I think that’s too much AC, I think you went too far with it. Definitely drop the tower shield, that doesn’t need to be there. And drop the helmets too as they are already part of the regular armor and don’t need to be accounted for separately. And I would leave the base AC @ 10+, but only add ½PB to AC just like for shields.
Oh, and while you’re “fixing” things, get rid of stealth disadvantage on padded armor as it’s ridiculous.
Hm. I hear all of the arguments, but I think the armor in 5e is quite balanced. Higher AC just leads to boredom and encounters where you have to roll a 17 or higher just to do an ounce of damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
I actually like tower shields, but I think they should provide 3/4 cover as a bonus action instead of AC directly. Basically, they're too heavy to wield effectively against nimble opponents, but once planted, they're functionally a wall.
As for the proficiency bonus. Its a representation of your experience and overall training. So not counting it for people who do not ware armor is not fair. They worked hard to gain that knowledge and experience. Add it fully to everything as its the only representation of your level and greater experience.
Worrying about balance at specific levels is not a problem. A few levels in and that all goes away. The first level character is not supposed to be that much better than the average commoner anyways.
And get rid of that odd no crit rule for adamantine armor.
Ok, so I've rolled padded & leather into one armour, as without disadvantage on padded they're identical. I've removed the half-helm but kept the full helm, dropped to +1, and tweaked the numbers, dropped all buffs to alf proficiency (which will simplify it to be fair).
I've removed the Tower Shield, so it can be a common fancy Pavise with extra rules, so there's just the basic small/medium/large shield to pick from.
With this setup, we have: No Armour, Dex +2 (roughly a Wizard build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC12 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC12 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC13 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC13 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC14
Leather Armour, Dex +4 (roughly a Rogue build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC15 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC15 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC16 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC16 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC17
Half Plate, Dex +2, Buckler (roughly a Fighter build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC17 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC17 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC19 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC19 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC21
And Full plate with helm and pavise (Paladin Tank with points on Str not Dex): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC20 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC20 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC22 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC22 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC24
Wich seems much more reasonable than hitting AC 30! and should keep Armour at least a bit more relevant into the later game!
I would drop helms all together and leave that a purely cosmetic choice for each player. And rename the buckler “small shield” since there were other small shields that should be represented and in game terms they should be the same mechanically.
People wielding with 2 hands or using 2 weapons will still be sacrificing their AC in exchange for more damage output, so I'm not ure what would change to be honest, besides making havng a high AC actually tempting in the latter-tiers of play. AC22 is nothing when the enemy has +14 to hit!
I know this quote chain is from a while back, but I really like the idea of using shields and your proficiency bonus to help solve the things you mentioned in that last post there, along with others. I outlined some of my thoughts about implementing these mechanics into shields HERE. Anyways, great ides guys! :)
While I agree with adding options for making armor more complex, I actually think that amping up both armor and grappling would solve the issue. Armor is GREAT against weapons. It is terrible against three Goblins dragging you down, yanking off your armor, and stabbing you in the neck... but grappling is TERRIBLE!
Armor can be much better if it has more brutal counter-options.
So I've made the slightly-more-complex version, which involves a little more calculation before the fight but after that your AC acts the same as before. I'm now making more complicated optional rules for Armour, and I've got 2 options to pick from:
1: Flat damage reduction. Your Armour reduces incoming Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage by a fixed amount. This will make heavy armour more effective vs "death by a thousand cuts".
2: Total damage absorbtion - armour has a new form of temporary hitpoints which you can use to absorb an amount of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and once it's gone, damage hits you. This comes back at the start of each of your turns.
I'm leaning towards the first one, because it's far simpler to keep track of. Thoughts?
