D&D thread
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
But we do have very different ideas of what is fun I guess. I like the peril and danger and am working on a more dynamic system that also has risktaking in fights built in. While you seem to prefer completely predictable no-danger no-dynamic systems where nobody can fail or die.
You really should get a refund on that mind-reading class.
I'm totally fine with peril and danger and dynamic risktaking. I don't want it to come from random chance, however. Especially random chance that paints the characters as incompetents using crappy gear. And yes, even a 1/100 chance of dropping your weapon or breaking your weapon counts as such. A gun that had a 1% chance of jamming is dangerously defective. A sword that has a 1% chance of breaking on use is dangerously defective. A warrior who drops his weapon 1% of the time is an incompetent.
I want danger and risk and dynamism to come from things like
- player choices, especially reaching beyond the "buttons" (ie trying for more than the abilities directly allow)
- terrain (especially dynamic terrain)
- enemy tactics
- player and enemy goals beyond "let's fight until one of us is dead"
- etc.
That is, things that are actually interesting and enhance the narrative and show player (and DM) skill. Things that enhance player (and DM) agency, not remove it. Not "oops, I rolled a 1, sucks to be me."
Maybe using a table more appropriate to your game, or skipping crit fails like massive damage gets regularly skipped, would help.
Just whatever you do don't mess with the number of free actions per round.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
a 1/100 chance of dropping your weapon or breaking your weapon counts as such. A gun that had a 1% chance of jamming is dangerously defective. A sword that has a 1% chance of breaking on use is dangerously defective.
I see from a different point of view. We know that the AC number is how difficult someone is to hit, i.e, to successfully carry out the attack. The attack connects, even though the damage dice may net a 0. Anything less is a miss. But what does it really mean - to miss? In videogames it's usually depicted as a physical miss animation. You swing your sword in the air, complete with the whoosh sound. That's not very competent to me. Especially if majority of the opponent's AC comes from actual armor or a large enemy you couldn't possibly miss.
For unarmed and martial weapons I would therefore define critical fail as a miss that makes you lose poise (but not enough to become a status effect).
Now, I think you've mentioned that you are against "muh realism" in game systems. That's fine. I haven't exactly worked out how it would work for ranged weapons and spells.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
a 1/100 chance of dropping your weapon or breaking your weapon counts as such. A gun that had a 1% chance of jamming is dangerously defective. A sword that has a 1% chance of breaking on use is dangerously defective.
I see from a different point of view. We know that the AC number is how difficult someone is to hit, i.e, to successfully carry out the attack. The attack connects, even though the damage dice may net a 0. Anything less is a miss. But what does it really mean - to miss? In videogames it's usually depicted as a physical miss animation. You swing your sword in the air, complete with the whoosh sound. That's not very competent to me. Especially if majority of the opponent's AC comes from actual armor or a large enemy you couldn't possibly miss.
For unarmed and martial weapons I would therefore define critical fail as a miss that makes you lose poise (but not enough to become a status effect).
Now, I think you've mentioned that you are against "muh realism" in game systems. That's fine. I haven't exactly worked out how it would work for ranged weapons and spells.
A "miss" merely means "you didn't deal damage on that attempt." Trying to nail that down more causes all sorts of verisimilitude problems, because what makes sense in an entirely fact-bound situation.
A "miss" that actually hits (in fiction) could be any of
- the enemy moved so that the strike, although making contact, was deflected off of the armor
- the enemy parried
- the creature's hide is such that anything other than a solid hit will glance off the scales/hide
- the object you're trying to smash wasn't notably affected by the hit
Plus all the "actual misses"--things like the creature being unnaturally lithe and nimble, so they literally bent their body around the blow.
I'm totally fine with "1/X times you, for no fault of your own, don't deal damage." Because that can be narrated in a way that preserves both competence and narrative consistency and applies globally. That doesn't mean you botched the attack. It means that the random factors (which is what the dice tell you--your capabilities and their (static) ones are baked into the modifiers and the AC, respectively) said no.
And beyond that, attack rolls are the ultimate hot path, at least in D&D. As such, they need to be optimized more than anything else. Which rules out anything involving table-lookups, conditional rolls (damage can be rolled at the same time as the attack, so it's not really conditional), or anything that requires a flow chart. I prefer when the system gets out of the way most of the time so that you can play the characters, not pilot a rules engine spreadsheet.
