Search results

Philosophical question: what is a "level" supposed to represent, beyond "a quantum of experience and power"?

There's a difference between balance and quality. Yes, 3rd-party products can be imbalanced, but beyond that they can be overly complicated, confusingly written, or literally broken.

I'd go primarily with "quality"/"consistency" and convenience". And by "quality"/"consistency" I don't mean just the consistent quality of the raw rules text (although also that). I mean the whole experience of owning and reading a Dungeons & Dragons book: art, layout, lovely lovely tables, all...

I'd guess that Mercer has retained the rights to both.

When in want of a D&D setting, I've gone so far as to set a campaign in one of my other, non-magic settings, handwaving the wizards and whatnot with "this is folklore from the 'real' setting".

@Warren Ellis Okay. Wow. I get it, you don't like the X-Men. But here: "Mutants are inarguably subject to outright racism and discrimination (as we've discussed, the Human Torch is a celebrity, and Pixie is hunted through the streets...even though both owe their powers to modified...

Never underestimate the tenacity of those who have power and want to keep it. For one exploration of the results of "sorcerers" deciding to fireball the "nobility", see the X-Men franchise. Spoiler alert: they're still oppressed.

Related: my PCs were on a ship that was attacked by pirates who threw baskets of giant centipedes aboard as a terror tactic before coming over the sides. Giant centipedes of course do not fight to the death and flee when injured if not slain outright. So over the course of the battle four or...

Depends on the player, and a key part of DMing is understanding your group and what entertains them. One of my players effectively shuts down when sufficiently frustrated, so I try not to trigger that behavior.

You say "people", but have you ever noticed that you're consistently the only person, singular, who takes this condemnatory stance whenever the question comes up?

I think you should be cautious in doing this, because following the dice can lead to more unexpected results, and more unexpected often means more memorable. In the final encounter of a 4e campaign I was in, my barbarian reduced Orcus to single-digit hit points with a typical barbarian big damn...

DMG p.4, literally the next sentence after my previous quotation: "your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!" A little earlier on that page: "A dungeon master gets...

...which you still haven't cited. So it's not against the rules, then?

Fair point. I think the relevant observation, if I may clarify, is that nobody is losing.

I like the words "Part 1". Path of the Beast seems cool. The tail attack raises a question (for me, anyway) about when opportunity attacks are provoked if you are wielding one weapon with reach and one without. Is this 3E spiked chain territory? Way of Mercy is neat. No complaints, other than...

Quotes, or it's not there. I'd start with every discussion of "Rule 0" in every edition of the game since its inception, 5E's introduction to which I just quoted in brief above.

(a) Quote the specific rule in the game it goes against. Explicitly, not in your interpretation. Because you said "plain and simple", so the violation should be pretty, well, plain and simple. (b) Explain how "The D&D rules... aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game"...

Related dirty DM trick: If you want the party to know something, have each PC roll a relevant knowledge check, then give it to the highest result whatever it is.

That's just fine, then, as my D&D setting is set in the 2553rd Year of the Bregatian Pantheon, and for over three centuries the Sisters Scholastic have been spreading literacy even to the far-flung rural communities as a byproduct of their search for children with wildborn sorcery talent...

You say "plain and simple", but I think for most people the "plain and simple" definition of cheating is "breaking the rules in order to win", and (a) the DM decides what the rules are and (b) the DM is not winning.