Search results

Absolutely. The player defines their relationship with their patron (or deity or other supernatural sugar-parents). In listed several options I have used to make a patron lesser or nonfactor and I much prefer Faith (not the deity) be the catalyst for divine power.

For me, it comes down to four distinct types of pacts that, while they align to the four subclasses in the PHB, aren't bound to a specific patron type: Your soul is mine: the patron has claimed some greater prize from the warlock to be paid later, and thus doesn't care about the daily doings...

Good for him. I am not in high school anymore and I don't have that kind of time while juggling work and family obligations. I'm lucky to get once a month, so if you are designing a game that requires me to play multiple characters at the same time for decades, you are basically shutting our...

I think even then the exploration pillar was mostly afterthought. Classic D&D had exactly one class that could sneak around: the Thief, and for the majority of his campaign live, he wasn't really good at it. (Those percentages were too low). The fighter wasn't sneaking around. Neither was the...

And yet, if D&D is about "solving the dungeon", it rarely happens any other way but combat. You got any stories about the Oceans Eleven style adventure where a group breaks in to the Steadying of the Hill Giants and sneaks past every guard to get their treasure. Or tell me about the group that...

Your game is not so special that I must submit to your every dictatorial whim. I want to know where you all live that you have such a pool of available players that you can kick them out over refusing to be bullied by their God/patron?

And the player can decide the power-tripping DM can go kick rocks and take half the group with him. If your negotiating style is my way or the highway, you better have an infinite supply of fresh suckers willing to join your table to replace all the ones you alienate.

Yes, but some people run whole campaigns in certain styles. Not everyone wants all dungeons all the time. And my time is prescious. If this week's adventure requires my fighter to sit an do nothing except provide color commentary from the peanut gallery, you (the DM) better a.) provide double...

I'm of the same opinion: the DM has complete control over the setting, the NPCs, the adventures, and rules arbitration. In return, I have complete control over my PC. In all areas where these two principles come into conflict, it is the responsibility of both parties to find a satisfactory...

The issue comes up when the entire adventure (or even campaign) focuses on specific types of adventures. Adventures with little or no combat are boring to the fighter who can only attack things. An adventure without dungeons gets pretty boring for the thief. An all urban campaign isn't a good...

Utility is a fancy word for "do everything". They were useful in combat (fireball, magic missile), exploration (invisibility, dimension door), social (charm person, friends) and knowledge (detect magic, see invisible). Yet they don't really map to a specific pillar or role the way fighter, rogue...

My goal is not to be bored when playing my character. If all the fighter can do it fight, the cleric heal, the thief find traps and the wizard whatever (idk, become God? What even is the wizard's role?) and you just sit there because you can't contribute otherwise, you don't have an RPG, you...

Exactly one edition of D&D did this. Most of them did not. Basic and AD&D (1e and 2e) had entries in the MM for generic elves, dwarves and (hu)men. 4e used monster stat blocks for NPCs and 5e has generic NPC "monster" style blocks for any humanoid. Only 3e and it's offshoots demanded NPCs use PC...

Bard:: a tribal poet-singer skilled in composing and reciting verses on heroes and their deeds. The term you are looking for is entertainer. That is the generic word for poets, minstrels, and the like. If you want to remove all cultural aspects from D&D classes, may I recommend: Fighter...

The secret to understanding the D&D community is to understand that they are all currently embarrassed game designers who would totally take you world by storm with their personal homebrew if it wasn't for WotCs dominance of the market...

I assume you also removed barbarian, bard and paladin for the same cultural naming, right? Edit: Found the list. Disagree with a solid half of them.

Laughs in Druidic

No more than multicasting does. It just breaks the base unit of down further for more granularity. A fighter can buy martial skills easier and cheaper than he can arcane, divine and expert abilities. Trying to match a wizard in arcane skill is a fools errand as the wizard will get those skills...

And yet when during the D&D playtest, classes received substantial rebalancing nerfs (Sneak attack to 1/round, limits on paladin smites, wild shape limitations, concentration on spiritual weapon, and the death of twin spell) the community cried bloody murder. Luckily, some of those made it...

I think that's the obvious way to handle it. My concern is when the DM and the player have different interpretations of what that relationship entails. I prefer the game rules do not hand the DM a cudgel for those times there has been a.. failure, to communicate.