View Profile: Bacon Bits - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Today, 02:16 AM
    Extremely well made map, but I'm not sure if I would use it for Zendikar. The problem with a map of Zendikar is that the Roil tends to change the landscape. That makes maps of limited use in general.
    7 replies | 5309 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 09:31 PM
    I think that's pretty safe to say. Though I still think it's likely that anyone who insists on neologisms for pronouns (ze/xe/ey/etc.) is likely to be disappointed. Simply put, I don't think that such language will be used often enough by a wide enough range of people to become accepted, and part of the the entire purpose of pronouns is to be able to refer to an anonymous or unfamiliar person....
    1012 replies | 72055 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 01:02 AM
    I think 1-2 sessions at level 1 and 2 is great. At level 3-4, I like 2-3 sessions. At levels 5-10, I like 5-8 sessions. At levels 11+ I like 3-4 sessions (usually because the campaign is in wrap-up mode).
    45 replies | 1852 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 09:50 AM
    The current rule on Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB p195) is this: Throw that out and replace it with: Next, throw out the weapon drawing rule that restricts you to one drawn weapon, and replace it with, "A character can freely draw any number of readily accessible weapons, within reason." I'm sorry, but drawing a dagger from a belt or bandoleer is not more complicated than drawing an...
    232 replies | 10039 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 09:26 AM
    Me, either. Granted, I have not met many linguists. Most, however, are more fascinated with semantics and meaning than syntax and grammar. Eh, kind of. Many languages have language regulators or academies that proscribe the language with varying levels of authority. English is somewhat notable for being so widely spoken and not having any language regulator at all. And dictionaries do...
    1012 replies | 72055 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 03:24 PM
    "OK"? I think you mean "okay".
    1012 replies | 72055 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bacon Bits's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 02:58 PM
    I know you're just being hyperbolic, but Spare the Dying is truly awful. Not only can it be replaced with a skill check (with a chance of failure, but still), not only is it only useful when other characters are dying, the real kicker is that for 5 gp you can buy a Healer's Kit, which contains 10 potions of Spare the Dying. Light at least replaces an ongoing cost, and torches have the problem...
    132 replies | 65474 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
M:tG Zendikar World Map Today 02:16 AM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:16 AM
Join Date
Monday, 21st July, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
My Game Details

Monday, 15th July, 2019

Monday, 1st July, 2019

Sunday, 30th June, 2019

Tuesday, 20th February, 2018

  • 02:06 AM - hbarsquared mentioned Bacon Bits in post House ruling exhaustion
    Bacon Bits makes some good points. It's always good to take a second look at one's reasoning when trying to house rule a house rule... I really like the idea of playing around more with exhaustion - it's a neat, customizable mechanic - but it complicates the resource management of players. It directly leads to it becoming an expendable daily "resource" and can easily contribute to the 5-minute-workday. Associating exhaustion with "reduced to zero hit points" is a good idea, but its recovery should be completely disassociated from "remove one level after a long rest." I think this would be the only approach to prevent the overuse of long rests. Perhaps it takes one full day of recovery to remove exhaustion, instead of simply a long rest? Maybe two long rests, or one week? Perhaps it requires a Medicine check to reduce the time by one day? Something like that.

Thursday, 7th December, 2017

  • 02:23 PM - Ilbranteloth mentioned Bacon Bits in post Drop bow and unsheathe sword: still get to attack?
    What megagaming do you see as a result? I'd agree with Bacon Bits. The metagaming he's talking about is a question as to whether you're focusing on the action in the game, or the rules of the game. We prefer to focus almost entirely on the action, rather than the rules. So if somebody wants to drop their bow and draw a sword in the same movement, it's really a question of whether it makes sense within the present action as to whether we say yes or no. The opposite is a "let's check the rules" approach, which draws you out of the game and into interacting/engaging the rules. If you adjudicate the action based on the action, then you don't have to think about the rules much. For example, in our game, does the current action/situation warrant advantage/disadvantage, or an opportunity attack? If not, you just continue with your normal attack and damage rolls, which require very little interaction with the rules. On the other hand, 3.5e and 4e had all sorts of combinations, actions, and circumstances that would allow bonuses or penalties to hit, etc. ...

