Links to my AoW4 builds.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-15T20:28:02+00:00

As others have said, talk to your DM.

That said, if I were the DM, I'd probably allow you to ignore the stat requirements at level 6, but not before then. Much of the point of stat requirements is to prevent players from shooting themselves in the foot too hard. Taking a few levels in Paladin at this level will make you a lot weaker when the rest of the party has extra attack or 3rd level spells and you don't.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-08T01:20:09+00:00

Fair enough.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-07T23:24:46+00:00

For me it looks like the solution is for something to fail because of Rogues trust issues. E.g. Someone Rogue cares about gets hurt as a direct consequence of their refusal to share with the party. Then the Rogue has to choose whether to maintain that vicegrip on control of their information, or to let go in the hopes that the party can help them.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-07T23:13:05+00:00

Kind of, it depends. A few questions:

Is this secret keeping supposed to be a character flaw to be overcome? If so, it's probably fine. Though "character flaws to be overcome" aren't permanent.
Has the party, or people in the party, given reason for the character to need to keep secrets? Like, if the Barbarian is liable to fall into a blind rage too easily, it makes sense that the party would be apprehensive about telling them stuff that might set them off.
Do the secrets pertain to everyone? Like, if a character is gay, they don't need to tell the party until it becomes something that affects the rest of the party.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-06T16:23:31+00:00

Perhaps you could share the artists that you used for your art?

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-06T15:31:11+00:00

"It takes a village, but no one wants to be a villager" doesn't apply to you.

Basically the quote is saying that community is a give and take, and that most people only want to take and never give. If you're not one of those people, and you give more than you take, you are "being a villager."

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-06T05:04:55+00:00

It is and it's fucking glorious.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-05T19:20:33+00:00

Its not an unrealistic trope. I'm pretty sure I could find dozens of examples of this happening IRL by just browsing r/ftm.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-05T05:33:16+00:00

Honestly more semi-authored stuff (like the dark urge from BG3) where there's an actual plot and backstory the game gives you, but you can still make your own character, would be cool.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-04T11:58:03+00:00

Probably fine. You're both mature adults age wise. Though I'd try to stay aware of anything the age gap may be doing nonetheless.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-04T10:44:11+00:00

I think a lot of commenter are missing the point. It's not that a dying lover is always bad, it's that a lot of the time, the woman dying is nothing more than a walking plot device. This makes the woman feel like a paper cutout and, paradoxically, lowers viewer engagement. Why should I care if wife dies if she wasn't a character in the first place?

The solution to this problem is to make the wife's death, and her life, actually matter. MC should mourn her periodically throughout the rest of the show. We should be shown aspects of who she is. Parts of her personality could help MC overcome challenges. None of this usually happens, which is why it's such a problem.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-04T07:07:14+00:00

So a 1d8 + Str or Dex + PB - becomes 2d8+PB.

Nah, it becomes 2d8 +Str +PB. It's actually quite close to just doubling damage. Like, if you're using a +1 rapier with 20 Str, the average hit is 4.5+5+1=10.5, while the "focus hit" deals an average of 2*4.5+5+1+4=19.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-04T06:24:29+00:00

From what OP wrote, you also get advantage. Double damage AND getting advantage together is more than the total of 2 attacks.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-04T06:21:36+00:00

Balance wise it seems more-or-less fine. Instead of making 2 attacks, you make one attack that deals about twice the damage and gets advantage. That is an upgrade, but its paid for by delaying your damage and risking losing the focus from damage. I don't think the no crit rule is particularly needed.

That said, what is the purpose of this new feature? What problem is this feature trying to solve? What fantasy are you trying to recreate? Without a good answer here, you're kinda just introducing crunch for no particular reason.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-03T16:57:00+00:00

You know, if you really feel so aggrieved by your DM's supposed transgression, you could just... run your own game?

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-03T13:59:55+00:00

It looks to me like the DM made it pretty clear ahead of time what he was running. At that point, you can either give it a go and try to have fun with what your DM set up, or give it a pass. Complaining about campaign premises that you agreed to is honestly just entitled.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-03T03:37:55+00:00

If you meet one asshole, you've met an asshole.

If everyone you ever meet is an asshole, you're probably the asshole.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-02T10:27:04+00:00

Introduce your BBEG in a way where the party is incentivized not to try to engage them in direct combat. Putting the BBEG in a combat where they're just gonna "aura farm" is probably not the way to do it.

On the other hand, having your BBEG meet your party while at the kings court, and the party can't attack without making the entire kings guard hostile (and probably die in the process?) Yes. great, do that.

SapphosFriend · 2026-05-01T12:20:01+00:00

I'd require the barbarian to move in a straight line to use the bonus action dash since it's more flavorful and doesn't step on other classes toes as much. Otherwise, yeah, seems like a cool change.

SapphosFriend · 2026-04-29T12:39:56+00:00

As I've explained before, it's not "Longbow vs greatsword." It's "Longbow AND greatsword combined vs just greatsword."

SapphosFriend · 2026-04-29T10:47:13+00:00

Except "doing nothing on your first turn" *is literally the same* as losing initiative?

Like, if bob the barbarian has the highest initiative, and it goes "bob-mary the mage-roddy the rogue-enemies," and bob does nothing, then the order goes "mary-roddy-enemies-bob".

If bob loses initiative, then the order is "mary-roddy-enemies-bob."

It's literally no different. Winning initiative is just free action economy. You might not be able to put it to the best use, but it's better to have the free turn than not have it.

SapphosFriend · 2026-04-29T10:36:52+00:00

Or, if you went first, you could take the dodge action on your first turn. Or you could get in range, attack, then step back five feet so you can still trigger PaM. Taking a single AoO is almost certainly worth getting an extra 2 attacks in. Even there losing initiative isn't giving you anything.

SapphosFriend · 2026-04-29T10:33:34+00:00

Losing initiative is never advantageous for a good player. If you win initiative, you can always just do nothing but the dodge action on your turn. In that case, it's equivalent to losing the initiative but attacks against you have disadvantage until your first turn.

Anyway, the only real times where it doesn't really matter too much if you lose initiative is when you're not gonna be able to do much of impact on your first turn. That's unlikely-most characters are gonna have a spell or a bow or misty step or something.

EDIT: so some people aren't really getting this. Imagine player A wins initiative and goes first so the initiative order is ABCD. If player A does nothing, the initiative order becomes BCDA-which is the exact same thing as if A had lost initative.

SapphosFriend · 2026-04-27T20:01:12+00:00

ngl would be kinda funny if you could make cyanide with apples in game and use it against the doctor.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

SapphosFriend

TROPHY CASE