Search results

I don't know how you quantify whether a modification is "fundamental" or not. IIRC, there were fighter kits that didn't use armor (kensei) and thief kits without backstab (swashbuckler). So why not a wizard without a spellbook? It could have been done in about three sentences and a table...

As a design exercise, I don't think it'd be that hard to design a wizard kit that said "You don't have a spellbook, you do something else instead." Heck, I've done it. And from a certain point of view, this is exactly what the 3E sorcerer was -- it certainly didn't have much in the way of...

Well, you know they're gonna bring Conan into the MCU eventually, so that'll make the barbarian especially easy to explain.

A self-selected pool of sixty-nine votes tells you this?

You have to consider the sources of the stories we read. Archaic/classical Greeks were individuals like everybody else and had differing opinions of their gods. Homer, for instance, is notoriously not a fan; you can find later writers complaining about how unflattering his portrayal is. A pious...

From a worldbuilding standpoint, it raises the question of how common 18th-level wizards are, and whether the status and power level of an 18th-level wizard is consistent with this NPC's characterization as (so I understand it) a nobody and pushover.

It should never be done without the player's knowledge, of course, but even in the 5E core rulebooks there are one or two places where it says something to the effect of "the PC goes insane and is now an NPC under the DM's control". So it's not exactly unprecedented. It's effectively just...

It's not /3. It doesn't say it has to be an even split. You just distribute the damage as you please. And if there's one criticism I have of the Unity cleric, it's that the two-person bond ability looks like a relic of the old Love theme, and Unity should be more about larger groups than pairs...

I believe the intent of this thread is to attempt to understand the consequences.

You could even split the difference and have 1st-level spells like e.g. "enchant wand of fire bolts" with a a 5-gp material component cost that, well, created a 50-charge wand of fire bolts.

Hmmm... What if spellcasting foci cost about as much as two and a half quivers of arrows, came with fifty charges, and casting a cantrip drained one charge? Very old school.

Does this sound to anybody else like we're being asked to pay for the privilege of writing content?

My impulse as DM would be to say ring of protection and cloak of protection don't stack, but that's a reflex from 3E days and not 5E RAW. How would a Forge cleric splash interact with the artificer infusions? I'm away from books and can't check the exact wording.

Ookay. I can shrug off one hostile accusation, but this is becoming a pattern. I'm walking away now.

I don't know how you run charms, but "advantage on Charisma checks" implies to me "they're not going to do anything that a normal Charisma check wouldn't convince them to do".

Okay. For me, the first game mechanic that springs to mind to represent "being desirable" would be advantage on Charisma checks. Which is literally the effect of the charmed condition. The swashbuckler rogue charms people with Panache, to give a concrete example.

Per the rules, it still just does 1d10 + Cha modifier damage, though.

I think your "for some reason" remark is telling: it's more like Twilight is retroactively treading on the toes of this domain, which is a much more natural conceptual fit for family/hearth deities, as @Twiggly the Gnome mentioned.

Yeah, something like that, but if you have the power to change your sword into a dragon, you can still just do that without bothering with the dancing at all. It makes me scratch my head.

I am randomly really curious about the Immutable Form ability on the dancing object. That's an awfully specific immunity in an otherwise very generic statblock. Was there some abuse that the writer thought was important enough to try to prevent?