imo the asi feat should be worse than feats, as feats are mostly so strong in synergy with other features and feats, so for non optimizers feats are weaker than asis, but everyone, including non optimizers or bad ones should prefer taking feats, as feats are just more interresting than bigger number go big
As an old school gamer, where martials were good, the solution to martials is so simple. 1) extra attacks: no bullshit. More attacks. Give them 7 attacks if you have to. 2) extra damage. Just do more damage. Every time you hit, roll more damage dice and/or add your level. 3) Make enemies hard to hit, and give dedicated martials better to-hit chances. It really isn't that complicated. Just do more damage.
You're misinforming people with your interpretation of what a monster is. Here's what ALL the rules have to say about it and not just the one sentence you cherry picked (and ignored all the context also in the same paragraph that adds extra meaning to the sentence): Monster Manual, "Introduction", pg 4: "Some of the creatures that inhabit the worlds of D&D have origins rooted in real-world mythology and fantasy literature. Other creatures are D&D originals. The monsters in this book have been culled from all previous editions of the game." This paragraph explains that the Monster Manual contains monsters and establishes that there is a difference between creatures and monsters. We later learn that a creature can be a monster or a player character and that's the term used when they want to reference both a monster and/or a player character. If your interpretation was true, then they wouldn't ever use the term creature and would instead use the term monster because, according to you, they are the same thing anyways. This one point blows up your entire argument about player characters being monsters but please read on for an extensive breakdown of how wrong you are. ------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Manual, "How to Use This Book", pg 4: "The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master's Guide, is a book for DMs." This book, along with the DMG you pulled your definition from, aren't intended for players and, by extension, players' characters. ------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Manual, Introduction, "What is a Monster?", pg. 4: "A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed." Interacted with by whom? The player characters which is defined in the PHB. This sentence clearly implies it's referring to player characters as the entities that would interact with monsters. If all beings were monsters and monsters can interact with each other then there's no need to even define the term because there's nothing that wouldn't be a monster. The fact a monster definition exists at all informs us there would have to be non-monsters as well. "The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters." This sentence clearly differentiates between a player character and other beings that may be of the same or similar race as a player character. If player characters were monsters, this sentence wouldn't need to exist because all humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk (i.e. the races a player can choose for their character) would have already been categorized as monsters in the first sentence of this section. The fact this sentence does exist informs us that monsters aren't player characters. An elf that's friendly to the player characters is a monster but a player's character elf that's friendly to the player characters is a player character, not a monster. See the difference? That's why that sentence was included. If player characters were monsters then they couldn't be player characters because they'd be monsters. It seems pretty obvious and intuitive. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dungeon Master's Guide, Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop, "Step 11. Damage", pg. 278: "A monster's damage output -- the amount of damage it deals every round -- has a direct bearing on its challenge rating, and vice versa." This sentence explains that monsters have challenge ratings. Player characters do not have challenge ratings therefore can't be monsters since they lack a challenge rating. "Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra damage dice of damage on a hit." This sentence wouldn't make sense if player characters were monsters because big player characters typically don't wield oversized weapons. They typically wield normal sized weapons that deal normal amounts of damage. There are, however, plenty of examples in the Monster Manual of monsters that wield oversized weapons that deal extra damage. "Don't worry if the damage output isn't matching up with the expected challenge rating for the monster. Other factors can affect a monster's challenge rating, as will be discussed in later steps, and you can always adjust a monster's damage output later on." This paragraph clearly states monsters have challenge ratings. Player characters do not have challenge ratings therefore can't be monsters. "If a monster has natural weapons, you decide how much damage it deals with those attacks, as well as the type of damage. See the Monster Manual for examples." This paragraph indicates that the Monster Manual has examples of natural weapons monsters may use. Notice it doesn't reference the PHB which we've established per RAW is the only book intended for players and, by extension, players' characters. "A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all." "Creatures" is a term used interchangeably for monsters and player characters and, in this context, is probably referring to both monsters and player characters. This doesn't make player characters monsters though. This is probably why every other paragraph in this section uses the word "monster" and this one singular paragraph uses the word "creature". This is the only part of the entire section that could be argued to refer to player characters and monsters. I'm not arguing player characters can't use oversized weapons, I'm arguing that player characters are most certainly not monsters. ------------------------------------------------------------- PHB, Chapter 1: Step-by-Step Characters, pg. 11: "Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world." This explanation clearly defines what a player's character/avatar is. Notice its definition is completely different than a monster and establishes what a player character is so in the third rule book released, the DMG, they can establish what a monster is. If player characters and monsters were the same thing there wouldn't be a need to establish any definition because those are the only two things a creature can be in D&D. They would also just use the term creature since that's what they use when referring to both monsters and player characters, which you yourself even argued for in the video. ------------------------------------------------------------- It's pretty obvious you're being coy and fully understand that a monster isn't a player character but are intentionally misinterpreting it to justify what you're doing and trying to make it seem like it's RAW. It's also pretty obvious you're doing this to generate interaction with your content by saying things that are clearly wrong. I'm only interacting so if anyone reads this comment they'll know what the rules actually say and not just the one sentence you shared in the video. Player characters using monster oversized weapon creation rules is 100% not RAW as I've thoroughly explained and there isn't a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise. You're incorrect in this interpretation because you've ignored everything but one sentence about the subject matter. It's OK if a DM wants to allow player characters to use oversized weapons. No rules exist explicitly for oversized weapons for player characters so it's entirely up to the DM. I wouldn't recommend using the monster creation rules for balancing because that's obviously overpowered and could break the balance of the game beyond what's desired. There is precedent in the PHB for player characters using large weapons that are tied into abilities and spells, see the spell Enlarge/Reduce or the Rune Knight's ability Giant's Might for reference. Those use an additional 1d4 and 1d6, respectively, for large oversized weapon damage increases which is a lot better in regards to balance for player characters which are not monsters as we've discussed.
