Search results

How is that different from "period" or one of the many cognates like "end of discussion"?

I know what they don't have: a sampling frame. Without that, they don't even know how much bias their data may have, or in what direction. They don't even know how trustworthy their data are.

The irony is the point - they don't have representative data. You argue as if they do.

Yep; though I'd argue for incompetence rather than intentional malfeasance in this case. The idea that the sample you have is not necessarily representative of the population you are interested in is, sadly, quite worldview shattering for most people. If feats were such a rarely used feature...

Dex to hit strength to damage was one of the good ideas from previous editions. Drawing and holding recurve bow is not trivial, or wasn’t when I took archery in college.

Those are late in the development of muzzle loaders, and are essentially a smaller bore than the earlier weapons. .6-.7 calibre (15.24-17.78mm) bores were common, and larger bores were sometimes used. Also, I am pretty sure a 10-11mm diameter metal or stone ball would weigh more than 1.3 grams...

Even with the core books only, the back half of fighter is a terribly lackluster set of levels. That class was hit hardest by the “you should be taking a prestige class” design aesthetic.

And WotC published representative data on what DMs do when, exactly?

Fighters still seem terribly weak, even with these tweaks. Why would you persist in fighter past level 8 or so?

Anything mechanical at all places it between system and fluff, and it should be clearly one or the other. Again, we pay WotC for this clarity.

An archaic muzzle load ball is not a hollow point. And, again, muzzle load rounds were big. They did a hell of a lot more damage than 9mm or 5.56 bullets do (at distances they were lethal at, but not much combat in 5e happens at ranges where firearms have a tactical advantage). They also had a...

And that wouldn’t be bad, but a clearly defined design goal ought to be that you can just use whatever and not be mired in material-type resistance hell.

No problem at all, fluff is fine. There is enough remaining cruft that makes it seem like just a little bit more (mechanically) than fluff, almost a system. Being in between is what isn’t good. The fluff and system should be neatly separated, so players can use what they wish, without having to...

It doesn’t matter if it is homebrew or official, if you have spend action economy to switch mundane weapon types at a greater frequency than you do spell damage types, it is a mundane martial penalty.

The point is not whether or not I can create an alignment system but whether or not WOTC did a good job importing it into or stripping it from 5e. They appear to have tried to split the difference, which proves no usable crunch system. We pay them for crunch systems.

There isn’t a system to use. They left it out.

The point of a system is that it is a system. If there are no mechanical rules for or impacts of an alignment “system” then it isn’t a system at all and some badly written fluff.

I agree, this was a nice enough idea but generally slows the pace of combat and is more of a martial punishment than anything else.

That’s like saying “just homebrew it”. Anyone can do that, true, but it doesn’t mean the system was well designed in that regard. I can homebrew psionics, too. That doesn’t mean 5e did psionics well.

Who do you think makes up their convenience sample? Particularly during the last year?