• 0

    posted a message on Two-weapon fighting bonus action as a ranger

    Mike Mearls has gone on record saying bonus actions are one of his big regrets among rules from this edition. But two-weapon fighting has been gimped in every edition since 2ed, in overcompensation for when it used to be a bit too good. Part of "fixing" Beast Master was removing the bonus action requirements, but as you point out there's still quite a bit of overlap.

    On the other hand, Hunter's Mark gives you an extra d6 on every attack, including offhand attacks, as opposed to many such abilities that only add to your first attack each turn. Two-weapon fighting lets you do good 'nova' turns, but Duelist is probably the more balanced fighting style for melee Rangers.

    Posted in: Ranger
  • 0

    posted a message on Synergizing Class and Races, Cross-Reference Guide

    Or 14 Dex and a breastplate.

    Posted in: Tips & Tactics
  • 1

    posted a message on Ability checks vs Skill checks

    The Player's Handbook is over 300 pages, and that includes quite a bit of streamlining compared to previous editions. Simple rules midunderstandings are to be expected!

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 3

    posted a message on Banishment

    Tieflings as PCs are native to the Prime Material plane, and are banished in the same way as human Primes.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on Rogue Expertise Question

    The DM only calls for one check - a Dex check, modified by your proficiency bonus, if it applies on the check, and doubled if appropriate. You still only add it once.

    Xanathar's Guide covers tool proficiencies in better detail. The DM could reasonably give you advantage on the check in addition to double proficiency. But no, you would not get quadruple proficiency.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on Missing Info!!

    Game features not contained in the free-to-use SRD must be purchased to be used on D&D Beyond. For those particular features, you must purchase the Player's Handbook.

    Posted in: Sorcerer
  • 0

    posted a message on Anybody know of any groups looking for a player in Adelaide, SA?

    Thanks, just saw that one pop up!

    Posted in: Looking for Players & Groups
  • 0

    posted a message on Anybody know of any groups looking for a player in Adelaide, SA?

    I'm a new arrival from Canada to North Adelaide, looking to join a group. Not clear if there are any decent hobby stores nearby, so thought I'd try here!

    Posted in: Looking for Players & Groups
  • 3

    posted a message on Extended Racial feats Question: Sky Warden

    While unarmed strikes are not weapons, they are melee weapon attacks. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/951895470967672832

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 3

    posted a message on Spellbooks pages as spells scrolls?

    Spellbooks-as-loot are only for Wizards to copy, RAW. Scrolls are different. A well-filled spellbook would fetch a good sum of coin from a city's local mage, though.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 0

    posted a message on How Would You Re-design the Ranger
    Quote from Sorce >>

    After having a few Revised Rangers in my D&D group, I think a balance between the PHB and revised needs to happen. The damage bonus to favoured enemies I think needs to only kick in once you get greater favoured.

    I was kinda shocked to see that favoured enemy is still considered a "ribbon" ability for balancing even with the damage bonus. +2/+4 damage to all humanoids, undead, or monstrosities is a big deal.
    I think that's part of why they're going with the hot-swap abilities rather than a full revised class - I think it's become clear that the Ranger was never "broken", it just needed some abilities tweaked, mostly so they weren't so arbitrarily limited compared to similar tiers of Paladin or Totem Barbarian. The UA Ranger was an overcorrection.
    Posted in: Ranger
  • 1

    posted a message on How Would You Re-design the Ranger

    For the Rangers in my games, I do similarly to Matthias: Primeval Awareness is at-will. Natural Explorer gains two terrains per tier (I like the flavour of growing familiarity with terrain, but it grows too slowly) and can give extra wilderness bonuses where reasonable; I also give it the initiative advantage from UA because I like the skirmisher idea and my players don't multiclass. I prefer Favoured Enemy to be a flavour thing rather than adding damage, so I keep it as-is. I would probably give expertise in some Ranger skills along the way, but neither of my players has complained so I'm playing it by ear.

    I use the UA Beast Master and subtract the Extra Attack feature from the base Ranger (mostly because the UA flavour is so much better - the practical differences aren't as large as players think). Hunter remains the same. Most of the Ranger's combat strengths are in the subclasses and spells anyway; I think the main problem with how the Ranger "reads" is that the base class is long on flavour and short on power. None of my players do much comparison shopping between classes, so it doesn't bother them.

    Posted in: Ranger
  • 1

    posted a message on Strong Spirits - Drunken Master/Ancestral Guardian

    You probably don't want to delay Extra Attack until character level 8. Generally, you want to get yourself to level 5 for your first ASI and Extra Attack before multiclassing out.

    But, as Madsheep said, you don't need to be a Drunken Master to be drunk. Nor does a Drunken Master need to drink - it's a fighting style based on the way people move and act while drunk. Especially for Ancestral Guardian, just make it so when you drink the moonshine mead sacred to your ancestors, they come to you and induce visions, spirits, and battle prowess.

    Generally speaking, multiclassing is almost entirely unnecessary in 5e. The game already lets you create most character concepts through background, class, and RP.

    Posted in: Monk
  • 0

    posted a message on Critical Role - Campaign 2 Discussion Thread

    Said the fight was "tame". Just simply to point out that a level 1 party would've handled it fine. I have no problem with the encounter, was just reiterating my point that I'm a bit sad not to see the party grow from level 1. But it's a very small regret.

    Posted in: Streams & Video
  • 1

    posted a message on Critical Role - Campaign 2 Discussion Thread
    Quote from Csabalogh >>

    I was a little disappointed they started at level 2 with what seems like quite a bit of backstory already built up, since I was looking forward to watching this party grow from session 0. But it does add to the mystery going forward.

    They have mentioned in some occasions the last night and stuff like that. I think they had a short game session just to get the party together, and lvl them up quickly to 2nd lvl. As a DM, I'd do the same. The 1st lvl is meant to get in the mood I think, the real fun can start only at lvl 2 with enough HP to beat more interesting encounters. :)

     I don't disagree in theory, but the lone combat encounter from this session was pretty tame.
    Whatever gets us to level 3 quickly so we can find out the rest of folks' subclass choices!
    Posted in: Streams & Video
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.