Search results

If you're right, the dudes (and dudets) can't even name their terminology properly. Perhaps, the WotC posse needs to buy a thesaurus. (Or have have supined themselves before lord Hasbro. How sweetly they kiss his plastic Marvel action figures! Guess that's why they make the big bucks.)*...

Because the game has a serious lack of wise, weakling criminals...make sense...um... Don't need no brawn for tavern brawls, climbing walls, pole vaulting, or leaping rooftop to rooftop. Gymnasts are scrawny match-stick men, don't you know. And wisdom! All criminals meditate, contemplate...

This is definitely an improvement. Well done to the WotC posse for responding to feedback.

While I still think you underestimate the potential of subclasses as genre tools, I see your point here. You have made me change me Perfect 6e (TM) I wish the WotC posse tries to integrate D&D with every other Hasboro IP and blatantly insults everyone in enough tiny ways that the game dies and...

I think you are underestimating the potential of the sub-class system. The fact that the champion, battlemaster fighter, and Eldritch Knight can be part of the same class while playing so differently is astounding. Imaging taking the wizard, but have each sub-class alter the way spell slots...

That would be nice. I have had to disallow so many subclasses (College of Glamour, Archefay Patron, for example) because I simply cannot work out how to the ability to supposed to function in the game world. If I can't even get a clear imagine of how the ability works, how a I supposed make...

I totally disagree. Homebrewers have hacked 5e to fix a huge number of settings. All it require it for the core game to come with options built in. The game might have 15-ish classes, but with the assumption that only 4-12 will be used in any given game where they fit the milieu. Different...

I would like to see a version of D&D that has enough flexibility that I can create the game world, then apply the system--not butcher the world to fit the system or heck the system to fit the world.

Also, I see no reason why an individual GM can't create a setting where non-humans phenomenological constructs are entirely genetically engrained. They might have no more sense of "culture" (a nebulous term in itself) than an ant colony or herd of dear. Isn't this how orcs and goblins are...

Sure. Oral traditions were necessary to pass on ideas from one generation to another. Inevitably, improvisation and mutations occurs. Thanks to the printing press, that is no longer necessary. I can read A Princess of Mars without the need for bards, orators, and rapsodes to butcher or...

Why create their own system if they're going to abandon it?

No. Every piece of media does not have this issue, only those that get remade. Instead of remaking media, I'd like to see new media be made. We have become a civilization of artistic pillagers and creative parasites. Shame on us.

Differing levels only seems to work when more than 10 or so players are adventuring in the same world. Different adventures can have wildly different PC composition. Each adventure needs to fit into one session. For the more standard (nowadays) campaign where a single group of adventurers...

An ancient African setting would be cool. Sign me up.

...And this is why I write my own adventures. But if this is what the WotC posse are in to...I'm not going to stop them. I just want them to make the game they want to play most--whatever that might be.

For those of your who assume PCs of absent players continue to adventure with their peers, do the PCs of absent players ever die (or are permanently transformed into a rodent/undergo an alignment- or gender-swap/etc.) when the player is away? I would be pretty unhappy if I was that player.

Edit: I think the post I was replying to got deleted. Original quote: "The only frame of reference that is the same between groups is the actual printed product." ...Which is irrelevant until it's being played at the game table. The game table is the experience: the excitement, the laughs...

I'm the opposite. I prefer to take something bland and add to it than take something I only like 60% of, remove the 40% I don't care for, and rewrite it. Adding is easy. Identifying, removing, and rewriting is hard.

Great idea! As long as you're playing with a cognitively unimpaired group (the only type of group worth playing with), it should work well. Happy gaming.

Every adventure is hypothetical until it makes its away to the game table. Moreover, every DM is unique, as is his/her world (even if its a reflection of another). The idea that any DM runs a module straight RAW is--unusual. The idea that every groups of PCs approaches the caves the same way is...