Search results

So whilst colour-coding morality is stupid and offensive and there are way too may different dragon types these days, I don't find the basic idea that there are different species of dragons that look different including being different colours at all weird. On my current setting I only use the...

Then our values are diametrically opposite and I find your approach sufficiently alien that it is unlikely that we would reach any common ground.

To me the purpose of rules is to represent fiction. If any rule can represent any fiction, then there is really no reason to have different rules. That is to say that if warlock rules can represent artificer and vice versa, then there is no need to have different rules for artificers and...

Right. This idea simply seems not to be based on facts.

Perhaps it would be actually challenging and interesting compared to punching boring HP sacks that cannot harm you.

Oh, so either PCS have too low defence and too high offence, or the exact opposite! This seems like obvious bollocks to me. If they can be those things, they can be things between them as well. But actual PCs do not instantly die! They are in fact pretty much impossible to kill, so what you...

This seems pretty nonsensical to me and leads to gameplay where the rules cease to be connected to the fiction, in which case I don't understand why we even have these rules.

Too squishy or wimpy for what? Who cares about CR, it is meaningless nonsense anyway, and as monster creation rules do not even exist in 5.5. there are no benchmarks to meet. Just represent the creature consistently. Right. The purpose of combat stats of a NPC archmage is to answer what would...

I have been told in many threads how it is the PCs that are the super special and unique people, but apparently now it is the other way around, and every basic extra NPC has some convoluted backstory that grants them special powers!

Enough for what? And if both their offence and defence are lacking for your purposes, then just make them higher level!

It's a good example of a NPC that annoyingly does stuff no PC bard can.

BTW, regarding the diegetic specificity of subclasses, I finds it odd that some people implied they are not specific enough. My issue with many of the newer ones is that they are weirdly specific. Like a barbarian that reveres animal totems and draws power to them seems to me like a clear...

More reasons to combine warlocks and sorcerers! And make bards half casters while we are at it!

By what? A pack of tarrasques?

I think subclasses are pretty good answer to this. You need less main classes when the subclasses can add the specificity. Though I still strongly feel that the main classes should have defining fiction too, but that can be a more of a broad archetype.

Well, if we are not going to discuss things like that, you might as well shut the place down.

Sure. But this is literally a discussion forum for D&D. People are going to voice their their complaints about how the things are handled in the official product.

But this is Oberone fallacy stuff. And more rules I need to rewrite, less incentive I have to buy the official rules in the first place.

How is all this more convenient than the NPCs just having the same spells than the PCs in the first place?

@Ruin Explorer given how rude you have been I have little desire to discuss this further with you, but to me the point of rules is to represent fiction mechanically. That is why we have rules. Classes have associated fiction, that class represents specific fiction. So if you ignore the fiction...