Search results

I enjoyed it. Any spinning tires bits seem kind of par for the course for a middle book of a trilogy, especially one with at least three separate major storylines going on like this one. The new expansion of the lore around the Drow is neat, and yes, the last bit was pretty epic.

First of all, we don’t really know what the total package is going to look like, it’s quite possible that the new characters are pretty much comparable in power to the old ones (the “Power Level” sidebar in the playtest doc implies that is a goal). The backwards compatibility doesn’t have to be...

No, it is not equivalent, but it is also not sufficiently stronger to make it impossible to play the old version at the same table. The difference between the two characters is unlikely to be more than the difference between a weak 5e character and a strong one, for example. Do I expect people...

The character hasn’t been exposed to the fact that the task was impossible, but the player was. That’s the problem I’m concerned about.

I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.

So, on one hand I like the “just don’t let them roll if they can’t succeed” answer, but there are drawbacks to it. You have to TELL the player that they can’t succeed, and I can envision situations where that would be a problem. Are they somewhat contrived situations? Yeah, maybe, but they do...

I personally agree, because I think there are classes that really do need enough of an overhaul to make reusing old subclasses pointless (Fighter, Ranger, Warlock, etc), but I can definitely understand people who feel that "backwards compatible" means "I can use Gloomstalker with the PHB2024's...

The new way of doing backgrounds is far and away my favorite thing here. It's exactly what I want for so many reasons, both for what it does explicitly (for example, the default being "build your own", which gives us a lot of freedom that we only sort of had in the original 5e) and what it...

I hope that's the case (since I want some pretty significant changes to some classes), but I remain curious how much they'll let themselves be constrained by a desire to be backwards compatible with subclasses in old books. We'll know a lot more once the class playtest docs start dropping...

It’s beyond stupid, but I think there’s a pretty reasonable chance it doesn’t actually get used for anything other than a way to refer to their various future looking plans for the next year or so. The game they spit out will almost surely just have “Dungeons and Dragons” on the cover, after...

So, I think my problem with the proposed way to handle Half-Elf and Half-Orc characters is that it’s just not mechanically close to what they’ve been up to now. Half-Elves get Darkvision, and they definitely don’t get (by default anyway) all this spellcasting. Now I either have to use Human...

The disadvantage is before you see the result of the roll, not after. The wording is different for the two options.

Crafter’s discount is for non-magical, not magical.

Ehh, AL has been periodically confused over some significant change for months at a time for years, it'll work itself out.

It's only specific ASIs for a given background if you aren't building your own. Build your own is the default though, so you can always build "Exactly like Guard, but with different stats" if you want.

I'm generally pleased. The level of backwards compatibility they're showing here is pretty much what I was hoping for. They're clearly willing to make changes, but not so much that they'd prevent you from going back and running old adventures, which is the level of compatibility I wanted. A few...

I mean, if it's not possible you just don't let them roll the skill check.

Do not want. I mean if it floats your boat go for it, but it's just not what I want for my game.

I mean, everything here sounds cool, but I'm particularly excited about the expanded Phandelver.