|
|
Post by asaki on Dec 31, 2020 18:12:09 GMT -6
That's probably about as close as you can get, without abandoning 5E completely and just adding your favorite 5E rules to an older edition.
BTW, 5E Nerfs a lot of monsters, too. For example, vampires no longer permanently drain levels, and immunity to non-magical weapons was changed to "non-magical weapons do less damage". I ran an adventure with vampires once, thinking "Finally, a challenge for the players! Something to fear!" Nope. They won pretty easily, it just took a really long time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 19:09:08 GMT -6
Has anyone in this thread tried one of the several "o5r" attempts from the past few years? I have heard things about Five Torches Deep, 5e Hardcore Mode, etc. but haven't actually bothered with any of them, because it seems to me they've made the same sort of hacks I tried myself before I came to the conclusion that it's best to keep osr and 5e separate because they operate off fundamentally different design/play principles. For my tastes, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 1, 2021 17:01:07 GMT -6
hamurai, okay, I think I am starting to get it, but I really just need to play. Run a VTT one off for me? ;) How is this any different than, say, moves and turns in (original) D&D? I mean, that is also how I run things in exploration mode. Certain actions count as a "move" (e.g., listening at a door) some as "turns" (e.g., reading a scroll). Two moves per turn. One turn is about 10 minutes. One rest every hour. How is the use of action, bonus action and reaction different than me recognizing them as "move" segments? I will take those two suggestions and modify my OP accordingly. Thanks, again, for helping me to reason these things out. And I'd be curious what your ref thought of this (ever evolving) list.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 1, 2021 17:03:27 GMT -6
That's probably about as close as you can get, without abandoning 5E completely and just adding your favorite 5E rules to an older edition. Thanks, that is a nice compliment. Say, that gives me an idea. I wonder what the list of core player mechanics might be, you know, the ones that allow players to feel like they still "get" how to play the game? - and then just tack those onto (original) D&D behind the screen? That would sure make it easier for me! |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 2, 2021 0:26:51 GMT -6
Has anyone in this thread tried one of the several "o5r" attempts from the past few years? I have heard things about Five Torches Deep, 5e Hardcore Mode, etc. but haven't actually bothered with any of them, because it seems to me they've made the same sort of hacks I tried myself before I came to the conclusion that it's best to keep osr and 5e separate because they operate off fundamentally different design/play principles. For my tastes, anyway. I've played Into the Unknown, a blend of B/X and 5E, which works well. If you're hoping to get a new and shiny OD&D, though, that's not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 2, 2021 1:21:28 GMT -6
hamurai , okay, I think I am starting to get it, but I really just need to play. Run a VTT one off for me?  I'd do that, but we'd have to find a time and day and I'm in Germany. Not sure what your time zone is, but I'm sure I'd have time for a quick introductory play  I'd use Roll20 for that. How is this any different than, say, moves and turns in (original) D&D? I mean, that is also how I run things in exploration mode. Certain actions count as a "move" (e.g., listening at a door) some as "turns" (e.g., reading a scroll). Two moves per turn. One turn is about 10 minutes. One rest every hour. How is the use of action, bonus action and reaction different than me recognizing them as "move" segments? Well, it's really more that 5E codifies certain things happening which could already be happening in your OD&D game, like opportunity attacks. In that case, you'd use your Reaction which would only mean that you can't use another Reaction type ability that turn, for example another opportunity attack, or a Shield spell. The Eldritch Knight subclass of the Fighter, for example, gets an ability which allows them to use Bonus Action to make a weapon attack if they used their Action to cast a Cantrip. They could therefore use their Action to cast the Cantrip True Strike (= advantage on next attack roll against the target) and then make a single attack (with advantage). At lower levels, and for other classes, you'd have to cast True Strike on your first turn with an Action and then use your Action on the second turn to make the attack with advantage. Fighters can use the Second Wind ability (small HP recharge once per long or short rest) as a Bonus Action. If the Eldritch Knight from my example had already used the Bonus Action to make the attack after casting True Strike, he could not also use Second Wind on the same turn. It boils down to being a limit on how much you can do on your turn. Otherwise, some players might argue that they can do this and that because they don't actually "do" anything (like when using Second Wind). You could, of course, just use common sense. Note, however, the meanings of "round" and "turn" in 5E: The Round is the whole of all actions happening, by all PCs and NPCs. The Turn is one character's turn to act