Search results

What I'd do is simply say that light weapons deal 1d6 damage, one-handers deal 1d8 damage, and two-handers deal 1d12 damage except for reach weapons, which deal 1d10. One-handers can have the finesse or versatile property. And then everyone can describe their weapons however they want.

The weapons table in 5e is kind of hilariously bad. I doubt there was any thought behind it other than slapping together the weapons that have been around since 3e and calling it a day. So the mix of misguided, ignorant realism and haphazard balance applies. Nothing stops you from using a...

That is interesting. Someone clearly put a lot of work into this. It might be just what I need, indeed, although I'm not sure if the weapon finesse ability applies to strikes.

I can see where this is coming from, myself. D&D 3e, although I make no statements about the earlier editions, makes army-slaying too easy. You can become more or less untouchable to an army of low-level soldiers way before level 20. A wizard, of course, can just fly above them and nuke them...

As far as my opinion goes, I don't care about nebulous considerations of "power". I care about variety, versatility, agency and ability to shape the narrative. And from this point of view, 5e is still stuck in the same rut - without magic, you interact with the rules in the exact same way all...

We might. But I'm rather exasperated that whenever someone points out that something could or should be covered by the rules, the response is invariably a dismissive statement that "we don't need rules for everything, figure it out yourself". A rule you can ignore or alter is generally better...

Which is why nobody is asking for that. What people are asking for are rules and guidelines for building domains and influence. Which aren't exactly fringe cases it's safe to make up as you go along. We might or might not get them in the Dungeon Master's Guide for 5e - but to dismiss the need...

I agree that D&D 3e made army-slaying too easy, and it's kind of stuck since then, taken for granted. 5e changes that, at least, although in the dullest way possible.

Quite, alignment in DW isn't as inane and pointlessly restrictive as in D&D. Some homebrew classes replace it with 'drive', because that's what it is. It defines what aspect of the character's chosen profession is the most important one to them. It is quite easy to come up with non-standard...

I wasn't really referring to exploration or resource management - I have yet to experience them in play. My objection is towards sticking with the old D&D races, classes and alignments, and things like restricting which race can be which class.

As far as Batman goes, I think D&D kind of lost something when it gave up on providing characters with resources and holdings beyond the standard WBL, in 3e onwards. In 3e, everyone has a crap-ton of gadgets to rival Batman's resources, eventually. I don't know if 5e will have anything like that...

I've recently got my hands on the rulebook for Dungeon World, and I have to say, I'm quite impressed. It seems like a very well thought-out game whose purpose is to foster fast-paced, cinematic play focused on action, rather than numbers and simulation. There are certainly games I'd like to play...

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards the conclusion that 'magic' is frankly a meaningless term in a D&D-verse. Everything there is magical to us, sustained and created by forces outside real-world science - usually deities, but in more interesting settings it might be something...

I'm willing to be surprised, but I doubt optional modules are going to change anything on this front. That's a good point, yes. There are systems which use such narrative fiat as the basis of magic/non-magic balance. And such abilities can easily coexist with powerful magic and epic skill, and...

Can't we? They can certainly do damage reliably, but apart from that, the dynamic appears unchanged. They still get more numbers and actions to do the exact same thing from level 1 to level 20, while wizards and clerics get progressively more world-strangling spells. The gap is smaller...

The problem, as I see it, is that D&D for the longest time tried to have its cake, and eat it, too - with the exception of 4e. Magic is powerful, and subsequent editions removed the restrictions and difficulties it had. Non-magical character are limited to interacting with the system the exact...

That could work, yes. This would put the emphasis on a more 'duelling' style, rather than back-stabbing. It's still a half-measure, but, perhaps, a good enough one.

I wasn't thrilled with them in the playtest either, to be honest - they tended to boil down to 'roll a die, add the resulting number to something'. But they had potential, and they sure were better than the pathetic Champion archetype. Unfortunately, like with a lot of the good ideas the...

I wanted to check something in the Fighter section of the Basic Set recently, and I actually managed to scroll past it. I think it sums up the quality of the class nicely.

The sub-class honestly feels like a joke, especially with the way it's bandied about as the 'complex' and 'customizable' option. The expertise dice were one of the best ideas in the playtest, until they decided they're too hard and too complicated and swept them under the rug. I could imagine...