Search results

Me either. TBH I think the players who actually use HM extensively are the ones most unsatisfied with the class.

IME they are dealing substantially more damage than Valor and Bladesinger from level 7 onward in the 2024 rules. They also deal substantially more at level 5 and generally more at level 1-4. Level 6 is the only level they are outdamaged by a single class Valor or Bladesinger IME. I've seen EK...

I am a Ranger fan, I play more Rangers than any other class, both in 5E and in 2024 and I did not agree, I don't think Rangers need a damage boost at all, there are other classes players should play if they are DPR focused. In 5E I never played a Ranger that had HM past level 4. Also in 10...

Not in 2024. While there is some debate about what constitutes a "Wizard Cantrip" for War Magic, I don't think even the most liberal interpretation would include Eldritch Blast.

No, what I believe he is saying is using Truestrike with extra attack generally requires two different abilities making it more difficult to optimize than Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade which only require one ability, hence why they should be left legacy. Additionally GFB and BB are...

That is kind of what I meant when I siad WOTC was enamored with the spell. I think you are bound to be disappointed if you try to make Hunter's Mark into something that a Ranger can rely on as a central component of the class function in play at high levels focusing on Hunter's Mark to make the...

That seems way to fiddley and complex. I just don't get why everyone, including WOTC designers, are so enamored with HM and why it is so important to prop it up or make it better. Just let HM die on the vine, like we do other crap spells and give Rangers the option to prepare a separate...

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...