Search results

They did in 3.0 If any of your classes was more than 1 level apart from another, you took a -20% XP penalty. And it stacked (so a Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Ranger 10 would take a -40% penalty). It had a reasonable in-game explanation as well as a game balance explanation. Then in 3.5, they did...

Was the Arak (Shadow Elves) converted?

Ok thank you! Trying to find all the official options together, before I decide to look for 3rd party ones

Are the classes in the PHB the only official classes by WotC or are there more beyond those?

Welcome to 5th Edition. Where WotC provides one set of materials simply reminsescent of the first 3 editions, a bunch of adventures, and barely any to zero setting resources and a snail's pace of setting lore. And here I kept hoping we'd get campaign setting material equal to what was given...

People actually care for MtG in D&D enough for WotC to spend their precious, extremely limited hardcover lineup space for it? Since when has this been a thing? I agree with an earlier poster. It's a placeholder for a "Sigil: City of Doors" campaign, bringing Planescape back to D&D.

Wow, even more complexity? Now we gotta remember when to "raise shields" for defense and need actions for it? What exactly is the benefit of NOT having a shield raised? A flat shield bonus already took into account a shield providing defense. I don't understand this edition at all. Why do we...

Let's make magic item suuuuuuper complicated. Yay....this edition continues to sound worse. I don't understand why the need for all these levels of complexity? It should simply be "Put on item, item does this. Always or limited. The End." Now it's this resonance garbage.

Can't we just stick to PF1e and move on...?

So characters become so skillful, it becomes a Looney Tunes series? Pass.

This looks way more complicated. I liked the much simpler skill design before, and you could take feats to improve Skills or just simply add a DC for a new use (or even back in D&D 3.5, Skill Tricks were awesome for those with too many skill points and needed something cool to do with a Skill...

One day we'll go back to the days of 2E where we got more and more setting lore. I miss those days. Now it's just adventures.....those things are a penny a dozen, if not by WotC then by tons of other companies.

We did play without miniatures for awhile only because 2E AD&D didn't state any requirement of them. However, after a couple of months of just starting we all did realize how extremely difficult it was to run combat without some kind of visual representation. So we bought ourselves graph paper...

What bothers me about Tome of Foes is, once again, the complete ignorance of the Yuogloths. For decades, at this point, since Planescape setting many of us have always wanted more lore, update lore, and other things Yugoloth related. We get yet more rehash (and reimaginings) of the Demons and...

Great, looks identical to D&D 5e...and Paizo lied saying they didn't really look at 5e when designing this. You work on RPGs, no possible way they didn't study the biggest TTRPG of all time.

But 3.5 was rising, and pretty quick, before they dropped the ball, abandoned it and made 4e. I knew 4e was going to be a problem and not last long, and I was correct. The reason 5e is doing well is they took nostalgia and sprinkled it with a few of the best mechanics from later editions and...

Note it says "Dungeons and Dragons" and not "Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition." Hence why no sales on 5e, as these numbers are for all editions played. 1 in 20 Americans playing ANY edition of D&D makes a lot more sense anyway.

No wonder Pathfinder wants PF2e. They want those numbers and think a new edition will help. Short term only though.

Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.

Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.