Search results

You're right, part of the 3.5 lingo is still in my brain! I honestly don't understand why 5e moved away from the tag system that was widely adopted in 3/3.5. It made things so well organized and easy to follow.

It doesn't say unable to take a standard action, but an action. A bonus action is an action, so I agree with Morrus and would go for no.

Well, the berserker is not resistant to all kinds of damages, at least not right off the bat. Being hit and damaged it always risky and taxing, not sustainable in the long term. Retaliation to be useful requires the berserker to go in melee against the target, and mobile targets would require...

That's a valid point

I agree with you that as it is one of the class's main features is very luck dependent. In part this can be mitigated by party tactics, the right selection of weapons, other maneuvers etc, but in this regard the class seems to be designed to appeal more to the "gambler" type of players. I also...

Rage would be challenging, but replacing Furious Critical with something else wouldn't, as it interacts mostly with itself and the weapons. The point is that IMO rage is fine and should be the main feature of the berserker, but doing big crits should be something that all martial focused...

Wasn't there a poll for alternate class features? I don't know if there are policies regarding what articles in GPG can do, but having entirely different branches of class features seems to me a more powerful approach to modify classes than adding yet another archetype

I'll try not to take this monster entry personal... :P Btw, this reminds me of another very cool, magic draining 2e monster: the Nishruu!

Seems more or less the approach I'd have used. I'm asking because there's plenty of very cool and dangerous 2e monsters that were never ported to 5e, and sometimes adapting them can be tricky because the two editions can differ quite a bit in the progression of character's HP and monster damage...

I'm curious on how you decide the CR of the creatures from 2nd edition

I agree with you. I think it's a valid point, and the issue of totally negating the movement could be mitigated by specifying that the target movement can't be reduced below Xft or something similar.

This seems perfectly legit homebrew material, but can create a whole set of unintended conundrums: a party of adventurers may not be able to move close to each other because they each have a bag of holding for instance. if they act as solid barriers, a crafty group could throw one on top of...

The main point of the OP was that a handful of bags of holding can be more efficient and cheaper any traditional bulk transportation method. Substitute grain with iron, or gold, or whatever, and that point still stands.

Super cool stuff, as always!! Resistance against conditions is not defined in the core rules IIRC. Do you mean immunity, perhaps? Or does it have advantage on save vs paralysis and petrification effects?

Truly nasty creatures! Heck, 5 normal attacks plus either another bite or blood drain, and 2 or 3 chances of being blinded and poisoned! With an average of 88 hp of damage per round, 1 vs 1 this creature is absolutely terrifying

Loving them too! Especially the initial commentary!

I think it should be that the target takes an extra 2d8 piercing damage and can be knocked prone, not the sa'ir ;)

Love all of this! I hope there's gonna be some WOIN releases as well!

I think the interaction with PCs could benefit from more tweaking. A large unit of 100 bandits is waaay weaker than 100 bandits. Even very high level melee characters would probably die fighting 100 bandits due to 5e's flat math approach, but a large unit of bandits could be defeated quite...

I think there's way more than a thin veil of truth in this sentence. I remember when D&D "Next" was a thing, before they decided calling it 5e, and in several beta testing packages they mentioned that the game would have a lot of dials to make the game more or less complex by adding optional...