Personally, I have this (weird) model where HP is meat (involving some cosmology changes and abandoning anything like modern "science"). But that's secondary.
I'll note (again) that this is all personal preference, not some statement of objective fact. In fact, I think that the total "objective fact" in game design is...minimal. There's a wide range of things that can work for some people (but not for others).
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
In fact, I think that the total "objective fact" in game design is...minimal.
Any increase in uncertainty integrated over sufficient time harms the characters. This is a fact. There may be more. d20 full-fat 3.5 RAW has commonly stated flaws but also has commonly overlooked nuances.
The facts of die distributions are also facts. Linear scales are very, wildly, random-feeling. Yet the primary die in d20 is the d20 on linear. This was not done by mistake, I would submit. Bell-curved systems feel more predictable and less, what's the word, risky? Leveraged? Adventurous perhaps?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
In videogames it's usually depicted as a physical miss animation.
Video games generally use more complicated systems which separate 'pure' dodge (weapon does not connect), block/parry (weapon connects with shield or opponent's weapon) and hit (weapon connects with opponent's armour) from the armour stat (which is taken into account during damage calculation).
Rolling a 1000 sided die to check your 99.7% hit chance doesn't work well at a physical table. Nor does tracking attacks which end up dealing 1/245th of the enemy's hit points.
-
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
1/245th of the enemy's hit points.
Hey, 3hp is kinda significant eventually, assuming no regen
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I'll note (again) that this is all personal preference, not some statement of objective fact. In fact, I think that the total "objective fact" in game design is...minimal. There's a wide range of things that can work for some people (but not for others).
Don't worry, I'm not discounting your preferences. I'll note once more that my experience comes entirely from videogames, which deliberately change/misrepresent the ruleset (also, to answer @PleegWat).
That being said, the miss as you describe it doesn't sit well with me. Based on the depictions of historical reenactments (uuu, muh realism), there are two kinds of fights:
- theater, where swords get damaged and blunted by being repeatedly clashed
- not theater, where you don't even attack unless you're sure it's going to connect and that will usually be the end of it
The latter is a good strategy in any similar situation. Shoot only when you have a clear shot, and all that.
To that end a miss could be defined as not actually attacking, because you don't feel like you have a good opening or advantage.
A critical miss would be a proper miss - you choose to execute the attack, but you fail. Your blade chops the air, arrow or bullet or thrown weapon flies askew. Now the theory also covers ranged weapons.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I'll note (again) that this is all personal preference, not some statement of objective fact. In fact, I think that the total "objective fact" in game design is...minimal. There's a wide range of things that can work for some people (but not for others).
Don't worry, I'm not discounting your preferences. I'll note once more that my experience comes entirely from videogames, which deliberately change/misrepresent the ruleset (also, to answer @PleegWat).
That being said, the miss as you describe it doesn't sit well with me. Based on the depictions of historical reenactments (uuu, muh realism), there are two kinds of fights:
- theater, where swords get damaged and blunted by being repeatedly clashed
- not theater, where you don't even attack unless you're sure it's going to connect and that will usually be the end of it
The latter is a good strategy in any similar situation. Shoot only when you have a clear shot, and all that.
To that end a miss could be defined as not actually attacking, because you don't feel like you have a good opening or advantage.
A critical miss would be a proper miss - you choose to execute the attack, but you fail. Your blade chops the air, arrow or bullet or thrown weapon flies askew. Now the theory also covers ranged weapons.
I'm going for more of a cinematic feel. And I highly doubt that most real fights only had 1-shot kills with the rest being feints. Maybe highly-controlled duels between masters, but not real combat.
In fact, we know that in modern combat (and combat-like situations), the number of bullets fired >>>>> the number of people hit. Even ignoring things like covering fire. Even with snipers.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I'm going for more of a cinematic feel.
This is where the root of all this critical miss problem lies, methinks. Yes, cinematic heroes simply don't critically fail. They don't die ordinary and undignified deaths, they fight to the last breath and beyond. And that's fine.
most real fights only had 1-shot kills
Not kills, no. But the fight is probably a foregone conclusion. As the saying goes, what doesn't kill you, hurts as hell.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I'm going for more of a cinematic feel.