Monday, 4th December, 2017

  • 06:05 PM - Tormyr mentioned Bacon Bits in post Xanathar's and Counterspell
    I am one of the people who likes where they were trying to go with identifying a spell but do not like the implementation from a game mechanics or play perspective. When it comes down to it, counterspell is a limited resource that must be used judiciously. You burn your 9th-level spell slot when the BBEG tries to teleport away. You do not use counterspell at all when your opponent is casting prestidigitation. Previously, I imagine "most" groups would have said something like "I cast fireball at 5th-level." "I cast counterspell. My check is enough to stop it.", or they had a house-rule about hiding spells. This rule introduces a disconnect between player/DM knowledge and character knowledge that can be dealt with in a few ways, and I do not like any of the ones I have seen so far. 1. Hide the spell being cast so the player/DM is as in the dark as the creature: As has been noted, there can be distrust added about what someone was really going to cast and whether that changes based on the enemy de...

Sunday, 3rd December, 2017

  • 09:43 PM - Tormyr mentioned Bacon Bits in post Xanathar's Guide: How does identifying a spell + Counterspell work?
    I finally just went with allowing anybody to recognize a spell they have seen before. So new spells can catch creatures by surprise once. Anyone can use a reaction to identify a new spell, and those who have counterspell can use it as part of the reaction. I have a similar issue to what @Bacon Bits brought up in one of the feats I am putting together for War of the Burning Sky: Spellduelist Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell. Thanks to extensive practice with dueling other spellcasters, you gain the following benefits: * You can pretend to cast a spell as a bonus action. The spell must be on your spell list, and any onlooker who would use a reaction to you casting a spell - such as by attempting to counterspell, taking an attack of opportunity, or performing a readied action - must make a Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check to realize the deception, or their reaction is used upon a failure as if you had actually cast the spell. Opportunity attacks and readied actions are taken, and the reaction for counterspell is used but the spell slot is not as there is not a valid target. You have advantage on the Charisma (Deception) check. You cannot cast any other spell on this turn other than the spell you were pretending to cast or a ...

Wednesday, 15th November, 2017

  • 04:29 AM - Nevvur mentioned Bacon Bits in post Where did the 6-8 encounter standard come from?
    Bacon Bits You wrote about feeling dismissed and patronized because some people state they don't share the problem. It certainly wasn't my intent to disparage anyone, sorry if I came off that way. I agree with the bulk of your post, particularly arguing about rests. It's come up only once in the game where I'm a player, and yeah it was a little frustrating, but our DM generally paces things out pretty nicely. Anyway, like yourself, I want 2-4 encounters per adventuring day, but I think we perceive the problem from different angles. You want to modify the rest mechanics to make the game right for you. If I were inclined to modify a system, it would be the class features themselves. That's why I called them out on page 4. Which is easier? Well, if you adjust the rest mechanics you're affecting all the classes in one way or another. Maybe it makes the short resters stronger and the long resters compartively less so. If you adjust the classes, you only have to adjust the classes in your cur...

Thursday, 19th October, 2017

  • 04:54 PM - ro mentioned Bacon Bits in post Feats - Improved!
    Another thread (@Xeviat, @jaelis, @Satyrn, @Bacon Bits, @FrogReaver) has sprung up talking about Healer and some others feats. There is some mention that Healer is too strong at low levels, but also not frequently used in game, and certainly not in combat. How can we balance it to make it more interesting, but not overpowered? Healer You are an able physician, allowing you to mend wounds quickly and get your allies back in the fight. You gain the following benefits: - When you use a healer’s kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point. - As an action, you can spend one use of a healer’s kit to tend to a creature and restore hit points equal to the creature’s maximum number of Hit Dice. (Removed 1d6 + 4.) The creature may also immediately spend one Hit Die to restore hit points as during a short rest. The creature can’t regain hit points from this ability again until it finishes a short or long rest. - When you restore a creature's hit points or remove a condition or disease, make a DC 15 Wisdom (Medici...

