Search results

Yes Really. I even wrote a whole post explaining why.

Specific dislaimers is opening a huge can of worms. Really. If you start putting disclaimers on specific books, you make yourself a target. What about X? It doesn't have a disclaimer. It's hella problematic, and you WotC, you are saying this is perfectly ok? Here's why it's problematic...

Shadows

People in these threads always tell us about how they do things in their game very proudly. They almost never say why they're telling us that - which is interesting and I've found a little puzzling in the past. Is it because they're being presented as a model to follow, or more charitably, as...

What it comes down to is they think you're doing it wrong. No one comes out and says it because they know they're not supposed to say that so instead the whole argument gets presented as questioning a lot of assumptions. If only you understood there was another way to do things. Why should X...

The rules just don't do enough to make them feel adequately distinct. Like the fact that they wear normal armour might make it easy from a rules perspective but it's really a bit silly that the character made out of metal (or in the case of my Silk Road game, Terracotta) needs to put on armour...

It's always puzzled me why it's American Gods which gets the Rep. I remember when it came out and thinking it was such a let down after his run on Sandman (which I think is by far his best work - for some reason in almost everything else by him I've read he's basically reworking the Hero's...

I can definitely say as a teenager it was the fantasy and science fiction section I would head for. Not the young adult.

This is possible I guess, but it sounds pretty niche (and dull). I'd also point out that this is yet another post that seems to be exploring hypotheticals. Did this happen in your game? Was it a problem?

I'm pretty sure that Matt Mercer actually made a comment along those lines.

Honestly. 99% of the time the conversation goes like this. Player: I want to be an elf. DM: There are no elves in this setting. Player: Ok. I'll do something else. Over time I've become less bothered about just saying no, because I've found that most of the time the players just don't care...

I am. Dwarves and elves have got to be the most lazy pointless setting inclusion imaginable. I just think there's an incoherence in what people want from races mechanically. In the early days of 3e it was perceived as so liberating when race/class restrictions were lifted. You could now...

Why would we be adding races specially suited for specific classes? After all we just got ride of ability score bumps for more class race flexbility. Why do that, and then find other ways to make particular races the best at certain classes?

More meme than man.

But all of those do eat away at scarce resources the Warlock may want before they get a chance to rest. A 5th level Warlock who uses Gaseous Mist to get through a door now has one spell slot left if there is a combat on the other side. None of these are things the Warlock can do with the...

That's what I would expect, although they may be in danger of missing the window for flippant self-aware ironic comedy.

To be honest I can never make up my mind whether the ubiquitiousness of Lovecraft is really due to inherent qualities of the writing, or whether it's just a kind of weird cultural obsession where everyone convinces themselves they love the Cthulhu mythos and find it scary because they think...

How do they know? And how do you know they know? Or that they didn't know how to do it.

Who knows? Not you. Not me. Not really them. All we can know is that 4e as a whole package didn't do as well as was wanted. Shrug. Nothing new I can really add at this point.