in the initiative order. You can use your Move, Action and Bonus Action only on your Turn. You can use your Reaction at any time during the round when the right trigger happens (e.g., when you get attack, you may cast Shield), but also only once. Note also, that multiple attacks in 5E do not violate the rule that you only have 1 Action: Once you have more than one attack per round (Fighters at level 5, for example), you can use your Action to make 2 attacks. -- Which is an important detail, often confusing for players new to 5E. There's a difference between using the Attack Action (which allows for several attacks if you're the right class and level), and making an attack, which is just 1 single attack - like the Eldritch Knight's ability above, which allows them to make an attack as a Bonus Action, but they're not allowed to take the Attack Action as a Bonus Action (which would mean 2 attacks on that level). I know it sounds complicated, but once you got these small details memorized, it's not a big deal. And it's making things easier for the DM because everyone knows how many actions of which type they can do each round. Thanks, again, for helping me to reason these things out. And I'd be curious what your ref thought of this (ever evolving) list. He said he'd love to play 5E that way, but it's not what the majority of our group would enjoy, which I agree with. He also asked if you'd use the 5E wilderness and exploration rules, or the OD&D ones. Don't ask me about the differences, though, because in our group I'm a player and never read those 5E rules as we never had them come up in play (at least not so that we players realized or cared about it). In my other group (on hiatus due to Covid), I'm the DM of a megadungeon so it also doesn't come up. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 2, 2021 5:32:28 GMT -6
I'd be curious to hear what you feel are the gameplay improvements in your simplified/OSR-ized 5E vs. OSR games modded to taste. That could be a whole book in and of itself. Into the Unknown has some similarities to how I play 5e. Basically abstract out combat more. Keep conditions, proficiency bonus - but I encourage solving problems with wit and ingenuity rather than die rolls, a lot of the magic system is good. Make things a little more lethal. I like Death Saves (we call them Life Saves) but they're a bit too safe. There is a really good post on Five Torches Deep and Into the Unknown on mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2019/11/comparison-five-torches-deep-vs-into.html |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 2, 2021 9:38:42 GMT -6
I've been thinking about making my 5E campaigns more "old school" and then saw that this thread had been revised, so I'll toss in my two coppers here instead of starting a new one.
I think that if one makes too many changes you might as well actually play the other game, so I was trying to identify a few key things that would make the game feel more old school. Obviously I could set limits on class or race options, and that's an easy "fix", but OD&D always said that you could play a young dragon or an android and so I hate to make things too restrictive there. I came up with a list of three mechanical changes that might make the game do what I like:
(1) I've tinkered with rests for several years and think this is a key component of making 5E feel more old school. If you assume that "short" rests are a night of sleep in the wilderness (so, they only get to use "hit die" to heal in those situations) and force a "long" rest to be several days spent in a place of safety (a week in Rivendell or wherever) you control those resources that need to recharge and force players to be more careful with their use.
(2) I have been experimenting with a "no skills" character sheet, but allowing things that feel like the class to get advantage for their stat checks. (As an example, picking pockets would be a DEX check but for a thief it would be at advantage.) Getting rid of the skill list adds a certain degree of freedom where players feel like their characters can try anything.
(3) I don't use XP much any more, but level characters up when they accomplish something. With that in mind, I made some simple "half level" charts so that they can progress more frequently but not move up in levels too quickly.
Otherwise, I might go with the standard 5E rules. I had considered listing "theater of the mind" instead of minis and a map as a fourth thing, but my players really like their minis and I can adjust this based on the situation and it's not really a rules change so I didn't add it to the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 2, 2021 10:39:01 GMT -6
Common sense seems like the best way forward. As I read through things, I talked things through with my daughter who has played 5e. It sounds pretty straightforward:
In any given situation that requires action, one round is when everyone involved has made their action. A turn is one person's action. You get one action per turn (unless you have some special thing that multiplies or layers that). If something happens to you during the round, as a whole, due to someone else's use of their turn, and you have an appropriate capacity for reaction, you may use the reaction immediately with respect to this action upon you. That seems pretty intuitive to me. Have I got it?
