Search results

This boils down to one of those gameplay vs realism debates. I’m generally on the side of “whatever makes for better gameplay”, and this idea fits that. If you have a trap as it would likely be in reality (single use, simple, “you see it or you don’t”) that deals damage or casts a spell, the...

I typically don’t like using established settings, as I want to be the “expert” about the world. last campaign was a Star Wars game using the FCG system, and I always felt like I was the one being informed about how the universe worked (I had two players who were big SW fans). It’s not a...

I use the Bloodied condition, skill challenges, and when I design monsters, I use the 4E role methodology. When I try to design encounters, I also try to envision the “roles” that each monster will take.

Best case, they realize 4E had the best monster design, and as much as they can, revert back to that. That will never happen, so we’ll continue to have terrible encounter math, boring monster design, and a knowing wink/nod to DMs, saying “you got this, champ!” (All for the sake of “backwards...

Yeah, there's a few options (and we'll see exactly none of these in 5E 2024): roll to cast spells (turns spells from "I Win" buttons to elements of risk) everybody gets spells (the 4E way; there are no "haves" and "have nots") spells/features add content, not remove content (this is harder to...

One - Curse of Strahd - but I basically rewrote the entire back half. I don't plan on running another WOTC adventure anytime soon. (I do like the anthology adventures, though)

As a DM, that sucks. I've got two high-level groups now, and a good chunk of prep is now devoted to, "can a single spell invalidate this encounter that I've spent 15 minutes prepping"? Spellcasters just get to do what spells say; martials have to play "mother may I".

You absolutely, 100%, will see a new edition. I just cannot see a world where it's 2046, and D&D is still relevant while also using an engine designed back in 2014. Imagine being the D&D lead in 2040 and being told, "yeah so, you're actually not allowed to change anything. Just get this Curse...

I'm very much on the side of "martials should be supernatural in my superhero fantasy game", but the other side really loses me when they say, "martials can already do cool things! They can shove! And grapple! And jump!" as if that isn't something a 5-year old can do.

I get that, but for me, there's gotta be some kind of middle ground. It feels less like "breaking the wheel" and more like "quickly pave more road so the wheels don't fall off". The wagon is still the same, the road is still the same (this metaphor is really getting away from me 😂). D&D 2024...

I've said it before, but if D&D 2024 was always going to be built on 5.5, there's nothing WOTC could do to save it in my eyes. I was mildly interested with some of the more dramatic changes they were talking about, but since they've walked almost all of those back, I just can't see myself paying...

Agree on avoiding a "hard" mechanical effect. At most, if we're playing 5E, and the player wants to bend the rules, I'll ask them to spend Inspiration (I hand it out pretty liberally in my games). That way, there is still an expenditure cost. The way I see it, 5E is a resource management...

I hate magic marts. To me, the point of the game is to adventure. 5E already has a terrible economy - eventually players have so much gold that it's almost absurd. Shopping is boring - adventuring is not. IF I have any kind of Best Buy in a town, it's a shop with like three bespoke items...

They've been talkin' up that DMG a lot, but have been very sparse on details. If the "Bastion" system is the best they've got, I'm not gonna hold my breath. I'm assuming we won't get an MM playtest as I imagine it'll use the same theory behind Monsters of the Multiverse (but I hope I'm proven...

I just do the 5-room dungeon, but outdoors. Sort of. Basically, a linked set of encounters that can be adjusted with Random Encounter rolls. I still spend hours making a hex map with forests and rivers and mountains, but honestly - that's just for me, because my players don't care (outside of...

I much prefer anthology adventures, as I don't believe the current WOTC team is capable of creating long-form adventures (worth the price they ask for), least of which a high-level long-form adventure.

Sure, but my experience (and that’s all I can reference) is that the big, long, interconnected adventure is what gets my players excited.

I - as a forever DM - agree with Matt, but I've found that with my players, they generally want an Epic. Both groups have lamented shorter campaigns and adventures. My preference would be a 10-session mini campaign with a direct goal. Then we can move on to a new story, new setting, etc. My...

If it's 5E, no. If it still relies heavily on spellcasting, Long Rests, magic items, picking between ASIs or Feats, HP bloat, and CR - no.

I put 2. Generally, I'm over 5E. It had a good run, but the cracks are showing, and from I've seen, 5.5 isn't going to fix the foundational issues (and to be honest - it can't, because most of my problems are structural). I am "excited" about some balancing. To me, spells across the board...