Search results

Found it! Page 59 of 1e Manual of the Planes. (And I'm not sure why I even mentioned 3e Manual of the Planes as a possibility, since I know very well that they didn't have more than a passing reference to the idea of quasi-planes in it.)

Which then makes this the second time it actually shows up (thanks for the references)! I didn't have that particular DMGR book or I almost certainly would have taken note of it.

Aha! So that's the older edition that had it. Did OD&D, or Holmes have it? Because sometimes I see people online talking like that was a rule from the beginning, but I never saw it before 3e. It was distinctly absent in 2e, Mentzer Basic, and the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia. And as far as I can...

That sounds familiar to me also. My guess is either something 2e Planescape, or 3e Manual of the Planes. Or maybe the 3e Planescape conversion from the authorized fan site.

Seriously? That is absolutely horrible advice. At all levels of play 5e relies on multiple opponents for the action economy to work, and one of the best ways of making a fight take a toll without risking a TPK is to outnumber the players with relatively weak opponents. What they could have...

The chart actually does work for that. Every time you increase or decrease AC by 2 points, it is equivalent to moving up or down one level on the hp line. Same thing with attack bonus and the damage line. The chart requires the instructions to function--it isn't something you can just extract...

You don't need to do anything too extreme, but you do need to be careful. All of the following can work together without feeling like you are depriving players of too much of what they may want. Player Side: 1) Slower level progression. Potentially much slower. 2) Curated subclass and species...

I disagree. Monster creation rules that are an improved version of the 2014 ones would be generally well received. Part of this would involve possible math tweaks and expanded/improved lists of monster traits. The other part would be presentation. It needs to be easier to use. As it is now one...

If they are actually fighting with it, migh just make it a 60' radius of dim illumination to represent it briefly flashing all over the place. There would still need to be some way of dealing with them not doing so on turns they don't attack. That would require some thought, but I'd keep in...

Or they only meant in the higher ranges. They've communicated like that before, where they were focused on a specific thing in their mind, but used language that covers a lot broader area to those who aren't in the middle of the design process with them and already know what they are talking...

2014 also mentions +4 in that context, but there have never been any 5e +4 items to my knowledge.

I've actually thought of this possibility too...and if anything it's more disappointing than the other one. I think there is a lot of sense to that, but I have a couple points on it. I believe there are quite a few things out there that nobody has likely yet figured out. I had not noticed the...

That can work well for people that do party-balanced battles, but it only works for that. I'm old school where I put together an encounter that makes sense in the world, and then sometimes would like to be able to look at the math and see about how hard it happens to be on some objective scale...

Yes. It's part of a pattern I've noticed that I do not understand. WotC has specific internal design principles that they use, and they almost never tell us what they are. Some of these have been mentioned during the playtest. One of the early UAs told about "ribbons" in a sidebar, which was a...

You are correct. Monsters need way more hit points relative to their damage output to "work" the best. Since I like much closer PC/NPC parity than that creates, I've been trying out a few things in my own design. Basically, I've been trying to lean into special abilities that provide...

Those are definitely something I'd like to know about also. Ah...good to know! That's also exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see in the new guidelines. I'm totally fine if my players find a particular monster easier or harder due to their particular party make-up or skills or gear...

Got it. I was thinking about B,P,S, but I had forgotten about the customizing to your party. I probably forgot it since I never do that (not at all how I run game). It would be useful for me if they had more objective rules for that, but I might end up needing to finish my replacements for that one.

Now I'm getting a bit concerned. I only intend to use bits and bobs from 2024 (vastly prefer 2014 for almost everything), but I was hoping there might be tweaks to this particular system to take advantage of some of the math and procedure tweakings. This is the kind of tool I should be able to...

This issue for me is being able to have a shared experience with other players and communicate in a way that makes sense. When I'm talking about healers kit dependency or long rest HD healing and nobody knows what I'm talking about, that connection is lost. They look at their books and I look at...

Well...I mean if you are a new DM the rules are gone, because they aren't being republished. And if you can't recreate the same experience without access to materials they refuse to make available to new customers...how much is it really the same game?