Search results

I think you’ll have to explain why it matters, because it seems like a fair amount of people (myself included) aren’t understanding this distinction you view as important. It’s coming across to me like this definition of success is almost tautological.

But that’s just terminology. It doesn’t matter. 10 is the “success with complications” target, 15 is the “success free and clear” target. The only thing that might matter is if the system has some specific mechanics for that middle 10-14 area. (Sort of like how Daggerheart has specific...

Oh, I definitely don't think you're alone. I simply wanted to express a difference of opinion on what possible concerns are for the book. Those who view 2024 as a fresh start have a different set of priorities and concerns than those of us who view this book as just another 5e release in a...

Unfortunately, my sympathy for those who self-limit their games to an extremely limited subset of the copious amounts of 5e material is very muted. If this is a book with a large amount of character-building material, I'm going to evaluate it as part of the lineage of Xanathar's, Tasha's, and...

As someone who views 2025 as Year 12 of the 5e era, I'm excited to see them get more wild and crazy with the options.

I could definitely see that. Valor, Blade, Artifice, and possibly Wild and Midnight all could stand in as more "mundane" representations of the color's concepts if you wanted to make a "non-caster" class or classes.

Looks solid. Possibly could add a "Colorless" domain group for pure warriors and artifice?

Exactly. People might not like D&D played that way, because they're attached to the principle or aesthetic of "everything in the setting is already generated", which has deep historical roots in D&D. But it's not like using a "fail forward" methodology in D&D would violate a presented core...

I've certainly used it in 3.5, PF, 4e, and 5e. It's fairly trivial to use. "Oh, you failed your arcana check to identify the runes? They're definitely runes of demon summoning, and you've triggered them!"

More just a general awareness of what arguments different posters will make.

Life is a highway, I'm gonna ride it all night long.

One thing I like about thresholds is that they make cranking up a PCs damage output strong but not obviously optimal. As long as a PC does enough damage to regularly be doing 2-3 HP of damage, there's not a major gain in bumping your damage from 4 dice to 5 or 6.

Just from conversing with them over the years, I know @pemerton and @Manbearcat are often in agreement but also have different styles of play (not to mention they will change up their styles depending on the game being played, as good GMs should).

I simply don't see that as a problem. I see that as good design. I find the game more interesting when my role is to depict the character as they develop, rather than have 100% agency over exactly what the definition of the character is at all times. Edit: If "good design" is too...

For sure. If you're looking for play that's more like 5 minutes per turn chess over blitz chess, then we're definitely going to be looking for different tools. Outside of a few, very deliberate, experiments with OSR-style play, slow and cautious play is exactly what I'm looking to excise from...

Doing things that make sense isn't the goal. The goal is to craft an interesting story. It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible. I mean, you tell anecdotes about your characters, or others in your group...

And I disagree with this. To me, this seems like a pretty obvious poor use of the word. If you create a definable metric of behavior that you could at least describe to someone else (even if you haven't yet), that's OK. But you can't be "faithful" to whatever decisions you might make in the...

You can do that; you just can't call it faithful. Being faithful to your headcanon doesn't count. If you've made external declarations as to how you're attempting to portray the character, than that's fine. It doesn't have to be a mechanic. But it can't just be in your head.

Not wild at all. You can obviously roleplay however you want. But you can't call it a faithful portrayal without being able to measure it against something to be faithful to. I'm not arguing about the play, I'm arguing about the terminology.

No. You can’t faithfully portray a character without some sort of metric to measure that portrayal against. “I’m faithfully portraying the headcanon I have” doesn’t meet that standard. It’s a semantic distortion.