Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
There is a ton of garbage out there, far too much for me to wade through. Have you taken a look at Ten Foot Pole? This guy reviews a lot of material and most of his recommendations are spot on.
Eh, Bryce is a great reviewer, but that’s he because he has very specific wants from a module, and why he dislikes something can be as much of a selling point as why he likes it. Back in the day, that’s why people who didn’t like Pundit still sent him stuff to review. By seeing the product through the specific lens of a detailed reviewer, you get a good idea of the product. I don’t care whether or not Bryce pans something, I care why he pans it.
 
Heh, Elmore was rocking the wild hair in D&D years before 2nd. I think people forget the Dragonlance books and DL modules 1-16 were all AD&D1.

Are there any pictures at all in the 5e books that people remember as iconic or stand out? (Again the nightmares we all have about the deformed freaks don’t count.). Is there anything Iconic to compare to the cover of the PHB, or ”Emirikol the Chaotic” or “A Paladin in Hell”? Anything stylistically different like Erol Otus from Basic or Brom or DiTerlizzi from 2nd?

5e’s art is workmanlike and serviceable, but it’s flavourless and nothing we haven’t seen before on umpteen Magic Cards from the same stable of artists.

It’s the difference between the art that created the genre and the genre art commissioned by a corporation 40+ years later.
 
Last edited:
Eh, Bryce is a great reviewer, but that’s he because he has very specific wants from a module, and why he dislikes something can be as much of a selling point as why he likes it. Back in the day, that’s why people who didn’t like Pundit still sent him stuff to review. By seeing the product through the specific lens of a detailed reviewer, you get a good idea of the product. I don’t care whether or not Bryce pans something, I care why he pans it.
I don't always agree with Bryce. For example, Bryce doesn't care for Jeffrey Talanian's adventures but every single one of them has been a big hit at my table. On the other hand Bryce (and everyone else in the OSR) gushed over Deep Carbon Observatory but my wary players didn't engage with any of the bait and skipped most of the content.
 
I don't always agree with Bryce. For example, Bryce doesn't care for Jeffrey Talanian's adventures but every single one of them has been a big hit at my table. On the other hand Bryce (and everyone else in the OSR) gushed over Deep Carbon Observatory but my wary players didn't engage with any of the bait and skipped most of the content.
Bryce likes weird and different, he equates that with “good”. But if you know that about him, then you can make great use of his reviews, even if you completely disagree.
 
I don't always agree with Bryce. For example, Bryce doesn't care for Jeffrey Talanian's adventures but every single one of them has been a big hit at my table. On the other hand Bryce (and everyone else in the OSR) gushed over Deep Carbon Observatory but my wary players didn't engage with any of the bait and skipped most of the content.
Those two (Talanian vs DCO) were the exact examples that came into my head of where my tastes are very different from Bryce's.
 
Bryce likes weird and different, he equates that with “good”. But if you know that about him, then you can make great use of his reviews, even if you completely disagree.
Knowing a reviewer’s taste makes a world of difference most of the time. Heck, same goes with friends and their recommendations.
 
Knowing a reviewer’s taste makes a world of difference most of the time. Heck, same goes with friends and their recommendations.

Off Topic, but that's what made GameFan video game magazine such a treasure back in the day. They had opinions and were not afraid to share them. Video Games & Computer Entertainment (VG&CE) did that as well, solid spread of very diverse reviewers, but it was far too genteel for my youthful tastes then. (During the 16-bit Wars you crushed your enemies, saw them driven before you, and heard the lamentation of their pixel sprites. :gunslinger:)
 
A pretty good video on the superior alternate proficency rules in the 5e DMG which I'm also a fan of but used the static bonus option instead of die.

He notes that they are in Shadow of the Demonlord but from what I recall the rule actually appeared first in 13th Age.

 
A pretty good video on the superior alternate proficency rules in the 5e DMG which I'm also a fan of but used the static bonus option instead of die.

He notes that they are in Shadow of the Demonlord but from what I recall the rule actually appeared first in 13th Age.


Yeah I've really grown to like Dan DeFazio's channel, he has lots of great ideas that I tend to agree with, even if D&D isn't my main game.

The last few times I have run D&D 5E, I asked my players to envision their character's Background first, and their Class second; it is just so much more evocative, and gets away from the template feel of D&D characters.

