Issues that came up with a new group of testers

Raising skills: I know this has been brought up a lot but it's poorly written and very confusing.

Hill Dwarf: Dwarven Toughness and Survivor specialty: Dwarf states increases ALL Hit Die, Survivor adds a Hit Die, so they seem to stack is that true (Hill Dwarf would have +1d10)?Also, does Survivor's added Hit Die also give you that extra Hit Die for healing?

Hill Dwarf Toughness only adds +1 hit point at 1st level even though the increased Hit Die would be +2 hit points. Maybe a hold over from last play-test where you where not starting with max Hit Die?

Dwarven Resilience
You are immune to damage and other effects from poison.

This is just poorly written, we had a good laugh about Dwarf's being immune to damage.

Shields: Not having two shields +1 & +2, they didn't like it.

SKills: Forced attributes to skills instead of the flexibilty of play-test packet 1, they didn't like it.

City Savvy Rogue Level 2
Level 2: City Savvy. You know your way around the dark alleys of a city, and know how to recognize the signs of an impending ambush. Benefit: You can’t be surprised while you’re able to take actions.

Does this only work in cities?

Knack Rogue Level 2
Knack: Rogues can bring to bear their impressive skill set to succeed on even the most difficult tasks. Benefit: Twice per day, you can give yourself advantage on a check.

Mentions skill set, but not sure if this can be used on attack rolls, they are checks after all.

Sorcerer: Dragon Strength
You channel the ancient strength of the dragon, causing you to deal heavy damage. Effect: The next time you hit a hostile creature with a melee attack during the next minute, that creature takes an extra 2d6 damage.


Seems very similar to Crusader's Strike, except that spell doesn't take an action to use, so this ability just sucks. Why would I give you 2 attacks at +8/ 1d8+5 (ave. 10 x2 = 20) to get one at +8/ 1d8+2d6+5 (ave. 18) and use a willpower point.

Sorcerer Spell DC: Why is it DC10+modifer when the other arcance casters are DC11+modifier?

All at-will spells: need to increase with levels. Doing 1d4+1 damage (magic missle) sucks ass in later levels when the fighter can do 2d8 every round on a MISS (so like an automatic hit but at range of 600 feet not 100 feet of the Magic Missile) and if they HIT they do 3d8+5.

Rapid Shot specialty: was a lot more useful and easier to use than Dual Wielding Specialty.

Skills
If you already have training in a skill and would gain training in that skill again (for example, a skill granted by both your class and background), you instead choose a different skill in which you become trained.

Technically, the way this is written someone could take the Sage background (for example: 3 Lore Skills) select Magical Lore, then select Magical Lore again and since it is the same skill turn it into Stealth. I know crazy thought but hey the group tries to break the game so I'm just pointing out what came up.

Channel Divinity: Why does this add a Wisdom bonus when all the other spells no longer do that? Why not use a static +4 like the cure spells?

Tumble
During a move, you can spend a single expertise die to move through the spaces of hostile creatures.

This doesn't say that the movement doesn't provoke Attacks of Oppurtunity, so it seems extremly inferior to Shift.

Modified Lost Mine Of Phandelver Map (removed adventure markers)

DnD Next (5e) GM 2 page info sheet

 

 

Archon, thank you very much for this post.

We missed several of the points you made. Especially the skills part lol, good catch!

As for the sorcerer's dcs. I think its a balancing factor to bloodline benefits, hps, weapon and armor profs etc.

We tried a sorcerer in our test. He was very good with his armor, shield, weapons and blasters but still sufficiently different from both wizards and fighters.

I thought it was a balanced multiclass of sorts, he could do everything but had not fighter's maneuvers to parry, cleave, knockback etc nor wizard's utility list.
Good stuff, although it might better go under packet discussion.

A few things do have answers, though they could be written clearer. One in particular: Attacks aren't actually checks, so Knack shouldn't apply. Pg 2: "An attack roll is similar to a check, except that the die roll is not against a normal DC." If it were a check, it wouldn't be similar to one.

I think the point of tumble is that it lets you move through an enemy line. Since you aren't moving out of their reach, they don't get an AO anyway.
Raising skills: I know this has been brought up a lot but it's poorly written and very confusing.



Agreed!

Hill Dwarf: Dwarven Toughness and Survivor specialty: Dwarf states increases ALL Hit Die, Survivor adds a Hit Die, so they seem to stack is that true (Hill Dwarf would have +1d10)?Also, does Survivor's added Hit Die also give you that extra Hit Die for healing?



