Search results

This. Potions are not just "bottled spells" in 5e. They do their own thing. The fact they often have similar effects to spells does not mean they act like spells or follow any of the rules that govern spells.

I would play a fighter and take the dueling fighting style. It gives you +2 damage with one-handed weapons while you have nothing else in your other hand. Flavor that as wielding the "katana" two-handed for extra damage.

I agree, this is reading a lot into it. But what other plausible explanation is there for Mearls tweeting that shields would apply? My guess is that at some point they had a concept like "base AC," which was set by your armor. Some armors would let you add dex, others wouldn't (this is in...

I feel like what was intended was basically, "you now have chainmail, and act as though you're proficient with it." That would mean: 1) Your minimum AC is 16, barring unusual penalties. 2) Dex adds nothing to this, since you don't add dex while wearing heavy armor. 3) Shields and cover and...

I agree that by a literal reading, there is a clear right answer. However, what is unclear is whether a literal reading was intended. An example or two, or a few sentences explaining what it does and does not stack with, would dramatically enhance clarity.

I would say that the definition of vague is when different people routinely interpret it different ways. That's the case here. Edit to add: part of making something clear is adding examples and further explanation where necessary, particularly when the result is counter-intuitive. A literal...

I agree, the rule is unnecessarily vague. Some people will argue that that this a feature of 5e, not a bug, arguing essentially that ambiguity is supposed to be a tool to increase the DM's power by relying on "rulings, not rules." I find that argument incredibly bogus. If the designers want...

The most ambiguous case to me is cover. It seems to me like by RAW you would add cover to your regular AC, then check if that was higher than 16. If so, bark skin does nothing. If it's still lower than 16, your AC becomes 16. It means that most barkskinned characters don't benefit from half...

I'm not terribly familiar with fencing, but it seems like a lot of the stuff you're looking for could be covered pretty well by the battle master's maneuver mechanic. Are there specific things you feel are missing from the battle master maneuver list that are required to make the styles work?

I haven't seen the wizard in play enough to say for sure if they suck or not, but there is something that hasn't been brought up in regards to a wizard's combat effectiveness. In a fight, the amount of damage you deal is important, but who you deal that damage to and when you deal that damage...

Yup, missed that. I really should have taken proficiency in reading comprehension I guess.

I actually don't think the moon druid's unlimited transformations are that good at level 20. Yes, it means he's almost unkillable in animal form. But by that point, he's giving up a lot of stuff to do that, specifically all his spells. The problem at low levels is that the Druid doesn't have...

As I see it, normal fighting in d&d includes a certain amount of grappling/wrestling. That's why there's opportunity attacks, for instance. It's all abstracted away into regular old attacking. The actual grapple mechanic is there for the purpose of truly immobilizing enemies at the cost of an...

It seems that we've reached the part of the internet discussion where we throw around insults until a moderator tells us to shut up, so I'm gonna back out now :P. We clearly don't see eye-to-eye and aren't going to, so let's just leave it at that, shall we?

As far as I'm aware, you can just attack normally while grappling in 5e. So if you succeed on the grab the target is "grappled," then you can attack them freely. So you can totally do the suplex or chokeslam thing, that's just a successful grapple followed by one or more attacks.

Sorry, I was responding to Sacrosanct who was implying (or really stated outright) my party and I were childish because we had a problem with the moon druid. Obviously if it's not a problem at your table, it's not a problem, and you should carry on. Don't fix what isn't broken. I don't mean to...

At level 2, the moon druid broke my game. That is a fact of what happened at my table. We laughed it off because we're adults, not children, but we also recognized that the moon druid has the ability to basically nullify the combat pillar of the game at level 2. In my experience, children are...

Honestly, I haven't played with the barbarian yet, so I can't say what it's like at the table. But it seems like a very strong ability, and may need a nerf. Although resistance is less potentially game-breaking, because unlike with free hp you are taking at least some manner of lasting damage...

The moon circle druid is not equivalent to someone doing a lot of roleplaying while everyone else sits back. It's more like the mechanical equivalent of one of the players yelling over everyone else constantly when they're trying to speak (at second level, at least). That's not to say the...

This is a weak argument. A single session dominated by a single player is one too many, and may very well cause the game to fall apart and never reach higher levels at all. As a DM, if I ran into this while playing and didn't know about it as a potential problem, I would probably just can the...