|
Boing posted:What was the old killing orc babies? You are an adventurer! Orcs are ambushing merchants and farmers in the pass and you've been hired to stop them! After several skirmishes with smaller warbands you make your way to the main encampment and successfully wipe out the warriors! But, thing is that for any given number of warriors there's usually an equal or larger number of noncombatants such as cooks or smiths, plus members of the community that are too old or too young to fight- ranging youths who haven't finished basic training all the way down to infants. What do you do? "Kill everyone" is not an uncommon answer, especially if you subscribe to the idea that orcs are inherently evil and thus any orc babies will thus only grow up into evil orc adults who would then cause more trouble. While alignment is supposed to serve as a way to get past the ethical ramifications of slaughtering everyone you meet by simply stating that they deserved it, some people get really uncomfortable with the idea of exterminating a race down to the last child out of a belief in the worthless nature of the race.
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
It's kind of confusing because if you were going to design a pure evil species why would it have an extended infancy stage? Babies are weak and require tons of attention and nurturing- nature has so many other ways to reproduce that don't involve spending years cleaning up after poop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I couldn't find anything in the PHB about subdual damage, and knocking him unconscious at 0 HP can still cause death if he fails his 3 saving throws "Knocking a creature out" says that the creature falls unconscious and is stable. Stable creatures don't make death saving throws. A stable creature regains 1 HP after 1d4 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
No problem, it's a confusing segment that I had to check a few times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Fortunately, Bracers of Defense stacks with all of the options that don't involve a shield.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I looked through the 20 different CR4 monsters because I was thinking you could just re-skin one of them as a Greater Gargoyle and the stats are honestly all over the place. Hit die is based on creature size- tiny is d4, small is d6, medium is d8, large is d10, huge is d12, gargantuan is d20. Bonus HP are equal to your Constitution modifier multiplied by your total number of hit dice. As far as I can tell, a creature's total number of hit dice is entirely arbitrary and seems only designed to boost up HP totals to a broad-but-presently-undefined HP bracket per CR. Proficiency bonus is based on CR, but saves/skills are determined arbitrarily, as are ability scores. Some creatures get to double their proficiency bonus to certain skills because of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Yeah, basically this. When marked, either you can attack the guy with high AC, or attack someone else at a penalty AND eat a whack. This is why Paladins got the shaft as Defenders in 4e; not only did their mark punishment not stop enemies from moving, the damage didn't scale worth a poo poo (which I guess was "balanced" because it was no-action auto-damage.) 4e Paladins were kinda troubled out of the box but did get significantly better with later support. The damage got better with feats and items to the point where an Str/Cha paladin has some pretty painful (especially with Radiant Vulnerability in play), and then got other support like Bitter Challenge (violating the mark slows the target, which sets up for Proning with World Serpent's Grasp) and Weakening Challenge in Epic (weakens the target during the attack for half damage, which is fantastic), plus multi-marking from Divine Sanction powers. Most of this would have been nice to have earlier, but that's game design for you. Then they forgot half of this when they designed the cavalier, which has the low damage (not modified by anything else that boosts Divine Challenge/Sanction) and then adds in an opportunity action cost.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:At least when I was thinking of rolling with an odd CON score it could be put off til a later level (like, say, 12) and still get away with it, but with WIS you'd really want to bring it up as soon as possible, which would mean level 4. Which means you can't double-bump your attack stat, DEX, and you'd be doing less damage and hitting less often from there on. That doesn't really seem like a good trade. And to be fair, it seems like ALL classes get one good and one bad save: STR (8), INT (3), and CHA (14) are all pretty bad in terms of underutilization saves-wise. I guess it's not too important to push for Resilience then. Monks get proficiency in all saves at level 14, otherwise the only way to get proficiency in the big 3 (Dex/Con/Wis) is to start as a rogue (Dex/Int) who gets Slippery Mind for Wis Proficiency at level 15, and then burn a feat somewhere to get Con proficiency. Every class has one of the big 3 and one of the lesser ones, it's difficult to cover your bases by design (which is a pretty bad idea in my opinion).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah that's what I'm concerned about. I mean the level 9 assassin thing literally says "no one will suspect you unless you act out of character" so that's pretty clear but it also costs money. This is exactly the thing that Passive Insight/Perception was created to solve. You make your check for the disguise, and assume that everyone else rolled a 10 when they encounter you. If your check result is enough to beat their passive checks, they won't notice your disguise. If people actively get suspicious and start looking around for infiltrators, that's the point where they start rolling and you start worrying about natural 20s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Lords Of Waterdeep is also good fun. The theme is nearly absent*, but sending all the There's a video of Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, Patrick Rothfuss and Brandon Laatsch playing the game as part of Wil Wheaton's Tabletop webseries. 