I would assume that, because they want Specialties to be modular, it's not increased from the Dwarven ability (which apparently only applies to class). Also, good question about the Healing ability. I'd rule that it would because you DO get an extra Hit Die and it doesn't specifically say that it's only use is some extra HP at the level obtained.

Hill Dwarf Toughness only adds +1 hit point at 1st level even though the increased Hit Die would be +2 hit points. Maybe a hold over from last play-test where you where not starting with max Hit Die?



I'm guessing it's separate from the actual HD increase. So a Dwarf Fighter would have 13 [d10 to d12 +1] + Con modifier for their starting HP.

Dwarven Resilience
You are immune to damage and other effects from poison.

This is just poorly written, we had a good laugh about Dwarf's being immune to damage.



Agreed, I think they should have Resistance (perhaps 1/2 damage from Poison attacks and/or a bonus to Poison saves).


Shields: Not having two shields +1 & +2, they didn't like it.



Again, I definitly agree. Or if they feel the need to just keep 1 shield, it should be a +2 bonus to AC. That way, Shield users actually get a benefit for going that route over say, someone with TWF and TWD.  


SKills: Forced attributes to skills instead of the flexibilty of play-test packet 1, they didn't like it.



I loved the floating aspect of Skills, being able to use Wilderness Lore with Charisma to calm animals, use Wilderness Lore with Intelligence to identify fauna, use Wilderness Lore with Dexterity to maybe aid a person in climbing a cliff face, use Wilderness Lore with Wisdom to navigate the ravine.


City Savvy Rogue Level 2
Level 2: City Savvy. You know your way around the dark alleys of a city, and know how to recognize the signs of an impending ambush. Benefit: You can’t be surprised while you’re able to take actions.

Does this only work in cities?



No, it works anywhere. It's just a fluffy way of describing it.


Knack Rogue Level 2
Knack: Rogues can bring to bear their impressive skill set to succeed on even the most difficult tasks. Benefit: Twice per day, you can give yourself advantage on a check.

Mentions skill set, but not sure if this can be used on attack rolls, they are checks after all.



Any check, which constitutes rolling a d20. So you could gain advantage on an attack, a skill check, an ability check, a Saving Throw. The term "Check" is just a simpler way of saying "Task Resoluton".


Sorcerer: Dragon Strength

You channel the ancient strength of the dragon, causing you to deal heavy damage. Effect: The next time you hit a hostile creature with a melee attack during the next minute, that creature takes an extra 2d6 damage.


Seems very similar to Crusader's Strike, except that spell doesn't take an action to use, so this ability just sucks. Why would I give you 2 attacks at +8/ 1d8+5 (ave. 10 x2 = 20) to get one at +8/ 1d8+2d6+5 (ave. 18) and use a willpower point.



I had questioned this too and had to go back to re-read the packet. Basically you use your Dragon aspects as spells and that requires an action. So 1st turn, you spend 1 Will and get super strong etc.... 2nd turn, make an attack that deals an extra 2d6 damage. Now, keep in mind that it says "Next Attack" and not next turn, meaning you could possibly make an Opportunity Attack and deal the extra damage.  


Sorcerer Spell DC: Why is it DC10+modifer when the other arcance casters are DC11+modifier?



Gish classes (melee and spell classes) tend to have a little bit less "umpf" when it comes to classes focused in that particular element. Wizards get +3 to magic attacks with a DC 11, DC 12 saves but are crap in melee. Fighters get +3 to weapon attacks and special die that allow cool maneuvers, but stink in holding down areas. You get a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B but can't compete with either strictly in one column. It's a balancing factor mainly.


All at-will spells: need to increase with levels. Doing 1d4+1 damage (magic missle) sucks ass in later levels when the fighter can do 2d8 every round on a MISS (so like an automatic hit but at range of 600 feet not 100 feet of the Magic Missile) and if they HIT they do 3d8+5.



No complaints here, but until we see later levels of progression, it's hard to gauge what sort of bump At-Wills need. Remember that magic missile in 4E only did Intelligence modifer + 2 until what, 21st level where it did Int + 4?


Rapid Shot specialty: was a lot more useful and easier to use than Dual Wielding Specialty.