This is where the root of all this critical miss problem lies, methinks. Yes, cinematic heroes simply don't critically fail. They don't die ordinary and undignified deaths, they fight to the last breath and beyond. And that's fine.
Reality sucks. I have to deal with it every day. Ain't gonna play a game about reality.
most real fights only had 1-shot kills
Not kills, no. But the fight is probably a foregone conclusion. As the saying goes, what doesn't kill you, hurts as hell.
I still doubt this. Especially after the invention of serious armor, where it was a combination of grappling and such. And there wouldn't be all the combat manuals involving parries, counters etc if no one attacked unless it was a sure thing.
Combat recreations generally suck--they're more an art form than they are anything like reality.
-
I’ll be honest. I don’t actually like D&D and its ilk much. Precisely because of all the dice. It feels like you’re too busy trying to roll dice at each other than tell a story collaboratively by being a team of bad-asses or whatever.
-
@Arantor said in D&D thread:
Precisely because of all the dice. It feels like you’re too busy trying to roll dice at each other than tell a story collaboratively
Fair. Rule 0 in viable editions would let the GM elide many of these rolls, and still does, but I am not aware of any Hasbro equivalent to Rule 0.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I still doubt this. Especially after the invention of serious armor, where it was a combination of grappling and such. And there wouldn't be all the combat manuals involving parries, counters etc if no one attacked unless it was a sure thing.
Combat recreations generally suck--they're more an art form than they are anything like reality.Combat recreations basically show duels. Such agreed upon fights could only happen between the nobility. It would be a waste to kill a noble when you can injure, dishonor and capture them for ransom instead.
You'd feint to preserve your strength and hope that your opponent gets tired before you do. Armor would be there to reduce the attack surface and not to weather the blows. Bladed weapons don't work very well against plate. Blunt weapons do, but in that case DPS still has a better chance. And because armor and arms were also hellishly expensive and much of it custom made, damaging them isn't a financially sound decision either.
Can't say about regular forces. Shower of arrows seems to be the norm.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I still doubt this. Especially after the invention of serious armor, where it was a combination of grappling and such. And there wouldn't be all the combat manuals involving parries, counters etc if no one attacked unless it was a sure thing.
Combat recreations generally suck--they're more an art form than they are anything like reality.Combat recreations basically show duels. Such agreed upon fights could only happen between the nobility. It would be a waste to kill a noble when you can injure, dishonor and capture them for ransom instead.
You'd feint to preserve your strength and hope that your opponent gets tired before you do. Armor would be there to reduce the attack surface and not to weather the blows. Bladed weapons don't work very well against plate. Blunt weapons do, but in that case DPS still has a better chance. And because armor and arms were also hellishly expensive and much of it custom made, damaging them isn't a financially sound decision either.
Can't say about regular forces. Shower of arrows seems to be the norm.
So combat recreations don't show actual combat. They're representing (partially) a stylized, formalized situation. Which isn't what D&D (in particular) is about at all. So trying to model it that way is not only bad play, it's bad realism.
Oh, and arms and armor aren't actually that fragile. And if you're any good, you've learned how to deflect without damaging your own equipment, and how to maintain your equipment.
-
@Arantor said in D&D thread:
I’ll be honest. I don’t actually like D&D and its ilk much. Precisely because of all the dice. It feels like you’re too busy trying to roll dice at each other than tell a story collaboratively by being a team of bad-asses or whatever.
Sounds like you're more of a fan of modern game design then, where combat is nasty, brutish, and short. (As in "over in a handful of exchanges," which is shorter than D&D's "over in a handful of rounds.")
Though I did hear a review of Teenagers In Space recently, which panned the nasty/brutish/short mechanics for that specific game, but only because nasty (with "crippling" mechanics) doesn't fit the theme. (But maybe that's the point? Make the combat so nasty that you spend most of your time doing sneaky-teenager-shenanigans rather than punching things?)
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
So combat recreations don't show actual combat.
