Search results

You dismissing the argument without even bothering to try to engage with it doesn't make your attempted proof by assertion any more successful. Maybe they should want different things, rather than trying to force everyone else to play only the things that please them? Maybe they should...

Three key reasons. 1. Tone, not morality You've mentioned the moral element, but tonality is separate from morality. I have found Dark Sun, especially as its most ardent fans describe it, to be unrelentingly joyless in its tone. I get--very much--the need for darkness in a setting in order for...

There are a lot of things people assume about D&D that I don't personally think they should, so...controversy or not, maybe some assumptions merit being questioned. So if the host says "Get the hell out of my house" and nobody else can host, that's it? Again, seems kinda funny to me that the...

So it isn't JUST because their presence is essential. Something else is here. Because, as you say, it is not possible to convince you that the GM's sway could ever, for any reason, be eclipsed by another participant being essential. Even if that other person were in fact more essential, it's...

Okay then. You assert the GM deserves more influence, more deference from the others, deserves to have their interests put before everyone else's because without them, the game can't happen. Try this on for size. Typical group, five players, one GM. GM meets whatever standards you wish to set...

My point is more that a great deal is made of "verisimilitude" when typical equipment may weigh 5+ pounds when 4 should be the absolute top end, for the heaviest things. We preserve this, despite it being divorced from its context, solely because it's what people think it needs to be. I'm not...

Just remember folks: Realism. Verisimilitude. Accuracy to real-world materials, physics, and phenomena. That's what D&D is all about! We'd never allow conveniences just for gameplay purposes. We'd never do things because they're narratively exciting. The one and only reason mechanics exist the...

Careful--you might remind folks (or reveal to them) that the roots of D&D are actually extremely, extremely close to superhero comics. Because y'know who else used torches? "Doc" Savage. AKA one of the single most foundational works....for superhero comics.

Sounds great to me.

I mean my actual, from-the-heart answer is "none, there should not be a default ranger spell list, that should be a subclass the way Eldritch Knight is a subclass of Fighter". But in the spirit of actually answering the thread, their spells should focus on: Skill, lore, and awareness Plants...

....... What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing about "4 levels". Ever. Here is that post again. You will notice the complete absence of any such statement.

Well then, you'll have to ask for errata to the 2024 PHB, p. 363: Challenge Rating Challenge Rating (CR) summarizes the threat a monster poses to a group of four player characters. Compare a monster's CR to the characters' level. If the CR is higher, the monster is likely a danger. If the CR is...

Are you seriously asserting that CR, in 5.5e, completely abandoned any concept of the "4-person party"? Is that seriously the argument you're making here? That this thing which was explicitly billed as "backwards compatible" and using essentially the same math etc., has nothing whatsoever to do...

If I have to choose just one, homebrew. But I see value in both. A lot of it depends on overall quality. A "so okay it's average" pre-written campaign is better than a similarly "eh, it's okay" homebrew campaign. But a really, really good homebrew campaign is usually better than a similarly...

You are objectively wrong. It's written in the 2014 Monster Manual. It is literally said on page 9: Challenge A monster's challenge rating tells you how great a threat the monster is. An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has...

For sure, though not (strictly) for that reason. The bigger issue is that 5e, regardless of .0 or .5, simply doesn't bother even thinking about math when you're talking about CR 27 creatures. Like, by CR's own self-description, no matter how inaccurate that description may be, a "CR 27"...

I applaud the effort to be inclusive toward newer options, but it really isn't for me.

I am quite used to GM-centric arguments, where a behavior is morally unacceptable from players, but GMs doing it is not only right and proper, it's expected or even required. Doesn't make such arguments not incredibly tedious, mind, but I expect them.

So the GM is perfectly cool enforcing it on a group that doesn't want it? I don't get the asymmetry here. Trying to make a GM run a game they aren't keen on is the worst thing ever. But trying to make players play a game they aren't keen on is fine?

Seems to me the GM should take this as a moment to reflect, if they articulate a premise and genuinely no one actually adheres to it.