Search results

I have a rule: Non-optional/variant rules are always allowed. No need to ask if you can be a high elf or a conjuration wizard. Optional/variant rules are very likely to be allowed and you just need to tell me you want them before you commit to it. Options outside of the PHB are allowed as...

I've always stood by that anything that requires a soul cannot be replicated through AI. AI painters have no purpose in their strokes, since they don't even stroke a canvas. AI writers will throw concepts into their sentence soup but won't have any particular message in mind. Sure, maybe...

When did Crawford say this? i think Ranger won't be able to shake its fan criticisms this edition. It still has an identity crisis. I'd hope they would lean into nature fighter rather than spellcaster fighter. Personally, I don't care what happens to HM as long as it is no longer "the...

Unfortunately, it can't be helped. When a statblock has to be used both as a enemy type and player option, there's going to be design spaces that aren't typical. But that means that OP should understand to play into having a spider, not just a companion. The spider has exceptional stealth at a...

You can tell I'm winning the argument because I'm snarky and everyone knows snarky people are correct.

This was not the thread I wanted to post that in. Sorry.

I have plenty of alternatives, so while it would admittedly be missed if it dropped off the face of the planet, I would just play more of the other systems. Also, D&D just isn't the "general rpg" that the internet makes it out to be. If I'm not making an adventure with a dungeon, I'm not...

Conjure Woodland Beings with Shared Spell with Ranger could be pretty effective. You essentially have two instances of that spell. Let's be grateful that Rangers don't have access to conjure minor elementals.

My advice: If you're doing a single-creature encounter, you really want to use a supplemental system or, at the bare minimum, use something that has lair actions. But I still don't recommend it for even bosses. Multiple creatures with different roles that complement each other works great...

Yes. Unless you have supporting blasters that can weaken up the whole group quickly, your additional damage isn't going to drop relevant threats consistently.

Exactly, which is why I find the playtest level 6 feature wildly underwhelming. Its a big area and its cheaper, but it barely scales past level 6 and at a maximum of 3d12 (19.5) average damage, it doesn't even do more damage than fireball. You can avoid having your damage resisted, but unless...

What I mean is that they get that extra attack by default anyways now, so that clause is likely to get removed rather than buffed. But also, the main issue I have is that the 4elemonk doesn't have anything that can really shape the battlefield. They can move people, but that's it. The old...

Its not awful or anything, it does have to compete with your action, though. And with the 2 dp cost, its a pretty steep price compared to everything else you have. The additional attack does nothing too, and I'd bet they will just remove it rather than try to implement it properly.

Having Playtested the 4-element monk with the UA versions of the base and subclass, I can say that while its better than it was before, I wish Elementalism had increased utility at higher levels. If that would be a problem for the druid to have, you can make it its own feature again. And I...

While a DM can homebrew enemies in such a way, some may argue it adversarial, especially if they just happen to crop up when ranged players show consistent results. I don't have an issue with that, in theory. The issue is that you're probably already really good at range. And when a feat is the...

Yeah, but the consequence is that ranged combatants continue to have an edge over melee combatants. We want something that grants melee characters a niche that won't be negated by a feat.

My only issue is that sharpshooter still bypasses that. So you'd either need to tack on a "cannot affect cover due to prone" clause on sharpshooter or make it an explicit -2. And still, that's also somewhat negated by the archery fighting style.

Personally, I believe difficulty isn't just a risk of death. Death is the consequence for not adjusting to the difficulty, but the threat itself doesn't make it difficult. Like if a GM made an instant-death trap activated by stepping on the wrong map tile. There's a high chance of death, but...

I think we understand that the general consensus is that ranged is superior than melee for all except damage that is guaranteed to land. But when distances larger than 30ft are involved, ranged tends to be superior. While there are many downsides to ranged options, feats tend to cover those...

Eh, I think its fair to say that, unless they got ambushed, they would have done it before combat starts.