Search results

Ok. So the PCs defeat this enemy wizard with this unique spell. The wizard of the party takes the enemy wizard's spellbook and wants to copy this unique spell to their own spellbook. Can they, and if not, why? Same thing if they just befriend a NPC wizard and ask to copy the spell.

No, I mostly agree with @Lanefan. There could be rare cases where conditions of being able to acquire the capability are so specific, that it would be unlikely* that a PC could be able to repeat them, but such things should be extremely rare. We are talking about basic stock opponents, those...

We are talking about how NPC rules are written in general. Of course we are talking about multiple NPCs. I mean there is rather obvious middle ground where the NPCs are streamlined, but still use same spells, weapons etc than the PCs. Small disparities are not usually apparent. A bunch of NPCs...

There is no reason one could not make these exceptional people as characters. Also, if someone is exceptional and rare, I would imagine it is the PCs, rather than the CR 2 Mage Apprentice with their Arcane Burst. Like c'mon, it is a basic enemy that often appears in large numbers. They are not...

I agree with this as well. I've said many times that CR is a joke.

It is pretty reasonable take that a class based on Faustian bargain implies that such bargain matters. Like that is the core of the identity of the class. And it doesn't need to be a conflict, but yes, it should matter. And indeed if cleric's religion never matters or if nature does not matter...

One thing about the NPCs using same spells, same weapon stats etc than the PCs is that it makes modifying them easier and more intuitive. Swap one martial weapon to another, swap a spell to another of the same level and so forth.

Then again, having a patron is what sets warlock apart from the sorcerer, so if the patron is just some random even in the past that is no longer relevant, then thematically you might as well be a sorcerer. And it does not help that the books do not do much to clarify how the relationship with...

What product is that?

Yeah, this is annoying. I often end up modifying NPC statblocks to make them more PC-like, and I do not love that the 5.5 design has taken PCs and NPCs even further apart. I would really like to have simplified PC-like statblocks for NPCs of various classes and levels. You can streamline things...

Yep. I commented on this on another thread yesterday. And the easiest way to get the players to adopt such a historical mindset is simply to have that stuff to be real in the game, backed by the rules.

This question makes only sense if one assumes a moral framework in which things are good or evil independent of the context. Another framework is that the most moral thing one can do in a situation is good, even though in some other context where better options were available that same thing...

How D&D handles religion is of course in many ways weird, and common magic certainly would warp societies in myriad of ways. But I still actually think that objectively real gods that actually affect things helps us get closer to the mindset of people of the past. Atheism is modern concept, and...

I don't think they consciously chose any story. They had fluff they slapped some rules on, with little thought what those rules represent. Warlock mechanics are what they are because someone had idea for alternate spell progression and it got slapped on that class without any thematic...

The whole innate/learned distinction is something that do not exist in most fiction, as often magic & similar are both. You need to have some sort of innate spark, and then you are trained to use it. And I'm pretty sure it was so in D&D too, until they needed to invent sorcerer for 3e because...

Money. You said money. Money literally works the same regardless of the source. Surely this is the one who got cheat codes via a pact? Certainty this rapidly recharging magic and always-on magical features signify an innately magical being? But clerics channel power of literal gods, so...

Which perhaps is a level of conflation that is fine in a fictional context. But I feel these days in D&D anything pre-WWII gets conflated into "olden times" and thrown in the mix without rhyme or reason.

I did combine warlock and sorcerer into one class in my game. But the issue with too many classes is that they also rob design time and space from other classes. You cannot just achieve "fewer classes" design by taking "many classes" game and banning some of the classes. Classes that are...

It literally does though, so that's hella weird comparison. How it is different? Like if we examine the metaphysical composition of a sorcerer with demonic blood and warlock who was infused with demonic power as result of a pact, what is different about them? Also, I totally get wanting...

Which sounds exactly like a warlock.