Search results

It's a good name for the issue, and I'm firmly in the first group. Though I can live with 5e letting all of those cavalier abilities you mention to exist. It's fine to have a bit of flavour in a side class, SO LONG as it's in addition to some much broader ideas. Also, your version doesn't...

Because we're playing in a game that wants broad rules. It's up to the players to describe their characters in the way they want to be portrayed, not for the designers to design character types that they think players want to play. Look, I've played, say, Pathfinder, where there are rules...

Yes and no. The problem is with the armour bit. If you CAN wear armour better than everyone else... you've created a big imbalance, and it means that every fighter out there has to be a canny knight. If they are not, they are basically viewed as "sub-par" by their companions. This goes back...

Oo. Make a check with disadvantage at the DC and if you fail, no problem. Or make a normal check, but if you fail, you deal damage. I like. :)

Yeah, fully agreed. Am I the only person that's reading this thread and thinking about throwing two or three of these guys against my party now? It'd be good fun to bonk their heads together a few times. The fact that the bonking is being done by an angry poop-eater is just icing on the...

And I'm all for that sort of play - I try to do something similar. But it's not rules-as-written, which was my original point. Weapon Specialists affect combat, which is important to 95% of all games (not an exact number). Which means that if that option exists, everyone needs to take it...

Ok. I think some people are a bit confused here. So, if you sneak up on someone and pull the trigger on a crossbow before you're aware of them, you get the assassinate ability. If you bump into the guy in a hallway and he's surprised but beats you in initiative, you won't get it. The guy...

That's a good thing. Loose mechanics (like the fighter) means broad interpretations. It's like in older editions, where you could have the same character class/race combination and still have one character be a pirate, another a barbarian raider, and a third a canny knight. The second you tie...

Hunh. Never noticed that. Better hope you make a save versus Stun and escape before you're killed! If you can shake the stun - and maybe you have an ally that has an ability that'll let you do that - you can try to escape the grapple on your turn. If an ally spends his or her action to help...

A good rule to consider is if the player asks you for a description of the area around, and then says something like "if I grab the chandelier as part of my jump, do I get advantage on the check?", give them advantage. Players should get advantage for reacting to your own descriptions...

+18!? You realize that, if a character had an 18 in all six ability scores, he'd have a +24? So, we're assuming the guy has an AVERAGE of 16 in every stat? Wait. You're the guy who has the players that cheat, right?

Exactly! And I personally see no problem with players getting interested in what adventures to go on, even if what interests them is what'll happen to their characters and not what the story is about. This system of "you level up what you use, and your adventures give you your class...

Thanks. I just thought it'd be cool to have Tiefling Romans (I love ancient Rome, and have a whole shelf dedicated to the works of Polybius, Ovid, Cicero, and modern Roman authours like Adrian Goldworthy and -the best guy ever - Anthony Everitt. And the idea of Romans in the Pacific Northwest...

I used some of hte ideas of the Nentir Vale, but put them in my own 4e campaign. Basically, I took some of the core ideas, and put them on a map that looked similar to the Pacific Northwest (hey, I like my own backyard!) So, Kael Turath got put in. So did the Feywild's Mithrendain. And...

That is my experience with multi-classing as well. "If I do this, then this, and then go here, I'll get x". At its worst, players aren't even playing the game for the game, but for a pre-ordained build. And I always wonder - what's the point? You've already built the character's final draft...

For what it's worth, in my 5e game, the rule is 4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste. And if your total modifiers amount to a net of +1 or less, AND/OR you have no stat of at least 15, you re-roll. Or you can choose to point buy, but if you decide to roll, you're stuck with what you get.

In a 1e game I recently played in, I had a demi-god type character. Two 18s, a 17, a 16, etc. Her lowest stat was her intelligence... at 12. (I think her stats were 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, and 12). In this homebrew, 18 strength didn't go percentile, but instead got a bonus. And she basically...

You know, my favourite part of I6 was the fact that it always played differently due to the random motivation table for Strahd. That's a great feature, and something I'd love to see more of. As for the setting itself... I think the idea of divorcing Ravenloft from an actual setting, and...

Well, mechanically? Maybe. You can come up with some fun builds. But honestly? I'd say no. Most of the character concepts you want can be made simply by picking a background, class, and race. You want a sneaky, indiana jones-like rogue? Take a sage, be a rogue with a thief background...

I DM for 6 every week. I've done larger. The worst I ever did was around 15-20, and I'll never do it again. Not fun. At that size, it's just a matter of looking at the clock and trying to find any excuse to get the hell out of dodge. Anyways, for 6 or 7, it's not really a big deal. I'd...