If I have eliminated particular skills and made most things simply ability checks with advantages based upon class and background, won't that reduce the list of all these special conditions and make things run even smoother?
I would, as much as possible, use the rules with which I am familiar (so, original), so long as it does not disrupt player expectations of what they are used to their characters being able to do. The difference between hourly and daily wilderness movement does not, to me, seem significantly to affect player's agency with respect to their character's abilities. Especially when skills are dropped and everything is based upon ability checks. But it certainly makes play easier to me. Considering that 5e does encourage refs to develop their own settings, it seems I could chalk this up to setting-specific mechanics without even having to list it as a house rule. I wonder what your ref would think of that. Is it bending or breaking the 5e rules too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 2, 2021 10:46:27 GMT -6
(1) I've tinkered with rests for several years and think this is a key component of making 5E feel more old school. If you assume that "short" rests are a night of sleep in the wilderness (so, they only get to use "hit die" to heal in those situations) and force a "long" rest to be several days spent in a place of safety (a week in Rivendell or wherever) you control those resources that need to recharge and force players to be more careful with their use. (2) I have been experimenting with a "no skills" character sheet, but allowing things that feel like the class to get advantage for their stat checks. (As an example, picking pockets would be a DEX check but for a thief it would be at advantage.) Getting rid of the skill list adds a certain degree of freedom where players feel like their characters can try anything. (3) I don't use XP much any more, but level characters up when they accomplish something. With that in mind, I made some simple "half level" charts so that they can progress more frequently but not move up in levels too quickly. Otherwise, I might go with the standard 5E rules. I had considered listing "theater of the mind" instead of minis and a map as a fourth thing, but my players really like their minis and I can adjust this based on the situation and it's not really a rules change so I didn't add it to the list. So does your description of rest correspond with "gritty realism" as described in the 5e DMG? Or is it its own house rule? Yes, I would definitely get rid of skills, but allow the skill lists to inform players imagination, so long as they understood them to be a starting point, not a boundary. I would still use XP. Not ready to "wing" that one yet, Finarvyn! Almost everything I listed in my post follows 5e "rules," in terms of the allowable rules variants. My house rules are duly noted, and, again, I hope they show pretty "light hand." Thanks for helping me think things through. |
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114 
|
Post by Dohojar on Jan 2, 2021 11:31:13 GMT -6
In the game of 5e I run, I made a few changes that make it more "gritty". For starters I use the base array for stats 15,14,13,12,10,8. Then I cut the starting proficiency bonus from 2 to 1. I made a shield only add +1 to AC not +2 like it is in the book. I also changed up the long and short rests. They can still take 2 short rests a day but all the characters get from it is 1 HP + Con bonus back for hit points. Nothing else. The only way they get the use of class abilities back is from a long rest which is 8 hours. So if the fighter uses up his second wind or action surge in the first combat, that's it for the day until they take a long rest. And for hit points they get back 1 HD + con bonus. This actually forces the players to use their healing abilities more.
I don't know why but it seems to me that a lot of old school DM's can't stand skills and it is beyond me as to why. They are in no way game breaking and give the players a better understanding what their characters can do. For my game, if a player isn't proficient in a skill they want to use, they have disadvantage on the roll. They can still attempt what they want to do but they aren't very good at it is my reasoning. For skills like deception or persuasion, they still have to tell me what they are saying before the roll. It's not "Oh I am going to deceive this guard" and roll a dice. No, it don't work that way in my game. They have to tell me the lie they are telling the guard first and then they roll to see how well they can tell that lie or how well they can persuade that guard to let them in the gate. Or if a fighter want's to try to determine what some arcane symbol means and they have no skill in the Arcane skill, then they would have a disadvantage on the roll with a -5 (cause lets face it, what the hell does a warrior know about magic).
