Search results

While I'm a big fan of Birthright, Dark Sun, and Planescape, I would like 5e to have a brand new setting, supported gazetteers, and plenty of adventures. As for the setting itself, I'm not sure, apart from not wanting any more warmed-up Tolkien leftovers.

I disagree that fun and valid choices such as Warforged should be excluded from the generic core rulebook just because some people don't think they fit into dull and unimaginative settings like GH and FR.

I see no problem with the players communicating with the GM which/what sort of items they might like to have woven into the campaign for their characters. As an aside, I like the idea of characters having a few signature magic items which scale in power (and possibly gain additional powers) as...

Apologies if I've missed the point you are making, but the advantage of having Rituals as separate mechanic is that they allowed them to be used by non-Casters.

If rituals can be performed in combat they in my opinion cease to be rituals, and you would need another name for powers that are very time consuming and elaborate.

The combat version could be called Emo Enemy :p

Nice trolling bro.

No, DnD started with a tired rehash of Tolkien stereotypes. The game has happily improved since then, so let's not afflict a new generation of gamers with such blinkered concepts.

I couldn't agree less with the OP. The focus should be on the character's abilities, not a generic Belt of Giant Strength which doubles his strength. No creatures should require a spoon of +1 to hurt it. I want magic items to be rare, named, with histories (akin to artefacts).

I voted no. To me flavour being backed up by game rules means things like bonuses for Elves using bows, Dwarves wearing heavy armour and using axes.....yawn....Half-Elves being good at social skills etc.. This results in certain Race/Class combinations becoming practically default as they have...

Give it one attack per Character, and have each action denial power only remove one attack. :devil:

The Book of Nine Swords was great. :)

Possibly, but 4E also allowed you to choose the higher of two attributes to grants bonuses to each defence, and also made Charisma a worthwhile attribute; both of which were positive innovations.

I agree. I can appreciate the arguments of those who want mundane non-casters, because they favour a gritty low-fantasy game (even if it's not to my taste). I have no tolerance for those who want to gimp non-casters because the poor casters won't feel as speshul if anyone else has nice toys.

4e had the design philosophy that all the Classes should be roughly equal in power. 3e didn't seem to have a design philosophy other than continuing to remove what restrictions/limitations there had been on casters, while limiting non-casters to what was deemed 'realistic'. The only Classes...

Oh, I love the Class balance, I just want my character to be able to do all the roles :D

I respectfully disagree. The problem with 4E was that characters felt generic, and you were shoehorned into playing a Role. The good thing about 4E was that all the Classes were given equal opportunity to shine, and had a clear design concept. The problem with 3E was that Casters were more...

The GM's world would lose verisimilitude because a single character is slightly different from the run-of-the-mill? What a poor delicate flower that GM must be.

I agree 100%. I don't understand the need some people seem to have to have 5e as some sort of retro clone. If 5e is noting new, and does not embrace some of the developments in RPGs the last 4 or 5 years, I won't be buying it. If I wanted to play a RPG museum piece I still have my DnD...

No. I agree that magic should be able to do what the mundane cannot, as long as non-caster does not equal mundane again. Going back to casters being high fantasy while non-casters play low fantasy is an absolute deal breaker for me. .