But, but, we're in Theros and Ravnica.Your character is not a ***#&% MTG deck.
But, but, we're in Theros and Ravnica.Your character is not a ***#&% MTG deck.
But, but, we're in Theros and Ravnica.
I would have thought an extra ki feat would have been very popular.Come to think of it... there's no Monk feat either...
You would need to tie it to a monk ability made sense for non-monks to learn, and preferably wasn't automatic for a monk.I would have thought an extra ki feat would have been very popular.
I was looking at this, perhaps changing Reckless Attack into a fighting style as an barbarian alternative class feature. The trouble is it becomes way too good on a rogue.
- Barbarian: There's nothing here. Maybe they could make a feat that gives something like Brutal Critical or Reckless Attack.
If you want to go digging for it, you can, but I started two polls here and IIRC, multiclassing was used in over 50% of tables, but many of them did not involve "heavy"-style MCing.I must have missed an update on the statistics of the player experience.
Can you link the source for those percentages? Last I saw, feats were much lower than 80%.
Oh, it’s a reference to polls taken here?If you want to go digging for it, you can, but I started two polls here and IIRC, multiclassing was used in over 50% of tables, but many of them did not involve "heavy"-style MCing.
The poll on feats showed something like 90% or more tables (it might have been as high as 95%) of tables used feats.
LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.Oh, it’s a reference to polls taken here?
All due respect to the good folks here...we aren’t a useful sample of the D&D community.
I have met them, though I think they’re strange. Then again, I think ever picking an ASI is kinda odd, so what do I know.LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.
FWIW, I've never met or played at a table in either 3E or 5E that doesn't use both feat and MCing to one point or another. I've heard about tables, but never experienced it myself.
I'd probably find them a bit odd, myself. I'd say the ASI option is about 20-25% IME.I have met them, though I think they’re strange. Then again, I think ever picking an ASI is kinda odd, so what do I know.
Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)I'd probably find them a bit odd, myself. I'd say the ASI option is about 20-25% IME.
My character leveled last night, and I am considering an ASI to bump my INT to 18 from 16. But my reason is also we acquired a Tome of Clear Thought which will further boost me to 20.
However, as both cleric and wizard with two 16's. I might read the book and then ASI bump WIS to have two 18s. I'm still undecided.![]()
That's a useful rule. I might steal that. My table also hates taking ASIs, as they take away from feats, which we use heavily. We've had campaigns end with people having a 16 in their highest ability score because they wanted feats, not ASIs.Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)
Yeah, it would be good. They could make it a bit different, though, maybe only giving advantage on the first attack, and attacks against you still have advantage, or something like that. I think Brutal Critical would work best as a feat, though.I was looking at this, perhaps changing Reckless Attack into a fighting style as an barbarian alternative class feature. The trouble is it becomes way too good on a rogue.
Do you remove the +1 ASI a lot of feat give? Otherwise, a feat and ASI +1 seems a bit strong.Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)
Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.
Come to think of it... there's no Monk feat either...
Nope. If I had trouble challenging the PCs, I might, but IME challenging the PCs is the easiest part of DMing.Do you remove the +1 ASI a lot of feat give? Otherwise, a feat and ASI +1 seems a bit strong.
I'm the same, though I may have been playing with people who don't multiclass or use feats as it's not really something that comes up in casual convo. Everywhere I've been they've been options for people to choose to take.LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.
FWIW, I've never met or played at a table in either 3E or 5E that doesn't use both feat and MCing to one point or another. I've heard about tables, but never experienced it myself.
Yeah, in the grand scheme of things an extra point here or there won't make or break the PC or game. Our table has been discussing moving to a 30-pt buy system with cap 16 for 11 points. If we do, the standard array will become 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 9 IIRC to more match the expected values of 4d6k3.Nope. If I had trouble challenging the PCs, I might, but IME challenging the PCs is the easiest part of DMing.
5e is very robust. I’ve run games with rolled stats, where some PCs had much higher stats than others, and the game runs fine. Everyone being a little higher isn’t actually a big deal. I also have run games with a 32 point buy, and the only noticeable difference is PCs that are closer to their concept, and less player frustration with the character building system.
Yeah we’ve been having a lot more fun this way, tbh. It just opens up the character building process to make whatever we want, without anyone feeling like they’re going to struggle to be effective. (Pretty often, “effective at core competencies” is a big part of the character concept, ya know?Yeah, in the grand scheme of things an extra point here or there won't make or break the PC or game. Our table has been discussing moving to a 30-pt buy system with cap 16 for 11 points. If we do, the standard array will become 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 9 IIRC to more match the expected values of 4d6k3.
Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. I had a load of fun back in 1E playing a Cleric with everything from 9-12! So, he actually had a 5% chance of spell failure LOL! It only came up a couple of times, but man was it entertaining.![]()