Search results

Ok Ok. Changing a creature type seems out of the power budget for a feat and antithematic. The higher level, the more of a hindrance being a fey is, as high level spells often specificaly work vs nonhumanoid types. And most humanoid targeting spells have an equivalent that works on monsters...

/shrug

Ah ok. So take the origin feat later... Or fey touched feat. Or just make it a special reward (blessing). There are examples in the DMG for such thing and this seems apropropriate. Because as feats it needs a certain level. A blessing can bestowed whenever you want.

They did not say that. They gave a perfect valid reasoning. Similar enough.

No, not you specific. But I notice a general trend: if WotC does it, it is lazy, unsinspiring or whatever negative word design, if someone else does it, it is brilliant. I think it is a perfect valid reasoning to have creatures that are removed from their origins to lose some traits. Actually...

Why? It makes you immune to some spells, but makes you weak against others. That's it. And while we are at it, I'd add half-orc, or half-elf human feats. Origin feat is the right place because do you want to be an ordinary elf or human for 3 levels with background farmer just to notice you...

I'd rather have an origin feat for that. Specific (or special... what is the adjective to species...) origin feat.

Wow. If Keith Baker says there are Gnolls that lost their fiendness, it is a brilliant idea. If WotC says that for elves and goblins and giths, the idea is weak.

Yes. Our 5th edition should correctly be called AD&D 5e.

Actually NPC spellcasters having all spells in their repertoire is not exactly fair. You always assume they have everything left, while PCs might have cast a few spells already. I guess, the way spellcasting in D&D works, won't allow for a satisfying solution. Less spells per day. More...

I am not able to predict the future. So I will wait and see.

Whatever. I refrain from predicitions. This is why I wrote I will wait and see.

There will be the effect of the curse in the stat block. That was announced.

Wait and see how it is done in the new MM. The old rules were terrible (were you immune to non magic non silvered weapons as soon as you were bitten and failed the save?)

Whatever. I don't know that. All D&D editioms that came before did that.

I'd be happy with the choice of 2 feats as default and 2 tools. And 4 stat increases. And 3 or 4 skills. I am somehow liking a little bit of restrictions. Makes me more creative.

No. That is a way overstatement. You might just be doing headstands. Yeah. Because everything is fluid. A book is always just a snapshot of design. At some point you have to print it.

Ok. Elves used to be immune to animate dead in AD&D. I like calm emotions. Ok with that. Ok. How so? It specifies target creature. Humanoid is mentioned nowhere. Just no undead. Experience form 3e: sometimes a boon, sometimes a curse. Noticed that too. Seems a good buff. I usually did not...

As a dex based character that has TWF feat, making 4 attacks seems optimal. If you are strength based without a fighting style, a non light off hand weapon gives a lot of opportunities.

The boots are great. The broom way less so... who except witches and maybe mages with a little bit of self respect uses brooms. Imagine a knight in armor and a shield balancong on one of them and even trying to cast spells. The potion is a bit too rare though, when it is just based on a 3rd...