Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Spellcasters who prepare spells simply put the metamagic versions of the spells they want in the appropriate spell slots, and they’re cast at their effective level. For example, casting a quickened magic missile forces a spellcaster to recharge her 5th-level spells, not her 1st-level spells. Sorcerers and bards take a full-round action to add metamagic to any spell they know, and casting that spell forces a recharge of the effective level of the metamagic spell. For example, an extended haste spell cast by a sorcerer would require a recharge roll for a 4th-level spell.
Not only do specific recharge spells use higher slots if metamagic feats have been applied to them, but each +1 to the effective level of the spell doubles the recharge time. For example, a silent charm person spell takes up a 2nd-level spell slot and has a specific recharge time of 2 hours.
Sea cheese: dip 2 levels of warlock, get Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast. Eldritch Blast, push back 10 ft. per beam, apply forced movement curse. Quicken Eldritch Blast, push back 25 ft. per beam. If you have 2 levels of fighter for Action Surge, do another Eldritch Blast pushing back 25 ft. per beam. At level 17, that's up to 240 ft. pushed in one turn.Curse only works once/turn.
I'm drawing a blank on what AS is supposed to be.I'm fairly certain ze means Action Surge.
Wait isn't there something about casting classes stacking in a better way than they did in 3e due to borrowing the 3e psionics rules? I looked through the PHB, but found what appeared to be standard vancian limitations on slots, spells known, etc.They stack better in terms of multiclassing, not necessarily in terms of group composition. Spellcasting classes advance spell slots/preparation and quantity of spells known, just not maximum spell level access. And since many spells progress based on the slot used, the higher level slots help even without the higher level spells. Granted, you still want 9th level spells, but it's not as bad as in 3.X to multiclass as a spellcaster.
Archetypes offer an easy path to re-creating older psionic classes. Soulknife and Lurk are probably more functional as archetypes of existing classes than they ever were as standalone classes. Monks were a psionic class in 4e as well, and most people around here would have been familiar with Tashalatora builds that could be expressed as a monk archetype.I would make Soulknife a feat. For the ability to conjure a magical weapon, there is already Warlock. So that really just leaves Knife to the Soul, which can be a feat for Rogues/Assassins.
I'll take partially charged wands for 400This partially charged wand conjures a yuge hand. It conjures the best hands. And the Dungeon Master pays for its charges.
per Childe above, an ENworld dude posted :The SRD/OGL portions may be fine. I don't know, I don't care, I haven't looked. I'm talking about DMs Guild, the digital store. The agreement for it is a giant trap for content creators. It belongs in that episode of Strip Search where they intentionally give the comic artists a bad contract to teach them about cartoonishly evil things that can be hidden in contracts.
It's the same OGL as has been around since 2000.
Rule 0 is to work only off the SRD. Do not use the rulebooks when writing Open Game Content.
Rule 1 is CLEARLY label any and all Open Game Content you are distributing.
Rule 2 is update the damned copyright section (AKA S.15) with your copyright notice.
Hope they're ready to deal with users copy/pasting other peoples commercial IP.They "deal with" it by saying that's acceptable. You can literally take what someone else is selling on DMs Guild. All of it. Put it in your product. Then sell it. Sell it cheaper if you want to be a dick. Give it away for free. It cannot be any clearer how stupid the Community Content Agreement is for DMs Guild. Read it, people. This is not just OGL again. Any content you put in their digital store is granted license to all other users to do as they want. Not just OGL portions. Not just some of it. All of it. And they can sell it. They (other users) can sell your content you created.
You know, the youtube problem...
Beyond that, I have to wonder whether it will go the way of Valve/Steam's paid Skyrim mods, or not.
6. Waiver of Claims; Waiver of Moral Rights.
In order to prevent legal claims that could be disruptive to the Program participants or impede the ability of you and other Program authors to participate in the Program, you irrevocably waive any legal claim you may have under any theory of law in any territory that your rights were infringed due to any use of your User Generated Content by us, the Owner or its affiliates, licensees and sublicensees, and/or any other Program authors, including copyright infringement. This waiver does not apply to royalty payments we may owe you under Section 7. You also irrevocably waive any moral rights in your Work and agree not to assert any moral rights in your Work against us, the Owner, and/or other Program authors. If, under any applicable law, this waiver of moral rights is not effective, you acknowledge that your Work is subject to the licenses you grant in Section 4 without any credit obligation, that you intend for your Work to be used in this way, and that this form of use will not be contrary to your moral rights.
SHUT UP! Enough already, Wizards! Who cares about DMs Guild anyway? The store lets anyone steal your product, for Christ's sake! Claims? Moral rights? They're irrevocably waived! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
I've read the article. I'm not defending them (and am actually confused what point you're trying to make with this post).As a sidenote, is anyone else a but puzzled by the apparently inconsistent approach to riles writing in 5e?That's just a sign of poor editing and rules management. They wanted to divide spell attacks from other attacks and decided those other attacks would be "melee weapon attacks," disregarding that the category includes many melee attacks made without weapons. It's a problem for reader/player comprehension that they created and could have been prevented. Frankly, given it's done solely to isolate spell attacks, it would have been more sensible just to call them non-spell melee attacks (for better flow) or melee non-spell attacks (for order consistency with melee/ranged spell attacks). If I was editing it, I'd err towards the latter just to avoid confusion as to if the order changes the meaning or not.
