Search results

No leadership qualities is flat out not a knight. Full stop. Everything else works just as well for a warlord. It’s just a renamed warlord with specific gear focus. Which sounds fine. Eh. The obsession with making everything that has any nonmagical iterations be strictly nonmagical annoys me...

Anyway I voted warlord (different name. Always.) because it’s the least currently fudge-able in the current rules. Shephard Druid, Spirit Bard, and just a Druid with the right spells in general can do Shaman, and there is a lot of gish in 5e at this point. I want a proper gish class and I wish...

I keep considering Kinda, though a subclass with weapon use focus and no pet would help a lot. What possible thing could a non magical knight do that doesn’t also fit the warlord? If it’s just the name then whatever vanishingly few care about the name warlord. Yeah I wish we could see an Int...

Yes. Auras and movement and some dice to throw around.

In my game/world, there different types of beings called dragons. Leviathan is a dragon, and is essentially a god. Nidhogg is believed by many to be Tiamat, which makes her both a dragon and one of the greatest gods. The Red Dragon (of Wales) is a powerful being on par with less powerful...

30 foot telepathy is at least not egregiously aweful like 10ft was… But it still feels like a bad joke.

No one is. We pay for DDB as a service, not a book rental. The fact that some of what I’ve paid for on there only exists on there doesn’t matter because I didn’t buy it with the idea of it being like buying a book. I paid to make it integrated with the service.

I’m not sure that is actually in evidence. We know that this crossover was deemed to be appropriate for a digital only release. That tells us nothing about any other prospective mtg crossover.

Or Calipso or a siren.

Maybe a majority but not by much. Few episodes lacked levity.

I mean eventually “yes we should” is going to turn into “so how do we do it right?”

I’ve thought about it from a different angle, more like the 2014 hunter turned up to 11. But, if we go by official creature types, it’s tough because few of them have unifying mechanics, but…here’s a try with no attempt to balance Beasts - Ability to communicate with beasts and predict their...

Sounds like something 4e woulda done

Official settings, Eberron. Magitech. I wish some of the magitech wasn’t so locked to specific organizations, like airships, but it’s fine I can just use that and an inventive PC or NPC ally to create conflict.

Lol fair, but I stand by it. Any ranger that isn’t just a scout will have some features that can reasonably be fueled by spell slots. The only other way to go is to base the ranger on Discipline rather than spell slots and give some sort of discipline features that you can lean into instead of...

Hopefully Disney+ tanks so hard it dies as a platform. ETA: not even because of anything political.

Aragorn is definitely doing magic in LoTR. LoTR has very subtle magic. Very rarely is it flashy or anything like the D&D idea of spellcasting.

I don’t understand how anyone could say that wilderness expert being magical is odd, or not based on a strong association.

The mostly martial “ranger” is a scout. Not a bad point. How it could work is to replace favored enemy with Hunter’s Bane, and you choose an effect or two at the end of a long rest (more active at a time as you level, analogous to artificer infusions), and each has benefits against a type of...

Very reasonable. My solution would have been to give the Ranger two FE options at level 1, and make the benefits more general for each one, like a benefit when fighting flying creatures or spellcasting creatures or large+ creatures, or hordes, etc. Basically steal the Hunter’s deal and expand...