Search results

I expect it to happen, and it is what should be done no idea how many will, some obviously always do. I like DS and I am fully on board with what I laid out, the details in the fluff are far more of interest to me than the large scale mechanics of DS, so to me the question is more about those...

eh, I see very little difference in the prep work required, they only did the easy part and left most of it to me either way I can run an encounter or two using what they provided with no prep, sure, but that does not an adventure make. Not even a side quest really

yes, TSR did that. Was it needed to create DS? I don’t think so. Change the fluff of the races and classes and keep the mechanics. Keep the standard stat generation. Overlay preserving and defiling on the spellcasters. You will have somewhat different equipment, at least as far as name and...

I was not arguing for full adventures, I was arguing against these lacking side quests. Spend those 50 pages on the setting, not some bare-bones, lackluster side quest skeletons Remove them altogether, include the half page map and a sentence to paragraph about the scenario if you want to. That...

it is, and neither @Superchunk77 nor my taste matter for this, but the aggregate of players. VRG did fine, hence DS would do fine as well, the opinions of some grognards notwithstanding

If the new DS is as good an update as VRG was, then it will be just fine…

no one claimed that people who are unhappy with the products do not exist. The question was how many of them there are, and you have no data on that. It could be 10%, it could be 90%, you would not know either way. Personally I believe it is a lot closer to 10 than to 90

there were more adventure books than setting books. If you take the average number per book, things will look different

how did 4e do it, did they rework classes and races? No idea, but I doubt it

that are two pictures of Arnold, what happened to the woman…

there are different ways to fix things, but yes, basically, don’t wait for WotC to do something, switch to something else instead

even more overpowered, high fantasy, consequence-free classes (respec on long rest) and species (spectral wings, because god forbid they could be inconvenient in some cases). To me they did not really address anything substantial, made some things slightly better and others slightly worse, with...

that much is true, after 5.5 I have basically given up on WotC moving in a direction I’d like, Not going to wait for them

not sure why that would be relevant, this was a criticism of D&D and something WotC should address. Pretending that something is fine unless people individually decide to write their own TTRPG to fix it would basically mean that nothing ever was broken in any edition

yes, and the revised and expanded adept, and Uncanny Arcana. I just wish this, plus stuff from the other four dozen supplements would get consolidated into a new baseline

yes, but that is also why Mearls calls them a cheap hack. The better solution is to fix the system than put a some duct tape on the worst parts. It makes for a better overall game.

I don’t think there is such a thing, at most it references some stat blocks that you need the books for, but requires beyond that… for that 2024 is not distinct enough

how so, what new rules does it require? A few new stat blocks (which also are in the SRD), anything beyond that?

it’s a setting book, it should not contain a large adventure. The others are more adventure book with a bit of setting information (DL certainly was). As to the one-page encounters, I find them underwhelming, as Ben said, if they do not offer something beyond what an average DM can come up with...

in which way? by allowing for the spells to be resisted instead of having to address the underlying issue? sure, but that also is what makes it a cheap hack so there is a problem then, why not address it? address caster damage then, instead of trying to bury flaws under a pile of kludges...