Search results

Yes, WotC should group together animals suited for various functions. Whether this then us a wolf ir a bear doesn't matter, as long as it's suited to it's intended purpose. Just like ac and HP is entirely irrelevant when you turn into a bird or mouse just to easvesdrop into a discussion.

No but seriously - Why play a dull mediocre Paladin when you have ruled the battlefield for ten straight years...? ;) Time to find a new class!

Sounds about right this will be described as "nerfed into oblivion" :)

I'm not sure that logic is sound. Those that can't imagine playing a character even a single +1 away from the "optimal" scores will simply play the race or background or whatever that gives them that. They will never be satisfied with anything less than full unlimited freedom because it's only...

It isn't a new edition. It won't fix the edition's problems. Expect a repeat of 3.5 and you won't be disappointed.

I skimmed the ten pages or so since this was introduced - did a discussion ever start? Because this is exactly on point: if you want to scout combat ability just gets in the way, and so on. You choose optimal forms for the intended function and everything else is just a distraction, or worse...

Yes. (Nvrmnd)

I don't disagree. I don't think this is nerfed because it is overpowered. I think it is nerfed by a combination. Many players (not you) feel size and mass should still mean something. WotC probably instead have realized it is an unintentional rules "exploit". I put exploit within scare quotes...

Every other edition has provided a very fun and useful purpose for gold: * purchasing magic items * It's not that there isn't already solution...

.

The purpose of a funnel is related to character generation: instead of rolling up one character using "cheats" to avoid atrocious scores, you roll up four (or more) sets of scores, one per character, and later on choose to make one of the survivors your main character that levels up. Treating...

First off, thanks. And you don't need to apologize for using an "extreme" example - every balance discussion SHOULD start in an optimal case, otherwise it's easy to just dismiss concerns. EVERY rule no matter how imbalanced can be argued is reasonable and "fine" until it meets the reality of a...

I just played in a campaign where the Wizard player tried CON 8. It was fun, but possibly more for the rest of us than for him 🙂

I'm certainly giving them credit for strength they probably don't have ;) (They're body builders, not real barbarians or even trained fighters)

When I play Sword & Sorcery, I allow male characters to use Strength in place of Charisma for social checks (partly to explain how all the wooden muscle mountains of 80s Sword & Sorcery movies got the ladies' attention;) ) So I completely understand something like Strength stealth, I mean.

Number of times rogue misspelled as rouge: 2

It wasn't presented as a feature. It always felt like you circumvented what the rules intended. If it was explicitly discussed as intentional I might have disliked it less. But why first set up limitations and then providing a workaround?!? It remains an inelegantly designed rule, no matter...

Who's talking about bland subclasses? Look, if you simply dislike my suggestion simply say so. Then there's nothing to discuss.

Reminds me of when I counted the number of obstacles to ranged combat WotC removed from 5E vs 3E. I can't seem to find that post but I believe it was eleven things. Something like this was only one of those things. People that entered the hobby with 5th Edition don't know how easy their...

Either your memory is rusty or you played with poor minmaxers. :) But never mind that - we're getting away from the point. The point is: the caster-martial disparity was a huge gulf in 3E, but it is eminently manageable in 5E. In fact, in my opinion this is one of the chief improvements 5E has...