Search results

This right here I think is the real issue. You've hit the nail on the head. High-level campaigns have 12 to 17 levels of previous campaign material and stories that have occurred over the course of however many months / years the game has been running that an adventure needs to insert itself...

Which I think is a fantastic house rule and a wonderful way to play the game... ...right up until we remember there are a bunch of players out there that for some reason only allow themselves to play by RAW and then get mad at WotC that they write their books in such a way that the players are...

Because D&D is not a board game. It's a story. And you can have a thrilling combat that is narratively satisfying to all the players AND the DM without just "trying to win". The DM was "trying to win" by removing two of the players out of the fight in any meaningful capacity. That to me is...

Good for you. But my comment wasn't made for you. I was addressing the original poster.

Or they chose not to fix it because they perhaps don't think there's anything to fix. But regardless, that's beside the point. The actual point is that the book has been printed. The rules are what they are. They aren't changing. So why waste time going on about why WotC didn't "fix it"...

That's why you as the DM wouldn't run the encounter that way either. There are thousands of shades of grey between what actually happened and your statement of "boss played weak so the characters could win easy." Yours is a poor counterargument to my point because you've asserted that only the...

If it matters that much, then change it for your game. And don't worry... we'll all keep quiet about it. ;)

And you know what your story actually upholds of my opinion? That the D&D board game can be really stupid sometimes and being beholden to the board game rather than the story means a whole lot of crap happens that never should have. Your experience here highlights that. That was a bad end to...

If 3rd party producers won't make high-level adventures due to the possibility of limited sales... why would you think Wizards of the Coast would be happy to do it instead? Because they should create material for small groups of the playerbase just out of the goodness of their hearts? Do they...

I'm not writing a story, I'm working with the players to create a story as a group. A narratively-fulfilling one. One that has a beginning, middle, and end. One that gives us ups and downs, ins and outs, an arching build rising up to a climax against the supervillain that has plagued the...

Said it before and I'll say it again... a "Boss Monster" is a NARRATIVE conceit, not a board game one. If a DM wants and needs a monster to "last a long time in a fight because the fight needs to be dramatic"... then you as a DM have a STORY you are trying to help get across to, with, and for...

Well, the game just re-upped the spell's use in these new books when it had the chance to depower it... so obviously none of the game's designers think it's as much of an issue as some of the folks here do. Which means there's only one solution-- remove or change the spell yourself. It's as...

As a player, absolutely, 100%. If the DM has set their game up such that you can do things like this with Tiny Hut, then absolutely go nuts with it. But if (general) you as a DM are bothered by the players doing that... using legitimate and intelligent strategy with the tools at their disposal...

I don't have any issue with a DM removing certain spells from a particular game, if it thematically makes sense and better experience to see them removed. Like the "exploration-focused" game that removes Goodberry and Create Food and Water and Tiny Hut and the other features, spells, and...

54 people (almost 50% higher than all the other responses combined) saying they would look at it and just think about it was how I arrived at my conclusion. Most people are not jumping in with both feet automatically, and most people are not dismissing the idea out of hand. Which means WotC...

The 50th was a convenient time, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have published a revised rulebook in and around these past few years anyway, even if the anniversary didn't exist. Whether that was say three years ago, or last year, or next year, in a couple years time... people have...

You are all proving a very good and important point. Subclasses aren't merely about getting new mechanics. They are about story. Who your character is. And a Grave Cleric's story is different than a Necromancer Wizard... a Celestial Warlock's story is different than a Divine Soul Sorcerer...

If you think you could be wrong... then why not just use Circle Magic if you like the idea and then make your judgement after you use it? The only way you'll find out is by trying. Now if you don't actually care about circle magic, then you don't need to bother with it or concern yourself on...

The overwhelming majority of people in this poll have said that they'd at least look at this new edition. No guarantees of switching, nor running it co-currently with 5E, only that they are willing to keep their eyes open. Which is a pretty good indication that WotC changing editions just...

It's an EN World poll. It proves nothing. Just like every other EN World poll. ;)