Search results

One problem I forgot to mention in my first post is that the ability requirements are based on a stereotypical and narrow-minded view of each class. Multiclass fighters have to have a Str of 15. But what if I want to play an archer fighter or a swashbuckler-like finesse fighter that prefers Dex...

Nay. I don't really like having such restrictions. People just find loopholes, like someone planning on being a fighter 1/wizard 19 taking the fighter level first to avoid the Str requirement. It seems to me like the only people it actually hurts are those who choose to multiclass for...

I suspect the 1 minute duration is a typo, as the spell descriptions themselves seem to indicate that they're intended to only work on one attack. Also, Damning Smite is ridiculously overpowered. Reduce someone to 50 hp or less, and automatically banish them to the nine hells with no saving throw.

Since they didn't give us a sorcerer in the last playtest packet, I figured I'd make my own. Sorcerery: This class feature replaces Wizardy. You do not record your spells in a spellbook. Instead, you know three cantrips and two first level spells of your choice from the mage list. At each level...

Classes: Overall, I have the same issue with the classes that I had in the last packet, as they're mostly the same. That is, players get to make far too few choices for their characters, and most don't get to make a single significant choice until level 3. Everything is laid out for you, level...

PC stats cap at 20 and monster stats cap at 30. Even that amazing and ultra rare 30 Str monster only has +5 more to hit than a 20 Str PC. Most monsters don't have anywhere near a 30 Str. So it's not really much of a problem in this edition.

I have no problem with objects (and only objects) having damage reduction (i.e. hardness). I think they should. It's when monsters have DR that I don't like it.

I like it. It's far better IMO than damage reduction. It's simple, easy and intuitive. It also a carrot rather than a stick. A player has an incentive to use the right kind of attack or weapon against a certain monster, but he's not totally useless if he doesn't. Too often with damage reduction...

So they're separating skills that use tools from those that don't. Except, they're not. You can use a rope to help your athletics check to climb. You can use a musical instrument with perform. A library (arguably a "tool") can aid in history or other knowledge checks. I can also think of...

You're right. It was a bad idea.

They've only given player characters about four skills in previous packets, and they've given no indication that they intend to be any more generous. So if players had disadvantage on checks that they weren't skilled in, this would mean that players would suffer automatic disadvantage on the...

This part puzzles me. So if you have a skill, you get your proficiency bonus to those checks. If you have proficiency in something, like blacksmith tools, you likewise get your proficiency bonus to those checks. So... why have proficiency as something that's different than a skill? What is the...

No offense, but I think that's a bad idea. If skills granted advantage, then skilled players would have no reason to try and get circumstances in their favor since advantage doesn't stack.

Good catch. While I didn't really like the whole +10 lore thing, I'll miss some of the lore skills, like folklore. I thought they were a flavorful addition to the backgrounds.

Agreed. As for the mandatory skills, I'm glad that they're doing this. Making skills entirely optional would have just created problems (like having to have different DCs for groups that use skills and those who don't). Besides, as he says, if you don't like skills, they're pretty easy to...

I like pretty much everything they're doing with skills, particularly the condensed skill list and the fact that you can use different abilities with skills (like the example of using a wisdom check with athletics to assess the difficulty of climbing a cliff. I'm also glad that they're adjusting...

I totally agree about the knight. I think the fighter subclass should be called the "defender" and the knight should once again be a background. Knighthood is a title. It's a social thing, and it shouldn't be limited to just fighters. There's no good reason why a paladin can't be a knight, or...

How does this structure prevent unfamiliar ideas? A subclass can be just as new and unfamiliar as a regular class. And what is wrong with "unfamiliar" ideas? If you don't like a new class, nothing forces you to use it. I also want to point out that I'm fine with the whole subclass thing for...

I haven't even been that active on these boards over the last week or two. I usually make my point and then move on unless someone responds to me personally. You make it sound like I've been spamming or something. And I don't see you calling any of them out. You targeted me specifically. No...

When the same subject matters keeps coming up over and over again in different threads, obviously I'm going to make similar points. And you know what, I'm not the only person that has posted in those threads and I'm not the only person that has repeated similar arguments. Some people have even...