If you plan on using 5e monsters then you can't strip the characters of all their abilities as they will get eaten alive. If you play monsters like they actually have a brain then 3 goblins can wipe out a party of 6 characters pretty easily at level 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 2, 2021 14:55:13 GMT -6
If you plan on using 5e monsters then you can't strip the characters of all their abilities as they will get eaten alive. If you play monsters like they actually have a brain then 3 goblins can wipe out a party of 6 characters pretty easily at level 1. That's the big issue I see when you take too many special abilities and ways to recover them. The monsters get some really deadly abilities, too. In our campaigns, I found that there's a threshold at PC levels 3-4, when they start fighting monsters above their own capabilities, and suddenly these are far more dangerous than anything before. That's because the monsters tend to get Multiattack before the PCs get multiple attacks and before their HP are "ready" to soak that much punishment per round. It's harder to heal the damage done, because the healing spells are not yet "ready" to compensate for the damage that the monster do. Of course, if you want to take the focus off combat, that might work out just fine. Just prepare that even "low-level" monsters can hit really bad (especially with a Crit) and knock out a character easily. (1) I've tinkered with rests for several years and think this is a key component of making 5E feel more old school. If you assume that "short" rests are a night of sleep in the wilderness (so, they only get to use "hit die" to heal in those situations) and force a "long" rest to be several days spent in a place of safety (a week in Rivendell or wherever) you control those resources that need to recharge and force players to be more careful with their use. Same question as above (considering the Gritty Realism DMG rule): Does that mean spell-casters will be forced to spend their spell slots over the course of the entire adventure, until they return to a save place? That's taking a lot from the players, healing and otherwise. The skills are always a big debate. My opinion is this: A skill list will help new players who are unsure of the options and give them ideas to try out in the game. RPG veterans will not need that list as they know what can/should (not) be done in certain situations, and they will come up with strategies to solve most problems. In the long run, skill aren't necessary for any RPG, but since we're talking 5E here, I'd say that taking skills away can unbalance some the "expert" classes which get more skills as compensation for a lack of other abilities. That's the bard, the rogue and the ranger, iirc, who get more skills to start with and in the case of the bard and the rogue, they get abilities to make them even more proficient at some skills. I'd certainly make a houserule for those classes to compensate for the loss of skills which makes them stand out again as "experts". (The ranger can probably live with it, only getting 1 additional skill proficiency over the standard two). |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 2, 2021 21:39:49 GMT -6
I was trying to identify a few key things that would make the game feel more old school. Obviously I could set limits on class or race options, and that's an easy "fix" Class, Race, and level limits are the first things I toss from OD&D. If someone wants to play a Dwarf Cleric or Halfling Wizard. Fine. And level limits are just arbitrary. There are better ways to balance the game. So I'd say remove such limitations is definitely a 5e design principle I keep (which dates back to 3e and that was one of my favorite changes to core D&D that edition brought). |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 3, 2021 7:51:13 GMT -6
I'll confess that I own the DMG but have hardly ever used it. I've heard about the "gritty realism" rule but have never read it. I suppose I should do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 3, 2021 8:54:27 GMT -6
I'll confess that I own the DMG but have hardly ever used it. I've heard about the "gritty realism" rule but have never read it. I suppose I should do so. Most of it is not terribly applicable to old-hand DMs- it is good advice for new/er DMs that they copied from the 4E DMGs (sometimes word for word). There's a few good random tables and such. However, the optional rules section at the very end is worth a look-see and IMO does have some good variants, but is no where near the "modules" promised prior to the big shift post Monte/Wyatt. As for the variants I'm partial to prof dice instead of prof bonus, side initiative (if I have to play with something "sanctioned" for 5E) and the healing variant that is the opposite of gritty and more like 4E (I'm getting so sick of Clerics, as they are played in game, in my old age. 4E variant frees them up to not be Combat Medic. Or eliminated entirely from the game if the fiction dictates) |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 3, 2021 12:53:27 GMT -6
