Search results

As far as I can tell, whether or not to call it a new edition is a purely arbitrary marketing decision. Backwards compatibility didn't stop 2E from being a new edition, nor did it force 3.5 to become a new edition. I was referring to this comment specifically 👇 I'm hearing mixed messages about...

Cute. :p I thought the official line was "Don't do it, because it will cause combat to 'grind'"?

I think I'm with @Ringtail . For the classic dungeon, you need pretty defined rules for things like passage of time and encumbrance.

But not the other way around, apparently.

I mean, 2nd edition was backwards compatible too, right? And they called that an edition.

I thought the official word was that you could use 2014 characters with the 2024 rules? So those supplements would still be compatible as long as you go through 2014 character creation, right?

With most groups I use milestone leveling, but I have one group who really love the nightly ritual of totalling up and dividing the XP, so I do it for them. The things I typically award XP for are monsters, overcoming obstacles, and achieving story goals. This may include some of the items on...

Because your comment was a response to @Lakesidefantasy 's post, which sounded to me like you were agreeing with and building on the earlier statement--i.e. "This is the absolute heart of D&D 5E, and it's all about old-school adventuring!"

I'm confused ... are we saying old school adventuring and dungeon crawls are the "very heart" of 5E? Because it seems like the biggest complaints about 5E over the years have come from people who want old school adventuring.

I hate that we have to have this conversation.

I like the idea of a flavorful explanation for why the monster makes the save, but this seems way too punishing to me! It's actually worse than just a damage mitigation reaction. My players would win faster against a monster who did this than one who didn't have the legendary action replacement...

Ehhhh, maybe, if I wanted an extra-gritty campaign. But I don't have a big whack-a-mole problem in my games anyway.

Edit: Never mind, answered my own question.

He did title it a "contrarian" opinion.

The last time WotC had a major presence at GenCon was 2014, when they were launching 5E. I'm sensing a pattern here.

It is weird that "psionics" as a term doesn't get as much pushback as "species." Maybe because it's just a subsystem that doesn't affect every single character.

Yeah, but those quests weren't required. You could decline them. BfA, on the other hand, gated absolutely everything behind the war campaigns. That's why I only played Alliance for that expansion.

BfA broke my investment in the lore. I just couldn't enjoy playing Horde after they forced us to be war criminals and then shamed our characters for it in-game. Made logging in an exercise in masochism. The only reason I didn't quit was because I had a (n Alliance) raiding group. By the time...

Oh, it's absolutely their plan. This was leaked at some point, probably during the OGL fiasco. (Random thought, somebody should make a Fiasco playset based on the OGL debacle.)

You're assuming that WotC will succeed in their plan to make DDB all but mandatory, which isn't a given. This is how they want it to be, but they might not get what they want.