Search results

If I am understanding you the "optimizer" doing more DPR than the others at the table is what is causing problems? This is silly and it sounds like you have a bunch of insecure players. When the Paladin sitting next to me hits the BBEG for 60 points of damage I am celebrating and high five-ing...

I am not sure what divine sheild is, do you mean shield of faith? If so, I don't find this overpowering at all. For several reasons To start with, very few games I have DMed, played or seen published by WOTC are going to have PCs afford plate at level 3. In one of the two WOTC campaigns I am...

For a heavy crossbow you are right, but a turn is 6 seconds and that is plenty of time to load a light crossbow or presumably a hand crossbow.

I think this is a heavy crossbow and it should keep the loading property. While it is supposedly easier to load than a traditional heavy crossbow, it is still more diffcult than a light crossbow, substantially more difficult than a blowgun and probably more difficult than a hand crossbow too...

One of my DM's does this a lot asking for basic strength and dexterity checks. Sometimes this frustrates me because I usually invest proficiency or even expertise in athletics and I feel he is nerfing me, but it is his table and I get it. To his credit, the things he asks for are not really...

My Grandmother had a lot more experience than I did before she died at age 99, but I was much better able to avoid falling on ice. I would imaging a teen Gymnast, or most teens for that matter, would be better at it than I am despite ice being random phenomenon. I also think the Gymnast's...

If this is the case it is because the level 10 thief did not invest in slieght of hand, while the level 1 thief did. If so it is entirely appropriate. This is no different than Level 10 fighter with a 8 strength: Hit that BBEG with a great sword - that is too hard How about you Level 1...

Thanks. Like I said I rarely got to attack the charmed baddies anyway, which is probably why I did not remember this. (y)

None of those things is game breaking IMO. They all bring unique abilities to the table, but when built, or especially when optimized around these builds they all have weaknesses, in some cases glaring weaknesses. Put a party of those 4 you mention into tomb of annihilation and play it as...

Ok when you say optimization, I assume you mean optimized for combat. I don't kn9ow exactly what you are talking about, is GWM "game breaking". I don't think so. I have not really ran into game-breaking optimizations a lot. That said here are some easy ways to discourage that sort of...

If you did this shatterspike would only last about 3 or 4 battles.

I think the rules-lawyer answer would be as long as you are a custom-lineage Tiefling. So you can be a custom lineage Tiefling that looks like a halfling, but you can't be a custom lineage half Orc that looks like a Tiefling. At my table though, if you wanted to take the feat you could take...

Artificer Armorer 24 Artificer Battle Smith 22 Barbarian Path of the Beast 21 Bard College of Eloquence 3 Cleric Order Domain 25 Cleric Twilight Domain 24 Druid Circle of Stars 24 Druid Circle of Wildfire 23 Fighter Rune Knight 23 Monk Way of Mercy 6 Paladin Oath of Glory 12 Paladin Oath of the...

You are losing creativity, flavor, role play and character customization and for no legitimate gaming reason that I can see or that you have offered. That and their intentional use of the word "appears" is why I am confident my interpretation is correct.

It is defining what a damage type is. It is not saying where a damage type appears. Following is the definition of appears, the section you quoted does not speak to appearance at all: Appear: Come into sight; become visible or noticeable. Now when those words "slashing damage" are in a spell...

So I have found it is more or less impossible to use counterspell and identify spell as written. When it gets to the BBEG's turn it is far easier to say he casts a fireball, at which point wizard will come up and say "I counterspell him". I know this makes the spell decidedly more powerful...

No the damage type section tells you what damage type is, not where it appears. 5E is also written around being open and flexible. Your interpretation nerfs this subclass in terms of roleplay and takes away virtually all the creativity you can put into your offensive damaging spells. The...

It is not cheese it is how it is intended and I can't think of any reason for a narrower interpretation. Why would they make it so fewer spells could be used. That makes no sense. The words you are bolding are what I am using to make my case. Another damage type that appears. It doesn't say...

I would not allow magic weapon because a damage type does not appear in that spell. I don't think this is debatable either, all it says is it has a +1 to attack and damage rolls.

Respectfully I think you need to consider the word appear. You are right words saying slashing damage does not make stoneskin a damage type, but the spell does not have to have a damage type to be used for this feature. All it says it is the damage type has to appear. A damage type "appears"...