webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Ohh I think I might have a fun weapons system mechanic.
Weapons are separated out into 3 classes; Light, Medium and Heavy
Untrained you do 1d4 with any of them.
Trained Light is 1d6, Medium is 1D8 and Heavy is 1D10
Expertise Light is 1d8, Medium is 1D8 and Heavy is 1D12
There are weapons perks, and during character creation pick X number and add to your weapon (Like how Legend does it with weapon Creation), but have the perks be unique to each weapon type.
You could then have quests, or the weapons level up or whatever but then you could add perks to your weapons as you go along. Who knows, still spitballing.
So a wizard might be untrained in everything, but takes a feat or something else to be trained with Light weapons, so he has some cool weapon that he makes up that fits the bill.
On the other hand the Fighter comes being trained in everything, and as part of his class progression can specialize in one type of weapon class to become expert and beyond, so going up to 1d12, then maybe even 2d6 and 2d8. Whatever.
Yes, sneak attack in an open ring with no obstructions;
"You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction." There is nothing inherent about needing to be unseen to hit someone in the throat, you just need the right opportunity for it to occur. It isn't going to occur on every strike, but you can make it happen.
When someone is staring at you, in a defensive stance and knows with 100% certainty that you are going to be attacking them in the immediate future, it's hard to see them as distracted.
There are lots of ways of describing a first-kick knockout in a prizefight in D&D terms, but Sneak Attack isn't a useful one.
No, my point is, a fist is a fist, and a longsword is a longsword. If a martial artist punches me the same way I am capable of punching him, it will do the same damage. His does not do more damage just because he is a martial artist. Which is what this entire conversation is about, remember. People of equal training but different vocations doing the same damage with a weapon.
His skill as a martial artist allows him to utilize his training to punch me more effectively, but he is still working from the same base.
As I have said, weapon specialization works, because it is an additive effect onto the weapon, you can see the clear differentiation in how the weapon is improving, without it being subtractive for other players utilizing the same type.
If a Fighter hits you with a longsword the same way a wizard is capable of, it's going to hurt less than if he's doing it at his own, much higher capability. Training makes you better at things. Again, basically everything we do on a daily basis revolves around this very simple concept.
I have to say, I also find your protestations of unfairness to the Wizard vis a vie changing the way damage works to be rather hollow. If you want to kill people with swords, don't play a Wizard. If you want to cast spells, don't play a Fighter. Class-based systems make these sorts of distinctions pretty cut and dried. There's no reason Wizards have to be as good at stabbing as Fighters, because they have other (and in almost all editions inarguably better) tricks of their own. If anything, the way you are stating "fairness" is actually rather unfair to the classes that are intended to make use of things like swords.
Then why is there a fighter subclass that casts spells. Why is there a race that gives any class the ability to use a sword?
Why is weapon specialization unfair to the fighter, it still makes them better with a sword than the wizard. Yet the wizard isn't punished for spending time/resources learning a method of defending themselves in martial combat.
I find your desire to nerf other classes in order to feel more powerful kind of appalling.
Their fist itself isn't actually any more deadly than any other fist.
The biggest disconnect I have with this argument is that HP in D&D don't represent physical ability to withstand damage, unless you're playing in an anime/buffy style world where people can take fatal hits and only have to wipe the dirt off their brow when they get up and smirk. Which, like, that's fine, but then we also don't really need to talk "realism" at that point.
You're very focused on the "how much physical harm does this weapon deal" aspect but I think that's mostly a red herring. If we accept that HP mostly represent a character's ability to avoid deadly blows, and not their ability to get stabbed in the gut, then we accept that HP is not primarily a measure of physical toughness. Which means weapon damage is ALSO not measured in how much physical damage it deals, since those two are in the same units.
Which means 1d8 isn't a measure of how much physical damage a weapon is capable of dishing out, it's a measure of how well its user can use it to apply general force in a fight.
Yes, sneak attack in an open ring with no obstructions;
"You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction." There is nothing inherent about needing to be unseen to hit someone in the throat, you just need the right opportunity for it to occur. It isn't going to occur on every strike, but you can make it happen.
