Search results

no, high elf champion got a pass because none of it's spellcasting came from it's class or subclass, the champion subclass is a pure martial subclass, although the character gains some ability to cast from it's species that doesn't influence the fundamental majority design of the character...

by my standards, the first two are not, the latter is.

'GMs are out to get me and my agency' is simpler than 'GMs want to simulate a world that functions realistically to them' to you?

i would call rangers, paladins and artificers half-casters rather than martials, because that's what they are. arcane tricksters and eldritch knights and the like are martials, but they're explicitly martials that dip into magic, the concept of the martial that supplements their physical...

i don't know if by 'spells' here you actually meant in a shorthand way abilities like manoeuvres and such, but if not then i can't agree that the way to balance the martials with the casters is to turn the martials into casters, because then they're not really martials any more are they?

just compare to the track records of PCs who manage to manifest an unbreakable iron will when circumstances try to dictate when their character would do something they don't think they would do.

could you elaborate/clarify? which of the definitions is your caveat meant to apply to? or is it both?

the definitions of sandbox and railroad that i have come to understand from my years of exposure to them: sandbox: a game without a planned path or hard meta goals, where the characters just exist in the setting and are free to travel and do what they wish to (as much as an inhabitant of that...

true perhaps, but i think martials should be getting more skills than they currently do anyway and if four extra skills got added the amount of skills everyone gets would probably need to be adjusted so i'd compensate them for that in those changes.

to start with i'd probably try to even out the number of skills per stat, i'd move intimidation to STR, and split athletics into might and stamina (and emphasize some of the things that acrobatics can't actually do), then i'd add three skills to CON: vitality(required to gain +con HP on level...

Noooo... don't do that, that'd be UNFAIR and DIFFICULT on those poor beleaguered spellcasters, don't you know how much they suffer?, you go around taking away their influence like that and they might have to * GASP * rely on the martials!

class has no mechanics, what do you play?

the idea of different material weapons and gear do appeal but not really in the 'you need silver/iron/magic/ect... weapon to deal real damage to X creature' way, but more in the 'mythril weapons have expanded crit range, adamantine weapons have an extra damage die' way that lets you customize...

i think it'd have to be done right, you'd have to cut out alot of other common 'civilized' species as well, your elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes and the like and not just 'role swap' the monster species into the boxes you've just taken those other ones out of, otherwise i don't think it would...

i had a thread a little while back i was trying to make more impactful species mechanics in, your comments reminded me of what i was doing in it somewhat, this is what i wrote for the elves' improved perception: would you consider that 'enough' to distinguish that particular aspect of them...

in my opinion, if there is ever an action that a character can make, or gains dis/advantage on, or gets some other modifier, special circumstance or inherent pass that another character doesn't get purely because of what species they are, then those are species mechanics, it doesn't matter if...

i'm kind of surprised i haven't contribute to this thread, i mean, i definitely agree but i guess i just don't have anything to add.

neither 'unhappy' and 'not happy' are as extreme as 'miserable' but they're both beyond the point of neutrality for me, indicating negative satisfaction with a situation.

giving something up that you want doesn't automatically rocket you to 'being unhappy', you may give up something you want and be less happy but still happy with the result, but a compromise where both parties are still happy is still a compromise if they've both given up something to get to that...

this is a wild perspective to me, i have never known 'fine' to have been anything equivalent to 'unhappy', i know that people when unhappy may say 'i'm fine' but they don't actually mean that, 'i'm fine' is a deflection, a white lie intended to bypass whatever conversation they would spawn if...