Recent content by MrGrenadine

I only run D&D, (currently running games with both 2014 and 2024 rules), and even with new editions I never have the issue of not liking the system -- I just keep changing the rules and the way we play until it feels better. I also like running long campaigns, of a year or more at a time --...

Right now I'm playing both 2014 and 2024 5e. I've been playing D&D since the early 80's, and have all my rule books and supplements going back to to 1st edition, as well as various box sets going back that far, too. Not everything, but a lot. Which is to say, I can't seem to NOT buy the latest...

I was trying to do a "getting vibrational feedback from the environment" thing. Its clumsy but it helped me set things up so the character could start with a little deficit and then scale to be more bad-ass, which felt fun.

I agree that it would be amazing to see more disabled PCs in games, and encourage it in my games, but I honestly struggle with the game-balance of it all. I think its fair to acknowledge the deficit of a disability honestly -- in this case, the PC can't read text, read expressions, see colors...

That's a great freakin' point. I guess they can see invisible creatures! But -- they can only see invisible corporeal creatures within 30' at level 1, and also they can't "see" incorporeal creatures, which the sighted party members can. So that kind of makes sense and seems fair to me.

I wasn't planning on picking up Daggerheart, but I'd love to read their take on that.

I love the idea of simplifying the feat, and Expertise with Perception is a better idea than Advantage! Thanks for that. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to DM a character at level 1 that could "see" invisible creatures or hidden creatures. That feels like too much of a bonus, when compared...

That's great context -- I need to read up on the Boon Feats. Maybe it should be a chain of feats?

Reaching out to the Brain Trust for feedback -- One of the players in my home game created a blind monk character, (we're playing 2024 5e), and though I liked some of the ideas out there on how to do it, they didn't quite hit the mark, so I created this Origin Feat for them. We're a few...

To those of you in the know about how AI actually functions — If WotC creates an AI program to scrape every previously written adventure and then create something new from it, wouldn’t the new adventure just be a pastiche of those thousands of pages? Even with the added instruction to “create...

This is why I love this game. It's so interesting and fun to see how other folks play. I prefer species that have specific +'s and even -'s to Ability scores -- which along with their soft skills and other features makes them feel distinctive to me -- as long as I can choose whatever class I...

I selected them all, because I'm interested. And if the OGL situation isn't worked out fairly, I will purchase exactly zero.

But nothing in the OGL is WotC’s IP! It‘s not a novel. Even if I published a word for word copy of the OGL and sold it—none of that text is WotC’s, and it’s perfectly legal.

As does the argument that hate speech is running so rampant in gaming that we need WotC to swoop in and save us all.

Just wondering — what are basing this assertion on? Is there a legal precedent? Because it doesn’t make sense to me that it’s legal to use one thing from the OGL but if you use many things, it stops being legal.