|
After buying a bundle for PF via Humble Bundle, excitedly making my own Level 1 character with the intention of playing him at a convention, and then being told "Nope" while being handed a book thick stack of premades with character sheets that weren't nearly as easy to follow as the one I'd used. And then realizing there were a bunch of weird fiddly little rules involved with the premade I chose, and on top of all that everyone focusing on just getting through the module to collect their XP left a bad taste in my mouth for the game. On the flip side at the same convention I slipped into a random 5e game afterward and had the time of my life so there's that.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Arthil posted:After buying a bundle for PF via Humble Bundle, excitedly making my own Level 1 character with the intention of playing him at a convention, and then being told "Nope" while being handed a book thick stack of premades with character sheets that weren't nearly as easy to follow as the one I'd used. And then realizing there were a bunch of weird fiddly little rules involved with the premade I chose, and on top of all that everyone focusing on just getting through the module to collect their XP left a bad taste in my mouth for the game. Organized play systems and "kitchen table"/home games are two very different things. This has been true of any roleplaying system since what 1980? Fun fact: the version of the Tomb of Horrors we are all familiar with today was originally a competitive scenario run as a tournament between groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
How a convention game is run is way more important than the system it utilizes, honestly. I hate PF but even I don't really think that's a knock against PF as a game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Organized play systems and "kitchen table"/home games are two very different things. This has been true of any roleplaying system since what 1980? Are you saying that 5e is better for organized play than Pathfinder?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:How a convention game is run is way more important than the system it utilizes, honestly. I hate PF but even I don't really think that's a knock against PF as a game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Arivia posted:the absolute quagmire of multiclassing? the complete mess of encounter balance? The infamous 48d20 rats playtest encounter? That well goes way deep man. I am going to call Bullshit here. I like 3.5 and Pathfinder, but you have to be deluded to think it's better built then 5e. Multiclassing is no worse here then in 3.5 and Pathfinder, (Honestly would say it's better.) Not great still. The systems presents it as optional for a reason. Encounter Balance while not fantastic is better then 3.5 and Pathfinder even in it's original form, the new form is just way better. 48d20 rats is like the pettiest thing ever. Along with not being a big deal, the encounter was changed anyway to Rat swarms. 5e tore out big parts of the system and made it better. Way better then Pathfinders changes. So yeah I can say that for Mearls (and the rest of the team, cause you never want to credit or condemn them.) Like what did 5e make worse out of 3.5, Advantage? the lower numbers, the less complicated systems, the better balance, the more interesting monsters? Sneak attack not being useless on certain enemies? Point some stuff out that Pathfinder does better, besides having more books. What cahnges made 5e worse then 3.5 and Pathfinder, Cause I have a feeling your game design sense is worse then mine at this point. That or you just can't admit that your hate for this is game is just a personal thing cause of your grudge that you can't get over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I am going to call Bullshit here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Fun fact: the version of the Tomb of Horrors we are all familiar with today was originally a competitive scenario run as a tournament between groups. Also that Gygax wanted to make something that would challenge his players as they called his stuff too easy. Though they made it through the Tomb First Try anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:It tries to pretend that a lot of the required rules systems are optional when they aren't. Like Multiclassing and Feats? They are nice to have, but they are not needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Point some stuff out that Pathfinder does better, besides having more books. What cahnges made 5e worse then 3.5 and Pathfinder, Cause I have a feeling your game design sense is worse then mine at this point. That or you just can't admit that your hate for this is game is just a personal thing cause of your grudge that you can't get over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also that Gygax wanted to make something that would challenge his players as they called his stuff too easy. Though they made it through the Tomb First Try anyway. Honestly a lot of those stories come off as super suspect at best and just blatant rules metagaming stuff at worst. Like the 10 foot pole because somehow they know no trap will ever be further reaching than that
