Search results

you know, sometimes i wonder if the designers put the knowledge skills in the game for like, a purpose or if they and their bonuses are just there as decoration on the character sheet (a similar thought is had about social skills)

at least fizbans made the adjustment that it only replaced a single attack rather than your whole attack action, that made it feel so much more able to slip into your action economy on alot of classes, and the ones that it didn't were the fullcasters who didn't get extra attack.

you mean how GWM/SS builds outclassed what they could achieve in damage so much it made them seem underwhelming by comparison?

are you describing martial players in general or are you referring to a specific subset, i had previously thought you were discussing the former in your post saying how 'martial players don't want buttons' but this makes me think you're talking about the latter.

this i'm going to have to disagree on, IMO the value i'd identify as the root of the Chaotic alignment is liberty. A chaotic has no issue with government or organizations in and of themselves so long as they are not actively trying to enforce control. (and for lawful i'd identify it as...

okay, but how does that relate to martial 'buttons'? how are you defining that term in this conversation/context?

one thing i don't get about the gnome is that their two primary archetypes that DnD seems to want to focus on, to me seem to be directly opposed to each other in aesthetic, the unobtrusive and peaceful friend of animals forest dweller who excel with illusions VS the eccentric and loud city...

i mostly agree with your post but i'm catching on one thing here, some of which might just be your meaning in the phrasing of it in which case might you clarify for me, but my objection is, do martial players really desire less 'buttons' for their characters? one of the biggest complaints i tend...

i got almost halfway through this thread before realizing it was a necro, uh, some people might have some reacts on some very old messages... just for fun my myth is 'the morality of an act can be relative to what you have been taught it is', No, you might've been taught that it is right and...

rogues, as i recall how some youtuber or other put it, for all their bonuses with expertise, still have to 'play by the rules' when it comes to problem solving, and spellcasters don't.

all it took was one search, Search for: GM (thread titles only: on), From: Hussar, and it was the only result

i think it depends on how much you think that magic should actually be 'needed' to defeat those kinds of opponents, i see rangers using magic because they are more of a jack of all trades and diversify their skills much more while the fighter focuses in much more on combat specifically to the...

i have to disagree here that they would be unnecessary because i don't see the point of the ranger as to exist solely to be hunting these threats that require the supernatural to defeat, they are shepherds and guides of their lands, they know it and keep it in line, there doesn't need to be...

was it this one? https://www.enworld.org/threads/in-your-experience-how-good-are-gms.293390/

exactly, the ranger is focused on survivability and practicality, they will absolutely pick up any new useful tool that could be at their disposal, and in worlds with magic, especially such consistent and reliable magic, it's basically the king of tools available.

i don't really like that hunter's mark is used as a damage tool for rangers, i'd rather split that role off into a separate ability and let HM go whole hog into the tracking/locating role, the visual range is the worst part of HM IMO, as it only lets you track something you've already found, if...

maybe, but i find other-media characters nearly always have some ability or other which doesn't neatly fit into DnD's class structures that trying to nail them down to specifics is an exercise in futility, maybe if you could just cherry-pick whatever abilities you wanted regardless of class or...

i laugh, but you're not incorrect, batman pretty much is an urban environment ranger when you think about it: extensive knowledge of their preferred terrain(gotham) - check, highly versatile and adaptable kit to cover all situations - check, has and develops specialized kit against specific...

is a species not a packet of rules? so how is a new species not classified as new rules? that's like saying 'if i add a class entirely out of existing mechanics i haven't actually made a new class' I’m considering this an ‘all terriers are dogs but not all dogs are terriers’ situation, adding...

don't you mean would not? (also you're missing a space in your thread title between 'Classes I')