Search results

Nobles receiving a +1 strength makes complete sense. Most nobles during medieval times regardless of culture had to be warriors. All men were trained for combat

I hope it is better than the filler books they wrote as filler between the Canticles series. Those books were terrible and I say this as a life long Dragon Lance fan

Thank you

I have looked for the answer to this in the rule book but I cannot find an answer. Proficiency in skills, attacks, saving throws and saving throw dc's scale by level. Does armor class for PC's function in the same way? For example, does a 5th level rogue with leather armor and a dexterity of 18...

There are no inherent restrictions on what alignments get played. Its more of a social agreement between players and DM. That agreement varies widely at each table. The issue with too much agency destroys game fun. I want to worry about game plot and monsters and loot. I don't want to have to...

Monks do not suck. They just do not dominate a single aspect of combat hence people claim, they are terrible. The only possible change I would give monks is a flat bonus to armor that stacks with Dex bonus. Maybe 15+Dex mod. The end result is still a 20 Armor Class but at lower levels the monk...

Honestly, all character classes should have the same base amount of skills and only receive a bonus based upon intelligence. Skill monkeys are not needed anymore as D&D has given up even trying to pretend that skills balance out combat abilities. Let people create the characters they want. If...

That’s a good rationale, however that was not the point of your thread. At least by what I gather, you don’t seem to want any alignment so there can be no restrictions whatsoever. That is a recipe for disaster as it leads to problems. All games need to have agree upon rules in order to function...

By your logic you are restricting the paladin player’s agency. Why is your agency more important than anyone else’s at the table?

You are wrong. Paladins are required to be good. Only the lawful aspect was removed from the class

I really do not understand the issue with monsters. They are monsters. Orcs always being listed as EVIL is not the issue. Stereotyping them into a specific culture over and over seems to be the problem. Monstrous humanoid cultures should be a twisted reflection of the human & semi human cultures...

Having a paladin oath does not restrict player agency. The game can strive to be more than merely murder hobos slaughtering everything in sight

I love this survey because a common post o. This and other forums is how the Champion Fighter is SO underpowered and unfun to play that the class should be erased. The champion fighter is the most popular subclass of the most popular class. Goes to show what forum posters know

Using your bonus action for two weapon fighting balances it out. The only errata I would add to dual wield feat is quick draw for both weapons as part of the bonus action

Wow, is there anytime that this post doesn’t turn into shilling for 13th Age? [

That is completely unnecessary. Just take the entertainer background for your fighter and you are good to go. No need for the fighter to poach abilities or skills from other classes. Not every dude who swings a sword can carry a tune.

I thought order indicated preference. I would give Demons the upvote & yougolths the downvote

The fighter is fine as is withe the various subclasses and does not need improvement. If you want more skills, play a ranger or rogue. No need to poach from other classes any more than has been done already

Demon/Tanari 17 Assuming/Angel 12 Devil/Baatezu. 23 Slaad 21 Genie 15 Yougoloth/Daemon 7 Archons 18 Demodand 20 Guardinals 12 Modrons 19

I would ditch the rogue. The logic leaps of how a dagger in a rogue’s hand is more effective than a fighter’s greatsword attacks are too much. Skills have been so devalued that the rogue need not exist. I would keep fighter & barbarian because they are iconic. Sorcerers , wizards, bards...