Search results

So we're back to The-Mirrorball-Man's observation: the halfling is stuck somewhere between the hobbit, kender and gnome, with watered-down traits from all three... Traditional but not as conventional as a regular hobbit, adventurous and outgoing but not as rash as a kender, curious but not as...

so you have to take the type of character, the amount of damage and the circumstances into account (ie keep track) to describe the hit either as a hit or as a near miss :)

You don't describe the in-world effects of an attack, a spell, a trap? Without going into the seriousness of each injury, you don't say things like "an arrow hits you", meaning an arrow actually hit the character?

Gah! That's the awful concept art I was thinking about... the original sin... giant head and tiny feet. How can she even stand, let alone jump and do rogue things? She looks like she's going to plummet headfirst if she lets go of that branch. Funny how J.Schindehette was being defensive about...

Even if it wasn't announced to be in the DMG specifically, we were told 5e would be very modular and could reasonably expect to find said modularity in the last core book. But the actual optional rules in there are just underwhelming. So, yeah, it may do a good job as a DMG for the default...

Sorry, the implementation in the PHB may be worse but the concept art was already awful (enormous heads and ridiculously tiny feet) and many people said as much in the comments at the time. Why WotC kept going with it remains a mystery. If that was the goal, they failed because on several...

Yeah, I had the same issue. So did the 3.5 books. Not sure about the 3.0 books but there were also complete (low resolution) galleries with full credits for each 3.x book on the wotc website. Then the 4e galleries were put behind the subscription paywall but you could still find most pictures on...

Well, thematically, they were always standing on each others toes... and the gnome had shoes. Call it natural selection. IMC "halfling" is just a nickname for young, beardless, adventuring gnomes who haven't found a hobby yet (be it magic, tinkering, gem-cutting, cooking, gardening...), finding...

What I'd expect in a first PHB (in that order): - human (duh) - high elf & wood elf (if they're different) - dwarf (only for historical reasons) - halfling (same reasons. one flavour's enough) - half orc (because we need a big brutish race) - gnome (more evocative small race than hobbit) - half...

I think the whole "goal-oriented shoppers" vs "browsers" thing is a false dilemma. Even if character creation is very open-ended, with customisable classes and flexible multiclassing, they can always offer a couple of suggestions and pre-built concepts for new players and for those who find...

I only skimmed through the rules so I'm not sure how other racial abilities compare but that one seems awfully arbitrary and contrary to the idea that every race/class combination would be good in 13th Age (or maybe I misunderstood that). It's especially odd for the traditionally flexible half-elf.

If I couldn't play our heavily houseruled 3e I'd probably go for Pathfinder (assuming that counts as a different edition) or maybe stop playing altogether. Yes, cosmic being, system matters and I've become picky like that. I certainly wouldn't consider committing to 4e or some retro edition on...

Unlikely to happen in D&D but yes, this. I'll add that Paladin or Templar is a better name for this archetype than Cleric.

The problem is Latin words aren't limited to "science-fantasy". If you want to get rid of non Anglo-Saxon words you'll also have to find replacements for those that (like a good chunk of the English vocabulary) came into English via medieval French, such as lizard (so there go your terrible...

aargh! why would anyone want that (honest question)? It would just make things a nightmare to balance. I fully get that some people are still attached to it but the as far as I'm concerned , "real vancian casting" always felt clunky and counterintuitive, even (or especially) when I started...

uh... either you quoted the wrong post or my English is even worse than I thought (I'll admit I was a bit tired and not as clear as I hoped, but still...) I can't say that I'm enthralled by what I've seen of DDN so far (to the point of wanting to switch to yet another system, that is) but I...

It COULD have been better but more likely it would have been worse. The further you deviate from what the current fanbase plays (any edition), the greater the risk of missing the mark. As other have said, this is sort of what 4e tried and look what happened. Many hated it because it changed too...

Same here. Getting to design fantasy worlds (whether alone or collectively, as we sometimes take turns as DM in the same campaign) is one of the best things about D&D and even though we use some elements from various published settings (even non D&D) we don't follow any established continuity...

Not to me. It probably works for a very specific play style but it's far too limiting in terms of character options and frankly I don't find it mechanically elegant. Despite all its problems I still prefer 3.x by far.

It's not a big thing but it does sound a bit lame, especially concerning spells. I'm not even sure what makes a spell evil (apart from the descriptor) when so many abilities revolve around hurting and killing things. I can't really think of one that couldn't be used by "good" characters (as far...