotCs bottom line needs everyone to switch over to the new rules. They just want people to believe they do so of their own volition rather than feeling...

If this is true then the PHB would be much better off without any Sage Advice sidebars. If the space isn't used to provide insight into developer intent and empowering the DM to make their own calls it is a wasted opportunity. If it actively encourages rules lawyerism and literal readings, it...

Who says you must listen? If it makes your games more enjoyable for the rules to make sense, ignore it.

Forcing the target to make five Concentration rolls is clearly abusive, so: one attack (with five dice). (All these answers assume you don't have time for nonsense. If you like absurd rules lawyering, knock yourself out, but don't expect me to respond)

The Sage really needs to learn when the only way to win is to not play, it seems. Not saying anything, and not drawing attention to the absurdities of reading the rules as if a flawless reality simulator, is the only play.

Obviously you roll one d4 per missile, so with five missiles you roll five dice. Anything else is just foolish nonsense.

It boggles the mind anyone could think that's a good ruling. Obviously when a condition is negated, it no longer applies. If they wanted Invisibility to still provide benefits even when defeated, they need to say so in the spell description. Just relying on technicalities in the rules language...

I don't think I need to say anything. I might need more popcorn though...

Original Adventures Reincarnated, a series of old school modules from Goodman Games.

Lol Congratulations your thread is the first complaining about a whole class being useless I've seen! I mean, given the 2014 ranger that's a saf-ish bet ;) but still, the rules are still months away...

My intent is to select a good enough pre-written campaign that offers at least levels 1-10 and try the new ruleset out (with brand new characters). The point will be to test drive the 2024 rules so no legacy player-side content: I will specifically ask the players to consider the relatively...