Search results

I'm happy to do that if the players want. I don't have anyone shameless enough to give themselves 14,15,16,17,18,18 or something like that. The majority of my players actually prefer having moderate rolls, or some low rolls to add character texture. Most of my DMs who prefer rolling let us...

A disparate collection of vagabonds and strays. Oh wait, that wasn’t what you meant.

I try to comfort myself with the knowledge a lot of companies would have made the patch 8 subclasses a paid DLC.

I think we all would have preferred a robust set of DLC for BG3; unfortunately, that's not the timeline we landed in. :)

GoT was very much a low-level D&D type of setting, to me. (Although I think D&D would be a poor system for GoT.) Barristan Selmy at his peak might have been something equivalent to level 10; I'd put Jaime Lannister somewhere around level 6 or 7.

Yes, but I still BOUGHT them. I haven't bought a WotC product on my own since 2021 (Mordenkainen's MotM).

3e and 4e managed to put out multiple books a year that I was interested in for their entire product line.

I view Community so I can see everything. I always set the posts per page to the maximum.

I mean, if a flesh and blood creature is type elemental, than that means the game mechanic “elemental” doesn’t mean immortal spirit, right?

Generally love it, as long as it's attached to at least one interesting high stat. 3,10,10,13,16,17? Love it. 3,10,10,12,13,14? No way.

Fortunately, both online discourse and the industry as a whole have gotten a lot better about explicit design goals over the last decade or so. Most books I've received over the last 5 years or so (and some before) have provided a lot of sidebars focused on design goals and intent.

Much like the companions in BG3, some people don't require a lot of interaction to get their crank turned. :)

Oh, totally agree. No one is wrong with not liking a decision that cuts off a fiction you liked. It's more how the general tenor of those complaints become "the design is doing something wrong" rather than "I don't agree with that decision". A lot of complaints seem to fail to recognize that...

That's fair. From my perspective, it's relatively easy to generate supporting fiction from rules inferences (like magically empowered humanoid monsters being fiends or elementals), but I can understand a desire to have some of those inferences be more concrete and detailed. I do have less...

Any class-based fantasy game should offer a simple warrior, a simple mage, a complex warrior, and a complex mage. Player preferences for simple vs complex and martial vs caster have no correlation.

And even the engine only has so much value. Larian has already said they're doing a major revamp of their engine for Divinity; precisely because their engine required them to make major trade-offs in D:OS2 and especially BG3 in Act 3.

Absolutely. If it isn't your hobby, it's your job. :) And I'm going to read your opinions very differently if you're talking about your job versus talking about your hobby.

I think it's just the very universal situation that the more you're immersed in a specific topic, the more the small details seem like major consequential events. Like, I'm pretty familiar with WoW, and it's amazing how you'll see thousands of people howling about how they'll quit the game...

As a total tangent, people often use "origin characters" as a synonym for "companion characters"; but "origin characters" are only a subset of "companion characters" in BG3. Lae'zel, Shadowheart, Astarion, Gale, Wyll, and Karlach are "Origin Characters" because you can choose to play as them as...

For me, it was more the statements of "They're making changes for the game first, and not basing it on the STORY!" That's been the cri de coeur of frustrated simulationists for decades now. :)