Search results

Maybe. I've been trying to use the Compendium at the table and it's gone pretty well. I'm heading towards burnout on something, and I need to decide whether it's D&D, in general, or just published adventures. I suspect the latter, so I'm likely to pick up the core three books during the initial...

I'm going with: it depends. Overall, no. I prefer a player deterministic approach to the point where I'm really not even thrilled about racial modifiers, let alone floors and ceilings. If you envision dwarves as being super strong, then spend your points on strength. If you want to play a puny...

I'm going to assume you're right, on this, because nothing else makes even marginal sense. To that I say, "3E is not the old days". It was, at best, the beginning of the modern era of D&D. On to the OP's article, though: If I understand correctly, the assertion is that having the fighters...

It's a flat cost for the books/compendium. The subscription is for the interactive features -- basically, just sharing your content with your players, right now, but will grow to include a proper campaign manager and an initiative tracker.

I assume you mean the "gargled peanut butter" quip. Not being a Realms player, I'd never run across the name "Xanathar" before the book was formally announced. I still have a hard time remembering the actual name of the book. I'm sure it'll eventually sink in, but it's not exactly "Volo" in...

That's how I read it. Surprising, though. I would have expected something more like SCAG. Also, I still hate the name "Xanathar". The format may or may not be better for Eberron (for example) than SCAG, but any comparison to the "book of gargled peanut butter" gets a negative reaction, from me.

The "experience" is a double-edged sword for the FLGS. Even the nicest stores I've visited have a vaguely Cheeto and Mountain Dew atmosphere. The owners/employees are often super nice, but don't always appear "professional". I don't necessarily want a guy in a tie to sell me my D&D books, but...

Right. My comment was that I would have expected most folks who didn't move on to be playing Pathfinder, rather than to still be playing 3.5. It's not that I'm at all surprised there's some flavor of d20 outperforming 4E (quite the opposite). It's that I'm surprised both 3.5 and Pathfinder are...

Yes, but there's the underlying question about whether adding giant space hamsters fundamentally changes the context in which D&D exists as D&D. ;)

I can totally appreciate where you're coming from. D&D can stretch, but, at a certain point, it breaks. I would never try to use the PHB to do a modern game. I'm not sure I'd even want to try to use the core mechanics for a modern game, even with new classes (d20 Modern just never "worked" for...

I think you could probably do enough sub-classes to add enough variation, including bonus spells. It might not be ideal, though, and I'm totally sympathetic to folks who want something more meaty. I've always used psionics as an excuse for "mutant powers" and haven't been overly invested in any...

Really, the core idea (self-powered) and mechanics (sans VSM components) for Sorcerer fit pretty well for most psionics -- a lot better than the Mystic class that seems to be taking up the mantle in 5E. If you created a new subclass or three (telepath, kineticist, shaper) and banned most of the...

I'd say "a setting should refine the game, not just add more stuff". One of the first things you have to teach kids in art class -- or authors in writing class -- is that more is not always better. Sometimes, the picture is better without showing the sun. Sometimes (most of the time) you don't...

Two data points I find incredibly interesting about that: 1) D&D 3.5 is out-performing D&D 4E. I would have expected most 3.5 fans to have moved to PFRPG, by now. 2) Savage Worlds is the third most popular system. Not to knock it (it actually looks like a great system), but I would have expected...

Yeah. That's what I was afraid of (I was mobile when I first commented and couldn't really watch the video). Not exactly how I'd like to see the idea of "Greyhawk" used. It's a different style of play than the Realms, yes, but not because of mechanics. It's just a different setting.

Yeah. That's what I was afraid of (I was mobile when I first commented and couldn't really watch the video). Not exactly how I'd like to see the idea of "Greyhawk" used. It's a different style of play than the Realms, yes, but not because of mechanics. It's just a different setting.

I need to read over it. I'm interested in seeing how it works, but it looks a bit fiddly. My biggest question is what the heck does this have to do with Greyhawk? That association makes me concerned with any other "Greyhawk variants" that Mearls may post.

I need to read over it. I'm interested in seeing how it works, but it looks a bit fiddly. My biggest question is what the heck does this have to do with Greyhawk? That association makes me concerned with any other "Greyhawk variants" that Mearls may post.

I'm a cat person, in the traditional sense. I'm open to cat races, and have played them, but it's not a particular hot button. I dislike Tabaxi because I don't like the name. Statistically, they could be the Platonic ideal of an anthropomorphic cat and I wouldn't be inclined to use them. Sorry.

Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize whatever they want, regardless of facts. Just look at climate change: Believers will show various scientific models and cannot fathom why anyone would argue. Deniers will point out there are email leaks and other evidence of doctoring the data as...