Yes, but I find it difficult to assign most of the combat encounters as they're played out in DnD and similar games to any actually viable combat scenarions. Chinese opera, IIRC, describe fighting stances against dragons and other mythical creatures, but I don't think anybody believes it's not theater.
Much of the adventuring is 100% foolhardy and relies on injuries having no consequences + magical healing abundant.
I completely support your idea that might as well make it cinematic and have fun.Butt! What I was trying to say is that we can have game systems where critical failures may not be seen as incompetence, and can be instead reasonably handwaved using some arguable borrowing from muh realism.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity a bolt-on exhaustion or distraction mechanic seems viable among many viable, but realism
high fantasy.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
So combat recreations don't show actual combat.
Yes, but I find it difficult to assign most of the combat encounters as they're played out in DnD and similar games to any actually viable combat scenarions. Chinese opera, IIRC, describe fighting stances against dragons and other mythical creatures, but I don't think anybody believes it's not theater.
Much of the adventuring is 100% foolhardy and relies on injuries having no consequences + magical healing abundant.
I completely support your idea that might as well make it cinematic and have fun.Butt! What I was trying to say is that we can have game systems where critical failures may not be seen as incompetence, and can be instead reasonably handwaved using some arguable borrowing from muh realism.
Their reality =/= our reality. Realism is a failure here--you're trying to use our reality to constrain a different one. The fact that it fails isn't a strike against the other reality, it's a strike against the model. Same as any attempt to apply modern science to magic--the underlying laws of nature must, to be anything like consistent, be very different from our own. Verisimilitude works, ensuring it's internally consistent. But fictional world is not reality. They'd have evolved their own combat styles, their own techniques, etc to fight the things that they're fighting. That won't map nicely onto our "you're always fighting similar people in particular situations" history.
And sure. You can have those game systems. But only for very formalized, very "duel-like" combat. That is, having "sane" critical failures beyond "you don't deal damage" is a very tight binding constraint on what you can model. And one I have absolutely no interest in playing in.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
having "sane" critical failures beyond "you don't deal damage" is a very tight binding constraint on what you can model
Too many scare quotes. With a literal sane, this would evaluate as probably intended, but the scope of "sane" is potentially much larger.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Heh. You're being harsher on the concept than I expected. It seems you insist on verisimilitude having a strict lower bound, there defining an entire region between reality and fantasy that couldn't possibly work. I cannot agree to this.
It seems to me that fantasy achieves its internal consistency, if any, by selectively omitting inconveniences of reality. It's not alternate reality, it's produced by selective addition and removal of individual factlets limited by our understanding of our reality.
If it wants to portray an otherwise ordinary folk with the single exception of, say, a bioluminiscent navel, it should be able to. It's not consistent with anything, there is no explanation why, it simply is. Fantasy can do whatever it pleases.
Fine, I'll give it up then. Your INT and WIS is higher anyway.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Heh. You're being harsher on the concept than I expected. It seems you insist on verisimilitude having a strict lower bound, there defining an entire region between reality and fantasy that couldn't possibly work. I cannot agree to this.
It seems to me that fantasy achieves its internal consistency, if any, by selectively omitting inconveniences of reality. It's not alternate reality, it's produced by selective addition and removal of individual factlets limited by our understanding of our reality.
If it wants to portray an otherwise ordinary folk with the single exception of, say, a bioluminiscent navel, it should be able to. It's not consistent with anything, there is no explanation why, it simply is. Fantasy can do whatever it pleases.
Fine, I'll give it up then. Your INT and WIS is higher anyway.
I'll admit. I'm a snob when it comes to internal consistency. At least when a setting claims to be internally consistent. If it says "yeah, this is a farce" and doesn't take itself seriously, then whatever. But once something claims to be realistic or verisimilitudinous, then it better back that up.
And once you inject magic/fantasy, reality breaks down and has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Sure, the surface may still be similar. But underneath, things have changed. And the worldbuilding should account for that. And a world where dragons really do roam the planet is one where lots of foundational things have changed.
I like this because it gives me freedom to reshape things so that everything's in concert but you can still reason about it. Plus, I'm just twisted that way =).
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
And once you inject magic/fantasy, reality breaks down and has to be rebuilt from the ground up.
It is literally impossible for an unrepresented detail to be inconsistent. This only has to be done as it matters.
