Here is my personal set of 5e table rules, which I'm constantly tinkering with while trying to keep it to about 3-4 pages in length. Note that the cleric's Death domain from the DMG is also part of this document for ease of access to players, but I won't copy-paste it here.
Feel free to criticize mercilessly or point out stupidity on my part. I'd like to see yours too if you have any.
MY D&D TABLE RULES (5E)
These table rules are to be used alongside the official D&D errata and the official Revised Ranger.
ADJUSTMENTS (MAKING THINGS STRONGER OR WEAKER)
- (page 67) Wild Shape. You cannot use any Multiattack action granted by your beast forms until 5th level. If you revert to your normal form as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, you are Incapacitated (as per the condition) until the end of your next turn and knocked Prone.
+ (page 72) Extra Attack. Add the following paragraph: "At 11th level, if you engage in two-weapon fighting you can make two attacks with your bonus action as well. Both bonus action attacks must be with the same weapon."
+ (page 74) Goading Attack receives this additional sentence: "Whether the target passes its save or not, you also gain advantage on opportunity attacks you make against it until the end of your next turn."
+ (page 74) Lunging Attack also gives you the option of moving 5 feet before the attack instead of just extending its reach by 5 feet. Either way, if you successfully damage the target you also gain advantage on any attempt to use either the overrun or tumble actions against it (see those new action types in the "additions" document).
+ (page 81) Elemental Disciplines all cost 1 less ki, down to a minimum of 1.
+ (page 81) Elemental Disciplines gains Stone Shape as an option at level 11 and at a cost of 4 ki points.
- (page 85) Aura of Protections from two or more paladins do not stack. Whichever is higher takes precedence.
+ (page 89) Ranger. This entire section is replaced by the official Revised Ranger document.
+ (page 109) For the Fiend pact Expanded Spells, replace Flame Strike with Cone of Cold, but instead it deals fire damage.
+ (Page 165) The Athlete feat has these additional benefits: "Swimming does not cost you extra movement. If you already climb or swim at your full speed, this feat instead gives you a +5 bonus to Strength (Athletics) checks made to climb/swim."
+ (Page 165) The Charger feat also increases your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
+ (Page 167) The Grappler feat's third ability has been removed as per errata, but instead it now allows you to grapple a creature up to two sizes larger than you instead of one.
+ (Page 168) The Martial Adept feat grants 2 superiority dice instead of 1.
+ (Page 187) Crafting. You can choose to make a DC 10 check with the appropriate crafting proficiency to craft at the same speed as two characters helping each other. You can also choose to make that a DC 15 check to craft at the same speed as three people. Several people can do this together, but if any of you fail the roll the object is ruined and the raw materials are wasted.
+ (Page 195) Shoving a Creature also allows you to force your target to move 5 feet to any space within your reach instead of away, but this imposes disadvantage on your check to do so.
+ (page 221) Circle of Death deals 10d6 damage instead of 8d6.
+/- (page 227) Contagion's range is now 5 feet, not touch. You don't make a melee spell attack to cast it, instead the target immediately starts making the Constitution saving throws and is affected by the disease as soon as it fails the first one. The Slimy Doom disease causes the victim to lose its bonus action, reaction and move for one turn instead of being stunned.
+ (page 229) Crown of Madness allows you to force the victim to make its single melee attack at any point before, during, or after its move (which is still under its control), and if it does not make such an attack it performs no action. The victim must also attempt to use the best melee weapon it has within easy reach.
+ (page 259) Melf's Acid Arrow deals 5d4 acid damage immediately instead of 4d4 and 3d4 damage at the end of the target's turn instead of 2d4.
- (page 261) Moonbeam does not deal damage when it moves over a creature, only when a creature starts its turn in its area (this also means moonbeam does not deal immediate damage when first cast).
+ (page 262) Mordenkainen's Sword does not require concentration and adds your spellcasting ability modifier to its damage.
- (page 264) Phantasmal Force cannot be used to routinely replace and/or surpass its fellow level 2 spells Blindness/Deafness and Hold Person, and the illusion cannot move outside of the 10 foot cube maximum.
