Search results

Man, I don't understand why you remove the important audible aspect that clarifies why you need a roll in the first place. Heck, even on the invisible condition it is written that while invisible your position can still be deduced if you make noise. Stealth is precisely not to give your position...

I mean, this is a simplification and a game, but tower shields were used in melee, and especially in close formation fighting. Enemies were not running around you to stab in the back because your back was covered by someone else. Also, most of melee fighting was literally pushing the other line...

I was seeing it as a legionnaire's tower shield (scutum). The pavise was used by crossbowman to protect themselves from enemies' volleys while they were recharging their heavy crossbows (which took quite some time), while the legionnaire's tower shield was used in close formation fighting. In...

I really don't see the difficulty. Heavily obscured means that vision is blocked and the "seer" is to be considered blinded. Full cover gives the same benefit. In these conditions, if you're unheard, you can roll for stealth. The feat allows a previously unnoticed character to roll for stealth...

I'd say that you still need to hold the shield: even if you're strong enough to firmly plant it on the ground (which could happen only on boggy soil or clay), a kick or shield bash would be enough to knock it down and render it useless. On a rocky terrain the "planting" option would become...

You need to roll for "stealth" (not hide) because you can make noise even if you're out of sight. Being unseen and unheard (so far) is a requirement to keep staying so

No, in ad&d 2e they were classes on their own, but part of the warriors class group

I think this is an excellent exercise. Most likely some traditions will be better suited than others, but it I'm all in to have more general maneuvers.

More than sub-classes, I could see them as multiclass: fighter-cleric and fighter-druid-rogue. But the paladin works very well in o5e and even better in a5e, because it does not specialize in a non-core part of the game, while the ranger does. I think an interesting ranger would be more of a...

"Notify on launch" button pressed ;)

Of course it can happen, but it's statistically way less likely, and the more dice you throw the less that's going to happen

That's an interesting observation, I misremembered it as doubling the dice instead of doubling the result. This has some interesting consequences: the former(rolling more dice) squeezes the distribution of the results towards the average, while the second is quicker to run at the table but...

I think it's spot on! Maybe as an additional gift, to give some choice, you could add something like having a member of the family in most settlements (an uncle or distant cousin), willing to give minor favors or do small errands for them.

This thread is awesome! Is there any chance for its contents to be collated in an indexed page?

While I don't entirely disagree, I also find that nerfing many spells so that supply is a thing to be a bit too gamist IMO: RAW It's easier to resurrect people than to feed them, which doesn't make much sense...

Fair point. But that means negating up to 2 crits per monster, regardless of everything. Players hit and critted way more often than any singular creature, so I think it's ok for them to be treated differently in some regards. Otherwise if I want pure simulationism (PCs and NPCs abide exactly to...

I'd personally allow some NPC to use the Sacrifice Shield maneuver. But if I see one of my players unsatisfied by their character due to this kind of mechanics issue, I'd refrain to use that trick too often as I don't want to be an adversarial dm.

Point taken about dash and disengage. But if we allow monsters to negate crits by sacrificing shields and taking fatigue, we might as well just remove crits altogether. Rules for negating crits were likely put in place to reduce the unpleasant swinginess of 5e combat to the players detriment...

I totally see your point, which is why I'd reiterate that those options are specifically discussed in the Adventurer's guide and are not in the Monstrous Managerie. Specific monsters may have legendary actions that do negate some effects, but in the *5e asymmetric design philosophy there's no...

I'm also not fond of this expertise/disadvantage asymmetry and I agree that it makes the use of this action very situational. That said, I think PTA was not designed to replace reckless assault, but to introduce some forms of forced movement resulting in more tactical repositioning (pressing...