When someone is staring at you, in a defensive stance and knows with 100% certainty that you are going to be attacking them in the immediate future, it's hard to see them as distracted.
There are lots of ways of describing a first-kick knockout in a prizefight in D&D terms, but Sneak Attack isn't a useful one.
No, my point is, a fist is a fist, and a longsword is a longsword. If a martial artist punches me the same way I am capable of punching him, it will do the same damage. His does not do more damage just because he is a martial artist. Which is what this entire conversation is about, remember. People of equal training but different vocations doing the same damage with a weapon.
His skill as a martial artist allows him to utilize his training to punch me more effectively, but he is still working from the same base.
As I have said, weapon specialization works, because it is an additive effect onto the weapon, you can see the clear differentiation in how the weapon is improving, without it being subtractive for other players utilizing the same type.
If a Fighter hits you with a longsword the same way a wizard is capable of, it's going to hurt less than if he's doing it at his own, much higher capability. Training makes you better at things. Again, basically everything we do on a daily basis revolves around this very simple concept.
I have to say, I also find your protestations of unfairness to the Wizard vis a vie changing the way damage works to be rather hollow. If you want to kill people with swords, don't play a Wizard. If you want to cast spells, don't play a Fighter. Class-based systems make these sorts of distinctions pretty cut and dried. There's no reason Wizards have to be as good at stabbing as Fighters, because they have other (and in almost all editions inarguably better) tricks of their own. If anything, the way you are stating "fairness" is actually rather unfair to the classes that are intended to make use of things like swords.
Then why is there a fighter subclass that casts spells. Why is there a race that gives any class the ability to use a sword?
Why is weapon specialization unfair to the fighter, it still makes them better with a sword than the wizard. Yet the wizard isn't punished for spending time/resources learning a method of defending themselves in martial combat.
I find your desire to nerf other classes in order to feel more powerful kind of appalling.
There's a fighter subclass that casts spells because people want that. The spell selection is rather anemic, and it still isn't good game design. The ability to cast a very limited selection of low level spells is not equivalent to having identical skill with a weapon. One is a pale imitation of another class, the other is basically the entire point of one class being subsumed by another.
Weapon Specialization is an extremely limited ability that costs precious character resources and pigeonholes the Fighter that takes it into using one type of weapon. And it is in no way comprable to the abilities a Wizard collects as he or she levels up. There's no reason a Fighter shouldn't start the game better at stabbing than a class whose basic training involves zero stabbing. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Nothing I'm proposing is a nerf on the Wizard. Even if we gave every Wizard longsword proficiency, it still wouldn't be a meaningful nerf on their actual source of power because it doesn't impact their ability to systematically break the rules of the game with their spells. Using a longsword is a single line of trivia in a given Wizard's bio paragraph, it's the entire point of a Fighter. This is not a meaningful nerf in any realistic sense.
Yes, sneak attack in an open ring with no obstructions;
"You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction." There is nothing inherent about needing to be unseen to hit someone in the throat, you just need the right opportunity for it to occur. It isn't going to occur on every strike, but you can make it happen.
When someone is staring at you, in a defensive stance and knows with 100% certainty that you are going to be attacking them in the immediate future, it's hard to see them as distracted.
There are lots of ways of describing a first-kick knockout in a prizefight in D&D terms, but Sneak Attack isn't a useful one.
No, my point is, a fist is a fist, and a longsword is a longsword. If a martial artist punches me the same way I am capable of punching him, it will do the same damage. His does not do more damage just because he is a martial artist. Which is what this entire conversation is about, remember. People of equal training but different vocations doing the same damage with a weapon.
His skill as a martial artist allows him to utilize his training to punch me more effectively, but he is still working from the same base.
As I have said, weapon specialization works, because it is an additive effect onto the weapon, you can see the clear differentiation in how the weapon is improving, without it being subtractive for other players utilizing the same type.
If a Fighter hits you with a longsword the same way a wizard is capable of, it's going to hurt less than if he's doing it at his own, much higher capability. Training makes you better at things. Again, basically everything we do on a daily basis revolves around this very simple concept.