Now this video has pointed out this Proficiency Dice rule with Backgrounds and Class; this works really well with how I like to run a game. Less bloat for something pulpy like D&D, I'm all for that.
I'ld really like a D&D 5E character sheet without a Skill List on it, then I'ld use Proficiency Bonus (or Proficiency Dice) for actions based on Class and Backgrounds, this would be the way I'ld prefer to run the game.

Also lots of other great rules in the DM Guide as well, such as the Gritty Realism rule for Recovery, and the Lingering Injuries and System Shock rules.
I also don't mind the Plot Point rule, although I'ld probably only allow Option 1 for it, the one about adding a Plot Twist. The other two options are just a bit too swingy for my kinda game.

Now I'm gonna have to scour the web for a skill-less D&D 5E character sheet, one that just has a space for me to write a Proficiency Dice.
If anyone knows a place I can find one, I would be appreciative, especially if it's a form-fillable character sheet :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Now I'm gonna have to scour the web for a skill-less D&D 5E character sheet, one that just has a space for me to write a Proficiency Dice.
If anyone knows a place I can find one, I would be appreciative, especially if it's a form-fillable character sheet :thumbsup:
I made my own a while back by editing a pdf as I couldn't find one.

Here it is.
 
I made my own a while back by editing a pdf as I couldn't find one.

Here it is.
Wow, that was a quick response - this is along the lines of what I am looking for!
I've just saved this in my files, thanks! :thumbsup:

(I'ld love a form-fillable version of this if it is out there, but otherwise this is really cool :smile:)
 
Wow, that was a quick response - this is along the lines of what I am looking for!
I've just saved this in my files, thanks! :thumbsup:

(I'ld love a form-fillable version of this if it is out there, but otherwise this is really cool :smile:)
That's one's form fillable. You just need to download it first.
 
Also lots of other great rules in the DM Guide as well, such as the Gritty Realism rule for Recovery, and the Lingering Injuries and System Shock rules.
I also don't mind the Plot Point rule, although I'ld probably only allow Option 1 for it, the one about adding a Plot Twist. The other two options are just a bit too swingy for my kinda game.
My main issue with the gritty realism rules are the way they interact with the recharge systems; classes benefit differently from short and long rests, and they disproportionately hit some of the long-rest recharge classes who already struggle with their class resources anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer, Ranger) without really affecting the short or mixed classes at all. The game requires much deeper tweaks than just changing the amount of time a rest takes.
 
My main issue with the gritty realism rules are the way they interact with the recharge systems; classes benefit differently from short and long rests, and they disproportionately hit some of the long-rest recharge classes who already struggle with their class resources anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer, Ranger) without really affecting the short or mixed classes at all. The game requires much deeper tweaks than just changing the amount of time a rest takes.
Generally if you're tweaking the rest rules it should be because you're already out of sync with the games expectations eg. you're doing something other than dungeon bashing and therefore you're struggling to ever get in more than one or two combats in a single day. So in that case, you're tweaking the rest rule in order to avoid overly benefiting the long rest classes.

I actually think it shows some of the underlying issues in that it's actually very hard to overly benefit the short rest classes (compared to how easy it is to end up doing the opposite). Short rest classes still depend heavily on resources that don't recharge on short rests - most notably hit dice and healing magic, so there's only so far you can push things before there has to be a long rest anyway and it's hard to push that distance beyond the designed level of tolerance.

The main issue with 'Gritty Realism' is that one week for a long rest is a ridiculous amount of game time and takes a lot of the strategic ability to make decisions about when to rest out of the hands of the players (disempowering them) while at the same time, by respresenting such a huge chunk of game time means the GM loses flexibility too. (Eg. if you're running a campaign where there's some kind of invasion going on and the players are running out of resources, it's both hard for the players to find time to take a rest and hard for the GM to adapt if they do. A week is a long time if there's an army flying through the countryside sacking towns and villages). And you can get all the benefits of restricting rests if you just say that it has be 36 hours (so a whole day and two nights) doing very little in a safe place.
 
Last edited:
My main issue with the gritty realism rules are the way they interact with the recharge systems; classes benefit differently from short and long rests, and they disproportionately hit some of the long-rest recharge classes who already struggle with their class resources anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer, Ranger) without really affecting the short or mixed classes at all. The game requires much deeper tweaks than just changing the amount of time a rest takes.

