Search results

I think that physical disabilities (like blindness or poor eyesight) should incur penalties or automatic failure when appropriate, but despite this is works well with genre archetypes for a "wiser" character to be better at noticing and interpreting what sensory data he DOES receive. It even...

I actually hadn't read the new definitions of wisdom and charisma, but I have to say they're my favorite ever. They do a great job of explaining exactly what aspects are important to being good at the things those ability scores are used for in-game. For example, the most "charismatic" people...

I think they've taken things in this direction to some degree by allowing you to spend more dice for a more powerful effect, and I could certainly see expanding that. But just making abilities more powerful for no added cost as the character levels brings back the "quadratic scaling" problems of...

No, LFQW (linear fighters, quadratic wizards) specifically refers to the fact that in 3e (and maybe earlier editions to a lesser degree), wizards got more spells AND their existing spells got more powerful whenever they leveled up: thus, their power increased at a "quadratic" (geometric...

I added letters here to take this one step at a time, at least how I interpreted the rules: I read TWF as saying you get two attack rolls, and the difference is that the off-hand attack doesn't get ability mod added to damage. So (a) yes; (b) you still can't add Str or Dex mod to the second...

The quote I was responding to mentioned Finger of Death and PW:K, and you mentioned knockout and beheading, as alternatives to ablating HP, so I was thinking SoDs. As for status effects, fighters and/or rogues or monks can already cause fear, taunt, knock down, push back, and stun with various...

I'd say the opposite: it sucks that mages COULD ignore hp so easily. HP is a great system for allowing everyone to contribute to slaying an enemy in combat. It's more versatile than binary Save or Die powers because you can succeed a little (do less damage) in exchange for more accuracy...

For my money, a level 20 rogue in the current playtest is at least as powerful in all three pillars as a wizard. Combat? The rogue does good damage, has better HP and armor, and some fun control effects (like Taunt). Plus he can auto-hit if he really needs to. And apparently solo a dragon. ;)...

Only downside then is players abusing this out of combat ("I rage before jumping across the pit so I resist falling damage! I rage before smashing open the chest to get advantage!" Etc.)

They've already clarified on this very forum. Trevor Kidd came on here and confirmed that the dice refresh ever turn, not round. (I'm on my phone and can't search for it, but it was around Christmas.)

The barbarian looks fun enough in many ways, but it still feels like a missed opportunity to create a more unique mechanic. (I really liked the idea of building fury points/tokens by getting hit or killing enemies or whatever, and then spending those tokens on Rage or other powers.)

(Cross-posted from the WOTC forums.) First, a disclaimer: I really like Next so far. Even if WOTC ignored everything I suggest in this thread, I still expect Next to be my favorite edition of D&D. That said, I worry it's falling short of its potential in certain ways. The biggest problem I see...

Bear in mind that there are close to zero character customization options in the "basic" game beyond class and race. Feats are pre-selected and I wouldn't be surprised if maneuvers, skill tricks, and maybe even spells are too. As DM I'd consider allowing some flexibility, but bear in mind Dex...

Klaus - that would work too, but I doubt it'd be any more palatable to people like Vyvyan.

But you could throw a bottle of acid at his face and then duck behind a corner, or pretend to surrender and turn over your weapon to him, or trick him into thinking you're a powerful wizard blocking his projectiles with magic, or whatever. Yeah, it requires some careful situational roleplaying...

As others on this thread have mentioned, this is the exact way that the Distract skill trick works. I think it's pretty cool, but incentivizing an enemy to attack you is different from forcing them to move towards you. (For example, you would want to Taunt an archer to lure them into melee range.)

I think there's room for both. It makes sense to me that a dashing rogue would use his charm and wits to trick enemies into making mistakes, whereas, say, a fighter might depend more on physical dominance. The current playtest could definitely use some more feats/maneuvers/class abilities to...

Part of the goal of 5e seems to be to make magical items unique and special again. I'd say give them their choice of non-magical gear and a reasonable amount of potions, and then let them quest for (or happen upon) magical gear where it's most narratively interesting.

What if Taunt worked like this? Taunt: As an action, you can spend your skill die to taunt a creature. Choose a creature within 30 feet of you that can see or hear you, and contest your Charisma against its Wisdom. The creature automatically wins the contest if it is immune to being charmed. If...

I think a more generous interpretation of what they were saying is that the math is not unimportant; it's just easier to adjust than higher-level concerns. So yeah, it's really bad that a rogue can solo a dragon in this release, but they can fix that in five minutes by adding more hp to the...