Search results

A rogue (Thief) of the appropriate level could, but then, they have a feature that explicitly lets them do so. Custom Lineage has no such feature that allows them to do the same.

According to this, it seems like it's from any corner to any corner.

Is there a specific place where that's stated (magic weapons not having monetary value) explicitly?

I think the assumption here (and like most assumptions the game makes, it's probably a bad/unrealistic assumption) is that enough adventurers are at the level of strength needed to fully draw a longbow long enough to get an effective shot (or several) off with one. After all, when someone with a...

Looking in at the last bits of the ranger thread (It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)), got me to thinking about barding (particularly as a solution to the "low ac" complaints being raised there) and it's there I run into a problem. A big problem...

How do you (and your DM) feel about feats? Because I'm personally a big fan of Polearm Master.

Assuming we're talking about characters being played in the game's default setting (or a sufficiently similar setting), I'm interested in reinforcement and maintenance of the traditional stereotypes because they help support the shared 'D&D' experience.

PC's absolutely aren't beholden to the average - that's why their base stats aren't simply the commoner average of 10/11 but instead the result of either chance (various random methods of stat generation) or deliberate selection (point buy or other means of stat selection).

I'd imagine the Campaign Rivals / Anti-Party would normally be exceptional (though having 'ordinary' people being such would be a good thing on occasion), while the typical guards and thugs wouldn't be (though having a group of such being exceptional every now and then would also be a good thing...

It's not even what it means in 5e, based off evidence in the very books that he designed. Or are random NPC guards and thugs also exceptional individuals now?

I don't recall saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me. I don't even remember saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me mechanically, which I almost consider a fair- if mistaken- interpretation of my words. But to answer the question you asked, because having that +2 Con is...

If it's all about your character as an individual getting something (as opposed to your character getting something for being a general member of a particular group), what's the point of even noting that said character is a member of that group in the first place, mechanically speaking?

I dunno, I'm fine with (almost) every official shield being an exception to the general rules for magic armor, given things like Evocation Wizards not even having (unless they managed to get Sacred Flame somehow) a cantrip of their school that could be used with their school's subclass feature...

Use things that ignore AC? Alternatively, attempt to get them to use up their spell slots on Shielding.

It's a no cost frenzy with conditions that make it useless for people trying to maximize damage but otherwise beneficial for those trying to maintain damage yet still do other things on their turn. So, it's ok, I guess.

Are the spell scribing rules in Xananthar's Guide (pg 133) no longer a thing?

From Webster's dictionary:

Given it's equally likely that the 'a' in the context of the rule could mean 'any' instead of 'one', your insistence that said 'a' must be read as 'one' is baffling.

Honestly, I'd just remove superiority die entirely and let the fighter have the effect (but not bonus damage) of a given manuever on each attack.

Why was there even a roll for a chef pretending to be a chef? Like, did the DM think your character was a crappy chef or something? Were you pretending to be a specific chef with particular mannerisms - which doesn't really fit with carrying supplies for the kitchen (at least, I can't imagine a...