Yes. There are also many, many small and easily overlooked rules that can suddenly cause problems when you change the rest times. For instance, read the Animate Dead spell carefully. Assumptions like that one are buried everywhere and are a headache to adjust.

At this point, the short rest vs long rest design is one of my top irritants in 5e. I really hope they ditch it next time, it'll make changing rest length to de-emphasize daily combat a lot easier.
 
Yes. There are also many, many small and easily overlooked rules that can suddenly cause problems when you change the rest times. For instance, read the Animate Dead spell carefully. Assumptions like that one are buried everywhere and are a headache to adjust.

At this point, the short rest vs long rest design is one of my top irritants in 5e. I really hope they ditch it next time, it'll make changing rest length to de-emphasize daily combat a lot easier.
Yeah...but, most of these things are really not that hard to deal with.

Animate Dead. You just say that you can keep it going indefinitely as long as you commit the spell slot and don't regain it.

You have to change item duration too, but even if not messing around with rests I have to do that anyway as I find the durations given for so many magic items charges to be ridiculous anyway. Even if the PCs are resting every night, I don't want a ring of Djinn Summoning to be used every single day; that just makes it boring. Last time I gave it out, I made it once a month.
 
I made short rests free outside of combat but only two a day.

I even said "you don't need to tell me your taking it, just mark it down and keep going".

Anything to stop them talking about whether they should take them or not.
 
I made short rests free outside of combat but only two a day.

I even said "you don't need to tell me your taking it, just mark it down and keep going".

Anything to stop them talking about whether they should take them or not.
Doesn't that make Warlocks kind of insane? 50% more business is a lot of business.
 
Doesn't that make Warlocks kind of insane? 50% more business is a lot of business.
No not really. Two short rests is basically the expectation.

The Warlock player mostly just complained about not having enough spell slots.
 
No not really. Two short rests is basically the expectation.

The Warlock player mostly just complained about not having enough spell slots.
Hah, it's been a while since I ran 5E.:grin: It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet and I was thinking that two was one more than normal.

If you count up spell slots at level, so spell levels cast per day, the Warlock is right on par with the other spellcasters, more or less, right up to 20th. It depends a little on what Invocations you take, but it works. I can see why people don't think so just looking at the class in the PHB. They just need to focus on maximizing the level output from each slot.
 
[...] The last few times I have run D&D 5E, I asked my players to envision their character's Background first, and their Class second; it is just so much more evocative, and gets away from the template feel of D&D characters.

Now this video has pointed out this Proficiency Dice rule with Backgrounds and Class; this works really well with how I like to run a game. Less bloat for something pulpy like D&D, I'm all for that. I'ld really like a D&D 5E character sheet without a Skill List on it, then I'ld use Proficiency Dice for actions based on Class and Backgrounds, then this is the way I'ld run the game. [...]

Yeah, that'd be a fast way to get newcomers fast into a game. Class Proficiency Saves can be read as a quick and dirty 'Always On' for Ability Checks too. Instead of caring about specific Skills for Ability Checks you just add Prof Die to the Abilities defined by Class' Prof Saves and be done with it. And you can let PC Background be treated like 2e Profession Checks ("If it's related to your profession, you know how to do it." e.g. fisherman knows related boats, knots, swim, sea weather, etc. info).

As an RPG Heretic with terrible luck, I am not the biggest fan of rolling extra dice or drawing extra cards. But I can see the immediate appeal along with its simplicity. You'd still have to negotiate where a profession's benefit ends, but that's a per table and GM chat.
 
The main issue with 'Gritty Realism' is that one week for a long rest is a ridiculous amount of game time and takes a lot of the strategic ability to make decisions about when to rest out of the hands of the players (disempowering them) while at the same time, by respresenting such a huge chunk of game time means the GM loses flexibility too. (Eg. if you're running a campaign where there's some kind of invasion going on and the players are running out of resources, it's both hard for the players to find time to take a rest and hard for the GM to adapt if they do. A week is a long time if there's an army flying through the countryside sacking towns and villages). And you can get all the benefits of restricting rests if you just say that it has be 36 hours (so a whole day and two nights) doing very little in a safe place.
That's pretty much what I've done. It was partially inspired by AiME where long rests require safety so making friends and finding safe havens is more important. It makes it complicated enough that spiking a door and resting in a dungeon doesn't count as a long rest.
 
