Search results

Martial damage is already top tier in 2024, and martial classes other than Ranger arguably OP in terms of damage in most games at high level. IMO I don't think there is a good reason to increase their damage.

I talk to my players during every game and we talk at length about the rules we are going to play with in session 0. Their feelings are generally that we should play by the rules we agreed to play by. I know that factually and they are unanimous in that in terms of a general position. With...

I came here to tell people the feats changed, and explain how we realized it. Not to tell them my PC was bummed about it.

That is not it, it is more like I am not going to do this because I said I wasn't going to do it in session 0, we will change it in the next game. I do this, in session 0. I find that discussions like this in the middle of the campaign sometimes cause problems. You presume everyone in the...

I don't know I am a pretty experienced DM and so are many of the DMs I play with and those who switched to 2024 are using that guideline. Based on my experience, I think as a starting point it is solid advice period, certainly any table can play with any variations they want. Just like a table...

No that is not true, usually it was done with a bonus action or haste or action surge or they had an aura up (before an aura was technically a thing) or it was to get positioning. Most of the time disengaged is used in games I play as an action or bonus action the intent is to move past...

That is not the only time they said it. I agree that the context was using the 2024 rules. I think he is simply explaining how to do it and how it is intended to work.

Sure, you can do anything you want in your game.

All I am doing is telling people how WOTC said backwards compatibility is supposed to work, I've used that method in my games and it works well. I don't know that they actually said the opposite, if you read the article I linked, JC says it is backwards compatible, that is what the whole...

Yes we were told that, at least twice in interviews with JC and one of their other guys and to be clear the message was they are compatible and this is how to use the new rules with the old. Back in August-September 2024 when it was being rolled out this is what they said and that is what I...

Provided they are not more than one size larger, are not over their carrying capacity and the person carrying has a free hand. That would be a grapple and all the rules for grappling would apply (the one being carried could intentionally fail the check). PCs that are one size smaller can also...

That still would not fix it to like it was. It is not about disengaging next to or within reach of the guy with Sentinel, and whether that is 5 feet or reach is little difference. It is about disengaging somewhere else on the battlefield, far away from the guy with Sentinel and then walking...

We were told repeatedly by WOTC that if something is reprinted/changed you should only use the new reprinted version. I realize that level of detail is lost to many (most?) and it also is not written in the 2024 rulebooks like it should be. If you follow this though it is highly compatible...

I don't understand what you are saying. Sentinel no longer lets you attack enemies who take the disengage action except when they take that action and only if they take it when within 5 feet. It is not about "moving away" it is about moving right on past you and ignoring you like you are not...

It is not just reach weapons. Even if I am holding a reach weapon, someone can disengage from 30 feet away and walk right by you (assuming enough movement). The old Sentinel was completely different in how it applied, you were still able to attack enemies who disengaged, regardless of where...

I don't know. I think it is unfair to bend RAW to suit one player and to make that decision in the middle of a campaign.

It is not just being within reach. The issue is taking disengage eliminates all opportunity attacks for that entire turn. So Rogue takes disengage at the start of his turn and then runs past 5 enemies to attack the Wizard.

We use the recommendation that if you use the 2024 rules anything that is changed is changed to the new version. So the old version of the Mobile feat still exists since it was not replaced, but the old version of Sentinel does not.

No that is not really fair to other players who understood the feats and made choices with that in mind. Will consider it in session 0 in future games though.

One of the PCs in a game I DM is running a PAM/Sentinel Fighter. The traditional pole arm guy with a 10 foot reach. Bad guy approached and the Fighter made his AOO, dropping move to 0 or so I thought, as did the player. One of the other players at the table pointed out that the PAM attack...