Thursday, 7th September, 2017

  • 06:49 AM - Saeviomagy mentioned Bacon Bits in post House Rule for Subdual, is it fair?
    ...f the time, subduing an enemy is a serious inconvenience. Granted, if you happen to fight someone that you need to interrogate that's one thing, but how often does that happen? Killing the enemy is typically much more convenient because you don't have to worry about what to do with them afterwards. It's one thing to kill someone in the heat of battle while they're trying to kill you, but most people would say that it is a very different thing altogether to kill that same guy once you have him helpless and at your mercy. Right - so with the rules as-is, killing foes is done out of convenience. At that point, are your protagonists heroes in any meaning of the word? Subduing the enemy leads to something I very much like to encourage. Namely, role playing! Conversely, if you penalize subdual attacks then IMO you are prompting your players to be murderhobos. No, that's caused by prisoners being nothing but an inconvenience, and leaving living foes a ticket to revenge plots, like Bacon Bits suggests. Oh, and using the rules from the DMG for any downtime activities. If you don't want murderhobos, make murder a bad thing, make building and maintaining a home a good thing and make your goons real people instead of cardboard cutouts.

Wednesday, 23rd August, 2017

  • 05:35 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Bacon Bits in post Crazy idea: 2nd ed multiclassing in 5e
    ...ed to humans, which began to reach absurd levels with UA (esp. drow, deep gnomes, and the like). In order to "make up" for that, they were also given arbitrary caps, such as level limits or (in the case of elves) restrictions on resurrection. Which were either enforced, making them difficult to choose for long campaigns that would go into high-level play, or were ignored which meant that demi-humans were an obvious choice. 3. Gatekeeping. This is probably the strangest one in retrospect. More often than not, there were arbitrary restrictions on classes and abilities, which meant that in order to be super awesome .... you already had to be really awesome. Yeah, I know. Everything from optional psionics to ability minimums for the "better" subclasses meant that if you wanted the best abilities, you already had to have, um, the best abilities. Anyway, moving to the OP, I wouldn't run that system. I think that MCing is just too fundamentally different in 5e, although something like what Bacon Bits proposed might work (note that this is substantially less than the "one less level" than you proposed). My usual rule of thumb for proposal is the "crazy rule," as in, "Would a player have to be crazy to turn this down?" And my answer to your initial proposal is yes- it is insanely overpowered.

Thursday, 27th July, 2017

  • 09:33 PM - GuyLomBard-O mentioned Bacon Bits in post Blade Ward cantrip
    @Bacon Bits: I know this cantrip isn't fantastic, but it seems like a combination of Blade Ward, Fire Shield, and Spiritual Weapon can keep my 14th-level Valor Bard upright and alive, without sacrificing his sole concentration-spell, when cornered or trapped by one of the melee-murder classes (Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian). Maybe possibly even make the melee attacker regret his decision? Con Resilience Feat and damage resistance means the Bard might even be able to keep his battlefield-control concentration spells functional during the assault. Admittedly, that's a whole lot of spell slots to use up on self-defense. Running is obviously far superior, if possible. But some of those barbarians are just so darn FAST! By the way, I really like your idea of the bonus Dodge that round. A nice, measured improvement, without being crazy OP.

Monday, 24th July, 2017

  • 09:59 AM - Quickleaf mentioned Bacon Bits in post Buffing the Champion Fighter
    Xeviat thanks for starting this discussion - lots of interesting points of view! Bacon Bits I appreciated your actual play report of a champion fighter you ran though 16th level. Very insightful. Sacrosanct I think I'm close to "target audience" for the champion fighter – I like simple design & the feel of a classic fighter – but even with my old school aesthetics, I find it... uninspiring. I'm going to come at this from a different direction. Some of my fondest memories of D&D were of friend J. playing a fighter in AD&D2e and just coming up with all sorts of wild ideas based on knowledge of a whole range of topics (he was a SCA guy and very crafty and well-educated). Very little of the awesome stuff had to do with the game system...maybe the "multiple attacks against hordes" played into a few did the Planewalker Fighter kit IIRC... but most of the cool stuff happened in spite of his fighter being kind of mediocre compared to the wizard. What stood out to me was how we embraced creativity. It's true I also embraced creativity for the wizard player...but...

Wednesday, 26th April, 2017

  • 05:22 PM - OB1 mentioned Bacon Bits in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    Bacon Bits Why aren't suggestions for altering playstyle just as valid as suggestions for altering the feat? No one is saying you have to do either, but by making those types of suggestions someone may be exposed to a new idea to make their game better. Nerfing can happen by changing the feat or changing the the game the feat is in. I'd say there are plenty of examples of both of these in this thread, with dozens of good choices for how to change the feat directly and a few for how to change your game.