I would go with the first - it’s far easier for the DM and player to keep track of and could probably be put into a table: Armour. AC. Slashing DR. Piercing DR. Bashing DR. Max Dex Bonus. Other gambeson/Padded 11. —— —— -1. +4. Stealth soft leather 11. -1. -1. -1. +5. Stealthy cuir Boilli. 12. -2. -1 -1. +3 -1 to stealth Hide. 12 -2 -1. -1. +2. -1 to stealth Chain Shirt. 13. -3. -2. -1. +2. Disadvantage. To stealth Scale. 14. -3. -2. -1. +2. Stealth disadvantage Breastplate. 14. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy Hauberk. 15. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy (Light chain, plates between 2 layers of cloth/soft leather) Half plate. 16. -4. -3. -2. +1. Stealth disadvantage ( breast & back, lamellar skirt, greaves/boots) Chainmail. 17. -4. -3 -2. 0 Stealth disadvantage lamellar. 18. -5. -3. -2. 0. Stealth disadvantage (banded/splint by culture) platemail. 19. -5. -4. -3. 0. Stealth disadvantage (Breast & back over chain + other plate pieces) articulated plate. 20. -6. -4. -3. +1. Stealth disadvantage Buckler. +PB —- —- —- —— shield. +1+PB large Shield. +2+PB
costs will probably have to be increased for the heavier armors to force them deeper into the tiers and then some of the special armors (elven chain, Mithril, Admantine, Dragon Scale, etc will have to be adjusted for a better fit.
Just go back and play 1st or 2nd edition if you want modifiers based on the attack type.
5e has everything simplified for a reason.
Pretty sure the OP was talking about the Upcoming 6E. Which would be none-of-the-above.
Ok, so I've rolled padded & leather into one armour, as without disadvantage on padded they're identical. I've removed the half-helm but kept the full helm, dropped to +1, and tweaked the numbers, dropped all buffs to alf proficiency (which will simplify it to be fair).
I've removed the Tower Shield, so it can be a common fancy Pavise with extra rules, so there's just the basic small/medium/large shield to pick from.
With this setup, we have: No Armour, Dex +2 (roughly a Wizard build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC12 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC12 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC13 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC13 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC14
Leather Armour, Dex +4 (roughly a Rogue build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC15 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC15 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC16 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC16 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC17
Half Plate, Dex +2, Buckler (roughly a Fighter build): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC17 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC17 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC19 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC19 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC21
And Full plate with helm and pavise (Paladin Tank with points on Str not Dex): At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC20 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC20 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC22 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC22 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC24
Wich seems much more reasonable than hitting AC 30! and should keep Armour at least a bit more relevant into the later game!
What do you all think?
I've always liked the idea of rolling proficiency into the AC calc. I think you could simplify the shield stuff though. Instead of it also adding half, rounded down, just make it so it allows you to add full proficiency instead of half. Then you're doing less math and also get a more gradual increase over time instead of just +2 AC two times, once at 9th level then another +2AC at 17th level. Feels chunky, and not at all what you're going for. If you do the shield lets full prof, you instead get your +2ac straight away, then your AC increases by another +1 at levels 5, 9, 13 and then lastly 17. Evens out the progression.
My 2 cents? Make the initial 1/2 proficiency require you to have a shield or weapon in hand. That way it represents your ability to parry and block attacks with something other than your bare hands. That way it ties in easily with "if proficient with shields the shield adds full instead of only half".
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've been thinking about this most of the day and I've reached a conclusion: adding the same proficiency bonus to AC as to attack rolls means that it becomes pointless, assuming that these rules are intended to apply NPCs as well as PCs. Instead of a higher-level character becoming better and better at hitting their foe due to increasing skill, it instead stays the same because their opponent becomes better at not being hit at an equal rate. Or at a better rate if they're using a shield. This doesn't benefit martial classes, it actually makes things worse for them because effects that don't target AC (in other words, spells that either auto-hit or go off a saving throw instead of an attack) are now more powerful. Consequently, I think this rule would largely end up hurting gameplay rather than help it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've been thinking about this most of the day and I've reached a conclusion: adding the same proficiency bonus to AC as to attack rolls means that it becomes pointless, assuming that these rules are intended to apply NPCs as well as PCs. Instead of a higher-level character becoming better and better at hitting their foe due to increasing skill, it instead stays the same because their opponent becomes better at not being hit at an equal rate. Or at a better rate if they're using a shield. This doesn't benefit martial classes, it actually makes things worse for them because effects that don't target AC (in other words, spells that either auto-hit or go off a saving throw instead of an attack) are now more powerful. Consequently, I think this rule would largely end up hurting gameplay rather than help it.
