Search results

I don't play 5e, so that's meaningless to me. That holds for WotCisms in general. When I see the word "sorcerer," I think of Conan villains or Elric. When I see the word "warlock," I think of goofy Bewitched and Sabrina characters, or that one horror movie from the 80s with the time-traveling...

Precisely why I didn't want to give any context when I first posted the poll. But by now, I think I've gathered enough data by asking the question blind. Sorcerer is ever-so-slightly better than wizard, and that's all I was asking, and that's all I needed to know. So thanks!

Pretty much. To lend a bit more context to the project, I'm reworking a game with a very simple class system. Four base classes, each of which can promote into either of two sub-classes. So I want to keep the names very archetypical; I don't want to use any silly-sounding nounverber compounds at...

In The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904), Mombi the witch calls herself a "wizardess" because it would be illegal for her to call herself a witch — only a ruler of one of the four countries of Oz is allowed to hold the title, and Mombi used to be the Wicked Witch of the North, until she was defeated...

I'm working on a revision of one of my old game designs, and EN World has in the past been pretty great about helping me name character classes. But this one might prove a conundrum: when to comes to naming the archetypical warrior-mage, which term conjures the stronger image of a sword-swinging...

A combination of basic practicality (all the rulebooks and modules I use already have it written that way) and the fact that I just genuinely find it easier that the numbers involved get smaller (and therefore easier to add and compare quickly) as the campaign itself rises in level and grows...

I love Necco Wafers and Peanut Butter Kisses. (I haven't been able to find the latter at all this year though. Not even at the local old-timey candy shops.) Good & Plenty is just about the only candy I'd sooner throw away than risk inflicting on anyone else.

I'd guess that ascending AC and not using THAC0 have become sacred to mainstream D&D players. I ignore that.

Overall, this looks to me like a good idea and an elegant mechanic. Do this, and also base initiative on Int instead of Dex, and suddenly the stats are looking quite a bit more balanced.

Languages matter a lot in my campaigns. I'm aiming for verisimilitude, not convenience.

I've had experiences that felt uncanny at the time, but nothing I could ever consider supernatural. Every single time I've ever experienced that deeply uncanny sensation, it's always been in conjunction with a dangerous situation where I've feared for my life — full-on heart-pounding...

The shift from old-school to trad/modern play has far less to do IMO with D&D moving "out of the dungeon," or even from challenge and skill driven play to story and performative thespianism, than the shift from open to dedicated tables. Everything that makes trad play different from old-school...

Are we seeing Ironheart at 1:40, I wonder?

This whole topic is really just asking, "How much does System Matter?" I say that it matters more than Professor Dungeon Master thinks it does, but less than Ron Edwards thought it did.

Not strictly relevant to 5e perhaps, but here's how I run OD&D fighters these days: Level XP Required Level Title HP THAC0 Save Special Abilities Chainmail Combat 1st 0 Veteran 8 19 14 Set Spear Maneuver 1 Man +1 2nd 2,000 Warrior 12 19 14 Lance Charge Maneuver 2 Men +1 3rd 4,000...

Correct. Also lapis lazuli and kambaba jasper. :cool:

My current set (from Etsy):

Probably closer to "gwãh-nyar" if you're trying to imitate the French accent, but most people just say "grog-nard." "How now, brown drow?" said the liches with stitches in their britches, while the kobolds cobbled cobblestones and the goblins gobbled gobbledygook.

Stahp.