Search results

didn't they also have data when they wrote 4e? I also remember critics being called a vocal minority many times on this board. I think WotC is right to at least take "the margins" into consideration this time around.

care to give some examples? because I'm really not seeing it. I see people converting characters, monsters and adventures from other editions or even other systems and some stat blocks may even be used 'as is' without causing too many balance issues, but many others simply don't make sense...

Well, a company has to sell something. As much as I disliked 4e, 3.5 was pretty much "done", as you put it. The most important parts were covered and niche products like option books and settings don't generate enough revenue. Pathfinder may have been backward compatible but it was still a new...

I'm not sure what you mean by "compatibility with all editions of the game" but I don't think it's possible. Even if you could strip down the rules of every edition to a common core, the numbers would still be too different and the volume of required modules would be ridiculous. A group who...

meh. wizard with a pact... variant casting mechanic... hexblade... it seems like they're trying to cover too many things and making the warlock too specific at the same time. There's room for all of these aspects but I don't think they should be tied to one another. I'd rather have a good...

As usual I'm late to the party but count another vote against damage on a miss. I don't like it for spells, I hate it for mundane attacks. And yes, I think that adding more counterintuitive abstraction to the already counterintuitive (imo) Hit Points and AC actually makes things worse.

What about heavily houseruled 3.5? Does Unearthed Arcana (Armor as damage reduction and spell point variants) count as splat? Core 3.5 is certainly what we use the most but I probably wouldn't play it as written. Pathfinder is full of interesting ideas to steal but it doesn't really resolve my...

I certainly don't miss the way 4e's mechanics seemed to come first and how they translated in story terms often looked like an afterthought (TO ME, of course), especially the forced movement and marking stuff and of course the AEDU system but I did like the meatier 1st level characters, the...

erm, no. Forte (no accent) is Italian and pronounced "for-tay". Touché (acute accent) is French and pronounced "too-shay (touche, pronounced "toosh", also exists but not in the same context).

Psionics in D&D is one of those concepts that I really don't get. What makes a power psionics and not magic? is it the pseudoscientific name? is it the vaguely eastern flavour? I understand that they have a different power source and "casting" method, but so do arcane and divine, as well as...

hm... so that's why Orcus couldn't join the club.

English isn't my first language so obviously I'm in no position to go Grammar nazi on anyone here but I do find some spelling mistakes horribly grating, like "diety", affect/effect or "definately". Maybe that's just because those vowels wouldn't sound the same at all in French.

As other have said, the poll options are far too restrictive. I can see the bard as a class of its own but "entertainer" isn't a wide enough concept (in the context of dnd of course) to warrant many subclasses (does every class need to have them anyway?) The bard could also work as a subclass...

No. or rather, I don't want cool spells and variant casting systems to be monopolized by these classes at the expense of the regular mage. For example I really dislike Vancian and prefer spell-points but I don't particularly care for psionics. the new approach lets me pick and chose the theme...

this. I can live with behemoths (even though I rather envision the mythical behemoth as a mammal) but latin names are fine too. at least they give the reader a quick idea of what a particular beast is supposed to be and you can always give it a flavorful local name in your campaign (or not name...

congrats, I guess, but I've never felt owning d&d books was a barrier to trying new games. To me, the problem was always finding enough players wanting to learn a whole new system.

well, I'm all for reining in the individual power and versatility (eg number of spells known) of high level wizards but not by narrowing the class itself. Psionic disciplines and other class features also don't necessarily fit every wizard concept (not to mention other spellcasting classes) so...

but it wouldn't be the same in terms of options and flavour unless you convert the missing spells into powers.

yes. at least as far as PC races are concerned. I don't want an elf wizard to be built differently depending on whether he's a PC, NPC or a minion (and yes, basic character creation should be quicker in general). I don't mind NPC specific classes that are poorly suited for adventuring (eg...

as a default or a permanent power I'd say Resist Heat makes more sense, as it becomes part of that cleric's nature. But he should also be able to pray for warm protective auras (refluffed Resist Cold) and that would be a common spell choice in a hostile or cold environment.