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Hey guys. Fifth Edition sure is a fun game with your buddies, isn't it? God please don't derail us again. Edit: Gonna have my first real Level 20 session this weekend with my barbarian, so I'm excited about that. The DM is the woman that usually plays our Devotion Paladin and she intends the first session to probably be more about role-playing to settle us all back in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
It came out really late, but 5e has nothing comparable to the Book of Nine Swords (the battlemaster fighter is nowhere close), and nothing close to the warlord. I would actually potentially be willing to play a 3.5 game again as a Crusader. I've played like 3 sessions as one total, but they're a hoot. There's an equivalent to the Tome of Battle in Pathfinder, I just haven't really given it a good look-see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Are you saying that 5e is better for organized play than Pathfinder? No I'm saying that criticizing a game based off of disagreements with its organized play structure is a non-starter because those aren't problems with the game itself. MonsterEnvy posted:I am going to call Bullshit here. Sorry dude, you're wrong, like always. We're always seeing people do crazy things and stack the classes in ways that easily exploit mechanics in this thread. What is it? The sorcadin? Sorlock? It all kind of blends together into absurd morasses of slots and badly used points. 3e-style attaching class levels like lego sure isn't great, but Pathfinder's classes don't leak into each other and work as disparate parts. The entire system doesn't go to poo poo when you multiclass in Pathfinder, you don't need extra tables or rejigging. It works. Lol you have no idea how encounter balance works in Pathfinder, dude. None at all. Again, Paizo didn't have to rewrite their encounter balance rules midway through Pathfinder because they got it so wrong in the first place. The basic encounter math for creating groups of creatures as encounters works out of the box in Pathfinder, and it sure didn't in 5e. If I was trying to use other encounter groups and have them be balanced, those work out pretty well too. Pathfinder's system adjusts evenly for groups from 2 to 7, by the way. And the math is a lot easier than the stupid lovely flattened math in 5e where CR has absolutely no meaning and no relevance to character levels as a general eyeball mark of difficulty. (By the way, did you know Pathfinder redid all of the encounter balancing math coming from 3.5? I bet you didn't.) Now, I'll make an aside here. Commonly when people criticize 3.5/PF's encounter balance, they aren't actually criticizing the encounter design principles. Those work out pretty well in 3.5 - two CR 2 creatures is an EL 4 encounter is well-trod now. What they are criticizing is the balance and benchmarking of particular creatures and their Challenge Rating. That's monster design, not encounter design. The good thing is, Paizo rewrote all of their monster design going into Pathfinder, and have only been getting better at that too. If you ever look at the appendices of a Bestiary, you'll see how Pathfinder monsters are thoroughly benchmarked and organized according to a consistent set of Universal Monster Rules which apply to all monsters (and PCs as relevant, too!) Furthermore, all of that information is surfaced and explained to the GM, letting you easily create monsters of any CR that will match the ones in the book for difficulty pretty consistently. It breaks down figuring out any mathematical details needed, such as average damage per round, saves, or so on, and explains how to tweak all of those as necessary. Every time I go in there I have a balanced, fun to run monster that's a good challenge in a minimum of work.* (Don't forget 5e's hilarious mess of a monster creation system, where you're continually dodging your expected and final challenge ratings with a bunch of other mush that doesn't work!) And no, 48d20 rats is not really petty. Forgetting about swarm rules (a thing in the goddamn Rules Cyclopedia) really shows how much they weren't thinking through designing their game. They were so embarrassed they shut down their entire playtest over it. It shows how little they thought things through that they couldn't be bothered to replicate the swarm type until someone reminded them. If you'd like to turn this back on me, you need to describe specific things you think 5e does better. I don't think you've done that, but here's some things you mumbled about. Advantage has been formally shown through math by many people in this thread (gradenko, for one) to be a poor mathematical tool for the game's design. A good/bad button doesn't work for a game as complicated as D&D, and the math bears that out. It's a detriment to the system, not an advantage. Cutting down on modifiers in general is nice, but there are much better ways than 5e decided to do it - very specific modifier breakdowns like in the Pathfinder 2e playtest, or modifier pools like SotDL has. "Less complicated systems" doesn't mean anything as a critical point. Complexity is not a negative or positive term. Balance is an