Search results

Yes, it is set up to seem scary/difficult to the PCs but, at least on paper, any decent party will blow through it. Paper tiger. But on-point, someone mentioned in another thread that a lot of high-level adventures tend to go combat-heavy. So maybe the key is to present more interesting...

I was surprised that it had no barrier to entry! I really did expect a feat, half-feat, or for it to be crappy without said investment.

In-person, my prep was like... 15 minutes of picking out minis, 5-10 minutes of writing down names and places, and 15 minutes of driving to the game and thinking about what could happen. Online I need to make it all nice to satisfy my own standards, that's like... 2+ hours per session.

Just a note that only half of them require any resource expenditure, and action economy's only a concern in an actual combat- which it seems like a lot of folk are not referring to here. edit: Although the above mention of a massive Spirit Guardians seems pretty crazy, and obviously would be in...

I imagine folk just don't like the idea that it'll become an expected/assumed part of 5e character building/planning. 5e14 multiclassing was meant to be optional, but now it's core- probably because it was so popular with players.. even though it was not taken into account when they were...

Yeah frankly if I were running in-person more often I'd likely only have this at the table, since I can usually come up with 5e mechanics on the fly and everything's so full of flavor. It's a bit harder with a VTT like Foundry where I have to prep monsters etc. beforehand.

"Wow" is all I have right now. Thank you for sharing!

I think a quick picture would help you, since "generic" (system neutral) is pretty relative. I consider OSR/1e content pretty generic and applicable to any system, very easy to build a 5e etc. version of. So much of this book is tables, which are completely system-neutral. Now I am...

We had this kind of personalized writing in 3.Xe, where the designers would speak to the reader and tell them what their intent was and why they did things they way they chose to. I couldn't tell you which books it was in, because I'm sure it wasn't in all of them, but the ones that had it like...

I end up having to throw so many ancient dragons and Balor generals to their deaths that I feel like I'm depopulating the setting of them 😆 I also have a few high-optimization players and the higher the level the more tooled out they get.. so it gets kind of ridiculous and starts reminding me...

I lost interest in them because I stopped wanting to run games to high level 😅 So I'll have to check them out again

I didn't know they stopped doing adventures to high level!

I've run many 5e campaigns to high level, and every time I tell myself "never again," but then by the time the next campaign is approaching that tier 3 point I sort of forgot about that previous experience. "Never again, again." I very much enjoy running games in tier 1 and 2!

Guessing this is the section they're talking about:

So ... it might be a formatting screwup on my end. I was wrong- I was reading the requirement of the Supplant augment. Only half of the augments require any spell slot expenditure, and only one of the requires the slot be of equal level to the spell being cast.

It was pointed out to me that there's another Circle Casting system, from the Ed Greenwood Thay, Land of the Red Wizards book on DMsGuild. I do wonder how it compares 🤔

Probably because a saving throw is in the hands of the DM, whereas attacking is in the hands of the player. It's who's rolling the dice. Someone recently pointed out on some thread that 4e had this right, where the caster always made the rolls (wizard rolling INT vs opponent's Will defense).

Yeah, the section doesn't have the best layout so it can be a little confusing on that front. Regarding a wizard contributing to a cleric spell or vice-versa, I see a few ways to handle it: My preferred way: it needs to be the same magic type- so arcane can help arcane. I've grouped them...