Search results

page 200; vehicle weapons table: a few. for one, the light missile launcher has no damage type, and the table sometimes includes the word "damage" in the damage field and sometimes doesn't. for another - though maybe this is just me reading too far into things - the section before (page 199)...

they say "if you are able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this maneuver replaces one of them". that tells me it's only meant to apply to attacks taken as part of the attack action, which would not include bonus action attacks

i guess the benefit of the feat is that you can shove with a weapon that doesn't have the defensive property, but i'd imagine you'd want to use a defensive weapon with a shield anyway most of the time. i never really noticed this before, honestly. i think replacing the shoving point of the feat...

silvery barbs 3: the session never happened.

dominate person says you "decide all of the target’s actions and it does nothing you do not allow it to" (and also has a clause for getting it to make a reaction), and haste says "the target is tired and cannot move or take actions until after its next turn". this is distinct from the phrasing...

i mean...if you think that's a problem, you could just say you count as already having cast a spell on your first turn if you use the feature. well, sage advice is about o5e. i wouldn't assume any of them apply to a5e unless, say, morrus (or your dm in the case of your own specific game...

i don't see why they wouldn't. it only says you don't get your action on your first turn. it says nothing about bonus actions or reactions.

i mean, i figure it'd probably be possible in a system that's 100% encounter based then (i.e. you recover all resources after any encounter), since then both PCs and monsters effectively have to survive the same number of encounters at a time (due to PCs getting everything back after the...

...ok, but that's...that's directly harmful. that just straight up shouldn't have worked. i don't think the problem there was the spell. i think the problem there was the DM was a jerk.

yeah, feature creep is real.

neat idea, but all i can think of is this meme:

i think perhaps letting fighters change their specialized maneuvers on a long (or maybe even short, at least at higher levels) rest could help with this. you know...i'm not sure it would. changes definitely, but a complete rework might not be necessary. dueling is a specific subsystem...

this is a certified stunning assault moment

...touché.

i believe gallant heart has a maneuver that costs 6 exertion.

quick correction - o5e/5.5e rangers are half casters like heralds, not 1/3 casters like wildborn rangers but yeah the easiest way would probably be the exertion conversion

...that sounds...uncomfortable...

iirc they didn't bother giving advice on resistances/immunities since you needed to get to like 11 before they'd even bump CR by 1, and legendary resistances are counted for when you consider a creature legendary. now, my question is how in the WORLD does a BEHOLDER wear BRACERS?

or, put my way: 4e strikes again!