Search results

My dog disagrees.

My dog disagrees.

What feats? I said nothing about no feats originally. I'm sure there will be a ton of separation between those two even if you gave commoner some spells or something. But I understand and agree with the sentinement overall. What you are proposing is not in opposition with what I'm proposing...

You still can have it special (and better) with feats.

The purpose isn't to be or feel special. The purpose is to make moving during combat more enticing for players. To perhaps put that action on par with the 2nd or 3rd attack.

I understand, as D&D didn't have something like this before. But I believe it might make for an elegant solution.

You were talking about a feat, I was talking about a general rule.

The solution could be as simple as having the move action give benefits to attack and/or defense.

I think you get to use your shield without spending an action for its base effect, but can opt to use your shield better if you spend an action. Actually I really like that idea.

Is Talisman a great game? I know it has avid haters as much as fans, but it meets all of those criteria: I'd say: · if a game is played by a great many people · who love to play it (they're not just passing time/killing time/playing to socialize) · who play it for hundreds of hours (per person)...

It would, if april had 31 days :D

What would be awesome is a MtG setting for D&D. I know it won't happen but still.

Warriors should be good in all kinds of weapons (barring implements), otherwise I like it. Priests have been traditionally depicted as using maces and staffs so it makes sense. Same with rogues using daggers rapiers and crossbows. If this idea is utilized, what about monk? It would make sense to...

I'd change it to bare proficiency bonus, otherwise casters will end with best armor bonus in the game. Other than that I like that proposal quite a bit, should be interesting to see in play. One thing though, armors themselves need to do something, and be different from eachother in the same...

Some ppl sure, but all of them?

No idea. I was focusing on how to best represent them being good at intimidation, not if they should be good at it.

As I posted in another thread, leave advantage mechanic for situational...situations. Replace abilities of all races with proficiency instead. So half orcs are proficient with intimidate, and if situation warrants, they also get advantage on the check.

I understand why it was implemented from a designer's perspective. Unfortunately it makes little sense from a simulationist point of view (which is important to me, but I'm not fanatical about it). You can be a fighter 1 with STR 6, but you must have STR 15 to be cleric 1/fighter 1. Something is...

I've never reported a report before :D

On multiclassing: Why does multiclassing require ability scores, but singleclassing doesn't?