Search results

I love concentration and the way it prevents buff-stacking. I think the choice that it forces is an interesting one. So, rather than changing the rules for concentration, I'd just house rule which spells require it. If there are some spells that are interesting but aren't taken dut to...

It's not D&D-based, but it could be mined for setting inspiration: Cavaliers of Mars.

I also note that article says that it has only recently been the case (as of 2023) that the majority of D&D players are "5E babies."

I'm not the OP, but I interpreted that to mean that the 4E rules (arguably) codified things so tightly that some DMs may have felt there wasn't enough space to improvise or make their own calls. Not saying this is objectively true, as I don't want to open the 4E can of worms, but I can see how...

Re all the comments about the DMG: I actually would guess that most 5E DMs, at least those who got on board in the early days of the edition, learned from the original Starter Set and Lost Mine of Phandelver. Which didn't hand-hold for the DM but did provide a good adventure to "learn by doing."

A favorite with my group is "Cooperate," especially when paired with zone of truth.

I haven't seen this sentiment.

Actually, I thought he was implying a moral failing on the part of 5E, that it (supposedly) didn't manage to keep the majority of pre-3E DMs in the game.

Even assuming that's accurate (it doesn't match my experience), are you saying those DMs were not "experienced" enough to teach 5E?

I know this is one heck of a necro, but I was just wondering whether a clean version of the map exists anywhere?

Downloaded, thanks! And I think your maps are beautiful.

Can't you just refluff the paladin's abilities?

You can click the arrow next to the name and be taken to the original post. @Kobold Stew is a board member who watched the WotC informational livestream and took detailed notes on what they said, complete with a few direct quotations (like "will grind").

However, I was responding to a post that implied that the DM wouldn't really have to notice or care whether the players were bringing 2014 or 2024 characters to the table. It doesn't sound like the OP wants to be constantly making adjustments for 2024 characters, whether it's easy or not.

They did: 👇

According to WotC, if the DM is using 2014 rules, it's not a good idea to put 2024 characters into that game.

I'm not complaining. I'm just saying I don't share your opinion of what constitutes impossible.

For what it's worth, this question is not new to D&D 5.5/2024/whatever. We had the exact same debate a few years ago about straight 5E:

I think our ideas about what is "obviously impossible" (and that's not even bringing up arrows and spells) are different enough that we're not going to find common ground here.

And that's enough for you to say that no matter what you roll, there is no way you could possibly hit the invisible creature? I don't find that realistic, personally. You should get a penalty, sure, and debates can be had about how big the penalty should be--but hitting the target should be...