I have been considering a Hexblade Warlock with a houserule to allow two Pact Weapons, so that they could dual-wield. What would the effects of such a houserule be? It is an extra option for Pact of the Blade, but is it stronger than things they can already do? It doesn’t seem like it to me, except maybe with the Improved Pact Weapon invocation giving two +1 weapons. But even that doesn’t seem too bad considering Polearm Master could basically do the same thing.
I find myself frustrated that Wizards have high incentive to invest in Dexterity and Constitution so that the aren’t quite so squishy whereas they have little incentive to increase Wisdom except to help their Wisdom saves. Wisdom, however, seems much more in line with the common imaginings of a Wizard than Dexterity.
I am considering house-ruling that wizards can choose to add their Wisdom modifier to their AC instead of Dexterity but I want to check whether that would be balanced.
A relevant aspect to this change is that wizards have Wisdom Saving throw proficiency so this would allow them to be really good at Wisdom Saving throws more easily. On the other hand Dexterity saving throws are also quite common so giving up points in Dex also has a high cost even without AC.
I’m currently playing a Path of the Storm Herald barbarian (Xanathar’s Guide to Everything, p. 10-11).
Would allowing my character to change aura type after a long rest make the class unbalanced?
I figured this would give my character some more versatility without really adding power.
The 3rd level class feature of the ranger, Primeval Awareness, says:
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
Of all the rangers I’ve played myself or seen played by others, I have never seen this feature get used. One of the things that stops me (at least) from using it is that last line (“This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.“), which seems to make the feature overall pretty useless.
It seems that at least someone else agrees with me enough to level this criticism at Crawford:
@JeremyECrawford Also Primeval Awareness is arguably the worst class feature in the game. It’s so not worth a spell slot.
@pukunui81 It’s definitely situational. In my recent Ravenloft game—heavy on investigation, light on combat—Primeval Awareness was pivotal.
@JeremyECrawford The fact that it covers a large area and doesn’t even give you a direction is the main issue for me.
Whilst I’m curious to know if anyone thinks this feature isn’t useless as-is and can explain why it’s actually useful, that’s not what I’m going to ask here (people can always link me to forum posts about such things in the comments below, if such forum posts exist).
Instead, my question is, assuming that I continue to believe that this feature is useless because of that last line, what are the balance implications of removing that last line from the class feature’s description? So the feature would read the same but excluding “This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.”
My main concern is that it might end up being basically a better version of locate creature, which is a 4th level spell and therefore a RAW ranger wouldn’t be able to do this until level 13. On the other hand, this would only last a few minutes at most rather than up to an hour like locate creature.
Would allowing this feature to specify numbers and directions (bearing in mind that it only lasts a few minutes at most) make it overpowered, or would it merely increase its power enough to make it actually useful?
I playing D&D 5e. PHB (Chapter 10: Spellcasting) states that (emphasis mine):
Regardless of how many spells a caster knows or prepares, he or she can cast only a limited number of spells before resting. Manipulating the fabric of magic and channeling its energy into even a simple spell is physically and mentally taxing, and higher-level spells are even more so. Thus, each spellcasting class’s description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level.
I want to emphasize this aspect in my homebrew world so I have come up with the following house rule:
Inner Reserves: A spellcaster can exceed the number of spell slots normally allocated to her at the expense of fatigue. When a spellcaster has no more spell slots but deems it absolutely necessary to cast a spell, she can push herself to the limit and exhaust her inner reserves to cast a spell. The level of the spell will result at an equal level of exhaustion gained by the caster. For example, if the spell cast is level 2, then the caster will gain two levels of exhaustion.
I would like to use this house rule for several reasons:
- Fair Exchange: In my eyes, this is a fair exchange. Gaining one level of fatigue will most likely not make a difference in a battle but that is also the case for a Level-1 spell. On the contrary, when gaining two levels of fatigue or more, the PC becomes extremely vulnerable. So this is a high-risk high-reward scenario. If you are about to exhaust yourself you better make sure that you will win the fight.
- Dramatic Effect: I think it goes without saying that such a mechanism can lead to some very dramatic moments. I can imagine several scenarios where a spellcaster exhausts herself to heal the group or cast one last fireball that ultimately saves the day.
An immediate problem I identify is that this rule allows all classes to cast 5 more Level-1 spells (or less at higher levels). This may break some classes that are designed to cast very few spells per day (e.g., Warlock, Paladin). On the other hand, I feel that this imbalance is mitigated by the severe consequences of high exhaustion levels. I.e., I don’t think that it’s viable to abuse this mechanism.
