Search results

Easier at creation or in play? Warlocks are easier to create in 2024 than they were in 2014 but are the hardest to create and easiest to play. Terminology changed. Bards and Sorcerers might call themselves spells prepared casters but only get to change what they've prepared on level up. And...

OK. We've got two different groupings here; Wizard vs Sorcerer and Cleric vs Druid Sorcerer: A blast mage. Their spells are roughly 2/3 damage, 1/3 utility and they are almost entirely lacking in summons and rituals. If you want to be a blaster play a sorcerer. Sorcerers are the best blasters...

For the record: Remarkable Athlete down to level 3 to go with Improved Critical - and it's now Advantage in athletics and initiative. Huge buff Second fighting style down to 7. Blind Fighting is actually looking nice here. Heroic Inspiration (i.e. a reroll) in combat every turn is a huge new...

Oh indeed. And if the DM uses divine intervention to cripple a character by taking away their spellcasting then they should re-read that section and realise that Being God and being on a power trip is something they can't do in everyday life. And by doing it in game they are the ones leading the...

My fundamental problem here is that I have a very different understanding of "good" than EGG; he advocated that it was entirely in line with Lawful Good to make prisoners convert them kill them before they could backslide. (Source) And given that Gygax' understanding of Lawful Good is close to...

On the other hand warlock invocations are great in many cases. WotC may have fallen from their 4e high of granting useful non-magical abilities - but is vastly better than anything pre-4e.

If I had a story as flat as the original cut of Star Wars I wouldn't. Lucas put together an amazing team. But the Lucas of "Han shot first", "Sand. I hate Sand." And "The Death Star just hangs there in space doing nothing before the second trench run so the editors are going to splice in an...

I find this approach extremely flawed from a game and story point of view - and with no better a grasp of characterisation than George Lucas has. (Lucas was a visionary - but his characterisation was little better than his dialogue).

The thing is that the gambling penalties in question are boring. I've no objection to gambling within RP (I'd argue as much gambling happens in the average Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark session as the average D&D campaign). But Level Drain is the penalty equivalent of the +X weapon. Yes...

I don't hate the concept outside disliking tracking slots in general. I do however think it's a hard one to implement and of the three we have only the paladin does it passably well.

I've had a player chime in and agree that they deserved it. Demon offered gifts, paladin wished for a Holy Avenger, demon vanished and came back with a Holy Avenger ... still held in a plate-covered arm, dripping blood from the shoulder. The arm of the previous paladin who wielded it. (And no I...

You can't miss what you didn't have. Who other than a few grognard DMs does it lead to a negative play experience for?

Not that I would ever play anything like a Paladin of the Blood of Vol - when not being read in to what the inner circle of the cult actually believes... The thing is that the new classes I want are ones that push the boat out. I don't want the tsunami of 3.X or 4e classes that were all...

Quick and dirty guide: Wizard backgrounds: Acolyte for Healing Word and Guidance (might work very well with an abjurer), Criminal for Alert for the sweet initiative buff, and Scribe if you think you have to solo carry the intelligence skills and want to be skilled at other things (I don't...

In general yes. And this is somewhere I agree with you. But I'd argue that clerics should be dealing more with their churches and orders than directly with their deities. Especially when you cut off so many avenues of roleplay. If you want to deal directly with a patron then play a warlock...

It's been over 15 years since gods cutting off access to spells has been part of the current PHB or DMG. It is therefore emphatically not part of the default and is therefore either (a) something the DM needs to explicitly pitch in advance, (b) hidden well within the small print of the setting...

On the page I have open right in front of me (page 49) the top of the right hand column is "Variant: Training To Gain Levels" and then gives a suggested time and cost in days. Below it is "Level Advancement Without XP". So that's a yes.

No. That's largely on Crawford who's not that great with rules (see: numerous Sage Advices) and not that great a communicator. But don't assume bad faith.

Which do not normally include the DM saying "I have altered the contract. Pray I don't alter it further. Literally pray to your god." and stripping away the powers of a cleric or paladin. And haven't since 2008. The problem here is that the DM doesn't want to stick to the implicit contract of...

As I've said there are a range of approaches presented on e.g. session prep and worldbuilding (including both a couple of methods to homebrew and Greyhawk as an example of a setting). It shows methods of squares, hexes, and theatre of the mind and multiple approaches to XP and levelling up. Yes...