Eh. Spell Save DCs uses the casters proficiency number. Also saves use proficiency. It is the same argument. Both numbers increase at the same rate.
It'd be the same thing if AC increases as you level at the same pace as attack rolls. It should do so. High level character defenses should keep up with high level character offenses.
Outside of equipment and specific features; The fact that a cr 1/4 goblin hits a L20 character just as easily as he does the L1 character is weird.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've been thinking about this most of the day and I've reached a conclusion: adding the same proficiency bonus to AC as to attack rolls means that it becomes pointless, assuming that these rules are intended to apply NPCs as well as PCs. Instead of a higher-level character becoming better and better at hitting their foe due to increasing skill, it instead stays the same because their opponent becomes better at not being hit at an equal rate.
This is entirely reasonable (hit chance against an equal foe should be more or less static), except for the point where higher level characters also get more hit points.
Outside of equipment and specific features; The fact that a cr 1/4 goblin hits a L20 character just as easily as he does the L1 character is weird.
A core assumption of D&D combat is that hit points represent, among other things, skill in avoiding injury. This starts producing nonsense results if you start thinking about it too hard, but is the way the game has always worked.
I've been thinking about this most of the day and I've reached a conclusion: adding the same proficiency bonus to AC as to attack rolls means that it becomes pointless, assuming that these rules are intended to apply NPCs as well as PCs. Instead of a higher-level character becoming better and better at hitting their foe due to increasing skill, it instead stays the same because their opponent becomes better at not being hit at an equal rate. Or at a better rate if they're using a shield. This doesn't benefit martial classes, it actually makes things worse for them because effects that don't target AC (in other words, spells that either auto-hit or go off a saving throw instead of an attack) are now more powerful. Consequently, I think this rule would largely end up hurting gameplay rather than help it.
Eh. Spell Save DCs uses the casters proficiency number. Also saves use proficiency. It is the same argument. Both numbers increase at the same rate.
There are six different types of saving throws. Few characters are proficient in all of them, plus they also tend to have one or two ability scores that are lower than the others. This means that there's one or two saving throws that a given character is weak against and hammering them on those weak saves tends to be an effective strategy. Also, many non-cantrip spells that deal damage still harm the target even if they make the save.
It'd be the same thing if AC increases as you level at the same pace as attack rolls. It should do so. High level character defenses should keep up with high level character offenses.
Why should it? High level characters already get many different options that boost defenses, depending on their class. And, of course, they've got way more HP than lower level characters. Why should they have level-related AC boosts on top of this?
Outside of equipment and specific features; The fact that a cr 1/4 goblin hits a L20 character just as easily as he does the L1 character is weird.
And because the 20th level character has about 20 times the HP of the 1st level character, being hit by the goblin is far less threatening to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Instead of thinking of 1/4 goblin vs lvl20 character think of it as an identical NPC vs character.
As levels go up the characters inflicted damage goes up so things stay equal. By not adding in a characters natural dexterity or their full proficiency your just hindering the character for no real reason.
If you have ever participated in a fencing or sword fight or even just watched a real one closely you will see that most of the weapon swings are in a defensive manor and not actually attacking. Even with a shield the person does not spin all the way to their weapon side to block an attack they just use their weapon, the shield protects mostly their off hand side.
Yeah I've always thought it was strange that proficiency with a weapon only helps you hit with it. Because if you ever take any classes or train to fight with weapons a huge chunk of your training is on how to defend yourself with the weapon.
Adding half proficiency to AC while weilding a weapon makes sense. It is training based defense that should get better as you become more proficient.
Upping it to full proficiency if you're wielding a shield also makes sense. A shield isn't just strapped to your side. It is held and you manuever it around. That is training based defense too.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Adding half proficiency to AC while weilding a weapon makes sense. It is training based defense that should get better as you become more proficient.