- Will this house rule completely break the game?
- Which classes are going to be affected the most?
- Are there any other unforeseen consequences introduced by this rule? (i.e., unrelated to classes)
Finally, if this rule does not completely break the game, I would ideally like to read about how you’d improve it, but I feel that this may push
rpg.stackexhange.com‘s rules a bit, so feel free to omit this part.
Is blocking http connections on a home network and only allowing https connections reasonable? Will it reduce the chances of a man in the middle attack?
I’m thinking about running a FFG Star Wars campaign with Force and Destiny careers allowed for characters. I’ve been looking over those career specializations though, and a lot of them (ok, all of them really) seem to have no organic relationship between the other specializations in the career and the career’s one light-saber specialization. It reads mostly like they came up with archtypes for the careers, and then separately came up with one lightsaber form for each of the 6 stats, and then just tried to bolt the two together.
There’s also not really any lore reason why one any one specific technique needs to go with a specific career. Prior to finding some kind of teacher, characters should be effectively a blank slate as far as fighting technique goes. It seems to make more sense that they’d be taught the one that best suits their skills and outlook, not the one (oddly int-based) form that all the other Guardians get taught.
So what I’m thinking of homebrewing is that anyone who takes a F&D career, when they finally find a holocron or teacher that knows lightsaber techniques (they probably won’t start with one), will get to chose one lightsaber form (from any of the 6) to train as their career specialization. All other lightsaber specialization trees will be treated as non-career specializations.
What are the balance issues with this? The only thing I see off the top of my head is that it opens up a lot of choices for picking a lightsaber specialization just for its free specialization skills. But I’m thinking for just about every character there’s going to be one stat they want to pump long-term, so that’s going to make the choice for them regardless of what skills it happens to come with.
The spell find familiar allows a character to summon a familiar, which is a spirit of creature type celestial, fey or fiend. From the spell’s description (PHB, p. 240):
You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes the form of an animal … the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.
Would there be any balance issues with allowing the familiar to be of the elemental creature type instead (meaning, adjusting the above description to read “celestial, elemental, fey or fiend (your choice)” instead)?
Elemental creatures are affected in the same way as celestial/fey/fiend creatures by other spells such as protection from evil and good, forbiddance, and banishment (being permanently banished to their home plane rather than just stuck in a demiplane for 1 minute), etc, so being an elemental shouldn’t allow the creature to bypass that which would affect a RAW find familiar familiar.
That would have been the main thing that I would suspect might affect balance, but I can’t think of a spell that affects only celestials, fiends and fey, but not elementals. And I don’t feel like the concept of an elemental spirit creature being summoned as a familiar goes against the narrative theme of the spell either.
Are there any odd interactions with an elemental familiar that might make it more or less powerful than, say, a celestial familiar? My intention is for this to not affect the balance whatsoever.
Are there any larger implications of allowing a variant rule Ability Score Improvement/Feats in a multi-classing campaign?
In one campaign we have all multi-class players. There has been a frustration about having to take a 4th or 8th level in a class for the sole purpose of having access to an Ability Score Improvement (ASI) or a Feat.
I want to suggest we have a character level progression system instead of class, when it comes to ability score improvements and feats. This seems simple enough. The majority of classes get an ASI or feat at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, with the exception of a Fighter who also gets this at levels 6 and 15.
The variant rule would be that a PC gets the option of an ASI/feat when it reaches character levels: 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19. If the player chooses to develop into the Fighter class, then that PC would get an ASI/feat upon reaching Fighter level 6 and 14.
There is a similar mechanic with cantrips for mult-classing players, where the upgrades depend on overall character level, rather than class level (PHB, p.164).
Variant Rule: Ability Score Improvement, or Feat
When you reach 4th level on your overall character level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature. The increase is based on your character level, not your level in a particular class. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking the Ability Score Improvement feature and take a feat of your choice instead.
In addition, if you train as a Fighter, you get an Ability Score Improvement at upon reaching 6th and 14th level in that class.
Would this create any great unbalance? I can’t see it, but I might be missing something.
I am currently studying Computer Networking, and I was reading about the different types of Application Layer Protocols. In the book I am reading (Computer Networking: A Top-down Approach) it is mentioned that: “Once the client sends a message into its socket interface, the message is out of the client’s hands and is “in the hands” of TCP.“
For the sake of example, I thought of the option we have of cancelling the emission of an email? Is this functionality simply implemented via a time-window of seconds before emission or is their an actual procedure I do not know of ?
Do please correct my assumptions as I am afraid I might be off topic on several points
Thank you in advance.