Because of some comments I got under my last post…
-
There’s no rule saying a dog can’t play!
Dogs aren’t a playable race so they can’t have class levels. But there is no rule saying dogs can’t learn languages. And they can be Sidekicks, but that’s more a rule specifically designed to allow them to play. There’s also no rule saying they can’t wield weapons. One-handed and two-handed weapons both require hands to use, but there aren’t actually any weapons listed as one-handed.
-
I think the last one is not really necessary. Characters having flaws is part of the design philosophy. Martials actually have a small advantage here as it is easier for them to build around their most important abilitiescores.
Don’t knock it till you try it. Making MAD builds more viable is really great for the game. Obviously characters will still have a couple low scores, but it’s nice not to suck at everything except one thing.
-
Don’t knock it till you try it. Making MAD builds more viable is really great for the game. Obviously characters will still have a couple low scores, but it’s nice not to suck at everything except one thing.
Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.
-
Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.
You could just give players multiple ASIs, but they can’t be applied to the same stat
-
You could just give players multiple ASIs, but they can’t be applied to the same stat
Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.
-
I touch myself
oh so that’s what elves do in the other 4 hours of the long rest
-
Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.
Of course, but it favors the RPer who just wants to be decent more than the minmaxer, since it encourages breadth not depth.
-
I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
I mean, if you follow the logic, undead are “animated corpses” and constructs are “animated objects”, sooo… Sure, the “Rule of Cool” wins my vote on this.
-
Of course, but it favors the RPer who just wants to be decent more than the minmaxer, since it encourages breadth not depth.
Definetly. Though some role-players might find it annoying that it creates the impression that your character just eventually becomes decent at everything.
-
undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
I mean, if you follow the logic, undead are “animated corpses” and constructs are “animated objects”, sooo… Sure, the “Rule of Cool” wins my vote on this.
Yes. That’s the point. But you don’t need rule of cool for this. You just need to use at least a single braincell to apply RAI.
-
Yes. That’s the point. But you don’t need rule of cool for this. You just need to use at least a single braincell to apply RAI.
Gonna disagree, rule of cool is the deciding factor between the RAI vs RAW interpretations.
I wouldn’t say it’s RAI, spells or abilities meant for inanimate objects typically don’t include undead under colloquial interpretations but it is definitely RAW using very technical interpretations.
-
Definetly. Though some role-players might find it annoying that it creates the impression that your character just eventually becomes decent at everything.
In 5e, yes. You would eventually become good at everything since DCs aren’t all that high. There are things you could do to combat that, but at that point you’d be homebrewing your own rpg system
-
Gonna disagree, rule of cool is the deciding factor between the RAI vs RAW interpretations.
I wouldn’t say it’s RAI, spells or abilities meant for inanimate objects typically don’t include undead under colloquial interpretations but it is definitely RAW using very technical interpretations.
Yes. And RAI means „rules as intended“. The technical interpretation of those words seems very much unintended.
-
In 5e, yes. You would eventually become good at everything since DCs aren’t all that high. There are things you could do to combat that, but at that point you’d be homebrewing your own rpg system
Pretty much, yes. I also think it’s not necessary for characters not to become better in all abilities even as the game goes on, but I generally like that characters typically continue to have weaknesses as they level up. Th unfortunate part is that those weaknesses are a lot less punishing for some classes then for other.
