Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7873155" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I think given all the editions D&amp;D has gone through, 99% of every scenario could have been covered. Was that much needed? No, of course not, but a lot more could have been done.For example, rules for mounted combat is very sparse IMO, and left up to the table to come up with homebrew rules which might or might not be balanced since most tables don't want to devote hours of precious playing time to play-testing.As I said, I understand the intent was to not have an edition bogged down by rules which would slow down game play. Personally, I just think they went too far in swinging back the other way. I feel like the rules are only 70% complete, instead of 90-95%.But enough of that... back to topic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7873155, member: 6987520"] I think given all the editions D&D has gone through, 99% of every scenario [I]could[/I] have been covered. Was that much needed? No, of course not, but a lot more could have been done. For example, rules for mounted combat is very sparse IMO, and left up to the table to come up with homebrew rules which might or might not be balanced since most tables don't want to devote hours of precious playing time to play-testing. As I said, I understand the intent was to not have an edition bogged down by rules which would slow down game play. Personally, I just think they went [I]too[/I] far in swinging back the other way. I feel like the rules are only 70% complete, instead of 90-95%. But enough of that... back to topic. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification