Recent content by UngeheuerLich

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

As if variant human is not the standard human for 99% of players... (I have encountered).

I don't see 25ft as a hindrance for endurance hunting. Never seen Gimmli keeping up with Atagorn and Legolas Ok. Elves are worse. So no need for +2 con bonus for humans.

Hmmh. By that reasoning every bipedal humanoid should gain +2 con. It is not inherently human to be very efficient walkers. Elves, dwarves, orcs should be equally adapt at persistence hunting.

I guess humans have a nice adaptable sense of vision. Night vision is not bad either, if you allow it to adapt (which quite noone does these days, as it takes about half an hour for full adaption). For D&D: humans have a free feat, which means that the human species is more adaptable than any...

I don't want to start a war or lengthy discussion. Sorry. Lets wish him good luck at his job. I am looking forward to how the VTT turns out.

I really did not like some of the books he co-wrote. I don't like his design ideas. There is nothing rude about that.

I really hope he does not get involved in game design.

I lile that cover. Better than the PHB.

I think that is the most important aspect why they are gone. I also can count on my fingers the times they were used, and when they were used, it saved a few coins or a skill check at most.

Not too different. In the end, all felt samey. No. I did not say this at all. I want them to be more varied and not categorized into 5 roles with strict stats by role. I want the stats to make sense for the particular monster or humaoid. And CR derived with a better formular than we have in...

OK You can guess AC by looking at humanoids. Oh. Never heard of that... oh wait. I also read the book. Yeah. Monsters should always surprise players by having abilities they never expected... I really hated 4e design. Both because of its randomness. And because of the encounter design that...

Ok. I really don't understand what you want to say here. 4e had monsters with stats by role. 5e at least has some connection between equipment and stats. I think 4e method was terrible as players had no chance to gauge how hard a monster is to hit etc. I hated the 4e way of doing monsters...

No. That is not how they worked in 4e. In 4e soldiers initially had +2 AC over artillery monsters (nerfed in essentials). Brutes had more hp but less AC and more damage. It did not matter what equipment they had. Stats were by role.

Not with any rules associated to it. I would not be opposed to have descriptors to how they are expectrd to be used.