Search results

I want it to be the absolute bare minimum rules to make the thing work, which can (easily) be pushed to the side when non-rule tabletop play is the most appropriate way to get things done.

I fell asleep reading that. It was like listening to a politician speak to a reporter about policy i.e. give the most neutral, non specific answer you possibly can. Did absolutely nothing to raise nor lower my expectations of 5e.

Keep in mind, who sais there needs to be an increase every level?

I am far happier with loss of damage than an earlier suggestion at loss of to-hit. If its any comparison my 4e group had a ton of powers which didnt hit that hard but had great additional effects. They tended to be willing to give up damage more readily than to-hit

Sounds fairly similar to DCC

Scaled Fixed. Not because it is my most preferred option though. With the way 5e is going and I think scaled capped is the best fit at this point in time. If I really had my way I would go for the DCC approach with merciless randomization. But in order to do that properly the entire game...

20 with level 20 meaning your already into the epic tier. I find after a point you are trying to make every level gain "meaningful" and with too many levels, you can end up cramming too much stuff in. By the time our 4e group was up to 15 feats a piece, things were just getting painful.

I agree, 4e did do this, but only because the tank was, mechanically, "the doorway". Since 4e I have got for more philosophical about these things. Im not convinced that mechanical alterations are the solution to every problem, and I dont think its the solution to this one. I see other...

PDF is pretty important for me. Honestly, being able to access the rules on a tablet with proper indexing and searching facilities is just priceless. The whole idea of not distributing PDF's is a bit rediculous to me. If they dont distribute PDF's, someone is just going to torrent a scanned...

Your dead right in these points, but lets read the next post along What a suggestion. Lets enable fighters to specialize (and hence avoid the "all fighters are the same" problem) and instead allow specialization in more "what I do" form rather than a more "what I use" form. For the record, I...

Yes yes yes (and one more) yes. By investing feats to gain advantage (i.e. specialization), you can fall into the old "by defining what you can do, you just end up defining what you cant do" trap. Seen it, many times. Have found it to be Frustrating. If you go with something like this idea, we...

Generally, character growth is always upwards through play. This raises an interesting concept in that we allow player to have character advance, not though adventuring, but through "off game" study. If this was relegated to forms of character growth that wasn't available through adventuring...

Ok then. I dont like playing one-trick ponies. By your response, are you saying you do? Or are you playing devils advocate for those who may?

I been doing this since 2e. I havent counted a point of XP in decades. To me, games of any kind are about having fun and micro-managing XP is no fun at all. Even what Mearls is suggesting in the forms of "XP Budgets per day" puts me to sleep, far too sanitized and "correct". Its boring to have...

Yep. Exactly where Im coming from as well. Completely NOT a fan of specialization. It sounded so right when I first read it all those years ago, but play experience is as Keterys posted. To make a distinction here though, what I dont like is feat/power/whatever selection "locking" the fighter...

Much Like pemerton on this. The first and last sentence are intriguing. The first one : I understand where you are coming from, but Im glad nooby dm's wouldnt have to think like this, cause if they did, they would get it wrong. Its a dangerous statement but I suspect most here are of a level...

This is the crux of it to me. When we (I collectively refer to my group with this) play what are we trying to do? We are, as a group of 6-7 players, trying to tell a story, where each of us contributes in our own way. The "there is always a chance of failure "approach carries with it that...

At this stage I like what I hear coming from WOTC. Frankly, so much of what they have promised are the things I was crying for whilst playing previous editions (for example, flattened probability math). For me though, its a return to the strength of tabletop. Less combat emphasis, more RP...

After the frustratingly poor performance of there site last time and the way most people couldnt get the playtest to download, I was hoping the would have a change of policy.

Ask me ten years ago, I would have answered "Yes, In real life there is always a chance that things fail!" (I even remember house ruling auto success out of one game we played). Ask me today what I think. No. Too many times have we had plot derailment and loss of game momentum attributable to...