Search results

It is now and forever the Ouija Bard if it EVER sees print outside of UA at my table. :LOL:

Well as explanations go that's a mighty fine hair to split, but sure, I can go with that. :p

That patron/subclass is screaming to have a vulnerability to radiant damage once it gains the Mortal Husk ability (saturated with necrotic energy and all that). I know D&D no longer favours actual disadvantages like that, but yeesh, does it scream for it, flavour-wise.

I don't care if it's testing the water for sensitivity or not. It's an argument I find generally eye-rolling for a genre that explores imagination. My comment was meant to suggest that while some/many view this as a medium/fortune teller, I see it as a shaman...which I find all just a rose by...

I'm guessing her name is also Rose? ;)

I already allow it in my games. The kensei is a weapon master, operative word being weapon. They aren't a most weapons master, or only one-handed weapons master....they are a weapon master. Period. That's just my own interpretation, and others are naturally free to view it however they wish...

So basically a shaman (rose by another name) and necromancy a la warlock. :/ Options are good, so I appreciate them on that level....but seriously, if they're willing to take another stab at a damn patron (Undying -> Undead patron) and yet still we have the gawd awful PHB ranger...well...

There's plenty of things I'd change throughout all the classes, like the Wizard schools' eye-rollingly stupid "you get your ink and quills for half-price to write in your spellbook, and you can cram like a university student". Honestly, for a class devoted to magic...and they waste space on...

The marketing equivalent of a forum bump :LOL:

While I enjoy the Sorcerer and Warlock classes for what they are, I've sometimes wondered if they'd both be better off smooshed together into a single class. Pacts with planar or other-worldly powers seem....well, remarkably inconsequential as implemented for the Warlock. I mean, honestly...

Oh I agree completely. I just witnessed that kind of insanity pretty much exclusively with 3.x/PF1e in the FLGS before I finally stopped going. I couldn't stop shaking my head when I'd see it happening.

I didn't find it died when WotC took over, but it become something very different. Oh it still had all the right terms, the basic mechanics were there (and cleaned up to boot), better organized and 3e felt very much like a cohesive system whereas 2e felt like a hodge podge of various mechanics...

If anything, I'd like the 5e chassis to be used, but certain systems changed. I'd like to see 3.x style saving throws again. Reflex, Will and Fortitude worked and honestly I feel they better fit the 5e simpler approach than the current method. Having one for each ability score guarantees...

I generally hew to small to medium sizes, since I fashion my own. I've run official ones, like Ruins of Undermountain (2e), but generally find them unsatisfying (mainly because I can never remember all the details and have to refer to the books often...which tends to derail the momentum my...

Council of Wyrms (Player) - Played when it was first released for a few games. It was fun in a novelty kind of way, but not something we ever played again. Dragonlance (Player) - For a friend's campaign who adored the setting (I never much cared for it beyond the War of the Lance novels)...

Very well could be, as I burned out on 3PP content during the 3.x/PF era and generally pay little attention to it now. Not entirely, since I even mention Monster Manual Expanded I & II in my original post, but I've found 3PP content to be far too much of a wild card in terms of quality and...

As the title says, I'd love just a simple, straight-forward Monster Manual II. No attached adventures. No over-long, fluffy prose...just a book full of monsters like MM1. I have no wish to see WotC stop their current means of output, as many enjoy them...but since I don't use published...

It isn't needed (at my table). Those were just possible purposes, if the player of a monk (or NPC monk) chooses some or all of those skills, and the bonus would be their proficiency bonus added to any checks for their rolls. Role-play takes care of the rest for us.

They certainly serve a purpose in my games. They are the philosophers, warrior poets, spiritual counsellors, alternative clergy for certain faiths, teachers of matters academic and martial, and so on. What purpose do they serve? That is the very core of their existence in my games...they ask...

Can't say I'm a fan. This leans more into a simulation approach to the rules, rather than the abstract (which I personally favour). I mean, your table to do as you please, of course. If you feel 5e needs some more simulation, power to you, but 5e isn't a particularly good platform for...