Hah, it's been a while since I ran 5E.:grin: It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet and I was thinking that two was one more than normal.

If you count up spell slots at level, so spell levels cast per day, the Warlock is right on par with the other spellcasters, more or less, right up to 20th. It depends a little on what Invocations you take, but it works. I can see why people don't think so just looking at the class in the PHB. They just need to focus on maximizing the level output from each slot.
For Warlocks, the key power is in your invocations and cantrips anyway. Your spell slots are a nice bonus which you should be careful about using anyway.
 
Mmm. IDK. On the cantrip side its really just Eldritch Blast and some general convenience. Thats nice, but its not super-duper or anything. The Invocation thing really depends on the build, obviously. If youre buffing and spamming blast it's solid, but also boring AF. You need the spell slots for lots of different things, control especially.

Essentially I'm just disgareeing with some nuances of you rankings, not your general premise.
 
I always thought the lack of level restrictions in Eldritch Blast Invocation and EB's exception to the rule in multiclassing were terrible -- and easy to fix oversights.

Just off the top of my head you could easily re-write EB Invocation restrictions (or similar obviously complimentary Invocations) as each further one requires a tier step or two. That prevents obvious synergies from being too obvious, still allows diversity in what and when to take them, and prevents them from dominating the selection pool.

Always thought Warlock as a half-baked class. Fun ideas, "cake wreck" result, still enough sweet batter goodness to appeal to the less discerning. :smile:
 
I think the class is really well designed. Mechanically i think its by far my favorite 5e class. The over-attention payed to Eldritch Blast leaves me cold though, good as it is. Pimping a cantrip isn't my idea of fun, nor is having blaster as a primary role.

Mechanically, i think the combination of spell slots and incantations and SR recharge leaves a pretty huge design space. Ive certainly used it to hack my own classes more than anything else.
 
One of the good things about the Warlock is that their limited spell slots before recharge, and the fact that those slots are all higher level, means that warlocks are more constrained in terms of utility magic.

And then they have invocations to give them some of that back, but in a targeted way; they can't do everything. It tends to cost a mid level Warlock to cast invisibility in a way it doesn't necessarily cost a wizard.

Overall, I think they're better designed variation on the wizard then the traditional vancian caster. It's just that Eldritch blast is so damned boring (but really all attack cantrips pretty much are).
 
I always thought the lack of level restrictions in Eldritch Blast Invocation and EB's exception to the rule in multiclassing were terrible -- and easy to fix oversights.

Just off the top of my head you could easily re-write EB Invocation restrictions (or similar obviously complimentary Invocations) as each further one requires a tier step or two. That prevents obvious synergies from being too obvious, still allows diversity in what and when to take them, and prevents them from dominating the selection pool.

Always thought Warlock as a half-baked class. Fun ideas, "cake wreck" result, still enough sweet batter goodness to appeal to the less discerning. :smile:
I don't think they are oversights. Warlocks are the "simple" magic-user (Like Fighters or arguably Barbarians are the "simple" martial class), Eldritch Blast is pretty much their main combat tool (If only the other cantrips had invocation trees, too...), so the spell was likely tuned with that in mind. WotC sometimes break balance curves where they feel it's appropriate (Fireball, for example, is stronger than it should be because it's an iconic spell), and I think this is another one of those examples.

I do really like the Warlock as a class. Their slightly odd toolkit makes them a lot of fun to play and problem-solve with.
 
Yea, I think of eldritch blast as the equivalent of 'I swing my sword.' Both equally simple and repetitive. One cool thing about warlocks is you can get adequate combat ability from eldritch blast and agonizing blast. Then you're free to build noncombat aspects of your charisma, including possibly multiclassing. Yes, I consider a few levels of multiclass to get eldritch blast a feature, not a bug; it doesn't synergize much to get uber damage. If you're a player mostly into noncombat, you can have magic and do weird stuff but the other players feel like you're contributing to combat.

Warlocks make great villains (assuming you're like me and bother building villains according to rules as an excuse to create characters). Invocations give lots of options: Change your look at will (combine this with the common magic item cloak of many fashions), see in advanced darkness, illusions at will, read all writing while researching dark rituals, talk to animals, ability to cast a bunch of wizard rituals. Throw a few of these on a tortured soul driven by a dark power and you're all set to mess with your players.
 
