Recent content by UngeheuerLich

You can easily have level 9 spells and extra attack. So I am not worried there. On the opposite. I think that is a nice captone for a multiclass character. Only level 8 spells is quite some cost to pay for a multiattack you probably won't need anyway.

I don't know anyone who visualizes distances in feet. Yard is way closer to meters which most people in the world use.

I think, that not every 1-2 level dip is imbalanced, but when I plan a multiclass character 13/7 at level 20 is usually what I aim for. Sometimes I'd like to have the lvl 14 subclass ability as a capstone though. But 14:6 is also close enough to 2:1 split. So I like your 2:1 ration restriction...

But that was a way better state than the 3.5 ones. In 3.5 damage became rather useless compared to disables. Which hit martials way harder than spellcasters.

The problem woth iterative attacls was not the design intend. The problem was the execition and lack of advice. I bet a lot of money (10ct or so) that the intend was that AC of enemies does not go up by level and your last attach should have about 40 to 60 percent chamce to hit. And at level 20...

Good you know that technique. I think I will practice it while bouldering soon (on soft ground and from max 10ft.). Comes im handy when climbing down is harder than up... And yes. The ground you hit is an important factor. The perfect landing place is a bush with soft branches... where the...

Combat section and skill/proficency section.

Ah. This is how you get inspiration... I always forget about it...

Of course you can do everything as a function of time. It is not relevant here though, as due to enhanced speed after each time interval, the timeinterval to fall for each 10ft becomes shorter. (of course there are no intervals in real life). It is a common fallacy to only look at the speed...

Yeah. Other people mix up time with height...

Which is wrong... v is proportional to falling time. Not falling distance: Consider: Energy conservation gives us: (I) E(end) = E(beginning) (II) E(beginning) = E(pot) = m*g*h (III) E(end) = E(kin) = 1/2*m*v^2 (if you neglect energy lost due to friction) so II and III in I: 1/2*m*v^2 =...

No, accelerating damage makes no sense. Because the time it takes you to fall down an equal distance decreases the faster you are. So the damage you take is proportional to the distance.

The problem is finding it. I have read the book fron to cover and still need to search for rules I need in one situation which are scattered all over the book. People read it... and then give up. That is the problem with this book.

Cumulative does not make a lot of sense. Damage is proportional to energy lost on impact which is proportional to fallen height. If anything makes sense is decreasing the damage after some height, as terminal velocity is reached at some point and before that the air resistance takes some of the...

Maybe. But there is nothing in the rules that indicates that.