No worries. I just made an incorrect assumption. The AC: [LVL/5] does the trick. Fortunately this ability is improved every 5 levels so one EFFECT does the trick.
Printable View
The first review of the ruleset and content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJgS5BoQ78
Congrats Celestian. Always great to see your work getting some positive attention that you deserve.
Don't know if this is the right place to say it, but in the Complete Priest's Handbook, the "Cleric" of Literature and Poetry is missing.
Why they labeled those classes "Cleric" instead of "Priest" is beyond me - the whole point of the design of the Priest group was to be able to create those specific Priests.
Thank you sir!
As for the titles, I'm just going by what the Player's Handbook calls them: "Priests of Specific Mythoi". While it also says, "...clerics serve religions that can be generally described as 'good' or 'evil'. Nothing more needs to be said about it." Under "Priest Titles" it says "Priests of differing mythoi often go by titles and names other than priest. A priest of nature... could be called a druid. Shamans and witch doctors are also possibilities [for other kinds of priests]." I've always understood this to mean that only the cleric and the druid already had established names, but the rest do not, so they're called "priest of x" unless the DM gives them a different name. Besides that, only the cleric is the generalist, with a generic religion. Lastly, there's a section in The Complete Priest's Handbook entitled, "Toning Down the Cleric", which doesn't make sense unless "cleric" is specifically what the generalist is called.
This is all mirrored in the Wizard group, which have "Specialist Wizards", and the mage class is called "the most versatile types of wizards, those who choose not to specialize in any single school of magic." Since they name all the specialist wizards, they never say, "Wizard (Alteration)", they just call him a transmuter - but I wouldn't expect them to be called "Mage (Alteration)" in any case. If TSR had wanted to, they could have created a subsection under Warrior called, "Warriors of differing fighting styles" and said one example was "berserk" that you could call a "barbarian". I would expect that kind of subclassification to be listed as "Warrior (Berserk)" not "Fighter (Berserk)", because the fighter already has a specific set of abilities.
That all said, I was under the impression that Wizards of the Coast converted the Player's Handbook themselves, which is why I was confused - they'd be contradicting their own products, as I saw it. If you did the conversion under license, that's an entirely different story. You can call them whatever you like. :)
And you've done a wonderful job, so I should just shut up now.
Question: Is there a way to combine two different types of damage into one damage roll for NPCs? Such as, 1d4 slashing +1 cold. Right now, I don't see a way of it not being 2 die rolls.
Unless you use "powers" no. Weapon attacks damage entries are individual to be able to support the varying medium or large damage types. I do add a additional damage entry for creatures that do have a X damage + cold type added tho you can just use a power, set it up as a melee (or ranged) attack and have the damage for each.
Any suggestions on how to set up a creature with a resistance like this:
they suffer only half damage from nonmagical blunt and magical edged weapons.
is it half damage for any blunt or just non-magic blunt? If the former
RESIST: bludgeoning
RESIST: slashing, !magic
IMMUNE: slashing, piercing
Something like that I think?
Not home to test, I would review the 5E docs on these because it works the same between both rulesets for this.