Search results

Someone should make a + thread about why + threads are bad. That could be fun!

Wow, my sympathies. I guess one of the first posters in that thread had it right: "people don't like nerfs, unless its too overpowered like the original Healing Spirit". Bless isn't literally game breaking, just very overpowered, especially compared to its pitifully low cost, and I suppose...

You’re right about bless, but that’s a spell that is widely considered to be top tier, and a prime candidate for nerfing. Especially because of its extremely low level, it becomes a free cast at medium and high levels, while retaining its full power to mess with bounded accuracy.

Well, yes, that’s what I do, but why should we lay bounded accuracy-destroying traps for the unsuspecting DM in the system? Not to mention published adventures.

IMO, it’s mostly concerns about bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is awesome, because it allows a DM to keep using lower level creatures while still being able to present a challenge to the party. A character with +3 weapons, +3 armor and a +3 shield can undo that.

I’d personally go with +1d4 per plus, improved to +1d6 for heavy melee weapons

Numerical bonuses to damage/hp, while not much more interesting than bonuses to hit/ac, at the very least don’t mess with bounded accuracy. I am not too worried about roles in 5e, every class seems to have niches that go beyond damage or toughness.

Frankly, I’d just eliminate numerical bonuses to hit/ac from magic items entirely. Bonus damage/hp (temporary or otherwise) are fine.

You know, I also used to believe that WotC was a company ran by sensible, smart people that knew what they were doing, until about a month ago. Now, I believe the company is run by total dullards that must be periodically set straight with swift and decisive kicks in the nuts. So, in short, I...

Yeah, sure. I’ve managed to convert ACKS’ systems for domain management and mass battles to 5e. It took a decent amount of (well worth) time and effort, but it worked. I wouldn’t dream to claim actual backwards compatibility between 5e and ACKS, obviously.

While what you say is true, that tends to go into "mean GM" territory according to a lot of people. If you have a group that is 100% ok with ruthless coup the grace style, great, problem solved. Otherwise..you may substitute an in-game problem (whack-a-mole gameplay) with an out of game problem...

It's an analogy, yes, I just don't think it's a good analogy. Nobody cares if a computer has to do a little or a lot more work behind the scenes to ensure backwards compatibility. It doesn't matter, we don't even notice it. We all care (or should care) if real humans at the table are saddled...

I mean, duh, if you’re using Windows software 😜

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, the DM is a human being at the table, not a machine. I mean, by that logic, third edition would be backwards compatible with 1e and 2e. And 4e would be backwards compatible with 3e, etc. And 5e would be backwards compatible with 4e, all previous editions...

“The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements” I have no doubt they’ll reach their goal as far as adventures go, that’s easy. Supplements though? Xanathar, Tasha? I doubt that very much.

I liked the monk as psionic, I think it’s a decent take on ki, but YMMV. Martial GW was the fighter. While obviously less common than sword & board, two handed fighters were perfectly playable. The seeker was crap, and the fascinating thing is that it wasn’t even grid-filling! The game already...

I can’t think of a single bad example, though. Invoker as a divine controller? Awesome. Avenger as divine striker? Badass. Swordmage as arcane defender? GOAT. Barbarian as a primal striker? Cool, thematic and appropriate. Warden as a primal defender? Very cool concept. The psionic classes? All...

I mean, if classes such as the Avenger, the Swordmage and the Warden are the accidental result of grid-filling, holy crap, give me some grid-filling.

The 4e shadow assassin was very, very hard to build correctly, but if you did, it was extremely good. And extremely fun! Possibly my favorite 4e PC, alongside the wizard/swordmage hybrid.

Add me to the pile of people that are skeptical about the "official" data about feats. Never met a group that didn't use them. Anecdotal, etc. Besides, Beyond data is hardly the be-all end-all. My group and most others I know don't use Beyond. Again, anecdotal, but I see no compelling reason to...