Search results

One of the best things about D&D is that there isn't a canonical answer to questions like this. D&D isn't a setting. It's a toolkit with which to build a setting. WotC has been nice enough, over the years, to have provided some settings made with that toolkit. As others have said, half-elf and...

At a high level, it's two things: 1) A toolkit for a breadth of settings and 2) An approachable, large-grain system. Let me unpack that a bit: 1) Toolkit for a breadth of settings D&D has lists. Lists of spells. Lists of classes. Lists of races. Lists of feats. Lists of magic items. Lists --...

So far, I like the look of the new site. Been busy, so haven't been on as much as I'd like, but it seems super-fast and a bit slicker in appearance.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Obviously, WotC has the legal right to do what they want and they've made many moves to unify the settings. There is definitely some call for multi-verse spanning games within the larger D&D meta-setting and I can see why they'd want to cash in on it. That's why Planescape...

This is actually the point where I start to have an issue with the "secret bible". I'm actually just fine with there being a secret book of lore for FR or Dragonlance or Greyhawk or Eberron, etc. In fact, I think there really should be one for each setting. The problem is when someone thinks any...

It's possible. My group's issues with 4E were plentiful. We didn't play more than a few months before bailing. I won't say that I have exhaustive knowledge of the edition. Conceptually, I think what I said about the roles is valid. It's entirely possible it didn't play out that way, though...

Funny enough, the roles classifications was one of the things about 4E that really turned me off. Especially when you got to, say, fighters. Fighters are the best at straight-up combat. That means both in terms of dealing damage and in soaking it. A rogue may be somewhat better at dealing it --...

Both of these are true, so I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to class-based games, on principle. After 35 years of playing D&D off-and-on, I've kinda played through or have seen played through most of the "vanilla" implementations of the class archetypes. They're good to have available, but...

As others have pointed out, the ranger can be a few different things. I think the class started out as a mix of a few related things, but grew out of control. It actually a good poster child for why I've become even more disenchanted by a class-based system -- I think it's stupid to use classes...

I'd never really thought of it in those terms, but I think that's a good explanation for why I always said that I "Played 1E, with bits pulled in from 2E". By the end, 95+% of the material was 2E, but I still said we were playing 1E. Because 2E was bland.

Actually, this is the only way they could actually do a "D&D" movie. Screw the Realms. Gimme more of this.

Yup. I finally asked the psionics fan in my group why he likes them, a couple years back (we've gamed together for 25+ years, so it's a bit delayed question). His answer: change up from the slots of wizards.

Currently running the AL adventures in Eberron. Should finish up just in time for this release, so, Yay! Even if it was something else, I've said that I'll throw money at anything not set in the Realms, just on principle. The fact that it's my favorite published setting is all the better.

I think we're using the same term for two different things. There may be room for both, but I definitely don't think they should overlap. I'm coming from the perspective of an Eberron GM. In that setting, the artificer is explicitly someone who treats magic as a craft/industry. They make...

I just did a breakdown for one of my players and came up with these thoughts: Taking another look at the current Artificer, I think there's one major issue I have left, but it's a doozey. With the exception of having a "golem master" specialty, the artificer shouldn't have a pet. The...

Hmm... Using your breakdown, I guess this makes more sense: Sorcerers: Are magic (no disagreement, here) Wizards: Magic as science. I think we're good, here. Artificers: Magic as engineering or magic as craft. It's still magic, though, and should look as much like modern (or even...

Somewhere between "major changes" and "rebuilt from scratch". Mechanically, I don't think it's unbalanced. Flavor-wise, it's an abomination. Way too much "science" in my magic. What's up with the clockwork turrets? Those are gross. I came up with a basic axiom for the Artificer. If it's the way...

Not to minimize the Mafia, but there's a bit of a gap between them and al Quaeda.

True enough. Flavor-wise, the bard has always seemed more like "what I do is magical" and less like a full caster, regardless of mechanics. That's entirely and admittedly my skew to it, though.

Agree with the basic premise, but I voted valor bard. The charismatic leader is rarely the best straight-up fighter in the group. He usually wins by either having great will/resolve (which favors the paladin), by being creative and cunning (which favors the bard), or by being able to inspire his...