Search results

I don't think so. Important in the sense that the check is likely to have a meaningful impact on the game. The dc has nothing to do with it because those checks can also be context relevant "see how well the PC succeeds at this check or badly they fail at that one. It's no secret that some...

I see the trouble.... you are too limited in your thinking when it comes to the lack of a bar with 5e resting mechanics. It's not just the number of rests classes designed to maximize 5mwd style nova->SR->repeat where the rules as written are stacked against the GM pushing back against excess...

I think that they would need to start with rules that have A bar before we could talk about the pros and cons of ones with a high bar. You only need to go back a couple posts to see an example of how far below ground the bar has been set with a post pushing to rehash a hundred plus posts worth...

Skill options ane even skill system mechanics are absolutely something I think that could be system specific, but I don't think that wotc has any interest in considering supporting GM's with such a thing before 6e. I got fed up with every check of any importance getting swarmed with a chorus of...

There's no saltiness, just nothing further to discuss simply because one poster in a tangent that had already been getting discussed claims that they personally "have yet to encounter a DM allowing more than 2 short rests per long rest". Absent any willingness to engage in any of the points...

It was discussed. There was quite a bit of discussion from myself and others on the flaws. Rehashing that from scratch without even an acknowledgement that any of it took place seems like the start of an endless & unproductive loop.

I bet it won't be published by wotc. I'm at the point where my tolerance of being unsupported in service of Oberon based solutions is lacking

You made the anecdotal claim about GM's you've encountered, the plural of anecdote is not data. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70174/what-is-the-oberoni-fallacy

L I don't think it's the same target being discussed. 5.0 was so incredibly far from ithe 2-3/24hr target that any movement towards there will look like it was "kind of" achieved by virtue of being on the same planet as the target. With 5.5 there are still a lot of design elements standing in...

You seem to be arguing against too many people and mixing up points made by different people then blaming them for distracting you when they try to clarify something. The folks who cared about extreme backwards compatibility were a subset of the player base with a bonkers expectation that...

I said nothing of the sort and very much felt that 5.5 should have been more significant in its willingness to change. Absolutely no idea how you've gained the impression that I cared about backwards compatibility simply by confirming that there was a bizarre subset of the community with a badly...

There were so many arguments going on with folks who thought that the edition was totally incompatible if there was going to be any changes and eventually folks quit trying to correct expectations when it was clear wotc had zero interest in support heir efforts to so. I don't know what part of...

No there were literally people supporting the level of strictness that @Desdichado described with backwards compatibility and the most frustrating thing about it was that wotc doubled down feeding that level of misplaced expectations by continuing to talk up how important they felt backwards...

I think that if these sub-30$ setting books are simple paperback/digital things multiple players at the table feel justified in needing enough to justify a normal volume where it's common to see 2-3 of them per average 3-5+gm player that that they could go even further than that. A. FR game set...

Agreed, 5.5 ultimately failed both groups. Folks who wanted substantive changes improving quality of life rightly shake their heads at all the obvious failures at doing so. Folks who were sold a marketer's wet dream version of backwards "comparability"that was more like an overinflated hyped...

I kind of agree. A setting book needs enough gm & player support to build characters that fit the setting's baseline themes and tone while supporting the gm in running a campaign atop the foundation of those themes and tones with enough lore but not so much lore that the players feel...

That sounds a lot like some flavor of Oberoni fallacy. If not, can you quote a rule that puts this apparent house rule into place given the spell already mentioned by others to grant one? Even if for discussion we grant the idea that it's somehow impossible for any players ever to take more...

I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the ball like that but eberron really needs some changes to the base rules (ir chargen, magic items expectations & so on, maybe a new death & dying to circumvent "just kill me"->"I can't"∆). The rules expansion doesn't need to be extreme, even some optional...

Interesting. I hope to see some hype about the rules part being expanded

That's probably a good guess given the apparent boromir halfling(s) and whoever those are on the far right bNot quite villains with eberron's znir pact gnolls though. They are pretty much a culture semi fiendish private military mercenaries. Their lore is that they broke away from one of the...