- (page 276) Simulacrum cannot be cast through a Wish spell, and a simulacrum cannot cast the Wish spell.
- (page 279) Suggestion (and Mass Suggestion) cannot be used to routinely replace and/or surpass its fellow level 2 spells Crown of Madness and Hold Person. The clause about the suggestion "sounding reasonable" will be firmly enforced and the example of the knight giving away crucial possessions will be ignored.
+ (page 284) True Strike does not require concentration.
+ (page 289) Witch Bolt's range is now 60 feet.
+ (page 288) Weird deals 6d10 psychic damage instead of 4d10.
ADDITIONS - COMBAT
> Movement and Position: "Overrun. When a creature tries to move through a hostile creature's space, the mover can try to force its way through by overrunning the hostile creature. As an action or a bonus action, the mover makes a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the hostile creature's Strength (Athletics) check. The creature attempting the overrun has advantage on this check if it is larger than the hostile creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller. If the mover wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn."
> Movement and Position: "Tumble. A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn."
> Attack: "Disarm. You can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. You make an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If you win the contest, your attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the target drops the item. You have disadvantage on the attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than you, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
> Grappling: "Interference. While you are grappling a creature of your size or smaller, if your other hand is free you can use a bonus action to make it difficult for the grappled creature to speak, see, or perform complex movements. Until the end of your next turn the grappled creature is either unable to speak, unable to perform somatic spell components, or can only see spaces adjacent to it for the purposes of spell targetting. This restriction ends immediately when the grapple does."
ADDITIONS – SPELLS
Magic Alert
1st-level abjuration (ritual)
Available to Ranger and Wizard
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny whistle and a braid of copper)
Duration: 8 hours
You set an alarm against unwelcome spellcasting. Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a spell or any portion of a spell's effect is cast in or moves into the warded area. The alarm only responds to spells and spell effects, not creatures or objects that are simply magical by nature. When you cast the spell, you can designate schools of magic that won't set off the alarm. You also choose whether the alarm is mental or audible.
A mental alarm alerts you with a ping in your mind if you are within 1 mile of the warded area. This ping awakens you if you are sleeping.
An audible alarm produces the sound of a whistle for 10 seconds within 60 feet.
I actually like these, there's nothing overly bad that jumps out at me. I do like that Paladin auras both stack but that's me. Otherwise, good job on propping up Two-Weapon Fighting that was pretty cool. I also like Disarm. I haven't played a Monk (or have seen one yet) to really discern how dropping each discipline by 1 Ki will make it but i'm guessing it's not significant and neither is adding 1 to the superiority die Martial Adept adds.
Some of my own adjustments (keep in mind, I still love 4e and want to inject more of it into 5e):
- Added the Melee Training feat (use another Ability score other than Strength for melee weapon attacks. The damage is equal to 1/2 the ability score modifier). Additionally, add +1 to the chosen score to a Maximum of 20.
- Avenger based Paladin: lose Proficiency with all armor and shields, gains Armor of Faith (when not armored or carrying a shield, AC is 10 + Dex modifier + Charisma modifier). Lose Lay on Hands, gains Divine Censure: Choose a creature you can see 1 per/short or long rest, pick either Censure of Pursuit [use Dash as a reaction if target moves away from you], Censure of Retribution [add Proficiency bonus to damage rolls if they successfully hit you this turn], or Censure of Unity [as long as you have an ally that's adjacent to the target, you or the ally can have advantage on attack rolls]. Add Two-Weapon Fighting to the choices of the Paladin's fighting style, remove Protection style. Add Stealth the the Paladin Skill list, remove medicine.
- Use the Marking mechanic from the DMG, though I'm currently trying to implement it on a Class-base system. The Fighter will get some bonus to damage and stopping the target in their tracks and the Paladin will deal automatic radiant damage.
One carryover we use from NEXT is the following to Shield master since as is its pretty lacklustre compared to the other feats.
• You gain proficiency with shields.
• You can wield a shield as a melee weapon, dealing 1d6 bludgeoning damage with a regular shield and 1d4 bludgeoning damage with a buckler.
