Search results

Secondhand copies are already on eBay. That's where I got mine.

How different are the monster stat blocks? I love KP's 5E monster manuals and have considered picking up their new one on that basis. But I'm not going to switch to TOTV for regular play, so I want to know how much conversion it takes to plug a TOTV monster into a 5E (2014) game.

I don't see any reason to assume they'll be doing that. But if they were, it would be just as big a problem if the club were focusing on 5E 2024, because the vast majority of information online is still geared toward 2014. I guess the OP could mention that and advise the club members not to try...

Not to club members who are new to the game. They just show up, look at the materials provided, and pick from the options in front of them, right? They'd only become confused if they deliberately seek out the 2024 rules.

I don't see how that affects the approach one way or the other. The idea is not to overwhelm the players with the number of choices. I mean, you could offer just the 3PP options if you want to make a point, but that seems kind of like reinventing the wheel.

I'd just start with the basics (which WotC has covered) for new players.

I do think some of the extra classes could use writeups that make clearer what their distinct niche is intended to be. For example, from this list I'm fuzzy on the difference between a ranger and a warden, or a rogue and a ninja.

I'm sure your third-party material is fine, but with all the subclasses, I feel like there are already lots of options for new players. You don't want to give them choice paralysis. I'd say this is more than enough classes--no further ones needed. (And if it were me, I'd just stick to the...

College of Valor, maybe.

Any special reason you're not sticking to the official PHB classes? (Since there are only thirteen official classes, I'm assuming the other seven are third-party material.)

Are these new monsters or just reworkings of previous statblocks for TOTV?

"DM is not allowed to attack or destroy the bastion" is how the people who object are describing it.

The only complaints I've seen/heard are about the "DM is not allowed to attack or destroy the bastion" part of the rules.

I plugged it into TinEye. It appears to be an illustration by Gregory Manchess for a book called Magellan's World by Stuart Waldman. EDIT: Ninja'd by Pukunui!

Which is why the Tasha's compromise seemed perfect to me. You get suggested bonuses (in the PHB) reflecting that most goliaths are stronger than most halflings, but the floating bonus option gives official permission to the player whose concept is of a halfling that's as strong as a goliath.

It's not inaccurate. It's just an archaic use of the word, stretched a bit to accommodate a world with multiple humanoid variations.

I dunno, the Tasha's compromise seemed to be working pretty well. I'm guessing somebody internally was pushing for backgrounds to be more mechanically relevant, which is exactly the direction I didn't want them to go.

Sure you could, once Tasha's came out. (And even before that, you could either accept a 16 rather than an 18 at level 1, with another stat being bumped as compensation, or negotiate with your DM.)

Maybe edit that link into the original post?

I've definitely seen it in third-party material. It works fine.