Search results

To be fair, don't the multiclass rules cover that angle quite well already, especially with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight in play? I don't have the PHB at work to look at their spell list, but if you assume their spells are music-based (ie, they sing a charm spell, etc), do they not...

That's part of the feature, though. You get to have two pretty amazing stats, along with two pretty crappy stats. Whee, more RP opportunities. And you can always toss your racial bonus or stat bumps into the lower stats to make them more playable. I do wonder how many people would figure that...

No, I mean the dragons as presented by the game system's monster manuals and such. It's also important to note the "Most". I actually tend to assume that it's perfectly fair game to give the ability to do mundane tasks (even via magical means) to monsters, whatever that may be. Whether it's a...

This discussion is making me tempted to try something more outlandish, like - Choose 2 stats, roll 5d6 drop 2 lowest Choose 2 stats, roll 5d6 drop highest and lowest Choose 2 stats, roll 5d6 drop 2 highest

Most dragons haven't done the things Derren mentions, in any edition of D&D. Why would 5E be any different? Some almost random spells (ex: darkness 3/day), some who can polymorph (mostly good) or use telepathy (especially gem), etc. But if you make it a general aspect of all dragons to do those...

Where does it say that? Previous guidance I saw was 2-3 tougher encounters, not 6-8 easier encounters. I'm also dubious about some of the other comparison points, like AC, but alas my PHB is at home, not here.

Having just witnessed the ridiculousness of a campaign with rolled PCs, I'm not rolling, I know that. Though it does turn out that one of them didn't understand 4d6 drop the lowest, so was just rolling 4d6. We only figured that out when she made her next character, though. I used to do a...

Talk to your DM, say that you want to subtract 2 from X skills to add 2 to an equal number of other skills. Not many DMs would care enough to say no. Done and done.

The number of HP something has isn't terribly relevant; what you really want is the number of rounds it takes to drop something. So far everything seems to drop quickly enough to characters dealing 2-3 dice of damage to them per round (ex: rogue 2d6+3, monk two attacks, fighter surge, cleric...

It definitely curtails the very high level and high magic ends of the spectrum. I'm just concerned it actually makes things worse for early levels and low magic, by making powerful magic _more common_ if a DM uses rarity. Ie, Uncommon +1 weapon Bracers of Defense (+3 AC, requires attunement)...

Sadly, we are talking about a real life piece of paper certifying the bearer the possession of a fictional piece of treasure. And there are absolutely people who are willing to pay money for that kind of thing. See past treatment of special convention (or even particular table) only rewards for...

So, attunement seems to drastically reduce rarity / increase acceptability of strong items (see Bracers of Defense), which I'm good with in theory, but suspect will turn in practice. Essentially, it only works if there are 3+ strong permanent magic items _per party member_. So it doesn't work at...

It's a damn shame that it's apparently designed around more like (non-trivial) 2-3 encounters. At least, according to http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/building-adventures I can definitely confirm that in low encounter days, like the Adventurer's Guild adventures at Gen Con, casters...

Mage Armor doesn't stack with monk or barbarian, in any combination thereof. Bracers are +3 "armor" for those who don't use armor. That's all they are.

Sounds like +1 armor is over "costed" in terms of rarity, then. Particularly odd since +1 weapons are uncommon. Plenty of good stuff requires attunement; except in low magic campaigns, I'm hopeful that attunement is a real limitation. Hence why I'm not as bothered by the +3 than perhaps other...

They're rare and require attunement, and are the equivalent of +3 armor for people who don't use armor, yep. I wouldn't call that imbalanced, unless you don't make +3 armor available to people who use armor. Or shields. And at least some of them probably won't take up one of your attunement slots.

My apologies, we're actually referring to different things. The extra stuff for HoDQ was posted above, and is ready and available. As it should be, definitely. I thought you were referring to getting the Player's Handbook data into the online pdf. And as far as I'm concerned, people who need...

Why would they? Won't they just, y'know, have bought the books, instead of feeling super entitled for free copies from a website of the same stuff?

The Player's Handbook just hit WPN approved FLGSs, but has not yet officially hit the street (Aug 19th?). It's also not the DMG (magic items) or MM (monsters). I think you might not want to hold your breath.

Really easily? It being optional in no way changes a must-have feat into not must-have. If anything, it makes the problem worse since people will clamor all the more to get it. For example, let's say a feat added your level to damage with your attacks and spells. That'd be such a vast swing...