Search results

I'm a technical person. If the PC is given the opportunity to take an additional action beyond what the rules allow, it's a houserule, and one that potentially gives the PCs more power in the moment than the rules would normally allow. Looking at it differently doesn't change that.

If you're a corporation that only cares about short term profit? Yes, absolutely. Consequences are for whoever takes my job after I deploy the golden parachute.

This all sounds awesome! I'm favorite-ing this page!

I know. I still think most people would drop them, for the reasons you stated.

I have a houserule system in place for siege weapons I like. My homebrew doc covers weapons up to nuclear missiles, from all eras of play.

I think most people would drop bows once firearms become relatively commonplace, so this isn't an issue for me. Slow cannon fire is just how it is (although I'm not above some degree of abstraction here).

Understandable. I don't generally concern myself with heroics, and am actually excited about all those things being invented in a fantasy world. To each their own, right?

Fair enough. I'll stick to my first obstacle then. A lot of people seem to like casting spells a lot, and cutting number of slots in half will probably make them unhappy. Not an issue for me, but I'm trying to think about people with different preferences.

I'd probably just keep it to a relatively low level game, but those are good ideas!

Reminds me of Spelljammer, which mostly only had cannons if you used the Giff (I love the Giff!) But I'd still rather just have cannons, explosive extradimensional spaces be darned!

Unless you like spellcasters and/or you feel long rest resources add verisimilitude.

This why I see little value in focusing a campaign on pirates unless you're using Age of Sail trappings. I want cannons darn it! It feels wrong to me without them.

Yeah, hard to tell what's marketing speak and what isn't. It all sounds the same.

Not sure why that's relevant. If I were still playing 5.0 sunk cost would be reason enough for me to keep doing it.

I only speak for myself, just like the rest of us, but for me, this is The Way.

All of that assumes of course that narrative intent is one of your groups goals, or the game's. If you don't see collaborative storytelling as the primary purpose of your RPG play, then you need to find a different solution to the problem presented by the OP.

Fixing and/or banning problematic abilities is a way to go as well. Obviously I generally prefer the former.

What about ideas for fixing it? Is that helpful? Does it have to be the company?

Agreed. If these games didn't make enough money to keep going, they wouldn't keep going. You don't have to go the WotC "all gamers are belong to us" business philosophy to make a financially successful game. Every other company producing RPGs that isn't actually dying is proof of that.

A lot of the "general public" is still playing 5.0.