Search results

Yeah, it is. It's the specific rule for the Idiot card in the DoMT, not a general rule. But it is a rule. The rules say that having your Intelligence reduced to 2 results in a -4 penalty to Intelligence-based checks and DCs. They say nothing more about starting with low stats, even though low...

My objection was to calling permanent attribute loss in 5.0 a house rule. I, myself, said it is rare. That said, it is a core rule. I expect that there are plenty of campaigns that never touch the rules for mounted combat, but that doesn't make them house rules. While I obviously can't speak to...

Page 164 of the 5.0 DMG (the one with Acererak on the cover). "Idiot. Permanently reduce your Intelligence by 1d4 + 1 (to a minimum score of 1). You can draw one additional card beyond your declared draws." It's not only in 5.0, it's in the 5.0 core.

That's inaccurate, at least for 5.14e (not sure about 5.24e, as I haven't done a thorough read through). While rare, there are official mechanics that can permanently reduce your stats. For example, you draw the Idiot from the DoMT, reducing your Intelligence by 1d4+1 permanently.

I don't think it would make sense to penalize a multiclass character if their prime requisite falls under the minimum. As others have said, RAW just requires the score to be able to multiclass in the first place (in other words, to learn the fundamentals of the class while adventuring), not to...

I think, officially, it's considered to be The Weave in 5e. Personally, I find that a little boring, so IMC it's a way of drawing aspects from the Realm of Dreams in a structured way into Reality. This also conveniently explains why magic doesn't necessarily follow the laws of physics (casting...

I agree that it's unlikely that they just took every monster that had resistance/immunity to non-magical weapons and just gave them blanket resist/immunity to weapons. I think it's important to keep in mind that we're only seeing one small piece of the puzzle. AFAIK no one has seen the new MM...

Probably the harshest house rule I use is that, with a few exceptions, I only permit multiclassing when you create your character (I typically start them at 3rd level).

I think you misread that. I said it's a somewhat stronger option in original 5e. Because to gain the benefit of wielding a longbow in melee requires Crossbow Master. Since Sharpshooter and Crossbow Master don't give +1 ASI in 5.0, you're probably not getting Crossbow Master until 12th level...

In 5.5 the Sharpshooter feat allows you to fire in melee (which used to require Crossbow Master). By 4th level I would expect most bow focused characters to take that feat. So I don't think it would be an issue in terms of balance. Story-wise that would be a matter of preference. It's...

Yeah, I would say that a harpy could turn off the charm if they wanted to. A friendly harpy bard might make an interesting NPC.

Even assuming a cleric is available, that's a horrific injury. Even if magic is available, it might be something that spells like Cure Wounds can't cover and requiring Regeneration, which certainly not all clerics have access to. A mid level fighter who fails their save vs fireball often just...

A RW human caught in a 20 foot radius sphere of fire would almost certainly be horrifically burned. Maybe they could barely dodge it if on the outer periphery, but if caught near the center? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Getting lightly toasted by a fireball is the stuff of action heroes...

Maybe a level 1 adventure. But higher level adventures? Not likely. IMO, real world people (even capable ones) would likely be maimed or killed by the challenges D&D characters typically face.

I doubt it. A stacking -2 to all rolls would get excessive with multiple exhaustion levels, IMO.

That sounds right, but I honestly don't recall. I think it's conceivable that they may have changed the cap in the finished version though.

I'm guessing it's that stacking -1 (to all rolls and DCs iirc?) that we saw in the play test.

My future future self tells me that the whole "impact the stability of the time stream" thing was based on flawed research. He's having some trouble getting his hands on the books though (long story) so anything you and your future self can share would be appreciated!

I said "RW (real world) science doesn't apply". See my earlier post discussing a world constructed of essences rather than our RW natural laws. Certainly the scientific process could be applied to essences as well, but it wouldn't be RW science, meaning that a player's understanding of RW...

Yeah, that was my preference as well. Basically "hanging" spells as in the Amber novels.