undefined larger term, and you don't specify. But even just looking at classes, how many different things in here obliterate the utility of the rest of the party? How many people feel they are "moon druid + sidekicks" by 5th level? Or your do-anything bards? Sure, Pathfinder has spellcaster/martial inequality, but it definitely doesn't start that early or apply in so many basic cases. "More interesting monsters" is again an undefined, subjective term. Sneak attack was also expanded in Pathfinder. I'm not going to go through every exception to those convoluted advantage rules, since you need that (or flanking), which is a lot more of a pain than "is this creature immune to precision damage" in Pathfinder. (By creature types and subtypes that's only oozes and elementals, btw.) And yes, part of my dislike of the game is personal. But the math doesn't work man. It's been proven, repeatedly in this thread. If you're blind to seeing that then that's your problem. And again, 5e was designed 10+ years later, with no compatibility required. They (Mearls) had the opportunity to fix their problems, and they didn't. Compare to Paizo's real kick at the can, where for Pathfinder 2e they are really putting the math and the system through the wringer until it's rock solid, to the point of replacing huge chunks for experimental playtest alternatives. I'm not going to go through every page of the books to tell you what's bad or doesn't work dude. We have this entire thread showing off all the ways for that. But it's all bad. It's all so mushy and weak and if you poke at it or try to work with it, it just falls apart. Nothing in 5e is solid, nothing ever commits to taking a position or encouraging play. And the spackle that's supposed to fill all of this is just "ask your DM." Nobody on that design team ever stands up for their game, never wants it to be strong. 5e puts everything on the DM and gives them so little to actually work with. And that is really, really painful to run. 3.5/PF, yeah it's rickety. Yeah there's parts you don't generally use, and parts that kind of make your eyes roll when they come up. But they're there. To take an example from my last session of Pathfinder, if I need to break down a door or something at least I have numbers to work from. 5e just mentions a "damage threshold" but doesn't tell you what's appropriate or provide examples or anything. It's like mud, when you think you're on solid ground it just flows right out from underneath you. Here's some cool things Pathfinder does that 5e doesn't though. I'm mainly bringing up things from supplements, because Pathfinder's core rules were intentionally very conservative in order to be compatible with people's existing 3.5 content. Class templates from the Monster Codex are a good example. If you need a goblin wizard in 5e, you have to take a goblin and manually give it levels of wizard. You can do that in Pathfinder too, but it takes awhile. A class template is an acquired template you just slap on a monster in order to give it a class. It's like a paragraph long, and because Pathfinder is well-written and has good use of common elements and glossaries, it can just tell you where you need to look for anything complicated, knowing that it'll work. It tells you how its stats change and then you have that monster as whatever class you choose. Takes maybe five minutes including picking spells if I picked a spellcaster. Oh yeah, they include spell choices and tell you how to make them relevant. Speaking of, those class templates have the quick and rebuild rules. Pathfinder's templates come in two forms - you get a quick version you can use at the table on any monster with no prep, and a rebuild version that you can use for slightly more precise statistics if you're willing to take the time to work through applying it as part of preparation. Both work great - one just says "add +2 to all Strength rolls" and one says "add +4 to Strength" and then you modify all the things that depend upon Strength yourself. (What the gently caress happened to the templates in the 5e MM anyway? There's like 1 [half-dragon], and it's really boring and it doesn't even mention CR changing. Did they just give up on having customizable monsters or something?) I stuck an * up there because I wanted to talk about another thing Pathfinder brought to the table. Unchained monster creation turns the way you create monsters in 3.5 on its head. It's an optional system, it works just as well as the Bestiary's system does. It's just faster - instead of doing all the back-system math of 3.5 with hit dice and monster types, it gives you big menus of options to choose from and you just use those to assemble your monster. It skips a lot of the extra math that 3.5 usually has you do to make a creature that works very well for your game in a very quick period of time. How about the settlement stat blocks, which quickly generate everything important about a settlement including any modifiers it has to the PCs statistics and the challenges or opportunities in the settlement? Detailed and working combat maneuvers that aren't just "crumbs we gave to the battlemaster"? A chase system for chases? Or the pursuit system for Indiana Jones-style races over