I have to say, I also find your protestations of unfairness to the Wizard vis a vie changing the way damage works to be rather hollow. If you want to kill people with swords, don't play a Wizard. If you want to cast spells, don't play a Fighter. Class-based systems make these sorts of distinctions pretty cut and dried. There's no reason Wizards have to be as good at stabbing as Fighters, because they have other (and in almost all editions inarguably better) tricks of their own. If anything, the way you are stating "fairness" is actually rather unfair to the classes that are intended to make use of things like swords.
Then why is there a fighter subclass that casts spells. Why is there a race that gives any class the ability to use a sword?
Why is weapon specialization unfair to the fighter, it still makes them better with a sword than the wizard. Yet the wizard isn't punished for spending time/resources learning a method of defending themselves in martial combat.
I find your desire to nerf other classes in order to feel more powerful kind of appalling.
I find your desire to argue about game balance in a system you have no experience with kind of silly.
You don't know which classes do or don't need to be 'nerfed' because you don't even know what the classes do, let alone how their math works out.
The last few days in this thread have been horrible
Yeah, and for that reason I think I'm done with this. I've only played this edition a couple of times, found it deeply wanting and moved on. I've got no interest in ruining the experience for anyone else. Sorry about that.
That the katana is the single most deadly weapon in the history of mankind.
I wish we could close the thread on that post. It would be the perfect capstone.
I will say that the last few days finally motivated me enough to get going on my own game system so I can play something designed exactly how I want it.
Nerdpick: If he'd cut downward with the ork sword he probably could have made it through the tatami mat just fine without it flying off. That would have let him work against the stand instead of slashing into space.
The 5E version of Ultramodern from Deus Ex Machina is the daily deal on DrivethruRPG. Their 4E modern stuff wasn't bad, to be honest.
With a new version of d20 Modern being fairly unlikely, anyone interested in that sort of thing that's comfortable with 5E might want to check it out.
We played a decent version of Pathfinder in a World War 2 setting. It was mostly just semantic changes for a Diesel-punk setting. For instance, a wand of magic missile was a 'seeker-rocket'.
A medic and a rifleman complete basic training, one isn't given an m16 and the other a slingshot. Instead the rifleman is given an m203 in addition to his rifle. It force multiplies without infringing on the medic's ability to defend them-self, with the same training.
I was a tanker, trained and qualified in a rifle on a regular basis. I was given a pistol as my duty weapon.
I played quite a bit of d20 Modern back in the day.
I was in a campaign of Amethyst during 4E that was really fun. We used some of the Ultramodern stuff to smooth down the rough edges.
I've gotten to the point in my RPG career, I think, where elves and dungeons in a fantasy setting just don't do it for me.
I understand this. Too often fantasy settings tend to have any kind of subtlety or nuance completely baked out of them and mostly populated with stereotypes and caricatures.
Which can be fun for some doses but too much of that just ends up feeling empty to me.
A medic and a rifleman complete basic training, one isn't given an m16 and the other a slingshot. Instead the rifleman is given an m203 in addition to his rifle. It force multiplies without infringing on the medic's ability to defend them-self, with the same training.
I was a tanker, trained and qualified in a rifle on a regular basis. I was given a pistol as my duty weapon.
I am actually curious on this, only reason I am asking, not to actually continue the discussion.
If they were to take you out of your tank and place you in an infantry squad (for whatever imaginary reason), would you still only be using a pistol. Or would you be given a rifle at that point?
Given the options of:
a) opening up the tomb and confronting whatever lay within, ostensibly with the hope of giving the gold back and appeasing any vengeful spirits,
b) taking a few sackfuls of cursed gold for themselves and running back to Dalrath to tell the Sheriff about Smallhills' secret,
c) returning to the cornfield to follow the trail of the bears that had attacked them,
the party went with C, and that is where we ended the session.
Their choice is obvious. The party takes C as a personal affront.
At least that's how my players would view it.
Me elsewhere:
Steam, various fora: Ivellius
League of Legends: Doctor Ivellius
Twitch, probably another place or two I forget: LPIvellius
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Anytime I can ask the DM, "does a bear shit in the woods" I will take it.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I am actually curious on this, only reason I am asking, not to actually continue the discussion.
