Search results

Oh, I totally understand why it happens. Totally get it. Just hate it with a passion.

See, that's even more pointless to me. Endlessly frustrating the players - "Oh, sorry, you can't find that magic item today, come back later" - is not improving anything. Because players only try to buy stuff that's 100% practical. They will never buy stuff that's interesting. Making it into...

For me, and this is purely my own preference, I detest buying magic items. It's so pointless. The party buys magic items that give the most bang for the buck. So, the DM just adjusts the monsters to the new math because the DM doesn't want the party steam rolling encounters. Which means the...

But, that's the problem. 3e had the wealth by level tables, as did 4e, and people did nothing but bitch about it. It's "dictating" a specific playstyle, goes the argument. So, sure, while I totally agree that that level of transparency should be in the game, I also know that that ship sailed...

Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but, isn't arcane gish an Artificer? I mean, they've got the spells, powers and extra attack. In what way isn't an artificer an arcane gish?

No, folks, you have to remember, any and all positive statements about 4e must be argued to death. It is not permitted that anything positive be attributed to 4e without constant, neverending challenge. Fifteen years just isn't enough time to let stuff go, apparently.

But... that's not how warlords ever worked. It was almost always the warlord's turn when the character took an action and then granted actions to other PC's. Very, very few warlord actions were reactive. I agree, a reactive warlord would be a PITA.

Oy, if you want to play something 3pp, bring it to the table. :D I'm all in.

Yeah that was very much my experience too. SInce there were no actual 2nd level healing spells, and about the only "curing" spell IIRC, was something like Slow Poison, 2nd level did see a lot of somewhat more offensive spells. Like you said, spiritual hammer, zone of truth, yeah. That sort of...

As an aside, back in the 2e days, we tried an experiment. Clerics didn't choose their spells. They just had the slots per day and could cast whatever spells were on the cleric list as needed. Funny thing was, 99% of the time, the cleric was casting pretty much exactly the same things - lots...

And, really, like all things, there's a spectrum. Life has tragedies. That's just life. So, sure, I can totally get behind that for inspiring a character. But, like all things, it does become something of a cliche when every single PC is an orphan, abused by life, scarred and whatnot, and...

So, great. You agree with me. Swords were not dominant in the past. Some people used them and some people used something else. D&D, OTOH, has made swords the dominant weapon for years. The best magic weapons, the most commonly awarded magic weapon, the most commonly pictured in art. At...

Look, all I can say is, don't stick to that one lone article. There's a MOUNTAIN of stuff there that you've barely scratched in order to create your conclusions. As a long time gushing fanbois of TheARMA, I cannot recommend enough spending hours going through what's there.

Yes and no though. Let's not forget that a lot of spells last more than one round. If you cast a summoning, you got critters for the entire combat (or until they died). And, pre-5e, there was no such thing as concentration (for the most part), meaning that you could have two or three...

And yet, there are zero complaints about the Battlemaster doing exactly the same thing. Or the Mastermind Rogue. We have a Trickery Domain cleric in our group that gives a skill buff as a blessing. No one has ever complained about that. "Don't you dare give me a big buff to my stealth...

I get that. I mean, to a large extent I actually agree, despite being all in in playing 5e. I miss the days when you would see maybe, maybe one spell cast in a combat. Now, it's mostly two or three spells every single round. But, by the same token, I also realize that that ship has sailed a...

And, frankly, this is the answer to why Battlemasters aren't quite there yet. Battlemasters focus too much on dealing damage directly. You make an attack, use X maneuver to deal extra damage and impose some sort of status effect. Sure, Warlords did that but, that wasn't really the main...

Warlords are specifically non-magical. That's the entire point. It's only "magical" if you take the presumption that HP=meat. Otherwise, it works perfectly fine.

Oh, that I would disagree with. The Warlord just has so many potential subclasses. I mean, good grief, 4e had what, six different official Warlords? I do believe that "tactical and strategic focused force multiplier" character has a LOT of legs.

Talk about not reading your own articles: Note, he states it right there. Your sword was your weapon of last resort. Of course it's indispensable, because you do throw your spear and your halberd does break. But, you use all those other weapons first, and THEN, if you still need to, you use...