days and weeks on an abstracted map? Haunts are cool, they're a dedicated system for detailing and exposing undead, occult, or evil presences that lurk in a particular place. Social combat? A performance combat system for duels or gladiatorial fights? Oo, how about the chapter in Horror Adventures about what to do when the rules completely fail you and you just need to run by the seat of your pants? Speaking of Horror Adventures, corruptions are awesome. They're for when characters get infected or cursed by deleterious effects like lycanthropy or vampirism, and allow you to track and play through the whole experience. I'm literally just pulling books off my shelf and looking at the table of contents. There's more originality in any one of these than the total of the poo poo 5e puts out, and that's just really sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also that Gygax wanted to make something that would challenge his players as they called his stuff too easy. Though they made it through the Tomb First Try anyway. God would you please shut up about poo poo you don't know? Like really, if you do nothing else, if you don't know something, don't say something. It doesn't contribute to the conversation at all. Yes, the Tomb of Horrors was originally created by Gygax to challenge Rob Kuntz's Robilar (not his players in general.) That was irrelevant because I was discussing tournament play and how the Tomb of Horrors we are used to and that is published publically is a reworked version for a tournament. mastershakeman posted:Honestly a lot of those stories come off as super suspect at best and just blatant rules metagaming stuff at worst. Like the 10 foot pole because somehow they know no trap will ever be further reaching than that They aren't. The thing to realize is that the play of the game was fundamentally different to the point where metagaming as we consider it today didn't even exist. Look at one of the OSR primers like this one to explore how differently Gygax was playing the game than we are today: https://lithyscaphe.blogspot.com/p/principia-apocrypha.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Arivia posted:A little bit, yeah! But it's SA, it's the acid wash of the internet, you're not going to find a perfect happy place for your game of choice. You should look at the stuff I get into in that thread. Arivia posted:amazingly a discussion thread on the Something Awful Forums is not your personal home game Arivia posted:God would you please shut up about poo poo you don't know? Like really, if you do nothing else, if you don't know something, don't say something. It doesn't contribute to the conversation at all. Yes, the Tomb of Horrors was originally created by Gygax to challenge Rob Kuntz's Robilar (not his players in general.) That was irrelevant because I was discussing tournament play and how the Tomb of Horrors we are used to and that is published publically is a reworked version for a tournament. Honestly, to revisit the whole "people having a problem with your posts" topic I think the issue is less about you making GBS threads on 5e and more about you not really contributing anything particularly insightful to the discussion. I mean, there's a lot of other people in the thread who dump on or have grievances with 5e but those other people also actually make meaningful posts examining the mechanics of the game, the design decisions of the staff or just actually contribute stuff that gives people a deeper understanding of the mechanics and how to avoid the mistakes of the 5e design team. Your approach, on the other hand, is mostly just to scream the same tired hyperbolics about the system and Mearls over and over again in a way that's neither funny nor particularly insightful and then get into pages-long slapfights with the same guy over and over again because you think he's making GBS threads up the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
It's sneering, bullying bullshit and it makes the thread tiresome to read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Arivia posted:God would you please shut up about poo poo you don't know? Like really, if you do nothing else, if you don't know something, don't say something. It doesn't contribute to the conversation at all. Yes, the Tomb of Horrors was originally created by Gygax to challenge Rob Kuntz's Robilar (not his players in general.) That was irrelevant because I was discussing tournament play and how the Tomb of Horrors we are used to and that is published publically is a reworked version for a tournament. Whoaaaaa this is great. I love how you and gradenko are constantly pulling in these old sources and honestly have no idea how you two amassed all this knowledge about 20th century tabletop stuff nearly no one else has Edit: this post was not made in reference to the other two above ,lol. I just really like the historical context because I think it can explain a lot about roleplaying that I never truly am able to understand due to my misconceptions
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Ah, the thread samsara continues
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine the immense shitpile a general D&D thread would be 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