If they were to take you out of your tank and place you in an infantry squad (for whatever imaginary reason), would you still only be using a pistol. Or would you be given a rifle at that point?
Yeah, I think the discussion is a little past its prime.
To answer your question, I would probably be given a rifle. I have worked with scouts and was given a shotgun for that time, but armaments change based on what you'll be doing. When I was in a HMMVW, I had a carbine. It's mostly needs of the army, but I only really trained with the rifle and pistol to any degree of expertise.
I do know that in some units there are uneven weapons, like a lot of infantry squads train in man carried machine guns. Those would only have a few per platoon. Those can also be mounted onto vehicles, too.
A medic and a rifleman complete basic training, one isn't given an m16 and the other a slingshot. Instead the rifleman is given an m203 in addition to his rifle. It force multiplies without infringing on the medic's ability to defend them-self, with the same training.
I was a tanker, trained and qualified in a rifle on a regular basis. I was given a pistol as my duty weapon.
I ignored this but, as a medic we qual'd with the M16 and M9. Usually you would have an M-4 when actually deployed, because you have your medical gear to carry ipso determinato armius logisticus you get a carbine.
Nobody serving on active duty outside of the Navy (and Coasties) is not qualified on the M16 (anyone who theoretically wasn't qualified would not be deployable anyway). The Navy is still qualifying all sailors on the M590 (shotgun) and M9 for reasons of shipboard practicality. My understanding is all Navy personnel deploying dirtside qualify on the M16 or M4 as well.
By the end of my career through two specialty changes, I had qualified on over a dozen weapons and made use of easily a dozen more at times.
A designated marksman (or sharpshooter or sniper or countersniper, depending on service) would, in fact, receive an M14 or M24 if the unit had any, and often an M249 if they did not.
I was mostly pointing out that careers aren't going to get envy for the purposes of defending yourself. I just wanted to play with more cool toys. I hardly considered myself a good shot, but I trained with one of the President's Hundred who taught me to not be absolute shit with a rifle. I have been deployed with a medic whose duty weapon was an M4, but all of the people he worked with had pistols. He was also trained as a loader despite not being a tanker. The Army is a bit odd.
I was mostly pointing out that careers aren't going to get envy for the purposes of defending yourself. I just wanted to play with more cool toys. I hardly considered myself a good shot, but I trained with one of the President's Hundred who taught me to not be absolute shit with a rifle. I have been deployed with a medic whose duty weapon was an M4, but all of the people he worked with had pistols. He was also trained as a loader despite not being a tanker. The Army is a bit odd.
If you reside in any kind of unit for any length of time, regardless of your actual MOS, you will learn the basics of the unit's primary MOS as well. When you get into Joint units skills are basically traded around and people slide in where they're best suited.
I'm a pretty big fan of this app itself, but even more interesting is that once I figure out how I want to hack into/out of 5e I could just do a little extra work to codify that into files so you could easily download a .zip of the changes and play test it easier. Enticing.
Does anyone have experience with 5e Adventurer's League, with specific regard to how long it takes to hit level 3?
Depends on a lot of stuff from my expierience; sometimes it's about milestones (accomplishing specific things) and others are about XP sub division which can make things drag on for ever (not for nothing do I refer to it as "eternal level 3").
Assuming your running a group of mixed ages/expierience/drive that plays once a week for 2.5 hour like mine then it'll be a couple of months.
What if you're running a whole shitload of stuff in one weekend at a convention?
Depends; Conventions from my expierience are one offs, so you generally don't wind up having to worry about leveling, but if they're doing true league format (tm) they're liable to have people there that can explain the nuances to you for how they are handling it.
I'm reading up on the new SKT module and it doesn't look like it should take more than a couple of sessions to get to level 3
Though maybe it's sped up since the "real" adventure doesn't start until level 5, or maybe I'm just overestimating the speed of which players will move through the content
Nothing new for character options? Just what's in the PHB? I'm looking at making a Tiefling Bard (a Skald, basically) and would appreciate more options in that area.
Sword coast adventurers guide had some stuff; it was uneven and pretty clear that more love went to some characters (paladin, monk, barbarian) then others (bard, ranger).