Yep, we're fighting to get TWF changed now and make it better. Hopefully it'll change in the next playtest. Personally, I want extra damage die NOT to be halved (and possibly get rid of weapon requiremnts for TWF). We'll see.


Skills
If you already have training in a skill and would gain training in that skill again (for example, a skill granted by both your class and background), you instead choose a different skill in which you become trained.

Technically, the way this is written someone could take the Sage background (for example: 3 Lore Skills) select Magical Lore, then select Magical Lore again and since it is the same skill turn it into Stealth. I know crazy thought but hey the group tries to break the game so I'm just pointing out what came up.



I don't see a big problem with this. Most people aren't going to go that route but hey, if you want to spend your Background on 3 lore skills, your specialty for another lore skill JUST to gain Stealth or Perception or whatever, I'm ok with that.


Channel Divinity: Why does this add a Wisdom bonus when all the other spells no longer do that? Why not use a static +4 like the cure spells?



Good question! I have no idea why spells no longer add in the bonus?


Tumble
During a move, you can spend a single expertise die to move through the spaces of hostile creatures.

This doesn't say that the movement doesn't provoke Attacks of Oppurtunity, so it seems extremly inferior to Shift.



Shift requires you to follow the normal rules for movement. Ergo, if your stuck into a corner by a monster, Shift gains you nothing because you can't move through enemies spaces. Tumble allows you to go practically anywhere you want but your going to suffer an Opportunity Attack for it. Both are situational, but have their uses. I do think that Shift has far more practical uses for maneuvering around the battlefield and thus, allievating the problem of getting stuck.  
Any check, which constitutes rolling a d20. So you could gain advantage on an attack, a skill check, an ability check, a Saving Throw. The term "Check" is just a simpler way of saying "Task Resoluton".



Under Ability Modifiers, 2nd paragraph: "Attacks, checks, and saving throws all involve ability modifiers." So all d20 rolls are NOT considered "checks."

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Any check, which constitutes rolling a d20. So you could gain advantage on an attack, a skill check, an ability check, a Saving Throw. The term "Check" is just a simpler way of saying "Task Resoluton".



Under Ability Modifiers, 2nd paragraph: "Attacks, checks, and saving throws all involve ability modifiers." So all d20 rolls are NOT considered "checks."


Hence the confusion since several posters see it differently
Hence the confusion since several posters see it differently


Checks, rolls and throws have been three different things for at least 12 years now, so this confusion can't be a new thing.

If they were all checks, they'd be called checks. But they're not. There are no such things as "attack checks" or "saving checks."

Also, notice how Attacks and Saving Throws are not under Checks in the rules. I just can't see where the confusion comes from. They're even listed separately under every ability score.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Technically, the way this is written someone could take the Sage background (for example: 3 Lore Skills) select Magical Lore, then select Magical Lore again and since it is the same skill turn it into Stealth. I know crazy thought but hey the group tries to break the game so I'm just pointing out what came up.



You are going to be able to create a background and select what skills you want to be trained in anyway, so this isn't a broken ability.  You can be a sage with 2 skills of your choice and one lore skill OR an  insert created name of background here and select 3 skills of your choice.  Which are you going to choose?  

Hence the confusion since several posters see it differently


Checks, rolls and throws have been three different things for at least 12 years now, so this confusion can't be a new thing.

If they were all checks, they'd be called checks. But they're not. There are no such things as "attack checks" or "saving checks."

Also, notice how Attacks and Saving Throws are not under Checks in the rules. I just can't see where the confusion comes from. They're even listed separately under every ability score.


Just because you don't see the confusion doesn't mean its not there. The only reason I posted the comment was because of the confusion in our play.test. and as you clearly see people on the forums also see it both ways. So there is confusion.
They could make it simple and just say Skill Checks in the benefit section. That would help fix confusion.
They could make it simple and just say Skill Checks in the benefit section. That would help fix confusion.
I can understand there is some confusion, however after some looking up there should be no doubt that attak is not a check:

When you meet a ferocious monster, you likely
will need to attack it to defeat it. An attack roll is
similar to a check, except that the die roll is not
against a normal DC.




If attack roll is "similar to a check", that means they are separate things. So knack can't be used to get an advantage on an attack roll.
They don't say skill checks because "checks" encompasses "skill checks" and "ability checks" for times when you are unskilled in a skill or when a specific skill isn't called for.