Tuesday, 18th April, 2017

  • 10:10 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Bacon Bits in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    Wow, really? My post was the first claim on the subject and others are simply showing me where I'm wrong? No, I don't think you have the right of it. I'd just like to point out that this is yet another occurrence where a poster tries to steer away the discussion from the matter at hand, and onto personal issues where it becomes impossible to tell right from wrong. I wouldn't bite if I were you Bacon Bits. My advice is that whenever the discussion suddenly focuses on "me" and "you", it's time to get back on track.

Monday, 28th March, 2016

  • 08:15 PM - pemerton mentioned Bacon Bits in post Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E
    Bacon Bits, in my view notes for a skill challenge in a published module have to be treated in the same way as the tactical notes for a combat encounter: they are guidelines to help a GM who is otherwise unsure about how to adjudicate the fiction. The basic instructions in the DMG (p 74) are that "You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results." The idea of narrating results is elaborate upon in the DMG2 (p 83): "Each skill check in a challenge should . . . ntroduce a new option . . . change the situation . . . [or] grant the players a tangible consequence". (Some people take the view that the DMG2 was a correction or alteration. To me, it was clear what "narrating the results" meant before the DMG2 was published, perhaps because I was familiar with the skill challenge idea from other, earlier RPGs with similar mechanical systems.) I don't doubt that a table where skill challenges are run just as a series of rolls,...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 04:50 AM - robus quoted Bacon Bits in post M:tG Zendikar World Map
    Extremely well made map, but I'm not sure if I would use it for Zendikar. The problem with a map of Zendikar is that the Roil tends to change the landscape. That makes maps of limited use in general. I don’t believe the roil is some continuous thing? And I thought the swirliness of the continents gave the impression of a roiled world. :) but no worries.

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 09:22 AM - CapnZapp quoted Bacon Bits in post XP for gold 5th Edition campaign
    I can see it being fun for a specific campaign, or even for one or two adventures in a campaign, but I think that it wouldn't work well a lot of the time. Absolutely. It is a specialized campaign style, not a suggestion to replace the default rewards chapter of the DMG :eek: :cool: As for your individual points, a comment or five: My only criticisms are: 1. I makes magic items readily accessible by claiming that losing XP makes up for increased power. That argument didn't work at all in 3.x, and I don't see why that should change. Given that a +1 weapon is essentially equivalent to four experience levels (the number of levels required to get +2 to an attribute) I find that argument difficult to sustain. 2. It discourages altruistic PCs. Even if you allow tithes and donations to substitute for carousing, character advancement is driven by the accumulation of wealth. This style wouldn't work if, for example, you were trying to run a campaign modeled after Lord of the Rings or Star W...

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 09:49 PM - Gradine quoted Bacon Bits in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    I also think it's a little overzealous or excessive to be outraged or insulted that a stranger misgenders you. I totally get why people who have less accepted gender identities get upset due to the social problems they face and personal struggles they've had, but it seems to me to be not far removed from getting someone's nationality or race wrong. That's an awfully presumptuous stance to take. In case anyone was wondering, getting mis-gendered hurts. A lot. I cannot even begin to explain how much it sucks to have a sense of self that is still so commonly unaccepted and denied in the world. Until and unless you can experience that I would highly recommend avoiding making presumptions on how one ought to react to situations the impact of which you haven't the foggiest idea about. You're right in that 99% of the time it's an innocent or honest mistake; people I know and respect still get it wrong from time to time. It happens. Of course, 99% of trans folx understand that that's part...
  • 06:14 AM - S'mon quoted Bacon Bits in post 5e recommended 2.5 sessions/level rate
    I think 1-2 sessions at level 1 and 2 is great. At level 3-4, I like 2-3 sessions. At levels 5-10, I like 5-8 sessions. At levels 11+ I like 3-4 sessions (usually because the campaign is in wrap-up mode). When I use the 5e XP system that's about the rate I see, eg that was the rate in my Runelords game when it was tabletop.

