Search results

Here's hoping that we can sell our own minis...

In defense of the sorcerer, a Divine Soul Sorcerer has access to a wider variety of spells than Warlock.

It was a deal breaker to me. Maybe not by itself, but when compounded with all other bad changes.

Not true. With the previous change, if you only owned 2014 only, you could only create 2014 sorcerers and monks. That hasn' t changed. What changes is that their original plan would have forced you to have hybrid versions of 2014 classes with feats soells and magic items from2024

Heavy duty stapler then use binding paste to paste it into a large sheet of heavy paper, then paste that into medium weight cardboard with binding paste and finish with printed stickers or include folded paper in the borders and paste into heavy board with light cement and then cover with vynil...

I never got Ghosts of Slatmsmarsh, Rising from the last war, the additionla monster books and one of the adventure anthologies

@Aldarc I like 4e, but disliked it at first. There are things I love about it (great tactical game, cool toolkit for improvisation, it equalizes the board, there's lots of chance for synergies in the party, rituals and martial practices, themes, the warlord, hybrids...) but to get there I had to...

The irony is that I think they are moving the game partially into the direction you want. What has turned me off the worst is all of the needless codification that is being going. But that is the funny irony, it is too much codification for me, not enough for you.

But then they wouldn't be able to program it into an automatic VTT would they?

Maybe I'd leave just the first and third benefits. Edit: and cap rituals to first level at first.

I'm not sure about the details. Haven't had the chance to see Treantmonks videos. Can you give me a list of what it does?

Or Rishi, Muni or just add "Sri" to the name. Cool, but maybe strays too far fron tge request in the OP to not tie it too much into an existing RL religion.

It is in an odd spot, isn't it? Too similar, yet too different in a bad way. It changes too much and too little. No -or few- actual changes I'd like, while making plenty of changes I don't like. I was planning to buy the DMG because of the Greyhawk stuff, but I'm no hurry. I have the original...

I'm on the opposite side. I might eventually run 5.5 -for profit-, but I'm not interested at all as a player.

Bingo! I dunno why they are so obsessed with avoiding the obvious. Just factor this stuff into point buy/rolling and be done with it.

That already applies to about half the official backgrounds in the PHB.

I would add more than just the world irrevocable. Something like "and legally impossible to be revoked, removed or taken away in any form or under any legal jargon term."

It would help. A new OGL that remained open and was made just to close loopholes would allow reuse of previously existing OGC in perpetuity. After all, the two true versions so far already include a clause stating something like "you can use OGC by selecting any valid OGL license".

One, I'm they won't cannibalize sales of their new edition. Two, they don't consider 5.2 a new edition so they won't offer 5.0 as legacy content. Just like you can buy 3.5 books or revised 2e as pdfs, but not 3.0 or OG 2e.

I wanted ToV to be that solution, but it isn't. For one, it also moves subclass choice. And from what I see, it is too focused on exotic new classes.