I'm figuring that they're trying to build character options in ways that don't by default invalidate others or result in power creep, so odds are the release of new class stuff is going to be pretty slow.
I think they have moved to adventure publication more than character options.
Which is a better way to run the business really. Adventures have a lot more purchase value and you need one per group per adventure. Rather than one book that people can pick what they want out of. It's a lot harder to copy the content of a adventure module that you might want to reference and re-reference than it is for someone on the Internet to tell you what feat you want from what book.
My suggestion is to just home few it if nothing works perfect for you.
Posts
Weapons are separated out into 3 classes; Light, Medium and Heavy
Untrained you do 1d4 with any of them.
Trained Light is 1d6, Medium is 1D8 and Heavy is 1D10
Expertise Light is 1d8, Medium is 1D8 and Heavy is 1D12
There are weapons perks, and during character creation pick X number and add to your weapon (Like how Legend does it with weapon Creation), but have the perks be unique to each weapon type.
You could then have quests, or the weapons level up or whatever but then you could add perks to your weapons as you go along. Who knows, still spitballing.
So a wizard might be untrained in everything, but takes a feat or something else to be trained with Light weapons, so he has some cool weapon that he makes up that fits the bill.
On the other hand the Fighter comes being trained in everything, and as part of his class progression can specialize in one type of weapon class to become expert and beyond, so going up to 1d12, then maybe even 2d6 and 2d8. Whatever.
I think that could work.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Then why is there a fighter subclass that casts spells. Why is there a race that gives any class the ability to use a sword?
Why is weapon specialization unfair to the fighter, it still makes them better with a sword than the wizard. Yet the wizard isn't punished for spending time/resources learning a method of defending themselves in martial combat.
I find your desire to nerf other classes in order to feel more powerful kind of appalling.
The biggest disconnect I have with this argument is that HP in D&D don't represent physical ability to withstand damage, unless you're playing in an anime/buffy style world where people can take fatal hits and only have to wipe the dirt off their brow when they get up and smirk. Which, like, that's fine, but then we also don't really need to talk "realism" at that point.
You're very focused on the "how much physical harm does this weapon deal" aspect but I think that's mostly a red herring. If we accept that HP mostly represent a character's ability to avoid deadly blows, and not their ability to get stabbed in the gut, then we accept that HP is not primarily a measure of physical toughness. Which means weapon damage is ALSO not measured in how much physical damage it deals, since those two are in the same units.
Which means 1d8 isn't a measure of how much physical damage a weapon is capable of dishing out, it's a measure of how well its user can use it to apply general force in a fight.
Weapon Specialization is an extremely limited ability that costs precious character resources and pigeonholes the Fighter that takes it into using one type of weapon. And it is in no way comprable to the abilities a Wizard collects as he or she levels up. There's no reason a Fighter shouldn't start the game better at stabbing than a class whose basic training involves zero stabbing. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Nothing I'm proposing is a nerf on the Wizard. Even if we gave every Wizard longsword proficiency, it still wouldn't be a meaningful nerf on their actual source of power because it doesn't impact their ability to systematically break the rules of the game with their spells. Using a longsword is a single line of trivia in a given Wizard's bio paragraph, it's the entire point of a Fighter. This is not a meaningful nerf in any realistic sense.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I find your desire to argue about game balance in a system you have no experience with kind of silly.
You don't know which classes do or don't need to be 'nerfed' because you don't even know what the classes do, let alone how their math works out.
Yeah, and for that reason I think I'm done with this. I've only played this edition a couple of times, found it deeply wanting and moved on. I've got no interest in ruining the experience for anyone else. Sorry about that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That the katana is the single most deadly weapon in the history of mankind.
I wish we could close the thread on that post. It would be the perfect capstone.
I will say that the last few days finally motivated me enough to get going on my own game system so I can play something designed exactly how I want it.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Scourge of the WotC forums.
Weirdly echoed by the Saga Lightsaber arguments.
