• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D General Dmg previews up


log in or register to remove this ad

As a DM I a have a different view: more power to the PCs. That just let's me make more dastardly villians! ;)
That's a problem in 5e however, The details of why a rabbit hole where I point out why adding that power is a problem & after many many posts you eventually start mentioning the extensive house rules you have in place to mitigate or avoid those problems as you did earlier when you mentioned gold to train for leveling up after a back & forth with someone else.
 

That's the thing... IF they did so AND those changes are in service of the GM's needs rather than the desires of players who want more power then they should have been excited to talk at length about them and give previews of the text similar to the kinds they made for the phb. Instead we got Krenek gushing with excitement about using them as a player with some new PC and Perkins reminding him of all the things not asked or talked about. I'd love for them to be more than busy work to justify busy work & "MOAR POWAH!", but the threadbare reveal in a video supposedly showcasing it is concerning in ways that do not fill those sails with hope.
I wouldn't expect them to go into detail about what's changed from a set of playtest rules that only a small portion of their audience will be familiar with. And in most of their preview videos they're very careful about how much text they show.
 

I wouldn't expect them to go into detail about what's changed from a set of playtest rules that only a small portion of their audience will be familiar with.
They made a second video for bastions & it's almost exclusively player focused. The only time the GM really even comes up is to talk about them being off limits to the GM. There is an ocean between that and "detail about what's changed from a set of playtest rules that only a small portion of their audience will be familiar with."
 

They made a second video for bastions & it's almost exclusively player focused. The only time the GM really even comes up is to talk about them being off limits to the GM. There is an ocean between that and "detail about what's changed from a set of playtest rules that only a small portion of their audience will be familiar with."
And your complaint, that I quoted, was that they didn't enthusiastically talk about what they'd changed or provide extensive text previews. That is what I responded to.
 




My complaint about the old bastion system was that the system seemed like an insane amount of bookkeeping and was clearly designed as a "mini-game" with very little relevance to the in-game fiction of establishing a stronghold.

Speaking as a DM, I don't much care either way. Speaking as a player, I love the idea of establishing a stronghold, but I have no interest in playing the Bastion mini-game, unless it has changed dramatically since the playtest... which it sounds like it hasn't.
 

That's a problem in 5e however, The details of why a rabbit hole where I point out why adding that power is a problem & after many many posts you eventually start mentioning the extensive house rules you have in place to mitigate or avoid those problems as you did earlier when you mentioned gold to train for leveling up after a back & forth with someone else.
That is not a problem in 5e. 5e is wonderful for house rules. We wouldn't play it, or any RPG, without them.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top