Recent content by jayoungr

A reminder that the guidelines say 6-8 encounters, not 6-8 combats. Anything that potentially uses some limited resources (such as spell slots) can be an encounter. Also, I would bet there have been in-game days with 6-8 combats in the case of a dungeon crawl.

With the fragmentation of the market after the OGL debacle, I think you'll be seeing the number of 5E products taper off, at least somewhat.

You're not wrong. Best way around this I can think of is to make the boss inaccessible or impossible to damage until some other threat(s) has been dealt with, effectively chaining two fights together. Bonus points if the boss can damage the party while they do this.

Most of the "badwrongfun" arguments I've seen on this forum since 2014 have been complaining about 5E.

And not infrequently also inflicting the poisoned condition. I know I've run monsters like that quite recently, though admittedly I don't remember whether they came from the official MM or not.

Not sure what you mean by this. Poisons in both the 2014 and 2024 version of 5E frequently inflict the poisoned condition, which means disadvantage on attack rolls. That is no joke.

Look at it this way: it will very likely drive some tourism to the city. I know I'd make a detour to play at the memorial table, or at least stop there and take a few photos. And people who do that will also buy gas, and lunch, and maybe even stay overnight.

I suppose the effect of the "divine intervention" might be changed when the series reaches its end. But that's just speculation, and anyway, it would still be the very end of the series.

The thing is that my friend was very attached to the character who died, and the character never came back.* She didn't care about the drama of the story if it didn't include her favorite character. We all know people who get like that with their entertainment, I'm sure. * ETA: To be...

Yes, and I'm not looking forward to this. I have a friend who thinks Matt Mercer is the devil because he killed her favorite character.* (*Hyperbole for humorous effect, but seriously, she was really upset about that character death.)

It would make me feel pressure to strive for absolute perfection because even the tiniest slips are punished by losing an irreplaceable resource and there's no way to fix it. I'd find that nerve-wracking, and I'd beat myself up every time I didn't achieve a perfect session (i.e. if I lost some...

I would loathe this. I would rather not play at all than play this way. Not trying to stop anyone who likes the idea from trying it. Just throwing in my thoughts because the OP asked for reactions.

It still doesn't sound farfetched to me, but I'll accept I'm in the minority. It's all speculation anyway, since we obviously have no way of knowing what their hopes or plans are.

Mostly, I was just responding to the previous poster's suggestion that WotC didn't desire to make everyone use mats. Why wouldn't they desire it, when it would mean more money for them and solve what they have admitted is one of their biggest dilemmas? I think they probably know it's not going...

I don't, actually--mostly because I don't want to deal with the question of whether it's worse to have unhappy players or a ridiculous story. Besides, my group tends to take Leomund's Tiny Hut as soon as they can, thereby guaranteeing themselves uninterrupted long rests.