Search results

The Paladin was just as worthless in 3.0, and unlike the Ranger didn't get any improvements worth mentioning for 3.5. The 3.0 Monk was also quite bad, problem was the 3.5 Monk's "fixes" didn't help much.

Sure, ignore every single point I made showing how that is demonstrably not the case. Well, that sure doesn't speak well for 3e when an older edition of the game was less unbalanced without even trying to be. Yes, 2e mechanics were clunky. I've long acknowledged that. But they also...

There is no way you can tell me with a straight face that 3e was more balanced than 2e. For one, the martial-caster divide was by far the worst it ever was in 3e. All those mechanics that 2e spellcasters had to deal with, clunky as they were, helped rein them in at least a little bit. Removing...

My experience with both editions is the exact opposite of what you describe, in both cases.

But there's a difference between a game that's already good but is made even better by a few houserules, vs. a game that's functional only with a boatload of houserules.

3e: Making the numbers more intuitive (i.e. higher numbers are always better). Unifying the experience/level chart was a step in the right direction also, it's just that the 3e classes weren't rebalanced well around that. Tome of Battle was the first step toward getting martial characters to do...

Which is why I'd keep finesse and add light to the allowed SA weapons. Rapier is an overrated weapon for the Rogue, always has been.

I've been proposing adding light weapons to the list of Sneak Attack weapons since 5e released, basically. And when I DM, that's always a house rule.

The problem with that is there just isn't a situation where this is going to work out in your favor compared to simply attacking and hiding twice.

But you can attack and then hide as a bonus-action every round, anyway, and accomplish the same. And you're not just losing the possibility of two crits with your feature. That's the least of what you're losing. You're also losing an entire round's worth of DEX bonus(es) to damage, since crits...

Or just give the Assassin an in-class bonus to initiative to make Alert less of a feat tax. Like I recommended adding proficiency bonus to it in a post above. "Problem" solved. Skipping attacking your action one round to crit the next is the very definition of a trap. You'd end up losing damage...

I actually love the Assassin's 9th and 13th features, but they needed to be ribbons on top of some more combat-pillar features at those levels. They wouldn't have to be much, either. Maybe proficiency bonus to initative at 9th, crits on 19-20 at 13th?

This is literally replacing the current Assassinate with a highly conditional use of the worst cantrip in the game (True Strike). This is so much weaker than the current Assassinate it's not even funny.

Pretty sure he means the auto-crit part.

A huge part of that "investment" is the same investment all Rogues make, namely increasing their DEX. That alone makes that part of Assassinate kick in pretty often. If that's not enough, then there's the Alert feat, which is good anyway; in fact taking that feat means you can Expertise...

But Assassinate does work with adventuring parties. Just not the part that everyone drools about.

There's just as many examples of assassins in literature and history who make it a point to avoid direct confrontation. Going pure Assassin Rogue is meant to model those kinds of assassins. However, those assassins you describe can pretty easily and effectively be portrayed in D&D terms as some...

The Assassin's best friend is a Druid or Ranger with Pass without Trace.

There wasn't a single 3.5 multiclass build that ever ended up being as strong as a pure Cleric, Druid or Wizard. No, not even Pun-Pun.

I actually like this article for the most part. Reminds me of a much less broken version of 1e psionics. And I really don't see Psionic Talent die size requiring any more effort to keep track of than spell slots. shrug The Psi Knight and Soulknife are well done. I'd rather see a full Psion...