Search results

First, thanks for answering my question. Please allow me to lob in some more. :) So, less (or even no?) emphasis on exploration and-or downtime? OK. Being able to do "cool naughty word" right out of the gate is fine but then how would long-term advancement work? Or would this be...

If you're including adventures (e.g. Out of the Abyss) as supplements then what you say is pretty much ironclad true. But if you only include true supplements (e.g. Tasha's) as supplements then I'm not sure it's as ironclad as all that to say everyone who has the core three books buys them.

Further to this, the DMs who are skilled enough to easily handle the more complex rules are also quite likely skilled enough to tweak and-or modify the game on their own; meaning they too will have less need for WotC's official rules-tweaking supplements (though they'll probably gobble up any...

The bolded is a step too far for some*, who see the non-Prime Planes as entirely supernatural and see "nature" as being only what we can see around us on Earth translated to a fantasy setting. Robins are natural. Dragons are natural in the setting. The moons and stars are natural. Gladsheim...

Well, it's also "magical" if you take the presumption - as I do - that any form of healing other than by simple resting and-or actual medical care is and must be in some way magical, regardless whether the hit points being healed are meat or not.

There would have to be a curated and hard-coded list of what creatures these guys could turn into at what level, in order to avoid this problem.

If I'm designing a game system in hopes of reaching an audience greater than friends and family, I'm going to try my best to make that game be as general-use as possible; and leave it to individual tables to - maybe with help from some supplements or options - make it work for the specific style...

Sorry, but parties working to obtain an item by doing their very best to not obtain it goes back to the dawn of rpgs. :)

The very question in the thread title to me reads as being completely time-based, and could be synonymously rewritten as "what do you think of as newer ttrpg mechanics". This has nothing to do with whether those newer ttrpg mechanics are better, worse, or equal in comparison with what came before.

The problems arise when what is better for some people isn't better for others. Your two Black Lotus pictures are a good example. The newer one's text is more streamlined, sure, but the older one's text is easier to read and understand.

Yes, and in some cases that's what makes it work well: different subsystems were designed to best handle different things, rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a single unified mechanic that maybe doesn't always do the best job.

60 sessions is short by my standards. Any edition of D&D will do for this, as will (as others have noted) a fairly wide variety of other systems depending on the genre you want. For something significantly longer, 2e D&D (or 1e without giving xp for treasure) can do you for years, even...

You could have a base class that kind of builds in its own single subclass, such that the player doesn't have to bother choosing subclass but the relative degree of effectiveness etc. remains vaguely balanced against other class+subclass options.

So now I'm curious: in short form, what would your ideal D&D look like? What would its style be? How would it play at the table?

@GobHag is referring to me, I think, and is looking to promote a countering view to my own. Seems to me that's what a discussion forum is all about. :)

One of these days if we're ever in the same town you and I should sit down for a beer or three. That could be one fun chat! :)

Those bolded things could be the same, provided "general competence" maps to what an ordinary fit person is capable of without specialized training.

Sounds like a low-level MU to me. :) More seriously, you get those spells back daily and merely have to be judicious about how-when you use them. When (or if) they run out, you're on to plan B - at low levels you're still a halfway useful combatant, if unarmoured, and can still contribute in...

Sooooo...why does a new class need to support subclasses at all? There's no reason why one base class can't have five subclasses while another has zero, depending on the flexibility and scope of the base class.

I agree with this sentiment, but as the thread assumes there'll be another class and just wants our ideas on what it should be, that's how I answered.