Search results

I had fun playing 3.5 in the end. I had fun playing 4e. I do have fun playing 5e. I miss 4e but would not go back to 3.5 if you paid me. I don't know how to quantify the amount of fun of one over the other, but 4e gave me more room to make concepts then 5e does.

wait are you saying it's inaccurate that the games I ran went the way I ran them?!? what is inaccurate? my answer when asked what martial abilities I had to account for was none... how can you possibly have a way to tell if that is accurate or not? What metric would you use? okay, I don't know...

yeah cause there is a diffrence between me running to the corner store, me tracking a town over to go to walmart or flying to the mall of america... all easier then traveling to china to where the items are made and yet still not in the realm of "Taking a trip to hell" so then you think we...

none, but in 4e you didn't have wizards auto ending encounters either. It stripped the magic casters of that power

You can make up what ever excuse you want, but somehow I doubt catching the 9am flight to berlin is as easy as catching the 11am train to london, and neither is as hard as getting a flight to mars... let alone hell. (now I am assuming it is easier to get the train cause I have never left my...

Back in the last days of 3.5 we had a game START with a very similar premise (we were all 4th level and it was a huge number of orcs, ogers and goblins all mixed and it was 13 casters leading them but they were all diffrent types of casters and the red dragon was a dracolich controlled by the...

in theory (and in the case of my personal experence) that is awesome but if people play a game where there fighter rogue and barbarian hit level 10 they have no way to get to those planar adventures.

so lets say I make an adventure, and there are 5 spells that in theory could circumvent or even end the adventure? MY choice is to rewrite it, or accept that it could happen (I mean I could also just know my players don't have speak with dead contact other plane and raise dead). With a fighter...

I can't even imagine someone makeing a 12+ level adventure and having to "account for" something cool the fighter can do. On the other hand EVERY 12+ level adventure has to be built thinking about 3rd-6th level spells

I am holding out hope for 6e to be a full break and look more like 4e with little bits of 5e sprinkled in.

that is also why I am the only one in this thread that sees it.. oh wait and you and... yup if enough people say "you already lost" some people will actually believe we lost

wait if it's just like 3e/3.5 did you just say this is an edition change (at least a half edition?)?

I was watching the new thundercats then found out about the old one... I bet no one making D&D is my age though.

6 I have seen 6, 8 if you count multi into rogue or barbarian only... of those 6 5 of the players were unhappy with the results... when you add in the other 2 we had 1 happy with it 1 not. of those 5 unhappy with straight fighter 3 were new players trying D&D for the first time and all of them...

again this is in 4e normal, and up thread I was told I should be able to improvise things from 4e into 5e with most DMs... well I already called out most DMs wont let me do come and get it no matter how cool I describe it, but now I am at a level 1 at will that your best answer was I could be...

except I said every round push and attack, for 5 levels I have 1 attack and 1 action surge per short rest, so I can't do it IE it is me being a problem to try.

or sleep or tasha's laugh both at 1st...

that is insane... but seems to be true

if you every round for 3 fights have your sword and board fighter say "can I knock them 5ft back and then follow and attack?" I am sure you would be called a problem in 5e. In 4e it was a normal at will (Tide of Iron). look back at the come and get it example... how many DMs will let a player...

I wonder if it is the same 70% is meh and 80% is good but shoot for 89+% of the playtest feedback?