-
@Benjamin-Hall I know that you would absolutely hate Eon, because it tries a bit too hard for the "realism" aspect. And has tables to the crazy. The only way to deal proper damage is to do enough for an extra effect (one for each 10 damage inflicted). Damage rolls are unlimited, so can end up a lot of dices at the end. And then have to roll where you hit (d100) and all extra effects (d10). Then look up tables for the damage type (slashing, piercing or blunt) and the extra effect which goes from flesh wound to instant death.
Yes, Eon can instantly kill you without warning. It is relentless like that. One attack that hits the right place and does the right effect and it's game over. So you can die on the first round of a battle because the enemy shot you in the head with a crossbow.
On the other hand, you may like the DoD class that has the special ability of "the player will automatically succeed when doing a crazy stunt". Which is very streamlined, because as long as the player can come up with a crazy and improbable way of doing anything, the DM has to let the action succeed. Although, it's ultimately the DM deciding if the crazy act succeeds or not, so the ability is heavily reliant on both the player and DM here. Also, my entire group, including the minmaxer who tries to abuse game mechanics to hell, has decided the class is stupid and should not exist in the first place.
-
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
my entire group, including the minmaxer who tries to abuse game mechanics to hell, has decided the class is stupid and should not exist in the first place
See:
- Favored Soul
- Hulking Hurler
- Rage Mage
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Plus all the "actual misses"--things like the creature being unnaturally lithe and nimble, so they literally bent their body around the blow.
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Plus all the "actual misses"--things like the creature being unnaturally lithe and nimble, so they literally bent their body around the blow.
The appropriate thread for analyzing another guy's head movement is
-
@izzion said in D&D thread:
is -
-https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/28361/head-movement-collected-analyses
-
I get a lot of spam from recruiters, usually for underpaid contract jobs, but this one is a little ... different:
It's from GOG advertising a game I'm not familiar with, Legend of Keepers: Career of a Dungeon Manager. Apparently, it's a roguelite, except you play the other side; you set the traps and manage the monsters to protect the dungeon from the heroes. I'd probably pick it up if it were free, but it appears to be just deeply discounted; the email doesn't say how discounted. Mostly, I just found the email subject amusing.
-
@HardwareGeek said in D&D thread:
Apparently, it's a roguelite, except you play the other side; you set the traps and manage the monsters to protect the dungeon from the heroes. I'd probably pick it up if it were free
Sounds too expensive, unless it happens to be the current best-of-breed for that notion - it's certainly not the progenitor.
-
@HardwareGeek said in D&D thread:
I get a lot of spam from recruiters, usually for underpaid contract jobs, but this one is a little ... different:
It's from GOG advertising a game I'm not familiar with, Legend of Keepers: Career of a Dungeon Manager. Apparently, it's a roguelite, except you play the other side; you set the traps and manage the monsters to protect the dungeon from the heroes. I'd probably pick it up if it were free, but it appears to be just deeply discounted; the email doesn't say how discounted. Mostly, I just found the email subject amusing.
That's in a long-standing tradition: the Dungeon Keeper line of games came out...well...
years ago.
-
-
@Applied-Mediocrity that last is not necessarily the case, assuming you allow Blackguard.
On paladins - I've been planning for eh, a decade or so to steal the concept of a same-church party consisting solely of divine classes* and quite possibly solely of Paladins, all of the same deity. In at least 3.5 there's still plenty of room for player variation.
* Favored Soul does not exist, it was a printer's error.
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
I read that headline right after reading the C thread... Invalid alignments, brrrrr
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
that last is not necessarily the case, assuming you allow Blackguard.
It's Pathfinder vidya jokes. Threads are expensive, so I'm
in whatever thread makes senseseems fitting at the time.Anti-Paladin* class is not implemented at all, and LG in general (but Paladin especially) has... issues. You have to have that stick up your arse and resist every temptation. Coupled with the fact that most players are dickheads, whether they admit it or not, it becomes difficult to maintain the alignment.
