Search results

Definitely, at least in my definition of optimization. It doesn’t have to be dishonest or against the spirit of the game, but choosing your flaws in order to gain the maximum efficiency of your “build” is part of optimization.

Ohhh, homebrewed subclasses! We haven’t seen that in a while! A+ for flavour. Deadmen Tell no Tales: it may be balanced, or not, but it’s unoriginal. Go back to the drawing board and make a new not-sneak-attack feature. Then stacking won’t be an issue. Weapon Finesse: What, no witty ability...

I like optimisation. I’d call myself an optimiser, and so are most of my friends in my group. We don’t use it pejoratively, but there might be a language barrier there (we play in French). Step 1 sometimes starts from a (perceived) synergy between two abilities, or some game mechanics we find...

And yet, it advertises itself more medieval and renaissance-like in its aesthetics than Victorian, or Napoleonian, or Frontier Western, or even Age of Sail Caribbean. Or at least, it used to. Even in the old, almost psychedelic Erol Otus period with laser guns and crashed spaceships, characters...

Exactly! I said that tongue-in-cheek because it’s often an item of contention when it comes to what the D&D paradigm should (or shouldn’t) be. But some people prefer when their D&D adheres to an anachronistic but mostly medieval/renaissence-inspired aesthetics, and there’s nothing wrong with...

Well, at least they’re not using guns…

I think armor-as-hit-points works best in systems where characters have relatively few hit points and do not gain any substantial amount over time. In D&D it would be difficult to adjust armors that are not overpowered at low levels and irrelevant at higher levels, especially if hits are automatic.

As for being cool with the elves of odd skin tones etc, I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. Only, elves of different body shape, skin tones, and mimicking the physiognomy of various real world ethnicities or more alien ones, is a relatively new thing. I’m sure there’s plenty of example of...

« Elves », for the longest time, were perceived and even described as inhumanly beautiful and perfect in every way. Add the ´80s to 2010s screwed up ideals of beauty and you get an impossibly thin and lithe vision of the female elf. This rogue directly challenges that vision and humanizes elves...

Can’t stop the cascade… But unlike the Titan’s station, i don’t think D&D is as hermetically removed from other «natural» redundancy system that can share the strain.

In all fairness though, those were never traditions. They were elements of the game, most of which never survive the next edition change, which by definition excludes them from being traditions by themselves. Instead, all of the things you mentioned are part of a wider tradition that still...

Fair point

Benevolent DM goes out of their way to make sure the players enjoy their game, catering to a crowd that isn’t interested in random deaths and killer dungeons. Adversarial DM says I’m playing against you. Referee DM says I’m playing for you. Benevolent DM says I’m playing with you. There’s a...

Of course you can do that. A benevolent must do that. Only, « playing to the best of your abilities » as a benevolent DM doesn’t mean trying your best to kill the PC, it means trying your best to give the players the most challenging tasks without killing or ruining their PC. I pull the red...

I consider myself a benevolent DM. I’m definitely routing for the PC, even if my job is partly to give the players a good run for their money. So yes, this means going the extra mile to make sure they 1) sufficiently challenged and 2) not being TPKed. I’m aming for « survival against all odds »...

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback! As others said it looks like they did a good job in having as system flexible enough to allow different playstyles. I’ve got plenty of games going on now but I’m keeping an eye open for DH

I’m 48 and I’m in my prime. I know what I like. I know what I’m good at. I know my « type » and therefore can decide to go with or against it. I’ve got a good group of friends. I’m much more aware of making it fun for everyone first and foremost. We have a wide spectrum of games and...

The skinny; if you think the ranger class is unnecessary, this thread isn’t going to convince you otherwise. If you like the ranger, this thread isn’t going to make you think it’s more superfluous than the paladin, bard, or barbarian.

Indeed Less is often better than more, but more is often preferable to not enough. Current D&D hits my goldilocks zone for character classes but im happy when specific settings add a touch of uniqueness in the form of a class, like Eberron’s artificer for example.

A class in 5eD&D is two things: a concept that cannot be easily and accurately reproduced with another class, and enough variations on the said concept to allow several subclasses of its own. The two most obvious classical archetypes for rangers are the beastmaster and the wilderness hunter...