Search results

If you go that route, you make it easier to build other subclasses as well - the samurai gets a certain number of "Archetype Maneuvers" similar to a cleric's domain spells: you get them just because, and they may or may not be on the main list. You can then pick some others to add in to make...

At least with sorcerer the subclasses provide identity and flavor - not always well, but they all try. Fighter's biggest issue is that the PHB subclasses also fail to provide much identity or flavor, so you end up with white rice of a class. Which can make your race and/or background stand out...

I can usually manage it, but I specifically play my elves as haughty in a refined sort of way. I have played with a lot of people who just wanted the free cantrip, or half-elves that I forgot were half-elves because charisma isn't an elf-exclusive ability.

Height. :P Actually , the difference in feel is, I think, akin to a sense of high-born-ness. DnD elves, borrowing from the Tolkien tradition, are proud and noble and haughty and pure and such. Posh, at least. They should feel unapproachable to a commoner, something rare and beautiful and...

Even if they went to fully non-mechanical races, they'd still be that: dwarves are gruff, elves are posh, gnomes are obsessive, etc.

Waaaay back when, after the d20 SRD was released but before 3.0e DnD came out, there was Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. It used this idea: there is one spell list, and like four different ways to access it. I never actually played so I can't tell you if it worked.

I thnk that's just because we've shoved necromancer into wizard. It should probably be it's own class, really.

Wizards shouldn't heal, shouldn't be great at commanding natural phenomena, and should generally have a broad array of abilities they're pretty good at but nothing they're great at unless it doesn't fit in any other class. Clerics shouldn't be good at elemental magic, damage in general, or...

Defense is part of fighting, though. Unless you think unarmored, greataxe-wielding barbarians should be all about defense and sword-and-board heavy armor fighters should be all about offense?

Every game I've been in, so I guess that 50/50

If you know which pc you're giving the weapon to, you can decide if expanded/improved criticals are tooo much, and you can lock the attunement to the right class.

I can see fighters being the best at using the specifics of weapons (ie get more out of reach or the difference between a sword and an axe) but they can't be the "unparalleled masters of combat" without creating more problems then you solve.

No components, not a spell. Psionics are magic, but they're not spells. Cool! Why are we casting spells for 5 levels before playing the concept we chose at first level? Yeah, the 2024 version is at least twice as good at pulling this off as the 2014 version, but still only 95% of the way...

I was talking about Americans.

It would be if they were actually better at fighting than anybody else. But if fighters are just plain better at fighting, what are barbarians good at? If a raging barbarian isn't just as good as a fighter at attacking enemies with weapons, barbarians are pointless. If they are, fighters have...

Something that captures the flavor of the psion, which has a few key points: 1. IS NOT SPELLCASTING. If it's the same as a wizard, it's not a psion. This has been the core feature of psionics for 45 years by now, and at no point has "just make them like every other spellcaster but call them...

"Sorry, you get one attempt to make a balanced psion class. Since the first try didn't work, that's clear proof that no psion can ever work and you're silly for wanting it."

As a Yank; I don't think I've ever heard of a Native American being called a druid (or bard) - both are associated with Britain. Now, the details? Yeah, we probably get them mixed up all the time. If you looked at 100 drawings of druids made by Americans, I'd bet a majority have specifically...

I imagine most people would now druids form video games, where they're most often "nature-themed spellcasters" of some sort. The Stonehenge archetype doesn't really conflict with that. I can't think of a single popular representation of druids that isn't "nature-themed magic user" though.

A +2 would be fine, but I would add something else. Perhaps it allows the (attuned) wielder to cast guardian of nature once per day? I might even add that to what @EzekielRaiden posted above.