Search results

+3 and +4 proficiency bonus. +2 is low-level and +5 / +6 is high level.

Although to be fair... I would suspect that this quite possibly would cover more than half of all tables playing the game out there. Those of us on boards such as this really are such a small subset of the game, but yet we constantly think that our playstyles are more prominent than they...

This is very much my feelings too. I have five editions worth of material to draw on when needing to adapt stuff to a game I am running. Since it is all based around the tropes of Dungeons & Dragons (even if a number of the rules do not match up based on edition)... I have much less finagling...

🤷 Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I wasn't even talking about magic items... my whole belief in the capabilities of the encounter building rules / challenge rating system is based on the number of PCs that can heal. As soon as you add a second healing-capable PC (and goodness forbid a 3rd or 4th in a standard party)... you...

100%. Which is why I've always made the point when people would constantly complain about 5E's encounter building rules that they would be perfectly serviceable and balanced when used for a default 4-PC party with one fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. But as soon as you added a 5th character...

Based upon how everybody blows things involving the designs of 3E, 4E and 5E completely out of proportion (regarding power levels, how easy or hard it is to pick the game up, how new-player friendly bits and pieces are, all kinds of minor mechanical bits in isolation made to seem like the...

I play in a long-term weekly Pathfinder game (so I voted 3E / 3.5 for that)... if/when I run games myself I run 5E (voted for that)... and then if not those two then it's board games (voted other non-D&D for that.)

Is your chart really having the number of spells of a particular level change up and down as the character levels up? That seems rather unintuitive. If the intention is for players to spend more high-level slots on lower-level spells... I agree with the poster above who said you might as well...

Yeah, the 5E24 monsters could be a bit more challenge... but then again maybe not enough of a change where it ends up being worthwhile? Really impossible to say with any certainty. At the end of the day you might end up just having to take the plunge and see what happens. I will say though...

Try using one of them and see what happens. Playtesting the game is the best way to determine whether something can work for you. There's no reason to trust the opinions of any of us here, because we all run our combats differently and have differing opinions on what we consider "compatible"...

I just use my own common sense if/when a question comes up. If/when someone wants to Dispel Magic on something or Counterspell something, or an Anti-Magic Field shows up... I'll make Rulings on various items/features/abilities as the players or the NPCs attempt to use them at the time. But in...

If (general) you are a fan of Dark Sun... you don't want WotC to make a 5E24 update to Dark Sun. You are going to hate it. Make your own update. You have your old Dark Sun materials presumably... use all of that to make the setting workable for yourself with 5E24 (or 5E14 if you haven't...

Naw, don't really find it that interesting. 5E14 was a small team releasing a game with an unknown audience size and an unknown possibility of success, so their release schedule was modest and pointed... getting the game revv'd up and going. 5E24 is a large game for a large and still active...

Agree with Charlaquin here. They have the right of it for the possessive.

Probably the best way to decide would be to write out a standard sentence that can use the various options and see which one looks / sounds / feels the most appropriate. Plus important to remember that if this is meant for a written document rather than one spoken out loud, it might change...

If this is to be used in somewhat formal documentation, @TaranTheWanderer is correct that 'you all' is probably the most formal option. Guys, ones, folks, yous... all are informal (if not actually considered silly, like 'you lot' and 'yous' would be).

You are correct @Yaarel that 'you guys' does get used quite a bit, but that 'guys' is still oftentimes a male connontation-- even though it has become more and more non-gendered over the years in its use as a group noun.

I can't say it's a "formal" context, but for me when I refer to second-person plural, I usually use 'y'all'. One word, a contraction of 'you all', understood by pretty much all Americans. But it is exceedingly informal.

To me the most logical book that could/would become a "fourth core" book would be the Manual of the Planes. It's the one book that has universal application and has been published over and over regardless of edition, meaning that it already has a place in the ubiquity of D&D tomes. So take out...