(Buckler is missing from 5e. AC +1, wt 4lb, cost 5gp)
Quote from: Batman;922572- Added the Melee Training feat (use another Ability score other than Strength for melee weapon attacks. The damage is equal to 1/2 the ability score modifier). Additionally, add +1 to the chosen score to a Maximum of 20.
So wizards could choose Intelligence? I have only dim memories of the 4th edition version of this feat, but wasn't it a patch for certain character types who were too dependent on multiple ability scores to function in melee the way they were supposed to?
Quote from: Batman;922572- Use the Marking mechanic from the DMG, though I'm currently trying to implement it on a Class-base system. The Fighter will get some bonus to damage and stopping the target in their tracks and the Paladin will deal automatic radiant damage.
I folded that function into my buff of Goading Attack to make it worth taking when compared to Menacing Attack. The Paladin already has effects like that in his spell list.
Quote from: Omega(Buckler is missing from 5e. AC +1, wt 4lb, cost 5gp)
I wondered why they decided not to include bucklers.
I'm no D&D expert, but three of your physical moves don't make sense to me in terms of the ways you determine success.
Quote> Movement and Position: "Tumble. A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn."
Why (or how, even?) would I use/need my own acrobatics to resist someone trying to acrobatically move through my space? I could see resisting with DX, or with any close physical combat skill (wrestling, brawling, sword, axe), but I don't see myself counter-tumbling - I'd think I'd just get in their way, trip them, or attack them with my hand weapon (probably getting a free attack from the extra-juicy opportunity of them trying to move through my space).
Spoiler
(This reminds me of the way Anakin Skywalker lost all his limbs.)
Quote> Attack: "Disarm. You can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. You make an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If you win the contest, your attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the target drops the item. You have disadvantage on the attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than you, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
Strength could help you pull away a weapon once you grabbed it, but you need to grab it first, which requires out-moving them, which strength doesn't help that much with. So if you let high strength make someone good at disarming, then a clumsy troll can easily take away weapons from skilled agile people. I think contest of weapon skill makes more sense, or a grapple that's harder than a generic grapple (grapple vs enemy weapon skill?) to grab/impair the weapon, followed by a separate ST vs ST contest to actually pull the weapon away.
Quote> Grappling: "Interference. While you are grappling a creature of your size or smaller, if your other hand is free you can use a bonus action to make it difficult for the grappled creature to speak, see, or perform complex movements. Until the end of your next turn the grappled creature is either unable to speak, unable to perform somatic spell components, or can only see spaces adjacent to it for the purposes of spell targetting. This restriction ends immediately when the grapple does."
This seems like it should require a contest and not just a free hand. Grappling is one thing, and might automatically prevent spell targeting/casting, but making someone mute or blind shouldn't be an easy automatic thing.
Batman, the 'Marking' mechanic is a variation of the Sentinel feat, which stops any one from getting past you if you hit them (among other abilities.)
My personal house rules:
-Armour is now DR, subtracting 10 off of it determines how much damage it reduces. Crits always do a minimum of 1 point of damage. If you are a Rogue, Bard, Cleric with the ability to use martial weapons and/or heavy armour, as well as all fighter types, you add your Proficiency bonus to AC. (Monsters are adjusted accordingly. For example, Orcs and Goblins wear armour, and some other monsters, like the Bulette and Dragons become easier to hit -Large or bigger dragons are like the size of a horse to a house, how can you miss that??- but are harder to HURT.)
-The Fighter types -Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin- get to add dice to their weapon attacks, similarly to the Cantrip scaling that casters get. (So they double at level 5, triple at 11 and quadruple at 17.) So far, I'm waffling on giving the Monk this ability, simply because they can start between 2-3 attacks per round from the word go, and they have a scaling damage die. So far nothing has broken, but monitoring, as my home group are only 5th level..
I'm not sure about my Crown of Madness fix. It still feels a little weak compared to Hold Person and Suggestion, and it's already a mess as written in the book. Not sure what to do.
Quote from: Skarg;922687I'm no D&D expert, but three of your physical moves don't make sense to me in terms of the ways you determine success.
Those moves are actually taken from the optional section of 5e's Dungeon Master's Guide and are in line with PHB move options, but I see of your points. I'll have to think about them.
