Search results

We aren’t talking about some small indie publisher here. If we were, I’d be much more open to the digital-only model. But this is WotC. If they wanted to include the content of these “DLC” in the base book and increase the price to cover the cost of the increased page count, they could.

I mean, even if 5e was completely failing, the fact that he’s arguing that its successors are split between continuing the character creation focused design and moving on to ease-of-DMing focused design would still mean a new generation has not yet started according to his definition. I think...

Right, which is why Mearls is still classifying it as 4th generation.

That’s not what he’s saying. He called 5e a 4th generation game, and he thinks the successors to 5e will split between continuing the 4th generation design, or starting the new, 5th generation of design. He’s considering the post-2024 5e to fall into the former category.

I don’t know, that’s their job to figure out. Maybe they could sell it print on demand, or maybe they could include that content in the physical book (presumably at a higher price) instead of selling some of the content separately as “DLC”. If the “DLC” model is not sustainable to offer in...

My solution is to offer a physical version. So, what you’re saying is they’ve turned up the temperature of the water slowly enough that you don’t feel the need to jump out. Me, I’m not going to wait until the water boils. I see a trend I dislike and I’m not content to allow it to continue...

I don’t think the ethics of digital piracy is really appropriate to discuss here, mea culpa for bringing it up in the first place. But, I will say that when I buy a physical book, I am buying a real object, which I then own and can do with as I please, up to and including reselling it. This is...

Huh. I had started to write a reply and deleted it (or so I thought), because I didn’t think it was going to contribute anything positive to the thread. Guess I must have hit post reply by accident somehow. Anyway, please disregard it, there was really no content of value there.

I think there are a lot of issues with the forge’s model. But, I also think it’s important to note that a model’s utility is not correlated 1:1 with its accuracy. Think of the scene from Zoolander where Ben Stiller says “what is this? A center for ants?!” He’s made the mistake of assuming that...

As we like to say in science communication: all models are wrong. Some models are useful.

I don’t mind some small things being digital only. Updates to pre-2024 subclasses feel to me like something that should be available in a physical format.

We also live in a world where digital purchases don’t actually legally grant you ownership of the product you bought, just a license to access it. If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing, and I have no intention of buying D&D “books” I can’t own.

No physical version? I hate that. Like, a lot.

Well it clearly ended up moving in a different direction, but the fact that it did kinda demonstrates that he’s oversimplifying these generations.

I’m extremely skeptical about this, because Mearls has been beating a similar drum since 2012, when he designed 5e and sold it on exactly the same premise he’s peddling here - that 3e and 4e were all about the bespoke character building, but with 5e they were moving towards ease of play and GM...

I’m not sure I agree with that dichotomy.

Frankly, I think it’s stupid that the rules treat interacting with the environment as a distinct type of thing you can do on your turn that requires restricting the number of times it can be done. If it needs to be part of some action anyway, just let it be part of that action. Draw a weapon...

The only thing I can imagine is you hold whatever is occupying that hand between your index finger and thumb, draw the hand crossbow bolt between your middle and ring fingers (near the second knuckle), and use the tips of your middle, ring, and pinky fingers to pull back the string of the hand...

The thrown property allows you to draw and throw a weapon as part of the same action.

That’s a very well-reasoned interpretation. I’m skeptical that it’s the intent, but you have convinced me it’s a valid reading of the text.