Search results

And I will continue to ask you back up these claims of assumed authorial intent with quotes. No, I will not listen to "the podcasts", if you make a claim about intent of designers or company decisions, the burden of proof is on you to provide the quotes and context, alongside sources.

The thing is, Kender were a result of worldbuilding based off the game rules, with Tracy Hickman deciding to give them traits of curiosity and not understanding private property as a justification for Hafling's in-game affinity to thief class, wanting in-universe explanation for game rules...

1. No, you are making assumptions and claiming them as proof. 2. Unless you are going to provide the actual quotes, I would you refrain of making claims what designers did or did not say. No, there is a very much a difference of what the statement that 5e was designed with clear intent to ADD...

Yes, but you later changed that claim to this: Which is a VERY DIFFERENT STATEMENT

Book of VIle Darkness is so edgy it flips back into being unintentionally funny.

No, you have very specific said you believe that 5e was designed with assumption 3RD PARTY PUBLISHERS will be the ones providing additional rules, not WotC. Which you still have not provided proof of and, quite frnakly, if the quotes you claim to have say what you said later they say, they...

It was something that you could do very easy with just Book of Vile Darkness, and likely as much a reason why this book was banned at many tables as all the edgelordness of it. You needed to get a single level in Cancer Mage Prestige Class, which was rather easy to do - 6 ranks in Hide and Move...

That is decesively untrue and the fact Muscle Wizard and Pun Pun exist, who both could easily attain infinite attributes, proves it.

Maybe you just cannot design good adventures and encounters in this system and that's why you think it's too easy?

Citation needed Putting "trap" options into the book, that punish the player who picks it, is inherently rewarding system mastery to recognize the trap options, which is THE OPPOSITE of designing for new players and bad players. If they put in a trap build option, then it was not a new player...

The thing is, this IS a thing in the lore and a big one, this is pretty much what Elven High Magic was, wasn't it? They wanted to give us something from Forgotten Realms lore and this was a cool thing to make, is my guess. There is no "WotC hates martials" thing at the company, so I don't see...

I actually fundamentally disagree that 3e was designed for new players, since that game always felt like only catering to the very crowd that tries to optimize and build most powerful stuff, even in the core.

Do you have proof of this assumption on dev's side at all? Because unless they said this somewhere, this is armchair psychology and quite frankly, sounds irrational.

Then it didn't exist as written. There was time Gods did not need worship to sustain them, Ao implemented that at the end of time of troubles, before that they only used worship to empower themselves, but did not need it for sustenance. Even before that Mystra removed ability to cast spells...

The lore of Realms never made sense with how magic eorks in the game

The game ALWAYS had trouble with modules for level 15+, it is not just 5e issue. I have been looking for high level modules and this is a big issue

Ghosts of Saltmarsh cover, cannot post pic from phone

That was plot point in og Willow movie

That's just how ttrpg fandom is these days. Children no longer obey their parents and everybody is writing a game.

Assuming they expected anything, when the game was dying before 5e and if 5e flopped, it would be no more D&D, I somehow doubt it. 5e was designed to be people-pleaser, all according to the surveys and playtester voice, with huge emphasis on appealing to old-school fanbase. And it was the...