Search results

First, let me ask that we please not get into another bitch-fest about how adequately/poorly written the Stealth rules are. If you can't remain focused on the specific questions in this post, please go elsewhere to argue about the quality of the product. Thanks. In PH Appendix A, it tells me...

I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) claim 5e is perfect, but the issues you mention do not call for anything like an entire revision of the rulebooks. A simple errata/clarifications page would work just fine for these and most other issues.

I was referring more to this. I did not presume any particular alignment. I consider alignment to be artificial nonsense, anyway.

No, it really is clear. I guess a lot of people try to bring real-world definitions into the picture, but it's important to stick to the game definitions. Athletics is used to move your body with brute force, hence Strength. Acrobatics is for feats of agility and finesse, hence Dexterity...

I really, REALLY wish people would stop saying "Athletics or Acrobatics." They are not the same, and they should never apply to the same situation (except for escaping a grapple, where there are different ways to accomplish the same goal). Diving (and safe falling in general) is clearly...

Anyone who thinks 5e needs a Revised Edition is someone who will never be happy with any gaming product, ever. There is no point in trying to appease such people.

I hope there are repercussions for that. This is the sort of behavior that should really come back to haunt them.

Most evokers will never bother with the feat because their focus is on damage, not spells with a duration. Conjurers can ignore the feat because their concentration on conjuration spells cannot be broken by damage. Spellcasters who are good at avoiding damage may choose not to take the feat...

I don't think you know what "feat tax" means. If every member of a class had to take the feat in order to be effective, it would qualify as a feat tax. But since you don't have to cast concentration spells in the first place, you don't have to take the feat. Would you also claim that Great...

I'll just note here that inherent bonuses were not a part of the core 4e rules. They arose years later because DMs demanded a way to untether their campaigns from the fixed-loot treadmill. Of course, this also laid bare the pointless escalation of bonuses that was so central to that edition, so...

No offense intended, but you have some very strange ideas about what goes on in an MMO. (I'm sure you are proud that you don't know more, and I believe you are arguably better off not being tainted by such knowledge. But I'm about to taint you anyway.) In WoW, your faction is not so much chosen...

The method and extent of attribution was probably in the artists' contract when they agreed to let WotC use their work in its book. They are -- almost by definition -- not offended by any of this. If it had bothered them as much as it seems to bother some readers, they could have told WotC to...

I scored 3 crits against the same player in one combat last night. This was in no way atypical. If you are dishing out additional penalties on top of the extra damage, you are either a sadist or you don't understand math.

Indeed, this is why spellcasters love the Resilience feat.

Exactly. No matter what rule they make in this regard, a majority of DMs are going to either house-rule or disallow it, so why bother?

Sorry ... those cantrips are so similar, I often conflate them in my head.

I'm late to the thread, I guess, but I'll go ahead and second the sentiments that Revenge is weaksauce, and G1-G3 are some of the best modules ever made. Wish I still had my 1e copy -- I'd convert that and run it in my current group!

At level 20, good luck finding a monster that isn't resistant or immune to poison. So most of the time, it's still not going to matter.

There are exactly two spells that are "up to," but not concentration. It's not a big deal. Maybe just make a note on those two cards, and you're good.

The DMG has rules for lasting injuries. Why not just use that?