Search results

Yeah, I find discouraging table talk just discourages all player communication and collaboration. Very often, the player with the best idea isn't the player running that PC. I have a hard enough time getting players to talk to each other and make plans. The older I get and the longer I play...

Definitely, but it's what OP asked for. One option is Into the Unknown, which is like if you took 5e D&D and stuffed it into the Red Box. It's an interesting exercise, but I don't know if it makes for a faster game because most of the fat was trimmed from the character options rather than...

I would say OSE. Very limited mechanics, side initiative, uniform stats, and a first order ascending AC optional rule so there's no needlessly cumbersome attack roll. The most complicated bit is saving throws.

The -5/+10 mechanic was eliminated entirely, but I wouldn't call it nerfed. I think it's still probably the best single feat in the game. So it basically eliminates all drawbacks of using a ranged weapon, with the exception of consuming ammunition. And it now boosts Dex. But you have to wait...

I played a Rock Gnome Battle Smith Artificer in Descent to Avernus. I went with the "weird steampunk engineer" route as the theme for the character. In the campaign, whenever he "cast a spell" I described the character pulling out some bizarre contraption and using that. For example, the Mark I...

Schools of magic should be eliminated entirely.

Personally, I still favor side initiative. When I DM, I want the players to coordinate and make a plan. I don't really find it interesting to have that plan constantly foiled by the initiative dice. NPCs nearly always act together in practice at our table, so it just feels more fair to let the...

Notice that their username is struck through on the left side of their posts? The user appears to have either closed their account or (more likely) been banned from the forum.

That is true. There were undoubtedly specialized builds like crit fishers that could take advantage of TWF.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "historically". Historically as in real-world history, two-weapon fighting was popular mainly for personal defense. Nobody wants to wear armor or carry a shield. That's battlefield equipment. It's simply not done. But any gentleman can carry a cane or rapier...

It's like horsepower, except replace the animal with probate.

I will have to agree with @EzekielRaiden that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Basically everything in 4e targeted a defense. Things that didn't tended to deal single digit damage. And HP for solos was heavily, heavily bloated. Like Orcus is a CR 33 in the original Monster Manual...

Crawford's tweet thread said full health, not full resources. They assume the party recovers their HP between encounters. I think that's the only remotely reasonable way to do it. It covers the lion's share of situations, and that's all anyone should reasonably expect. I don't think it's weird...

This, I think, is a little overstated. There was a really good response on reddit about it. (I know! I was shocked, too!) Really, though, what throws people off is that a party of five level 12 PCs can tackle a CR 20, but if you plug that into the actual encounter rules, it's only slightly...

Yeah, this is where I'm at. Let's see how they try to fix it. I definitely disagree with the OP on numerous points, including the interpretation of what Jeremy Crawford was even trying to say in his tweets. Still, I'm really not interested in rehashing these same points for the fourth or fifth...

I think most people would agree with you in the year 2000. I think WotC certainly did. I also think that 3e is a very, very clear example that (a) that expectation is actually very unreasonable for a TTRPG, and (b) they've never done it again since. Like you can't sit down and write complete...

On the one hand, I don't think it's reasonable to expect OP's problem to stop an actual game. I would say that in essentially all cases, the DM will make a ruling and play will move on. Because it's really not that important. The whole thread is a technicality that will never actually be an...

From my reading of the thread, you're the one making claims that you're not supposed to use prior edition rules, or that new editions always totally invalidate existing rules. You're the one claiming that, as a rule, teleport no longer involves planar travel because the spell description doesn't...

I don't think you will find any rules in any edition that will really agree with this. I think you'll find a lot of people who do, but that's different. Using only the rules in the books as a guide, how do you tell the difference between an alteration of a rule, a replacement of a rule, and a...

Why? Sure, but there's a difference between "minimum rules set" and "the totality of the rules." After all, you can't say that all the supplements don't contain rules. I don't consider the two distinct. Neither does 5e. That's part of the whole "natural language" thing they were going for...