Search results

Then that means being disruptive or a "chaos gremlin" is part of your table's social contract. The bigger point is that "but that's what my character would do" is not a valid rationale for violating the social contract.

It depends on the strength delta between the pre-buff and post-buff versions. I can certainly see a lot of players focusing on casting a long lasting Conc buff and another non-Conc spell to trigger the boons. I say if they want to use up their tactical versatility to become an alt-Fighter...

The problem with “IC-authenticity” as a play virtue is that it’s completely unprovable that anyone actually does it. Any declared action can be held as “true for my conception of my character” and no one can contradict you! If you can’t demonstrate you’re actually doing it (you can only assert...

Exactly. It helps communicates that Daggerheart is ready and willing to play in the big leagues, and not just be the indie game du jour.

The only point I'll add is that there is a Medical/Healing proficiency in the game; a character (or hireling, or familiar) with 2 to 3 ranks in the proficiency can provide a LOT of out-of-combat healing, enough to noticeably lower the amount of spell slots consumed by crusaders or other healing...

This is the single most salient point in the whole thread.

While I love the "deplete resources to gain martial buffs" concept, I feel like it might be easier to integrate into a warlock chassis than a sorcerer one. ("Warlock - what can't it do?") Basically, every time you cast a warlock spell, in addition to the spell, you also gain a one buff out of a...

I would have to go back and look, but I think the 3e DMG2 and MM4 and MM5 were moving in the direction of more simplified stat blocks, or at least discussing it. It was certainly a fairly prevalent topic in various discussion sites throughout most of later 3.5.

It’s not moving the goalposts. It’s a disagreement with the context someone extracted from the statement. If someone says “it’s obvious from this statement that you mean X”, and you disagree with that interpretation, there’s no goalposts being moved, there’s simply the natural ambiguity of...

Certainly for me, I’m pretty “neutral” on most things, without an active “like” or “dislike.” And there are plenty of things I “like” despite the presence of subjective or objective flaws.

<shrug> If you were paying attention to 3.5 era changes and the development of SW Saga edition, nothing in 4e was that surprising. Smuggling in some fail-forward and some fortune-in-the-middle mechanics is still just evolution, not revolution.

If I couldn’t like things despite recognizing them as flawed or somewhat dissatisfying, I would never go to family functions. :)

That’s a pretty solid list. Big difference is that I saw all of those as good things. :)

The problem is “OSR” and “traditional” are way too similar to each other to be 2 of the 3 categories; it’s roughly equivalent to categorizing mammals as “big cats”, “small cats” and “everything else”.

And Tuovinen also discusses the utility of “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” to various flavors of Sun within the blog post.

That blog post is from 2020.

Well, yea! 5e IS wildly incoherent, that's why people fight about it all the time on this and many other sites. And I say that as someone who's been playing and running 5e as my main game for 11 years.

Like most taxonomies, GNS is terrible right up until you try and create a replacement. :) And I'm probably callused, but I didn't read anything in that post that seemed remotely insulting.

You should probably play a game where a non-result is a valid result of a skill check. :)

Contrast and compare 5e with the blog’s description of Call of Cthulhu.