Search results

This would be why I don't like random generation for character creation then--because yes, I do agree that's gambling, while hit rolls aren't. I have even called rolled stats "ability roulette" on this very forum. That's just one recent example, I've used that exact phrase something like ten times.

I included the "...and would never do so" option for a reason. Your opinion, while not one I share, is a valid answer to the question.

You keep saying this, but it keeps not being true. The dice do not make it a gamble. They make things uncertain. There is an ENORMOUS difference between these things. And it is that very difference which explains why the idea of "take 10" or "you just can't do that" (or "you just succeed")...

Well, we need one non-positive level: level 0. "Level 0" contains everything from "literally has the bare minimum to exist as a mechanically-relevant being" to "practically an actual character but missing a single relatively important piece."

Sure. I applied for several such games. Never got accepted.

My point was that I was focused on those things that aren't WotC's fault--unless WotC is somehow making GMs start their homebrew games at 1st level.

I have no idea whether they are or aren't, but by your own arguments they aren't? Like...you literally just blamed the fact this doesn't happen on WotC not putting out adventures that start at higher levels...?????

Exactly what it says on the tin. 5e has various reasons--formally-recognized or not--for starting at levels other than 1st. Do you? Have you? Would you? As noted, you cannot change your vote, so only vote for something you're sure of. I have tried to be completely impartial and cover as many...

If people were exclusively running canned adventures, I would agree. I specifically avoided games using pre-written adventures. I wanted to see what GMs were doing. I found all of two games starting at higher level, and only got into one of them (which, of course, died an early death, as I...

You'll never get GMs saying that, is what I mean. I mean, this is obviously the loose squishy kind of "never" where there are obviously exceptions. But they're just that. Exceptions. Extremely overwhelmingly rare exceptions.

I am well convinced that no amount of "guiding" will ever achieve this effect. The grammar of the English language is simply too strong. First is first is first is first is first is first. You'll simply never convince people to do anything else. If third level is too high for people to start...

Trying to fit an Avenger into a Fighter (or Paladin) is even less reasonable than trying to fit in Warlord, because they're doing fundamentally different things. The Avenger, from 4e, revealed an under-served archetype, that has both historical precedent (the actual Hashshashin, for example, or...

Have you ever thought that, perhaps, you have the cart before the horse? Because the high levels--other than 4e--have always been lazily and badly designed. Even 4e wasn't ideal, it has pain points, it's just a lot better about it. Maybe people stop because they don't like playing rules that...

Woah now. You've just made a lightyear sized leap, jumping to conclusions like that. I've never--not once--said that that should be a thing. That's your assumptions coming into play. The Fighter absolutely should also have nice things for them. The Rogue getting sneak attack damage...

Okay, but the opinion repeatedly put forward is that the rules were actually bad. As in, they literally didn't work, could not be made to work, and that the fact that that was true was somehow a boon. I dispute this. ...why would anyone ever look "for all the answers in the rules"? Written...

No, you misunderstand me. I mean no reduction in player counts. The "negative change" is "fewer people playing the game". I see all the time folks bitterly swearing off ever playing a game if X thing happens. And then X thing happens...and there isn't a sudden player exodus. If anything...

I'm not the one calling for change. I'm assuming things will stay as they are. "No, things MUST change" is clearly the argument that requires support--even if that change is "things need to go back to what they were immediately before the current state of affairs."

Whereas I don't think it's undeniable, but I do think it is a slight but clear lean. And, frankly, I think that's what the buying public wants. We've had something like 20 years of unrelenting cynicism in media. Game of Thrones and all that. People have grown a little weary of realpolitik being...

My problem is, "fit neatly into existing class archetypes" has two versions: 1. You're only adding a teeny tiny tweak to what this is, so a build/subclass/whatever is more than sufficient 2. You're adding a TON, but it could conceivably fit into something else. Shaman and Alchemist are great...

Supplements is fine; I don't expect a bazillion PHB classes.