Search results

I've been debating running a 3.5 campaign again. Such a great system and it's flaws are easily mitigated.

As much as I love the setting, I don't have any players interested so I'm going to have to pass on it.

Dang, that's really well done! I like it even more than the UA stuff.

LOL, that's a VERY low bar to beat.

Don't forget the ranger who's just practicing "social distancing", and merely forgot to stop after the pandemic ended.

So basically Forbidden Lands for 5e?

Alternate would make a better cover IMHO. The original strikes me more as interior art for some reason. The second Eberron cover was also pretty bad. Better than the first one they picked for sure, but it doesn't hold a torch to any of the other covers in the 5e line.

Savage Worlds get played in person, A LOT. It's one of those games that plays better in physical form that it does via VTT. I gleaned that from the Facebook posts I see showcasing miniatures and game table setups of "savages".

It's an interesting scenario. Paizo is still selling the DUNGEON magazines (the PDF's anyways) that contain the AP. So they definitely still own it, but I don't think they'd be able to republish it unless they ported it into Pathfinder.

Maybe more people getting bored with 5e and exploring other game systems? Sounds ok to me.

I will literally throw balls of money at an Age of Worms hardcover, but I know that will never happen.

I liked the show, except for the dragon hunt episode. That one just felt too random with very little to do with the underlying plot. I liked it even more after I read up on the protagonist (Nilfgaard). I haven't read the novels .....yet.

Cool beans!

You misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't comparing my experience to DWChancellor, nor would I as I don't know him at all. I was simply stating that I have lots of experience with RPG's and that I, nor my players, need overly simple rules to enjoy an RPG.

Agree to disagree. Background features don't have mechanics, and I'm pretty sure the PHB or another book tells us not to give them any if they make up their own. So to me they're still more how than what. The charlatan has a second identity that lets them forge documents or disguise themselves...

Correct. I see that and I can respect that direction for the game. I'm a bit more experienced when it comes to RPG's so I don't really want/need this level of simplification. And for the record, if I did play D&D again I would stick with Pathfinder 1e, maybe 2e (still undecided if I like it or...

I think we are talking about two different things. The difference is what you can do versus how you do it. In 5e, your background tells you how your character approaches other characters and how they deal with situations. Your class (and sometimes your feats) tell you what you can do in those...

I was referring to them being mechanically generic. The backgrounds in 5e are a nice addition, but they don't get used a lot in my experience because the reward for roleplaying them (inspiration) is not significant IMO. In your example, two clerics of the life domain would only have minor...

My group used to love clerics in 3.5 but not in later editions. As you said, alignment restrictions and favored weapons were just two of the cool things lost in later editions. Race made a big difference in 3.5, then you had domains to pick and then finally your spell list. 3.5 also had prestige...

Very true, but I think it still remains my favorite edition of D&D. It had a tonne of options for players and DM's but involved a good amount of bookkeeping. Some of our most memorable campaigns used 3.5. I've played 4e and 5e, and found both really boring. 5e being too simple and constrained...