Search results

Sure, I can get caring. I care about things too. But I think there are levels. For example, I remember a discussion with someone about Big Luigi from Spelljammer. I guess in old lore he was literally nigh-omnisicent and could see through the game to know that the characters were merely scraps...

I don't expect them to describe what a dog is to us, if that is your concern.

Yeah, if you want to be a faux full caster, an Artificer can launch 3rd level spells for DAYS with the various magical item creations, spell storing items, ect. They might have effectively the most spells capable of being cast per day, if built correctly and selfishly by 11th level.

Yeah, I would never say that any artificer (other than the Alchemist) is weak. They are surprisingly effective. I'm mostly just frustrated that the level 1 ability should at a minimum have no limits for items under 50 gp and that the skill buff feels worthless. The changes to the subclasses are...

Just read through it and I'm left... kind of cold. Magical Tinkering could be interesting... but not as written. Let us say I use it to make a lamp... I then need to use it again to make oil. I get three to four uses per day and I've... made a working lamp with half of them. Some of the useful...

Just read through it and I'm left... kind of cold. Magical Tinkering could be interesting... but not as written. Let us say I use it to make a lamp... I then need to use it again to make oil. I get three to four uses per day and I've... made a working lamp with half of them. Some of the useful...

That can be accomodated without killing the PCs of the players who don't want to replace their PCs at that time.

The adventure I posted with the Gnolls revolves around a dungeon. Per the request of the player who wanted me to run the adventure, death is completely off the table. Not even the monsters will die. If defeated the party is captured, and will get a chance to escape. If they fail in the escape...

If it is so trivially easy to overcome, then it is a terrible thing to base the tension of an adventure on. So why get upset when people find other ways to have tension in their games?

The nomenclature matters a bit, because you are presenting this as though there is no guidelines in the new book. The new book states that there is an issue "if you include more than two monsters per character" and states that if you do, you should include weak monsters that can be defeated...

Yeah, there is a style and tone difference that must be accounted for and that many people stumble into. If you tell the PCs "this is the swamp of evil, where men go to die!" then they hear "Ah cool, that's the next plot hook". Because the Players are not playing commoners. Even back in 1e...

Still far behind, but I have a dissatisfying answer. It depends. It truly depends on the exact situation. I remember in one game I ran, a player's dwarven fighter dropped in a fight against some bandits (difficult terrain combined with fire and ranged attacks), in the middle of a massive...

I can understand that as an intellectual concern, but it also rings a bit... off to me. Those people are self-inflicting the problem onto themselves, and so it is a little hard to feel bad for them when they do it to themselves. But I do agree that it can be frustrating and challenging to have...

Considering this is, what? The sixth or seventh example of changed lore that your response to has been "Oh, well that was fine because I could just ignore it" I'm really struggling to understand why you are so adamant about lore not changing. Because I don't think a single example pre-4e has...

Maybe, but I think they DO have complexity with how the special abilities trigger and their spells. Plus, I have never found "but it worked fine" to be a good reason to not seek improvement.

The Berserker is actually a pretty substantial change. Yes, they get advantage against anyone who has lost hp, but they no longer grant advantage. This effectively increases their AC by a significant amount. The cultist meanwhile gained proficiency in wisdom saves I believe it was? Which again...

I don't know why you would classify it as a hope. They have had descriptions of the monster and their lore in the Monster Manual for decades. This (to me) is like saying you hope Coca-Cola makes Diet Coke next year. Is there any reason to suspect they won't?

thumbs up Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by harm, but I think if you put the effort into it you could phrase a rule about it without impacting the other design desires. I'm not going to put in that effort personally, I just am fully confident it could be done. Not in contradiction...

Really? A horde encounter? It was 7 to 5. The party won the initiative. One monster didn't act the first turn. Another was immediately incapped for the majority of the fight. Another was stabbed to death turn one. Another landed only a single successful attack the entire fight. So... where is...

I have had that experience. Not specifically with DnD exclusively, but I have been thanked multiple times for how I run games, because the person's experience has often been "if I do even the smallest thing wrong everything will be ruined forever and the game will be over".