Search results

Out of those, skills and feats are optional, for stats you can use default array, and subclass, class, and background options can be also set to default without choosing them. So if you wish, you can limit yourself to choosing only race and class, and assign stats without rolling or point-buying.

Are they? I never heard of archer wizards in any fiction (except maybe Earthdawn) and to me a wizard is not an archer.

I already shown it works in classes,backgrounds, feats, adventures....

Me too, but the failure should not waste the slot. Instead spell should be unavailable until short rest.

I'm sorry if I offend you but it's one of most amusing (to not say silly) things I read here. It's like saying having both fighter, barbarian, paladin and samurai classes (in 3e) is inelegant and sloppy because I can use any of those to play a sword wielding melee oriented character. I guess in...

Nothing is supposed to be real. But many things are supposed to be realistic beacuse it adds to the enjoyment of the game. Too many unrealistic things and the world becomes weird and people suddenly can't relate to it and lose interest. I wouldn't say I need economy in my games realistic, but it...

I don't know if I see a problem here. If a character has 10 strength, he's dealing damage through another means (like rogue) or contributes to combat in different way altogether (like control wizard). Or are you saying that strength 10 fighter should be playable?

It's pretty good but I'd start at value of 11. str a d 11 +0 +1 12 +0 +2 13 +1 +2 14 +1 +3 15 +1 +4 16 +2 +4 17 +2 +5 18 +2 +6 19 +3 +6 20 +3 +7 A bonus is for attack rolls and strength saves, D bonus is for damage and strength checks. Same table should be true for other abilities. Dex A would...

I don't know about that. On 1 hand you have Str or Dex bonuses to hit, but on the other side you have Dex bonus to AC.

Not quite true. In bell curve distribution, a +1 is more valuable if your chances of success are near 50%, and less valuable if your chances are either very high or very low.

Class Fighter [Slayer] [Warlord] Wizard [School of Alchemy] [School of Translocation] Druid [Circle of Rebirth] [Circle of Seasons] Paladin [Eldrith Knight] Ranger [Shadow Chaser] Barbarian [Beastmaster] [Blood Warrior] [Shifter] [Tattoo Warrior] Background Burgher Courtesan Fence Highlander...

I never proposed scores -10 should affect anything except checks, not even saves. Saves, AC, attacks, etc. would still use the modifier, so 20 Dex still = +5 AC.

But if a cleric would always take this feat, you designed a bad feat. Instead of having an interesting option, you made a non-option (at least for clerics and druids). If that feat required being a fighter, it would be a nice feat, that I agree on. Of course he is, those feats must ≈ to +1 ASI.

Naaa, they would take feats that grant increases to abilities they want. Then they would complain they had to take feats just to be effective characters ;) What cleric wouldn't ever take this? I don't think trying to make each feat universally useful is the right way. It's okay to have some...

I like it. In fact I like it so much that from now on my hopes are this will be implemented. One exception though - maybe simpler variant with only two levels of feats would suffice. For levels 1-11 a feat or +1 to ability. For levels 12-20 a greater feat or +1 to two abilities. Other than that...

Do you mean progressively weaker score increases versus progressively better feats as characters level up? That jumped out at me too when I read the article. Right now it sounds like it wouldn't work but we don't have all the facts yet.

I understand now. Now I don't like your proposal but for other reason. I like the idea that the choice between abilities and feats can be made on a player to player basis. Each player can choose then how they want to advance their characters, how complex game they want to play. This is brilliant...

I agree. The game sorely lacks a mechanic that would adress various levels of randomness in tasks. Attacking someone with a weapon has more factors to it than arm wresting and it would be nice if game could account for that. Perhaps a rules module that says there are 3 levels of randomness...

Sorry, in this writeup I went with the idea of using full scores instead of scores -10. For scores -10 (which I'm leaning to, after reading everyone's opinions), it will be: My proposal doesn't include training or skill subsystem, but lets assume high score = trained/expert. If you set DCs like...

No its not. Who in their right mind would pick a +1 to ability score over a +1 to ability score and an ability?