D&D (2024) Are you going to buy the new 2024 D&D Core Books

[Parmandur]

Cookbook reviews by Michelin Starred chefs that never use cookbooks.

Yeah, and with a fast turnaround due to the social media cycle.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My experience is more that the fixes are necessary, and are things like "the adventure abruptly stops at this point and essentially says "fill in the blanks" at this point, for like two levels of XP, then starts up again".

That is part of the problem, expectations differ and playstyles matter. To be honest, I think a fix is less useful than an actual explanation, of what the problem the fix is fixing. For instance, to me and my players a railroad section is not really something that needs a fix as long as nobody is surprised by it appearance.
My biggest gripe with WoTC adventure's is that most encounters are medium to hard for a four-character party or super easy to easy for a six-character party and that, (I have not checked the math on this) it seems to me that using XP from encounters will level the party faster than the encounters do.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest, I think a fix is less useful than an actual explanation, of what the problem the fix is fixing.

Sure, but the problem explained. I cannot think of a single fix thread where the problem wasn't explained. How would you even explain what you were fixing otherwise?

My biggest gripe with WoTC adventure's is that most encounters are medium to hard for a four-character party or super easy to easy for a six-character party and that, (I have not checked the math on this) it seems to me that using XP from encounters will level the party faster than the encounters do.

It is always weird when adventures say "for 4-6 characters" but are only balanced for one of those values and don't provide information on how to adjust encounters. Not exclusively a WotC issue of course.

 

[Remathilis]

We can generally assume that, once someone has an option, they do not like having it invalidated or taken away, regardless of what that option is.

Can we engrave this on every "X shouldn't be a class" threads?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sure, but the problem explained. I cannot think of a single fix thread where the problem wasn't explained. How would you even explain what you were fixing otherwise?

I never really read such threads but I have read some online suggestions about how to improve a given adventure and found generally unhelpful because what the writer found as an issue was not what was bothering me.

 

[Parmandur]

That is part of the problem, expectations differ and playstyles matter. To be honest, I think a fix is less useful than an actual explanation, of what the problem the fix is fixing. For instance, to me and my players a railroad section is not really something that needs a fix as long as nobody is surprised by it appearance.
My biggest gripe with WoTC adventure's is that most encounters are medium to hard for a four-character party or super easy to easy for a six-character party and that, (I have not checked the math on this) it seems to me that using XP from encounters will level the party faster than the encounters do.

Yeah, anything past 5 PCs becomes really hard to challenge. Kind of inherent to the system.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yeah, anything past 5 PCs becomes really hard to challenge. Kind of inherent to the system.

My Saltmarsh campaign has (had?) 5 PCs + 1 casting pseudo-dragon as a companion and I managed relatively well the challenges until 10th level. At 11th, the techniques I'd been using kept more or less working, but turned most combats into a slog. Due to RL the campaign has been on hiatus since the end of last year, but should we manage to start again, we'll need to change some things.

 

[Reynard]

I desperately wish for a tabletop equivalent of Mortismal Gaming's YT channel that provides reviews for adventures only after running them to completion.

 

[Dire Bare]

So don't be realistic about this because it offends you? I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude drastically undermines your entire position.

Realistic? Offends me? We disagree, that's about it. You're making this personal and you're being a bit of a cad about it.

Your memory has failed you.

Yeah . . . we're done. Now you're just being an ass.

 

[tetrasodium]

Realistic? Offends me? We disagree, that's about it. You're making this personal and you're being a bit of a cad about it.


Yeah . . . we're done. Now you're just being an ass.

It's not "disagreement" if there is a discussion about a rule as written vrs a rule as incorrectly recalled. @Ruin Explorer appears* to have taken the time to quote the actual text or the mechanics & you do seem to have been talking about something that doesn't quite match those rules or were talking about an older version. Can you point to or quote the rules that you've been talking about & if they are still current maybe explain how those are a problem to connect some dots?

*I'm not exactly breaking out the books & checking word for word but they looked like an accurate quote I see no reason to doubt.