Search results

An easy example, using 3e, might have an exceptional elf using the elite stat array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), compared with an unexceptional elf who might use the standard array (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10). They'd otherwise both have the same traits as an elf like low-light vision, immunity to...

I think it grew on me the more I watched it. part of what I liked about it was that it appeared more solid than the classic constitution.

I quite liked the neo-constitution from the Picard series.

Here in NZ we call them fizzy winkles named after John Winkle who brought carbonated drinks to the country in 1937.

If the flier is strong enough, I would allow it. As for attacking while being carried in flight, I'd also allow that, probably gonna be at disadvantage though. This reminded me of the faerie character (homebrew race) my friend played that was a fighter with that giant subclass. As a faerie...

I guess the difference between prep and play can be a little nebulous, I'd definitely call it an exercise in creativity, not sure if I'd call it play but I wouldn't argue strongly against that as an interpretation especially since the following resonates with me:

I prefer that they start off as typical and grow to become exceptional. Level 1 PCs are fairly common and typical representatives who later become exceptional heroes. Maybe they're slightly above typical at the start, but only slightly.

Even from back in my early days of playing I never understood the arcane restriction on dwarves. I've always felt that they should be able to be arcane casters as that helps them with their crafting of magical items, cursing rings, and turning into dragons.

I recall reading somewhere that 2e was meant to have ascending AC and attack bonuses but that was shot down for backwards compatibility.

I'd definitely allow the player to switch up their feats, or at the very least, make the PAM reach attack count as an opportunity attack and halt their movement. I'm sort of less concerned about the disengage one, but maybe it would be better to just use the 2014 feats instead.

Wow, okay. You've even laid it out clearly and there's still a lot of it I don't understand. Small wonder people didn't use it because that is confusing, alao time consuming to track all the small fiddly changes with weapons and weapon speeds.

I've heard that 1e initiative was bad, but how bad was it really? I think some comments I've heard were that it was unusable.

I'm generally fine with one or two low stats, I think people don't like them since wotc editions where the stat bonuses and the standard way they are derived became more important so having a penalty is felt more by the player. In OSE I rolled a character with all average stats (10s and 11s)...

Does this no longer exist in 5.5 because it used to just take an attack and opposed athletics check.

I recall this being especially bad in 3e. Feats for things like grappling should enhance your ability to do it rather seemingly require the feat to grapple. I can understand some effects being locked behind special training (feats) but so.etimes they go overboard

You don't even need to explain the cosmology for players of clerics, though it might depend on the player, I'm quite content to play a cleric of war or a cleric of order and just use the domains as the church. Others might really want to have a god in which case you might need something which...

I might enjoy reading it, but unless it really impacts the game it isn't something that I need to know. I've played plenty of games knowing very little about magic, the gods (I might learn the names of a couple to curse in game), or the planes and their inhabitants.

Honestly, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who backed this. If this is a product that they loved back when it was first released and they want an updated version, I'd be fine with it.

This might be a little rambling back and forth. 2e was the second version of DnD I played and still a favourite. I can't comment too much on 1e as I've only flicked through the books and read comments from others. I will say, one think I did not like about 1e core books was the writing style...

That dancing lights spell would look okay if it was dancing (admittedly not how the spell is described) and didn't have crazy eyes.