Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
K, the thing is is 1 player can obliterate 1 encounter per day at my table, I think my table would love it. Why? Cause I ACTUALLY use the encounter per day, not per session, guidelines. I dont hand out rests too often esp long rest ESP in dungeons, which is where a lot of the game is actually played. Hence, if they can use a resource that allows everyone else to reserve their resources, that is a win for the table cause it speeds up the game a little, and they are left better equipped to handle further challenges. So for my tables, go ahead and find all the broken nasty powerful shit you can. 1. I reward research and effort, and 2. You are going to want/need every advantage. I run the game in an old style, using older modules..which are fricken nasty and brutal. So this works. If you want the cozy, PC version that is standard with 5e adventures, where your session is 1 day and 1 day can only handle 1 encounter, then so be it. But hey, I dont sit at those tables, and that is totally cool. But to me nerfing stuff for the so called sake of balance is just silly cause its a target that you can never hit...hell if you wanted balance, you'd need to do a full rewrite on every martial adding tons of features and resources...which most dont do. I do, but less for balance, but more just because I simply think the martials are massively under tuned, and what I give doesnt fill the gap, but it does give more options that make sense to them. But again, my taste runs to high power high danger...total brutality.
And to be fair, I dont put stock in "RAI" interpretations. Hell, I dont care for Sage Advice either really. I am not a mind reader, I read the text. IF I am going to change something, its going to be because I think the mechanic or rule is stupid NOT because some other folks think they can read minds and tell me what the devs intended. If the devs want to say there is a RAI to rules, say the bag of rats type stuff, well, should have written stuff better now shouldnt they....its what they are literally being paid, as professionals, to do. Sure, this might seem a bit rigid and even dickish, dont care. Again, its not that I wont change or add or delete things...its just never going to be based on an RAI interpretation but on reading something and determining if I like it or dont. So people can argue with the approach I take, but the rules for Cartomancer are written in a very specific way, with no mention of spell slot in either imbuing the card or in the casting of the spell at the time. So I am happy to let the players, if they even come across it, have their fun.
Here's a neat tangent...there is Feat that says you get advantage on saving throw that can impose a condition. Yes, the earlier part of the feat talks about being pushed or made prone but the second half does NOT have those limitation, it just says, "a condition". It is, in my opinion, the BEST origin feat I have come across. It is a partnered content feat. So, I am sure, that some folks would say, hey they didnt mean ALL saves but that is how its written, and how its applied when you take it in DnD Beyond. Enjoy. (And yes, if you know you know, and if you dont this is homework! LOL)
It's not nerfing a thing to have it not do something it never says it does.
Check out Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords for 3.5. I personally consider it a good book along those lines. The Crusader is, IMO, the best take on the Paladin.
Part of reading will always be reading the intent. There will always be scenarios where you can validly read a sentence multiple ways and part of reading that sentence, consciously or not, will be determining the intent. Sometimes it will be taking a sentence in the context it was printed in, but you always evaluate intent in the written word. This is particularly necessary in 5e compared to 3.x where the language was very precise for most books.
Just for reference when discussing rules in this forum:
So, Sage Advice is RAW for the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
My mantra is to always understand what the rules say before deciding to change something. Your table, your game. However, if you take the time to understand what the rules are saying, you can make deliberate changes with fewer unintended impacts. It's not meant as a barrier to changes; it's meant to improve the quality of the final result. It won't catch everything, but it helps.
Partnered content. Third party content has always been inconsistent in terms of quality and has no bearing on the design patterns of official D&D content.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I WAS going to argue the point about partnered content...and then realized you were correct..****y that partnered content seems to be far better than a lot if not most of the official content. Its more willing to make solid subclasses, races, features, feats. Look at Grim Hollow's Race build feature...it allows you to customize your race quite a bit. And the features are quite extensive and some are very powerful. So, we agree...comparing the two might well be unfair, but I would suggest the dev team look to these others specifically the Grim Hollow folks and start being bold. Because, seriously, they put out some great stuff. I was happy to see a caster monk subclass, but its a 1/3 caster (ya I know fight/rog got same treatment, but shouldnt) and its sorc not wizard...seems a shame on that front too and its capstone is crap and the 11th level feature is basically useless too. And lets not even mention the terrible design of the tattoo monk.
