Search results

That's fair, especially given which forum we are in. There is a use-case for them in a system that is more generous with feats slots and less generous with the effects of each individual feat, but O5e is not that and the revision is unlikely to make it that.

I would not rule out feat chains entirely: They are reasonable where the second feat builds directly off the effect of the first, and and the combined effect is genuinely worth two feats (although the latter is an extremely high bar to clear in 5e in particular, with feats being fewer in number...

I do swift action to drink in PF1, which is roughly analogous (although not exactly, since getting it in your hand in the first place is different - you are much more likely to have other uses for your move action in PF1 than your interact-with-an-object in 5e).

Thank you for clarifying. I guessed it would be something like that, but it is good to get the specifics.

I was trying to remember the latter - I was at a table with a player who used it once, but by my recollection that although the fluff was similar to @RangerWickett's description, the effects were more short-term - just one roll IIRC (and therefore not worth the handling time). At least at lower...

Interestingly, my initial reaction was "those are completely different", but having listened a couple of times I can sorta hear a similarity. They are still definitely not the same vowel sound, though. For the record, I pronounce "awesome" pretty-much as per the first link. The second link is...

I can sorta see what you mean now, but even as a condition it doesn't actually do anything other than allow things to trigger off it (and it does not really need separate tracking since the GM and/or relevant player is tracking hp anyway). Indeed. Specifically IIRC, it refers to the notion...

In other news, I have apparently also been pronouncing this wrongly as well.... EDIT: Although having gone to half a dozen websites they give three different pronunciations. Some of which match mine, none of which match @Yaarel's. But if I went through the next half dozen I'd probably find a few...

Although they do not know if the last hit took them to exactly bloodied, or if they were one hp away from it before hand. So unless the bloodying hit is a fairly small one, it has a wide margin of error. Was that asterisk meanto to be linked to a footnote, because if so it was orphaned. Given...

But Aasimar is a different initial vowel sound from Aardvarks and Ardlings, isn't it? Or have I been pronouncing it differently-than-intended for decades? (Not "wrong", because my way is better. Even if they intended to pronounce it "arse-i-mar", they shouldn't have.) An excellent book! I keep...

...is never going to be an acceptable response to people who want interesting martials. Obviously. I would not go quite that far, but I fear we will get a Dark Sun that gets the same in-name-only treatment as Spelljammer. And if they did do Mystara, they would almost certainly try to shoe-horn...

Shattered Star is a sequel of sorts to Rise of the Runelords, and like its predecessor it has a chapter which features a lot of giants (so far at least - I am a player for this one so I am not sure how long this will continue). We had a big fight against hill and fire giants, and then found some...

Thursday: Still giants (fight and talk). Sunday: New characters had less trouble.

I do not have much to say one way or another on the success of PF2, but I wanted to comment on this. I want the opposite, at least for a chunk of the level range. Partly because collateral damage from wizard duels is flavourful, and because large areas of effect tend to be a mixed blessing at...

That was my initial reaction also. But...there can be only one!

I believe that is because the difference between "iron" and "steel" in this context is not how much carbon there is, but how closely the amount of carbon is controlled. "Iron" as made in the iron age was certainly not 100% pure Fe (I am pretty sure they could not have made such a thing even if...

Exactly. They may not call it an "edition" or "5.5" or "6e", but that cannot stop us doing so. After all, they (almost?) never refer to the current edition as 5e, but that does not stop any of us! That is not my recollection. IIRC, the online community started calling it 3.5 first, and WotC's...

There was four lights one line! Well yes, it is a semanitic difference. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. Words means things. And in the context of D&D "edition" means something other than strict subset. The relationship was superset and subset. For some unfathomable reasons you...

Good thing nobody called you a liar then, eh?

It may be "nice", but it is not as powerful as getting larger boosts to the stats that help you kill the enemy before they force that tertiary save you were talking about. You were literally just saying: (Although you missed the part that really shoots the "separate edition" claim in the head...