Mystic Basilisk

With the release of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, the game's ability scores have become almost entirely vestigial. That is, more and more they serve minimal function in meaningfully differentiating characters. A number of factors have contributed to this. Almost all of them stem from a shift in ability scores' purpose in the game, from descriptive to prescriptive. In the latest edition of the game, Fifth Edition, the shrinking of level-based bonuses (representing training and experience), to achieve the game's intended "bounded accuracy," made ability scores perhaps more important than ever before. In a game where a +1 bonus can be very important, where a fighter's attack bonus barely increases relative to previous editions (an average of +5 at level 1 to +11 to +14 at level 20, compared to D&D 3.5 where from levels 1 to 20 it often spanned between +4 and +35 or more). As a result, ability scores matter more than ever in 5e. Yet they also matter

Of all of the options presented by feats in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, there is one feat that is certainly not optional for those wishing to be melee fighters. That feat is Power Attack. This feat, along with its ranged combat companion in Pathfinder, Deadly Aim, allows you to take a penalty to hit to add to your damage if you do hit. At first, this may sound like it's only meant to be used against creatures with low Armor Class but plenty of hit points, such as oozes. Often Power Attack is looked at by new players as merely a gateway to the more exciting Cleave feat. After all, no one likes missing. Why would you ever want to take a penalty to hit?  It turns out that you nearly always do. In 3.5, Power Attack involves a choice. You take X off of your to-hit bonus, and add X to your damage (or double X, if using a two handed weapon). This is for all of your attacks until the start of your next turn. In Pathfinder, it is a simple on/off switch. You are either Power Atta

Sword and shield? Two swords? One big sword? A spear? A bow? Sword and dagger? It's often a topic of contentious debate which fighting style is best. In Dungeons and Dragons it's possible to offer a bit more objective analysis. In the real world, spears often reigned supreme, for their simplicity, leverage, and reach. But D&D does not do a particularly good job representing those things. Certainly there are rules for reach, for simple weapons versus martial weapons. But most fighting classes can use all of the martial weapons, and reach simply allows one to attack opponents further than 5 feet away, rather than giving the wielder the valuable first strike such a weapon would really afford. Let's say you're making a fighter in D&D 5th Edition. Which fighting style should you choose? Unlike previous editions of the game, where two-weapon fighting was rather weak (unless you were a rogue) and two-handed weapons reigned supreme, the different fighting styles are