Search results

who needs a judge when I can be always right?

Bold of you to assume I read books.

as a lawyer, I have to disagree on the "no one wins an argument" point. If that was true I'd starve. :p :ROFLMAO:

I really liked the identity of the 4e gnome. I tought it fit really well in Eberron.

I think the beastmaster template could work well in multiple classes (the updated one). Artificer makes good use of a robot pet, maybe a warlock could be cool too......

Ahhh, the sweet sweet taste of giving up on a pointless argument with someone that doesn't want a discussion, just wants to be right, and then another person with more resolve than you makes the stubborn one quit on the discussion :ROFLMAO:

I'd presume that they don't see Aragorn as a rogue.

I agree that there were a lot of reasons for a redesign, but my point is that they still made wild shape weaker, while making it more relevant in the class features, and continuing to disconnect it from spellcasting. The playtest druid is a rope being pulled in two opposite directions, wild...

I agree with the THP argument, but if for some reason they continue going without it, you could put a concentration-like mechanic on tiny forms that makes them less resilient.

It's so weird to me how they decided to design this druid, they pick the least played class in the PHB, make wild shape worse, than focus almost all of the classes features on wild shape...

I see they were never asked about their opinions on halflings and gnomes...

I don’t really like JC’s reasoning for the high level tiny shape. If the problem is it’s resilience, change the stat block in that form to have low AC and a concentration-like feature to reverse after taking damage.

I don’t know if I’m not being clear but I never said you can’t skip mechanics from any purpose. You are moving the goal posts. My problem with the ranger design is that it deals in absolutes, it takes one of the supoosed three pillars of the game and makes one of the main narrative tropes of it...

Well, can’t you see the difference of a party building their characters to optimize and effect versus a charcter class receiveing it for free at a low level?

If a party goes trough the hurdle of optmizing their survival checks to "obscene levels" they are telling me a message. They want to be very good at that, at an obscene level, so I'd probably reward all the work they've put on to achieve that and make as so they will almost always win at that...

We all agree the exploration is badly done in 5e. You try to fix it by changing (or interpreting more favourably) the rules of exploration, I change it by changing the Ranger. But in the end of the day, the RAW ranger and RAW exploration rules don't mesh well together. I just hope in the future...

That's why I changed the rules of the ranger class, because by RAW, it would make me skip a huge chunk of the campaign.

If you can't get lost, and there is no negative consequence to losing the navigation check, there is no point in making a navigation check. Let's look at raw again... "Unless they are following a path, or something like it, adventurers traveling in the wilderness run the risk of becoming lost...

In my ToA campaign I gave the ranger expertise on relevant skills when on his terrain. So he was still very capable, but not an auto win

I accidently hit reply. And come on, I've treated you with respect, even if I disagree with you at some point, no need for this tone...