Also, there's a bit of dissonance. There's Seelah, a Paladin companion, who used to be a thief, found faith after seriously fucking shit up, still associates with rabble, has a drinking problem, and keeps following you even if you do evil shit (let Demon rage take over, sign a pact with Hell or become a Lich; well, to a point, but really it should have been instant). And it's perfectly fine. But if you're playing an LG, apparently as soon as you don't take time to pet orphan puppies, your god gives you the boot.
* I prefer Падла-дин/Padla-din myself
On paladins - I've been planning for eh, a decade or so to steal the concept of a same-church party consisting solely of divine classes
Nobody expects the Gribnish Inquisition!
-
Seems paladins in DoD has it a bit better, the key thing being "don't go against your faith/religion". And considering my paladin follows the Earthmother who is pretty chill on most things, it means I have been able to do a bunch of stuff most settings would consider un-paladin-like, like getting some quality time at a fine establishment.
-
Not sure how big of a problem this is for PnP. The GM's guide suggests much talking before taking any drastic actions. Seelah is Paizo's own character, so I suppose the behavior is fine. Plus, following a mythic demon who opposes the really bad demons is a bit of a big picture thing.
Vidya, unfortunately, must assign a discrete face value to any action. If x > y, then bonk! Not that it's a good excuse or anything.
-
@Gąska said in D&D thread:
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
I read that headline right after reading the C thread... Invalid alignments, brrrrr
Blakey would have loved that thread.
-
-
-
-
The author of the Paul Twister stories, after a long hiatus, recently started writing a new book over on Royal Road. Titled I Do Not Want To Do This, it's set in a D&D-esque world that's moved forward into a modern age. Offhand references to D&D in general and Critical Role in particular (see the title) are scattered throughout, but it appears to be its own distinct world.
It's the Sixth Age, a time of magical high technology. People drive mana-powered cars, browse the æthernet on their rune tablets, and so on. Our protagonist is a fresh-faced college grad who just landed his first job as a professional enchanter at a company run by a dragon. He firmly believes that heroes, quests, and the like are relics of a past age best left buried in the past; he wants nothing to do with such things when he's busy with stuff that's actually relevant in modern times like trying to build a career. But he's starting to learn that the world doesn't particularly care about what he wants...
It's a bit of an odd mix of slice-of-life and (reluctantly!) heroic fantasy, with elements of a political thriller story bubbling in the background that haven't integrated with the main plot yet. Pretty enjoyable so far.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in D&D thread:
But he's starting to learn that the world doesn't particularly care about what he wants...
Unfortunately, this sent the concept over the Schneider Edge for me and this is now a half-remembered Rob Schneider movie.
You'll have to staple your way there!
-
@Gurth to their death, those who face the gazebo and live are still haunted by its creaks.
-
Just (as in 5 minutes ago) received this email:
We are excited to announce that D&D Beyond will soon be joining Hasbro as part of the Wizards of the Coast family!
On May 18, 2022 or soon after, your D&D Beyond account will transfer to Wizards of the Coast, at which point (and going forward) the Wizards Terms of Use will apply to your use of D&D Beyond, and the Wizards Privacy Policy will apply to the personal data associated with your account. If you are located in the European Economic Area or the United Kingdom, Wizards of the Coast LLC will become the “data controller” of your personal data once it transfers.
-
@HardwareGeek yeah, that happened about a week ago. Meh. Don't really care unless they do something dumb like make RAAS (rules as a service) where they don't publish physical books and you have to subscribe/deal with mutable digital copies only. But I don't think they're that dumb. Not quite.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
do something dumb like make RAAS (rules as a service) where they don't publish physical books and you have to subscribe/deal with mutable digital copies only
Um. The whole aim of the ruleset limitations past 3.5 is in that direction. I liked it not at the time, said I, iirc. Also currently, I like it not, based on yon squint observ-ed.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
that happened about a week ago.
My son said he got the email a few days ago. I only got it today. Why?
-
Hasbro has owned D&D for years, did you think I was joking?
-
@HardwareGeek they say that in the Tower Of Email, there is a spool onto which your messages are wound, and from which they are in their time unwound. But in these clamorous times, an Ogre betideth the spoolery!
-
@HardwareGeek said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
that happened about a week ago.
My son said he got the email a few days ago. I only got it today. Why?
Email is hard. Let's go shopping (but not on D&D Beyond).
