Search results

Except that the devs have specifically discussed in the past that this is a feature not a bug. An important factor to consider, is the effects of a failed save (whether possible to succeed or not). Save-or-die is gone. Failing a save that is annoying or temporarily detrimental, for a few rounds...

If the game is designed such that PCs may find themselves in situations where a particular save cannot succeed for them, and many tables handle that just fine, you cannot call that "bad rules". You can call it "bad for you." But you just tried to categorize your personal preferences as objective...

I've found 5e to be possibly the most forgiving edition when it comes to such things as this. I can't think of a single thing that qualifies as a so-called "trap option" or "pitfall". Not a one. Virtually any combination of race/background/class/subclass is quite viable. Just play what you think...

If you get worked up about making players have to attempt impossible checks, easy solution: Don't put their characters in situations where they are forced to do so.

Followed immediately by even greater caution when choosing frightful creatures/situations designed to force those "impossible madness checks"...

Back during the most competitive era of D&D organized play (4e RPGA), my friend and I would make fun, thematically interesting characters all the time, optimization be darned. We did fine then too. And 5e AL is far more forgiving that that.

This is exactly what I was referring to. I fully admit I tend towards feats over stat bumps. Full disclosure. Its just that, having played a great deal of 5e, with characters I sometimes never bothered to increase their primary stat above 16, I find I still succeed at plenty of stuff. Thank you...

You've just tried to define a nebulous term. And in doing so, I can likewise say your definition is equally overstepping and absurd. Also, context. I've seen people attempt to use "houserule" as a derogatory term far too often. Once you (the general 'you') start using it to dismiss someone...

When you open up the definition of that dirty word enough, as some try to do, you get into a situation where every single rule (even the ones spelled out in the books) could be construed as houserules. Because the DM still has to decide if each of those rule exists at their table. And so, every...

Is there an underlying belief that a character who took feats, instead of stat bumps, somehow does not continue to succeed in adventuring? Because, at the end of the adventuring day, isn't that all that matters? And if so, isn't doing that with the funnest options the better choice?

Is this your way of backpedaling on your original claim that the sheer boredom of watching your fellow players, playing in a way that frustrates you deeply, had you bordering on violent outbursts? Are you sure you're old enough to have an 18 year old stepson? Is this one of those...

Wait. Are you actually claiming there is no such thing as entire tables of D&D players who's playstyle involves things other than focusing on combat? Fascinating position to take. I challenge your theory. My evidence? I've seen it with my own eyes. Heck, I've been it. Again, for someone...

Also, this avoided answering Cap'n Kobold's direct question (one I am also curious about): When you said the boredom had you bordering on violence, did you mean you wanted to pick a fight in-character, or that you wanted to actually lash out physically at the table?

I could argue that 5e has given more empowerment to players than 3.x or 4e ever did.

Uh oh. That might sound to some an awful lot like you are imposing a playstyle on others. I'd caution you that such a direction could be seen as getting into hypocritical territory here. N'est–ce pas?

Is the box warm to the touch*? (*After all, Lidgar's physics presumably set the poor feline on fire. Or didn't...)

Huh. That's weird. Most of the people I've read, who have cautioned you, were more speaking to the fact that your preferred playstyle is likely at odds with the rest of the players at your table. And that is the issue. Not that you shouldn't enjoy playing it however you wish. But that it might...

...with the caveat that you've played neither, amIright? ;)

Or does it?

This response seems written by an entirely different person that the one I responded to previous. Mine is now 26! And you are wrong.