Search results

sure, but, for me at least, that feels more like a result of lazy design than actually being deserving of full martial weapons, like, i do not think the barbarian deserves full martial, i think they should have battleaxe, greataxe, greatsword, longsword, maul and warhammer, thereabouts, i think...

So, in the interests of a more constructive direction, i ask: what would it take for each of you to start weapon juggling during battle? For myself I have to say i think it would be already having most specialisation choices active to my character without needing to pick them, I don’t say this...

what if at 2nd level the base fighter just got to pick between a) +fighting style, +1 crit range, +1 HP/Level. vs b) +3 manoeuvres, +(2+PB) superiority die. then the players can just pick between simple and complex without being a ball and chain on the design of the rest of the fighter, then...

1) because every new player is directed to the fighter to start with because it is stereotyped as the 'simple class.' 2) because it represents a thematic concept they want to play, even if they find the mechanics lacking.

yes this does look comedic to me but what i also see is that there are only two actual weapons in the scene, the knife(which spends the best part of that video in the guy's back) and the hammer, neither of which break or look close to breaking, everyone else seems to be using wood batons, not...

even if BM manoeuvre were incorporated into base fighter, there would still be ways to play a big dumb fighter wouldn't there? nothing stops you from functionally just taking precision attack and using nothing but that one manoeuvre when you miss a big hit.

i'd rather rely on social skill checks with a chance of players zero effort roll-playing than straight up ignore what characters are built for and use RP to decide everything above table, what's that you say? the 5 CHA barbarian managed to run rings around the conversation against a professional...

you'll be forcing the martials into situations with more options, but ultimately most/all of those options are going to be less fun and probably also less effective than if they had just been able to use their chosen weapon. i get that you want more decision making and i can agree with that...

you could at least call it 'roughneck' to not put such an unappealing angle on it, while i'm certain there would be some (there always are) most players probably don't want to imagine their character starting out quite so down on their luck and in the gutters (and then you don't need to explain...

this is something i've suggested here a few times before, it's something i really think it would benefit both halves of the druid, the caster side gets to focus on actually being the nature caster and you get to expand the thematic design space of the wildshape half by putting it into it's own...

i don't think the tortoise would want their weapons to break either.

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.