I'll confess that I own the DMG but have hardly ever used it. I've heard about the "gritty realism" rule but have never read it. I suppose I should do so. Most of it is not terribly applicable to old-hand DMs- it is good advice for new/er DMs that they copied from the 4E DMGs (sometimes word for word). There's a few good random tables and such. However, the optional rules section at the very end is worth a look-see and IMO does have some good variants, but is no where near the "modules" promised prior to the big shift post Monte/Wyatt. As for the variants I'm partial to prof dice instead of prof bonus, side initiative (if I have to play with something "sanctioned" for 5E) and the healing variant that is the opposite of gritty and more like 4E (I'm getting so sick of Clerics, as they are played in game, in my old age. 4E variant frees them up to not be Combat Medic. Or eliminated entirely from the game if the fiction dictates) Clerics are awesome. They can create darkness, speak with and transform stick into snakes, cause plants and trees to bend their will, hold specters at bay. What's not to like? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 3, 2021 13:47:56 GMT -6
Most of it is not terribly applicable to old-hand DMs- it is good advice for new/er DMs that they copied from the 4E DMGs (sometimes word for word). There's a few good random tables and such. However, the optional rules section at the very end is worth a look-see and IMO does have some good variants, but is no where near the "modules" promised prior to the big shift post Monte/Wyatt. As for the variants I'm partial to prof dice instead of prof bonus, side initiative (if I have to play with something "sanctioned" for 5E) and the healing variant that is the opposite of gritty and more like 4E (I'm getting so sick of Clerics, as they are played in game, in my old age. 4E variant frees them up to not be Combat Medic. Or eliminated entirely from the game if the fiction dictates) Clerics are awesome. They can create darkness, speak with and transform stick into snakes, cause plants and trees to bend their will, hold specters at bay. What's not to like? Sure. Except most of them spend 90% of the game healing others or doing a simple Bless or remove XYZ affliction when it comes to their spellcasting because the game's rules require it, unless you dole out disposable healing items. I prefer "other variations" of the class, that de-emphasize the healing aspect and instead focus on abilities tied into their domains/aspects of their faith. I also avoid easy peasy disposable or charge driven healing magic (potions, wands, staffs, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 3, 2021 14:00:40 GMT -6
Clerics are awesome. They can create darkness, speak with and transform stick into snakes, cause plants and trees to bend their will, hold specters at bay. What's not to like? Sure. Except most of them spend 90% of the game healing others or doing a simple Bless or remove XYZ affliction when it comes to their spellcasting because the game's rules require it, unless you dole out disposable healing items. I prefer "other variations" of the class, that de-emphasize the healing aspect and instead focus on abilities tied into their domains/aspects of their faith. I also avoid easy peasy disposable or charge driven healing magic (potions, wands, staffs, etc). Hu. I've never found the game requires healing, even in world with no magic items. Just like Conan didn't go on adventures every day, natural healing (1 hp per day) works fine for me. I imagine Conan's adventures weeks or months apart. My games tend to imitate that vibe. |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 3, 2021 16:28:45 GMT -6
Sure. Except most of them spend 90% of the game healing others or doing a simple Bless or remove XYZ affliction when it comes to their spellcasting because the game's rules require it, unless you dole out disposable healing items. In our games, the cleric is always casting offensive spells. Everyone else has 25+ AC, and/or has their own healing powers. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 3, 2021 20:19:01 GMT -6
Sure. Except most of them spend 90% of the game healing others or doing a simple Bless or remove XYZ affliction when it comes to their spellcasting because the game's rules require it, unless you dole out disposable healing items. In our games, the cleric is always casting offensive spells. Everyone else has 25+ AC, and/or has their own healing powers. What game are you playing? |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 4, 2021 16:35:59 GMT -6
What game are you playing? D&D 5E. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 4, 2021 17:31:51 GMT -6
What game are you playing? D&D 5E. How did you manage AC25+ and everybody has healing powers? (I'm not talking HD recovery- maybe you are) |
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Jan 4, 2021 19:20:37 GMT -6
How did you manage AC25+ and everybody has healing powers? (I'm not talking HD recovery- maybe you are) I am going to guess he has +2 plate and a +3 shield (or +3 plate mail and a +2 shield). Plate mail gives a base of 18 AC and a normal shield adds +2 to AC so right there his AC would be at 20. Add 5 to that and voila, 25 AC.
every other class besides wizards, thieves, fighters and barbarians and (not sure about this one) warlocks have some sort of healing ability. And even the basic fighter has a the ability to heal themselves a little bit with the second wind ability (heals 1d10 + fighter lvl hit points and they can use it once per short rest)
I am curious though jeffb, what lvl is your character and class are you playing?