Hard disagree about partnered content. In general, balance is subjective. There are some that believe +1 weapon is breaking game balance, where as others think +5 items are okay. IMO, really comes down to the DM and how good they are at building content for their game. In 2014 feats were optional (and not everyone used them). 2024 they are part of the base game. You have to have a base, somewhere to start. Each time you increase that starting point, things after have to exceed that starting point. If you don't, there is the vocal minority who will complain it is weak, not better than what is already available, and is crap comparted to what XYZ is putting out. And if you do, you will have a vocal minority (and oddly enough a fair number of the same people) complaining about the power creep.
You mention Grim Hollow, a solid setting, with a fair bit of power creep in it, mostly balanced within their content. Pulling it into other content could be problematic depending on the DM. A DM like yourself (at least from reading your commentary here) and me, power creep isn't much of a issue, especially when you use multiple combats per session/day to wear down players resources. For a DM that let players go all out and use up all their limited abilities, then recover them immediately by resting, that is more of an issue.
On your comment about RAI. I appreciate when the games developers chime in on rules questions. The commentary gives us insight and helps us understand their thought process behind the rules. And for a DM like me, I'll still rule as I see fit (example- 2014 See Invisible not removing the advantage/disadvantage is asinine). I wish the developers/leads would comment more or have a monthly Q&A. It is like the discussion here on Hidden Ace, there are solid points on each side. I find it amusing people tossing around RAW/RAI when it isn't necessarily RAW (perspective) or RAI (like they have a magical insight into what the rules team was thinking). While Hidden Ace will be run in my games based upon my thought process, and I appreciate the commentary from the current team about it is up to you on how you how play it at your table, it would be nice to have guidance if I ever run another AL type game. And, it would help interpret future content.
That depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for more powerful options without consideration of balance within the context of existing options, third-party is where it's at. If you are looking for well play tested options that fit the tone and power level of official content, be wary of third-party content. Play testing and balance are a rarity among third party publishers and, even if they have the budget and experience with the system, may be going for a different tone than the base game.
I have never played it, but I would not expect Cthulhu by Torchlight to have casters casting spells without consequences. I would expect Chaosium or Paizo (especially Paizo who has been making D&D content for decades) to be capable of producing internally balanced content or even content balanced for the broader game (though broader Chaosium would likely still target more of a Ravenloft game rather than something else). I don't know Ghostfire Gaming from Uncle Rando's Book of 1001 Feats so I can't say one way or another about their products so I will have to let Zobar's assessment stand on its own.
Why would they look at a product that is making an experience different from D&D to create a D&D experience. Grim Hollow is here to say "play our game and you don't even have to learn new rules because it uses D&D as its base." It's here to ride on D&D's coattails instead of directly competing against it while WotC takes a commission. All of the partnered content is. If there is any quality assessment that WotC does before allowing someone in as partnered content, I am not aware of it, but since it is not as prolific as DM's Guild Content, I assume that there is something restricting publishers, whether it is a quality check or simply that it doesn't provide resources like DM's Guild content does.
An Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster Rogue have more non-casting abilities than a Paladin and Ranger. That is why they are 1/3rd casters and not 1/2 casters like the Paladin or Ranger. I have no idea what random Unearthed Arcana offerings have to do with this but that is also why a Mystic Warrior Monk will also be 1/3rd caster.
The Mystic Warrior discussion is here: Mystic subclass monk - Unearthed Arcana - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond
This post is about the Cartomancer Feat and what it says it does.
All the spellcasting rules apply as normal for the Cartomancer except what has been explicitly overridden. Therefore, Cartomancer:
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.