Search results

If I want to play a mutant, I’ll play a supers rpg. PCs are supposed to be people, not some completely different kind of being. An elf PC is an elf, and so should have quite a lot in common with…elfs. So no, they shouldn’t be exceptional, IMO. They should be people, and do exceptional things...

Stunning strike would still be excellent if it was in place of damage. It completely deprives an enemy of any action and makes you and your allies better able to quickly kill them. It leads to a faster resolution of the combat, with fewer actions from that enemy. A single attack worth of...

In a white room, maybe. Even then, that doesn’t mean that damage is always better In actual play, it is often vastly better to lock an enemy down than to insist on being the one to do the damage take takes the enemy out. Three rounds of a locked down enemy that is very dangerous is better...

False. Damage is only better if it has a high chance of taking out the enemy, otherwise control effects are often better, and do more to end the battle quickly.

I love that. It hasn’t ever come up, but one of my worlds is a disc with two sides, spinning in space like a coin. The sun and stars are literally the domains of the gods and other Powers, with the sun being the home of the Goddess of Life and Hope, and the Moon being the home of the Huntress...

I cannot imagine caring whether the geographical, biological, zoological, context of a fantasy RPG class is accurate. It’s a fantastical heroic warden of the places where civilization meets The Wild, with a mystical connection to Nature. It needs trope literacy, not scientific knowledge.

Yes, it is. In 5e D&D it very much is. That is all skills even are, very intentionally, even in 2024. There are defined actions, rules around tools used with skills, and advice on playing out the basic gameplay loop in relation to often surprising action declarations from PCs, and that’s the...

I prefer to give such bosses immunity to stun. (And other conditions)

In my own game, our universe is one of Nine Realms, and is the only one that functions like ours does. One is Void and home only to things that don’t exist yet still are and wish only for existence to cease so they can stop being. Another is made entirely of Will, and no physical thing can exist...

I mean any game like this where you are the good guys is going to use a morality that does not dictate that violence is Evil unless absolutely unquestionably necessary. Not even all modern moral codes do so, and almost no ancient moral codes did, so it shouldn’t be that hard to square IMO...

Those aren’t the same. The 3.5 example is reasonable. When there is a seemingly exhaustive list, it’s reasonable to conclude that it is exhaustive. It isn’t a reasonable interpretation of the 5e rules which the clearly stated as not exhaustive description of the sorts of tasks a skill can add...

I am very interested in y’all’s thoughts, so thanks for sharing!

It only “doesn’t mean anything” if you ignore the How To Play section of the game, and go out of your way to make it not mean anything. Being catchy doesn’t make a statement true. IME only people arguing online struggle with just having the conversation of the game determine what is possible...

I could never tolerate this line of thinking if it came up. I’d just shut it down immediately. The Battlemaster doesn’t mean you can’t try to disarm someone. Obviously.

This is more of a game creation question than a running the game question.

I’ve never seen that happen. That’s wild.

God no please. The most concrete skills should get us how they were in 4e, and even that is too specific and thus restricted. I despise trying to do something that makes sense in the game and being stopped by, “Well the skill doesn’t list that as something you can do.” So the hell what??

So let’s say my game has a unique creation story that informs all of my world building, the nature of all beings, especially the adversarial beings that threaten everything, and underpins how magic works and what it even is in the world. Do you want to know about it, as a player? Do you read...

You definitely could, but even if not you can just give them a buff to Animal Handling and Summon Beast as a free spell. Sure you can. That would be a perfectly good class feature. so don’t give those spells to wizards. It’s fine with Druids and rangers share spells.

It was one of my favorites too. And no amount of power will make me like the 5e version. I despise it. Ranger was my other favorite 3.5 class. I wish they had used it and the 4e Essentials Ranger classes (NOT the PHB Ranger) as the blueprints for 5e, but moved it further into expert territory...