Upping it to full proficiency if you're wielding a shield also makes sense. A shield isn't just strapped to your side. It is held and you manuever it around. That is training based defense too.
There is no reason to think that a shield gives proportionately larger benefits at higher skill.
Adding half proficiency to AC while weilding a weapon makes sense. It is training based defense that should get better as you become more proficient.
Upping it to full proficiency if you're wielding a shield also makes sense. A shield isn't just strapped to your side. It is held and you manuever it around. That is training based defense too.
There is no reason to think that a shield gives proportionately larger benefits at higher skill.
Is there not? You don't think shield use is skill based in the slightest bit? Idk. We'll have to just fundamentally disagree I think. How you fight with the shield is very skill based.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But what if you have two handed attacks? A weapon in each hand. Do you still only get half proficiency?
Yes. Yes.
Using a shield is a bonus not your proficiency. Your proficiency is the representation of your level, you can not take that away even in part.
Huh?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that’s too much AC, I think you went too far with it. Definitely drop the tower shield, that doesn’t need to be there. And drop the helmets too as they are already part of the regular armor and don’t need to be accounted for separately. And I would leave the base AC @ 10+, but only add ½PB to AC just like for shields.
Oh, and while you’re “fixing” things, get rid of stealth disadvantage on padded armor as it’s ridiculous.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hm. I hear all of the arguments, but I think the armor in 5e is quite balanced. Higher AC just leads to boredom and encounters where you have to roll a 17 or higher just to do an ounce of damage.
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
I actually like tower shields, but I think they should provide 3/4 cover as a bonus action instead of AC directly. Basically, they're too heavy to wield effectively against nimble opponents, but once planted, they're functionally a wall.
As for the proficiency bonus.
Its a representation of your experience and overall training. So not counting it for people who do not ware armor is not fair. They worked hard to gain that knowledge and experience.
Add it fully to everything as its the only representation of your level and greater experience.
Worrying about balance at specific levels is not a problem. A few levels in and that all goes away. The first level character is not supposed to be that much better than the average commoner anyways.
And get rid of that odd no crit rule for adamantine armor.
Ok, so I've rolled padded & leather into one armour, as without disadvantage on padded they're identical. I've removed the half-helm but kept the full helm, dropped to +1, and tweaked the numbers, dropped all buffs to alf proficiency (which will simplify it to be fair).
I've removed the Tower Shield, so it can be a common fancy Pavise with extra rules, so there's just the basic small/medium/large shield to pick from.
With this setup, we have:
No Armour, Dex +2 (roughly a Wizard build):
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC12
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC12
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC13
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC13
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC14
Leather Armour, Dex +4 (roughly a Rogue build):
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC15
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC15
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC16
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC16
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC17
Half Plate, Dex +2, Buckler (roughly a Fighter build):
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC17
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC17
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC19
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC19
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC21
And Full plate with helm and pavise (Paladin Tank with points on Str not Dex):
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC20
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC20
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC22
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC22
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC24
Wich seems much more reasonable than hitting AC 30! and should keep Armour at least a bit more relevant into the later game!
What do you all think?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I would drop helms all together and leave that a purely cosmetic choice for each player. And rename the buckler “small shield” since there were other small shields that should be represented and in game terms they should be the same mechanically.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know this quote chain is from a while back, but I really like the idea of using shields and your proficiency bonus to help solve the things you mentioned in that last post there, along with others. I outlined some of my thoughts about implementing these mechanics into shields HERE. Anyways, great ides guys! :)
Edit: Tweaked quote formatting
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.ThorukDuckSlayer
Add the full dex modifier back in for all armors and I am in.
You could make helmets just stop head crits except for decapitations.
While I agree with adding options for making armor more complex, I actually think that amping up both armor and grappling would solve the issue. Armor is GREAT against weapons. It is terrible against three Goblins dragging you down, yanking off your armor, and stabbing you in the neck... but grappling is TERRIBLE!
Armor can be much better if it has more brutal counter-options.
Pretty sure the OP was talking about the Upcoming 6E. Which would be none-of-the-above.
