Search results

Yes. Yes we do. To be fair, I'm not arguing in good faith. I don't really need the swashbuckler to preserve the dubious multi-class mechanic. I just want to preserve it anyway.

I keep hearing people pointing to a dex based fighter as a reason against multi class ability score requirements, and it makes me think there should just be a swashbuckler base class so that two birds could be killed with one stone . Also, put ability requirements on base classes. Fighter...

I have to be honest, I don't even know what I really said.

Bloody common law.

What about C?

Whomever asserted that the OGL benefited WotC directly and indirectly, they were correct. Directly, the OGL fosters good will and expands the pool of designers to work with (as someone pointed out already). Indirectly, by creating the OGL, as we observed back in 2000, the market expands as more...

I actually hated the 3e druid for it's ability to shape change into any animal. I love the way D&D Next has presented druidic shapechanging. The druid has access to a few generic forms, leaving the fluff details up to the player. These are more general use forms, not battle forms. If you want...

I think feats/ability improvements that are class based are one of the most elegant solutions to reigning in reckless multiclassing. I think it will influence people to become more concept focused rather than mechanically focused when it comes to building and leveling their characters. I don't...

I rather they not make elaborate back stories of these monsters, because there is a desire to design monsters along the lines of a theme based on these kinds of stories. I guess I'd rather have monsters be like they were presented in previous editions, but with 5e stars, so I can plug them into...

Clearly, the solution to the problem with multiclassing requirements is to have ability requirements for each class.

I definitely like the multiclass restrictions. And I really like that they changed the fighters second wind ability. And the barbarians thick hide . And what's craziest is ... I like the bard. I liked tool proficiencies before. The skill system isn't that bad, and it's nice that skills, tools...

Double post

That's because I totally messed up. It's in the Character Creation document, last page. Sorry about that.

The bonus is listed on the last page in How to Play, and each class also lists the bonus by level on the class features table.

Must be. We didn't multiclass all that much in 2e, but when 3e came out, holy crap, multiclassing everywhere. It would probably have been more prevalent if multiclassing pre-3e didn't suck so much.

Oh lord! What a horrible time to be out of the house away from the computer!!!

I always felt that the bonus for stats above 19 should be 5 + (Ability Score - 20). Because epic monsters and deities.

I'm really disappointed, but they tried to meet part of the way between no skills and yes skills, so it isn't a total loss. At least it sounds like new DMs and players can ignore skills if they wish.

I like the flexibility of subraces without having to stat up each different kind of elf as their own race a la 3.5.

I'm going to have to become foaming at the mouth and say that I don't feel like psionic abilities are magics. I feel they should be a separate source of power, completely disconnected with whatever source of power fuels magic.