Search results

I'm curious why you think that given they just relaunched the core books last year.

Right, but he did? Vax didn't die immediately but his life was given to the Raven Queen.

Wait when was this?

Wait am I misremembering? To my recollection the problem wasn't that Keg wasn't cautious enough but that she freaked out and cowered instead of jumping in to help.

I had planned to start running a Descent into Avernus campaign this summer so probably that one, but there are so many I'd like to. Also lots of non D&D games. Too much to play, too little time.

There are also things that aren't in the errata list that are still different on the A5E.tools website. For example, the Guarded Warrior feat on the site does not explicitly grant you the Warning Strike maneuver but rather states that you can do the thing Warning Strike allows you to do. It also...

I'd say it is broadly seen as a problem but nobody agrees on the best solution.

Rangers in A5E aren't half casters.

...didn't Gen Z make Columbo super popular again? I really don't think young people are as much of a monolith as you believe.

They would care about cheesing off their customers again after the OGL debacle, which a harder break from backwards compatibility would have done.

I mean better is subjective, but I think it's neat. Because the capstones are a type of feature instead of a singular unique feature, they can add additional ones and give each class more options.

The point of a Trademark is to prevent people from profiting off you brand's good name and reputation. WOTC can bring a trademark case against you if you use D&D in a way they don't approve of... Whether they would for just using it on a compatibility page is another story. Doesn't seem worth...

It is. But WOTC apparently would still prefer that you don't use the name of the game.

I mean, TOTV reworks it so all sublcasses are 3/7/11/15 and does some things with this such as providing level 10 and 20 capstone features in the base class.

I mean technically they did. They say they still want you to use 'compatible with 5e' or '5th edition'. But it's no longer an explicit part of the license that you can't say 'D&D'.

I'd still avoid it using it on the cover, but it's probably fine to use it on a compatibility page. Really the only reason you couldn't under the OGL is that it was expressly forbidden as part of the license.

I chose the example I did specifically because it was player motivated. "Player A wants to do this. Players B through H are there because Player A is their friend and they want to help him. Player A is suddenly taken out of the equation due to something unrelated." Nothing to do with an...

I would argue that a lot of people were predisposed towards not wanting to like 4E because of the actions of the company. If only because there was so many cases of people's explanations of why 4E didn't feel like D&D being disconnected from the reality of the game. Though ultimately I don't...

It's also worth noting that the increases costs of printing and the prevalence of online storefronts make the market a very different place than it was in the 3E era. You don't have official D&D splatbooks sharing limited physical shelf space with poor cashgrab d20 games or weird stuff like the...

I think the biggest thing is that they wanted to maintain compatiblitly with 3rd party content, especially subclasses. When you change the numbers and levels of subclass features, it requires more effort to convert than just changing the first/second level to third. Having written and...