On the one hand, some rules are vague or simply 'ask your DM'.
On the other hand, others go into tremendous detail, whuch reminds me of tabletop wargames (like FFGs X Wing), like having a distinction between 'melee weapon attacks' and 'attacks with a melee weapon', with some abilities working for obe, but not the other.
The whole melee weapon attack thing was in reference to the latest Rules Answers article, where they explain in detail that you can use Savage Attacker with unarmed strikes because it is a melee weapon attack but can't use Sneak Attack because an unarned strike is not an attack with a weapon (with the finesse property).
It's just an example, and not the only instance of inconsistent rule complexity. Some are pretty complex and detailed while others are vague and requirung DM interpretation.
As a sidenote, is anyone else a but puzzled by the apparently inconsistent approach to riles writing in 5e?That's just a sign of poor editing and rules management. They wanted to divide spell attacks from other attacks and decided those other attacks would be "melee weapon attacks," disregarding that the category includes many melee attacks made without weapons. It's a problem for reader/player comprehension that they created and could have been prevented. Frankly, given it's done solely to isolate spell attacks, it would have been more sensible just to call them non-spell melee attacks (for better flow) or melee non-spell attacks (for order consistency with melee/ranged spell attacks). If I was editing it, I'd err towards the latter just to avoid confusion as to if the order changes the meaning or not.
On the one hand, some rules are vague or simply 'ask your DM'.
On the other hand, others go into tremendous detail, whuch reminds me of tabletop wargames (like FFGs X Wing), like having a distinction between 'melee weapon attacks' and 'attacks with a melee weapon', with some abilities working for obe, but not the other.
I can guarantee there will be DMs confused by it. The signal it's going to send isn't "don't make adventures solved by flight," because that's not what they're doing at all. They're banning the flight, not allowing it and changing how they structure adventures. This will signal to DMs to ban the content as well, which defeats the point of publishing it and is frankly dangerous for the brand. If they want everyone talking about the same D&D, they need it to be clear what the fair content is. Pre-banning content does not support fostering a unified conversation about D&D.Its a direct signal: "we are not going to bother creating low level adventures that can't be solved by unlimited flight ever, an you should do the same"The first part is dumb but unsurprising. The second part... they shouldn't publish material they're effectively going to ban. It sends really confusing signals to DMs for home games.2. If your character possesses the Elemental Evil story origin, however, you have one more choice to make. Your character may choose to use either the Elemental Evil Player’s Companion OR the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide as a source that is legal for your character.
<snip>
The “Winged” option granting a fly speed for tieflings is not legal for D&D Adventurers League play. Cosmetic wings from the “Appearance” option that don’t grant a fly speed are fine.
The first part is dumb but unsurprising. The second part... they shouldn't publish material they're effectively going to ban. It sends really confusing signals to DMs for home games.2. If your character possesses the Elemental Evil story origin, however, you have one more choice to make. Your character may choose to use either the Elemental Evil Player’s Companion OR the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide as a source that is legal for your character.
<snip>
The “Winged” option granting a fly speed for tieflings is not legal for D&D Adventurers League play. Cosmetic wings from the “Appearance” option that don’t grant a fly speed are fine.
Shadow Sorcerer 13, Paladin 7. Whenever you're about to be reduced to 0 hit points, roll your Con save (+16 with max Con and Cha) vs 5+Damage to instead just be reduced to 1. Can do 14/6 instead if you want.May as well dip something like Barbarian for Resistance so only a hit of 26+ can even potentially kill you.
Minimum is Con save proficiency, 1 level of Shadow Sorcerer and 6 levels of Paladin, so you can even go 13/1/6 of something
Read, and I don't think it changes anything. Basing your choice of spells known in 5e on at-wills from 4e doesn't mean you just make a 4e power become a 5e spell. If there's no analog, you can work with your DM to convert and modify appropriately, but there's no blanket equivalence rule.I don't think that's what it's saying at all. I think it's saying "based on what 0th level spells they had in 3.5, choose similar cantrips for them in 5e."Maybe.
Yeah I see what you're meaning, but
(I seriously wish I had more than four seconds to spare a thought to any one subject today)
Read this for meQuoteSpells
Pick spells known as if creating a new character of the appropriate level. You can base the choice of spells known on those from previous editions. Similarly, you can base your choice of cantrips on at-will powers the character knows in fourth edition.
The DM is the arbiter of whether and how a spell that doesn’t exist in fifth edition can be converted.
And I like the direct port on every 3rd Edition Cantrip/Orison. That opens a ton of "new" content to mess with.I don't think that's what it's saying at all. I think it's saying "based on what 0th level spells they had in 3.5, choose similar cantrips for them in 5e."