Man, nerds sure do like arguing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This video does some fun stuff with katanas:
Really, though, katana truthers are the worst.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
With a new version of d20 Modern being fairly unlikely, anyone interested in that sort of thing that's comfortable with 5E might want to check it out.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But does it allow for a little person to shoot a Barret 50 cal from the standing position?
Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it.
[screaming]
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
We played a decent version of Pathfinder in a World War 2 setting. It was mostly just semantic changes for a Diesel-punk setting. For instance, a wand of magic missile was a 'seeker-rocket'.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I was in a campaign of Amethyst during 4E that was really fun. We used some of the Ultramodern stuff to smooth down the rough edges.
I've gotten to the point in my RPG career, I think, where elves and dungeons in a fantasy setting just don't do it for me.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I was a tanker, trained and qualified in a rifle on a regular basis. I was given a pistol as my duty weapon.
I understand this. Too often fantasy settings tend to have any kind of subtlety or nuance completely baked out of them and mostly populated with stereotypes and caricatures.
Which can be fun for some doses but too much of that just ends up feeling empty to me.
I am actually curious on this, only reason I am asking, not to actually continue the discussion.
If they were to take you out of your tank and place you in an infantry squad (for whatever imaginary reason), would you still only be using a pistol. Or would you be given a rifle at that point?
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Their choice is obvious. The party takes C as a personal affront.
At least that's how my players would view it.
Steam, various fora: Ivellius
League of Legends: Doctor Ivellius
Twitch, probably another place or two I forget: LPIvellius
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Yeah, I think the discussion is a little past its prime.
To answer your question, I would probably be given a rifle. I have worked with scouts and was given a shotgun for that time, but armaments change based on what you'll be doing. When I was in a HMMVW, I had a carbine. It's mostly needs of the army, but I only really trained with the rifle and pistol to any degree of expertise.
I do know that in some units there are uneven weapons, like a lot of infantry squads train in man carried machine guns. Those would only have a few per platoon. Those can also be mounted onto vehicles, too.
Nobody serving on active duty outside of the Navy (and Coasties) is not qualified on the M16 (anyone who theoretically wasn't qualified would not be deployable anyway). The Navy is still qualifying all sailors on the M590 (shotgun) and M9 for reasons of shipboard practicality. My understanding is all Navy personnel deploying dirtside qualify on the M16 or M4 as well.
By the end of my career through two specialty changes, I had qualified on over a dozen weapons and made use of easily a dozen more at times.
A designated marksman (or sharpshooter or sniper or countersniper, depending on service) would, in fact, receive an M14 or M24 if the unit had any, and often an M249 if they did not.
I mean you can use the video of Toshishiro Obata cutting through a steel army helmet as a persuasive argument blade-wise.
Also as ammo for the fighters get damage for training not due to weapon physical stats.
Really he's just a scary guy.
I'm a pretty big fan of this app itself, but even more interesting is that once I figure out how I want to hack into/out of 5e I could just do a little extra work to codify that into files so you could easily download a .zip of the changes and play test it easier. Enticing.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Depends on a lot of stuff from my expierience; sometimes it's about milestones (accomplishing specific things) and others are about XP sub division which can make things drag on for ever (not for nothing do I refer to it as "eternal level 3").
Assuming your running a group of mixed ages/expierience/drive that plays once a week for 2.5 hour like mine then it'll be a couple of months.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Depends; Conventions from my expierience are one offs, so you generally don't wind up having to worry about leveling, but if they're doing true league format (tm) they're liable to have people there that can explain the nuances to you for how they are handling it.
Though maybe it's sped up since the "real" adventure doesn't start until level 5, or maybe I'm just overestimating the speed of which players will move through the content
Have there been official supplements akin to 4th edition's "X Power" series? Anything related to additional Feats?
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
I'm figuring that they're trying to build character options in ways that don't by default invalidate others or result in power creep, so odds are the release of new class stuff is going to be pretty slow.
Which is a better way to run the business really. Adventures have a lot more purchase value and you need one per group per adventure. Rather than one book that people can pick what they want out of. It's a lot harder to copy the content of a adventure module that you might want to reference and re-reference than it is for someone on the Internet to tell you what feat you want from what book.
My suggestion is to just home few it if nothing works perfect for you.