Good thread,t hough. Many of these things were confusing to me too. To add another, does your Constitution modifier add to HP gained from the Toughness feat? I assume it adds to your hit die healing, but I'm not sure either. 
If attack roll is "similar to a check", that means they are separate things. So knack can't be used to get an advantage on an attack roll.



EXCEPT! It says this under GM rules Page 1

Checks: A check is a test to see if a character succeeds. If a character attempts an action that has a significant chance of failure, have the player make a check. Checks are the most commonly used mechanic in the game. Attacks, contests, and saving throws are, in essence, specialized forms of checks.When in doubt, call for a check.


So to everyone who posted KNACK would not apply to attack rolls or that there wasn't any confusion. What do say now? 

My main point of the thread is there is a lot of confusion and ambiguous rules, and even if you don't think there is, there is.
If attack roll is "similar to a check", that means they are separate things. So knack can't be used to get an advantage on an attack roll.



EXCEPT! It says this under GM rules Page 1

Checks: A check is a test to see if a character succeeds. If a character attempts an action that has a significant chance of failure, have the player make a check. Checks are the most commonly used mechanic in the game. Attacks, contests, and saving throws are, in essence, specialized forms of checks.When in doubt, call for a check.


So to everyone who posted KNACK would not apply to attack rolls or that there wasn't any confusion. What do say now? 

My main point of the thread is there is a lot of confusion and ambiguous rules, and even if you don't think there is, there is.



Nice find. Rules are now officially contradictory.

It should be fixed in any case, but if I said X is, in essence, a specialized form of Y, what I would really mean is that X is not Y, but it can be well understood by analogy to Y.

It's a funny use of essence, isn't it? Some quotes to illustrate:

"Any piece of good music is in essence a love song." - Diana Gabaldon
"Human history is in essence a history of ideas." - HG Wells
"To be true to one’s own freedom is, in essence, to honor and respect the freedom of all others." - Dwight Eisenhower

None of these are really claiming the identity of the two elements compared, just pointing out a deep and important relationship between them.
It should be fixed in any case, but if I said X is, in essence, a specialized form of Y, what I would really mean is that X is not Y, but it can be well understood by analogy to Y.

It's a funny use of essence, isn't it? Some quotes to illustrate:

"Any piece of good music is in essence a love song." - Diana Gabaldon
"Human history is in essence a history of ideas." - HG Wells
"To be true to one’s own freedom is, in essence, to honor and respect the freedom of all others." - Dwight Eisenhower

None of these are really claiming the identity of the two elements compared, just pointing out a deep and important relationship between them.


I'm going to completely disagree. The thing you may have missed is the header of the GM section was labeled CHECKS, therefore it falls under a check.

Secondly, the definition of essence is
the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing

, also
Basically, by nature, as in He is in essence a very private person or In essence, they were asking the wrong question. This term employsessence in the sense of “intrinsic nature,” a usage dating from the mid-1600s.



Also, your quotes are people's opinion's. Diana Gabaldon could have also meant "IMO, any piece of good music is a love song." Or HG Wells "IMO, human history is a history of ideas."
Even in the DM section, Attacks and Saving Throws are not under the header of Checks. Also, later in the same section: "A check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is usually a split-second response to something," once again differentiating between at least checks and saves. So that one line about them being "in essence, specialized forms of checks," is not "ruly" enough to counter all the evidence to the contrary. If it was meant as a hard rule, it would drop the "in essence" part.

I'd say "in essence" here means that they are, like checks, a d20 roll trying to hit a target number, though I concede that the line may be seen as somewhat confusing. Still, enough evidence to the contrary.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

If Knack doesn't apply to attack rolls, then I find the entire idea of a daily resource mechanic just to get advantage on a Skill checksorta moronic. Because it is only usable 2/day makes it SEEM like it should have a combat capability, at least to me anyways and have been treating it as such.
Two points.

First, "In essense" is not the same of "Is".

Second, the rules state, "When in doubt, call for a check."  There is no doubt when you're attacking someone.  That's an attack.  That rule exists to say, "If you can't find any other way to resolve something, do an ability check."

So, a check is anything that is not an attack or a saving throw.

(Changing subjects)

I would assume Channel Divinity uses the Wisdom modifier while spells do not because Channel Divinity is not a spell, and therefore does not follow the same rules as spells.

Anyone notice there is both Thug, the rogue scheme and Thug, the specialty?  WotC should really consider renaming one of the two.
Thug and theif both grant the background of the same name when you take the scheme. So it kind of does make sense that way.
Thug and theif both grant the background of the same name when you take the scheme. So it kind of does make sense that way.



