Search results

It's a worthwhile question. Allow me to make it fuzzier: What if you have to have a Weapon to make Opportunity Attacks? And not a melee weapon, either. Hand-Crossbow back-shooting would work fine. But it would mean you could run around a dragon without getting clawed on your turn. Where a...

EXACTLY. Add in Legendary actions and dragons become stickier than the most Polearm-focused Sentinel feat having Fighter in the world. Moving Bonus-Action functions over to Reactions, and having Monsters use reactions for stuff -other- than opportunity attacks, would make combat a lot more...

There's an old joke that goes: In Heaven the cooks are French, the policemen are English, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and the bankers are Swiss. In Hell the cooks are English, the policemen are German, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and the bankers are...

Opportunity attacks are uncommon because movement is pointless when you have someone within range of your attacks unless you are in severe danger. Think of it like a stripped down videogame AI. Am I near a target I can attack ---> Yes ---> Attack Enemy ---> Is the enemy dead? ---> No ---> End...

I wouldn't mind expanding "Reaction" to consume all or most of the bonus-action options. It's not like opportunity attacks are common or anything in most encounters. It would also make Smiting into a reaction to landing a hit, raging a reaction to being in combat or needing to overcome some...

So if Spell+Attack on the same turn isn't a problem, why is it a problem for a Fighter-Wizard that they need their actions split to "Fighter Action" and "Wizard Action" with no overlap?

Specifically, he doesn't want people who are multiclassed to do things from both classes in the same turn. Which is certainly a valid opinion to have... but I think it's bad design. Playing half your character every other turn just doesn't feel very interesting to me. The Eldritch Knight...

Eh... Mike Mearls is entitled to his opinion. I like bonus actions as a designer because it's another very simple lever to play with when designing character classes, feats, spells, etc. Move and Swing is... y'know. Fine, I guess. Gives everyone very little options on how to spend their turn...

Oh. Well. Then split the difference. If you like "Fighters" having traditions of combat, let players describe their tradition and give them a pool of exertion and let them freestyle how their character does various things. Then tell them it costs 1 exertion (2 if it's big) and let 'em do it...

https://a5e.tools/rules/fighter Good news! The A5e Fighter gets to train in special combat styles and do cool maneuvers without doing Wuxia stuff. (Though you could if you wanna). Wanna be a fancy fencer disarming enemies and carving the letter Q into their outfits? You got it! Big burly brute...

I love how you're just telling people how I think rather than, y'know, -reading- what I'm saying. LOVE THAT. There's certainly nothing bothersome about having people define your internal universe from their external perspective. The point of naming a character class in a TTRPG is largely to be...

https://a5e.tools/rules/adept How about this as an alternative? No "Ki". No "Immortal Master" conceit. You can build outright barroom brawlers and burly orcs wearing spiked gauntlets to pummel their enemies into submission. You also get combat maneuvers for different martial arts styles that...

While, yes, Robin Hood and other thieves were called "Rogues" they were also called Knaves and Varlets and Vagabonds and worse. Outside of RPGs and stuff the definition of rogue -still- doesn't include "Thief". It's about dishonesty and aberrant or unpredictable actions. They weren't called...

At this point I'm absolutely going Blackguard instead of Knave due to it's specific historical connection to the game. Though I might include a note that Blackguards are Knaves and Varlets as well 'cause I think it's amusing! Just hope people are down with the "Occult Warrior" concept in place...

That's an unfortunate hill to die on, Lall. But it's up to you to pick them for yourself. No one else is going to buy into your absolutely rotten definition of altruism or helping others as 'subservience', though. So you'll have to die on it, alone. At least you'll have the view uncrowded.

Randian "Objectivism" (I really hate to use that word to describe it, because there's nothing objective about it) actually outright -states- that people with wealth and power will act altruistically out of their own enlightened self interest. But that it will only ever be on -their- terms, and...