I've always liked the idea of rolling proficiency into the AC calc. I think you could simplify the shield stuff though. Instead of it also adding half, rounded down, just make it so it allows you to add full proficiency instead of half. Then you're doing less math and also get a more gradual increase over time instead of just +2 AC two times, once at 9th level then another +2AC at 17th level. Feels chunky, and not at all what you're going for. If you do the shield lets full prof, you instead get your +2ac straight away, then your AC increases by another +1 at levels 5, 9, 13 and then lastly 17. Evens out the progression.
My 2 cents? Make the initial 1/2 proficiency require you to have a shield or weapon in hand. That way it represents your ability to parry and block attacks with something other than your bare hands. That way it ties in easily with "if proficient with shields the shield adds full instead of only half".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've been thinking about this most of the day and I've reached a conclusion: adding the same proficiency bonus to AC as to attack rolls means that it becomes pointless, assuming that these rules are intended to apply NPCs as well as PCs. Instead of a higher-level character becoming better and better at hitting their foe due to increasing skill, it instead stays the same because their opponent becomes better at not being hit at an equal rate. Or at a better rate if they're using a shield. This doesn't benefit martial classes, it actually makes things worse for them because effects that don't target AC (in other words, spells that either auto-hit or go off a saving throw instead of an attack) are now more powerful. Consequently, I think this rule would largely end up hurting gameplay rather than help it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Eh. Spell Save DCs uses the casters proficiency number. Also saves use proficiency. It is the same argument. Both numbers increase at the same rate.
It'd be the same thing if AC increases as you level at the same pace as attack rolls. It should do so. High level character defenses should keep up with high level character offenses.
Outside of equipment and specific features; The fact that a cr 1/4 goblin hits a L20 character just as easily as he does the L1 character is weird.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is entirely reasonable (hit chance against an equal foe should be more or less static), except for the point where higher level characters also get more hit points.
A core assumption of D&D combat is that hit points represent, among other things, skill in avoiding injury. This starts producing nonsense results if you start thinking about it too hard, but is the way the game has always worked.
There are six different types of saving throws. Few characters are proficient in all of them, plus they also tend to have one or two ability scores that are lower than the others. This means that there's one or two saving throws that a given character is weak against and hammering them on those weak saves tends to be an effective strategy. Also, many non-cantrip spells that deal damage still harm the target even if they make the save.
Why should it? High level characters already get many different options that boost defenses, depending on their class. And, of course, they've got way more HP than lower level characters. Why should they have level-related AC boosts on top of this?
And because the 20th level character has about 20 times the HP of the 1st level character, being hit by the goblin is far less threatening to them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Instead of thinking of 1/4 goblin vs lvl20 character think of it as an identical NPC vs character.
As levels go up the characters inflicted damage goes up so things stay equal.
By not adding in a characters natural dexterity or their full proficiency your just hindering the character for no real reason.
If you have ever participated in a fencing or sword fight or even just watched a real one closely you will see that most of the weapon swings are in a defensive manor and not actually attacking. Even with a shield the person does not spin all the way to their weapon side to block an attack they just use their weapon, the shield protects mostly their off hand side.
Yeah I've always thought it was strange that proficiency with a weapon only helps you hit with it. Because if you ever take any classes or train to fight with weapons a huge chunk of your training is on how to defend yourself with the weapon.
Adding half proficiency to AC while weilding a weapon makes sense. It is training based defense that should get better as you become more proficient.
Upping it to full proficiency if you're wielding a shield also makes sense. A shield isn't just strapped to your side. It is held and you manuever it around. That is training based defense too.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But what if you have two handed attacks? A weapon in each hand. Do you still only get half proficiency?
Using a shield is a bonus not your proficiency. Your proficiency is the representation of your level, you can not take that away even in part.
There is no reason to think that a shield gives proportionately larger benefits at higher skill.
Is there not? You don't think shield use is skill based in the slightest bit? Idk. We'll have to just fundamentally disagree I think. How you fight with the shield is very skill based.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes. Yes.
Huh?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.