Search results

Honestly, this feels like they shouldn't call different editions of D&D "D&D" because the game changed argument again, just under a different topic. Don't worry so much about names or the words being used. Worry about the context. What Intelligence means in 5e is different than what it meant...

I, personally, choose how to narratively justify my characters’ stats in 5e. But no else at the table has any standing to decide whether or not I’m doing it right.

The problem here is "matter" does a lot of work. I personally don't think "matter" should be "other players have the right to police how I declare actions for my character".

I've had centaur archers (classical!), but rarely use mounted combatants in 5e. The rules around using a mount are a bit "handwavey" and loose for an option that should be prevalent and quite strong, so easier to just not get involved with it.

Class that can take any class feature as feats. https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L7MxaZV26WwHwzaP-eD

Most questions about RPGs, especially trad-leaning ones, are ultimately questions about the division of authority between GMs and players, and how much and how the rules exist to facilitate those questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

I'd argue that if the paladin character doesn't get near oathbreaker status at a few points, why did they bother playing a paladin in the first place? Oathbreaker isn't a status condition indicating bad play, it should indicate that you played your character to the hilt and paid the price...

That's the great thing about natural language; we can all be wrong simultaneously!

Sure, but that's something you have to be very careful of as a GM. What's apparent in your mental frame as a GM often doesn't translate well to the players in terms of "what options are available to me that are meaningful". Scenarios where you as players have to debate between 3 or 4 options...

Sure. There are always a few bad actors or just entirely clueless players. One of the benefits of being in my late 40s is that I've had decades to weed those people out. :)

The GM could put up a fight about it, but a good 5e GM is going to prioritize player desires over (entirely fungible) setting logic. If the player wants the thespianism of doing patron-warlock roleplay, great! If the player wants to be a warlock because casting spells and using a hexblade...

This is a pretty solid example of why spells that create mental effects, but are using "natural language" to do so, shouldn't mix. Either you leave it up to table adjudication, or you spell out exactly how the spell is impacting the target, explicitly factoring into account the perceptions of...

If lack of information leads to players not enjoying the progress of play, I would rather just tell them. Mysteries and puzzles can be fun when they generate more conflict, less so when they leave the players unsure what the path forward is.

I don’t see anything actually being disputed. This is just clarification of the timeline over authorship and design intent.

I thought about that, but when you give a moderate option, people always gravitate towards it.

I would lean towards calling Eberron a No, although the Sovereign Host and Dark Six do complicate that. I ultimately think of Eberron as a No because the top-level choices are Sovereign Host, Silver Flame, Blood of Vol, etc., with the specific deity being a subchoice within Sovereign Host, and...

To be fair, I've heard the people of Istar put cheese on their apple pies, so the Cataclysm was entirely warranted.

Seems like yet another consequence of 5e's continued inability to codify magical item value. 3e and 4e both understood that magic items are just as important an axis in character power growth as class features, but primarily under the GM's purview. And they correctly codified that power. 5e's...

This is all true. But I asked about people using systems where all of those elements were present. People who are using one but not the other are welcome to explain their votes in the comments.