Search results

Players hate dying too. They hate losing. They hate becoming weaker. They hate their powers being thwarted. They hate their items disappearing. They hate missing the enemy in combat. They hate failing saving throws. They hate running out of hit points. But most of them love overcoming those...

Fighter subclass - Barbarian Thief subclass - Tempted to say Thief-Acrobat. But instead, I'll say Ranger. Cleric subclass - has to be Druid. Magic User subclass - this is amongst the toughest. Is Illusionist really a subclass? It was in 1E, but I'm not sure it merits it. I'd probably say...

(This following post is meant to be read in a jokey fashion, no offence intended!) Ah yes, the universal Law of Conservation of Magic, first discovered by... wait a minute... there isn't a Wikipedia article on this - IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST!!! The magic just goes. The rust monster, fine...

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that a) Some people reject biological differences between the sexes (with the implicit understanding that they do this because to them, accepting it would connote sexism) so b) If some people reject psychological differences between...

You're not wrong, but I like my players to win! That's what they're there to do. Let it be a challenge, but I think challenge is still retained even when clever casting can circumvent issues and overcome them. I totally agree here; this has been a hot potato in recent years, so I think the...

But realistically, especially if facing an intelligent opponent, a 15 minute adventuring day just gives your enemy time to outmanouever and out gun you. It's a losing strategy if you're playing realistically. The enemy gathers his strength and either throws everything at you while you rest or in...

I disagree with your points. Your first point, that magic just works when cast, is a consequence of its limited use. A fighter can try to hit all day long, but a magic user has limited numbers of spells. When one is expended, if they also had to roll to succeed with the spell, that means they...

I don't know what the 4E level 0 rules are like, but in older editions I believe they were intended to be the character before they even had any class training - a young pup without any class abilities at all - not the same thing as what most people here are suggesting, but more like "Commoners...

What you've just described is functionally identical to the players who enjoy "weak" play starting at level 1, and the players who hate "weak" play starting at level 6 - and I think codified as level 1 to level 6 would be substantially less confusing!

Well, apologies, but I really am not intending to annoy you, I'm just trying to clarify my point. If it's my point that's annoying you, well, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. We can disagree without becoming annoyed at each other, I hope? I agree, 5E shouldn't be a bad game! It should be a...

I think we're actually in agreement, just perhaps I'm being unclear with my choice of words for you. I suppose, the system you envision above, the best possible system in terms of mass-appeal and game mechanical quality, still wouldn't be the best possible system for you. Or me. Or any one...

Well, I don't want the thread to get sidetracked in the benefits of other systems; they all provide a different experience, sometimes which is more fun and sometimes less fun depending on my mood. I'm not sure it'd be right to say any of them were objectively better or worse.

Well, we can both get what we want. If a game is designed to allow for weak, fragile characters at first level, and for those characters to grow in strength over time, I can get what I want by starting campaigns at level 1 and you can get what you want by starting campaigns at level 4. Problem...

I like weak 1st level characters and awesome 20th level characters. I like zero-to-hero, so I'm with you. And I liked having one lousy spell (or two lousy spells, in 3E) as a 1st level mage!

But perfection is different for many people. Making it perfect for you may make it not good enough for someone else. Do you think, if you got to say exactly how 5E was, in every detail, to satisfy your personal tastes alone, it would keep the market? But it might be perfect for you. And both 3E...

Sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have said "mistake", that's only from my own perspective, and from the point of view of looking at a "good enough" D&D as a good thing. Apologies to anyone who feels I've slighted their system.

Which is fine! Optional rules are great, and if they help people find their own personal perfection I'm 100% for that. I speak above of the default though, and I do think it has to return to the "good enough" D&D of yore.

We can all agree that the D&D community is split at the moment. People have different opinions on many rules issues, on play style, on the place of magic in the game, on customisability, on basically everything you can mention. But all these people were all D&D fans once; they all played the...

Yes, as a default. 5E is not about innovation and change; 4E was, and it split the market. 5E is about unification. To an extent, it has to un-sacrifice some sacred cows. Clerics and Druids were Vancian in BECMI, 1E, 2E and 3E and semi-Vancian in 4E (if by Vancian you mean fire-and-forget...

I agree, the curve of play should be smooth rather than jagged! But there should be a curve.