One rule I've changed is for Concentration Check: it's the greater of DC 10 or the damage taken.
It's not a big change, but RAW, a max damage critical hit from a swordwielding 18 STR character (20 points) is just as distracting as a 1 point shot from splinter or something.
Another minor change: all save DCs are 2 points higher. PCs get to add their proficiency bonus to all saving throws. I just think saves in general should get easier as characters gain levels, and this does that, a little.
Quote from: Doom;922747It's not a big change, but RAW, a max damage critical hit from a swordwielding 18 STR character (20 points) is just as distracting as a 1 point shot from splinter or something.
Splinters are mean! Definitely needs a high DC save.
Quote from: Omega;922782Splinters are mean! Definitely needs a high DC save.
Don't forget stepping on Lego bricks! DC 12 minimum I'd say.
Not running 5E, but just wondering--is anyone else having to house rule it as much as the OP? More? Less?
No house rules yet. I may have to do something about the wisards familiar.
I just don't like it being an immortal fey that you can dismiss to a pocket dimension when it's inconvenient. It might not be an issue though. (I also haven't read the rules, I'm just going off what the player told me. I should probably read the rules before I change any of them)
Quote from: Headless;922856No house rules yet. I may have to do something about the wisards familiar.
I just don't like it being an immortal fey that you can dismiss to a pocket dimension when it's inconvenient. It might not be an issue though. (I also haven't read the rules, I'm just going off what the player told me. I should probably read the rules before I change any of them)
Main thing I've heard about is complaints about Druid Wildshape being OP. Used to be some complaints about Dwarven wizards?
This is why I've gone simple--I'd be sure to miss something that would crop up, and then I'd have to nerf it. I'm having enough problems with Dungeon World Thief ability to basically autofind traps (ability that allows you to ask one question, even if you fail, so the player always asks, "Is there a trap here?"):-/
One thing we got rid of was the spell focus. It felt way too cheaty to allow bypassing the need for spell components.
One thing we have been discussing is the idea of spell focuses having a limited number of uses based on the focus. Jannet suggested that each use reduced the focus value by X amount of GP since her idea was going to gem only focuses.
Quote from: cranebump;922829Not running 5E, but just wondering--is anyone else having to house rule it as much as the OP? More? Less?
There's nothing wrong persay but... A game I don't house rule, is a game I don't play.
At this point it's more or less instinctive.
Quote from: cranebump;922858Main thing I've heard about is complaints about Druid Wildshape being OP. Used to be some complaints about Dwarven wizards?
The basic Druid is fine. Its the Moon druid thats strong. But not as OP as too many claim it is. See other thread for discussion on that. The elemental forms are a potential nuisance. But if you keep in mind their limitations then its more or less managable.
The dwarven wizard (Mountain Dwarf subset) as a DM I had no problems with. I was a little dubious. But one of my players is playing one. With access to medium armour you can hit up to an AC of 17. Mage Armour can hit up to AC 18 with a high DEX so in the end having a dwarf wizard was nothing special.
Quote from: cranebump;922829Not running 5E, but just wondering--is anyone else having to house rule it as much as the OP? More? Less?
More like re-introducing some things dropped between playtest and publication and some tweaks or just offering more thematic options without changing things. Spell focus use is in discussion and theres a few other points that are annoying but not sure if warrant as they are not common enough to waste time fretting over.
The Beast Master Ranger is one that once again it was Jan who brought up ideas on even though she didnt play one. Overall her opinion was the Ranger was lacking in oomph. This though based on her idea of what a Ranger does.
Everyone so far ignores inspiration. Or just forgets its there.
Quote from: Omega;922869The basic Druid is fine. Its the Moon druid thats strong. But not as OP as too many claim it is. See other thread for discussion on that. The elemental forms are a potential nuisance. But if you keep in mind their limitations then its more or less managable.
Yes, after much consideration I decided to go with a lighter fix. They shouldn't get a solid multi-attack three levels before everyone else and should be more inconvenienced by the loss of shape (note that it gives monsters time to damage the REAL druid, costing real resources for the player instead of the recharge-after-short-rest wildshapes). The utility functions are still amazing.
