Search results

I think a quick picture would help you, since "generic" (system neutral) is pretty relative. I consider OSR/1e content pretty generic and applicable to any system, very easy to build a 5e etc. version of. So much of this book is tables, which are completely system-neutral. Now I am...

We had this kind of personalized writing in 3.Xe, where the designers would speak to the reader and tell them what their intent was and why they did things they way they chose to. I couldn't tell you which books it was in, because I'm sure it wasn't in all of them, but the ones that had it like...

I end up having to throw so many ancient dragons and Balor generals to their deaths that I feel like I'm depopulating the setting of them 😆 I also have a few high-optimization players and the higher the level the more tooled out they get.. so it gets kind of ridiculous and starts reminding me...

I lost interest in them because I stopped wanting to run games to high level 😅 So I'll have to check them out again

I didn't know they stopped doing adventures to high level!

I've run many 5e campaigns to high level, and every time I tell myself "never again," but then by the time the next campaign is approaching that tier 3 point I sort of forgot about that previous experience. "Never again, again." I very much enjoy running games in tier 1 and 2!

Guessing this is the section they're talking about:

So ... it might be a formatting screwup on my end. I was wrong- I was reading the requirement of the Supplant augment. Only half of the augments require any spell slot expenditure, and only one of the requires the slot be of equal level to the spell being cast.

It was pointed out to me that there's another Circle Casting system, from the Ed Greenwood Thay, Land of the Red Wizards book on DMsGuild. I do wonder how it compares 🤔

Probably because a saving throw is in the hands of the DM, whereas attacking is in the hands of the player. It's who's rolling the dice. Someone recently pointed out on some thread that 4e had this right, where the caster always made the rolls (wizard rolling INT vs opponent's Will defense).

Yeah, the section doesn't have the best layout so it can be a little confusing on that front. Regarding a wizard contributing to a cleric spell or vice-versa, I see a few ways to handle it: My preferred way: it needs to be the same magic type- so arcane can help arcane. I've grouped them...

Agreed on the fast bit. Same goes for a cleric contributing to a wizard spell 🙄 It does say that it has to be a slot equal to or greater than the spell being cast.

Circle Casting specifically calls this out and says NPCs can do it. With their X times per day spells.

Dungeons and dragons both feature with some regularity, but.. hmmm... Goblinoids and Gaols? Vampires and Villas? 😆

I was saying that I sad that Stoneskin didn't get a rebalance; it's considered a pretty weak spell in 5e, but A5E did not buff it. And yeah, that's the point, that well-built A5E martials are scarier than the casters in a fight, at any level 😆

They rebalanced a lot: some got nerfs, some got buffs, some were left as-is (hi stoneskin :( ) Casters can still do the reality-bending stuff, but when it comes to the boss burning all 3 of its legendaries in one round cuz the fighter forced it to make 4 or 5 DC 24 Con saves vs Stuns (and he can...

The point is that A5E martial characters, especially the berserker and fighter, are just better at all levels, whether in a fight, or in exploring etc. than the casters 😅

The berserker is, in my experience at least, way overtuned. After having extensive play with half a dozen berserkers throughout various campaigns, the players at my tables have basically agreed that it's the nuclear option, only to be used in the event of beloved character death... and that's...