I feel like I unlocked an achievement on youtube today. You could have just said "Based on how I choose to interpret flavor text, oversized weapons do not work on PCs". So my response this is OK. This doesn't change my mind.
ray of sickness can be upcast with a 2nd level spell slot doing 3d8 poison (avg. 13) and would gain you 6 hp if you killed a creature with it... but it's poison damage what if we took the shadow touched feat at 4th level and took inflict wounds as our 1st level spell, then if we upcast that with a 2nd level spell slot it would do 4d10 necrotic (avg. 22)
Yeah, I do play vidya while playing TTRPGs but they are vidya where you can just stop the game and nothing bad will happen, and that don't require much attention so I still can engage with the TTRPG. Though I must confess I sometimes zone out for a few seconds and have to ask the GM/coplayer to repeat themselves. But to be fair it is quite late for me.
I wouldn’t think a flesh golem would be immune to non-magic weapons. Unless that’s just a golem thing in general? Even then, flesh is pretty easy to weapon up.
I think that it’s implied that the assassin’s weapons are coated with the poison, so if my players want to get some of that poison to apply to their own weapons, I’ll allow it. And the solar sword would not be allowed at my table, so I just won’t have solars in my game. Anything that the players want to do, the dm can do the exact same, and vice versa.
When the Phantom Steed spell ends it takes a minute to fade away, that's 10 rounds to keep using it... or 9 if you want to use the last one to dismount.
Tasha's offers some optional rules for classes, one of the those for Rangers is Deft which at 10th level gives you something called Tireless. Tireless gives you some temp hp but also at the end it mentions that after you finish a short rest your exhaustion is reduced by 1.
Yeah this stuff is RAW-shaky and insane af and I'd be more surprised by DMs allowing it (the only real exception being campaigns where they outright _want_ insanity from their players), if the spell was even allowed to players in any capacity beyond theoretical research due to the moral implications. The permanency variants are even more finnicky then the possession language that I'm pretty sure RAI was for NPCs to be targeting players (not the other way around), as technically the Clone would be of the subject as Clone does not inherently target the caster, but the subject being cloned, and you are not that creature, you are a possessing entity. The multicast gets even worse, as when the first casting is suppressed and ended, that returns that creature to it's body by RAW of what happens when the spell ends with the alternative, by RAW, being death, which affects both soul and body, so you getting sent back to that same body means that there are now two souls in the same body* or a corpse to return to. Death Ward isn't that much better as nothing says you'd go back to your favored body, an easy RAW interpretation is that your soul goes straight back to your original body regardless of distance as a result of the interaction (and you'd need to leave the jar too far away for the subject's original soul to have a hope of returning to avoid the double soul situation again even if the DM allowed you to stay). Granted, DW is more open to interpretation, but it's nowhere near a guarantee in RAW. As a result of all of that craziness, my take on Magic Jar is that given that it can insta-kill you if dispelled or otherwise ended (which admittedly has RAW loopholes for those not born a Fey and afaik there's no other way to be one of the types targeted by Hallow and Dispel Evil and Good without some sort of DM caveat, and it's up to the DM if Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, or similar on the possessed subject would work as none of those options are spelled out in the barebones spell description that again I'm pretty sure was intended to be used by NPCs against players not the other way around), even with the ability to infiltrate without needing to worry about true seeing or the subject fighting off domination, and the potential to benefit from higher physical stats and various features, I wouldn't use it unless there was an edge case where temporary usage allowed me to do something I otherwise couldn't, such as a DM allowing Contingency to be tied to the body, not the soul (with obvious implications thereof), or say 3.5's Steal Life being adapted (which allowed you to drain someone's life/ability scores to make yourself younger, which pretty explicitly affected whatever body you were in). *(now I kinda want to create an Undead Warlock whose patron is a lich who tried to do this to take over his body but ended up stuck as a disembodied voice in his head because he'd fumbled his Arcana/History roll until after getting stuck, with me having high physical stats but low mental ones and my patron being confused af any time I do something a Wizard couldn't, all the while the lich keeps flip-flopping on whether it wants me to die in the hope that he'll return to his phylactery or worries that my death would drag him to the afterlife due to how long he's been away without feeding it)
I actually think Baleful Scion would work pretty well on something like a cleric due to them having spirit guardians (This of course works with anything that deals damage to a group of enemies at the start of their turns). If you're dodging in the middle of a group of enemies, you can burn through all your uses of this in a single round.
