Search results

That already applies to about half the official backgrounds in the PHB.

I would add more than just the world irrevocable. Something like "and legally impossible to be revoked, removed or taken away in any form or under any legal jargon term."

It would help. A new OGL that remained open and was made just to close loopholes would allow reuse of previously existing OGC in perpetuity. After all, the two true versions so far already include a clause stating something like "you can use OGC by selecting any valid OGL license".

One, I'm they won't cannibalize sales of their new edition. Two, they don't consider 5.2 a new edition so they won't offer 5.0 as legacy content. Just like you can buy 3.5 books or revised 2e as pdfs, but not 3.0 or OG 2e.

I wanted ToV to be that solution, but it isn't. For one, it also moves subclass choice. And from what I see, it is too focused on exotic new classes.

I'm seeing I wasn't very clear. That's not the problem. The problem is, I want to stay with 2014 rules or move to a ruleset that is an improvement without falling into the 'sins' of 2024. As a DM I need a reliable source for rules to keep giving to future players. As a player, I need a safe...

Having a reliable long-term source for rules, a way to induct new people and replace books that wear down. Plus, why not? a way to have support? For example, if I want to recruit people for a 2e game, I can direct them to for gold and glory and splats can be bought in pdf for relatively cheap...

Ok, let me explain myself. I've seen enough of the rule changes, and while I like some of the changes, I don't like the rest of the changes and don't like the changes I don't like more than I like the changes I like. I'm not exactly boycotting the new not-edition, for example I plan on buying...

You really sound as if you thought the OGL was a bad thing... In general, I'm not sure why you are so focused on being mad about the Buck Rogers deal. Why was it a crime for a woman to use her personal property in a way that could prop up other part of her personal property in a way that would...

Care to be more explicit? I don't exactly follow.

It didn't use to be a factor! So far it was perfectly possible to have a sage barbarian with 16 strength and not having to justify it. Why is it suddenly something only a powergamer minmaxer would do?

That was just a tangent to that tangent. I've just finally gotten up to date with Dr. Stone and was quickly reminded of him. Still he had his follower from the background feature n_n. Let me bring this in order. To me backgrounds in 5e are mostly if not entirely about roleplay and getting a...

The crux of the discussion is that that sidebar won't be there, or at least not in the phb and will be gated behind DM approval.

I might have done it by accident, so please quote me at the point I demeaned or invalidated the style.

Hulk anyone?

There's nothing fishy. We have teo choices that used to be independent of each other and now we have to find ways around in order to contort one with the other just because of a pointless design decision that removed customization where it used to exist. And I come to this from the opposite...

And that's where 90% of DMs I've played with failed.

I'm reminded of Doctor Stone. When they needed an experimented sailor, they ended up picking a rich guy with an obsession for yachts. He was the best around.

But minmaxers aren't the only people who like to customize.

As a DM, I'm open to allow players to go nuts with their characters, but as a player I hate Mother-may-I for character creation.