Search results

Yeah, I think "coy" is a nice way to put the attitude that D&D DMGs have had toward this. Especially, I think, the "running" side of things. DMGs have been more weighted to the "preparation" side, typically. Part of this is probably a bit of unstated "whatever works for your table!", which is...

Agreed! Also, I think the instructions are really two different play modes, so they're really talking about two different things. First, you have the "preparing the adventure" mode. That's a play mode that the DM usually does on their own. Imagining the arc of the coming session, creating some...

It is pretty contradictory as written. IMO, (1) is more explicit than it should be. "How might the adventure play out?" is a more useful angle than "How does the adventure play out?" And "Determine the potential encounters or events that could happen to the characters, from the beginning...

I'm broadly a fan, and very glad that they retreated from the "widespread acceptance" angle (for reasons similar to Pointy Hat!). I do lament a continual loss of diversity in the tiefling since 2e. "Something else" is a broad category, and ties into the social shame angle - something too awful...

Celestial is a good change for the sphinx. The D&D sphinx has been a divine protector of lost holy sites since 4e, and 5e inherited the 4e lore more than the lore before it. In this case, that is definitely a gain, since the 3e/2e/1e lore is oddly focused on unwanted sexual advances for...

Getting specific about what we "call" it is an exercise in marketing psychology. "3.5," after all, was coined in an era where tech language was starting to be embraced by the culture at large. "Essentials" was 4e's appeal to folks who felt its design wasn't true to D&D's roots. "One D&D" seems...

How high does the barrier to entry to play D&D need to be? I'm personally of the opinion that D&D should be fairly easy to play effectively. Not much to learn. Not much to discuss. Not much of a meta. I prefer an accessible game, a game that largely prioritizes broad accessibility over...

If so, that might be nice! Avoids the awkward "half your maximum hit points" wording, and if they're using the mechanic a lot, I totally see a reason for that. Bloodied was an unfortunate casualty of the HP wars, and it deserves a comeback.

Not disagreeing, but this thinking is why I am deeply suspicious of this design iteration leaning deeper into feat territory. "Give up a feat" speaks to scarcity thinking - you only have so many feats, and you NEED EVERY ONE. Can't afford to spend any on anything other than the most worthwhile...

I have an inkling that half-elf and half-orc will be feats, rather than ancestries. Just an inkling, tho.

Yeah, that's probably a dividing point between "useful in an adventure" and "more of a narrative device, really." I could maybe see an argument for up to 3rd level spells, but up to 5th level gives us a bit of room to grow beyond fireball.

"Everything changed when Ronald Regan was elected." FWIW, I think the idea of dragons as corporate masters has a lot of traction, and could form the basis of a pretty fun dungeonpunk campaign. Maybe we take a cross-section of big industries. You get a black dragon that runs fantasy ExxonMobil...

Millennial adventurers have trained their entire lives to become elite adventurers, but it turns out all the boomers already looted every single dungeon and don't have the self-awareness to understand why looting dungeons doesn't work anymore. Millennial adventurers are saddled with immense...

The Radiant Citadel's civilizations are right there and they're very good. Umizu, Yongjing, Siabsungkoh, Yeonido, Shankhabhumi, Dayawlongon. All just BEGGING to be fleshed out with more adventures, more monsters, some character options. Each of which itself is SO MUCH BETTER than remaking what...

Nah, it's a Paladin thing, Paladins are much better at achieving this vibe than Fighters are, and have been since 1e. Fighters are kind of grandfathered into it, but because Fighters are a super generic class, they've never had robust class mechanics to support it. No oaths, no models of...

I think archetypes and are why a lot of people actually play classes. Mechanics are mostly just there to support the archetypes in a way that's fun to play. Which is why you saw OD&D's quite elegant fighter/mage/gish triad diversify almost immediately, and continue to do so. If I'm playing a...

Paladin has good "knight in shining armor" vibes that make its narrative consequences less dependent on the deity. It's the kind of place that'd be a good home for a variety of "elite warrior" figures. Cavaliers, samurai, tribal champions, knights in shining armor, ronin, blackguards, death...

Every other class. Arcana cleric? Wizard. Death cleric? Let's say Paladin. Forge cleric? Fighter. Grave cleric? Maybe Paladin again. Knowledge? Wizard. Life? Paladin works. Light? Wizard again. Nature? You're a druid. Order? Fighter. Peace? Let's throw a Bard in here. Tempest? idk, barbarian...

I don't think we need roles. What is the "role" of a fiery vortex that pulls you in. Controller? Soldier? Leader? Damage-Dealer? Roles are over-simplified. What we need are tactics. That's bigger than a role. That's telling you the strategy for using the monster in a fight. Which might be...

5e's balanced around the encounter. It's just also OK with parties also choosing to nope out of an encounter.