Search results

Sounds idyllic. And without the campaign breaking spells.

They're already fun for me and mine, I don't understand the problem.

Which would be?

Exactly, I'm not into this "...but this goes to eleven..." attitude towards D&D. If the end result is I need to roll a "9" to smack someone, does it matter if the attack is +5 or +25, bigger numbers are just unnecessary bloat. And I think the point is D&D Next should not be breakout, but a...

Bingo, actually 5th Ed is shaping up to be what I wanted 2nd Ed to be (improvements upon 1st Ed and Basic).

Combat being mandatory in D&D. I do agree the game is skewed (heavily) towards it, but not mandatory. 2nd Ed embraced that (less combat focus).

True, they will just have Disadvantage on attacks and saves.

I'm thinking more Bannor/Bloodguard action.

Family Guy style.

Ludicrous.

Hell yeah!

But there are a lot of us that don't use XP, we just level up when we feel appropriate.

Cool, as long as there's a choice.

Nice, digging it, the majority so far is selfishly on my side, but yeah, when I play a Druid, I do not have to change into anything, or have my pet bear, polymorphing can be its own deal.

Yep, bummer 3rd and 4th Ed embraced that... Check out the Bloodguard.

I would also like the choice of playing a druid with not changing into a bear or being Grizzly Adams.

I still don't understand the eastern/oriental/ki etc obsession with the monk some seem to have, not of that is mentioned anywhere with the original monk.

It only mentions not being able to cast spells in armour for the Sorcerer and Wizard, not the spell casting rules (clerics etc). To cast a spell you need one hand free, and be able to speak (so much for mute wizards, or wizards with their tongue cutout), unless exception.

"Tradition is the illusion of permanence." -Woody Allen

I would say as you get those cantrips from a feat, and not the actual wizard class, you're okay in armour, that seems a key aspect of the feat, I can once again have my magic-missile slinging ranger again!