Search results

You misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't comparing my experience to DWChancellor, nor would I as I don't know him at all. I was simply stating that I have lots of experience with RPG's and that I, nor my players, need overly simple rules to enjoy an RPG.

Agree to disagree. Background features don't have mechanics, and I'm pretty sure the PHB or another book tells us not to give them any if they make up their own. So to me they're still more how than what. The charlatan has a second identity that lets them forge documents or disguise themselves...

Correct. I see that and I can respect that direction for the game. I'm a bit more experienced when it comes to RPG's so I don't really want/need this level of simplification. And for the record, if I did play D&D again I would stick with Pathfinder 1e, maybe 2e (still undecided if I like it or...

I think we are talking about two different things. The difference is what you can do versus how you do it. In 5e, your background tells you how your character approaches other characters and how they deal with situations. Your class (and sometimes your feats) tell you what you can do in those...

I was referring to them being mechanically generic. The backgrounds in 5e are a nice addition, but they don't get used a lot in my experience because the reward for roleplaying them (inspiration) is not significant IMO. In your example, two clerics of the life domain would only have minor...

My group used to love clerics in 3.5 but not in later editions. As you said, alignment restrictions and favored weapons were just two of the cool things lost in later editions. Race made a big difference in 3.5, then you had domains to pick and then finally your spell list. 3.5 also had prestige...

Very true, but I think it still remains my favorite edition of D&D. It had a tonne of options for players and DM's but involved a good amount of bookkeeping. Some of our most memorable campaigns used 3.5. I've played 4e and 5e, and found both really boring. 5e being too simple and constrained...

As are most things in 5e.

The thing is, the RPG market "back then" was way different than it is now. Marketing and social media, as well as the internet in general have really taken the game's limited exposure from the 80's, 90's and early 2000's and thrust it into the spotlight. Back in those days the game was only as...

I agree with most of what you're saying. The original TSR settings will always have the nostalgia factor as being the original D&D settings to a lot of long time players and DM's. These new books are just not my thing. Ravnica, CR, Rick and Morty or Stranger Things (although I love R&M and ST...

Well, that's $45 saved for me. Hard pass.

There already is a warlord and psion done by reputable 3rd party publishers. Robert Schwalb did a very very good Warlord here: Call to Arms: The Warlord - Schwalb Entertainment | MAXPRESS | DriveThruRPG.com and the psion was done a long time ago by these guys: Arcanis 5E Campaign Setting -...

Yeah it's the Year Zero game engine. Most people like it, but for some it rubs them the wrong way. I like the looks of it but I can foresee certain players of mine not liking some of the mechanics.

Bad trailer, very bad.

Wake me up when they finally get around to doing Dark Sun.

I was just going to post that. Seems like a natural fit for the whole wasteland exploration style game. 2d20 never struck me as being very good. Conan is awesome and all but I doubt I would run it with 2d20.

How do you drop the same ball twice? Ask WotC!

I got both their Dark Sun maps on vinyl. Really awesome quality, but yeah, not cheap at all.

I don't even use minis and these look cool.

Wow, you're right!