I'm holding off on further nerfing the elementals forms for now. I'm tempted to remove the non-magic weapon resistance until level 15, as most settings are ill-prepared to deal with an intelligent elemental that can laugh off their weapons and escape through earth and air at 90ft a round.
My house rules (which evolved through actual play over a year-long campaign):
- critical hits are max damage die + roll one more. Example: with a shortsword, you would deal 6+d6 damage, not 2d6. Rationale: I felt that critical hits were frequently lackluster. People would cheer as they rolled a 20 only to get less than avarage damage (even without a crit). I said oh hell naw. Of course, the same applied to monsters. Players loved it, and were disappointed that our new DM isn't using this rule herself (even though when she was a player, she loved it).
- incapacitated means that the character is still conscious but can only crawl around and talk. Can automatically fail a death save to make an attack or other physically exerting action (can cast a spell without somatic components but won't stabilize). Rationale: i hate it when my players can't do anything. I know that's an unpopular view around these parts, but I want everyone to be able to play all the time (even handing over NPCs monsters for them to control if their character isn't present during a scene).
- the Fighter's exceptional athlete ability is boosted to give the Fighter double their expertise bonus to Athletics checks. Also, three times per long rest, the Fighter can make a "Heroic Leap", crossing crazy distances and/or landing in a difficult spot. Rationale: I felt that the Fighter was still lackluster and underperforming. I wanted to give him a boost.
fuck all y'all! i'm bookkeeping actual life bullshit like my life depends on it AND scrambling scribbling out handmade scrawl Changeling the Dreaming cards... and you bastards get to talk about D&D 5e houserules (ehr mehgerd, meh frevrit)! i have backlog account statements from when WaMu was still in business! ("were you even born in 90s? i probably have tax forms older than you..." /bitter scene-ster voice)
booo! have you no decency?!
PS: Ban Leomund's Tiny Hut spell. It fucks with Short/Long Rest economy.
PPS: Srsly, that paper shredder game, tho... :mad:
Quote from: cranebump;922829Not running 5E, but just wondering--is anyone else having to house rule it as much as the OP? More? Less?
I don't know if it's so much house-ruling, as ruling on the fly. 5e doesn't really have alot of rules for, well, most things. For instance, the Stealth/Hiding rules are basically nonexistent. So you're going to go with "roll for it" and hope that's good enough.
But you definitely want to approach 5e the way you approached AD&D: these are hastily assembled rules with minimal playtesting with much that was not well thought out. It would take hundreds of pages to formally address all the little issues, it just makes more sense to deal with things as they come up.
Before the assault, I still maintain "the big picture" of 5e is pretty good, and, bottom line, there is no RPG system that is going to model everything that goes on in reality in perfect detail.
And, yea, Leomund's Tiny Hut is a bit of an issue. Like many other spells, the power just seems to go up and up with every edition. Best you can do with it is realize the monsters might well find it, and prepare an ambush...of course, the party can just Hut again if they don't get TPKed, so yeah, issues...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;922940I'm holding off on further nerfing the elementals forms for now. I'm tempted to remove the non-magic weapon resistance until level 15, as most settings are ill-prepared to deal with an intelligent elemental that can laugh off their weapons and escape through earth and air at 90ft a round.
Definitely consider even totally dropping the non-magic weapon resistance since in 5e magic weapons are somewhat more rare and if you are running the game with that sort of rarity then immunities and resistances become a severe problem.
Some thoughts there. Monks can ignore resistances and even immunities at level 6. Blade Pact Warlocks weapon counts as magical and they get that at level 3. 3rd level is also when the Wizard can pick up Magic Weapon. (And hilariously a Battle Master Fighter can trip an elemental to knock it down.) The other thing to keep in mind is that the Druid doesnt get the elemental forms till level 10.
As for extra attack some forms get. Two thoughts. 1. disallow the 2nd attack till level 5. 2: have it use the Druids bonus action. Monks get that at level 1.
Something else we've seriously considered is beefing up the Restrained status. As is its just a slightly more effective Grappled status. Make it so it prevents somatic spellcasting.
