Search results

There's no way I'm gonna be playing with these optional rules without some pretty strong limitations. I can only hope DMs who aren't as confident don't end up getting themselves get pressured into it against their will.

Utterly amazing work. This is the kind of 3rd party content i'd pay for.

I think you completely misunderstand. Specialization generally "works" against anything until the DM sets things up so that it doesn't. Fire Mage Guy generally does well against anything until you decide to make him helpless, same with melee only, bow only guy or even Heal Spells Only Guy. So my...

I think it's helpful to be aware, every decision you make as a DM encourages or discourages the behavior you want to see. If you don't think specialized characters are appropriate for your game, be sure to let people know before they make them.

It's "PVP" for a player to tell you they want to play a concept, tell them that's fine, and then attempt to "gatcha" them anyway to "teach them a lesson".

Generally, "balancing" things by making them frustrating and not fun, yet optimal is very poor game design in the 21st century.

You could say that about a lot of 5e tbh.

The idea that the MM is anything other than a suggestion is another illusion, but more importantly, i personally i think it's poor practice to pvp people who are not expecting pvp, though i don't think we're ever going to agree on that.

A kobold won't have a crossbow unless you want him to for some specific purpose. A enemy caster won't have "protection from energy" unless you want him to for some specific purpose. Simulationism is an illusion, in reality the only things or facts that exist outside of the player characters are...

This seems like a very old fashioned, pvp style of DM mentality. Int saves, fire immune foes, or archers all exist only because the DM wants them to exist. If you want to gatcha someone, that's fine, but don't pretend that's not what your doing. This being a problem at a table is generally...

I suspect that applies to most people under the age of 40.

Because they're from a setting book where that makes sense.

I feel like a lot of problems with DnD, in 5e and in general, come from the hyper-generalist type characters. In my ideal, specialist, even overspecialist characters, should be encouraged, both by the system and elsewhere.

They're two completely different books with completely different, but connected purposes. You use the options in the option book Tasha to play the Adventure, Rime of the Frostmaiden.

You can emulate the powers of Black Panther pretty well with the Monk class in 5e (Open Hand, even). But to truly do the character justice (and more importantly, make it "feel" like Black Panther, i think adding a couple of appropriate magic Items is necessary to complete the picture...

I played some already-old 3.5 at university (as 5e was in its infancy, mind) as a player for a few years, then really got into 5e through actual play podcasts, after which i've DMed 5e ever since.

The Forgotten Realms setting has its very own not-Australia (Osse), which is sparsely detailed as of yet. I think it'd be interesting to see Wotc go in depth there with an adventure and/or book, especially in these more "enlightened" times.

There's basically no difference since Monk/Rogue can sneak attack with most "Monk Weapons (shortswords, most notably). Letting Unarmed Attacks work too simply helps the fantasy for people who want to use only their fists.

I'm glad you agree? Hence the difference between real life people and characters like Daredevil, Cyborg, and so on.

His prosthetic are made for running on a safe track, they have noticeably worse function in the wide variety of other situations normal legs work better. And regular people can wear "blades" and get even better results. So that guy specifically is still disabled. And again, i don't mind...