Search results

I mean yeah, they only appeared as PCs in one book in a relatively unpopular edition. But I'd never heard of them being actively disliked due to their appearance.

...what else would High Difficulty mean? If the encounter is guaranteed to kill off your PCs then it's not high difficulty, it's impossible.

Honestly if I were just running a Dark Sun one-shot I would probably use A5E since it has the armor material rules by default and has a system for hybridizing ancestries to make Muls. Though now that I think about it, I don't think A5E has an official Goliath/Half Giant. Edit: I guess the...

Which is ironically their own damn fault because of the OGL crisis and the other bad behavior of the past several years.

It failed to make Daddy Hasbro happy but it found and audience and wasn't unprofitable. It just wasn't profitable enough for the rapacious jaws of a megacorp. MCDM, Lancer, and others have proven there's an audience for that style of gameplay, even if it's smaller than the blue ocean 5E is...

I had never known they were unpopular, TBH. They were at least popular enough to get multiple 5E homebrew conversions. I always thought they looked neat and I think the AI one there looks pretty generic by comparison.

I really don't want to rehash edition war nonsense. My point wasn't even that 4E was a resounding success (obviously it wasn't) but that every edition of D&D, even the controversial ones, are a response to common complaints about the previous one. The 4E designers weren't just designing in a...

Basically. WOTC didn't think anyone would want the Gamer Girl Bathwater of 3rd Edition and Paizo saw a golden opportunity. :ROFLMAO:

Except Patfhinder 1E also failed to address many of the balance issues. I would argue that they were so fundamental that a drastic redesign was necessary. Granted, 4E threw out some babies with the bathwater, but it was extremely dirty bathwater that needed to be discarded.

How do you mean this? Was 4E not literally designed to address the common pain points of 3E? Imbalanced classes, too many skills, trap options, unreliable CR, etc?

...I mean it's not like the guidelines helped get monster balance right in 3E either so I really don't see that as a strong argument. Robust monster guidelines with balanced math goes a lot farther than trying to build them by the same rules as PCs--like 4E after Monster Manual 3 fixed the math.

Plenty of 5E NPCs are also classed, they even started adding it as a tag like (demon) or (titan). What a lot of us (I think) are wary of is the 3E conceit that adding class levels to an NPC means adding all the same features that a PC of that class would get--class features, Feats, etc.

What a clever way of mapping Sigil. Very nice.

Fair! My other thought would be reducing HP growth for PCs, but that seems like a change for a full edition number, not something trying for backwards compatibility.

...Okay but do you really want to go back to doing that? Because I would much rather spend my time playing the game and less time prepping it.

I'm honestly not sure what the answer is for 5E. Arcane Burst came about for the same reason that monster damage increased so much in the 2025 Monster Manual... because the old versions weren't hitting as hard as their CR would recommend, at least not without customizing their spells and running...

I'd vote for Glasya, to answer the OP's question. Corrupting and destroying a slice of paradise seems like her MO.

Also you can more or less just use the rules from those games. It's close enough.

I mean Dragonborn from 2024 PHB and Gem Dragonborn get wings and a flight speed (temporarily) at 5th level so if my player picks one of those versions they can (temporarily) have wings... but yeah otherwise not by default.

I meant to vote for Goliath and not Gnome. I like having options and Goliath has lots of options.