Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mattdm" data-source="post: 4333717" data-attributes="member: 15382">Well, I think I'd be inclined to leave it alone exactly because it has minimal impact. Why house rule when you don't have to? Instead, if the problem is that there's not much of a culture, add some interesting eladrin culture background to your campaign world. And maybe a player had an longsword-wielding Eladrin cleric in mind, and now it's seemly arbitrarily out.Still makes those races better than anything else by a long shot. And the poor human has its thing overshadowed.For half elf, how about leaving the ability bonus as is, but allowing the Dilettante ability to change any Str or Dex power attack roll to Con, and Int and Wis to Cha? Nifft, in another thread, strongly believes that simply adding that ability as a half elf feat is all the boost the race needs.If one ranger takes archery-focused powers and concentrates wealth on getting a good bow, that ranger will be much better at archery than one who follows the melee path. I don't think there's a problem here.Adding back Take 20 isn't really a change — it's just saving time. I think somewhere in the DMG actually suggests using it when appropriate. (It's probably not in the PH because it can get confusing to explain at the same time as Take 10.)I think making Intelligence better at getting feats is a mistake. At first I thought you hadn't considered how awesome that makes the wizard (who pretty much must have high int), but then I noticed from the examples that this is actually your intent. The feat selection prereqs seem very carefully designed to reward well-rounded characters and to discourage one-trick-pony high-int-ditch-the-rest wizards. So although I didn't comment on it earlier, I think that's probably one of the most far-reaching changes here.The trained skill thing falls under "really minor change / may be annoying to players who had a concept in mind / extra thing to remember / so why bother". For rangers, pretty much everyone is going to pick Perception (unless for some weird reason the DM doesn't use that skill much — in our games, it's Skill #1) anyway, so basically what you're saying is that they don't have to take Dungeoneering or Nature. For warlords, though, you're just kinda arbitrarily taking one very specific choice (trained in Athletics, Endurance, Heal, and History). What's so wrong with that option that it deserves an special exception?</blockquote>

Verification