Search results

Well, ask the DM. It is how I do it, other DMs I know do it, and even @Stormonu suggested the same thing because, frankly IMO, it is the way it should be. 🤷‍♂️ It certainly isn't "too strong" or anything, even granting half-caster access to cantrips. Having to use your fighting style for it...

It isn't really "exciting" until the end approaches, then combat becomes exciting if the outcome is close enough to be in doubt. Until that point it is just a back-and-forth exchange until the averages play out and the most likely outcome (90+% as victory) is achieved. This is why many players...

Yep. Paladins get cantrips as Clerics do and Rangers get cantrips as Druids... no reason not to IMO.

LOL, yeah I forgot that is RAW. My house-rules removed that a LONG, LONG time ago! :) So, any DM can also remove it (giving Paladins access to Cleric cantrips--which they should have had all along...). ;)

Nope. This is the best way (easiest) IMO. With Tasha's adding the clause to such feats: I would imagine most DMs would agree that gaining Wrathful Smite via Magic Initiate would allow you cast it using available spell slots as well as once via the feat.

But the heft isn't ever as significant IMO. And I included, for example, the PC being arrested. However, unless you pose efficient force to stop the PCs from the "direct route" (i.e. combat) to solving a problem, rarely with players look for another solution. If the PC was arrested, for...

But even in your examples, it is binary. All you've done is include conditions. Those conditions are either met or not... still binary. That isn't to say someone could imply they will follow the conditions and then renege, and have consequences possibly.

The funny thing is that for many combat isn't very exciting in the attack roll (the d20) by itself. It is fairly well established that most PC will hit 65% of the time (+/-5%). It is actually somewhat predictable, which is why creating encounters to a particular difficulty isn't too hard. What...

I find it interesting people want a social system that is not just pass/fail when everything in the game is pass/fail really. Sure, you can have "degrees of passing or failing", but somewhere there has to be that line when you move from some level of success to some level of failure. Perhaps...

I MC my characters every time so this time I am going to keep it single classed. I do like half-elves and rangers aren't often played in this group, so that's a thought... :) However, I would have to avoid the classic scout-type ranger. I play rogues A LOT, and I thought about the Expert route...

Yeah, it gets to me as well... just worrying about one PC instead of pretty much the entire multiverse the players are in! Unfortunately, since I am in two groups, I am still DMing for one while I play in the other. Still, a bit of a reprieve. :)

Well, as a 5E clone I expect a lot of verbatim from the PHB/ SRD or whatever (and there IS TONS!). However, I found the layout annoying right off the bat. It is quoted at 500+ pages, so I was excited for that, but the large(ish) font and spacing bloated it. Also, it is set to print at 5.5 x 8.5...

Just bought it and on a quick look over I am really disappointed. I am hoping when I have more time I will find some value in this, otherwise it is a waste of $4... :( Live and learn, I guess...

Thanks! I am looking forward to it, believe me! :D Yeah, I am avoiding the bard for this reason. Otherwise, utility skills and spells would be awesome. One role I don't want is the "scout", though. Let someone else learn how to do it well.

Mostly utility, whether through skills (such as rogue) or via utility spells. Oh, no worries, that is always a given. When I DM, what I say is LAW, and when I play, what the DM says is LAW. I don't tread on their authority, ever. And yes, if they ask for my advice, I prefer to offer it after...

Not very effective -- I have played for so long very little surprises me or catches me off guard. All the players are newer, so I want them to make the decisions. I'll just ride along for the fun of it and help out as I can. I was considering even just playing a Sidekick class for this reason...

Hello all, 95% of the time or more, I typically DM for 2 groups and soon I will relish in the chance to play once again, but I am curious if any of you might have some insight. First, I am a fan of the core "original" races (a la Tolkien and AD&D), but might consider others (please no...

Tastes differ. While I like some of the things 2E did, many times none of it really made any difference to the game. If I want lore, etc., I just come up with it and do whatever makes the most sense to the setting... However, if you want a 2-page maximum layout, it should always be on facing...

Well, "good" is subjective of course... It will not be good for me, and I won't see it. I doubt I will even bother with it via Netflix or on TV in years to come. The previews have convinced me it will not be the sort of fantasy movie that appeals to me.