35 minute edited version or the 2h20m extended uncut version for those of you who simply can't get enough. Anyways, this isn't the first time Wizards has tanked books. The most recent one I know of that came this close to publication was the (heroic) character options thing that was supposed to revise the original PHB classes and introduce themes outside of Dark Sun, but that book got scuttled and what we know of the content was then released in Dragon Magazine. A few years back at Gencon there were murmurings of Ravenloft stuff, but nothing concrete ever showed up (perhaps some of it may have been repurposed into Heroes of Shadow's vampire class or something). There's even more dead projects in the vaults we don't know about. LightWarden fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Only partly an error, fixed. Anyways, I went digging, and the canceled 4e book was Player's Option: Champions of the Heroic Tier. quote:Player's Option: Champions of the Heroic Tier offers a wide array of new options for all characters. Themes allow characters' pasts to play a role in their future. New backgrounds allow players to create hill dwarves and wood elves. An all new take on rituals makes those magical abilities more useful in the heroic tier of play than ever before.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Why even skirt around flanking? Wasn't that term in 3.X too? Allstone posted:Because you need additional rules for it to exist in theatre of the mind. More or less. 3.5e Rules Compendium, p. 56 posted:How We Learned to Flank
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Alhireth-Hotep posted:It's kind of strange, I associate Law vs Chaos with, like, B/X and BECMI, but then I recently found a copy of Holmes Basic (1977). What do I see? Would you be willing to transcribe or photograph the alignment section? I have this alignment comparison/discussion post rolling around in the back of my mind, and part of it is just the sheer absurdity of how alignment definitions change with every single edition published, but Holmes Basic is the one that I don't have access to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
I had to pick between Fighter and Monk, then Wizard and Cleric.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
+3 In theory, the selling point of two-handers is that they have a bigger damage die. There are some versatile weapons that get a bigger damage die when you wield them with one hand, but that's a property that's listed on the weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
They usually dump employees in December, but it's entirely possible they saved the annual canning until after the holidays. I don't see anyone confirming this though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Friend of a friend put together a dark sun book: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Pb99H6nzr0TnVWM3ljWjV6cjA/view Why the hell would you allow divine characters if you're only giving them a 16 to 35% chance of their spells working? You're already giving them a 100% chance of everything else working like Channel Divinity or a paladin's smite and auras. Mul has a random floating +2 to nothing, Half-Giant has a +3 to strength because gently caress racial guidelines. I think the rare races are a bit much (especially since 4e linked the Dragonborn to the Dray). Wasteland Mutant takes all the fun of Gamma World and then ruins it by slapping on actual racial penalties.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Experimental subjective fix: make the character's background matter in determining the quality of the success. Say you're facing down a Mad Wizard who's casting an arcane ritual, and someone makes an INT+Arcana check to find out what the Wizard is trying to cast. The thing about 5E's skill system is that a Rogue that took Arcana as his Expertise skill might have a higher bonus to the check than an actual Wizard. What I propose is that even if the Rogue passes his check, he's never going to get as much information about the Mad Wizard's spell as the Wizard, simply because he's a Rogue and not a Wizard. You'd have to be careful with this though, as it can lead you down to playing favorites or treating the party unfairly if you don't check exactly by how much you're reining in the results of their checks. Careful with this one. If a player has invested one of a limited amount of character options into being good at something (especially something that requires an unusual investment of abilities), that's usually a flag that the player wants to be good at that thing, and arbitrarily blocking that thing comes across as a dick move. If you have a problem with Expertise being a floating +2 to +6 bonus in a game of flat math than fix Expertise; if you have a problem with characters not being able to do the things their concept says that they're good at then fix that instead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's basically Neverwinter Nights, though. Yeah, Neverwinter Nights hasn't exactly aged poorly outside of the graphics department. Though the game mechanics deviated from 3e's rules on a number of vectors, there are people making story modules and content for Neverwinter Nights to this day, even if the community is smaller than it was almost 13 years ago. I think the tools were easier to use than they were for Neverwinter Nights 2. This one is probably going to have even more deviation from the core rules than Neverwinter or the Infinity Engine games did, since most of the non-combat rules (and even some of the combat effects) are vague and rely on the DM to sort it out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
