Search results

But those aren't the only options - if they were, 5E would be drastically less successful. You can also modify 5E or just play it in different ways that aren't strictly by-the-book and huge numbers of people choose to do that. I mean, in an ideal world maybe people would "play something...

That's a reasonable question, but I think there are so many different patrons at this point it may well be that any given DM hasn't thought much about certain specific ones. I think it's about equally bad, or slightly worse than that, actually. Never underestimate how much people hate forced...

Level 9 in 2024. Having a guy you can phone up and ask 5 questions, none of which he has to answer, and which might make him angry if you keep doing, doesn't mean you need to make it a major part of the campaign, which was what you seemed to say: It just doesn't. It doesn't force you to do...

It really isn't. That's a very strange thing to say. You might as well say Clerics are pointless if the campaign doesn't involve going on and on and on endlessly about the PC's god and their various worldly conflicts, and if they follow a god who doesn't have worldly conflicts, or whose values...

Yes though I share @Parmandur's preference for the size and population of Sigil to remain extremely ambiguous/nebulous myself. But at least in the multiple millions.

I feel like most people don't actually "adjust" as much as "tolerate", and to me, those are very different things. D&D has a lot of quirks a lot of people who play it don't really like nor necessarily adjust to in the sense of actually accepting, but they just sort of ignore because things...

3E and 4E's takes on Sigil were INSANE in a bad way. Both of them seemed to very certain that they wanted to basically turn Sigil into the planar equivalent of a moderately-sized and insular Midwestern city, in population and in politics lol. I gotta believe the same axe-grinder was behind both...

It doesn't though. Like, really, it doesn't. The Warlock's patron doesn't have to feature in the campaign at all. It could, or... not... I mean, if you've played BG3, compare how much Warlock Tav's patron features (barely at all, and optionally) to how much Wyll's does (a ton, and as a major...

You definitely wouldn't have to remove them to do what @BookTenTiger was suggesting. I don't think you'd even have to tone down Magic Missile. Maybe Fireball a little but if you just boosted martial ability to hit multiple targets maybe not even that, it'd just be relatively less powerful. That...

I know this is annoying, but sorry that's not the same thing as what you said! "Walking over social encounters" is not the same thing as "asking the king for the kingdom, being assigned a DC, and beating that DC, and then the kingdom is just handed over". Also, if their Diplomacy was...

Do they though? Have you ever actually seen it happen in the wild? Because I haven't ever seen that, despite having seen "asked to roll 6+ times for a single activity" many times. I've seen players ask to roll to do improbable things, usually jokingly, but the whole job of a DM is to determine...

Yeah and ironically I suspect they probably had blaster versions being designed, just the Draconic one wasn't. It's sad because the design was mostly pretty amazing and much more atmospheric than what we got Sorcerer-wise. The other silly thing was you had full access to armour but couldn't cast...

I'm not sure what point it makes though? I don't understand what you were trying to say with it, but it's usually brought up as this weird canard against resolving stuff with a single roll. Your previous example of a single social roll resolution seemed very reasonable (i.e. negotiation for...

I mean, you're misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting my position, ironically enough because you seem to be unable to see the nuance in it, which is probably on me. I just don't see soft avoidance of "direct harm" when you know it's going on and that you're supporting it as really any less...

Shadowheart is evil, unless the PC convinces her not to be, which whilst most players do manage it, isn't a given. Whether it's her fault she's evil is a more complicated question (given she was mindwiped), but she literally embraces evil unless the PC convinces her not to in BG3. But maybe...

Ooooh good example! Yes that. The trouble with that is, unless the DM is unusually reasonable and realistic, this often turns into an exercise of "roll until you fail" (in binary pass/fail systems). Like, it's one thing to assign a roll to a whole attempt to do a certain, important, meaningful...

Almost certainly. It would be a huge difference though and would feed through to videogames too. Without miraculous healing and so on being a power that belongs to a combat-capable guy in heavy armour and with a shield, and further something you can use in combat, I think we'd see very...

I could see having that be a roll, but it'd have to be a very, very "zoomed out" game in terms of time and what was going on. Like if the PCs were say, a cabal of (evil?) wizards manipulating a kingdom, and an action could be something that took months, "roll to blackmail the baron" might well...

I don't think you always need a detailed explanation of action, but you do likely need some kind of vague explanation of action to avoid the "I wouldn't do that" issues noted. I can't think of a game that does it as the OP describes either. But one-roll isn't uncommon and kind of similar...