Search results

But that doesn't explain why you need WotC to make these changes to the entire game for you. Can't you just find or make what you want yourself? That's what I do.

That was probably me, and I stand by it. Having PC and NPCs capable of acquiring the same abilities under similar circumstances is hardly "crap" to me.

I suppose you're right, but you could easily create a subsection of the A5e rules with its own setting and optional rules, like A5e's Voidrunner's Codex for sci-fi play.

Forgive me if you made this clear earlier, but are you mainly looking for a revision that's just a lot more like 4e? I would not be in favor of that (or I suppose I wouldn't buy it). Moving to an encounter-based model as you suggest seems likely to harm the sim playstyle I play and enjoy RPGs for.

Level Up too. Rewritten core classes and a much stronger emphasis on the other two pillars.

Very depressing, but I find no fault in your logic. I think we'd all be better off making or finding the game we want to play, and letting WotC do what they want. It's not like we can affect them anyway; not nearly enough want the same thing to budge a big publically-traded company in its...

I change the system to make it function the way I want it to. And again, a full rewrite isn't necessary if you're using a decent base.

Well, we would have something to talk about 😉. That's all I'm looking for. Nobody in my real life to talk gaming with at the level I like.

Maybe not, but it's still a good idea, and some games based on a version of D&D have done it.

I don't think we should ditch the system (whatever system you like) entirely, but changing it to some degree is not that big a deal. I do it all the time.

In TTRPGs, it is much easier and socially acceptable to change the game to suit you and your group. Not the case with all your other examples.

Pretty much true, and IMO the game was better for it. This kind of balance concern interests me not at all. TSR's method of using its danger curve to compensate is much more appealing to me.

I guess I just haven't experienced the kind of OP you're talking about, or I care less about balance than you do, or both. It helps that my players don't go looking for 3pp. I do, and I present a houserule document containing everything I like for my players to choose from.

Fair enough. I do think improv as you describe it isn't necessary to RPGs.

Ah, but what if you don't care what Vincent Baker and his descendents have to say, or the Forge for that matter? Bothering with any of that is a choice, not a requirement.

See, this isn't a problem for me, because I like content, and don't believe in bloat. I've never understood some people's desire that there be less content. Just use what you like, or don't.

Me too! Sounds amazing!

Ah. Bare-bones official 5e does lack many of these things. Whenever we discuss 5e I assume it's always an option to import 3pp to cover the WotC games' many gaps. If you're assuming WotC only with no deviation then yeah, there's a lot of things it can't do well.

Understandable. For my part I have no problem limiting the availability and/or effect of problematic spells, so long as such changes are discussed in session 0.

Unless you want a medieval combat simulator. I can see the appeal.