Search results

Bard 15+1=16 Cleric 4 Druid 8 Fighter 18-2=16 Paladin 10 Rogue 14 Warlock 12 Wizard 14

Bard 18+1=19 Cleric 10 Druid 11 Fighter 20-2=18 Monk 12 Paladin 16 Ranger 3 Rogue 25 Warlock 17 Wizard 20 Upset with Barbarians, Rangers, and/or Paladins? Well maybe the fighter shouldn't have farmed out all of it's flavor. Bards are cool. They do cool stuff.

Straightforward, sure. But at no point does a proper noun correlate in those like the post I was quoting suggested

It's worth noting that the codenames for CoS and SKT were "cloak" and "dagger", respectively, neither of which had a ton to do with the actual products.

All I'm saying is that if you pick moon, you are given a playstyle that you eventually level yourself out of. If you pick land, your specilization nets you an ability that every wizard gets. They are weaker together. More well-rounded, perhaps, but weaker. I would rather have a good, 1-20...

No, I act as if this is a 5th ed forum.

Ugh, it's too early for this. I find moon druids to eventually reach an unfulfilling playstyle. I feel as if being tied to a full caster necessitated some reduction in potential power to the aformentioned moon druid. I would like to see a version where wildshaping could continue to be their...

You don't think upper mid level wildshaping sucks? I think upper mid level wildshaping sucks. Sure would be nice if I could maul this dude for more than one round without getting knocked out of my wildshape

I think you may be the in the snowglobe. I have very many sports friends and very many gamer friends. Those two groups only share one person and that one person is me. I played last night and no one was wondering where Kyle Lowry would go, whether Sid came back too soon, or laughing maniacally...

Pre bounded accuracy that perhaps works. In 5e, however, everyone just about always has a mathematical chance to beat anyone else at anything. Not acknowledging that chance could lead to some salty players. EDIT: and in your example specifically, it would only be an autofail for the 10 STR on 4...

Thats a lot of points in dead attributes, a lot of delayed ki, and whats this guy's CON at?

I mean, you can do that with any 3 pally/1 rogue, right? Maybe 1 less AC? And this pally cant benefit from the armored fighting style because he isn't wearing armor

With what class would you dip this for 3 levels and still have it be viable?

Eeeeeeeh, colossus slayer is essentially always on, deals more damage, and doesn't preclude HM also coming down on turn 1. Hunter enclave starts comfortably ahead and then only widens that gap

Yeah, and there was a variation on it in the last 2 archtypes as well. Only thing now is to see if they pop out the spell completely and graft this onto the pre exisiting enclaves in a revised revised ranger

So 13 STR, 13 CHA, 3 levels out of your primary class and then max your DEX. What class benefits from that choice?

I think you buried the lede a little bit here: He asked you to play a specific class? Why?

Action surge is a 2 level dip. That delay doesn't make a huge difference in white room, level 20, theorycrafting, but in actual play pushes back whatever your main class's features are by a ton, along with ASIs. Fighting styles aren't breaking any games. The +2 damage/.5 average damage...

One certainly could. Don't really buy that for the fighter. Armor? Can get several places. Weapons? Can get several places. Warlock, I grant you; eldritch blast cheese is cheesy, but past cheese shouldn't justify the inclusion of future cheese, and future cheese doesn't absolve past cheese of...

Well then I'd say: 13 INT to MC out of or in to Grants Light armor and simple weapons No skills Disciplines, Points, and Talents are obviously tracked separately from Spells/spells known And, if you don't have proficiency in Wisdom saves then you can't switch your proficiency in Wisdom saves...