Search results

okay, this is fine and i can agree with this part, this however, is i feel a bad method to get to that solution, and i must ask, and i apologize if you have already stated this in the thread already and i missed it, but what is your definition/threshold to qualify for an encounter 'being...

okay, a little more seriously, i like the root idea of OP which is making the weaker and lesser used weapons more viable and desirable but forcing the issue with weapon breakage is not the solution. i always liked the idea of if you've got martial proficiency and choose to use a simple weapon...

i'm sure when you add weapon breakage you'll also add focii, component pouches and holy symbols breaking on a dime too so casters also perpetually loose their only form of attack.

i mean, Wizards already writes out individual spell lists for all of the casters anyway, i'm not against the idea of classifying which casters are A/D/P but it doesn't actually seem to have any effect on what casters can or can't cast what or how they do it, not in the same way like they used to...

not really encouraging this kind of attribution, but i might've at least assigned hermits as monks instead.

i'd rather they ditched how arcane/divine/primal relates to what spells you can get.

okay i did say there's too much overlap, i didn't say there was that much overlap this is just going way too far in my opinion, a lone caster class with feat clip-ons is not something to strive for IMO, it is good that there are separate chassis with secondary mechanics worked in, i'm just...

i'd like to see how the game would change (and need to be changed) if HP was flattened, with higher starting HP values for both PCs and NPCs and stop gaining HP at like, maybe 5th, 8th? level? a fighter starts with 20 HP at 1st, gains +d10(av:6) +3(con) for five levels for 65 at 6th a wizard...

i mean, i'm not sure we really actually NEED to do that to talk about what works and what doesn't.

i won't deny i've actually desired even tighter focuses on baseclass caster spell lists with bigger expanded spell lists for their subclasses, because honestly even with the current lists there's still a ton of overlap in spell selection.

personally i like giving dwarves minor geokinesis, this pairing of spell abilities is something i've considered before: -you know the the Mold Earth cantrip (specifically mold earth not elementalism, one because thematics, two because it has the 5ft difficult terrain feature) and can cast it as...

test post, getting an error message when trying to view page 52 of this thread? (posting from 51), i can view the most recent page when logged out. edit: forum issues seem to be over.

so what if the session has to end if the players diverge from a linear adventure, what does this have to do with them being railroaded or not?

no, the players CAN just leave the tomb, there should be a world outside that singular dungeon, and at any point if that is what they should choose to do then they should be able to retrace their steps and go out, even if it causes hell for the GM and forces them say 'if you're really making...

the difference being that railroading forces you to stick to the tracks the GM plans out, they WILL go from A to B to C, whether they want to or not, barring leaving the game entirely. you might also go from A to B to C in a linear adventure but if the players so desires they can get off at any...

i'm wondering what the passives might be for the 14 creature types, though i don't think i really know enough about the design throughline of monsters well enough fill this list with appropriate bonuses, i'd probably give expertise in the most appropriate of Nature, Religion or Arcana for each...

those are not railroads, they're linear, the adventures where the players turn off their brain and just follow the signposts are linear, players don't choose to play a railroad because it it something that is put upon them by someone else.

no, there are some classes that require magic for their concept, there are some classes that don't need magic for their concept, but there are also classes like ranger, who don't need magic for their concept, but would absolutely incorporate it into their abilities if it was available.

i think claiming the ranger is a wilderness expert is actually a significant factor in what muddies the waters on what they are, i'd claim they're actually a survival expert, and knowing your terrain and the enemies in it is a huge boon for survival, it's a subtle distinction but an important...

because just because you can't always be directly driving towards your own character's personal backstory hooks doesn't mean they shouldn't have weight on your character's in-universe build choices.