Search results

It's hard to "convert" fighter stuff to spells for that very reason. The fighter can do that with an 11th level ability, which should in theory be comparable to the 6th level spells a spellcaster is getting.

While I've seen Grease used to good effect, the premise of the thread is a bit overblown, and I wouldn't normally have posted. But the idea of fighter abilities converted into spells is kinda interesting, from a comparison standpoint. The biggest problem is it's kinda hard to do so. Action...

That is not a bad point. Although, it also is going to require quite a bit of time and effort to do something like that, depending on how many classes being compared, and I'll admit I probably don't have the time at the moment for something like that. However, I would be game to use those...

I did mention that at the end, although admittedly I didn't go into much detail. However, let's look at what other classes can do in this regard. 5 ASIs: All classes except Rogue and Fighter 6 ASIs: Rogue 7 ASIs: Fighter So the fighter has 2 more opportunities for feats than an equivalent...

Fighters are the weakest class in the non-combat pillars, I think that is pretty obvious, right? They get the base amount of skills, no base class enhancements to doing anything in exploration or social situations. Some of the subclasses do get some bonuses in those areas, but they tend to be...

Bad might not be the right choice of words, but it is shown that it is lower on average than other fighter subclasses(except I would guess, the Banneret). So I think it is fair for a person to question or dislike that. I also will still maintain that Remarkable Athlete could have been done much...

For my own home games I have done a bit of rework for the Champion. I think, if it had been made in a way that increased the overall damage output and out of combat versatility while maintaining the simple playstyle it still would have remained as popular as it was, if not was even more popular...

I actually play a lot of humans normally, so I'm not sure it would bother me, per say, but at the same time it seems like you'd need a reason for this restriction in the first place, and that could sway my answer. Without that knowledge, I can't definitively say yes or no. On another note...

I agree with you, at least to some degree. It does seem like WotC is hesitant about the subclasses for fighters(and barbarians) and their abilities for some reason.

It wasn't reprinted. Banneret was the name a sidebar gave it for use outside of Forgotten Realms. And again, it's not disliked because it doesn't do MOAR DPS but because it is bad at adding support elements to the fighter, which is it's goal. The only ability worth it is the granting of reaction...

Yeah, nothing too stellar in that list. Cantrips and Bladesinger were the big stars from that one. Also, Undying Warlock Patron was another one. So bad I forgot about it in my initial list.

PDK is disliked because it's bad at what it intends to do. The healing ability is barely noticeable, and it doesn't get anything interesting until 10th level unless you really wanted Expertise in Persuasion. And the 15th level ability is also really bad, and is built off Indomitable, which is...

If you made casters more powerful than martials in 5e, there would be 0 reason to ever play one beyond character concept. Even if we accept that in previous editions martials were more powerful than casters in combat(although they definitely were not in 3e), casters have plenty of unique...

Like it or not, the question clearly does come up. Dragon magazine had an article about that very subject, although it was about the Drow, back during the 3rd edition era. While I agree we don't need to delve into the topic, it's one that can be touchy and is one that is very much linked to a...

I did say that I didn't expect it to be that much, to be fair. :) 3rd edition was my formative D&D experiences and I don't remember alignment being so much better there than anywhere else. It has been awhile since I've looked at any 3e/3.5 stuff, but I know for a fact that was the time period...

Yah, I'm not really a big fan of alignment having mechanical effects all too much, especially of the stick variety. If we gotta have alignment, I'm pretty happy with the 5e approach. If we must have mechanics tied to it, then I'd far prefer "carrots" for acting in the appropriate way compared to...

For the most part that is what I do. I don't think I've written down an alignment on my characters for several years now. However, I think it should be unsurprising that since I do find it mostly unnecessary personally that I might question if it needs to be included. Now, I also recognize that...

Ascribing mechanical significance to alignment means that it needs to have a fairly uniform agreement on which each means, and I think that is not the case. You can't have an argument about if Batman is Lawful or Chaotic if his abilities hinge on it.

I have to wonder if alignment's popularity is because it has been a part of D&D since the beginning. And by that I'm not actually referring to nostalgia. What I mean is that, individual groups have basically come to an consensus about what it means. Which makes it useful for that group...

Yah, I don't disagree that it's a pretty silly idea. Just that it has, officially speaking, been how True Neutral has been defined before.