This was a few pages back, but I finally managed to dig up some links. Regarding the big WotC-prompted CharOp discussion of 4e's flaws...OneThousandMonkeys posted:Can you link or is it buried in the depths of the WotC forums' re-org from a year or two ago? Original Thread, but it got stickied as an announcement so non-mods couldn't post in it, prompting this thread with lots of discussion of flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:1) Has anything interesting been done with Assassins yet? They were the most blatant trap class at the beginning, and I'm curious if they did anything to make it functional or just doubled down on screwing over people who don't know better. Not really, about the only major gimmick the assassin has is surprise rounds. Normally they're uncommon, but by investing in stealth or something with your expertise bonus you can scout a little bit ahead, shoot a dude to start the surprise round and then use your bonus action + move to hide or dash your way back to the other folks. It's still pretty gimmicky, only works for a round and can go south pretty easily, which is why you want your party some 30 feet back.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Also, regarding Cirno's mention of Raistlin, dude is literally a PC wizard who ditches his party when he gets powerful enough to no longer need his meat shield brother. He is the embodiment of everything wrong with LFQW design. One of the funnier things about Raistlin is his name occasionally pops up when people talk about dump stats and how you're a power gamer if your wizard dumps Strength or Charisma, wondering why those munchkins aren't more like Raistlin and put themselves through the actual dangers of playing a low-Constitution/low-health character. DL01- Dragons of Despair has the write-ups for the various protagonists and Raistlin's talks about how he wound up at the towers and passed the tests at a terrible cost to his health. His Constitution is 10. (as is his Strength and Charisma)
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wasn't Drizzt an actual PC from a campaign that its author was playing, and that he was a good-but-outcast Drow specifically because of the playable-PC clause in the race's description? The answer is far funnier than that. R.A. Salvatore, Dark Elf Trilogy Introduction posted:I knew where Drizzt was conceived, of course: in my office, at my day job. And I knew when he came into being: July 1987, right after my proposal to write The Crystal Shard had been accepted, and right before I actually started writing the book. LightWarden fucked around with this message at 06:21 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
On the other hand, the Baldur's Gate novels are indistinguishable from bad fanfiction to the point where I have literally stopped reading it and double-checked to make sure this was a book that was actually published.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The actual problem with "I do a creative thing" is that it's not actually mechanically encouraged at all. As part of a thought experiment on the value of Trapfinding (the Rogue's ability to disable magical traps in 3e and Pathfinder) for a future Murphy's Rules thing, I went through various modules and counted the number of times magical traps appeared as opposed to nonmagical ones (anyone with Disable Device can deal with nonmagical traps in Pathfinder). Single digit answers across entire adventure paths were common, which meant that magical traps were pretty easily handled by wands or scrolls that granted you trapfinding for a few minutes. It is a staggeringly over-rated ability, especially when most of the slack can be picked up by any other Dex-heavy character with skill points to spare.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Between full BAB, feat chains, magic items, maneuvers that weren't gated off into 5e feats/abilities and the Fort/Ref/Will save structure, would it be a stretch to say that the 3.PF Fighter is better than the 5e one? Yes, this is a stretch. Unless you were seriously optimizing and had access to all of the splatbooks a 3.PF fighter was not in a good place either. Full BAB wasn't that helpful because all your iterative attacks activated on a descending bonus, so you weren't a 20th level fighter making four attacks against a CR 20 opponent, you were' a 20th level fighter making one attack, followed by a 15th level fighter making one attack, followed by a 10th level fighter making one attack followed by a 5th level fighter making one attack. Unless you had a seriously ridiculous attack bonus through spells or the ability to go for touch AC, your last attack often missed. Feat chains were terrible because they were designed around the idea that fighters had lots of feats, so normal people could only do one thing and even fighters couldn't pick up that many things. Plus you had to plan out your character in advance to get the most out of them. Maneuvers were gated behind feats in 3.PF just as they are in 5e, just not through the same way. Just because you can use maneuvers without the feat in 3.PF, it doesn't mean that you should.n Using a maneuver without the feat means that you're provoking an AoO, have a smaller bonus in a game where enemy strength/size/CMD bonuses rapidly outstrip your own offense for the maneuver, and many maneuvers are of questionable value against different foes (can't disarm a dragon's teeth, and bull-rushing the dragon 5 ft doesn't mean it's magically out of reach). You could get something out of maneuvers, but it required serious investment and feat synergy. The Fort/Ref/Will save structure involves fewer weak points than 5e's six saves, but the 3.PF fighter is better than the 5e fighter in the same way that being eaten alive by rats is better than being eaten alive by fire ants. The 3.PF fighter has only one good save that can even hope to keep pace with rising enemy save DCs, but without heavy investment