If your DM is comfortable enough with the system to include optional rules, then they should be comfortable enough with the system to fix any perceived balance issues. That's just one of the reasons why feats are optional.They won't have access to GWM so damage would be a bit behind a greatsword user and a dex sword and board fighter has better initiative, ranged options, and skill choices.
If your DM is comfortable enough with the system to include optional rules, then they should be comfortable enough with the system to fix any perceived balance issues. That's just one of the reasons why feats are optional.
I'm not saying that a Dexadin should ever be a thing, but given the core math assumptions of the game, I think that allowing Dex to hit but not damage is a trap. The simpler solution is to not allow Dex to hit.
Feats and multiclassing are not an option that some GMs choose to use in my experience.
There an option that some GMs choose not to use and players almost always come in with the expectation they will be used.
I have a friend whose group only allows feats at level 1, racial feats, and select thematic feats like allowing casters to take ritual casting. The expectation is that player will mostly take ASIs.I've only played 5e with people that had a ton of 3e experience, and in those cases feats are default; if anything multiclassing is more likely to be a maybe.
In cases where feats are off the table there's really not much reason to go with strength.
Or play a fighter, come to think of it.
Trance counting as long rest.
My players gripes. Moving through ally position is difficult terrain. Prone requiring half you movement. (This mainly monks.)
Well, they should have also included a way to translate it from distinct feet to something less concrete, for TOTM, but I know a lot of people who use feet in ToTM as well, so...PCs with different movement speeds. If you want to faciliate theatre of the mind and gridless don't throw in distinguishing features in core that rely on a grid.
I like this, I’m always looking for new ways to limit feat-cheese, yet keep fighters appealing.I have a friend whose group only allows feats at level 1, racial feats, and select thematic feats like allowing casters to take ritual casting. The expectation is that player will mostly take ASIs.
Except fighters, who have the full list available to them.
Darkness isn't an illusion. Itisn't foling senses. darkness the spell is either destroying light or creating anti-light. In 5e, that's evocation but see me later in this post.There's no reason for Darkness to not be an Illusion spell - or at least, no good reason.
I think the first 3 hark back to an idea that divination magic itself is linked to the gods and those three are seen as divine powers. All f them sound be divination if you go that route. If not, transmutation makes most sense.Speak with Animals, Beast Bond, and Tongues are Divination spells; Message and Speak with Plants are Transmutation spells; Sending is an Evocation spell. Pick a school for communication magic and stick with it, ffs. (Personally, I'd go with Divination.)
Again it's te whole divine powers thing. Darkvision is guess isn't considered divine inspired.Similarly, sensory-enhancement spells seem to be pretty consistently considered Divination...and then Darkvision is a Transmutation spell for some reason.
Evocationand Conjuration is not a matter of energy or stuff.Tidal Wave (an instantaneous elemental spell) is Conjuration, but Wall of Water (an ongoing elemental spell) is Evocation; Ice Storm (an instantaneous elemental spell) is Evocation, while Sleet Storm (an ongoing elemental spell) is Conjuration. I'd argue all four of these should be Conjuration - unlike fire, which blurs the line between energy and stuff, water and ice are very clearly stuff - but at the very least, one of these pairs should be flipped.
Same as the above.For that matter, Wind Wall and Whirlwind are Evocation (those make sense: wind is not stuff), while Control Winds is.....Transmutation? Why?
This one makes no sense. It seems to be just to give abjuration more spells.Barkskin is Transmutation, but Stoneskin is Abjuration. (Based on spell descriptions, the latter should be the one to change: it's not a case of different effects that happen to have similar names, Stoneskin is literally described as altering the flesh of the target.)
Bit more subjective, but imo, Necromancy spells that are just "blasts of energy that deal necrotic damage" should be Evocation spells. (Honestly, I think Necromancy is just redundant as a distinct school of magic, but that moves beyond the topic of the thread.)
I rule that drinking a potion is an action and a bonus action that draws an attack of opportunity with advantage and if you are hit you drop the potion and it’s destroyed. That’s how stupid it is for me to see someone drinking a potion in combat while someone is trying to kill you. I would like to see George foreman try that against Muhammad ali.Your enemies all get a free swing against you if you move too far away from them...but not if you take a moment to drink a bottle of liquid in the middle of a fistfight. And not if you take a moment to flawlessly recite a paragraph from a scroll. And not if you take a moment to reload a crossbow. And etc. But watch out if you dare to move too far away.
One of these days for a silly game:Because we should go back to the days of a couple dozen different types of pole arms?
Don’t mock the polearmsOne of these days for a silly game:
Polearm master fighter, noble (knight) background, and one of his servants is a polearm caddy.
"What do you think, Poncho? The bec de corbin?"
"I would advise sir to use the partisan this time. I'm not sure the spike would quite reach this ogre's head."
I don't know where you're getting that notion. The overwhelming majority of people were agricultural workers and would work pretty much from sunrise to sunset. In the winter this meant shorter hours and more sleep (nobody stayed up late browsing the internet, for instance), but they routinely worked long weeks with only Sunday as a day of rest. True, their were other holidays throughout the year, but people didn't have nearly the amount of leisure time we in the West enjoy today. Producing food using nothing but human and beast labor and without modern fertilizers was very hard. They certainly worked at a slower pace than many of us do today, but they had to put in a lot of hours just to get by (and death by starvation--or at least death because you had been weakened by undernourishment--was not at all unheard of).
My understanding is that factoring in the surges in work during harvest, various feasts and festivals the medieval work week was roughly 40 hours all told. And note that religious holidays played a roll in Europe that I don't think anyone in modernity has ever come close to experiencing. It was a core part of that society and trying to make people work on Saints Day in some places could result in riots or worsePlease note that my comment was about how long people work and not how much they work. There is a difference.
My wife has a master degree in History while one of my best friend has a degree in History. They both arrived to the same conclusion: medieval workers work much harder than we did (or at least, those that work similar jobs) but they work less in terms of work hours. There were several holidays.
My wife being her, she also scolded me and reminded me that the Middle Ages lasted about a thousand years (from the fall of Rome to either the (re)discovery of America by Columbus or the invention of the printing press, depending on who you ask). During these centuries, societies evolved and changed and, as such, the life of a peasant in 678 was different than the life of his descendant in 1378.