Search results

When I said "consequences" I was thinking about the overall design philosophy of the current version of the game. It's just like the designers are going out of their way to protect players from experiencing failure or having to think about meaningful trade-offs. For example, ranged combat main...

Most of the "improvements" are just players power creep and "QoL" stuff that makes choices even less meaningful in a game that was already very light on consequences.

Combat and Tactics added a whole new combat system and reworked the weapon proficiencies system entirely. I would argue that using some of those optional systems felt very much like "2.5"

Death saves have always been a subtype of Saving Throw.

Create? This is literally what Combat Advantage was in 4e.

That's true. I expect JC to say something about the Hide Action soon.

Jeremy Crawford clarified that the Ability Modifier does indeed apply to the damage of the Dual Wielder feat.

RAI means "Rules as intended". It is anything but DM dependant. In most cases, they become clear once you apply common sense. Whe common sense isn't enough, you can always ask the author about the reasoning behind something. I would argue that RAW (rules as written) are much more vulnerable to...

At level 5, with Extra Attack, yes.

It should be three attacks according to the post you have just quoted.

Fast Hands is ridiculous from a fiction perspective and should never be a thing.

I never really understood the problem with Shield. It costs a Spell Slot and those aren't infinite.

Yes, maybe the encumbrance rules aren't perfect, but it's also true that there's nothing in the 2014 rulebooks that explicit tell the DM to ignore carrying capacity during combat. That said, I'm okay with Large dragons not being able to lift cows. Huge and Gargantuans ones on the other hand...

With the 2014 rules, a DM could limit the grappling + moving enemies shenanigans by simply applying the movement penalty for a heavily encumbered character. Now, even encumbrance rules seems to be gone. This isn't looking good at all.

OP even took the time to redirect people with this kind of opinion to the proper thread. Not sure what you're trying to achieve here. On a unrelated note, I believe people with poor reading comprehension should not be playing D&D. Inability to read and comprehend rules puts unnecessary stress...

This is fair. I too try to encourage my players to find creative ways to use their character's abilities. My only gripe is when people try to "Stealth" the problem or "Intimidate" the problem without even trying to engage with the fiction. That's why I believe that moving the detailed skill...

It's even worse than that. If you have War Caster, you can cast a spell on an ally as a reaction whenever they leave your reach.

See? That's why we will never agree on this topic. As I see it, spells and skills are not the same at all. Spells are self contained, limited use powers that allow the player to perform a specific effect and temporarily seize control of the narrative. Ability checks (including Skills) on the...

There's a huge difference between the DM only allowing one feat (Ability Score Improvement) and the game straight out considering feats as optional as a whole, though.

Currently DMing Shadow of the Dragon Queen and the majority of the party (all but the wizards) took Mobile as their first level feat. Not a big deal. I was just thinking that a more OSR leaning campaign (no feats, gritty realism, slow healing, variant encumbrance) won't be viable anymore.