Search results

I'm ok with all of that.

Paying for art?

I change (and have changed) my play when I think it's worth it. What changes the official games goes through are not particularly relevant to me. What possible reason would I have to keep following the leading edge if I don't like where it's going?

I get what you're saying, but as I've said before, personally I need damage types to matter if the rules make them matter.

My solution is (obviously) to just use A5e's adventure book.

I have played a couple games of Shadowdark and I love it, despite my normal preference for more rules-heavy games. I really enjoy the classic D&D vibe. That being said, while I have not played Dragonbane, my buddy played a three-session game while we were at Gencon and had nothing but good...

Art isn't the important thing anyway.

The relative success of spell-less ranger variants, both in alternate 5e games like Level Up and in articles like WotC's Unearthed Arcana, show that you are overstating your case.

The link doesn't appear to work. Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

I don't consider the exploration stuff minor. It's as important to the class as the 5e rules base allows it to be.

When you say "the D&D community", I assume you mean the community for WotC's current game?

Getting online now to grab all of Laser Llama's work!

IMO examples of those "narrative points" determined after the fact would include any situation in which the damage type is relevant via the rules (poison is the most famous case), and anytime a creature reaches 0 hit points.

Yeah, the internet not all puppies and rainbows.

I would say that 4e didn't particularly encourage house rules or homebrew (although I respect the heck out of its intentionality), but otherwise I agree.

My favorite yuan-ti.

I change things all the time. But frankly I'm going to resent a system that insists I play a certain way. Give advice on what you as a designer consider best practices for your game, be clear about your intentions when designing it (something D&D has admittedly often failed to do). That IMO is...

@Enrahim basically covered it. And furthermore, as I've said above a lot of games seem to take their rules pretty seriously, and don't look to leave a lot of explicit space for houseruling or even playing with a different style. By including rules that govern GM behavior you are telling your...

A title explicitly called out as a rant by the OP, and IMO clearly designed to ruffle the feathers of those who prefer traditional gaming playstyles.

They have significant different class features, both the ones all rangers get as well as the ones they get to choose from a menu of options, even if some choices can be made by either class. Do you see all non-magical classes as essentially similar?