in spells and ability scores you'll probably be outstripped by high level opponents in your best save, and utterly clobbered in your worst, because at high levels the penalties from failing saves get really bad, with stuff like mind control and instant death being flung around left and right. Meanwhile, the 5e fighter's bad saves just straight up do not increase at all, and you have too many bottlenecks in the form of Concentration spells to prevent buff stacking and Attunement to prevent magic item stacking, so your bad saves at 20th level may be almost what they were at 1st level against enemies designed to challenge the good saves at 20th level. Both save systems are total garbage. Magic items were better for the 3.PF fighter since they were more abundant, but they were far, far, far better for the 3.PF caster, especially the 3.PF caster crafter, who could have whatever was needed for half the market price.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:I know it's just an example, but the DB rangers would probably work. It really only sucks when you don't get a boost to your attack stat, since you're NEED to have that at an 18+, and it's really expensive to get it that high without a racial boost. Honestly, I'd just give all player characters of whatever race the ability to add +2 to three different stats and only have racial stats as a suggestion. So a dwarf might favor Str, Con and Wis, and you can alot your stats that way to be MOST DWARF or decide that you really need to go Dex/Int/Cha and be LEAST DWARF or go for whatever other mix of ability scores your class needs. You may be an oddity by the standards of your race, but that's totally fine for player characters and adventurers. Similarly, instead of +1 to two stats at levels 4/8/14/18/24/28, it'd be +1 to three stats, so you can at least try to keep your stats fairly level while still having some room to explore.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Let me tell you a story about Wound Points! Wound Points show up in 3e's Unearthed Arcana. Interestingly enough, they were originally designed for the d20 Star Wars RPG as a way to create "a more cinematic method of handling damage than the traditional hit point system." The idea was that your Vitality Points (VP) represented your ability to shrug off near misses, but it was only that last hit that went through the last of your VP or that random critical hit that touched your WP and actually did some serious damage. VP regenerated by your level each hour while WP required days of rest and/or medical treatment, so you could be back in the game quicker if you didn't get tagged with WP damage. When they updated the rules for Star Wars Saga Edition, the Wound Points system rules were mysteriously absent! They explained their reasoning on the website, but when WotC lost the Star Wars license all of their old articles went missing. Fortunately, lovely nerds have backed up many of the articles WotC kept on their site. Jedi Counseling 101 posted:
So, the rules designed to make the game feel more cinematic actually wound up making your characters more prone to random chump deaths thanks to crits bypassing your normal defenses and going for your soft and squishy parts when a high level character had 100+ VP but only 10 to 20 WP (also, stun weapons were ridiculously good- fail a save and you were unconscious, succeed and you were merely stunned and unable to do anything as they kept shooting you). Saga Edition invented the condition track to make injuries more cinematic: Basically if you took damage in excess of a specific value (your Damage Threshold), your condition track was shifted down by one step, applying an increasing level of penalties to your attacks, defenses and skills: <-> 0|-1|-2|-5|-10|Unconscious Critical hits did high damage and thus had better odds of knocking you down a peg, and there were various ways to increase the number of steps your target shifted, such as by hitting them with stun weapon or sucker-punching them. Thing is they also stacked, so suckerpunching someone or sniping them with a stun weapon could knock an opponent down two, three, even four or more steps while going back up the condition track could take your entire turn just to go one step back, so optimizing around the condition track became the fastest way to one- or two-shot just about any enemy in the game. There's a reason they didn't bring this system back in 4e outside of the curse/disease tracks, which usually just move you up/down by one step at a time once a day, giving you more opportunities to actually deal with it. 5e's vitality system doesn't quite get to the same one-shot realm as the original Star Wars d20, because even a critical hit needs to do five times your Con modifier in damage in a single blow to completely tank your vitality (while a stock blaster rifle does 3d8 for 13.5 average damage before modifiers are added in and can easily tank a lightly armored Star Wars character who doesn't have much in terms of Con). Single-shot crit damage doesn't really scale all that well over 20 levels since it's just rolling your dice again and most characters don't get all that many dice to roll outside of the odd assassin rogue. That said, 10 points of damage isn't too high of a benchmark to hit for anything with a two-hander and/or a decent ability score, so chipping away at your Vitality isn't too hard, and gets even easier at higher levels when monsters get a wider set of attacks that do more damage per hit. And while your HP count can grow twenty fold over twenty levels, your Vitality is pegged to your Con score, which barely grows at all unless you invest your stat boosts or magic item attunement slots. When you take Vitality damage it also lowers your effective Con score for the purpose of calculating HP, so every one to two points of Vitality damage (easily doable at high levels) also docks your HP count by your level, meaning you need to face