Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8129871" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I agree it's unlikely to see much use, but it does give you something to do with ki if you're about to short rest. Since ki recovers on a short rest, a monk is going to be able to recover all their HP during the day. IMO, this ability adds a ton of survivability to the class, and is also reminiscent of the self healing the class used to have in prior editions. Overall I think the monk features add a lot of flexibility to a historically very narrow class.Yeah, that's my take, too. It's mostly cleanup and making the more oddly written abilities feel more standard. Polishing the rough edges.I think rune knight is a very interesting take on a gish, and I'm glad to see it. I'm not sure if the runes are actually impactful, however. The class gets a pile of odd abilities. I think the biggest problem is that none of them feel like they synergize all that well. Still, it's cool and different. I'm a little disappointed by Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher. They're decent and I'm sure I'll take one at some point. But... they're not really compelling. Maybe it's because the names read like playtest names they forgot to have a writer replace.I don't understand why the multiclass spellcasting feats all say, "You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level," when none of the original multiclass spellcasting feats have errata to say that. Just a bit odd.I actually like these. Not going to use them as patrons, but I will use them as fodder for organizations and the kinds of resources they have. Many of them are self-evident, but I did find that it got my imagination going reading through them. As a DM, I like this kind of content. Even if I will never use it I like the feeling I get reading through it.I'm also a bit happy it took the form it did. I was worried that the book might be stepping on the toes of the forthcoming Kingdom & Warfare, which would've been a low blow.I also prefer this type of summon. Yeah, it's not as evocative or satisfying as actually pulling creatures from the monster manual, but this is way easier to balance and it's basically how these things in like every other game work. Monster manual summons just take a lot more time at the table, unfortunately, and they encourage players to find the best value and then never go with anything else. In that case I'm fine with everything becoming like animate objects. I'd kind of be on board with polymorph spells and wild shape doing the same thing, to be honest.Non-arcane casters have been shafted most of this edition, IMO. I think druids and clerics have generally poor spell lists regardless of the books your DM lets you use. In general I've been dissatisfied with clerics and druids in this edition. There are some exceptions, but my experience with them was having a lot of options that don't feel good. I don't see that changing because while they're also bad fighters they're good enough at both.Yeah, they even have the same class names. I think they're a great NPC addition. I've often used the acolyte or priest NPCs as a companion NPC, and this may make that easier. I don't really like the half caster spell progression. I'd rather they just not get spells of 6th level and higher. Maybe slow them down by a level, but I'd much, much, much rather that delayed progression be at the same rate but behind 1-3 levels rather than at half rate. Being 6, 7, or more levels behind primary casters is just awful. That counts for both PCs and NPCs.Yeah, I also really liked this section. I doubt that I'll ever use the system as presented exactly, but, again, it gives me some really nice ideas and evokes a good way of thinking about things. In that sense it does a very good job.I'm sure I'd seen these somewhere before. Maybe a UA, maybe an earlier edition. They're cool, but I don't know if it's what I would want exactly. Again, it's good fuel for ideas, but I don't think I'll use exactly what's presented here. There's great nuggets of ideas here, though.Yeah, that "easy" puzzle is extremely obtuse. It would not be solved at my table. Like maybe if [ISPOILER]one or two of the paintings had plaques with the names of the monsters and one of the letters painted red[/ISPOILER].I love puzzles. But I hate them in TTRPGs. First, they almost always feel super contrived. Second, most of the people I've played with don't like them, so you'll essentially never have a puzzle where everyone at the table is invested. Not like combat, not like social encounters, not even like exploration. So I avoid them as a DM and dislike them as a player.This book has more content that I find interesting or useful -- directly or indirectly -- than any book printed since the original core rulebooks. This is easily my most favorite release since 2015.</blockquote>

Verification