Search results

The issue with the armorer is that it doesn't fit the play meta of "all the damage now" to succeed in conflicts which unfortunately is understandable due to the lack of real counterplay features This means when they want tougher NPCs they just crank up the numbers. There just isn't much room...

Yea the hang ups are mostly avoidable with minor word changes. As for the second part, all the alchemist features have this tag: ...Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus... Or ...provided you use alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus...

A lazy fix IMO would to got patch the two biggest hang ups. 1) the EE aren't easily applied to others unless they are knocked out. This severely limits their application when time matters. Solution: allow applying them as the same action if a spell slot is used to create it and allow the...

The issue is that the difference between most weapons (as written) is largely forgettable. The gap between the smallest and largest damage die is ~4 damage. Even with expanded critical ranges it doesn't do much good to waste the page space for something so tiny. Damage on weapons can be a...

For my games (and WIP) went a step further and removed damage dice from the process. The damage is the difference of the attack roll and the targets defense so rolling a 15 vs AC 10 would be 5 damage. Martial classes get a build in attack bonus and the half and half get a truncated version...

Rerolls are a while different issue. Spells are ripe with it but it's not necessary in isolated problem

Can I just say all of it? It's really difficult to make spell casting in DND work on any deeper level than a bunch of specific special rule exceptions that have to be individually memorized or referenced with no coherent pattern. You can't make intuitive decision without risking shooting...

I think it depends on your local table culture but when I was GMing Al, PaM at least was extremely prevalent but that was much earlier in the additions life cycle before there was a lot of racial options that had built-in bonus actions.

That's a thing good right? It's a different option that doesn't just fall in the typical better/worse* paradigm so it allows more diversity in players options rather than "Im GWM/PAM with X class" clones.

DnD has never handled scale well so I guess that part is expected. Oh it's an easy reskin it's just irksome that they took the time to create such a squared away PC option and then fumble on the flavor.

Rune knight proves you can have a PC option that is extremely engaging, has a lot potential meaningful choices, and isn't just pages of overwhelming choices that boil done to "pick these because they are better than the rest so the rest is dead space." The fact that mechanically it clicks as...

Interesting approach. My WiP is almost the same idea in reverse where there is no attacks but defenders roll to see if they hit and that roll determines the damage which has a cap depending on gear.

For the money they some of the best written stuff for 5e regardless of setting. Both books are a wealth of actual content. The PC options are conservative power wise but are reasonably enjoyable which is arguably more important. I like the mav artificer even if it's weak. Has the strongest "i...

It's a common misread because it doesn't make any sense so it goes under the radar for a lot of tables. Not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing worse to see the look on a player's face when you tell them that that really cool but relatively weak thing that they were excited about doesn't work the...

RAW it's afterwards so the fear is kinda pointless. RTMS is say before the trigger like shield. It's already a very limited feat.

It works fine because 5e is overall resilient to such factors not because it's well implemented. You can do some crazy stuff with the system and be fine hence why you have the champ fighter and infinite angle armies coexisting to a point. Including it at all is already in the "modify for the...

Seeing how it was a feature stapled on with almost zero testing you kinda have to modify it for a given table regardless.

Then there's actually a lot of interesting barbarian concepts as long as you avoid the more damage trap. A bugbear zealot wth alert and skulker would a blast and would fit the "I don't like spiders" theme

I'll go against the grain a little and say you could probably live without shield. Goblin wizards have a ton of as avoidance already and between Gaze and charm you have plenty of options if that fails. Saying that wizards can prepare so many spells it would be difficult to not prepare it.

It could definitely use some scaling but that's barbarian problem in a nutshell. Even zealots extra damage starts falling off around that point. Your average challenge starts to have more targets and weapon attacks volume has capped out or you are seeing CRs with both higher HP and secondary...