Search results

I did notice that last part ( accuracy fighting style changing to +2 damage), which is good, because I'm thinking of ways to get more damage if I hit, not to get more attack. I think I have enough (+3 if I use my bonus action and don't move, and I can choose another +1 to attack or +1d6 to...

I was just rereading the ranger and I did notice it gets a lot of attack bonuses (from features like hunters target, trained accuracy and adversarial focus, all Stacking if im reading it right). That per se is not a bad thing, I'm just thinking if I can translate rant into damage somehow...

I got the message that A5e.tools is no longer available for non backers. I thought that the tools website was supposed to be open, but I can understand if not. Either way, I still have access to some parts of it, just not the full menu and individual spells and maneuvers and a couple.of.other...

You do have a point though. Why is it that upcasting the spell makes it more  difficult to perma banish extraplanars? Maybe it could say at the end: "if a target is banished for 5 or more rounds to its home plane, it does not return when the spell ends". That would make permanently banishing an...

Yeah, an oversight of me not realising trading down is permitted, even if it's not explicitly spelled out, but if you canchoose a lower degree maneuver when you learn it, I don't see why you couldn't trade down. I was kinda hoping the cost of the higher degree maneuvers would make so that only...

I tend to agree with point I, decreasing penalties seem better for a spell that punishes you more, the longer you take to save against it. The upcast seems ok, as I find targeting more than one person with a powerfull spell like that a bit overpowered. Not sure about point II though. Perhaps if...

I ve been told you cannot trade maneuvers "up" meaning trading a maneuver for another one with a higher degree. What about trading for a maneuver with a lower degree? Is that possible within the rules? Also, now stepping in the pantanous homebrew territory, would that be so awful to allow...

In effect is, a lot more limited but on a WIZARD class. But I missed the really important limitation of prof times a day, that makes it very reasonable with any cantrip I can think of. Unless I miss some important iteration.

Ops missed that prof times a day thing. That certainly limits it to a certain degree. I can also see bladeward being a very good candidate, specially for gish types

Did any of you guys found that rote memorization (scholarly excellence, wizard level 3) when used by "martial wizard" (essentially multiclass with fighter/berserk, what have you) is a bit OP with cantrips such as blade ward and true strike? They will be spammed every round. Even though blade...

I liked the spells particularly. Isn't Skyward a better fit for 1st level instead of 2nd? The damage is low and, if I understand correctly, the target doesn't even loose actions or anything. If it falls prone, he loses half his move, but that is about it. He still got his full turn.

Well, the way I envision the rule is, you need to have the weapon drawn, it's a reaction, you can't really draw and throw. That makes having a thrown weapon at hands handy (hmm, pun not fully intended). Also, I was thinking of allowing the maneuver only at short range, not long range, so...

For context, my other impactful change I want to implement is to give thrown weapons advantage in opportunity attacks. If someone turns their tail and flee from you in melee, you just throw your handaxe at their back. That's probably a lot easier than trying to hack at him with that same axe...

I was thinking of allowing the Break Spell maneuver to be used with a thrown weapon within normal range. I think thrown weapons need some love, so I'm implementing some.changes to make them more appealing. Would this change to the maneuver be too much? Let me know your opinion

Am I remembering it wrong or entering an opponent's space grants them an opportunity attack against you? Away from books now

Well, I still think there is a "problem" with multiclassing fighter. 3 maneuvers, 2 traditions and a fighting style for only one level and not losing (and potentially getting a better) maneuver progression is a no brainer for every fool that can hold a weapon in my opinion. But it looks like...

Exactly! High level maneuvers should be something fighters and marshals get, not every martial class and certainly not heralds, who also have access to spells

Just throwing out there, but a multiclass progression table seems overly complicated. I know sprlcasting has one, but why make martials as complicated as spellcasters? I like the solution of separate progression. You want high level maneuvers? Specialise in one class!

This should be baseline. But I would go one step further... You should use the worst progression when defining maneuver progression, not the best progression. You multiclass to be more versatile, not to multiply power. That's the whole point of multiclassing IMO. Single class should always be...

I don't really like one level dips for the sake of obtaining more power, turns an RPG game into a video game, but min-maxers will always exist. In any case, getting more maneuvers and combat traditions is fine by me, since the whole point of multiclassing is getting more options (as is stated...