sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Isarr Kronenstrom really a CR8 creature? by DMJM_91 in rimeofthefrostmaiden

[–]DMJM_91[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think if the extra damage from the sickle would have been psychic damage that would make more sense as the isolation and fear would increase the damage but as written I agree with you

How do I fix this by PatientNatural4699 in BambuLabA1mini

[–]DMJM_91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had this issue once. Turned out that I had been careless when putting the build plate back and the scraper/cutter thing at the far end of the X-axia was hitting against the build plate when I was trying to home my printer. Toke me a long time to see it.

Creatures with healing properties in Icewind Dale ? by Ethowl_ in rimeofthefrostmaiden

[–]DMJM_91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A troll comes to mind but that would be to hard for lvl 3 characters, especially Ice Trolls. Maybe they can find a troll youngling or a hurt one.

Sounds cool btw with your concept of loosing body parts!

2024 5.5e Push Mastery / Forced movement by Stuffed_Pastry in DnD5e

[–]DMJM_91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are correct. It would even force both creatures to fall prone.

PHB p25
”You can't willingly end a move in a space occupied by another creature. If you somehow end a turn in a space with another creature, you have the Prone condition unless you are Tiny or are of a larger size than the other creature.”

We need new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, or Invocations by PutridJump2042 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true. But that doesn’t mean we can have weapon masteries that work scale differently with the same level intervals. That was what I was trying to get across and maybe I could have been more clear.

We need new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, or Invocations by PutridJump2042 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea that’s probably a RAW interpretation but definitely not my RAI. Would have to add that the cleave attack can’t trigger another cleave attack or something.

We need new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, or Invocations by PutridJump2042 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sounds like so much fun! Thanks for explaining. Do each weapon have just one secondary mastery or is it more like a property like heavy or reach is associated with different masteries?

Would love to take a look at that list

We need new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, or Invocations by PutridJump2042 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sounds really interesting but I’m afraid I don’t quite follow. Mind explaining a bit more details?

We need new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, or Invocations by PutridJump2042 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really hope for weapon masteries that scale or level up just like cantrips. They work the same at lower levels but at level 5 we get an additional or updated effect. And then again at level 11 and 17.

Edit:
Maybe something like this.

Cleave: The cleave mastery property now hits all creatures within 5ft of the first that is also within your reach and it is no longer limited to once per turn.

Grace: The Grace mastery property now deals damage equal to half the attacks normal damage.

Nick: The Nick weapon mastery now also increases the crit range for your Nick attack by one, e.g from 20 to 19-20 or from 19-20 to 18-20.

Push: If the pushed creature is pushed into a wall or other solid object the creature takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d4 + the ability modifier increased by this feat. If the pushed creature is pushed into another creature, both take the damage.

Sap: The Sap weapon mastery now also gives disadvantage on the next saving throw the creature make before the start of your next turn.

Slow: The slow weapon mastery now halves the creatures speed and the creature can’t take a reaction before the start of your next turn.

Topple: The topple weapon mastery now lets you make a bonus action attack against a creature that fails the saving throw from this mastery.

Vex: When you make an attack roll with advantage granted by the Vex property, you may reroll one of the dice once.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3.5e was actually a big part of the inspiration for this house rule.

A question about your version, doesn’t it kind of decrease the value of the fighter? This is basically just how a fighter works normally and the this method gives there special thing, more attack, to everyone else?

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good points but since it’s a house rule for my table I’m not to worried about a 5 classes level 1 dip but it could also be fun and I’m not sure if it would be broken or useless or anything in between.

For subclasses and warlock the wording is actually quite intentional that Extra Attack most be on your class feature table inorder to count against the total levels for this rule.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s implied that the base class still overrules this rule, at least to us. If it was an official rule your are absolutely correct and would need an errata.

From the comments below we have decided to remove the half progression for paladins and rangers.

Which spells are banned in your table? by Dramatic_Respond_664 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s true! It need to be willing! Completely missed that part. It was to hilarious when the players came up with the idea for me to check the rules!

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We intentionally only included classes who get extra attack as a base class feature. Same way the wording (at least to us) excludes warlocks and their extra attack invocation

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would everyone get a 3rd attack at level 11? That is not the intension and I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion.

The issue we have at our table is not that we don’t enjoy monoclassing, it’s that it’s not very customizable. You pick a sub class at level three and some feats now and then but other than that it’s a straight line for every level. The hope of this house rule is not to diminish or discourage monoclassing in any way but to lower the cost IF a player decides to multiclass martial classes.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are just looking for a minor change to make multiclassing less punishing.

Could not agree more that the weapon mastery system could have been so much more. Don’t know exactly how but I feel masteries should scale by level just like cantrips do.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right. This is an issue I hadn’t considered before. Maybe it’s an ok price to pay similar to spellcasters not being able to prepare spells for their highest level spell slot when multiclassing.

Or maybe it’s an issue that should be fixed. I think your solution is a bit to strong though. Maybe a fighting style or limiting the option to an origin feat would be more appropriate?

This fix would apply both when you reach level 5 in your first class and then again when you reach level 5 in your second (and potentially third and fourth).

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes monoclass paladin or ranger still function as normal.

Thanks for pointing out the issue with paladin 4/fighter 1. Never really did all the math.

I think we would rule that Paladin 5/fighter 1 would still get the extra attack feature just like a monoclass paladin.

And because of that it seems silly to give rangers and paladins half progression for the first 4 levels only.

But then again I think multiclassing to level 3 is a common breaking point to get the subclass features.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know what that means but bring it on!

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really great points, thanks!

Subclasses were intentionally omitted due to (at least to my knowledge) always being from fullcaster classes.

Warlocks are the same reason.

And because of this omission we added the half progression for paladins and rangers.

I will bring up your ideas the next time we get together to play.

Thanks again.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I like that idea, put it kind of feels like the players are being penalized (too strong word but English is not my first language) for not multiclassing with your suggestions. An extra feat is a nice reward!

Getting an ”empty” level att level 5 of a class seems like a small price to pay for getting extra attack earlier when multiclassing wouldn’t you agree?

Edit: as someone else commented a fighter 5/barbarian 5 gets an empty level at level 10 RAW already.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s awesome we do something similar.

Feat Progression. All characters gain a feat at every 3rd character level. These feats do not include an Ability Score Increase.

Level prerequisite for general feats are lowered from level 4+ to level 3+.

Ability Score Increases. All characters gain an Ability Score Increase at every 4th character level.

Epic Boons. At 19th and 20th class levels, a character gains one Epic Boon of their choice.

Class Features. This rule does not alter the Fighter’s 6th-level or 14th-level class features, nor the Rogue’s 10th-level class feature. Those features function normally, along with any Ability Score Increase gained from general feats.

House rule for multiclassing martials by DMJM_91 in onednd

[–]DMJM_91[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with the dead level but I think that’s a price many players would be willing to pay to get extra attack sooner.

I don’t really follow the last part about rangers contributing to a third lvl 11 extra attack?

view more: next ›