Search results

V'Ger is actually Voyager 6 from Earth.

Same thing that put me off Yellowstone. Watch for the dragons, I guess?

Really? I felt it was some of their best acting. I can see how the plot involving stopping the coup might have seemed too...convenient. Still, loved the uncertainty we are left with.

Enjoyed the finale a lot. My son, who's more of a Tolkien scholar than me, a little less so. Couple of questions arising: 1) Celembribor still has 16 rings to make, with Sauron's help (according to lore). So...how's that going to work now? Options include a) A flashback that shows...

Funny, I have felt that way about all the Marvel shows. At least this one had Charlie Cox!

So...this huge civil war is going to happen now because of some misunderstood words from a dying man high on milk of the poppy? Hrm.

Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?" Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.

Is it working?

Best of luck! I hear great things about Foundry for PF2E. As an aside, isn't there another adventure that is directly related to Otari that acts as a direct sequel? Might be worth checking out!

You're trying to read into things again, and (I'm sorry, but) failing. Again. I mentioned it only because it does a non-magical Ranger well. I am not trying to bring up anything else. But since you insist on (now, constantly) mis-reading me...please stop responding to me. I will do the same...

!!! The bolded part is me saying professional game designers CAN design things a certain way (it shouldn't be be beyond them to be able to do that), so that if they don't, it's because they're CHOOSING to not do so (because of the design goal of popularity). How is this insulting or even...

Experiencing the same, though I am not ignored yet. I genuinely don't understand what's happening.

Insultingly? Where? Where are we actually disagreeing?

Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion. Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange? Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my...

Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.

Yeah, we're not disagreeing on the definition of popular. I don't think we're disagreeing on popularity being the goal of the design, either. If some aspect of the game was fun but not necessarily popular, it would not make it into the game. The D&D ranger has been conceptually magical for...

Ummm...no. In the other thread, Umbran points out that one needs to discuss design goals when evaluating if the design is well-done or not. The goal for 5e, clearly, is to be popular. As a result, design is simple, as you point out. This means, for example, removing nuance from the game and...

I dunno...I think making a popular game is goals 1-5. Part of that may mean simplifying (remains to be seen if making everything spells does this, but it really might). Not trying to be harsh, btw; just thinking about the other thread about how 5e is akin to the Cheesecake Factory and it's...

It seems so. It really shouldn't be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that. Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example). It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward. It's the simplest, easiest solution...

Isn't default spellcasting mechanics what is being offered in the packet? Totally willing to admit I missed it if it wasn't.