dreadmojo posted:It's sneering, bullying bullshit and it makes the thread tiresome to read. [grinnign wildly as i reveal my ultimate trap card] this site aint called something sensitive bithc!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Reading this old school mentality stuff is weird because it's the only way I really know how to play. For example, in the last campaign we knew an enemy general had the magical ability that he "couldn't be survived". After the campaign ended I asked what would have happened if we hadn't parried - a save vs death? And the DM just said why would you think you get a save against someone who can't be survived? Is that kind of thing not done anymore? Heck a current example is our party tried to lure out some orcs in badlands. A few orcs found our fire with us hidden nearby and left to get reinforcements. Our invisible mage followed but got lost on the way back and can't find us. Our party of 4(well, 3) level 5 characters is about to get hit by a dozen orcs, 4 bugbear type things (it was dark, so not sure what these are) and an ogre. We're arguing out of character between sessions about how the gently caress we fight that group or if we should just run away I probably should find some local adventurers league tables to play to get a feel for modernity
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
KingKalamari posted:Honestly, to revisit the whole "people having a problem with your posts" topic I think the issue is less about you making GBS threads on 5e and more about you not really contributing anything particularly insightful to the discussion. I mean, there's a lot of other people in the thread who dump on or have grievances with 5e but those other people also actually make meaningful posts examining the mechanics of the game, the design decisions of the staff or just actually contribute stuff that gives people a deeper understanding of the mechanics and how to avoid the mistakes of the 5e design team. Your approach, on the other hand, is mostly just to scream the same tired hyperbolics about the system and Mearls over and over again in a way that's neither funny nor particularly insightful and then get into pages-long slapfights with the same guy over and over again because you think he's making GBS threads up the thread. On literally the preceding page of this thread I was explaining to a guy why 5e’s magic item creation mechanics are the way they are, the historical precedent, and what parts of the game that particular system affected and how. I have done that sort of thing repeatedly, both for rules and the setting. You might consider it a bit “mean” but again, this is Something Awful. There are no happy fun safe discussion topics here that are free of criticism. If you want that, there are other places on the Internet for that (and no shortage of them for 5e in particular.) This forum does not like 5e for specific historical reasons, and it is also a very bad game on the merits of its writing and design. Because of that, you have people like me who want to mock the Bad Game, like goons mock bad things in general. You may disagree with it being a bad game, and that’s fine, but your voice does not crowd out mine, nor should it. If you want a thread without mockery, try another forum. People tried it here and it didn’t work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Arivia posted:On literally the preceding page of this thread I was explaining to a guy why 5e’s magic item creation mechanics are the way they are, the historical precedent, and what parts of the game that particular system affected and how. To be real for a second, I've skipped past almost all of your posts, and I don't even like 5e that much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
Arivia posted:On literally the preceding page of this thread I was explaining to a guy why 5e’s magic item creation mechanics are the way they are, the historical precedent, and what parts of the game that particular system affected and how. For one post. Out of, like, twelve. Arivia posted:You might consider it a bit “mean” but again, this is Something Awful. There are no happy fun safe discussion topics here that are free of criticism. If you want that, there are other places on the Internet for that (and no shortage of them for 5e in particular.) This forum does not like 5e for specific historical reasons, and it is also a very bad game on the merits of its writing and design. Remember the second line of the post you're quoting? Where I said I don't give a poo poo if people dump on 5e? Because you seem to think I'm having an entirely different argument. Arivia posted:Because of that, you have people like me who want to mock the Bad Game, like goons mock bad things in general. You may disagree with it being a bad game, and that’s fine, but your voice does not crowd out mine, nor should it. If you want a thread without mockery, try another forum. People tried it here and it didn’t work. Yeah, but when other goons mock things they tend to be clever, or funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:I'm trying to imagine the immense shitpile a general D&D thread would be That's what this one turns into, despite it being meant for 5th Edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Hey guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