Speaking of Grappled. One suggestion was to beef that up as well with the following. If you get a successfull grapple then on a following turn you can make another check vs the opponent to upgrade the hold from grappled to restrained.
Quote from: Doom;922964I don't know if it's so much house-ruling, as ruling on the fly. 5e doesn't really have alot of rules for, well, most things. For instance, the Stealth/Hiding rules are basically nonexistent. So you're going to go with "roll for it" and hope that's good enough.
PHB page 177. Pretty straightforward. DEX(Stealth) check to initiate. After that someone actively looking gets a WIS (Perception) check to spot them and everyone else has a passive perception check to notice them. Cant attempt stealth/hiding if being observed. Invisible creatures can try to hide/stealth at any time. They arent automatically stealthy.
Quote from: Omega;922983PHB page 177. Pretty straightforward. DEX(Stealth) check to initiate. After that someone actively looking gets a WIS (Perception) check to spot them and everyone else has a passive perception check to notice them. Cant attempt stealth/hiding if being observed. Invisible creatures can try to hide/stealth at any time. They arent automatically stealthy.
Correct, PHB 177 does exist. You roll for it.
Looking from light into darkness? You'll have to make something up.
Relative size difference? You'll have to make something up
Darkvision? You'll have to make something up
Cover? You'll have to make something up
Distraction? You'll have to make something up
Invisible but noisy? You'll have to make something up
Multiple Mooks looking? You'll have to make something up
Or...just roll for it and not care about the lack of rules.
Quote from: cranebump;922829Not running 5E, but just wondering--is anyone else having to house rule it as much as the OP? More? Less?
I have a lot less house rules than the OP, but some of them looked like rulings I might make if someone wanted to do the relevant thing (like Crafting, Overrun, Tumble, maybe Disarm) and a lot looked kind of fiddly (adjusting ranges and damage of spells - why were the original rules that bad?). None of them would put me off playing in a game with these house rules.
Quote from: rawma;923011... and a lot looked kind of fiddly (adjusting ranges and damage of spells - why were the original rules that bad?)
A lot of those small adjustments are direct reactions to smart players effectively saying, "Why would I ever take this given the other options?" and then us crunching the math together and determining it to be so.
For me personally there is an additional motivating question: "Why buy splatbooks or otherwise add bundles of new features until you've fixed the existing subpar options so that they are worth exploring?"
I hate dead material in core books.
Quote from: Doom;9229645e doesn't really have alot of rules for, well, most things.
You're welcome.
Quote from: RPGPundit;923413You're welcome.
Thank you in advance? Seriously, it's not a criticism, it's folly to even attempt to model all aspects of reality within a few hundred pages of text. "Go with what feels right" has the huge advantage of not having much in the way of loopholes.
Quote from: Doom;923693Thank you in advance? Seriously, it's not a criticism, it's folly to even attempt to model all aspects of reality within a few hundred pages of text. "Go with what feels right" has the huge advantage of not having much in the way of loopholes.
I didn't take it as a criticism. I was taking credit for it.
Quote from: Doom;923693Thank you in advance? Seriously, it's not a criticism, it's folly to even attempt to model all aspects of reality within a few hundred pages of text. "Go with what feels right" has the huge advantage of not having much in the way of loopholes.
Pundit had a small role in bringing 5e to fruition (I'll let him toot his own horn).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;924471Pundit had a small role in bringing 5e to fruition (I'll let him toot his own horn).
Correct!
Quote from: Willie the Duck;924471Pundit had a small role in bringing 5e to fruition (I'll let him toot his own horn).
Totally worth it too just to see the tears of impotent rage certain factions wailed over this.
Quote from: Omega;924504Totally worth it too just to see the tears of impotent rage certain factions wailed over this.
Tempest in a teapot. It could easily have been someone from the 'other side' of however you want to call this divide in gaming communities. I'm sure it would have gone the same way.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;924568Tempest in a teapot. It could easily have been someone from the 'other side' of however you want to call this divide in gaming communities. I'm sure it would have gone the same way.
That was 4th ed D&D...
Quote from: Omega;924504Totally worth it too just to see the tears of impotent rage certain factions wailed over this.