I understand why they named them -but after a conversation in which we were trying to explain that his rogue which was initially a Rogue Thug Thug Thief Dual-Wielder but he wanted to to know how his abilities would be different if h e changed it to a Rogue Thief Thief Thug Lurker - it got quite confusing trying to explain which abilities were coming from Thug (the scheme), Thus (the backgound), Thief (the scheme) and Thief (the background).  They really should come up with a different name for the backgrounds associated with the Thug and Thief schemes.


   Attacks and Checks:  I think that the totality of the rules makes it clear that attacks are not intended to be checks for the purposes of Knack.  But this is an area where more clarity of the rules as written would be desirable.


Shields - I am quite confident that the reason they got rid of the +2 bonus for shields was because they increased the bonus for platemail - and they didn't want to raise the top non-magical ACs available to players given the nature of bounded accuracy.  I argued for the opposite approach - rather than raising plate I thought the other ACs should have been lowered in comparison to achieve the same net improvement for heavy armor.  But that would have percolated all the way down to making robes AC 9 - and I guess that was a change they didn't want to make.  So instead we get only one size of shield.


Substituting Skills:  You are not entirely corrrect.  The rule that you can substitute a different skill only applies when you gain training from a different source, not the same source.  The rule for (using your example) the Sage background says "Choose three from the following".  Nothing in this allows the player to choose any of them more than once.  If you try to choose Magical Lore twice, you are  not choosing three from this list - you are choosing two from that list.


Carl
Hey folks,

This seems more of a  Playtest Packet Discussiony to me, so I'll be moving it along that direction.

Thanks!

Monica
Hence the confusion since several posters see it differently


Checks, rolls and throws have been three different things for at least 12 years now, so this confusion can't be a new thing.

If they were all checks, they'd be called checks. But they're not. There are no such things as "attack checks" or "saving checks."

Also, notice how Attacks and Saving Throws are not under Checks in the rules. I just can't see where the confusion comes from. They're even listed separately under every ability score.


Just because you don't see the confusion doesn't mean its not there. The only reason I posted the comment was because of the confusion in our play.test. and as you clearly see people on the forums also see it both ways. So there is confusion.




there is a difference between confusion caused by the playtest, and confusion caused by the reader.

the playtest is clear about this, i'm sorr, but it seems you didn't read it correctly, wizards can't help with that.
I understand why they named them -but after a conversation in which we were trying to explain that his rogue which was initially a Rogue Thug Thug Thief Dual-Wielder but he wanted to to know how his abilities would be different if h e changed it to a Rogue Thief Thief Thug Lurker - it got quite confusing trying to explain which abilities were coming from Thug (the scheme), Thus (the backgound), Thief (the scheme) and Thief (the background).  They really should come up with a different name for the backgrounds associated with the Thug and Thief schemes.


Have to ask: What do "Rogue Thug Thug Thief" and "Rogue Thief Thief Thug" mean?

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

I think that might be an old Monty Python sketch?
Missed this one:
I'm going to completely disagree. The thing you may have missed is the header of the GM section was labeled CHECKS, therefore it falls under a check.


No sir, I believe you are the headermisser here. Checks, Contests, Attacks and Saving Throws are under the heading "When to Use the Dice."

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

I understand why they named them -but after a conversation in which we were trying to explain that his rogue which was initially a Rogue Thug Thug Thief Dual-Wielder but he wanted to to know how his abilities would be different if h e changed it to a Rogue Thief Thief Thug Lurker - it got quite confusing trying to explain which abilities were coming from Thug (the scheme), Thus (the backgound), Thief (the scheme) and Thief (the background).  They really should come up with a different name for the backgrounds associated with the Thug and Thief schemes.


Have to ask: What do "Rogue Thug Thug Thief" and "Rogue Thief Thief Thug" mean?



Rogue (class) Thug (scheme) Thus (background comes with scheme) Thief (chosen background) Lurker (specialty), etc.
Rogue (class) Thug (scheme) Thus (background comes with scheme w/ theme) Thief (chosen background) Lurker (specialty), etc.


Why mention the scheme twice? It just sound unnecessarily confusing.

Also, considering your specific situation, the only thing that changes, to the best of my knowledge, is what is specifically listed in the scheme, since he has both backgrounds in either case.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Sign In to post comments