Saturday, 29th June, 2019

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019

  • 10:40 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Bacon Bits in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    However, you obviously can't pick a set of spells after the scenario has been revealed. That's just using knowledge you wouldn't possibly have. I mean, given the above scenario, I'd take a Ranger with Horde Breaker and Whirlwind Attack over a Fighter, but that doesn't mean it'd be a fair comparison.You only need a long rest to change your prepared spells - that significantly less foreknowledge than might be implied in choosing feats, features, sub-class & class (a build-at-level really).
  • 06:46 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Bacon Bits in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    The ones in the example begin adjacent to the Fighter and new ones spawn immediately. Movement isn't considered The fighter is pure melee, so movement isn't relevant, the fight starts when the two sides come to grips, and, movement being what it is in 5e, that means the fighter will be surrounded from the first round of actual fighting until he whittles 'em down to less than 8. New opponents don't 'spawn' they just step into the spaces opened up by their allies dropping. Were the fighter more of a Conan, he'd be standing on a pile of bodies. ;) If the fighter were a capable archer, movement & starting distance are suddenly relevant - if the 1st level fighters are all archers, too, suddenly, it being an open field, it's not again. ;) Simple DPR calculations are simple, and require simple premises & situations.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 09:53 PM - Morrus quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0 A fairly widespread indicator of sarcasm in text. I've mostly seen it on Reddit, but I've also seen it on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. I suppose traditional forums usually use ;), though. Either way, a concession to Poe's Law is usually a good idea. I my case, I just skipped a middle section of the thread. I read the first 20 or so posts originally, and when I returned I read from my response (linked above) onwards. In what I read has really said the math was "hard" or "easy", but nobody really explained why. So I assumed you were serious. I work better deadpan.
  • 08:50 PM - Morrus quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    You forgot the /s then. And now it’s my turn! What is an /s?
  • 08:17 PM - Morrus quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    That was a significant portion of my post. Yep. That was the joke. It was a significant part of lots of peoples’ posts. :)

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 02:07 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    The real problem with THAC0 is that the "easy" mode formula of die roll + AC >= THAC0 conflicts with player nature. When players roll an attack die, every player -- and I do mean every player -- wants to know "What AC did I hit?" That's the question they always pose. It's one of the most common questions asked at the AD&D table. Players can't measure in their performance *against the other PCs and NPCs* without doing that step. This sounds like it might be a shock to you, but no, lots of players couldn't care less how much their PC did in power compared to the other players. Most people I gamed with since the early 80s had the idea that the game was a team sport, and who cares if Bob did 1 or 2 more damage per round as long as I had fun with my PC. And no one asked, "What AC did I hit" because you knew what AC you hit as soon as you rolled. That's what THAC0 is, literally. You roll your attack dice, and subtract the result from what your THAC0 is. That simple. If my THAC0 was 18, and ...
  • 01:32 AM - Voadam quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    THAC0, in it's "easy" mode, seeks to obscure that information from the player by design. Gygax assumed the player would never know their THAC0. That's why the charts were in the DMG. Gygax assumed only the DM would determine the outcome of an attack because the DM would be in total control of everything. I think this is a good point. I remember trying to do that as a DM, to have the player roll and know that rolling high is better and that they have some bonuses and that some classes are better than others, but I as the DM would handle the specifics and they could focus on the experience and not worry about the mechanical numbers. In essence I would be most of the computer handling the mechanics behind the scenes and they could have more of a narrative experience. But that is a big pain to handle as a DM. Also many people are both players and DMs so they can legitimately see the stuff in the DMG so the pure player experience is an obvious myth, many players know the mechanics. Then t...
  • 01:31 AM - Charlaquin quoted Bacon Bits in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Why would you know your target number before you roll with THAC0? Is the DM telling you your opponent's AC? No, it's not just as complex as the current method. It's only the same complexity when you already know the target's AC. Since AC varies between targets and is typically a secret number until the players manage to work it out, THAC0 is not less complex. You know, I think I may have discovered the key factor in whether or not someone liked THAC0.

