Search results

The only way to actually "stop that" is to give equal rules support to combat and non-combat. Easier said than done. D&D has always had much more support for combat rules than non-combat rules, and a dividing line naturally emerges from that. Pretending the line doesn't exist solves nothing.

The alignment is a non-issue to me, since I ignore it anyway, but as far as Race and Class, who decides who gets to play the character they want to play, and who doesn't? I sure as hell don't want to be the DM saying that Player A can play his Paladin, but that means Player B must give up on...

It depends on how they approach the pillars, and the nature of the character building choices related to the pillars. If all three pillars are basically treated as equals, and being good in one means sacrificing in the others, then I'd expect to see similar rules support for each pillar. This...

3.X Paladins are rather terrible, while Clerics are one of the very best classes. There's not much a Paladin gets, of real consequence, that Cleric with a splash of Fighter wouldn't. Or even pure Cleric. So if you've got several approaches to building a "holy warrior", why not go with the one...

LG Paladin is just much more iconic, and so is discussed more. I also don't want to see any alignment restrictions on Druids either. Or Bards, or Barbarians, or Monks. Since when is Lawful Good the "true goodness" alignment? But really, probably best not to go there.

I dislike alignment, and particularly don't want mechanically-relevant alignment, so I much prefer Paladins simply being dedicated Divine warriors (and every god, of every alignment, can have them), as opposed to being purely LG. 4E did Paladins right.

The Topaz Crusader's "Immortality" is entering the Far Realm. That is something that happens after the campaign is over. You're not supposed to actually play the character any more once the Immortality has happened, so as a player, you're not actually playing in the Far Realm, and it is still...

I think you missed the point of the Far Realm. It's not supposed to be a place you go. It's a realm outside conventional reality, of incomprehensible, Lovecraftian horror, that produces hideous beasts through mere brushes with the material realm. It's not supposed to be as well-described as...

Because Human variety is a pretty consistent trope in any fantasy (or scifi) with other races/species. There's, of course, no particular reason why it couldn't work the way you suggest, but Human as the "strong race" raises the question of why are all the non-Human races so weak? I think it...

Both are entirely reasonable things to give feedback on. More specifically, though, we're giving feedback on possible 5E game rules. So? "You can only attack, then move" is a rule, that was described in the article. Some gave feedback on it. That feedback is valid whether the rule ends up...

Imprecise, ambiguous rules do not "allow" a DM to make judgement calls. They force the DM to make judgement calls. Precise, well-defined rules do not in any way prevent a DM from making judgement calls. What's not sensible about pointing out mistakes, and asking for clarification? We're not...

My point is more that "more GM fiat" does not imply a rules-light system, in the way I usually see the term used. If you just meant a system without a lot of rules, sure. But "rule-light" doesn't usually just mean that. It means a system that gets a lot of mileage out of the rules. They...

The thing is, rules light does not imply GM fiat being very important. Rules light games often have quite specific and precise mechanics, they are just very dissociated and generic, and can be used to describe many kinds of interactions.

Sure, if a game worked that way, it would by what you describe as "XP as Reward". But what games work that way? Maybe some weird indie game that I haven't seen does, but more importantly, what edition of DnD works that way, since that's the primarily salient issue for 5E. And what DM actually...

Why is it confusing that he might mean exactly what he said? He might not, of course. That's why I said "If" and gave feedback on both conditions. If we're always going to assume that they can't possibly have meant what they said whenever they say something we don't like, and instead always...

It's a reasonable mission statement, as long is it's understood that there is a significant conflict between those two objectives. More reliance on DM fiat makes the DM's job harder, inherently. If the "and then" should be interpreted strictly, it's an absolutely terrible mechanic. Might as...

I'm not entirely convinced that your dichotomy gets at the core splits in XP philosophies. I'm not sure that any (or at least, any significant proportion) of DMs intend for what you call "XP as Reward". If XP gets adjusted because a combat went badly, it's because the DM realized that the...

I think having classes use different XP progressions as a means of balance would be a very bad design. Because it significantly complicates two (I think rather common) ways of running the game: 1) XP always split evenly, and new characters come in at the party level. With different leveling...

Can't really argue over your preference, but I think there's value in taking what's traditionally part of classes, and splitting them up a bit so components can be mixed and matched, but without getting to the granular level of feats. Less granular chunks of mechanics allow for a wider variety...

"Advanced Theme" seems odd with the "Themes are just prepacked sets of feats" that we were told earlier. Unless they're just prepackaged sets of feats that have minimum level 6? Anyway, I still think Themes as simply a prepacked set of feats is a waste, if choosing individual feats can do the...