Search results

They could add a disclaimer to every feat how to do it without. I agree on Pickpocket. That should change. It isn't really a useful ability either. Even with reduced treasure, adventuring is probably still more lucrative and rewarding then pickpocketing. So unlike the Trap/Lock thing - which is...

I'm not sure about disarm and push. The way I read it:

You cannot open locks or disarm traps without proficiency in Thief Tools, see description in the equipment document. So you need either Open Locks feat or Disarm Traps feat. Whichever you choose, you can do both actions, but only have bonus, if you have the relevant feat. Edit: Rogues get...

One way to make it simpler, would be just adding Disad to all subsequent actions, instead of that Con check.

I'm unsure about some of the Specialities / Feats. Weapon Mastery needs to go. There shouldn't be feats that simply increase damage. That's what classes are for. Skirmisher is useless. The feats don't complement one another. It's a better idea to add special movement feats to other Specialities...

I like it. Just that you can shake the heavens doesn't mean you can do it often. I consider 1 spell per level actually genius.

I'm actually OK with most of the Combat Feats. Trip, Disarm and Shove say: Make an attack, on a hit also try a contest. That doesn't preclude other characters from making contests as a full action. The feat makes you better insofar that you also deal your usual damage. It's basically the same...

I'm on the edge concerning Ranger casting. I'd rather have the option to choose a spell or a fighter ability at every level. For the Paladin, I think the mount is a little late. 8th level is well in the territory of Flight, bordering Teleport. And the Paladin gets a horse? Furthermore the Mount...

In the absence of specific rules, I'd treat it as normal movement in 3 dimensions.

You can always take the feat.

You get skills from your Background and maybe your class. This offers a +3 bonus, which can be increased at certain levels according to the level up table.

Arguments in decreasing order of importance: It can be used as a story hook. There is ample literary precendence. It offers a hard rule for Charisma. It's been in D&D before.

I like the idea. I find it confusing, if "extra tough" for some critters is NA and for some DR. Putting everything in AC is alright as well, for my taste.

Interesting. I'm in the directly opposite camp, but interesting arguments non the less.

Rogues should send their boy-friends into coma with a kiss. As for DDN, character require scaling damage output. So the rogue needs extra damage or status effects that are comparable to damage.

And then choose either beginnings or ends. It's hella confusing to have both. One tip I found useful with new 4e players: Do not hand them basic attack cards.

That is a fine analysis. I'd like to XP you, but can't. Another way to alleviate the problem could be to pool all spell slots, then distribute them to classes in the morning. That would at least allow casters to multiclass better with casters.

Barbarians like to get hurt, they get better that way. They can choose totems to get special abilities. (Spider - climb, Hare - land speed, Lion - intimidate...) Supernatural totems bestow supernatural powers. That way players can customize how magical they want their character to be. Rangers...

Personally, I would give Disadvantage to all actions. 5. No. You have an action and a reaction each round. 23. No. Usual reactions do not change initiative. My document says, it's up to 1 minute. Yes. You can remain hidden, if you miss, with the 3rd level feat, but that's it. Why does...

If the devs actually go with "magic items are totally optional", buying wands is out the picture. They also said, they would restrict the spells that are applicable in wands. Both ideas are good in my book.