Search results

The change to turning (channel positive/negative energy) is fundamental. 30' burst x/day (dependent on class/cha mod/feats) inflicts xd6 (level/feats again I think) damage on all undead + will save or feared. Effectively a simpler turn mechanic. But the kicker (and it's a big one) is that all...

For example, passive perception. We're taking Pathfinder for a test drive and in PF spot/listen are rolled up into Perception. Not a great leap to play passive perception (10+rank) as 'always on'. If you still play 3e, which other mechanics (if any) have you imported into your game?

Me too. If not more. The acid test will be the sales (or lack thereof) of the second round of books. I sped to my FLGS to pick up my boxed set but won't be troubling them for PHBII. I reckon they are too late. My guess is that very few non-adopters think the system is fundamentally sound and...

For me minions not so much - that's one of the more 'gamist' elements that 4E introduces which doesn't fit with my approach. But I can see why some DM's eyes lit up! They do give a load of encounter building options. I think any game that has a daily cycle to spells and healing tempts players...

It's a shame. There are several interesting concepts in 4E - for me anyway. The measures to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day for one, + a host of specific rules ( e.g. simpler crits, 'bloodied', easy-to-run monsters with interesting attacks, passive perception ). Some of them we've HR'd...

The danger is that it would become a 'let's kick 4E around the block' thread and that gets nobody anywhere. If it could stay bicker-free though it would make very interesting reading.

Of course, good point. Any suggestions for a 'why have you not switched?' poll? Off the top of my head: 1 GSL/Lack of 3rd party support. 2 Tried it. Too radical a change from 3.x. 3 Tried it. No problem with radical change per se but I just don't like the new rules 4 Tried it. Don't know why...

Spot on.

You said it. Could be a bloodbath :) We would probably need a pre-poll poll just to agree on the options. I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we...

Perhaps we should run a 'why didn't you switch/why did you switch back? poll'. I appreciate that all this is anecdotal but for my tuppence worth, my decision to switch back to 3.5 was based on the 'feel' thing. If I had to justify this with crunch it would be that I don't like powers, the...

It's quite scary. I guess the clincher for WotC/Hasbro will be sales of the second round of core books. This could be a tragedy for D&D. Its viability depended on a large, unified base. They are paying the price for making the system open with 3.x. Hitherto there had been no real alternative...

Hey, I don't need telling :). I was just trying to empathise a little. For me it's a flavour thing but clearly the flavour stems from the ruleset and the ruleset is gamist. I was trying (in my own clumsy way) to work out why the whole edition thing is so emotive. There's clearly more to it than...

I think this is because a large proportion of the 4E non-adopters are rejecting on intangible grounds - taste/feel etc. and the Coke analogy speaks well to them and strikes a chord with their experiences. Those merrily playing 4E took a taste, either didn't notice the difference or thought 'this...

I had heard that 4E 'plays better than it reads' from multiple sources - WotC marketing, Ain't It Cool, Wired, playtester leaks on forums etc.. Raced to get the boxed set on release and was underwhelmed on first read-through but knew that the proof of the pudding..... It wasn't until I played it...

Beginners luck I guess!

Lack of depth/complexity. I LIKE subsystems. I like the fact that in 1/2/3 you couldn't just sit down and play a Wizard (or MU) - you had to learn. The game has no hinterland, whimsy or wonder. No room for anything 'unnecessary'. D&D should be a baroque cathedral, riddled with passages...