Search results

"We are playing this adventure, it starts at level 5." It's that simple?

I guess I don't have the context required. I just think of a martial class with a religious background or back story. I've been completely disappointed by Wizards handling of anything God/Divine, so I guess I am just conditioned to see the concept as something we could handle already.

This isn't a rules issue though, it's a failure to guide play by offering more options via packaged adventures which...don't start at 1.

-- If you stopped grinding that axe, you could write your game.

Would a 6e with a new default setting (that could still support the current/legacy ones) be a benefit, or detriment?

I mean what is raising the dead, if not a miracle to the lay person?

I have never heard of this.

Yeah exactly where I'm at. Array would be the assumption, point buy would get you less than Array, but you could at least 'choose your own' adventure, and rolling would be tucked off in the DMG or something.

Yes, and they also provide a framework to begin to balance from. Rolling has its place (I love it in Shadowdark for example) but in modern D&D? No chance. Array should be the default option.

Legs Day 2. Glad to be done. Everything was good, got it done in less than hour, but my legs are tired from Tuesday, and honestly the Sauna on Saturday. Its still hot as hell here, humid, and I'm DONE with Summer lol.

I'm over Summer. Its time to go, off now.

People who have owned something in the past, and been mercilessly punished for doing so, in my experience. There are a lot of managers failing at their jobs.

Thats what I'm suggesting, but you still have those points (6, 11, 16) where what you knew/where, changes. This is a staple of fantasy really, and power progression in many genres and types of media. While yes we can have 5, 10, 20 levels of the 'same thing' but the numbers go up, I think that...

I increasingly believe this is the way. 1-5 is the low level stuff in terms of what threats are being faced or at at least HOW you face them. No, you do not get to punch Demogorgon in the face here. This more OSR style 'hide, trick, steal' from anything that is you know, wildly stronger than...

So, most of these I think I get, but I'm left with the following. Avenger, the warrior-of-zeal, whose absolute focus is both shield and sword against their enemies, who executes the turncoat apostate. Invoker, the emissary-as-magician, who calls down disaster upon the foes of the faith, Elijah...

And yet, if you asked 1000 D&D players, they could pick it out. I get it, this seems near and dear to your heart, and I look at some commentary here about other terms and I just cringe, but there is enough of a shared understanding that even if its not 'technically correct' we can get it.

Do you think if they could poll 1000 D&D fans, 'what does medieval look like' and then had a 1-5 (1 = nope, 5 = yep) poll, that a general idea could not be agreed upon? Its Knights, Horses, Armour. Its Wizards in robes, and castles. Its houses with those wood frames on the outside. You know it...

https://www.etymonline.com/word/trappings For ones given view and definition of 'medieval' and go from there.

Absolutely true, but any corp offering (other than cy-borg, my lawyer will not be taking questions at this time) is simply further along that line, especially if its THAT corp, which is pretty much the antithesis of punk in any sense.