Timeline for I am looking for some feedback on my first homebrewed magic item "Aurel‘s Adaptive Crossbow"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 16, 2021 at 9:46 | history | suggested | ivan_pozdeev | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed grammar
|
| Oct 16, 2021 at 9:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 16, 2021 at 9:46 | |||||
| Oct 16, 2021 at 8:57 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
rolling back a couple of edits (e.g. it's 1d4 charges per day, not 1d4 times per day)
|
| S Oct 15, 2021 at 22:19 | history | suggested | Jim Kata | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling and grammar
|
| Oct 15, 2021 at 21:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 15, 2021 at 22:19 | |||||
| Oct 15, 2021 at 8:11 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 19:52 | comment | added | Dale M | @Liqs attunement is a limiting mechanic to prevent a single PC having too many powerful items. While I appreciate your thematic reasons, the fact is that this item is too weak for a PC to “waste” an attunement slot on if they are already full. Compared to other attunement items, most players would bin this one. | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 19:40 | vote | accept | Liqs | ||
| Oct 14, 2021 at 18:59 | comment | added | Liqs | @Caleth The reason for the attunement requirements essentially boil down to lore and who that weapon used to belong to and who it was made by and for what purpose. My intent with the attunement requirement was to let a little but off that ring through. But I agree that extra text just adds complexity and it probably isn't necessary. | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 18:11 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 18:06 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 18:00 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
returned the point about "at dawn" vs "after the long rest"
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 16:35 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | Ah, apparently I was wrong about magic items getting charges after Resting. I was either thinking of the many single-use items that do that or the fact that parts of the PHB changed "once per day" into "once per long rest" | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 15:25 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed points about alignment and long rest
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:47 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:40 | comment | added | Caleth | @Medix2 It's only marginally more subtle than Requires attunement by <Ranger PC Name>. It isn't needed, and what if the ranger wants to stay with heavy crossbows? Class restrictions on attunement tend to be because the item interacts with class features, with grandfather'ed in exceptions like Holy Avenger | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 | comment | added | Caleth | Indeed. It's only marginally better than the mundane heavy crossbow OP says the ranger PC has, so the player might not want to switch | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:30 | comment | added | enkryptor | @Caleth the item doesn't look powerful enough to unbalance the game in "wrong" character's hands. Such restriction is hardly a necessity. | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:28 | history | edited | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:27 | comment | added | Caleth | I assume there is exactly one good aligned ranger in the party, and the attunement restriction is instead of explicitly giving it to that PC | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 11:23 | history | answered | enkryptor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |