Search results

The impact is that the less distinct each class is the blander the game becomes. I'm a player that enjoys variety and keeping things fresh. The sorcerer and wizard already overlap so much that making the warlock closer to that design and farther from something unique is not a good thing...

I haven't read the play test, but I'm not hearing from this discussion warlocks are the same but just now have more spell slots at the same power level they had before. I guess it just boils down to difference in play styles. I've never ran or played in a session where a player request to take...

This is literally word for word what I was going to reply. Their spell slots are their warm up act, not their headliner.

Do your characters never stop for lunch or dinner?

I see I was ninjaed on this! Read above for more info!

Cries Psionically

I'd call that ghosting whereas agree to disagree is a proper break-up.

With the slow release speed of 5e content the board had to fill the void of rules discussions with fighting about even stupider things. At least that's my interpretation.

How do you know all the differences between 2014 and 2024?

From a technical writing perspective .... having two related but different things in your system sharing the exact same name is a recipe for confusion and errors. You should have distinct proper names for distinct proper things.

If I can listen to audio of a game and tell if the GM is using the 2024 ruleset instead of the 2014 then it's a big enough change that it should be a new edition. Since it's based on 5e....it should be labeled 5.X where X is determined by how many times they want to tweek 5e until they move on...

If I were tasked to come up with "intro level" characters for 5e I think actual best way to do so would be to redesign the character sheet to emphasize the most important couple numbers and hide everything else. Instead of showing the math and behind the scenes things, just show end results...

I think the reason germane to this discussion is that half of the phrase RPG is game, meaning the rules and mechanisms you can interact with by playing it. Fighters (even the battlemaster) have fewer buttons to press in the ruleset, which to some can make them boring to play.

Thematically what's the point of wildshape when a wizard/sorcerer/warlock can polymorph? It's a similar effect but applied differently. But, as I said, I've never played a 5e artificer so if their thing is really just crafting permanent magical items for the party then I guess it's too much of...

I've never played or played with an artificer, but my understanding was their thing was making on the fly temporary items that fit the specific scenario.

I have only skimmed this thread so forgive me if this has already been brought up... I have a suggestion for making martials have more interesting abilities that would also work for those who don't want to make them "magical" in nature. What if, instead of feats, you baked in increasingly...

Are you saying your players wouldn't understand the concept of DoaM and understand the monsters AC is 17+ once the fighter explained their ability during session 0/1???

Over 60 years ago Andy Warhol essentially put a filter on cans of Campbell's soup and it became some of his most iconic pieces which he profited off of. We should hold AI to the same standards we have applied throughout history.

Do you think it's reasonable to believe "geared towards new players" is the opposite of "geared towards experienced players"? Have we been been saying that 2024 is an edition focused on making it simpler for new players to adopt the system?