Search results

To the first post: we have generic classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. To the discussion: I'm also of the idea that the game would be improved by, under the hood, being classless, with the classes being specific progressions and flavoring. You still keep the class fantasy that's iconic...

Which is why I suggest separating "source" from "class". Throw out a list of common associations, but ultimately leave it up to GMs to decide if they think a given source/class combination makes sense on a case-by-case basis (particularly sense players are clever at justifying neat concepts).

I play without critical hits. Not because our table doesn't use the rule, I just don't roll 20s except on shananigan skill checks.

This is D&D. Assuming that everyone is at the table because they want to be at the table shouldn't be an unreasonable assumption. That said, yes, you can always imagine complicated scenarios where being a disruptive player makes sense. But that's basically assuming that the scenario, as...

I think y'all are over-thinking this Templar thing. What's important to Templar, the narrative, which is that they're the chosen minion of a Sorcerer-King imbued with power, or the mechanics, giving them a class that they, and they-only, get to bogart? Same with most of the other questions...

Because they skipped your second sentence and went straight to "disruptive play". Have the talk. Don't be a disruptive player.

I'm gonna be honest here... if I was gonna go warlock, I'd dress 'em as a cowboy (leather armor!) and not bother with the pact weapons, and just flavor their eldritch blast as finger-guns. And still be a centaur, 'cause a cowboy centaur shooting people with their magical finger guns is pretty...

Centaur fighter seems pretty intuitive. Ranger would also work. That said, Paladins in 3.X, with the feat that allowed them to smite with archery, were pretty good because it allowed them to choose appropriate material-type for their weapon based on what they were fighting. That's barely an...

Having just read the Theros book cover-to-cover, what impressed me the most about the book is that it never bothered to restrict things besides race. Thinking about it, I might say "well, as an ancient-Greek-inspired setting, there shouldn't be a lot of glass. More pottery and clay vessels...

As a GM, if I'd straight-up told the players that I wasn't feeling up to running my typical homebrew campaign, and was going to run this module, and they did that... I'd be, at the least, annoyed. The entire point of running a module (rather then your own homebrew) is that it's less work for...

My current group of five includes two couples, so most of the time one person not being able to make it means two people not being able to make it... So most often we just cancel the session. Previously we've done the "handwave" and just ignore it. And the next week the PC jumps back in like...

The first idea that came to mind for me was a satyr oracle of Pharika. Exact class is kind of fuzzy (leaning towards divination wizard, or possibly that "non-divine faithful" wizard option from Unearthed Arcana) but the overall idea was that he was no less of a hedonist then your typical satyr...

Yes... now I just gotta wait a month for the physical copy. Gamebooks just aren't one of the things I'm happy reading digitally.

You can get all the old stuff as .pdfs from the DMGuild. If you want a physical book, then the original, 30ish year old books are pretty pricey... but there was a 4th edition WotC conversion a few years back that's probably much more reasonable. If you don't want to shell out any money, you...

Pedantry is getting upset because I mixed up DMG Chapter 9 with an appendix in the MM (thought the monster/NPC factory stuff was in the MM. I'd swear that in some previous edition it was). That PHB Chapters 1-6* are for players, and DMG Chapter 9 is for DMs, is not pedantry. It's the central...

Even going by PC rules... a golaith can start with 10 strength. An average human (10 across the board) would have an 11 strength. So even by PC rules for character creation, D&D 5e doesn't support your idea of how strong goliaths "should be". Nope. PCs and NPCs don't go by the same rules...

This feels like a "we have McDonald's at home" sort of reply.

Not to yuck your yum, but if you don't want your character to get better at combat, then D&D is not ideal for you. There are other games that do a much better job of allowing players to truly specialize, and not have to improve in character aspects that don't interest them. But D&D --which has...

(A) I think you're underestimating the physical labor and strength that goes into farming in a pre-industrial society. (B) They aren't there for that purpose though. They are for players only. NPCs have whatever stats the GM wants to give them. A GM can give a lazy goliath a strength of 3...

I think it'd be best as a extra-thick module book with a "Dark Sun specific character creation and rule changes" chapter at the front and a setting gazeteer at the back.