Search results

No,literally, if the game doesn't give you guidelines, it fails. There can be no assumption that the user will go find answers in another game, nor any assumption they will put together spreadsheets to try and backward what you intended. RPGs are inherently open and DIY, and not providing tools...

I personally think the "beginner friendly" aspect of the 2024 DMG is going to be a problem if they don't follow up with a "DMG 2" or whatever.

Except there is no equipment listed which is 90% of an AD&D fighter statblock.

Yup. That's on me for not checking the section. I assumed it matched the 2014 advice at least generally. One more reason 2024 is a downgrade. Ugh.

They certainly weren't statted in AD&D unless you called (4th level.fighter) stats. And nowhere does it prohibit classed NPCs.

Yes. Just like 5E. There are bandits and stuff. And the leader can be a full on barbarian. I don't understand what you are seeing that is different. Why are you assuming that because 5E has NPC statblocks just like AD&D, that somehow you aren't allowed to use classed NPCs also?

Yes, exactly like 5E is intended to work. Almost every version of D&D except 3.x, really. That is the only edition that demanded NPCs be built like PCs, up to and including 20th level commoners.

Not THEMNGMNT but my problem with NBA agents are twofold. First, there are just way too many skills. It is too granular on that front. Second, the combat system is just kind of crappy. It is not fun and you never feel like Jason Bourne. There is a lot to love about NBA, but its implementation of...

I don't know, it feels like a dodge to.argue that all AD&D NPCs were classed, except those that weren't (because they were started up in the MM). That is exactly how 5E works.

My problem with that is that GW characters really should not look like 5E characters, IMO. GW characters should have very broad, vague classes and a hodgepodge of skills and mutations and gear. I think compatibility from a numerical standpoint is a worthwhile goal so you can mix and match, but...

Complexity isn't there for narrative purposes, it is there for gameplay purposes.

Again, these strike me as differences in scale, not kind. Both have the PC interacting with the world and being told to roll to find out if they succeed. Having to do it in one step or six does not change how it is being adjudicated, just the granularity of that adjudication (and as @Ruin...

I meant the setup, not the power level.

Why would you want to prevent that? The public are not good designers or even good judges of design. WotC's design department should make the game they want, not the one the most fervent and opinionated members of their fanbase demand.

I'm team "NpC casters should use custom spells/abilities." I am not the least bit interested in combing through books to find just the right loadout. Instead, I'll give them 3 or 5 distinct magical powers. They aren't going to last longer than that anyway. If the fight ends and a player wants...

Isn't that just shifting the problem? Now all your mysteries etc can only be solved by magic? I'm not sure how that is "better." The question, I guess, is "why is fireball something that should be eliminated?" If the only answer is "it makes people playing martial characters feel bad" it...

They aren't different in kind, is my point. Like I said, I don't think I have ever seen "roll for intent" in practical use, except maybe in the most writers-room-like of narrative systems.

Sure but was responding to folks directly scoffing at existential horror.

While internal playtesting is of course important, I really wish they would stop with the "public playtests" which are really just part of the marketing department. If they really wanted to playtest stuff on a large scale,they would introduce it via AL and actually collect useful data and feedback.

I do not understand your response in the context of the discussion at hand.