Search results

You never had the Giant Strength items for your PCs?

I define it as your opinion isn't a reflection of why everyone rejected 4e or why even a majority rejected 4e. You keep saying "we" but there was not a consensus reason for why people didn't play 4e or eventually moved away from it in it's short lifespan. I know a good chunk of people simply did...

And again you don’t speak for everyone. You speak for a minority.

Constantly? Dec 2022-Jan 2023? February 23 when they were trying to walk back and Kyle Brink got raked over the coals for an out of context quote and continues to be? The people who posted here constantly started posting after they left WOTC or very, very much tried to disclaimer themselves if...

You were bothered. You don't and are unable to speak for everyone.

You're 100% correct. They are substantially different games and 5e did take a lot from 4e but it is more than just the presentation that is different. The game doesn't play anything like 4e. It is intentionally less polished, detail heavy and they moved away from feat based design to subclasses...

They wisely took the GW route on communication but also, much like GW, have had to face other sorts of difficulties due to their focus.

Yeah they were pretty clear it was going to be very different. People assumed and those assumptions became gospel.

Judging by the playtest and comments it’s more like a 5.1 or 5.2 edition. Less changes than 3.0 to 3.5 but enough to say it’s different-ish. If you have Tasha’s and later? Not a lot of differences to how the game is now played, but if you compare straight core to core, it will be different but...

What an insanely great deal, for the minis alone but the game looks very cool. I have to add the rest of the minis in the pledge manager but I am very happy to have backed this one.

He’s literally saying using 3.33 for each inch square for the floor scale. He’s just not coming across as comittal because he’s waxing about war gaming technicalities at the time with respect to HO scale being 1”=6’. “Oh well but of course. That’s why it becomes more convenient to go to each...

He was never very precise but using Chainmail to judge AD&D is wrong in my opinion. unlike OD&D, AD&D and BX are complete within themselves while OD&D required Chainmail or a lot of study of the second set of 3 books to hash out these rules. It resolves the entire question and I think it was...

It’s on page 10. 😂 It doesn’t say battlemat no, but it’s talking about inches and scale. So… a 10 foot corridor would be… say it with me… 3 inches wide. So a ten foot square on an old map would translate to what then? A 3x3… inch…SQUARE maybe which is 9 squares on a what now?

I vastly prefer 3.0 to 3.5 because yeah, 3.5 signaled a change in D&D that was very odd and not to my taste at all. The one thing looking back that I would fix is the skill system like so many others. I would combine some skills, get rid of some skills and increase skill points for bards...

those are only broken in the context of later versions. They were still in line with the way D&D was played going into 2000.

Yes when converting the 10' squares to a battlemat the DMG for 1e says that each 1" square is 3.33' so a 10' map square is 9 squares battlemat ground space. Vertical space was still a 5'=1" space like current scales though.

My disdain for NWP comes from using them! :D We actually used, like most groups, the majority of them up to the Player's Option series. While wildly out of balance with each other by today's standards, with a good DM they added to the game and made it fun but the barnacles started showing as...

I ran a ton of 1e and Basic with 3.0, mostly just swapping out monster stat blocks. It's amazing how much bigger dungeons get though when you convert 3.x and later back to the 1e standard of 3.33' per square/hex.

Minus NWP, 100%