Search results

That's the beautiful thing about roleplaying games... people can see them and use them all sorts of different way.

The strategy to refocus the audience on a shared experience was an important part of turning the game around, but I agree that we lost something in the process.

Why didn't we do the portraits as action shots, I wonder

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Thanks for letting me know. That was the intent, to be subtle rather than to make some sort of all-or-nothing pronouncement about playing evil characters.

I might modify my statement and say that the Player's Handbook in particular was genericized, not the support material.

Yes indeed.

It was our pleasure. A real chance of a lifetime for us.

That sounds cool.

That's wonderful to hear, thanks. 3E let me run the D&D campaign that I'd always dreamed of, and I'm glad it works for you, too.

+2 to your Strength score means +1 on all your melee attacks, so that seems pretty good.

For 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the big picture was to return the game to its roots, reversing the direction that 2nd Edition had taken in making the game more generic. The plan was to strongly support the idea that the characters were D&D characters in a D&D world. We emphasized adventuring...

You're right. We put a lot of power in the players' hands, and there were plenty of combos that were monstrosities.

Yes, exactly. When the fighter is trying to deal damage, but the damage is made irrelevant by a spell, that's a problem. In 3E, we put hit point caps on spells like these. That way the fighter reducing a monster's hit points helps the wizard with their death spell, and the characters are working...

Thanks, I appreciate it

Thanks. I think that players were so excited about the fighter's feats and secondary attacks that we didn't notice how outclassed they got by spellcasters.

Yep.

Yes, exactly.