KingKalamari posted:Yeah, but when other goons mock things they tend to be clever, or funny. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Can we give full thread control to Control Volume?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Section Z posted:If you are level 20 that means you can buy a collection of hide armors for the sole purpose of flexing so hard they explode, Kenshiro style. I did say he's gone from being a shirtless wanderer into wearing something akin to a clerics tunic after the whole thing at the tournament. (I knew I had no chance of winning... so instead I planned out with one of the DM's to use a Ring of Three Wishes to bring his people back. Rock solid, pre-agreed wording. DM told the rest of the table that while normally using the spell in such a way would weaken me beyond belief, he left it up to them. They didn't want me weakened, so instead I went from Ancestral Guardian to Zealot). So him just exploding out of it when he rages would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition is a good game that meets my needs and is fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Arivia posted:God would you please shut up about poo poo you don't know? Like really, if you do nothing else, if you don't know something, don't say something. It doesn't contribute to the conversation at all. Yes, the Tomb of Horrors was originally created by Gygax to challenge Rob Kuntz's Robilar (not his players in general.) That was irrelevant because I was discussing tournament play and how the Tomb of Horrors we are used to and that is published publically is a reworked version for a tournament. What I don't get is why you decided to attack me here. I was not contradicting you or insulting you. I was just elaborating on your post about the Tomb of Horrors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:What I don't get is why you decided to attack me here. I was not contradicting you or insulting you. I was just elaborating on your post about the Tomb of Horrors. You can’t seem to actually read the posts you are responding to. You continually run your mouth about things you don’t know, or assume you do without literally any support. For a post like that one, you act like a schoolmarm regurgitating semi-related facts that do not actually contribute anything to the conversation at hand. You can’t post like an actual human for some reason, and it’s really frustrating that you won’t just shut up and learn from other people when you so obviously need to. You have demonstrated a repeated inability to have and hold your own in an adult conversation. None of that is about your complete slavish devotion to 5e and defending it at all costs. It’s just bad posting. You are a bad poster. I don’t know if you’re better in other threads, but you drag this one down with absolute droning inanity. You do not contribute any insight or critical opinions to this thread. Your “content” could be replaced by a feed of Wizards press releases and new product previews on ENWorld. You are exactly the kind of bad poster that SA used to be so good at dealing with by mocking you until you either improve or just leave. I don’t know why Ettin keeps covering for you but it is really frustrating because you deserve better for your own sake. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Kids, kids, settle down: I hate both of you equally. MonsterEnvy is real dumb and Arivia is a real jackass
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Covok posted:Amended on 9/19/2016: New Rule Added: "No talking about other editions, espeically their relative merits, from this point onward. None what so ever. Do not break this rule." Today I Learned: I have no clue how to report posts because I have never needed to before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
[downing a third shot while talking to a tabletop diorama of a bar scene] something awful is the site that made fun of 9/11 and destroyed those motherfuckers on ebaums world, back then they would have eaten motherfuckers like that for breakfast
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Encounter Balance while not fantastic is better then 3.5 and Pathfinder even in it's original form, the new form is just way better. I would just like to point out that the "new encounter balance" chart was not only in 3rd Edition, but was already in 3rd Edition from the get-go as part of the DMG, and didn't have to be released in a separate book some years later: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Changing the subject, has anyone been following the ranger controversy where Jeremy Crawford declared the ranger beastmaster was totally fine as is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
Relentless posted:Today I Learned: You need to buy plat to report posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:Changing the subject, has anyone been following the ranger controversy where Jeremy Crawford declared the ranger beastmaster was totally fine as is? No? Was this on twitter or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:13
|
|