high-level threats with low-level HP counts. And while you can take HP and Vitality damage as part of the same attack, you cannot heal HP and Vitality damage as part of the same spell- you need to be at full HP and then have someone heal you 10 points per lost vitality (which is pretty hard at low levels). This system is pretty much designed to grind down characters, especially high-level ones. And since it's an attrition-based mechanic it means basically nothing to monsters who are only supposed to be in one combat and then die. Given that they figured out the ways this tends to go down ten years ago, I have no idea if they forgot this lesson or know exactly what they're doing, because this system is not designed to counter the problem of "a fighter can survive a fireball, a troll’s rending claws, and a one‐hundred‐foot fall, only to crumple in a heap due to a kobold’s dagger" so much as it's designed to enforce it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:4e changed too much too fast for a lot of tabletop players. If they had come out in the opposite order, I bet you wouldn't have seen the giant backlash against 4e. I don't know why, but a ton of tabletop gamers are ridiculously resistant to change. A surprising number of 4e changes came out in various 3e products if you were seriously into reading everything WotC produced like I was. Reading through the 4e PHB wasn't much of a surprise for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Fun flavor stuff in there, it was certainly something to read the description of "fiendish SUV". Also, I'm impressed they managed to go a whole year before giving the wizard a mechanic that circumvents Concentration (or maybe does nothing at all?).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
It's also a paladin spell, but unfortunately they don't get 7th level spells so they can't summon celestial fighter jets. And you need to be a sorcerer if you want the vehicle to last more than 8 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
When asked to explain why he regretted returning to work for WotC, his response:Monte Cook posted:Basically, I left WotC in 2001 for many reasons, but mainly because it had become very corporate and political. No big grudges or anything--it just wasn't for me. When WotC approached me to come back for 5e in 2011 (as a contractor), I was told everything was different. I was told that the environment was totally free of any of the corporate bs of the past and a great place for creativity. I was told we'd be revitalizing the whole game, and that this included amazingly cool things like bringing back Dragon magazine to print, reestablishing ties with the old guard (Zeb Cook, Tracy Hickman, Jeff Grubb, etc. maybe as consultants), beefing up the in-house staff (primarily with hiring back people with a lot of solid experience), and creating an aggressive initial release schedule with high-quality adventures and other products created by an in-house staff. In short, focusing specifically on the tabletop D&D experience, and not on licensing to video games, movies, and other things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
WotC posted:Being able to delay your turn can let you wreak havoc on the durations of spells and other effects, particularly any of them that last until your next turn. Simply by changing when your turn happens, you could change the length of certain spells. The way to guard against such abuse would be to create a set of additional rules that would limit your ability to change durations. The net effect? More complexity would be added to the game, and with more complexity, there is greater potential for slower play. Really? 4e Rules Compendium posted:Delay
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Dilb posted:I like that Orcus can make up to 4 tail attacks per round, despite there being no visible tail in the picture of him. His description is "He has the lower torso of a goat", so I assume he's attacking with a teeny little goat tail. This is an actual problem faced by Pathfinder's Demon Lord Nocticula.  One of many, in fact
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
One to three levels of ranger on a rogue might not be terrible if you want to build a sniper.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Maybe. Ambuscade/Assassinate gives you advantage for that pseudo-turn, but without actual Surprise you won't crit. Yeah, but you can get surprise as an assassin just by hiding before the fight starts and then taking the first shot. Since surprise doesn't end until after your first turn in combat and the ranger feature gives you an extra turn (including bonus action and move) you can get up to two turns of surprise bow strikes and the ensuing critical hits, using your bonus actions to either hide or stay hidden.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:This is pretty table/DM dependent though, at least in my experience. Well, you could scout 30 to 50 feet ahead of the party since you can put your starting Expertise into Stealth and Perception, and if you've got a longbow you don't actually need to get all that close. If you run into trouble you can use your bonus action to dash/hide and bug back to the rest of the party after taking a shot. Ranger bonus means you have an extra turn buffer to figure out if you screwed up or not.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
People have been showing some of the other content in the latest book, such as the Bladesinger as well as half-elf and tiefling racial variants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
They do the same thing for the valor bard as well if you use your magical secrets to poach them. A little better for them because you don't lose any of the extra attacks that a higher level fighter would have.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Nah, you pretty much have it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 16:46
|
|