Recent content by pawsplay

D&D is about the aesthetics. There are plenty of other games out there worth playing. If it's D&D, I expect it to stick pretty closely to existing aesthetics and lore, or make a conscious break for specific reasons. "It's a new edition, who cares?" has always frustrated me.

To me that's a big sticking point, because it suggests the different goliath types don't interbreed, which is exactly the sort of thing I thought they were moving away from.

Can Zeus make Morain a halfling thief of middling experience? Depending on the cosmology, probably "no" or "Yes, if he got the drop on him." But in no case would I allow that as a Wish. If you Wish that in my game, some halfling out there somewhere, who is a middling thief, now happens to be...

That's exactly what that says. Altering reality, to "almost anything." I don't understand your confusion. Let me ask you this: is "I wish Moradin was a halfling thief of middling experience?" a valid Wish?

It has a lot of limits. In AD&D, the limit was, "More likely to kill you or trap you in time than to actually be useful." In 5e, the limit is, if it it exceed the power of a normal spell or certain very specific things, it might not work as expected, and can burn out your ability to cast it...

Well, it's cast by mortals. So explain yourself, please?

That just changes the question from, "Can Wish move an impossibly large celestial body?" to "Can Wish change the divine order?" or "Given a running start, could a raging Barbarian kick the moon out of orbit?" In D&D, as I know it, the answer to all three of those things is "definitely not."...

Well, can a wish spell shorten the length of a year in your world by a couple of days? Basically the same question.

For instance, the only time I have ever seen a bec de corbin in play was when I was playing one of the Gold Box games, and it was the first +1 weapon available. It just doesn't have a purpose in play, despite being a popular and functional weapon in history. Contrast to, say, "Can my lucerne...

For a good bit of D&D's history, "sword" (or perhaps "sword, normal") did a lot of work. AD&D gave us the long sword, broadsword, and scimitar, but not a lot of fine distinctions outside the realm of polearms. It was 3e that introduced inaccurately described longswords, bastard swords, and...

I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that looks like, fictionally. A really good longsword is a really good longsword. And D&D doesn't lend itself to the fineness of distinctions of, say, GURPS, which already is too granular to represent a lot of the reasons people have historically...

Pathfinder 2e introduced the striking rune, which is a ham-fisted but seamless way to scale damage at higher levels.

Or you could say the ambiguity caused a question, a potentially interesting one. Really rigid and specific effects don't always avoid arguments, either; you ever talk about what happens when you open a Bag of Holding in a lake in 5e?

That's not going to be much of an argument... the DM is right.

While I6 appeared in 1983, the D&D Companion Set was right on its heels in 1984 with manscorpion clerics. The 1978 Monster Manual also had the lich, and AD& had dwarf clerics who hence classed monsters; PC dwarfs were barred, in fact.