Unlimited Cantrips are already there for all casters to have "I swing my sword, often at range" (and with feats, its all classes). EB just outshines by a country mile, front-loaded to boot, and the rest of the class (outside Hexblade) becomes forgettable due to table-negotiable Short Rests Frequency dependency, and thus multiclass dippable. It gives away the farm just like the Fighter does, too front-loaded. I wouldn't mind much as multiclass is optional and I had very low expectations for WotC, but it does not help its case in my play experience at all.

Even without multiclass a lot of those more lateral Invocation features get crowded out by an unnecessary "EB feat tree tax," which is the last thing I wanted to see again. That along with Patron Pact effects complicating playtesting synergies with Invocations, you get bigger challenges to suss out unintended consequences. The lazy playtesting that gave us Hexblade (and their dips) was a wholly unsurprising result given the structure was rife with exception-based-effect silos unaware of the interconnecting train; when the right-hand knows not what the left-hand is doing one expects this.

Now onto what I thought was good but in practice among tables ended up acrimonious: Patron requests creating complications are an amusing soft-tether to rein in Warlocks. I really did enjoy that. That said the char-op community tends to scoff at such setting relevance being a restriction and ride off with whatever front-loaded powers they can loot. However the other one, Short Rest as a Frequency Dial, I thought was a fascinating idea at the start (yes, I recognized its 4e carryover). Because home games can dial up or down SR duration, and GMs can let parties self-regulate Rests, I thought it was a nice light touch to bridge differing table playstyles. Again in practice, no, it became some sort of Hobbesian 'all against all' between LR-dependent v SR-dependent factions and GMs feeling obliged to solve the Gordian Knot (hint: just cut the fucking knot -- let players figure out how to work their PCs together or split up/replace PCs amicably).

The ideas are interesting, it's the execution that leaves me wanting. The batter's still sweet cake mix, but needed more stress testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
Honestly, the only invocation you really need for Eldritch Blast is Agonising, because why would you ever not want +5 damage per hit (Maxing your Charisma being the sensible choice for a Warlock anyway, both from an IC and OOC point of view). Spear and Repelling are a good time, but I don't think the opportunity cost pays off when there are far more fun choices to make, and even then Repelling is far more useful than Spear.

Invocations are also a resource with less pressure on them; most of the offensive classes have to spend a feat or more for their combat style boost, which are a far more limited resource (Because you'll be spending the first few feats on maxing your main stat anyway, most characters won't be able to afford more than a handful; for a Warlock, the Charisma half-feats are also both strong and fun for RP). I'm not keen on any sort of resource tax, but they're part of 5e's design and at least for the Warlock it's much less obnoxious than most classes.
 
I always thought that the idea that the Warlock's patron is just fluff, and thet the Warlock is also a cool and flavourful class were just two ideas that aren't really easy to square with each other.

It's an old issue in D&D that goes back to early AD&D at least, the either that players have flavourful classes that have all kinds of role-playing elements, but which also put restrictions on player behaviour and make it harder for the GM to wrangle the party together ("you all want gold" is a bit silly when one PC is a Paladin).

5e's answer of "fuck it, we don't care" isn't really much help.
 
I don't know that fuck it is completely accurate. I suspect that they're just erring on the side of less mechanical force on player actions. Anyone can choose to mechanize the patron if they want, in any way they want, from small dictates on PC behaviour to the patron being a fully fleshed out participant in the diegetic frame.

I will say this, mechanizing the patron, which is almost inevitably going to be a significant negative for the player, seems to be a thing cheered for by people who don't play Warlocks, just like more restrictive oaths and paladins. I don't see a lot of people advocating for RP straightjackets for the classes they do like to play. In both cases above I mostly shrug and tell people to fuck off and mind their own business, I don't need their pet peeves and internet wankery about how to play, or allow certain classes to be played at my table.
 
It's not that there's no restrictions on player behaviour. It's that there's nothing there at more. What does is mean to be a Warlock of the Great Old One? What does it want? Why does it give power to the PC? What does it expect the PC to do?

All of this could be interesting but it's just left vacant. It's only actually cool if it means something.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top