Friday, 31st May, 2019

  • 12:23 AM - Charlaquin quoted Bacon Bits in post Removing Hit Points from the Game
    I don't agree that that is counter-intuitive. Or maybe it is counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it inherently bad. Enemies should get more dangerous as you gain levels. Reducing hit point gains at higher levels makes combat against higher level enemies much more risky, which, IMO, is how high level play should feel. Yes, when facing off with giants or trolls or orcs, high level characters should feel powerful. But facing high level challenges should not feel just as risky as it facing lower level challenges did. You have to play smarter and get luckier against higher powered opponents. Compare it to an MMO (well, early or vanilla WoW at least). At low level, you can accomplish almost anything by yourself. You might need to group up to face an elite mob or small dungeon, but you're pretty good at what you do. By the end game, however, you struggle to do anything by yourself. Even the most basic quests seem to require a group, and the real threatening challenges? They require a raid of ...

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 10:46 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Bacon Bits in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    I have a lot of nostalgia for 1e/2e AD&D, basic D&D and OD&D. Out of all the rules, there's only one that keeps me from playing it ever again: Descending armor class. Everything else I can deal with. I'm never going to put up with the attack roll -- the most basic roll in the entire game -- being even slightly more complicated than it is in 3e+. I don't care if the DM is willing to completely handle the charts or run THAC0. It's not happening. We made these little custom blocks where you would write in the AC you would hit based on what showed up on the d20, so there was no math involved, but your point is completely valid nonetheless haha.

Thursday, 23rd May, 2019

Tuesday, 7th May, 2019

  • 03:34 AM - TarionzCousin quoted Bacon Bits in post How rare is this weapon in our campaign?
    Ah, yes, the same edition that says someone with a dagger has better initiative than someone with a polearm. Because if there's one thing a dagger lets you do against someone with a halberd, it's attack them first. What's reach?Yes, exactly. That's the one! :cool: Which is why my group instituted House Rules™ for polearms--until one guy equipped his PC with the dread Pike-Whip combo: attack first, then disarm with the whip and use your enemy's weapon against him. It worked extremely well until he came up against five bandits all using the same pike-whip combo. At that exact moment, it was "unfair" and the polearm houserule was temporarily ignored until it could be "fixed." B-) Ah, good times.

Thursday, 2nd May, 2019

  • 12:38 PM - gyor quoted Bacon Bits in post Kara-Tur vs Rokugan
    The big problem with Rokugan is that it's... over. Rokugan, and indeed all of L5R, was extremely compelling when the original story was running. However, the Clan War timeline ended, and the new lore has completely different dynamics and it just isn't as fun. It's the same problem NWOD had. All the lore and depth of the setting got thrown out to sell more books, and the new lore didn't have the same magic. Sure, they can roll the setting back, but even if they put it at the end of the original timeline, it's fundamentally changed. It's the core problem with any living setting. It can really only be played once. IMO Chronicles of Darkness 2e is a huge improvement over 1e, and the lore is a lot deeper and better put together.

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 10:22 PM - ParanoydStyle quoted Bacon Bits in post Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?
    I was not completely honest and accurate in how I framed the question, I suppose. What I really meant to ask was "Does the D&D5E ENGINE require Sub-Classes to work or can it get by on just classes?" which would have culled out a lot of less-than-relevant references to D&D specifics and even the D&D specific meta. But then again if I'd asked what I'd actually meant I feel like it'd have been inviting a bombardment of "well I dunno, how are you hacking it?" which wasn't a conversation I was looking to have here and now in this poll. (For what it's worth, in what I'm working on each of the seven playable races also has a 20-level progression, which to my thinking makes sub-classes less necessary.) Anyway regardless I want to thank you all for your opinions, they're educational. Ranger is ridiculously awful without a subclass because it loses all of it's damage output except for Fighting Style and Hunter's Mark. That's one of the reasons why Beastmaster is so awful; it adds the pet without add...

Wednesday, 20th March, 2019

  • 05:03 AM - dnd4vr quoted Bacon Bits in post Shield Master POLL: Rules as Fun!
    Sure, Crawford says that wasn't the intent and some later tweets avoid answering at all, but when Crawford uses the "I" word, you pretty much know that the RAW support the more absurd reading. That is, of course, why a flat strict RAW reading is a bad idea in general. I agree a lot with you on JC's answers to some of the tweets I've read. He is purposefully ambiguous often times and challenges the question with one of his own instead of just giving a ruling. Honestly, even though a lot of players might not like my responses, I wish I could answer for him--at least then you would get a straight response all the time!

Page 1 of 26 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Bacon Bits's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites