Search results

Yes but my experience was that unless you were a sword and boarder with heavy armour it was easy to just not think about it since we weren't going for a survival campaign in a 2014 campaign. I had a oneshot with 2024 but we weren't even tracking it.

I suppose 5e's encumbrance is the best compromise if the majority dislike the mechanics then; Practically useless so that even if it's used that i can easily ignore it and has very little effect overall on the gameplay

But if a majority of people houserule them out, why should future editions keep them in? Or at least not heavily modify those aspect/rules.

Personally while encumbrance's degradation of importance is a step in the right direction, it still exists and is even more baffling in function due to it's half-step. Skills are still bound to a more grounded understanding of reality when i'd prefer if they're treated as more Superhero-esque...

It's also what kind of crunch that keeps appearing; I think only ACKS is going for world simulation while Lancer and Draw Steel are combat engines primarily. I've been looking at Seven-Part Pact and that's very much not trying to make a world sim but more attempting a very meta structure on...

Here's one from me: I think spell slots suck ass, when I would prefer only specific spells to be limited daily.

I'm of the opposite direction, it should be less grounded as it is since I think all the grounded elements are one of 5e's worst elements.

My fantasy fiction is Warcraft, Dark Souls, and Final Fantasy. I don't give a rat's butt about the Grey Mouser or LotR

That last point is I think something that is good, I do want my 6th level wizard to go pshaw at getting bitten by a rat instead of getting one-shotted by a hail mary immediate death. I don't want short bow goblins to be deadly at later levels, I want them to be as they should be; easily...

A hit is a hit, the reason why my level 1 wizard gets got by getting shivved by a goblin and my level 10 wizard surviving getting shivved ten times by a goblin is because his 'meat' is tougher and there's more of it. Better to accept that the PCs are just tough-as-nails mofos then to twist my...

The fix is to just give everyone a Bag of Holding+++++. So that logistics of carrying can be obliterated immediately.

That's the thing cap, I don't want to respect logistics.

I'm of the opinion that there's nothing wrong describing a dragon's fang piercing through my full-plated chest, through my heart and even skewering mys pine.... and then having me all fine and dandy the next day. I'm Just That Tough is my motto.

I personally think it's a massive shame if in modern DnD it isn't meat. I got all this HP for a reason and it's for taking a warhammer to the face and shrugging it off.

You don't need alignment to have Planes where the concept of abusive and controlling hierarchy is how the reality is built to justify the existence of LE(or vice versa). Pathfinder removed alignment and replaced it with semi-factional cosmic 'Good vs Evil' and it didn't remove every version of...

Nothing. But the fiction of the Warlock is that they do have a sacrifice/payment to get their powers, whether or not those powers are better than those who didn't bargain for it is a secondary concern to Micah

If everyone in the table ended up not following the premise of the campaign then the premise of the campaign must be wrong then 🤷‍♂️. Sure if 1 or two are against it then it's fine to reprimand them fromnot following the path, but if everyone's pushing left then left is where the campaign will go.

And that's exactly what happens anyway. If the table as a whole wants Coffee Shopping than Slaying Strahd is going to be a pain for both parties in the end, better turn Strahd into the corporate magnate that wants to shut down that shop.

If a game asks you to be king later on, it should start you of as a village chief. This is the fundamental problem of Domain play in DnD.

I'm glad you agree that alignment is bad.