Search results

I think there might be a bit of nuance lost here. When I read the first sentence, I read "players can't be fey," which feels deeply limiting. But the idea of there being forthcoming species that aren't humanoid implies that there's nothing inherently taboo about non-humanoid PC's. That's good...

The PC species thing is in a bit of a weird limbo, I think. On the one hand, there are already species in 5e who are humanoids whose monster versions in the MM are not going to be humanoids. Crawford mentioned Gith specifically. And then he gives a bit of a fictional band-aid over it ("lost...

This is a big impact, so just doing it as a species isn't going to work. Doing it per the 5e MM is also going to be underwhelming if the player's looking for "werewolf skills." Sounds like the player's going to want to do "cool werewolf stuff" in every fight, maybe on every turn - that's a big...

Your ability to make stuff up isn't the point, though. You can make up your own monsters, why have an MM? You can make up your own adventures, why buy a WotC adventure? You can make up your own magic spells, why do we have spell lists? You can make up your own rules, why have a PHB? The point...

It has a lot of bearing on play. It plays into the description of the creature in a major way. It's also relevant for looting, as has been described. Play is more than just the raw numbers.

Yeah, you'd think that they'd take the opportunity when revising the game to streamline and clarify the advice. Just giving up is....also, an option, I guess.

Something like this has been my experience for almost every session I run. So listen when I tell you: this is too difficult (too time-consuming) for me. The 2024 designers have ballpack damage / attack / hp / ac numbers for a given CR. Why don't we? I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that...

This is close to a dealbreaker for me for 2024. Missing monster creation rules sounds like "play with the toys we give you, do not make your own" to me, and that's not why I play D&D. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing they'd do, so I'd be surprised if there wasn't a discussion, but them...

Yeah, I think there's a real tension between the desire to maximize options and the cost to those decisions. Real Paradox of Choice stuff. Deciding between options is kind of inherently satisfying! But it also takes time and analysis and cognitive load. The usual resolution to that paradox is...

Yeah, but the delta doesn't HAVE to be as big as it is. There's formulas, shortcuts, impactful choices, things that can be turned into mechanics and made swifter. Like, if you just look at combat (since it's probably the biggest thing), a well-done action scene in a TV show or a movie resolves...

An episode of prestige TV is about an hour. If I can go on an entire emotional journey in an hour, it'd be exciting to be able to run a game of D&D in about an hour. I'd bet there's some tradeoffs, but the old criticism of "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours" has only become slightly less...

The prospect of playing a solid game in 1 hour gets me tornt. Like, hooting and hollering like a chimp over here, at the prospect of 1 hr of gameplay turning into a solid progression of narrative. 🐒

I don't think it's really a need. You could probably get away with combining the Big 4 with each other, and even that has some work that's already done for you (EK = Fighter + Wizard, Ranger = Fighter + Druid, Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, Bard or Arcane Trickster = Rogue + Wizard, etc.) Having...

I think there's a strong bias in most design that favors complexity. More decision points, more granularity, more control, more options. 3e and 4e D&D probably show the apex of this, and it's probably not a coincidence that this is when bonus action (and reaction) options were at their highest...

I like it! It's a cool idea, runes are very Law-coded, and it weaves the modrons together with other elements of D&D lore quite well.

People are coming to D&D with outdated assumptions? The heck you say? ;) I think I see the problem as one of design, as the intent of the rules is pretty clearly spelled out. If play isn't lining up with intent, that's a design issue in my mind. I think there's broad variance. I'd call for a...

Heh, it's just that the "D&D needs noncombat mechanics!" discussions I often engage in get grabbed by the d20 mechanic and become about that specific mechanic rather than about what non-combat mechanics can look like more broadly. I try really hard to create a space between the binary of "we...

It is tragic to me that this argument conflates "mechanics" with "rolling dice to resolve uncertainty." Like, the radius of light that a torch gives is an exploration mechanic. Alignment (for all its faults) is a roleplaying mechanic. Mechanics come is so many flavors that are not rolling a...

WotC is part of a massive, publicly-traded corporation, so anything that cuts costs, appeases investors, or otherwise increases shareholder value is in generally in-play. And it's reasonable to ask (and speculate about) how this change in survey strategy helps them with that. FWIW, I think that...

Microcosm of the internet (and maybe society at large) these days. There's little trust, especially in faceless institutions. The assumption is that someone is a position of power is exploiting something. When you can't trust the fundamental claims of a group, then conspiracies flower like...