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 4, 2021 20:10:14 GMT -6
How did you manage AC25+ and everybody has healing powers? (I'm not talking HD recovery- maybe you are) I don't have my character sheet on me, so I might be exaggerating a little bit, but I know my AC is at least higher than 20. I have Efreeti Chain which gives me +3 AC, and I know I have some kind of cloak that gives me I think just +1. Also I have a feat or skill or something that gives me another +1. One player (she might be a bard?) usually uses debuffs on the monsters so they roll at disadvantage, and/or buffs us so we get advantage. So between all of that, we're pretty hard to hit. If I do get hit, my class is a fighter (just a regular fighter, I might change that if we ever play again), so I get second wind healing spell, plus we can all heal during short rests if we need to. I can't remember exactly all the other player classes, but I know one is a ranger (from Unearthed Arcana) who has some kind of arrow shot that heals us. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 4, 2021 20:16:16 GMT -6
How did you manage AC25+ and everybody has healing powers? (I'm not talking HD recovery- maybe you are) I am going to guess he has +2 plate and a +3 shield (or +3 plate mail and a +2 shield). Plate mail gives a base of 18 AC and a normal shield adds +2 to AC so right there his AC would be at 20. Add 5 to that and voila, 25 AC.
every other class besides wizards, thieves, fighters and barbarians and (not sure about this one) warlocks have some sort of healing ability. And even the basic fighter has a the ability to heal themselves a little bit with the second wind ability (heals 1d10 + fighter lvl hit points and they can use it once per short rest)
I am curious though jeffb, what lvl is your character and class are you playing?
No play here. Just DM. 15th Level is highest we have run in 5E. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 4, 2021 20:19:48 GMT -6
How did you manage AC25+ and everybody has healing powers? (I'm not talking HD recovery- maybe you are) I don't have my character sheet on me, so I might be exaggerating a little bit, but I know my AC is at least higher than 20. I have Efreeti Chain which gives me +3 AC, and I know I have some kind of cloak that gives me I think just +1. Also I have a feat or skill or something that gives me another +1. One player (she might be a bard?) usually uses debuffs on the monsters so they roll at disadvantage, and/or buffs us so we get advantage. So between all of that, we're pretty hard to hit. If I do get hit, my class is a fighter (just a regular fighter, I might change that if we ever play again), so I get second wind healing spell, plus we can all heal during short rests if we need to. I can't remember exactly all the other player classes, but I know one is a ranger (from Unearthed Arcana) who has some kind of arrow shot that heals us. Gotcha, so you guys are pretty high level with a good assortment of powerful items. For 5E I'm more stingy than usual on the "plusses" because of the bounded accuracy and everyone's pretty potent as is. In our 15th level game, IIRC nobody had more than a +1 item (i.e a weapon and armor/shield), and some other misc. magic that didn't add any AC or Hit Bonuses (and they still trounced their opponents despite being very tough encounters according to BTB CR. My understanding it was revised in one of the splat books) |
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Jan 4, 2021 20:20:24 GMT -6
I am going to guess he has +2 plate and a +3 shield (or +3 plate mail and a +2 shield). Plate mail gives a base of 18 AC and a normal shield adds +2 to AC so right there his AC would be at 20. Add 5 to that and voila, 25 AC.
every other class besides wizards, thieves, fighters and barbarians and (not sure about this one) warlocks have some sort of healing ability. And even the basic fighter has a the ability to heal themselves a little bit with the second wind ability (heals 1d10 + fighter lvl hit points and they can use it once per short rest)
I am curious though jeffb, what lvl is your character and class are you playing?
No play here. Just DM. 15th Level is highest we have run in 5E. Actually, that question was for asaki but instead I asked you lol. Been a long day. |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 4, 2021 23:13:32 GMT -6
Gotcha, so you guys are pretty high level with a good assortment of powerful items. Not that high, but yeah, our DM likes to be generous with the magical items. Actually, that question was for asaki but instead I asked you lol. Been a long day. I can't remember exactly, I think we were level 7 when we last played? Now I'm doubting myself, maybe it was 8 or 9. |
|
I'd use Roll20 for that.