What many forget that this (holding up a player handbook) is just detail for a fundemental rule which is the players describes what his character does and the referee adjudicates. If it not detailed in this (again holding up a player's handbook), it is still the referee job to figure out how to adjudicate what the player describes. If the referee declines to do this by saying it not in the book, then he has failed to do his job. And note ruling that a character is not capable of the action is a valid ruling if it make sense in terms of how the character is described. But saying that character can't do the action because it not described in a rulebook is not a valid or fair ruling.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;924568Tempest in a teapot. It could easily have been someone from the 'other side' of however you want to call this divide in gaming communities. I'm sure it would have gone the same way.
Well, in this case it couldn't have been. It could have theoretically have been someone else from the 'same side', but WoTC explicitly wanted a consultant representing the OSR.
Quote from: RPGPundit;925272Well, in this case it couldn't have been. It could have theoretically have been someone else from the 'same side', but WoTC explicitly wanted a consultant representing the OSR.
Well lets be honest there's nothing wrong with making the safe move.
Quote from: kosmos1214;925388Well lets be honest there's nothing wrong with making the safe move.
Yes. WoTC finally did the right thing, after several years of having made every possible wrong choice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;926826Yes. WoTC finally did the right thing, after several years of having made every possible wrong choice.
Thats pretty much the history of WOTC. For every success they have they torpedo their own product with the next. Theyve screwed up so much Hasbro has them on a tight budget leash.
Quote from: Omega;926874Thats pretty much the history of WOTC. For every success they have they torpedo their own product with the next. Theyve screwed up so much Hasbro has them on a tight budget leash.
Right... No. As long as the Magic money rolls, they have no oversight on WoTC. D&D could disappear from the portfolio and Hasby wouldn't care as long that sweet, sweet Magic money keeps a coming harder than every sexual fantasy the world has had at once.
Well, sorta. Just because Pepsi-Co now makes the bulk of its money by owning KFCs and other non-soda-related activities means that they don't care about their soda brands. WotC wants D&D (the game product line) in a nice, safe box where its minor revenue is a distant fourth to not rocking the MtG boat, bringing/keeping people in(to) the nerd fold and perhaps also buying Magic cards, and selling related products like the new D&D movies (if those end up being successful).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;927016Well, sorta. Just because Pepsi-Co now makes the bulk of its money by owning KFCs and other non-soda-related activities means that they don't care about their soda brands. WotC wants D&D (the game product line) in a nice, safe box where its minor revenue is a distant fourth to not rocking the MtG boat, bringing/keeping people in(to) the nerd fold and perhaps also buying Magic cards, and selling related products like the new D&D movies (if those end up being successful).
Well, OK, I'll grant that if D&D was costing Wizards more money than Magic was bringing in, then yes, Hasbro would cut it like a barnacle off a boat. Thing is, that will never happen, simply because the moment that Magic Money gets so small that it COULD be affected by D&D's success, Hasbro would have dropped the puppy into the lake to let it drown long before that happened.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;926956Right... No. As long as the Magic money rolls, they have no oversight on WoTC. D&D could disappear from the portfolio and Hasby wouldn't care as long that sweet, sweet Magic money keeps a coming harder than every sexual fantasy the world has had at once.
Wrong... yes. MTG and their sidlines have been waning with each successive year. The've started branching it out into board games now. And WOTC has flubbed a few times with Magic as well so Hasbro keeps an eye on them. Especially after they botched several projects. The CCG bubble burst a decade and a half ago.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;927229Well, OK, I'll grant that if D&D was costing Wizards more money than Magic was bringing in, then yes, Hasbro would cut it like a barnacle off a boat. Thing is, that will never happen, simply because the moment that Magic Money gets so small that it COULD be affected by D&D's success, Hasbro would have dropped the puppy into the lake to let it drown long before that happened.
Hasbro threatened to do exactly that with D&D. Either show a profit or the end. Especially after WOTC botched 4e D&D GW. And that was under a very tight leash indeed.
Theres also all the legal hassles behind D&D. The near total lockout of being able to make movies or TV series is a problem.
Stop fucking up Shipyard Locked's thread please.