Search results

Well, since we have a maneuver that copies the adept feature, I don't see a problem of it costing double, a fighter can even halve the cost with the maneuver specialisation if he really wants it anyway

Not if you lower the cost to 2, maybe even 1 exertion. That's how the monk ability worked back in 3e wanst it? You pay for it at every attack. You'd need yo rewrite the maneuver to something like "after you activate the maneuver, the first attack stuns (on a failed save). Pay again for the next...

No problem at all, just wanted to confirm. In another note, it feels odd that adepts, of all classes, don't have evasion. In my opinion they deserve it a lot more than beserkers. To be honest, both rogues and beserkers should only get evasion through an archetype. Evasion is indeed pretty strong.

Reminds me of my diablo II days... good ol'days

I totally missed the berserk evasion, but I did look for and didn't find the adept evasion. Can you or someone point me to the feature that grants it please?

Well, shield focus is a feat, while evasion is a 6th level feature of a specific class, an one that keeps you from getting other powerful features such as blindsense and uncanny dodge. So it makes sense imo that evasion would be stronger

That makes me think this should all damage the shield as well. It just makes sense. Maybe if the shield negates, I don't know, 20 damage it becomes damaged, 40 and it becomes broken. Or something similar, I was just spitting numbers, those can be adjusted of course.

IMHO the problem is not the cost at all, it is the amount of Stunning attacks you can make. If it were to cost 6 exertion, it is still OP to make 4-5 stunning attacks at a level as low as 5th. For those wondering, those attacks come from extra attack, + 2 attacks with a bonus attack if two...

I quite like this fix. I also think constructs should be immune to stun. Undead maybe as well, but I'm not 100% on those. Another possible fix is put damage minimum to "activate" the save vs stun, like with Knockdown Assault maneuver ( ...when you hit with a melee weapon attack against a...

Thanks for the clarification (or at least a second opinion). I agree the attack is granted by a different feature (commanding presence) and therefore is not modified. I hadn't gotten as far as 3rd degree on my possible future marshal planning, but you are right. Look at me! seems crazy to use...

As the tittle suggest, I was at first trying to get the best maneuver to use, but after a quick read, I don't think any of them really qualify at all when you first get the feature. Let's first see the relevant text to pick the maneuver "In addition, when a creature uses your Commanding...

Thanks, I will check those out

Well, so here I leave for the developers. Xiphumour, can you point me those one or two places?

I may have missed in those, but I'm yet to see some new fighter knacks or rogue tricks or marshal lessons of war and the other equivalent features on the 3pp books or anywhere else. Is this a design space still to be explored? Gimmick some new knacks!

I did notice that last part ( accuracy fighting style changing to +2 damage), which is good, because I'm thinking of ways to get more damage if I hit, not to get more attack. I think I have enough (+3 if I use my bonus action and don't move, and I can choose another +1 to attack or +1d6 to...

I was just rereading the ranger and I did notice it gets a lot of attack bonuses (from features like hunters target, trained accuracy and adversarial focus, all Stacking if im reading it right). That per se is not a bad thing, I'm just thinking if I can translate rant into damage somehow...

I got the message that A5e.tools is no longer available for non backers. I thought that the tools website was supposed to be open, but I can understand if not. Either way, I still have access to some parts of it, just not the full menu and individual spells and maneuvers and a couple.of.other...

You do have a point though. Why is it that upcasting the spell makes it more  difficult to perma banish extraplanars? Maybe it could say at the end: "if a target is banished for 5 or more rounds to its home plane, it does not return when the spell ends". That would make permanently banishing an...

Yeah, an oversight of me not realising trading down is permitted, even if it's not explicitly spelled out, but if you canchoose a lower degree maneuver when you learn it, I don't see why you couldn't trade down. I was kinda hoping the cost of the higher degree maneuvers would make so that only...

I tend to agree with point I, decreasing penalties seem better for a spell that punishes you more, the longer you take to save against it. The upcast seems ok, as I find targeting more than one person with a powerfull spell like that a bit overpowered. Not sure about point II though. Perhaps if...