Search results

But... it doesn't eschew anything? The only difference between it and 3e/4e combat is lack of flanking rules. 5e is still full of minutia, and the whole 'other people give you cover' + 'you need to be on the opposite side of cover to benefit from it' means this is exactly the kind of precise...

Sounds accurate. It's not as bad as 3e, but magic will mess you (and your campaign) up. We'll see if most campaigns still end up dying out around lv10, because it's not as ubiquitous by then yet. Hopefully the DMG will handle this topic, because at least it'd show they've considered the issue.

Rules say a creature can act as cover, but then you have to consider exact positioning and lines of fire, which requires minis. It's easier to decide based on what you want to encourage happening in actual gameplay: NO PENALTY - ranged characters have an easier time, but this also applies to...

Monks and Rogues need their bonus actions for so many other things...

Err... extremely situational is hardly powerful. You do avoid halving your damage when you're throwing fireballs at salamanders, but that just begs the question of why not use any of a million other spells they aren't resistant to. I bet thundermancers never have to worry about resistances...

Funny, I view these feats (and Tavern Brawler, oh boy, that thing) as proof that they haven't learned anything from previous editions. These are tiny niche feats that will get overshadowed by anything else that does actually something useful (like, +2 to stats). So, they end up being just filler...

Durable is horrible, and it gets worse the larger your hitdie is. A Con 18 Barbarian going from 5-16 healing to 8-16 healing is nothing. Especially when you only recover HALF of your hitdice during a long rest, so this won't even help you 'naturally' heal anything. If Durable skipped the roll...

If he made a roll for it, he presumably risked something, and should get something extra for his effort. After the first time,it should not take a roll, but it also should not give anything, because it's no longer cool.

You're right, I'd completely missed that Eldritch Blast didn't work like other cantrips, but gave you extra beams. Oh snap, that makes gishing a Warlock so very pointless. Nevermind, only valid build for them is Eldritch Blasting, especially with the hilarity of targeting the same foe with all...

Yeah, that's how the rules are written - no modifiers, just dis/adv vs 5-step DC. Since cover mechanics didn't follow that mold, my group replaced those with dis/adv instead.

Going from 50% success rate to 75% is pretty meaningful, since that's like a +5 bonus.

We play the game faster, because players aren't stopping to ask if every little thing gets them the bonus? If you give advantage easily, with stuff like 'higher ground' being enough to get it, then people will just repeat the same stuff every fight to get it, and everyone ends up fighting from...

I don't know, Warlock seems close to this. They get at-will spell-like effects, a few of the earth-shaking spells (usable a few times per short rest), with Blade pact they can get proficiency in any weapon, they can get a 2nd attack per turn from Invocation, they have d8 hitdie, with fiend...

This is exactly how I'd use it.

Based on alpha, Eldritch Knight is stuck with 2nd-level spells by 12th level still, and limited to abjuration/evocation, so hope you like that Shield spell. With multiple attacks, attack spells rarely have a function, but perhaps you can squeeze a Thunderwave in there somewhere... But wait...

All Wizards are generalists, they can all do everything, you just get a few bonus powers in your specialization on top of that. I'm more bothered by all Clerics following the same pattern, everyone getting the same spells, and then a few Wizard spells on top of those, nevermind the theme.

Why make the player learn two systems? Currently, Sorcerer uses slots AND points, which surely is harder than just using one of those.

Seriously, suggesting 'just pick Wizard and pick evocation spells and you have your simple caster!' is maliciously silly. The very basis of Wizards, preparing spells that you then cast a different amount of times from, confused an otherwise very smart player in my group when she tried to grok...

There are no simple casters.

So... Paladin? But yeah, if you're martial, you don't get options. Battle Master would be the logical place to put Warlord, but then, they could've called it Warlord if that was the case. As is, they're not one, as (in Alpha) they get laughably few uses of their little tricks, so that won't...