Search results

Generally, 2e shields provided a +1 to AC. The body shield (tower shield in more modern parlance) gave +1 AC against melee attacks, and +2 AC against missile attacks (if originating from the front or sides of the shield user).

I don't think they'll be changing much with the core rulebooks beyond including errata as they have been with certain printings. Doubtless the temptation to make significant changes to the problematic language therein exists, and along with those some mechanical changes as well while they're at...

Pretty sure this isn't the reason, but it is a pretty nice houserule on how to handle bonus actions. http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com/2019/11/death-to-tyranny-of-bonus-actions.html

Aside from 1e/2e being, mostly, identical (with a minimum of conversion work needed), I'd say the various editions aren't so much compatible mechanically as they are conceptually. You can take an older module from previous editions and convert it to whichever edition you happen to be running it...

I detest point buy and never use it, nor allow it in (D&D) games I run, so certainly eliminates universal acceptance. ;) I prefer the general randomness of rolled stats. Oh sure, I'll let players fudge a roll here and there to better support the character idea they want to play...

It isn't listed as finesse, but the monk can use unarmed strikes with their Dex, so I suspect that is why Dex is one of the options. Personally, I houseruled unarmed strike as a finesse weapon anyway (honestly I was surprised unarmed strike wasn't a finesse weapon from the beginning).

I currently use a houserule akin to this. PCs can choose a new skill every 4 levels (4th, 8th, etc). Originally I had it so they got a new skill/tool proficiency when they received an ASI via class, but Fighters being the skill monkeys felt entirely off, so switched it to just every 4 levels...

Mechanically, it's negligible. It's more to avoid having a non-rogue be on par with a rogue when it comes to sneak attacks, which admittedly would be only at 1st and 2nd level, and only if a human using the variant human rule took the feat at 1st level. So certainly an exceedingly narrow...

I do prefer the damage at 1d4 for my suggested feat and adding a not-ridiculous-but-useful rider to a successful hit, like denying reactions to the target for a turn. Ultimately, it might just be easier to add a +1 Dex to it with it's 1d4 damage (or extra 1d6 for a Rogue) and call it a feat.

Well the change to d4 was to not step into the realm of being just as good as a rogue at sneak attack (damage-wise) at 1st and 2nd level (after that it's a non-issue). The only real instance (as written in the PHB) that could happen would be with the variant human rule and them taking the feat...

Sounds like out of the frying pan into the fire for those Svirfneblin, given how inherently dangerous the Underdark is! ;)

Definitely duergar for me. These dwarves make being taciturn an art form. They make implacable, truly unyielding foes and marvelously grumpy allies. They are, to me, dwarves that always seem to be having the worst day possible. They are so much fun to roleplay on both sides of the screen for me.

So...3.x, basically? ;)

Certainly many ways to go about it, and my own is hardly gospel. Making it different from SA would be a different feat (to me anyway). My intent is to offer SA to those without it as a class ability, and to enhance those with SA as a class ability (without going overboard on damage or...

I feel offering Sneak Attack as an optional feat isn't stealing the Rogue's thunder. Rogues are great at lots of things other than SA. Sure, they're the undisputed masters of SA (and this feat would augment that mastery if taken by them), but precision/sneaky-styled damage is hardly something...

Orion has shown a rather significant lack of professionalism once freed of any contract stipulations. A "Devil may care" attitude and approach may serve a designer very well, but it holds a very high potential for disaster in a leader (and I think at this point WotC has a vested interest in...

Less so with Lance of Lethargy, since it's only usable once per turn (and I assume on only one ray from the EB if you have more than one ray, though that feels a wee bit ambiguous as written), so the Action Surge won't offer another opportunity to use that particular invocation. Same with Grasp...

"My chef, these treats of yours are delici....GURK...!" thump

It's a tricky design space, no doubt. The Ranger sits in the space of the Fighter, Druid and Rogue and 5e design seems to strive mightily to avoid too much treading into another class' particular niche...so tricky indeed. The Ranger's out of combat focus on the exploration pillar makes a lot...

Concept perhaps, but I skipped 4e (wasn't my cup of tea). Honestly I'd prefer the Ranger to not be so hideously reliant on their spellcasting. Spells that alter terrain and creating impediments (Entangle and the like) but nothing tied so directly to combat (Hunter's Mark and the like). Spells...